Book Covers
With reference to this, this, this, this, and this.
People don’t like the title of Dan Kimball’s book, They Like Jesus but Not the Church. It is cynically responded that non-Christians don’t like the real Jesus, they like a pop-culture sanitized Jesus who never mentioned sin unless it was the sin of the people who are most not like them - religious types. They like the hippie Jesus, not the Jesus who said “Go and sin no more.” They don’t like the Jesus who said “unless you repent you will all likewise perish.” And it’s true. We all (conservative religious people included) typically like a Jesus who looks just like we do, and some think that Dan Kimball was naïve to imagine that these people actually like the real Jesus.
A variant of this term appears in John Stott’s 1971 book, Basic Christianity. The little 1970’s paperback was the first book I collected into my library; it was given to me by a Baptist pastor in Brookfield almost two years before I became a Christian. The preface opens with these words:
“‘Hostile to the church, friendly to Jesus Christ.’ These words describe large numbers of people, especially young people, today.
“They are opposed to anything which savours of institutionalism. They detest the establishment and its entrenched privileges. And they reject the church - not without some justification - because they regard it as impossibly corrupted by such evils.
“Yet what they have rejected is the contemporary church, not Jesus Christ himself. It is precisely because they see a contradiction between the founder of Christianity and the current state of the church he founded that they are so critical and aloof. The person and teaching of Jesus have not lost their appeal, however. For one thing, he himself was an anti-establishment figure, and some of his words had revolutionary overtones. His ideals appear to have been incorruptible. He breathed love and peace wherever he went. And, for another thing, he invariably practiced what he preached.”
John R. W. Stott, Basic Christianity. (Illinois: IVP, 1971) pg. 7
True, John Stott didn’t interview people on campuses and in coffee shops, and he wasn’t writing an apologetic, it was an introduction to fundamental Christian doctrine - but I think my comments still stand - Stott didn’t dismiss the statement with “bloody unregenerates; they don’t really like Jesus.” Don’t judge a book by it’s title. Read it, and then judge it.
If John Stott can get away with saying that people are ‘Hostile to the church, friendly to Jesus Christ,’ then Dan Kimball ought to be able to write a book with the title They Like Jesus but Not the Church. If, after reading the book, you still disagree, then by all means disagree! Just don’t disagree with the book and excommunicate Dan based on the title alone, based on the hype, or based on someone else’s caricature.
And, for the record, I love the book. If you haven’t read it, buy a copy and read it. If you own a copy and have already read it, give it away or lend it. You need to read this book. I repeat, you need to read this book. I know Dan and I wouldn’t see eye to eye on everything, but when you read this book you will find out that he is one hell of a humble, brave and passionate Jesus-loving guy “who believes and preaches things the world does not want to hear.” Ten thumbs up. As Lee Strobell writes on the cover, it is a powerful wake-up call for the American (and I might add, Western) church.
““bloody unregenerates; they don’t really like Jesus.”
Perhaps people shouldn’t reject the book based on it’s title, but appealling to Jon Stott and saying “well he said it first” still doesn’t get around the fact that the title and premise of the book is blatantly unscriptural.
If Kimball is willing to use an unscriptural title, he can hardly complain when people point that out.