Jim and Casper - Our First Review
Rev Gary Gilley - a baptist preacher doesn’t care much for our book and thinks that Casper is unable to see anything of real value due to the fact that he is an “unbeliever”. He wrote a detailed and well cited review for his baptist constiuents warning them ( I presume) to not bother reading our book.
He did misquote Casper however (read Caspers response below- he is very funny and insightful don’t you think) and I don’t expect the Rev Gilley will do anything about correcting his misrepresentation but he did nail one thing. He accurately explains just how differently he and I see what the core mission of Jesus is.
Here is Caspers response
Dear Mr. Gilley,
I’m Casper. I read your review. (This is the first book I’ve ever written, and I was googling it, and, lo and behold—your review!).
First, thank you very much for reading it and posting a review! I am wondering how you came by a copy…? All I have are galleys, and as far as I know, they’re not being widely circulated…?
But that’s not the main reason I’m writing. The main reason is feedback. I doubt I’ll have time to give unsolicited feedback to everyone who reads the book, but one thing you said made me say “exactly!”
“The concept is intriguing, if not doomed from the start. It is flawed because the Lord has already informed us that the gospel is foolish to the unbeliever (1 Corinthians 1:18-25).”
As a pastor-teacher dedicated to building the kingdom of God, I would hope that you believe such a conversation would be anything but doomed from the start.
Do you think Jesus would have said such a thing? “I can’t talk to these people who don’t currently follow my God. This conversation is doomed from the start.”
Regardless, using the bible as proof–1 Corinthians 1:18-25–for a non-believer is another part of the problem. Would you accept as proof from a Muslim that you’re an infidel because it says so in the Koran? Of course not! That’s called circular logic: it doesn’t hold up in courts or in conversations.
Also, using my Osteen quote out of context: very deceitful. Remember, I said that Osteen appeals to the worst IN people (greed, mostly), not the worst people. Taking the quote out of context applies I was saying the latter. A very sneaky thing to do (again: would Jesus have done that, or told you do that?).
I will add that I am honored that you think I am “totally out of the mainstream with the masses.” So was Jesus while he walked the earth (and way more so than me—they killed him: the worst I have to fear is bad reviews!).
Thanks again for reading. I am happy to discuss belief (or non-belief) any time!
Matt Casper
Comment by: Ordinary Attempts -
1 02/12/07 11:46 PM | Comment Link |[...] Check out what a baptist preacher has to say about our soon to be released book [...]
Comment by: Siamang
2 02/13/07 12:11 AM | Comment Link |Interesting review. I’m amazed at the book being a “thinly-veiled attempt to push an emergent church agenda.”
I’d have thought it would be a more blatant attempt to push an emergent church agenda! ;-)
I have great respect for Jim and what he’s doing, and for the emergent movement as a whole. If my blogging at Off the Map is part of that same “agenda”, well, Jim’s made me proud of that.
Gilley quoted passages of Jim’s writing that were supposed to make him sound bad. Maybe to Baptist’s ears, but it had the opposite effect for me.
Jim comes across in those passages as a kind, compassionate, warm, radical, loving human with a serious mission.
I can’t wait to read the whole book!
Comment by: Helen
3 02/13/07 4:33 AM | Comment Link |Jim wrote:
I expect so - the author of this does quite a lot of ‘warning’ people. According to the wikipedia entry about him:
I think it’s interesting he didn’t just ignore your book. Perhaps that means he thinks people might be tempted to buy it and read it!
From Matt Casper’s response:
Lol - I love it when atheists see Christians do something and ask them: “Do you think that’s what Jesus would do?” Excellent question, Matt!
Comment by: DoableEvangelism » Blog Archive » First review of book by Jim and Casper
4 02/13/07 5:07 AM | Comment Link |[...] Check out Jim’s post on Church Rater about the first review of Jim and Casper go to church. [...]
Comment by: benjamin ady
5 02/13/07 8:16 AM | Comment Link |… ummmmm, isn’t the emerging church postmodern? It actually seems to me like Dr. Gilley is the one with the more modern perspective (though no doubt he’d deny it adamantly)
…this may be a bit … low, but I found the poor grammar/writing in “Dr.” Gilley’s review really offputting. Here’s a quote about their accreditation from Cambridge (*not* associated with the *real* Cambridge!) Graduate School where he got his doctorate–from their web page just now–
Comment by: Rachel
6 02/13/07 8:32 AM | Comment Link |Wow. Well, let me say first of all, Jim & Matt, that I think both of your responses to this review are incredibly gracious and restrained. I know you are both big boys and you can handle it but dang!
