What do you think?
Rate this book
Cartas à igreja
Está disposto a repensar a igreja como a conhece hoje?
Em sua obra mais recente, Francis Chan, autor de Louco amor, desafia o leitor a avaliar a organização atual e a relevância (ou irrelevância) da igreja para o mundo em que vivemos. E, mais importante, quão próxima ou distante ela está do que as Escrituras apontam como o seu propósito, que é sinalizar o reino de Deus.
Francis Chan conta sua experiência como plantador de igrejas e o que aprendeu com os erros e com os acertos, numa avaliação honesta e não menos crítica dos descaminhos trilhados por comunidades cristãs ao redor do planeta.
Engana-se, no entanto, quem espera um mero desabafo. Francis Chan apresenta instruções valiosas para igrejas que não só querem compreender seu papel bíblico mas também anseiam por inspirar vitalidade, compromisso e significado.
Cartas à igreja é, portanto, um chamado para fazer diferença.
Por décadas, líderes eclesiásticos como eu perdemos de vista o poderoso mistério inerente à igreja e, então, corremos em busca de outros métodos na tentativa de atrair a atenção das pessoas. Sendo bem sincero, incitamos você a se viciar nessas coisas menores. Banalizamos o sagrado, e devemos nos arrepender disso.
Francis Chan
203 pages, Kindle Edition
First published September 1, 2018
1563 people are currently reading
11597 people want to read
About the author
Francis Chan
80 books2,842 followersFrancis Chan is an American pastor and teacher, who lives in California with his wife, Lisa, and their four children. He is the former pastor of Cornerstone Community Church in Simi Valley, CA, which he and his wife started in 1994.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,323 reviews
June 25, 2020
This is a hard book to criticize. For starters, it literally opens with a chapter telling the reader that if they criticize the Church or its leaders they are in danger of being killed by God.
Let me be clear: I love Francis Chan. His conviction and passion for Jesus are absolutely infectious. The BASIC video series and book Crazy Love were extremely formative in my faith journey. I believe his We Are Church network of house churches may be the most Biblical and compelling portrait of Church in America right now.
However, I have absolutely no idea what a reader is supposed to take away from Letters to the Church.
After telling the reader that God may kill you for criticizing the Church, Chan proceeds to explain why he left his megachurch at the height of its (and his) popularity to explore church movements in India and China. The rest of the book is a series of "letters" that document areas where the American Church doesn't line up with the first-century church described in the New Testament.
It's no secret the American Church is fraught with consumerism, individualism, and laziness. And much of Chan's observations are spot-on. However, instead of tackling the systems that create passive churchgoers, Chan appears to level a bulk of his criticisms at church leaders and churchgoers.
In other words, if your church isn't a house church (that is consistently reproducing), you're going to feel awful about your church experience after reading this book. And then you'll feel guilty about feeling critical of your church.
Chan tells some truly inspiring stories about what is happening in persecuted churches around the world and in his house church network - stories that appear exclusive to that environment. And I think the reader is supposed to compare these stories with their personal experiences at a seeker-friendly church.
And that puts the reader in an interesting position. As critical as Chan is of people being critical of the Church, how can talking about the church in this way not sow seeds of discontent in one's own church? Or is this Chan's point?
And this dilemma forms the well-intentioned but schizophrenic heart of this book.
What is the average churchgoer suppose to do? What is a pastor's next course of action?
To be clear, I'm not defending a traditional model of church. I fully agree with Chan's grievances. But if our church doesn't look like what Chan is describing in the (fantastic, by the way) final chapter of Letters to the Church, should we leave? Start our own house church? Or seek to reform our church from the inside-out? Talk about it with like-minded individuals? And how are we supposed to do any of that without openly discussing our church's shortcomings (i.e. criticizing)? Is there a difference? If persecution is good for the church, what does that look like in a country built on freedom of religion? Do we seek out persecution by doubling down in an already polarized culture?
Letters to the Church won't answer any of those questions. Maybe it's not meant to. But any book that's sure to send its readers spiraling into frustration, guilt, and disillusionment at their own church experience should at least come with some form of recourse.
I'll probably get ripped for writing an overtly negative review. But there were nuggets of insights in Letters to the Church that were absolutely fascinating - Chan's chapters on the pitfalls of professional ministry and the final chapter on the structure of We Are Church were well worth reading.
I just can't recommend a book that's not going to leave anyone better off (unless you happen to be a member of a We Are Church community). People will praise this book as "hard" and "convicting," but comparing the American Church to the first-century church or persecuted church in Asia isn't exactly a hot take - especially if you limit your take to observation and don't delve into the 'why' or 'what's next.'
For a better deconstructive/reconstructive view of the modern church, I highly recommend Skye Jethani's With (and The Divine Commodity), Shane Claiborne’s The Irresistible Revolution, Bruxy Cavey's The End of Religion, Kent Carlson's Renovation of the Church, Rachel Held Evan's Searching for Sunday, and Aaron Niequist's The Eternal Current.
For a great take on how capitalism and consumerism took over the American Church, check out Shopping for God by James Twitchel, One Nation Under God by Kevin Kruse, and Christianity Incorporated by Michael Budde.
But take my review with a grain of salt. Maybe I'm an arrogant "son of hell" who airs his grievances online that is better off being disfellowshipped by the Church (again, something the book actually says).
UPDATE: I really don’t want to get dragged into ‘Review Wars’ on Goodreads, but no - contrary to other reviewers’ claims - I did not expect a “one-size-fits-all” manual to reform the Church from a book less than 200 pages long. For clarification, the primary issue I had with this book is that by comparing the worst of the American Church with the best of the first-Century Church, persecuted church in Asia, and his own house church movement, most readers will be at a loss of how to move forward within their own faith community.
Let me be clear: I love Francis Chan. His conviction and passion for Jesus are absolutely infectious. The BASIC video series and book Crazy Love were extremely formative in my faith journey. I believe his We Are Church network of house churches may be the most Biblical and compelling portrait of Church in America right now.
However, I have absolutely no idea what a reader is supposed to take away from Letters to the Church.
After telling the reader that God may kill you for criticizing the Church, Chan proceeds to explain why he left his megachurch at the height of its (and his) popularity to explore church movements in India and China. The rest of the book is a series of "letters" that document areas where the American Church doesn't line up with the first-century church described in the New Testament.
It's no secret the American Church is fraught with consumerism, individualism, and laziness. And much of Chan's observations are spot-on. However, instead of tackling the systems that create passive churchgoers, Chan appears to level a bulk of his criticisms at church leaders and churchgoers.
In other words, if your church isn't a house church (that is consistently reproducing), you're going to feel awful about your church experience after reading this book. And then you'll feel guilty about feeling critical of your church.
Chan tells some truly inspiring stories about what is happening in persecuted churches around the world and in his house church network - stories that appear exclusive to that environment. And I think the reader is supposed to compare these stories with their personal experiences at a seeker-friendly church.
And that puts the reader in an interesting position. As critical as Chan is of people being critical of the Church, how can talking about the church in this way not sow seeds of discontent in one's own church? Or is this Chan's point?
And this dilemma forms the well-intentioned but schizophrenic heart of this book.
What is the average churchgoer suppose to do? What is a pastor's next course of action?
To be clear, I'm not defending a traditional model of church. I fully agree with Chan's grievances. But if our church doesn't look like what Chan is describing in the (fantastic, by the way) final chapter of Letters to the Church, should we leave? Start our own house church? Or seek to reform our church from the inside-out? Talk about it with like-minded individuals? And how are we supposed to do any of that without openly discussing our church's shortcomings (i.e. criticizing)? Is there a difference? If persecution is good for the church, what does that look like in a country built on freedom of religion? Do we seek out persecution by doubling down in an already polarized culture?
Letters to the Church won't answer any of those questions. Maybe it's not meant to. But any book that's sure to send its readers spiraling into frustration, guilt, and disillusionment at their own church experience should at least come with some form of recourse.
