Written By: Dan Kimball
Subtitle: Insights from Emerging Generations. [There must be a law now that requires all books to have subtitles.]
This is an easy to read book that is about, you guessed it, why “they” (emerging generations - basically those under 30) like Jesus but not the church.
In his talks with non-churched people, Kimball has found that most of them like Jesus and admire his concern for the poor, his teaching of love and peace, and his unwillingness to put up with hypocrites. Many are even open to considering his resurrection and the exclusiveness of the Christian faith if it’s presented the right way (some even accept things like the resurrection).
Kimball gives several reasons why they don’t like they church. The biggest reasons are that they think the church is:
1) An organized religion with a political agenda
2) Judgmental and negative
3) Dominated by males and oppresses females
4) Homophobic
5) Arrogantly claiming that all other religions are wrong
6) Full of fundamentalists who take the whole bible literally
Kimball discusses how there is some validity to these claims, but that it is not nearly as bad as suspected by some. Nevertheless, these are very common perceptions that unchurched people have (and are likely views that some churches have of others). By respecting those who hold to the opinions expressed in the book, by befriending them before assaulting them with bible verses, and by acting as churches should, we can change how people view the Church. Instead of the previous list, people can view the church as:
1) An organized community with a heart to serve others
2) A positive agent of change loving others as Jesus would
3) Holding women in high respect and including them in the leadership of the church
4) A loving and welcoming community (which doesn’t necessitate affirming sin as good)
5) Respectful of other people’s beliefs and faiths
6) Holding beliefs with humility and striving to be thoughtful theologians
I would recommend They Like Jesus but Not the Church to anyone who is genuinely interested in why people (young people especially) dislike the church. They do so with some reason.
Reason number 1 is most important. What causes it is the religious version of blow-back. I don’t think there was this perception before the church began really involving itself in the political process a few decades after the second great awakening. The church went from using education and evangelism as a means of proselytizing to the use of force through government laws. As soon as people are being forced to pray, read the bible, etc… then there is going to be an intellectual and spiritual blowback.
I’m waiting for the follow up book to this one to come out. I think Kimball is one of the clearer and more doctrinally sound people to come out of the “emerging” movement, no matter what some people insist about him. With this book he was able to put on paper a lot of things I had been thinking about for a while now.
Colin, who is being forced to pray and read the bible?
I concur with Jasen, who is being forced to pray and read the Bible? I would say that it is much closer to the opposite; people are forced NOT to pray in public schools and some kids have to practically sneak the Bible into their school to read it.
From what I know of the “emerging church” - my men’s pastor speaks of it often in our Bible study - is that it deals much more with feelings and much less with God’s truth. After all, who wants to feel convicted or condemned when they go to church? It’s much easier to sing “I am a Friend of God” while ignoring that Jesus said He is our friend IF we follow His commandments.
Right now, no one really. But many people have found it politically expedient to use the power of government to enforce “Christian morals”. Case in point is a lot of the homosexual marriage grandstanding, including threats of legislative action. It’s one thing for Christians to denounce and educate about the sinfulness of homosexuality - that just offends a lot of people. But it actually incites hatred when those things are mandated by force of law. We had a system in place for several generations, schools are just one facet, where reading the bible, praying and some of these things were required. Even today, we still have Sunday laws. Even though many of the laws have been revoked or loosened, there is still a perception (and a valid one based on history) that many Christians are interested in using force to propagate their message.
umm, it was not Christians who started the current battle for homosexual marriage. It was the gay lobby who decided to uproot thousands of years of moral traditions so that they could get governmental approval of their perverse behavior. Christians have just defended the traditional view that it is not natural that man and man be joined together nor is it government’s place to sanction said behavior. I disagree that preaching that homosexuality only offends people while mandating that behavior produces hatred. Jesus never mandated anything (quite the opposite, He implied that some of the law was no longer applicable), and He is the most hated person in history. The unsaved hate God’s law, and no Christian is trying to put into federal law that isn’t already there, albeit in a unwritten and obvious sense. Nevermind the very dangerous slippery slope that will appear if government sanctions homosexual marriage; already lawsuits are appearing to grant brothers and sisters the RIGHT to marry and people to wed their pet animals. If government cannot legislate morality, then all actions are fine. Ideas have consequences!