???? Weren’t all believers once unbelievers who heard the gospel?
Sounds to me like you DO understand the message of the gospel, Matt, perhaps better than some popular preachers!
Gasp! Jim, you wily fellow, you had us all fooled!
Actually most people in the emerging movement do want small churches. We value authenticity, community and service, not big numbers or fancy buildings.
Amen, Jim!
Wow, what a dogmatic statement!
Matt’s opinions are subjective and the minister’s opinions are not? (sigh)
Well, Rev. Gilley is doing what he feels is best by guiding his parishioners away from this book. We will simply have to disagree in Christian love.
Comment by: Helen
7 02/13/07 9:05 AM | Comment Link |Benjamin wrote:
Yes, I think so. I think the Wikipedia author meant ‘modern’ as in ‘contemporary’, rather than modern as opposed to postmodern.
Comment by: Mike O
8 02/13/07 9:59 AM | Comment Link |I had the same reaction to most of it.
One of my hot-topic verses of late is 1 Cor 6:9-10 which ends like this … and that is what some of you were. But you were washed …”
Rachel, I couldn’t agree more!!
Comment by: Mike O
9 02/13/07 10:11 AM | Comment Link |In all honesty, I thought his review was well thought out, while I would disagree with him on whether or not his complaints are actually bad things, he’s welcome to his opinion and I thought he stated it well.
The thing I took away from it is this … it sounds like he thinks, and maybe Jim thinks, too, that it is an either-or proposition. EITHER the church should be more heavenly minded OR the church should do more earthly good. I say, why not both? From where I’m standing I see valid points on both sides, and they don’t have to be mutually exclusive.
I didn’t care for this paragraph at all:
For a man to say that people who don’t see the focus of the church his way are not “Bible-centered” and they don’t “understands the biblical model for the church” is extremely judgemental. They may not be his style and they may not focus where he does … I’ll give him that much … but to say they’re not biblical is a stretch!
Where is the layout for his church services and programs found in the bible? (BTW, I learned that one here!)
Comment by: Matt Casper
10 02/13/07 10:17 AM | Comment Link |All I can say is, “let the good times roll.”
I hope he gets back to me and Jim, because I think–since he read the book–we have a chance to connect further and more deeply with him… you might say we have a chance to save him…!
Comment by: Mike O
11 02/13/07 10:59 AM | Comment Link |This is actually a pretty good point.
Comment by: Helen
12 02/13/07 11:11 AM | Comment Link |Matt, I don’t know if you will be able to save him…sometimes ‘lost’ people can be very stubborn and unyielding! ;-)
Comment by: Helen
13 02/13/07 11:19 AM | Comment Link |The church visit I went on was to a church in the 100-300 attenders range.
In general I can see going to big churches because the obvious question to ask about those is “Wow, what makes this church so popular?” And it would be reasonable to think, if any church might appeal to an atheist then it might well be one which is large, showing it does appeal to lots of people in general.
Also, I think it’s interesting to read about churches I’ve heard of - which would either be ones where I live or big ones.
I guess it depends what you are trying to achieve and who your target readership is.
As for churches not being Bible-centered or not following the Biblical model, I doubt there are many churches in America which the reviewer approves of as being that way. Maybe there’s only one ;-)
Comment by: Keith
14 02/13/07 11:31 AM | Comment Link |Jim & Matt,
I’ve got nothing to add to the previous posts … just wanted to say that I appreciate you guys writing this book, and I’m looking forward to reading it. Thank you, both - you matter.
Comment by: Matt Casper
15 02/13/07 12:13 PM | Comment Link |Mike: 1st Pres had about that attendance. And I visited a Southern Baptist church (about 100 members) in San Diego twice, and Jim, Jason and I went to a Calvary church as well (not everything we did made it into the book… such as Jim’s table dancing: KIDDING!).
The short answer as to why we didn’t visit lots of smaller churches was that we had limited time/resources and had to reach the widest audience possible, hence we went to the most visible churches.