I'll probably get ripped for writing an overtly negative review. But there were nuggets of insights in Letters to the Church that were absolutely fascinating - Chan's chapters on the pitfalls of professional ministry and the final chapter on the structure of We Are Church were well worth reading.
I just can't recommend a book that's not going to leave anyone better off (unless you happen to be a member of a We Are Church community). People will praise this book as "hard" and "convicting," but comparing the American Church to the first-century church or persecuted church in Asia isn't exactly a hot take - especially if you limit your take to observation and don't delve into the 'why' or 'what's next.'
For a better deconstructive/reconstructive view of the modern church, I highly recommend Skye Jethani's With (and The Divine Commodity), Shane Claiborne’s The Irresistible Revolution, Bruxy Cavey's The End of Religion, Kent Carlson's Renovation of the Church, Rachel Held Evan's Searching for Sunday, and Aaron Niequist's The Eternal Current.
For a great take on how capitalism and consumerism took over the American Church, check out Shopping for God by James Twitchel, One Nation Under God by Kevin Kruse, and Christianity Incorporated by Michael Budde.
But take my review with a grain of salt. Maybe I'm an arrogant "son of hell" who airs his grievances online that is better off being disfellowshipped by the Church (again, something the book actually says).
UPDATE: I really don’t want to get dragged into ‘Review Wars’ on Goodreads, but no - contrary to other reviewers’ claims - I did not expect a “one-size-fits-all” manual to reform the Church from a book less than 200 pages long. For clarification, the primary issue I had with this book is that by comparing the worst of the American Church with the best of the first-Century Church, persecuted church in Asia, and his own house church movement, most readers will be at a loss of how to move forward within their own faith community.
September 17, 2018
As someone who likes Francis Chan, I think this is easily his worst book.
When someone who is passionate about what they do gets a platform to speak to people, one scenario that could unfold is that that person talks about their conviction as if it should be everyone's conviction, passion, and calling. Within the Church, I've seen this happen numerous times, often (sadly) with the person using Scripture as a way to manipulate the audience on some level. These leaders often have no ill motives, but at the end of the day, they were still wrong, and people who didn't think critically about the speaker and the message, nor rightly divide the word spoken, just believed the message as truth. This could be detrimental to people who are gifted and called in a completely different way than the speaker, but when trying to adhere to the message, only found that Saul's armor was a poor fit. In many ways, Chan is just such a leader with the same outspoken, passionate plea to his audience. I like Chan. But when I read this book, it seems like he wants us all to go do what he is doing because it's "right". Now if there were solid scriptural evidence for this, I would be all for it. But there isn't.
Chan's story goes something like this: Chan was disgruntled with churches where he lived in California, so he started one. It got really big. Then he got disgruntled that his church was so big, and couldn't see big churches in the Bible. So he left the country to start some other ministry. Though I'm taking some liberties with his story, that's really most of it. It makes me wonder if Chan will be disgruntled about writing books or having his ministry out of country. Look, Chan has a great heart. He wants to obey God. He wants to do what He says. He wants others to do the same. All of those are amazing. BUT...Chan doesn't seem to realize that others are not all like Chan. Not everyone is as passionate as he is, and not everyone is called to the same calling as Chan.
One of the things that Chan harps on is that the modern church is not like the Church as presented in the book of Acts, therefore we need to make modern church more like the first century Church. I've heard this criticism before, and before I thought it was a good point, but it really isn't. The Bible paints the early church through a descriptive lens and not a prescriptive one, that is, the Bible isn't telling us to be EXACTLY like the early Church, and if you read the Bible entirely, you don't see this message at all. Without qualifying my points incessantly, I believe we need to obey what God says through the Bible--completely. But we need to discern what the difference is between commands and narrative, and what that means for our everyday lives. When I wrote my review about Radical by David Platt, I mentioned that Platt sees the Chinese church as a superior form of church than that of America's. But I contrasted the differences, how each has strengths and weaknesses, and to say that one should be the other is not only wrong, it could be damaging. I think this is a similar line of thought that Chan uses, and I think it's just as wrong with Chan. When you look at modern churches, there are certainly strengths and weaknesses, but one thing we can't deny is that modern American churches, even with their flaws, are doing great things for the world and the Kingdom of God. I find it a strange line of thought to think that our way of church which is over 2000 years old now is inferior to church that was less than one year old. What's to say that our way of church has grown up in many areas and is better than the early Church? Chan would scoff at this statement, surely, but why wouldn't it be right? It's a similar line of thought based on comparing the two churches, just coming to different conclusions. It's just that Chan's conclusion is his conviction--and probably his calling, which I fully support if that's what God has called him to. But it doesn't have to be everyone's conviction.
On some level, this book seems to be a sad reflection on how someone who is losing authority and relevance within the Church. And I don't say that lightly or as a joke. Who is Chan now to the Church at large? I found myself asking this question a lot, sadly. And now I don't have a very good answer. When I went through the book, I found myself asking who this book is REALLY for, why was it written, and why does Chan think he could say this to begin with. I have always liked Chan, his thought process, and his books. But I don't think that Chan gave as much time or thought to this book as he normally did with his previous books. This book felt like just a book that he could write so he could support his family. Maybe I am completely wrong--I hope so.
But it's not for me, and may not be for you either.
When someone who is passionate about what they do gets a platform to speak to people, one scenario that could unfold is that that person talks about their conviction as if it should be everyone's conviction, passion, and calling. Within the Church, I've seen this happen numerous times, often (sadly) with the person using Scripture as a way to manipulate the audience on some level. These leaders often have no ill motives, but at the end of the day, they were still wrong, and people who didn't think critically about the speaker and the message, nor rightly divide the word spoken, just believed the message as truth. This could be detrimental to people who are gifted and called in a completely different way than the speaker, but when trying to adhere to the message, only found that Saul's armor was a poor fit. In many ways, Chan is just such a leader with the same outspoken, passionate plea to his audience. I like Chan. But when I read this book, it seems like he wants us all to go do what he is doing because it's "right". Now if there were solid scriptural evidence for this, I would be all for it. But there isn't.
Chan's story goes something like this: Chan was disgruntled with churches where he lived in California, so he started one. It got really big. Then he got disgruntled that his church was so big, and couldn't see big churches in the Bible. So he left the country to start some other ministry. Though I'm taking some liberties with his story, that's really most of it. It makes me wonder if Chan will be disgruntled about writing books or having his ministry out of country. Look, Chan has a great heart. He wants to obey God. He wants to do what He says. He wants others to do the same. All of those are amazing. BUT...Chan doesn't seem to realize that others are not all like Chan. Not everyone is as passionate as he is, and not everyone is called to the same calling as Chan.
One of the things that Chan harps on is that the modern church is not like the Church as presented in the book of Acts, therefore we need to make modern church more like the first century Church. I've heard this criticism before, and before I thought it was a good point, but it really isn't. The Bible paints the early church through a descriptive lens and not a prescriptive one, that is, the Bible isn't telling us to be EXACTLY like the early Church, and if you read the Bible entirely, you don't see this message at all. Without qualifying my points incessantly, I believe we need to obey what God says through the Bible--completely. But we need to discern what the difference is between commands and narrative, and what that means for our everyday lives. When I wrote my review about Radical by David Platt, I mentioned that Platt sees the Chinese church as a superior form of church than that of America's. But I contrasted the differences, how each has strengths and weaknesses, and to say that one should be the other is not only wrong, it could be damaging. I think this is a similar line of thought that Chan uses, and I think it's just as wrong with Chan. When you look at modern churches, there are certainly strengths and weaknesses, but one thing we can't deny is that modern American churches, even with their flaws, are doing great things for the world and the Kingdom of God. I find it a strange line of thought to think that our way of church which is over 2000 years old now is inferior to church that was less than one year old. What's to say that our way of church has grown up in many areas and is better than the early Church? Chan would scoff at this statement, surely, but why wouldn't it be right? It's a similar line of thought based on comparing the two churches, just coming to different conclusions. It's just that Chan's conclusion is his conviction--and probably his calling, which I fully support if that's what God has called him to. But it doesn't have to be everyone's conviction.