Or as Charles Spurgeon so eloquently put it: “The doctrine of judgment to come is the power by which men are to be aroused. There is another life; the Lord will come a second time; judgment will arrive; the wrath of God will be revealed. Where this is not preached, I am bold to say the gospel is not preached. It is absolutely necessary to the preaching of the gospel of Christ that men be warned as to what will happen if they continue in their sins. Ho, ho, sir surgeon, you are too delicate to tell the man that he is ill! You hope to heal the sick without their knowing it. You therefore flatter them; and what happens? They laugh at you; they dance upon their own graves. At last they die! Your delicacy is cruelty; your flatteries are poisons; you are a murderer. Shall we keep men in a fool’s paradise? Shall we lull them into soft slumbers from which they will awake in hell? Are we to become helpers of their damnation by our smooth speeches? In the name of God we will not. It becomes every true minister of Christ to cry aloud and spare not, for God hath set a day in which he will “judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.” As surely as Paul’s gospel was true the judgment will come. Wherefore flee to Jesus this day, O sinners. O ye saints, come hide yourselves again beneath the crimson canopy of the atoning sacrifice, that you may be now ready to welcome your descending Lord and escort him to his judgment-seat. O my hearers, may God bless you, for Jesus’ sake. Amen.”
Darius, I recommend the links here: links for a good overview the emerging church.
Cool. I just ordered a book today by D.A. Carson which supposedly is a fair analysis of the Emerging church. By the way, I posted two comments which said they were flagged as spam on here and haven’t shown up.
I listened to a sermon from the local Emerging church (The Upper Room) here in Minneapolis, which I think is one of the primary ones in the country since it has had McLaren and Greg Boyd speak there on occasion. What concerns me most with their sermons (or conversations or whatever the hip word is these days) is the seldom use of Scripture. In an era where Christians are becoming more and more ignorant of what the Bible actually says, it seems to be extremely detrimental for a church to come up with a “sermon” plan and then sparingly use a verse or two to support it, rather than doing an in-depth study of the Word. “I delight in your decrees, I will not neglect your Word.” Psalm 119
“Christians have just defended the traditional view that it is not natural that man and man be joined together nor is it government’s place to sanction said behavior.”
That’s the whole problem though. The government is using laws to enforce a religious moral standard. That’s not what the gospel is about. As a Christian I should be grieved by the sins I see in the world, but that shouldn’t translate into a desire to support the continuation of moral legislation. The government can’t make sinners into righteous men. Laws against sin don’t change the heart of man.
If I get caught up in trying to make sure the government bans gay marriage, then I’m tying my faith to a political agenda, to a political party, to a candidate. Candidates and political parties–especially the Republican party in America–have manipulated Christians and used them for political gain. It’s high time we divorced ourselves from corrupt politicians. Christians in America should not be pawns of political parties.
It’s not just a religious moral standard, it’s the natural law. Governments legislate morality all the time. Otherwise, stealing, lying, and murder would be legal. As Christians, we shouldn’t get too caught up in the politics of it (or at least putting much faith in it), but when it comes to voting, we MUST vote our morality. Secular people vote their beliefs, why must Christians shut up and sit down?
And by the way, how is government using any laws to enforce morality? Even the minor step of defining marriage as between man and woman doesn’t mean that gays can’t continue to live together and sleep with whomever they choose. All such a law is stating is that the government chooses not to ENDORSE the gay lifestyle. Where people are going astray is confusing “tolerance” with acceptance. The government says, to a point, do whatever you want in the privacy of your own bedroom, but don’t expect government to sanction or promote that behavior. I don’t think people have fully thought out the consequences of the growing belief that government shouldn’t legislate morality. Not only does that run contrary to the history of all legal systems throughout the world, it also creates one gigantic slippery slope.