A more complicated answer is that much of what I saw in smaller churches was simply a scaled down version of what was happening in larger churches. Their goals were typically the same: bigger! Bigger! BIGGER!
A non-answer–yet still relevant thought–is why is Mr. Gilley concerned with numbers? Did Jesus ever discuss the right size for a church?
The best answer is that we’re saving those churches for our next book! (”Jim & Casper Go to Every Single Church in America.” Should be out early 3010.)
Comment by: Helen
16 02/13/07 12:45 PM | Comment Link |lol :)
Comment by: Mike O
17 02/13/07 1:22 PM | Comment Link |True statement. I attend a church of about 180, and we do want to get bigger, but for good reasons. You can do more if you have more resources.
Not to mention my wife is working there about 50 hrs/wk for a pittance. Don’t get me wrong, she’s more than happy to do so. In fact she would (WE would) do it for free. But is drawing a normal salary so wrong?? When you work with a bigger budget, theoretically you can accomplish more. And there’s no inherent value in poverty.
Small churches do as much as we can with the resources we have. And maybe that’s a good thing … it keeps us dependant on God rather than our accountant.
Plus, if we we aren’t growing, then are we accomplishing our mission? Shouldn’t growth be a natural byproduct of effective ministry?
Comment by: NCxian
18 02/13/07 1:49 PM | Comment Link |Gilley is using a lot of “code” here, and given how hard it is for me to understand where he is going with this, I can imagine it is impossible for folks not familiar with the terrain.
My understanding is that Gilley is objecting to two things.
First, he is objecting to “seeker sensitive” church, which in the 1980s and into the 1990s was represented by mega-churches–Willow Creek, Saddleback and so on. His objection is that he believes that “Biblical” worship is a gathering of believers doing particular things (Gilley would apparently like to be made dictator over what is allowable). Adapting worship to attract people who aren’t members of that faith community is, in his opinion, not an authentic expression of worship. Interestingly, although he can’t quite bring himself to admit it, he is somewhat in agreement with Matt on this. Matt apparently refers to the big seeker sensitive events to seem “soulless”, which is a pretty common objection to the slick, event-type services, in my experience.
Inexplicably, Gilley then turns around and says Matt is wrong (well actually, stupid and out-of-touch), because apparently seeker-sensitive services attract a bzillion people. This totally flies in the face of Gilley’s own objection to seeker-sensitive worship. I can make no sense of that section of his criticism.
Then he moves on to Jim, who presents the second problem for Gilley. In Gilley’s eyes, Jim represents the evil emerging church. This is not a style of worship issue. He is taking issue with Jim’s theology.
These two objections are not really related to each other as best I can tell. The seeker-senstive, megachurches are thoroughly modern. They are manifestations of the attractional model of evangelism that I think most thoughtful church folks believe has come and gone, like huge shoulder pads and leg warmers. Even the mega-churches are rethinking issues like authenticity, intimacy and the like, which are perceived as short-comings of that form of church. . . . I believe–someone correct me if I’m wrong here.
The emerging church is, at least in part, a reaction to the attractional model of church. Most emerging church folks (and certainly Jim) believe that you don’t share the Good News by inviting people to come, but by getting off your behinds and going. Also, many emerging churches are going back to a focus on worship that is “authentic”, which in many cases is diametrically opposed to the seeker sensitive worship that Gilley objects to. So, again, although he can’t bring himself to admit it, he and Jim are potentially in agreement.
So, having written all of the above, I can see now that what bothers me the most about Gilley’s critique is that he is not gracious enough to admit that there are points upon which he may think that Matt and Jim are right. Most nice people would say, on this point we agree, on this we don’t. I imagine that saying that, in Gilley’s mind, would be the equivalent of consorting with the devil!
Comment by: NCxian
19 02/13/07 3:55 PM | Comment Link |I hope nobody took this to mean I know something you don’t. I just meant to point out that Gilley seems to be addressing a particular audience, and using jargon meant to be meaningful to them (and possibly obscure his meaning to others).
Comment by: Randy
20 02/13/07 7:26 PM | Comment Link |I, for one, would like to hear more about the table dancing incident.
Comment by: Eliza
21 02/13/07 8:42 PM | Comment Link |Randy - lol!