On some level, this book seems to be a sad reflection on how someone who is losing authority and relevance within the Church. And I don't say that lightly or as a joke. Who is Chan now to the Church at large? I found myself asking this question a lot, sadly. And now I don't have a very good answer. When I went through the book, I found myself asking who this book is REALLY for, why was it written, and why does Chan think he could say this to begin with. I have always liked Chan, his thought process, and his books. But I don't think that Chan gave as much time or thought to this book as he normally did with his previous books. This book felt like just a book that he could write so he could support his family. Maybe I am completely wrong--I hope so.
But it's not for me, and may not be for you either.
September 3, 2018
I haven’t been challenged so much by a book since I first read Francis Chan’s book Crazy Love several years ago. This book has a lot of similarities to Crazy Love, as the author looks at what a church should be according to scripture and shows where the American church is lacking. I read the book in two days, and I’m sure I will read it many more times, just as I have Crazy Love. It’s one of the best books I’ve read this year.
The author begins the book by discussing why he left Cornerstone Church eight years ago. He admits that he didn’t lead very well, and that leaving Cornerstone was not an easy decision. After some time overseas, he felt that the Lord was leading him to come back to America to plant churches. Five years ago, twenty years after planting Cornerstone out of a living room, he planted We Are Church. In San Francisco.
Each chapter, or letter, of the book addresses a different issue a church may or may not need to work on. The author writes that the book is about the most obvious commands repeated throughout the entire Bible. He tried to pay attention to the times when God seems most bothered by what His people were doing. He has tried to point out only the most obvious biblical truths about God’s desire for His Bride—truths that he writes none of us can afford to ignore. He states that he has written from the perspective of not worrying about the fallout from the book, but sought only to be faithful to God.
Throughout the book he provides encouraging examples of international churches. However, he writes that as he examines the state of the Christian Church today, he can’t help but think that God is displeased with many of the churches in America. He states that the more he studies the Gospels, the more he is convinced that those of us who live in the United States have a warped view of what it means to be a “Christian”, and it is for that reason our churches are in the state they are in.
The author uses a lot of scripture in this book. Aspects of church that he addresses in the book include devotion to scripture, prayer, unity, community, love, serving others, leadership, humility, suffering and children.
He uses one chapter to describe some things they have done at We Are Church in an effort to be obedient to the commands he reviewed in the previous chapters.
His hope is to motivate the reader to change anything necessary in order to be obedient to scripture. He believes God is leading a movement in this country toward simple, smaller gatherings (which he refers to as Churchbnb), and he longs to see this movement gain greater traction.
The author encourages us not to blindly follow the things he has written. Instead, he wants us to study the scriptures, get alone with the Bible and the Holy Spirit, seek Him with all our heart and surrender everything to Him.
I highlighted a large number of passages in the book. Here are 25 of the best quotes:
1. It is imperative that we differentiate between what we want and what God commands. Not that our desires are all bad, but they must take a back seat to what He emphasizes.
2. In our impatient culture, we want to experience biblical awe without biblical devotion. At the core of our dysfunction is not necessarily style or structure but lack of devotion.
3. What would it mean for us to strip away the distractions and become a people who devoted ourselves to Scripture? I firmly believe that we would see a power in our churches like we’ve never experienced before.
4. If Communion has become boring for us now, it could be that we’ve lost sight of the value of Jesus’ sacrifice. When Communion feels like an obligation rather than a life-giving necessity, a serious heart scan needs to take place.
5. If prayer isn’t vital for your church, then your church isn’t vital.
6. If you can accomplish your church’s mission without daily, passionate prayer, then your mission is insufficient and your church is irrelevant.
7. One thing the New Testament makes clear is that the Church is supposed to be known for its love. Jesus says our love for one another is the very thing that will attract the world. But can you name a single church in our country that is known for the way its members love one another?
8. Scripture is clear: there is a real connection between our unity and the believability of our message. If we are serious about winning the lost, we must be serious about pursuing unity.
9. Obedience often grates against our natural desires, but if we obey only when it feels natural, then Jesus is not truly Lord of our lives.
10. You can’t shape the life of your church around who might leave if things start to feel too much like the New Testament.
11. What if we followed God’s design for the Church and in doing so allowed the Church to be pruned down to only those who wanted to obey His command to “love one another as I have loved you” (John 15:12)? We might actually find that a pruned tree would bear more fruit (v. 2). We might discover that the branches that weren’t bearing fruit were actually sucking all the life out of the tree.
12. Biblical unity is achieved not by overlooking sin but through firm pruning, which can lead to repentance.
13. At the core of our faith lies this belief that almighty God humbled Himself to serve us and die for us. At the root of our calling is a command to imitate Him by serving one another.
14. It’s no secret that most people who attend church services come as consumers rather than servants.
15. It is our inability to take our eyes off ourselves and put them onto others that destroys us. This is what Jesus saves us from. This is what the Holy Spirit wants to do in us. The most humble people are typically the happiest.
16. We have to stop viewing church leaders as people who minister to us. God clearly explained their role. It was not to coddle you but to equip you. Think personal trainer, not massage therapist.
17. Turn around and look. If there is no one following you, something is wrong with your life. God has called you to the work of making disciples.
18. God has always championed the humble person who passionately seeks Him.
19. My goal in shepherding has changed so much. Long gone are the days when I am content with a bunch of people who sing loud, don’t divorce, and give to missions. I now want to know I can drop off any member of my church in a city and that person could grow in Jesus, make disciples, and start a church.
20. The Church is in dire need of a fresh wave of godly leadership. I pray all existing leaders would be renewed or replaced.
21. There are millions of people in our country who call themselves Christians because they believe the Christian life is about admiring Christ’s example, not realizing it is a call to follow it. If they really understood this, the numbers would drop drastically.
22. Run from any teacher who promises wealth and prosperity in this life. The call to follow Christ is the call to joyfully endure suffering in this life for the promise of eternal blessing in the next.
23. Until we embrace the suffering that so many Christians embrace around the world, we’re not going to have an unstoppable Church.
24. More and more often, people are starting to water down their convictions because they don’t want to offend anyone. Instead of embracing the persecution that comes with standing out from and against the world, we have begun to embrace the world to try to convince it to tolerate us. That’s not the way it was supposed to be.
25. I think we have become much too accustomed to allowing sin to invade the church because it’s part of our culture.
The author begins the book by discussing why he left Cornerstone Church eight years ago. He admits that he didn’t lead very well, and that leaving Cornerstone was not an easy decision. After some time overseas, he felt that the Lord was leading him to come back to America to plant churches. Five years ago, twenty years after planting Cornerstone out of a living room, he planted We Are Church. In San Francisco.
Each chapter, or letter, of the book addresses a different issue a church may or may not need to work on. The author writes that the book is about the most obvious commands repeated throughout the entire Bible. He tried to pay attention to the times when God seems most bothered by what His people were doing. He has tried to point out only the most obvious biblical truths about God’s desire for His Bride—truths that he writes none of us can afford to ignore. He states that he has written from the perspective of not worrying about the fallout from the book, but sought only to be faithful to God.
Throughout the book he provides encouraging examples of international churches. However, he writes that as he examines the state of the Christian Church today, he can’t help but think that God is displeased with many of the churches in America. He states that the more he studies the Gospels, the more he is convinced that those of us who live in the United States have a warped view of what it means to be a “Christian”, and it is for that reason our churches are in the state they are in.
The author uses a lot of scripture in this book. Aspects of church that he addresses in the book include devotion to scripture, prayer, unity, community, love, serving others, leadership, humility, suffering and children.
He uses one chapter to describe some things they have done at We Are Church in an effort to be obedient to the commands he reviewed in the previous chapters.
His hope is to motivate the reader to change anything necessary in order to be obedient to scripture. He believes God is leading a movement in this country toward simple, smaller gatherings (which he refers to as Churchbnb), and he longs to see this movement gain greater traction.
The author encourages us not to blindly follow the things he has written. Instead, he wants us to study the scriptures, get alone with the Bible and the Holy Spirit, seek Him with all our heart and surrender everything to Him.
