David

As well, I would argue that there is a lot right with the American evangelical church, and there is a lot wrong. It is not altogether what it should be. Does this mean we should accent repentance above all else? I think we’ve done that for a long time, almost to the exclusion of other aspects of the gospel. I am by no means arguing that we can tell someone that they don’t need to repent if they want to get saved (neither is Dan Kimball arguing that, by the way). But I am saying that how we say it, when we say, and why we say it speak volumes about our approach to the gospel.

What if we reaally depended on the Christ Who has the power to give life to whomsoever He wills?(John 5:21) What if we really responded to the fact that the fields are white to harvest, and that it was God’s harvest? What if we really taught and believed what Jesus told Nic, that the Spirit moves where He wills?(John 3:6-8, 21) What if we just did it istead of talking about it?
Maybe the chruch needs to admit that we are weak, so we can be strong; be smart enough to know we are foolish, so we can have the wisdom of God. We are told to do everything but preach or proclaim. God says He operates by the ‘foolishness of preaching’. It is just sad the church today calls that foolishness.

David

I think that particular criticism — that we have become more about a political agenda than about the Gospel — is exceedingly keen. That is -not- to say I think we can just give the democrats a hug and let them slip on personal responsibility and the sanctity of human life, but it -is- to say that we are an “easy girl” for right-wing poseurs who bring use red-state roses and sweet nothings about judges and defense of marriage to have their way with us.

The problem — the gross problem — is that churches in America -do- do a lot of civil good, and the media takes that for granted (which I think is a charitable thing to say) and instead covers things like the ever-daffy Fred Phelps cult or that latest baseless prophecy of Pat Robertson.

I was chatting with Pastor Kimball about his book on-line, and I asked the question, “who has ever actually met a Christian who looks like the media stereotype?” For example, who has ever actually seen someone verbally attack a homosexual for holding hands with his, um, friend in public? I’ve never seen it. Pastor Dan says the people he talks to have seen it, but when you ask a room full of Christians who has ever seen such a thing, you can’t find any.

The people I know are flying to Nicaragua to build a new school for Feed the Children, and adopting baby girls from countries which are killing their daughters because they not as respected as boy-children, and supporting whole families and villages through Compassion International, and sending, all told, about $11 billion in private giving to Africa (as one example). And that’s not to mention the food pantries, the benevolence giving, the ESL classes, the daycare centers, the crisis pregnancy centers, etc.

My point in that rant, really, is to say that the representation that we are bad disciples is, at best, one-sided. And Pastor Dan uses that perception to suggest a lot of, shall we say, interesting ideas such as female leadership, and a re-reading of Acts 3:19 that turns Peter’s call to repentance on its head (pp 104-105).

There’s no question: the contemporary America church needs a big dose of the actual Gospel — what Paul described to Titus as healthy doctrine and the behavior which goes with it (thanks, NetBible). But that is not to say that we are utterly absent of what’s right, theologically or pragmatically. Believing that -is- the wrong kind of fundamentalism, the wrong kind of Christianity. We are in dire straits, but God is faithful.

Thanks. I feel much better now.

Essentially, he’s saying that we can work with what unbelievers think about Jesus as a starting point. But if you read all of Kimball’s book, you’ll soon realize that he’s not soft on sin nor on doctrine. That’s a caricature of what he believes.

As for what unbelievers think of the church, Kimball is very clear that what they think is a misperception, but one that has a grain of truth in it. His major thrust is that we should be missional-minded Christians. This means that we need to communicate with unbelievers, we need to truly love them, and we need to earn the right to be heard. The media perception that we come out with guns blazing, shooting first and asking questions only of the mortally wounded, is not too far from the truth.

I read the draft of the book long before it came out. I have used his tag line in evangelism since, and it really hits a nerve. In today’s world, however, how we come across and when we come across has to be linked to the tempo of the culture. Jesus altered his approach from Nicodemus to the Samaritan woman. If unbelievers know us more for our hatred of abortion, homosexuality, Democrats, and gun control, than they do for our love of Jesus and for doing good in our communities—good that is tangible and defensible before the harshest critics—then it’s high time that we change. Frankly, I think the American church today has hitched its star to the Republican party for too long, and the media picks up on that. I thought we were called out to be above all that. Or to put this another way: The Moral Majority is dead. Long live the King!

I’ve read the book and agree with you about it’s tone overall. As I read it, however, I found that Pastor Kimball foundationally takes the opinion that we can trust the perceptions of people about Jesus and about the church who are, if we accept Scripture as even only reliable and not infallible, spiritually-blind.

In that, how would you receive the criticism of this book that Dam Kimball is too charitable to unbelievers here, and too critical of the church? For example, Pastor Kimball works the non-believer’s view that Jesus was a “loving” person (meaning he didn’t condemn sinful behavior) into a legitimate belief of the love of Christ; at the same time, he accepts the unbeliever’s perception that the church judges sin too harshly as wholly legitimate when it is based on media stereotypes. Isn’t that a little unfair both to the unbeliever and to the church?