NCxian - thanks for that nice analysis - very insightful!
So…how did Gilley get ahold of a copy of the book before it’s even been published?
Comment by: Rachel
22 02/14/07 7:50 AM | Comment Link |Mike, but how do you define “growth”? Higher attendance numbers, larger budget, bigger building? Or people being genuinely transformed from the inside out, becoming more like Christ and more other-centered?
Comment by: Rich Schmidt
23 02/14/07 1:23 PM | Comment Link |I’m not Mike, but I’d love to answer. Apparently, from contemporary examples and examples like the churches in the book of Acts, when people are genuinely transformed & become more Christlike & other-centered, it makes an impact on people and leads to numeric growth. If that growing group of people gives generously, then budgets grow. And if they worship together, they end up building bigger buildings.
It doesn’t have to be either-or. Just like so many “come and see” churches also mobilize their folks to “go and show.” Sure, some don’t. But lots do.
Comment by: Mike O
24 02/14/07 1:39 PM | Comment Link |It’s interesting, my wife and I just had this conversation last night. Our pastor (she’s one of four pastors) is very outward focused. But many in the congregation are not. It’s frustrating to him that we’re not growing in numbers because if people were going out and ministering effectively, we would grow as Rich explained above.
Seeing bigger numbers CANNOT be the target, but it is an evidence that the target is being reached effectively. If the goal is bigger numbers, then you are misguided. If the goal is changed lives, bigger number will inevitably result as word gets out that the body of Christ is functioning at that place.
So to answer your question, it’s changed lives. The rest is just gravy (if it happens).
On the other hand, just because you’re not growing doesn’t necessarily mean you’re missing your target. It could be that God has ordained for you to be a smaller church with a small-church feel attracting small-church types. Many people don’t like big churches. If all churches ran 1,000 members, how many people would never go???
Size is irrelevant. But growth is not a bad thing if it’s not the reason you do what you do.
Comment by: benjamin ady
25 02/14/07 3:20 PM | Comment Link |I don’t know about table dancing, but I can attest to the fact that Jim is quite an excellent blues vocalist.
About the whole growth thing … yes, all that stuff in acts and what have you, but isn’t there some incident in the gospels where jesus said something quite controversial (I’m thinking the “eat my flesh and drink my blood” thing) and it says that almost everybody left, they were so offended? Was Jesus into the “growth” paradigm? Hmmmmm. Where would Jesus hang out in Seattle today? Maybe at King County Recovery Centers. If he went into a church building, I’m guessing he’d say things so outrageous to the denizens thereof that there would be instant negative growth.
It seems to me like Mr. Gilley is coming from a fairly extreme perspective. He attacks the twelve steps, and even seems to be criticizing James Dobson for being too liberal (a bit of a stretch from my perspective). I think it’s really kewl that you are trying to engage him, Caspar and Jim. I find myself at some level unable to do that. Perhaps it has to do with my background. You guys are an encouragement to me to be more relational/human. thankyou!
Comment by: Rachel
26 02/14/07 3:28 PM | Comment Link |I don’t think I would agree with that in all cases, Mike. For example, I think that the massive growth in Joel Osteen’s church results from him selling a watered-down, feel good, self-centered version of the gospel that paints God as our fairy godmother and Jesus as our therapist. Paul warned Timothy about people who look for pastors “who will tell them whatever they want to hear.”
I think that if more American pastors had the courage to preach the true radical message of Jesus, they would actually lose money and parishioners. Here’s the story of one pastor who did just that.
Comment by: Rachel
27 02/14/07 3:35 PM | Comment Link |“Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nooooobody wants to die”
Good times, good times.
Comment by: April Terry
28 02/14/07 3:56 PM | Comment Link |And on the other other hand, just because you are growing doesn’t mean that you are successful at anything. For instance, your numbers might be going up, but are they other Christians transferring from another church, non-active Christians who occasionally attend a church, or are they truly new believers? If your numbers are increasing because no one else in town has as good a speaker at the altar, then that isn’t really growth, is it?
…And playing the devil’s advocate (to coin a phrase), let’s be honest and admit that numbers do matter to all of us to a certain extent. Every single one of us who has a blog or a web site checks the statistics to see how many hits they get to their web site. We can’t help it! It is as much a part of our psyche as it is to weigh ourselves when we’re on a diet.