I highlighted a large number of passages in the book. Here are 25 of the best quotes:
1. It is imperative that we differentiate between what we want and what God commands. Not that our desires are all bad, but they must take a back seat to what He emphasizes.
2. In our impatient culture, we want to experience biblical awe without biblical devotion. At the core of our dysfunction is not necessarily style or structure but lack of devotion.
3. What would it mean for us to strip away the distractions and become a people who devoted ourselves to Scripture? I firmly believe that we would see a power in our churches like we’ve never experienced before.
4. If Communion has become boring for us now, it could be that we’ve lost sight of the value of Jesus’ sacrifice. When Communion feels like an obligation rather than a life-giving necessity, a serious heart scan needs to take place.
5. If prayer isn’t vital for your church, then your church isn’t vital.
6. If you can accomplish your church’s mission without daily, passionate prayer, then your mission is insufficient and your church is irrelevant.
7. One thing the New Testament makes clear is that the Church is supposed to be known for its love. Jesus says our love for one another is the very thing that will attract the world. But can you name a single church in our country that is known for the way its members love one another?
8. Scripture is clear: there is a real connection between our unity and the believability of our message. If we are serious about winning the lost, we must be serious about pursuing unity.
9. Obedience often grates against our natural desires, but if we obey only when it feels natural, then Jesus is not truly Lord of our lives.
10. You can’t shape the life of your church around who might leave if things start to feel too much like the New Testament.
11. What if we followed God’s design for the Church and in doing so allowed the Church to be pruned down to only those who wanted to obey His command to “love one another as I have loved you” (John 15:12)? We might actually find that a pruned tree would bear more fruit (v. 2). We might discover that the branches that weren’t bearing fruit were actually sucking all the life out of the tree.
12. Biblical unity is achieved not by overlooking sin but through firm pruning, which can lead to repentance.
13. At the core of our faith lies this belief that almighty God humbled Himself to serve us and die for us. At the root of our calling is a command to imitate Him by serving one another.
14. It’s no secret that most people who attend church services come as consumers rather than servants.
15. It is our inability to take our eyes off ourselves and put them onto others that destroys us. This is what Jesus saves us from. This is what the Holy Spirit wants to do in us. The most humble people are typically the happiest.
16. We have to stop viewing church leaders as people who minister to us. God clearly explained their role. It was not to coddle you but to equip you. Think personal trainer, not massage therapist.
17. Turn around and look. If there is no one following you, something is wrong with your life. God has called you to the work of making disciples.
18. God has always championed the humble person who passionately seeks Him.
19. My goal in shepherding has changed so much. Long gone are the days when I am content with a bunch of people who sing loud, don’t divorce, and give to missions. I now want to know I can drop off any member of my church in a city and that person could grow in Jesus, make disciples, and start a church.
20. The Church is in dire need of a fresh wave of godly leadership. I pray all existing leaders would be renewed or replaced.
21. There are millions of people in our country who call themselves Christians because they believe the Christian life is about admiring Christ’s example, not realizing it is a call to follow it. If they really understood this, the numbers would drop drastically.
22. Run from any teacher who promises wealth and prosperity in this life. The call to follow Christ is the call to joyfully endure suffering in this life for the promise of eternal blessing in the next.
23. Until we embrace the suffering that so many Christians embrace around the world, we’re not going to have an unstoppable Church.
24. More and more often, people are starting to water down their convictions because they don’t want to offend anyone. Instead of embracing the persecution that comes with standing out from and against the world, we have begun to embrace the world to try to convince it to tolerate us. That’s not the way it was supposed to be.
25. I think we have become much too accustomed to allowing sin to invade the church because it’s part of our culture.
January 31, 2019
I had issues with this book. My main problem was that it seemed as if a Biblical model (the house church of the New Testament) was confused for a Biblical command. That, combined with sweeping generalizations that can too easily be refuted, hindered me from being able to buy into what most of Francis Chan was saying. Of course there are problems in the American church, but is the problem that churches are big and the solution that churches should be small? No, that is entirely too simplified. Yet that’s the argument I kept hearing throughout this book, either overtly or implicitly. And the bit of backpedaling he does toward the end of Chapter 9 (“This isn’t meant to be a model for everyone, I’m just encouraging you to dream outside of what church typically looks like!”) was too little too late.
Yes, churches that cast aside Biblical truth in favor of flashy screens, loud music, and cool hipster pastors who are good at creating those killer soundbites you can retweet on Monday (and allow the culture, rather than what the Bible says, to dictate what is preached) are problematic. However, a small house church that holds 13-hour prayer sessions and reads the entire Bible in 72 hours can boast of its humility just as easily as a megachurch with giant video screens and popular preachers can boast of its greatness. Just saying.
Also glossed over is the Biblical truth that Jesus reached people during His ministry both in intimate settings and in groups of thousands. To argue that church should only look a certain way (and that that way should be as a house church) is to criticize the very way in which our Savior brought people to the Gospel. Of all the ways in which Chan oversimplified his point of view in this book, this is probably the most problematic. Speaking in absolutes leads to a narrow worldview which, in this case, does not accommodate the varying ways people have received the Gospel, both in the Bible and in pretty much every period of time throughout history.
Church offerings such as small groups/singles groups were discouraged (because of their perceived frivolity) to the point they were ridiculed (see the Peter and Paul mock dialogue). This argument, coupled with Chan’s notion that your church should be your family, baffles me. What better way to connect with the body of Christ than with a small group? My small group is, in many ways, an extension of my family, and I am thankful for the church that sponsors this gathering of believers. Chan seems to think that large churches and a close-knit atmosphere are mutually exclusive, and that simply isn’t true.
Chan states over and over again that churches/pastors need to equip people to make disciples (certainly true), then turns around and discourages homeschooling in favor of public school, and rails on churches that offer children’s ministries and small groups. This ignores the fact that ministries offered by churches do so in order to guide people’s discipleship so they can go out and make disciples. Also, if Christians should be living out their faith 24/7 as opposed to committing to 90 minutes on Sunday morning (another argument Chan bludgeons his readers over the head with constantly), why not equip our children through Christian education via homeschooling or parochial school? (And no, I’m not trying to say that homeschooling/private school is right for everyone and public school is bad; I’m pointing out how Chan -repeatedly- makes blanket statements that are pursued without any regard for other viewpoints.)
I do believe Chan’s heart is in the right place. I just think he is severely misguided. After reading this and Crazy Love, I’m convinced that he enjoys making controversial statements less as a way to be instructional and more just for the sake of being provocative. That gets so tiring, and other than a couple of nuggets that were useful, this book was a lot of admonishment with very little guidance.
Yes, churches that cast aside Biblical truth in favor of flashy screens, loud music, and cool hipster pastors who are good at creating those killer soundbites you can retweet on Monday (and allow the culture, rather than what the Bible says, to dictate what is preached) are problematic. However, a small house church that holds 13-hour prayer sessions and reads the entire Bible in 72 hours can boast of its humility just as easily as a megachurch with giant video screens and popular preachers can boast of its greatness. Just saying.
Also glossed over is the Biblical truth that Jesus reached people during His ministry both in intimate settings and in groups of thousands. To argue that church should only look a certain way (and that that way should be as a house church) is to criticize the very way in which our Savior brought people to the Gospel. Of all the ways in which Chan oversimplified his point of view in this book, this is probably the most problematic. Speaking in absolutes leads to a narrow worldview which, in this case, does not accommodate the varying ways people have received the Gospel, both in the Bible and in pretty much every period of time throughout history.
Church offerings such as small groups/singles groups were discouraged (because of their perceived frivolity) to the point they were ridiculed (see the Peter and Paul mock dialogue). This argument, coupled with Chan’s notion that your church should be your family, baffles me. What better way to connect with the body of Christ than with a small group? My small group is, in many ways, an extension of my family, and I am thankful for the church that sponsors this gathering of believers. Chan seems to think that large churches and a close-knit atmosphere are mutually exclusive, and that simply isn’t true.
