Scan barcode
A review by aeudaimonia
The Irresistible Revolution: Living as an Ordinary Radical by Shane Claiborne
adventurous
hopeful
inspiring
fast-paced
4.5
Fantastic for everyone who believes, or wants to believe, that there is and can be more to Christianity than the mainstream American evangelism in which we're immersed. His is a perspective, not a Gospel command--but it is a compelling perspective and at the very least offers hope for the Church that another Christianity is possible. Claiborne's authorial voice was hard for me to get used to--much more casual than the books I usually read and heavily reliant on the experiential. In the first chapter or so, I was a little turned off by that combination and highly suspicious of his authenticity and humility. By the midpoint, however, it reads more like an unapologetic vulnerability I'm inclined to trust, since, about 15 years later, he still is who he says he is (by all accounts).
Perusing some of the other reviews, two critiques in particular stood out to me. Firstly, that Claiborne is a bad writer. I won't deny that the writing of the Irresistible Revolution is unrefined, somewhat repetitive, and so casual as to seem irresponsible. But I think it's valid, too, that Claiborne is not a writer by trade; in writing this book, he was never trying to produce a literary masterpiece. In that sense, I think he executed relatively well what he actually set out to do. Nitpicking his style feels like a deliberately obtuse distraction from the heart of the book.
Secondly, some people seem to be accusing him of cherry picking Scripture. No shade to these people individually, but this is a ridiculous take. There are only so many verses you can "cherry pick" from the Bible before it ceases to be cherry picking and instead becomes what the Bible is literally saying. Idk.
My only real criticism is the lack of nuance. I can't be too mad; this book was written in 2005 and the kind of nuance I thirst after wasn't nearly as mainstream as it is now, 17 years later. Intersectionality is a big issue for me. "We can change the world"--yes! But the world hasn't given us all the same opportunities. Claiborne is a straight, cisgender, white, Christian man. No, he is not toxic, and yes, he's a different kind of Christian man, but the fact remains that he is at the top of the societal food chain. Talking about how many times you've been arrested because of your demonstrations and released because of your God falls flat with me. Yes and amen, hallelujah that God didn't put you in prison and keep you there--but let's not pretend that your whiteness doesn't protect you from the worst of police brutality and our biased judicial system. This lifestyle is substantially safer for Claiborne to practice than it is for women, BIPOC, and queer people. While Christians have never been called to a life of safety, I think it's an issue worth discussing.
The lack of nuance for which I can be more critical is his use of historical figures--particularly Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Luther King, Jr. Regarding the latter, Claiborne at the very least doesn't make the very white mistake of taking him out of context and using his philosophy of nonviolence to maintain the status quo. But he cites both of them pretty often and, I think, neglects a certain complexity of their characters. (To be clear, though, I don't think every source you cite has to harmonize with your work 100%). So much of this book is about the lie of redemptive violence and the truth of redemptive peacemaking. Maybe this is just a personal hot take but I feel like you can't talk about how un-Christian redemptive violence is and then quote Bonhoeffer's (based) theology takes without addressing the fact that he may or may not have been affiliated with the 20 July Plot. These figures are complex and I love them for their complexity, and sometimes I felt like their complexity was compromised to keep the book from being 500 pages (not everyone's cup of tea, I know).
My criticisms constitute most of this book review, but this was still a 4.5 star read! On the whole I thought it was great! Keep living the revolution! And don't let my aimless rambling distract from the fact that I loved, loved, loved this book.
Perusing some of the other reviews, two critiques in particular stood out to me. Firstly, that Claiborne is a bad writer. I won't deny that the writing of the Irresistible Revolution is unrefined, somewhat repetitive, and so casual as to seem irresponsible. But I think it's valid, too, that Claiborne is not a writer by trade; in writing this book, he was never trying to produce a literary masterpiece. In that sense, I think he executed relatively well what he actually set out to do. Nitpicking his style feels like a deliberately obtuse distraction from the heart of the book.
Secondly, some people seem to be accusing him of cherry picking Scripture. No shade to these people individually, but this is a ridiculous take. There are only so many verses you can "cherry pick" from the Bible before it ceases to be cherry picking and instead becomes what the Bible is literally saying. Idk.
My only real criticism is the lack of nuance. I can't be too mad; this book was written in 2005 and the kind of nuance I thirst after wasn't nearly as mainstream as it is now, 17 years later. Intersectionality is a big issue for me. "We can change the world"--yes! But the world hasn't given us all the same opportunities. Claiborne is a straight, cisgender, white, Christian man. No, he is not toxic, and yes, he's a different kind of Christian man, but the fact remains that he is at the top of the societal food chain. Talking about how many times you've been arrested because of your demonstrations and released because of your God falls flat with me. Yes and amen, hallelujah that God didn't put you in prison and keep you there--but let's not pretend that your whiteness doesn't protect you from the worst of police brutality and our biased judicial system. This lifestyle is substantially safer for Claiborne to practice than it is for women, BIPOC, and queer people. While Christians have never been called to a life of safety, I think it's an issue worth discussing.
The lack of nuance for which I can be more critical is his use of historical figures--particularly Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Luther King, Jr. Regarding the latter, Claiborne at the very least doesn't make the very white mistake of taking him out of context and using his philosophy of nonviolence to maintain the status quo. But he cites both of them pretty often and, I think, neglects a certain complexity of their characters. (To be clear, though, I don't think every source you cite has to harmonize with your work 100%). So much of this book is about the lie of redemptive violence and the truth of redemptive peacemaking. Maybe this is just a personal hot take but I feel like you can't talk about how un-Christian redemptive violence is and then quote Bonhoeffer's (based) theology takes without addressing the fact that he may or may not have been affiliated with the 20 July Plot. These figures are complex and I love them for their complexity, and sometimes I felt like their complexity was compromised to keep the book from being 500 pages (not everyone's cup of tea, I know).
My criticisms constitute most of this book review, but this was still a 4.5 star read! On the whole I thought it was great! Keep living the revolution! And don't let my aimless rambling distract from the fact that I loved, loved, loved this book.