That said, I completely agree that both political parties (probably Repubs slightly more than Dems) have used Christians for political gain. So what? I really don’t care if a politician has impure motives for trying to get my vote as long as he will follow through on the policies that enticed me to put a mark next to his name in the first place. In my opinion, Bush is a true believer, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t occasionally pander to get a little more support. Furthermore, in the Bible, God gave us numerous examples of using evil or at least ungodly people to fulfill His ends. Cyrus, for example. As long as the results are positive, I really couldn’t care less if deep down, the politician has his own power-hungry agenda. Anyone who thinks any presidential candidates actually personally believe 100% of their campaign rhetoric is quite naive.
Darius, Carson’s book is definitely not considered to be analysis by those who consider themselves “emerging church.” Basically, it focuses on only a few people, thus missing the diversity of the movement, and accuses emerging types of not believing in absolute truth (which isn’t true - some deny absolute certainty or the ability to know things absolutely, but that’s a bit different).
For a book to give an overview of the emerging church, I’d recommend, Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches: Five Perspectives. One of the contributors is Dan Kimball who is a pastor at Solomon’s Porch in Minneapolis.
Ok. The review I read said that Carson’s book was a criticism of the church but that he also points out the positive aspects of the Emerging church that other evangelicals could learn from. I want a fair analysis, yet also one not written by a true believer in the movement, for obvious reasons.
Random question: Spurs or Cavs? I say Spurs in 6.
“All such a law is stating is that the government chooses not to ENDORSE the gay lifestyle.”
I agree, I don’t think the government should endorse the gay lifestyle. But I’ll take it one step further: I don’t think the government should endorse the heterosexual lifestyle. I’d rather see government get out of the marriage business entirely. I don’t need the government deciding whether or not I can get married, or whether or not my marriage is legitimate. That’s the purview of God and the church, not of secular government politicians.
Basically, I don’t want the government making any sort of moral decision about what is and what is not a legitimate marriage. The only options are 1) government doesn’t recognize any marriages, or 2) government recognizes all marriages. Option 1 is my preferred choice, but it won’t happen, so that only leaves option 2.
“It’s not just a religious moral standard, it’s the natural law. Governments legislate morality all the time. Otherwise, stealing, lying, and murder would be legal. As Christians, we shouldn’t get too caught up in the politics of it (or at least putting much faith in it), but when it comes to voting, we MUST vote our morality. Secular people vote their beliefs, why must Christians shut up and sit down?”
You confuse morality with natural rights. Murder takes one’s right to life, stealing takes one’s rights to property. Lying is NOT illegal unless it is in a court of law, where an oath is spoken. Such an oath is important due to justice and due process. Misrepresentation of evidence for the sole purpose to deceive causes a deviation in due process and a a misappropriation of justice. THAT is natural law.
Marriage as defined by the US government is NOT the morality based institution you think so highly of, but instead a mere government contract between two willing participants. This grants them certain privileges. This, however, is a misnomer as Christians today incite US law recognizing private and (mainly) religious ceremony as justification and exclusivity for said ceremonies. In a way, according to your argument, you are saying that you NEED U.S. law to uphold morality and justification for marriage, which is exactly against what we shouldn’t do. Marriage isn’t a natural law at all, or even a natural right. Your saying so shows you aren’t too clear on what either of those entail.
“Nevermind the very dangerous slippery slope that will appear if government sanctions homosexual marriage; already lawsuits are appearing to grant brothers and sisters the RIGHT to marry and people to wed their pet animals. If government cannot legislate morality, then all actions are fine. Ideas have consequences!”
OH NOES! PEOPLE MIGHT DO BAD THINGS! HURRY MR. GOVERNMUNT AND SAVE ME FROM WEEEEIRDOSS!!