Chan states over and over again that churches/pastors need to equip people to make disciples (certainly true), then turns around and discourages homeschooling in favor of public school, and rails on churches that offer children’s ministries and small groups. This ignores the fact that ministries offered by churches do so in order to guide people’s discipleship so they can go out and make disciples. Also, if Christians should be living out their faith 24/7 as opposed to committing to 90 minutes on Sunday morning (another argument Chan bludgeons his readers over the head with constantly), why not equip our children through Christian education via homeschooling or parochial school? (And no, I’m not trying to say that homeschooling/private school is right for everyone and public school is bad; I’m pointing out how Chan -repeatedly- makes blanket statements that are pursued without any regard for other viewpoints.)
I do believe Chan’s heart is in the right place. I just think he is severely misguided. After reading this and Crazy Love, I’m convinced that he enjoys making controversial statements less as a way to be instructional and more just for the sake of being provocative. That gets so tiring, and other than a couple of nuggets that were useful, this book was a lot of admonishment with very little guidance.
May 24, 2023
Every single person should read this book. Especially people who say they’re Christians.
Jesus forgive me for not really believing in the power of your Spirit. Forgive me to not using my gifts to build up your church. Forgive me for being lazy and seeing ministry as someone else’s problem. Forgive me for not creating space for my kids and the kids and youth around me, to use their gifts. Forgive me for not praying for and encouraging the leadership in my church. Forgive me to complaining and seeing a gathering of your body and an entertainment I’m there to review. Forgive me Jesus and use me. Make me a true disciple of you. Keep me from reading this and judging my church instead of creating change in my life to make the gospel come alive to others. Because I believe it’s worth it. You, Jesus, are worth it. Change my life so it screams to others that you are worth it.
There is so much more. I’m reading it again.
Also one of the only Christian books I’ve read and didn’t think… ok this could be summarized in a pamphlet.
Jesus forgive me for not really believing in the power of your Spirit. Forgive me to not using my gifts to build up your church. Forgive me for being lazy and seeing ministry as someone else’s problem. Forgive me for not creating space for my kids and the kids and youth around me, to use their gifts. Forgive me for not praying for and encouraging the leadership in my church. Forgive me to complaining and seeing a gathering of your body and an entertainment I’m there to review. Forgive me Jesus and use me. Make me a true disciple of you. Keep me from reading this and judging my church instead of creating change in my life to make the gospel come alive to others. Because I believe it’s worth it. You, Jesus, are worth it. Change my life so it screams to others that you are worth it.
There is so much more. I’m reading it again.
Also one of the only Christian books I’ve read and didn’t think… ok this could be summarized in a pamphlet.
September 26, 2018
Francis Chan gives it to you straight. He's not worried about your feelings, your pragmatism, your problems. It's all about God! He brings nothing but meat to the table. All church members need to read this book.
February 12, 2019
I don’t agree with the majority of Francis Chan’s philosophies, but I found this book so interesting! He’s a former mega church pastor who has swung the pendulum completely the other way, now planting home churches with no more than 20 people per church.
However, I enjoyed the first part of this book immensely!! I was convicted on how my attitude can so easily become self-centered in church functions, decisions, and services themselves. As a “church leader” myself I can have the wrong perspective of what church is supposed to accomplish in me and others. Church has become consumer-oriented, people come because of what they get out of it. They quit coming if they’re not getting what they want.
In general I feel this book is a slam against mega churches which I’ve never been a part of, and I totally understand why. I’ve been involved in small churches the majority of my life, and bigger churches the past few years. There are pros and cons to both, yet each attendee makes the personal decision of why they come, what they’re coming for, and who they’re trying to please. This book cuts to the core of all those questions and can help get you back on track.
I am very blessed to be part of a church that preaches truth unashamedly, yet serves and loves people and shares the gospel worldwide. No church is perfect, but how am I adding to my church every single time I interact with those precious people? Very thought provoking!
However, I enjoyed the first part of this book immensely!! I was convicted on how my attitude can so easily become self-centered in church functions, decisions, and services themselves. As a “church leader” myself I can have the wrong perspective of what church is supposed to accomplish in me and others. Church has become consumer-oriented, people come because of what they get out of it. They quit coming if they’re not getting what they want.
In general I feel this book is a slam against mega churches which I’ve never been a part of, and I totally understand why. I’ve been involved in small churches the majority of my life, and bigger churches the past few years. There are pros and cons to both, yet each attendee makes the personal decision of why they come, what they’re coming for, and who they’re trying to please. This book cuts to the core of all those questions and can help get you back on track.
I am very blessed to be part of a church that preaches truth unashamedly, yet serves and loves people and shares the gospel worldwide. No church is perfect, but how am I adding to my church every single time I interact with those precious people? Very thought provoking!
June 30, 2022
This is an excellent book. I think every believer should read and prayerfully consider this book with Scripture. (It also helped that this was an excellent point in my life to read this book, but I would have had the same opinion no matter when I read it. :))
If you were born and lived on a deserted island and all you knew about church was what the Bible says, what would your view of church look like? This book addresses some of this question. Stripped of culture and tradition, what does Biblical church look like? This book isn’t saying structure is wrong by any means, but rather it encourages readers to look to God and His Word and ask Him to remove biases we have that we might not even be aware of. Are our customs actually hindering what God wants to do in some cases? Are they providing an environment that says something completely different from what our statement of faith says?
Highly recommend this book.
If you were born and lived on a deserted island and all you knew about church was what the Bible says, what would your view of church look like? This book addresses some of this question. Stripped of culture and tradition, what does Biblical church look like? This book isn’t saying structure is wrong by any means, but rather it encourages readers to look to God and His Word and ask Him to remove biases we have that we might not even be aware of. Are our customs actually hindering what God wants to do in some cases? Are they providing an environment that says something completely different from what our statement of faith says?
Highly recommend this book.
April 12, 2019
I think Chan seems like a really honest and genuine man. I could be wrong, but he seems to be an earnest, straight-forward Christian pastor. And he has several good things to say that are worth our reflection. One of Chan's strengths is certainly his conviction that we should actually be living the way the scriptures instruct us to. He can't be criticized on that front.
That being said, what Chan possesses in earnestness, he lacks in nuance and analysis. Chan assumes that the goal of the church is to reflect the 1st century form of the church as much as possible. He never defends or questions this assumption and doesn't seem to distinguish between description and prescription in the NT. Secondly, Chan seems to fall under the same error as Platt when he assumes that the Christian life must be this constant and ferocious exertion of effort toward "mission" in ever more radical ways. There is no concept or appreciation for Christians living simple and quiet lives, working with their hands, etc. At worst, I fear that Chan's "radical" vision of the Christian life would lead Christians to rest their Christian identity on their own work of witness, suffering, etc. rather than on the work of Jesus.
Chan also is a bit selective with what he considers to be the 1st century model. He seems to assume that paid, professional pastors and church buildings are a departure from the 1st century model, without dealing with the fact that Jesus worshipped in synagogue buildings and that even though Paul himself refused compensation at times, he admonished Christians who refused to adequately compensate those who had be entrusted with doing the work of the Gospel in their midst.
Finally, while Chan questions many of the megachurch/church growth assumptions that it seems he was previously captive to, he still assumes that the church is like a factory whose goal is to produce a product. If churches are not constantly producing pastors, missionaries, new churches at a feverish rate, then they are failures in Chan's eyes. I think this mindset is more a product of the industrial age than the NT and I would've appreciated seeing Chan question this part of his church growth background as well.
That being said, what Chan possesses in earnestness, he lacks in nuance and analysis. Chan assumes that the goal of the church is to reflect the 1st century form of the church as much as possible. He never defends or questions this assumption and doesn't seem to distinguish between description and prescription in the NT. Secondly, Chan seems to fall under the same error as Platt when he assumes that the Christian life must be this constant and ferocious exertion of effort toward "mission" in ever more radical ways. There is no concept or appreciation for Christians living simple and quiet lives, working with their hands, etc. At worst, I fear that Chan's "radical" vision of the Christian life would lead Christians to rest their Christian identity on their own work of witness, suffering, etc. rather than on the work of Jesus.