To be honest, I think we have to step back for a moment and thank people like Mr. Gilley for being honest about what he believes, even if we don’t agree. If we don’t listen to the critics, we won’t grow and learn the areas in our culture where will be held back.
Mr. Gilley doesn’t represent most our beliefs, but he does represent a large portion of our society’s beliefs and that is significant. We may not like it, but it is what it is.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
29 02/15/07 12:14 AM | Comment Link |Rick first of all thanks for commenting on CR. You said
So do I understand you to be saying that these are good things?
What does it mean to you that gthe majority of churches ( like over 70% I think)of churches in US are average size of 89 people?
Where did Jesus model this kind of focus regarding buildings, budgets and butts in seats?
Comment by: Mike O
30 02/15/07 3:28 AM | Comment Link |I’m not Rich, but I’d love to answer. :)
If that’s the focus, then it’s a problem. If it’s merely a byproduct of the focus (a focus on bringing people into relationship with Christ), then it’s not.
There is no inherent evil in big churches … but the prosperity that so often comes along with it can be distracting!
Comment by: Jim Henderson
31 02/15/07 11:30 AM | Comment Link |Mike O ( and I know you aren’t Rick :-)
Talk a little more about the tension you’ve unearthed -
How can a church (or any one of us for that matter) not get distracted when prosperity comes?
What do you mean by prosperity? more people? more money? more public awareness of our mission?
Comment by: Mike O
32 02/15/07 11:45 AM | Comment Link |That’s good. I don’t either. But neither do I disagree in all cases. There are some good, big churches.
I don’t think I would agree with that in all cases, Rachel.
Agreed!
Comment by: Mike O
33 02/15/07 12:02 PM | Comment Link |I don’t know. But if they could, just imagine the work they could do for the Lord given enough resources?
All of it. There’s nothing wrong with success. But if those are “the point,” then you are misguided. I personally believe that prosperity is not something that should be srived for, but at the same time, if God blesses you with vast resources, you need to do all you can to use them wisely.
My personal belief on the matter, and I think it’s biblical, is that prosperity is irrelevant. God has given every person some inheritance that is theirs. Some will be wealthy, no matter how good or evil they are. And some will be poor, no matter how good or evil they are. The thing that matters isn’t the prosperity, it’s whether or not you did what you were supposed to do with the resources God saw fit to bless you with, no matter how big or small they may be.
Comment by: April Terry
34 02/15/07 12:06 PM | Comment Link |Didn’t Jesus seem to have a respect of sorts for the temple? I mean, he did seem pretty offended when its courtyard was being used as a place to swindle people. Taking the Bible as a whole, it seems pretty clear that to a certain extent God wanted a building. He instructed one to be built, complete with detailed instructions on how it should be built and used. While it was being built, there was still a tent set aside.
It seems to me that the question we should be asking is how can our churches be more relevant to those who aren’t comfortable in them, and honestly, I think that is what many people are trying to ask both here and elsewhere. I just don’t think we can all agree on how to go about it.
Comment by: Mike O
35 02/15/07 12:37 PM | Comment Link |And just for the record, I happen to prefer small churches myself. I like to be needed. But that doesn’t mean that I think big churches are bad … it’s just not my cup of tea.
Comment by: Matt Casper
36 02/15/07 1:38 PM | Comment Link |Small, medium, big, super-size, mega… I think it’ll always be tough for me (maybe other non-believers) to get a hold on why size matters to the church. A point I make to Jim in the book is that Jesus chose to have 12 disciples, not 20,000.
It’s my belief (and there’s data to support this belief) that small groups are most effective: small class sizes in schools are always more desirable (from a learning standpoint), and the military and more than a few corporations have learned that groups larger than 150 are ineffective (read “The Tipping Point” for more details).
If I were running a church, I’d emulate that. When “my church” grew to more than, say, 20 people, I’d ask that a new one be started. This is how Methodism became so prevalent: one small group after another.
Regardless, what should unify members of a church is not the roof they sit under as a group but the beliefs they hold as a group.
And Christianty has so many forms/styles/churches, that I can see no unification whatsoever. The baptists disagree with the emergents, the Catholics with the Protestants, the 7th Day Adventists with everyone, the JW’s with everyone else. And they all think the others are going to hell: yikes!