Please. Your strawmen are beginning to wear me out. Since pets have no inherent constitutional rights and are not considered people, that argument has no standing, and you know it. Besides, what would it matter to you? Does it make your faith or morals that much less? Do you rely on the government to protect and uphold biblical standards? Or, if it’s not for biblical standards, is it to uphold pure moral standards? If so, THAT is the slippery slope, my friend, as using the bible as the sole moral standard in which to form laws quickly falls into the theocratic camp, and enforcing “morals” alone falls into the camp of oppression.
Besides, if politically active Christians REALLY want to uphold “moral” and “biblical” and “natural moral laws”, then DIVORCE should be illegal. The less than significant gays who wish to marry have a much less devastating effect on marriage than the nearly 50% divorce rate (even amongst professing Christians).
Since divorce is such a problem, we shouldn’t bother with worrying about gay marriage? I won’t bother to show you the logical end to such thinking, it should be quite obvious. How is incest and bestiality a strawman, pray tell? I guess you haven’t seen the cases that have already come before courts in this land suing for the right to marry a sister or a pet. As Justice Scalia warned when they struck down the sodomy laws a couple of years ago, “State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are . . . called into question by today’s decision.”
As for your implication that anything that doesn’t affect one’s own morality or faith should be legal, do you really believe that or just in this case as it fits your argument? The Bible has nothing to do with it… moral standards exist within ourselves. As C.S. Lewis wrote, we all have an internal moral code that has been written on our souls by God.
To find out what happens when what you’re proposing (allowing all sorts of decadence to run wild and free of the rule of law), read a little Theodore Dalrymple. In his two books, Life at the Bottom and Our Culture: What’s Left of It, he describes in detail what such ideas have wrought in Britain. It’s not pretty.
I don’t honestly see a slippery slope of holding on laws that have been on the books for hundreds or thousands of years. As you may not realize, the current fight over morality and rule of law was not begun by Christians or conservatives. After all, to bring it back to gay marriage, homosexuals have had as much right to marry throughout history as I do or any other heterosexual. They, as I, can marry whomever they choose, as long as it’s a person of the opposite gender and not a close blood relation. Thus, legally endorsed gay marriage would be a special right.
As Richard Weaver so wonderfully titled his book a few years back, IDEAS HAVE CONSEQUENCES! One must think about those consequences rather than just saying, “hmm, that’s an interesting idea. Let’s try it out on society and see how it works.”
“Since divorce is such a problem, we shouldn’t bother with worrying about gay marriage? I won’t bother to show you the logical end to such thinking, it should be quite obvious. How is incest and bestiality a strawman, pray tell? I guess you haven’t seen the cases that have already come before courts in this land suing for the right to marry a sister or a pet. As Justice Scalia warned when they struck down the sodomy laws a couple of years ago, “State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are . . . called into question by today’s decision.””
I’m not saying you shouldn’t bother worrying, I’m saying you are focusing on splinters when huge logs are in plain view. Divorce is a bigger issue and more harmful to the “traditional family” than any gay marriage. Priorities are off. THAT should be obvious. Yet, I fail to see any political agenda to outlaw such grave immorality.
I never said incest. Read above. I spoke of bestiality. Suing and cases mean nothing, so indeed it IS a strawman. There is a difference between a federal mandate of marriage and civil cases on the books. It doesn’t matter if there exist cases where people are suing to marry pets or trees or whatever else. Silly cases that will be (more than likely) tossed out due to the fact that (as stated above) pets have no rights nor ability to make informed decisions, so they cannot legally enter a contract of marriage. Indeed it IS a strawman.
Indeed, laws against personal decisions SHOULD be called into question. Laws against fornication, MASTURBATION and obscenity? RIDICULOUS. Those laws indeed SHOULD be thrown out. What one does in their own privacy is none of the governments doing. Besides, who enforces them? Do such laws merely exist as a feel-good measure to show the stance of the US against such “immoral” acts? This isn’t morality legislation, but morality REGULATION.
“As for your implication that anything that doesn’t affect one’s own morality or faith should be legal, do you really believe that or just in this case as it fits your argument? The Bible has nothing to do with it… moral standards exist within ourselves. As C.S. Lewis wrote, we all have an internal moral code that has been written on our souls by God.”