Chan also is a bit selective with what he considers to be the 1st century model. He seems to assume that paid, professional pastors and church buildings are a departure from the 1st century model, without dealing with the fact that Jesus worshipped in synagogue buildings and that even though Paul himself refused compensation at times, he admonished Christians who refused to adequately compensate those who had be entrusted with doing the work of the Gospel in their midst.
Finally, while Chan questions many of the megachurch/church growth assumptions that it seems he was previously captive to, he still assumes that the church is like a factory whose goal is to produce a product. If churches are not constantly producing pastors, missionaries, new churches at a feverish rate, then they are failures in Chan's eyes. I think this mindset is more a product of the industrial age than the NT and I would've appreciated seeing Chan question this part of his church growth background as well.
February 6, 2020
This is a hard book to review. What bleeds through every page is Francis Chan’s love for Christ and his desire to serve Him passionately. If there is anything Francis Chan is not, it’s lukewarm. The man pulses with a passionate desire to glorify God. Letters is personal to the point of being intimate. It is Chan’s self-disclosure of what’s been at work in his heart for the last couple decades. It’s so personal that to critique the book is inevitably to critique the author, and I shudder to think of that—I’m not sure it’s fair.
First two disclaimers: Chan hits me right where I live. I will freely and shamefully admit I do not have his passion. I want to serve Christ and glorify Him, but it feels more cerebral and less visceral, and I don’t think that’s necessarily a good thing. So how much of my critique is subjective and not objective? I can’t honestly answer that.
Secondly, I have some doctrinal concerns about some aspects of Chan’s theology of the Holy Spirit. How much of my critique is theological nit-picking? I can’t honestly answer that either.
Positively, this is a good book. It takes a critical, sometimes emotional look at the modern church and finds it wanting. Chan’s commitment is to do church right, which is an excellent commitment in my opinion. He is also concerned that the American church is filled with nominal Christians, perhaps people we can’t even call Christian. I agree. His vision of doing church differently is innovative, intriguing, and well within the bounds of Scripture. He also admits it is not the only way of doing church.
Chapters 6, 7, 8, and 9 are excellent, dealing with what makes a good pastor, with suffering as the normal experience of a Christian, with turning people loose to use their gifts, and principles for remaking church so that it more closely fits the Scripture, respectively.
Much of Chan’s critique is spot on. “Part of the reason we have created a culture of non-committal Christianity that avoids suffering is that we don’t treasure Him enough. We want Jesus, but there are limits to what we will sacrifice for Him. We want Him, but there are lots of things we want in life” [140].
The negatives are significant, but not sufficient to cause one to pass this book by. One of the biggest turnoffs for me, particularly in the first half of the book, is how self-referential Chan’s writing is. That the book has autobiographical features is only part of the explanation. Chan seems to write with a rather self-conscious view that he has been called to reform the church. In fairness to him, this perspective becomes a little less pronounced as the book draws to a close.
There are places in the book in which Chan displays a biblically deficient, rather gauzy view of the first-century church. According to Scripture it was a church that included women who could not get along, church leaders who demanded preeminence, church members involved in sexual immorality, churches that were disputing Paul’s authority, factions, people who were lying about their giving, and so on. Chan laments on page 9 that the modern church looks nothing like the first-century church. Perhaps he should look again.
He repeatedly paints with an exceedingly broad brush. On page 128 he says, “If you listened only to the voice of Jesus, read only the words that came out of His mouth, you would have a very clear understanding of what He requires of His followers. If you listened only to modern preachers and writers, you would have a completely different understanding of what it means to follow Jesus.” But this is simply not true. Is it true of some modern preachers (can anyone say Joel Osteen or name the signs, wonders, and prosperity preachers)? Certainly, but Chan treats the fringe as though it is the mainstream. To take just a few examples of orthodox popular modern writers and preachers, I don’t believe Piper’s Don’t waste your life, or MacArthur’s writings on Lordship salvation undersell the commitment Christ demands.
But Chan uses this broad brush so frequently it makes me wonder what circles he walks in. The church as he describes it seems to be painted in the style of a megachurch that panders to its congregation’s whims and whose main commitment is numerical growth. That sort of church is common enough, but it is not representative of orthodox American Christianity. That is not the model that I see in my church or in other local Bible-believing assemblies here in western Ohio. At times, Chan’s style is shoot-from-the-hip and mischaracterizes biblically faithful churches.
In one particularly telling paragraph, he writes “When I looked at what went on at Cornerstone, I saw a few other people and me using our gifts, while thousands just came and sat in the sanctuary for an hour and a half and then went home” [15]. The implication was that they went home and did nothing. The fact of the matter is that Chan has no idea what they went home and did—he couldn’t possibly know. Some probably did do nothing. Others probably went home and continued to live lives for God’s glory, witnessing to neighbors, friends, and co-workers, ministering to hurting people, inviting folks to Christ and to church. Does Chan think Cornerstone was built only on the strength of his preaching? Does he not realize that perhaps a significant part of the “thousands” were going home and telling others where they could find the answers that they so desperately needed? Perhaps it was the faithfulness of Cornerstone’s members that was behind a significant portion of the church’s growth? Maybe it wasn’t him.
In my own experience at my church, I am regularly finding out (to my delight and surprise) how the average individual in the pew is carrying on faithful ministry to their family, neighbors, and coworkers, far beyond the campus. It’s not the result of a program and it is unheralded, but it is happening all the same.
I’m giving this book three stars. It’s worth the read, but read it with discernment. While Chan is undoubtedly aware, theologically and experimentally, of the diversity of people and personalities God has created, I am not convinced he has allowed his awareness to inform his perspective. Chan is very emotional and very passionate and it’s on his sleeve for all to see. But God also has faithful servants whose love for Christ manifests itself in ways less volatile. What some believers could take away from this book is the mistaken idea that unless they are made in the emotional mold of Francis Chan, there might be something wrong with their confession of Christ.
First two disclaimers: Chan hits me right where I live. I will freely and shamefully admit I do not have his passion. I want to serve Christ and glorify Him, but it feels more cerebral and less visceral, and I don’t think that’s necessarily a good thing. So how much of my critique is subjective and not objective? I can’t honestly answer that.
Secondly, I have some doctrinal concerns about some aspects of Chan’s theology of the Holy Spirit. How much of my critique is theological nit-picking? I can’t honestly answer that either.
Positively, this is a good book. It takes a critical, sometimes emotional look at the modern church and finds it wanting. Chan’s commitment is to do church right, which is an excellent commitment in my opinion. He is also concerned that the American church is filled with nominal Christians, perhaps people we can’t even call Christian. I agree. His vision of doing church differently is innovative, intriguing, and well within the bounds of Scripture. He also admits it is not the only way of doing church.
Chapters 6, 7, 8, and 9 are excellent, dealing with what makes a good pastor, with suffering as the normal experience of a Christian, with turning people loose to use their gifts, and principles for remaking church so that it more closely fits the Scripture, respectively.
Much of Chan’s critique is spot on. “Part of the reason we have created a culture of non-committal Christianity that avoids suffering is that we don’t treasure Him enough. We want Jesus, but there are limits to what we will sacrifice for Him. We want Him, but there are lots of things we want in life” [140].
The negatives are significant, but not sufficient to cause one to pass this book by. One of the biggest turnoffs for me, particularly in the first half of the book, is how self-referential Chan’s writing is. That the book has autobiographical features is only part of the explanation. Chan seems to write with a rather self-conscious view that he has been called to reform the church. In fairness to him, this perspective becomes a little less pronounced as the book draws to a close.
There are places in the book in which Chan displays a biblically deficient, rather gauzy view of the first-century church. According to Scripture it was a church that included women who could not get along, church leaders who demanded preeminence, church members involved in sexual immorality, churches that were disputing Paul’s authority, factions, people who were lying about their giving, and so on. Chan laments on page 9 that the modern church looks nothing like the first-century church. Perhaps he should look again.