It’s impossible for me to share in this faith when its self-professed members don’t share the same faith either.
Bewilderedly Yours,
Matt
Comment by: NCxian
37 02/15/07 3:34 PM | Comment Link |Matt, you say this as if it’s a bad thing! ;)
Actually, while I understand this was a little hyperbole on your part, you might be interested in the essays on the various Christian denominations and points of view at http://www.religioustolerance.org. You really don’t know the half of it! I can’t find the quote right now, but somewhere on that site it says that it is hard to find anything in common between some Christian sects except that they both call themselves Christians!
(And just to really confuse you, there are emergent baptists, as well as Christians who don’t believe anybody is going to hell!)
Comment by: Rachel
38 02/15/07 4:44 PM | Comment Link |Actually I think there are very few Christian sects who believe that. I grew up in a very conservative Baptist denomination and I was never taught that other Christian groups were going to hell. Christian sects will often vehemently disagree with one another on matters of doctrine or practice but that doesn’t mean they think the other group is hell-bound.
Comment by: Rachel
39 02/15/07 4:49 PM | Comment Link |You’re right, Mike. I should have said SOME pastors would lose money and parishioners.
Comment by: Matt Casper
40 02/15/07 5:29 PM | Comment Link |Hello again: didn’t mean to alarm anyone with the “hell” comment. It’s just something I have a problem with.
After all, Jesus mentioned hell as often or more than heaven. Which is a problem I have with his whole philosophy: how can someone who preaches a gospel of love be ok with ternal punishment, too.
And can you be a Christian and reject Jesus’ take on this?
I have a feeling this may require a different thread… :)
Matt
Comment by: Rachel
41 02/15/07 6:24 PM | Comment Link |You bring up some tough issues, Matt, ones for which I certainly haven’t found easy answers. I am a follower of Jesus and I don’t believe in a literal hell. I don’t think that means that I am rejecting some of Jesus’ teachings but I know that some Christians would disagree. Some would probably call me a heretic. Well, actually a few basically have. And I’m OK with that.
Comment by: benjamin ady
42 02/15/07 8:57 PM | Comment Link |I stopped believing in “eternal conscious suffering” way before I mostly stopped being a christian. I kind of went with obliteration for a while, where I thought people who go to hell just burn up and that’s the end of them. But both before and after my obliteration stint, I believed in universalism–this mainly due to the strong influence of George Macdonald on my Christianity. Funny that, since it was kind of a Helen response to a comment I made about George Macdonald on my own blog which first got me interested in CatE, and thus Off the Map blogs in general. I still enormously like George’s Diary of an Old Soul
It doesn’t seem reasonable to me to believe in “eternal conscious suffering of the damned”. I think people who say they believe this have some kind of disconnect going on. BICBW
Comment by: Mike O
43 02/16/07 3:54 AM | Comment Link |Me, too. And I see it here at OTM, too. Churches “should be” small. Churches “should be” large. Big churches are distracted. Small churches aren’t growing. It goes on and on. To me, churches “should be” whatever God ordained. Their target audience “should be” whatever God has called them to do. But when people look at other churches and say they “should be” this or that, or more often that they “shouldn’t be” something, I just see it as divisive.
A lot of churches nowadays are doing just that in the form of small groups. Our churches philosphy on size is this … as we get bigger, we have to stay smaller … we are a church of small groups. Yes, we are all under the leadership of one Sr. Pastor, but each small group is where the real growth and personal development happens. The sunday morning service is too large for personal, two-way connection. And we only have 180!
Comment by: Helen
44 02/16/07 4:35 AM | Comment Link |I’ve complained about big churches - but I think my actual concern isn’t about the headcount per se, but about church structures which seem to imply “relationship doesn’t matter”. I think relationship should always matter. And Mike, it seems to me that you might well agree with me on that.
This why I don’t like satellite churches which show the sermon on a big movie screen. Because they are saying “It doesn’t matter if you know this guy (or woman) or not”. Maybe it doesn’t but then maybe we should give that person a different title than “pastor”, which means “shepherd”. Because that person who is a stranger on a screen is not following Jesus’ role model of a shepherd who knows his sheep. According to John 10:14 Jesus said: “I am the good shepherd: I know my sheep and my sheep know me”