Re: Shane Claiborne and the rich young ruler

Daniel, I entirely agree that we may face situations that are analogous to the circumstances of the early church and which call for an analogous response. The crucial thing is to understand the significance of the word ‘analogous’ in that sentence. Somehow we need to hold together both the literary-historical integrity of the narrative and its capacity to speak in a more direct fashion to the situation of the church today. Analogy is one way to do that; remembrance is another; and often there will be a direct correlation - there is undoubtedly universally applicable content in the scriptures. What this demands from us is simply an intelligent, Spirit-led, prophetic, critical understanding of the relation between scripture and the present situation.

If I have overstated the distinction between Jesus-discipleship and new creation existence, it is primarily, I think, for the sake of clarity of biblical interpretation. But I’m not saying that Claiborne’s model has no place in the new creation framework. The reality will be pluriform, complex and messy. Radical community life - call it Jesus-discipleship if we must - will have considerable prophetic relevance within the framework of an emerging paradigm. What I want to resist is the argument (perhaps not intended by Claiborne) that because this is modelled on Jesus-discipleship it is somehow better or normative - or that the Jesus-discipleship paradigm adequately accounts for the identity and vocation and lifestyle of the church.