He repeatedly paints with an exceedingly broad brush. On page 128 he says, “If you listened only to the voice of Jesus, read only the words that came out of His mouth, you would have a very clear understanding of what He requires of His followers. If you listened only to modern preachers and writers, you would have a completely different understanding of what it means to follow Jesus.” But this is simply not true. Is it true of some modern preachers (can anyone say Joel Osteen or name the signs, wonders, and prosperity preachers)? Certainly, but Chan treats the fringe as though it is the mainstream. To take just a few examples of orthodox popular modern writers and preachers, I don’t believe Piper’s Don’t waste your life, or MacArthur’s writings on Lordship salvation undersell the commitment Christ demands.
But Chan uses this broad brush so frequently it makes me wonder what circles he walks in. The church as he describes it seems to be painted in the style of a megachurch that panders to its congregation’s whims and whose main commitment is numerical growth. That sort of church is common enough, but it is not representative of orthodox American Christianity. That is not the model that I see in my church or in other local Bible-believing assemblies here in western Ohio. At times, Chan’s style is shoot-from-the-hip and mischaracterizes biblically faithful churches.
In one particularly telling paragraph, he writes “When I looked at what went on at Cornerstone, I saw a few other people and me using our gifts, while thousands just came and sat in the sanctuary for an hour and a half and then went home” [15]. The implication was that they went home and did nothing. The fact of the matter is that Chan has no idea what they went home and did—he couldn’t possibly know. Some probably did do nothing. Others probably went home and continued to live lives for God’s glory, witnessing to neighbors, friends, and co-workers, ministering to hurting people, inviting folks to Christ and to church. Does Chan think Cornerstone was built only on the strength of his preaching? Does he not realize that perhaps a significant part of the “thousands” were going home and telling others where they could find the answers that they so desperately needed? Perhaps it was the faithfulness of Cornerstone’s members that was behind a significant portion of the church’s growth? Maybe it wasn’t him.
In my own experience at my church, I am regularly finding out (to my delight and surprise) how the average individual in the pew is carrying on faithful ministry to their family, neighbors, and coworkers, far beyond the campus. It’s not the result of a program and it is unheralded, but it is happening all the same.
I’m giving this book three stars. It’s worth the read, but read it with discernment. While Chan is undoubtedly aware, theologically and experimentally, of the diversity of people and personalities God has created, I am not convinced he has allowed his awareness to inform his perspective. Chan is very emotional and very passionate and it’s on his sleeve for all to see. But God also has faithful servants whose love for Christ manifests itself in ways less volatile. What some believers could take away from this book is the mistaken idea that unless they are made in the emotional mold of Francis Chan, there might be something wrong with their confession of Christ.
November 27, 2018
I was a big fan of Francis Chan right before he fell off the radar. I took my students (I was a youth pastor at the time) through his BASIC series and loved it. I read all his books in print at the time. Crazy Love was one of the first books I read after my decision that Christian books were a good thing.
Letters to the Church is a little off though. He does make some excellent and challenging points, and I'm approaching pastoring in a different way now. But I took a few issues with the book that will make me hesitant to recommend it to others.
#1 - In trying to counter the consumeristic culture, Chan seems to fuel it.
Chan invites his readers to critique and evaluate their churches and pastors throughout the book. In and of itself this isn't a bad thing, but in my particular mission (Southwest Louisiana) we don't need much help in this department.
Pastors and churches in our area are so deeply plagued with consumerism that the natural disposition of many in attendance is to constantly be evaluating, rather that being instructed and challenged.
Now, that isn't to say that you shouldn't test the things your pastors say and weigh it against the scriptures (which Chan does state in his book) but the leaning of the book as a whole is more in a direction that would set the pastor in the perpetual hotseat. Again, we don't need help in this department.
His intention is to try to curb the consumeristic culture, but I think then his advice to the reader becomes more practical, maybe to practical, and his methodology becomes the forefront of the book. This can easily be translated for many readers to, "If your church/pastor isn't doing it this way, then they are doing it wrong."
#2 - We are standing on the shoulders of centuries/millennia of dedicated servants
There is more to say, but I'm going to end it here to remain succinct.
Chan makes an argument that many can work a normal full time job and still remain faithful to teach and preach the scriptures to their congregations. But this just isn't a Biblical precedent.
Paul worked, that's true, until he gained the support of his congregation so that he could intentionally pursue understanding and teaching the scriptures full time.
There is also a clear precedent set for the pastors being paid to pastor. (Luke 10:7, 1 Timothy 5:18)
Chan's model (which is also Tim Chester and Steve Timmis's model, and those books I can heartily recommend to you) only works because he has generations and generations of solid Biblical teaching and preaching to stand on. Which was done by.... you guessed it... full time pastors and teachers.
I'm not advocating for overpayment and/or prostitution of God's people. But I think a full time pastor/scholar/teacher of the Bible and God's people is a good thing. Let's not be hasty to throw that away either.
All that being said...
I still think it was a good read and worth your time. Just bring along a little wisdom and the ability to filter out Chan's methodology as you go.
Letters to the Church is a little off though. He does make some excellent and challenging points, and I'm approaching pastoring in a different way now. But I took a few issues with the book that will make me hesitant to recommend it to others.
#1 - In trying to counter the consumeristic culture, Chan seems to fuel it.
Chan invites his readers to critique and evaluate their churches and pastors throughout the book. In and of itself this isn't a bad thing, but in my particular mission (Southwest Louisiana) we don't need much help in this department.
Pastors and churches in our area are so deeply plagued with consumerism that the natural disposition of many in attendance is to constantly be evaluating, rather that being instructed and challenged.
Now, that isn't to say that you shouldn't test the things your pastors say and weigh it against the scriptures (which Chan does state in his book) but the leaning of the book as a whole is more in a direction that would set the pastor in the perpetual hotseat. Again, we don't need help in this department.
His intention is to try to curb the consumeristic culture, but I think then his advice to the reader becomes more practical, maybe to practical, and his methodology becomes the forefront of the book. This can easily be translated for many readers to, "If your church/pastor isn't doing it this way, then they are doing it wrong."
#2 - We are standing on the shoulders of centuries/millennia of dedicated servants
There is more to say, but I'm going to end it here to remain succinct.
Chan makes an argument that many can work a normal full time job and still remain faithful to teach and preach the scriptures to their congregations. But this just isn't a Biblical precedent.
Paul worked, that's true, until he gained the support of his congregation so that he could intentionally pursue understanding and teaching the scriptures full time.
There is also a clear precedent set for the pastors being paid to pastor. (Luke 10:7, 1 Timothy 5:18)
Chan's model (which is also Tim Chester and Steve Timmis's model, and those books I can heartily recommend to you) only works because he has generations and generations of solid Biblical teaching and preaching to stand on. Which was done by.... you guessed it... full time pastors and teachers.
I'm not advocating for overpayment and/or prostitution of God's people. But I think a full time pastor/scholar/teacher of the Bible and God's people is a good thing. Let's not be hasty to throw that away either.
All that being said...
I still think it was a good read and worth your time. Just bring along a little wisdom and the ability to filter out Chan's methodology as you go.
February 21, 2019
Incredible convicting insight into American church issues. It just didn’t provide enough hopeful practical steps towards change for me. It felt like a diagnosis without a clear prescription. But maybe that’s Chan’s point. God is the doctor not him, so return to Scripture and be nourished.
September 24, 2018
Really thought provoking and makes you consider if the way we do things is because it’s in line with what the Bible says or what our values are... or if it’s just the way we’ve always done it.
June 8, 2019
At the end of the book, Chan says “obviously, I’m not talking about some kind of works salvation.” But after having read the book, I am not sure that is obvious given that this is the most works-based focused book I have read in a very long time.
On the one hand, I applaud him for identifying concerns in the church. We are complacent. Good for him in calling that out.
But: Chan extols the virtue of the Chinese church growth while ignoring the contributions, monetary and otherwise, from the Western churches that have helped make that happen. He ignores the fact that people will come to his church because he is Francis Chan. I suspect the average person who walks up to a lost person and says, hey stranger, come over to my house to read the Bible, will find little success.