This could be, perhaps, the most ridiculous thing I’ve read all week.
Moral standards exist within us? Really? I read part of your blog and I see that you have a young daughter. I’ll bet she didn’t show much of a moral behaviour when she was two, did she? Did you not have to guide her into what was right and wrong? By what moral standard did you do that? If left to her own devices and no guidance or parenting, how would she have ended up if left to her own internal moral God-ingrained code of ethics? Of course it is the bible, as one’s personal morals should be upheld by. PERSONAL morals. I know you are hinting at the “chaos” of “no right or wrong” that you think I’m implying at. Not at all. In this country, our laws are based upon the principles of the constitution. This sets basic standards of operation, and from there on out is a personal choice. What was trying to be avoided for SO long was governmental infiltration into personal lives. Allowing the government to access and define a moral code is giving them precedence over many areas of your personal life. Talk about a slippery slope. Honestly though, who cares about whether the US government endorses or doesn’t endorse personal immoral behaviour (again, this is outside the scope of defined rights which are often violated by immoral action), as that is not the ROLE of government. It’s role is not to serve as a definer of morality, but an upholding of liberty.
“I don’t honestly see a slippery slope of holding on laws that have been on the books for hundreds or thousands of years. As you may not realize, the current fight over morality and rule of law was not begun by Christians or conservatives. After all, to bring it back to gay marriage, homosexuals have had as much right to marry throughout history as I do or any other heterosexual. They, as I, can marry whomever they choose, as long as it’s a person of the opposite gender and not a close blood relation. Thus, legally endorsed gay marriage would be a special right.”
Once again, you manage to miss the point entirely with your myopic views. Since the government is secular, so therefore marriage is a contract between two people, to deny two people (I said PEOPLE, not pets. Please don’t use that silly argument again.) that right is a violation of the basis of this country. It is indeed unfortunate that our government chose to use the word “marriage” to define the legal aspect of this. For to say that you are only married if you sign a license, is to say that despite your vows before God (in a Christian ceremony) you aren’t really married in the eyes of God without government approval. This of course, is not the case. In order to gain federal benefit you obtain a marriage license. This in NO way defines your current marriage, but instead defines the cursory civil aspects of your personal dealings. To deny those privileges based on a confused conjunction of religion and civility is special rights, not the other way around. Lawful definition of marriage allows the government to impede on a religious exchange of vows, which is ridiculous in its entirety. The vows YOU say before God are what you should follow. The legal aspect merely gives you additional privileges. One should, by definition, be able to form a legal contract for said privileges with whomever they want, regardless of gender.
For this reason, I believe that there should be NO legal benefit to marriage, as I don’t want the government infringing or placing restrictions on my personal life. My personal vows to a woman, under God, should not be regulated by the state OR federal government. Making a definition of the actual act of marriage by federal compulsion merely lets them in on what should be a sacred and personal act. You fail to see the danger of this.
Well, due to the law of diminishing returns, I think this debate is coming to a close. I guess I just don’t see how government choosing to endorse certain relationships while not sanctioning (not banning them, mind you) other ones ultimately affects how I live out my marriage and my vows before God. If the feds choose to grant my marriage certain benefits as it sees beneficial to itself (such as child tax credits, which have the potential of increased birht rates), that doesn’t affect my personal contract with my wife.
One last thing… I still fail to see how the legalization of bestiality is a strawman if a Supreme Court Justice thought that there was significant danger of that coming to pass. I quoted Scalia for you. He is exactly right, anyone who understands the law knows that when the Supreme Court struck down that particular sodomy law in Texas in 2003, it opened a huge can of worms. But either way, the federal shouldn’t be telling the states what to do. That’s the larger principle here. If a state wants to outlaw sodomy (whether I agree with it or not), it should have the right to do so.
Anyway, thanks for the great discussion.
I guess we say “I agree to disagree” here. We obviously are not seeing eye to eye on this, and I this is mainly due to typed comment discussion.
