In describing his experiences working among the lepers in Calcutta, Claiborne writes in The Irresistible Revolution:
I began to understand what it meant when the curtain of the temple was torn open as Jesus died on the cross. Not only was God redeeming that which was profane but God was setting all that was sacred free. Now God dwelled not behind the veil in the temple but in the eyes of the dying and the poor, in the ordinary and the mundane, in things like bread and wine, or chai and samosas. And wherever two or three of us come together in community, God is there among us.
I think there is great truth in this idea that the sacred has broken into the secular world. In the Christ-event, God decisively entered the brokenness and messiness of human history. The rending of the temple curtain dissolves the boundaries of sacred / secular culture once and for all. God, the one who makes things hallowed and sacred, has made himself available in an alienated and unholy world.
Those of us who have experienced the love of God in Christ are considered sacred, holy in His sight. “Be holy as I am holy.” We take up the vocation of infiltrating our broken world with sacred space. Where there is hate, we love. Where there is conflict, we perform reconciliation. As Paul says in 2 Corinthians 5, the love of Christ compels us to act in loving, redemptive ways. Claiborne quotes Mother Teresa as saying, “Do not worry about your career. Concern yourself with your vocation, and that is to be lovers of Jesus.”
May we become sacred space for the love of Christ.
“I hope you realize how much and deeply we care. We’re not saying this to make ourselves look good to you. We just thought it would make you feel good, proud even, that we’re on your side and not just nice to your face as so many people are. If I acted crazy, I did it for God; if I acted overly serious, I did it for you. Christ’s love has moved me to such extremes. His love has the first and last word in everything we do.” — 2 Corinthians 5, The Message
already & not yet 
Good quote from Shaine Claiborne. I just read his book and saw him in person and he’s totally messing with my mind. It’s probably one of the most influential books I’ve ever read and it’s making me take a look at every presupposition I had in the past and also changing my thoughts about the future. Good stuff.
My only gripe so far is that I don’t hear him saying what happens when the mustard seed grows large. He references Willow Creek and its origins as a movement among those who were disgruntled with church. But that small group eventually grew into a large group. And now, in the eyes of many like Claiborne, big is almost always equated as bad or wrong headed or whatever. As a member of what would be considered a fairly large congregation, I think that criticism is unfair. It’s easy to sit back and rip big churches for being big. But I haven’t heard anybody yet (Claiborne, Frost & Hirsch) say that anything good can come from big church. I’m pretty aware of the challenges of being a part of a big church, but I disagree with the blanket negativity I hear in most ecclesial writing today.That’s just my opinion, though! Otherwise, I’m right there with him!
I don’t know if he was criticizing the size of mega-churches, but more of the materialistic and impersonal attitudes that mega-churches can foster. He talked about how Willow Creek would have a lot of “programs” for helping the poor and would give a lot of money to the poor, but they weren’t actively going out and forming relationships with the poor and weren’t among them. He did talk about some good aspects about Willow Creek (although briefly, I must admit). I think his attitude wasn’t that “Big is Bad” but instead that “distant is bad.”
I was going to say, “You must’ve really liked that comment!”Don’t get me wrong: I agree with nearly every one of his points. But it seemed to me that in his chapter “Growing smaller” (Ch 12, I think), that the implication was that larger churches are almost always impersonal and inorganic and therefore way off course. And my critique is more than simply a commentary about Claiborne’s book; in a lot of material I’ve read recently, that kind of attitude seems prevalent. That’s my only point. I was rushed when I wrote that earlier comment, and I probably didn’t say what I meant to say in a way I meant to say it. But your point is a good one. No matter the size of a congregation, distant is always bad. And that’s Claiborne’s greater point. All in all, his book is incredibly powerful and one that demands a second and third read, in my opinion.