“I guess I just don’t see how government choosing to endorse certain relationships while not sanctioning (not banning them, mind you) other ones ultimately affects how I live out my marriage and my vows before God.”
See, that’s been my point, I just view things from the opposite direction. If allowing gays to marry doesn’t affect your personal marriage vows before God, then how is a law against it upholding or protecting the institution of marriage? Lawful marriage (basically a social contract) and actual marriage (the institution), are not mutually exclusive.
“One last thing… I still fail to see how the legalization of bestiality is a strawman if a Supreme Court Justice thought that there was significant danger of that coming to pass.”
Perhaps the Supreme Court justice was blowing things our out of proportion? Who knows. All I know is that it’s hard to enter a social contract with something that can’t make an informed decision or consent, due to the fact that it isn’t recognized and a human with life, but instead, is considered property (pets). As for what Scalia spoke of, I’d have to read it myself to make an informed interpretation.
“He is exactly right, anyone who understands the law knows that when the Supreme Court struck down that particular sodomy law in Texas in 2003, it opened a huge can of worms.”
This, I still don’t understand. How are sodomy laws, in fact, enforced? That is, beyond their application as a way to increase severity of rape/molestation charges. IF they aren’t enforced (as far as I know, besides a few weird circumstances, I’ve never seen bedroom police.) and can’t be enforced, they exist merely as pointless laws. Really, I am interested to know about this “can of worms” you spoke of in regards to the repeal of said laws. I’m having a hard time thinking of much precedent it could set. Well, I can think of a few, but they are so grossly unconstitutional (federally speaking) that I can’t imagine them being passed.
“But either way, the federal shouldn’t be telling the states what to do. That’s the larger principle here. If a state wants to outlaw sodomy (whether I agree with it or not), it should have the right to do so.”
Here, we can agree to agree. I stand by this, and rather firmly. All “legislation of morality” aside, nothing irks me more than an overzealous fed.
Good discussion.
Wow… too much ground for me to even begin to start. Just remember Ornot, it takes a few years for people like me circa 2002 to switch from nationalist republicans to anarcho-capitalists.
Oh, but you KNOW you want to chime in! It’s KILLING YOU!
Oh, I know. After all, I was quite the nationalist republican myself just a few years prior to you! One person at a time, that’s my motto…
Darius - “The Bible has nothing to do with it… moral standards exist within ourselves. As C.S. Lewis wrote, we all have an internal moral code that has been written on our souls by God.”
Ornot - “This could be, perhaps, the most ridiculous thing I’ve read all week. Moral standards exist within us? Really? I read part of your blog and I see that you have a young daughter. I’ll bet she didn’t show much of a moral behaviour when she was two, did she? Did you not have to guide her into what was right and wrong? By what moral standard did you do that? If left to her own devices and no guidance or parenting, how would she have ended up if left to her own internal moral God-ingrained code of ethics?”
I didn’t address this earlier due to lack of time, but thought as a separate issue, I should. Yes, moral standards do exist within us. After all, Adam and Eve did not eat from the tree of the knowledge of Evil, but rather of the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil. And to address your comment about my daughter; just because she knows to do right doesn’t mean she does. C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity wrote about the inherent knowledge of God’s law within ourselves. Yes, the Bible spells that law out, but murder, lying, and lust are wrong even if someone has not read the Bible and knows nothing of its rules and precepts. In other words, I’m referring to our conscience. A conscience is not culturally-created or trained into a person. Just because some remote tribal person never read the Bible won’t give him any excuse on judgment day before God for the evil he committed. We know what’s right, but our own selfish desires and cunning excuses do a great job of covering up that knowledge. For more on this, read Mere Christianity. Lewis does this topic much more justice than I ever could in this comment area.
The ability to do evil and good and the knowledge of the difference between the two exist within each of us. If this were not so, someone who never heard the gospel would have a legitimate excuse for his transgressions. But the Bible clearly teaches that ALL men have sinned. How can one sin if they haven’t seen or heard the law? The only way is if that law is written on our hearts.