He laments the lack of tightly bound family environments of less than 20 people meeting out of homes in American churches while ignoring the fact that many American churches have community/small groups that offer that very thing. (For example, my family hosts a community group — we meet in homes and pray together, read the Word together, and break bread together. I would never have met these people but for my church of 300+ people that, heaven forbid, meets in a building on Sunday mornings.)
Chan rails against children being taught with puppets in American churches — yet I suspect he would be enthused with growth in other countries using an identical approach. Much as a first time visitor to a different country returning to their home country, Chan assumes that the different approach he has seen elsewhere is better. Perhaps it is not — perhaps God has designed his Church to uniquely adapt to the unique cultural background different geographic areas present.
I admire Chan’s genuine appreciation for the wonder of God and the desire that the Church look like what God intends. We should all seek that. And, indeed, I wanted to like this book and was excited about reading it. Instead I just found it exhausting.
On the one hand, I applaud him for identifying concerns in the church. We are complacent. Good for him in calling that out.
But: Chan extols the virtue of the Chinese church growth while ignoring the contributions, monetary and otherwise, from the Western churches that have helped make that happen. He ignores the fact that people will come to his church because he is Francis Chan. I suspect the average person who walks up to a lost person and says, hey stranger, come over to my house to read the Bible, will find little success.
He laments the lack of tightly bound family environments of less than 20 people meeting out of homes in American churches while ignoring the fact that many American churches have community/small groups that offer that very thing. (For example, my family hosts a community group — we meet in homes and pray together, read the Word together, and break bread together. I would never have met these people but for my church of 300+ people that, heaven forbid, meets in a building on Sunday mornings.)
Chan rails against children being taught with puppets in American churches — yet I suspect he would be enthused with growth in other countries using an identical approach. Much as a first time visitor to a different country returning to their home country, Chan assumes that the different approach he has seen elsewhere is better. Perhaps it is not — perhaps God has designed his Church to uniquely adapt to the unique cultural background different geographic areas present.
I admire Chan’s genuine appreciation for the wonder of God and the desire that the Church look like what God intends. We should all seek that. And, indeed, I wanted to like this book and was excited about reading it. Instead I just found it exhausting.
September 9, 2018
So much wisdom here! This book is packed with helpful insight for the church, both its members and its leaders. As a member who was feeling frustrated and discouraged, I was reminded what the purpose of the church is and how I can be a healthy part of it. I may not be in the position to make the changes that are recommended, but I am encouraged that others are seeing the way America has lost sight of what's important.
July 29, 2022
Yes. YES FRANCIS CHAN. This is exactly what I needed to read. A description of what is looks like to follow Jesus. Just Jesus. Just the Bible. Not following others but a life that is following directly what the Bible says. The western world needs to open their eyes to how the Bible tells us to live our lives… and then we need to do it. Great book that I’ll reread.
November 10, 2018
Letters to the Church, Book Review
Mark Gott
Francis Chan sets up the issues beautifully:
He begins with a discussion on the importance of unity. He recognizes, correctly, that we live in a day and age where some church leaders are willing to pounce on you for any missteps. He then pivots to a discussion of the sacredness of the church. He quotes Ecclesiastes 5 which warns us to “guard your steps when you go to the house of God.” Chan then correctly notes that in our pragmatic church culture, we have slipped into a “whatever works” type of orthopraxy. Too many in church leadership view attendance numbers as the mark to success. Thus whatever methods can generate success are acceptable. Its looking at the end results to justify the means. Achievement has almost become our idol.
Chan ends chapter one by implying that the American church of today is addicted to “energetic music, great videos, attractive leaders, and elaborate lighting.” In fact, we have been “trained … to become addicted to lesser things.” I agree wholeheartedly with Chan on the problems as espoused in chapters one and two.
In Chapter 3, Chan moves from a discussion of the problems facing the church of today to a discussion of what Scripture says the church should be. He correctly notes that many church leaders do NOT take this necessary step. Instead of implementing what Scripture commands, modern church leaders try to implement programs that people think they want to cater to felt needs of consumers. This is not the method of Scripture.
Then on page 46 (chapter 3) Chan goes through a list of what Scripture “commands” for the new testament church. He lists things like “love one another”, “visit orphans”, “make disciples,” and that we are commanded to “bear one another’s burdens”. Interestingly, Chan omits the elder responsibilities of “teaching sound doctrine” (Titus 2:1, 2; Timothy 2:15; Col 3:16; 2 Tim. 2:2 ; Eph 4:11-16 “... And he gave some . . . shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints… so that we may no longer be children tossed to and fro…; and last, Paul’s admonition to the Ephesian elders to “proclaim[] the full counsel of God’s word,” (Acts 20). This is in fact a notable omission in my view. For one of the hallmarks of our time is biblical illiteracy. If we are not careful to focus on the elder’s responsibility to teach sound doctrine, we may miss the mark entirely.
In fact, not only does Chan not focus on doctrine or teaching Scripture, there are places where he seems to clearly deemphasize teaching. At page 48, he chastises churches for having lengthy sermons. In Chan’s words, “Many of us have become so accustomed to various traditions that we think they are commanded…. It may surprise you that a forty-five minute sermon isn’t commanded but ‘bear one another’s burdens” is. Understandably, Chan is using some hyperbole here. He is correct that long sermons are not commanded. However, Elders are responsible for teaching God’s word.
Later in chapter 3, Chan again goes in to valid criticisms of American Christianity. Many believers and christians have “strippted the offense” away from our teaching. We try to make things palatable for the hearers. We “use marketing and the lures of entertainment to attract people…” And, Chan correctly notes that the more “we try to fulfill their desires, the more they complain when their desires are not met.” (p. 51). We have adopted a “consumerist mentality.” (p. 53). Chan notes that the early church, per Acts 2, was NOT strategizing ways to get people interested. Rather, they were devoted to what was commanded in Scripture, like meeting in people’s homes for prayer, breaking bread, and having all things in common.
On page 57, Chan does speak on the need to follow the Apostles Teaching, (Acts 2). However, then Chan pivots to talk about the importance of “reading” the Word in church settings. At pages 57-59 Chan literally focuses on reading the word, and NOT teaching and explaining the Word. He says “ If we believed that the Word of God was this powerful, … we would READ these words and expect them to have a life of their own…” (p. 57) Then Chan sites 1 Tim. 4:13 “devote yourselves to the public READING of Scripture”. So he is clearly stating that what is required is to merely READ the word without teaching and explanation.
But is this what 1 Timothy 4:13 really calls for? I think not. Since Scripture interprets Scripture, we must look at other passages to glean the responsibilities we have in this regard. In Acts 8, the Centurian was confused about the Word. He specifically asked how he could understand without someone explaining the words to him. In Acts 17 we see that Paul spent time “reasoning” with people in the temple. There is no indication he merely READ the words. And, if you look at the Apostle’s sermons as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, they were clearly teaching and explaining the word (Acts 13:16-41; Acts 15: 7-11; Acts 17: 22-35; Acts 20: 17-35). Last on this point If Chan is correct that we are to place more of an emphasis on reading the Word than we to teaching the word, then whole passages of Scripture would make no sense. Why in fact would some need to have the gift of teaching? That gift would be rendered of no effect. Further, this interpretation of Scripture would nullify the command in Ephesians 4 to teach the saints in such a way that they mature in Christ and are no longer tossed to and fro by every wave…
And on page 68 Chan states that it matters “little who is reading.” This is patently not true as Scripture equips some saints for teaching and instructing others in righteousness.
My last general critique is that Chan seems to flood readers with a number of red-herrings and overstatements. For instance, he says on page “the fact that we have reduced the sacred mystery of church to a one hour service we attend is staggering.” The fact is, some may do that. But most genuine believers I know who attend corporate worship services would resist the notion that we have done that - and instead seek to live out Christianity at home, in their neighborhoods, in small groups, and at work. We live that out imperfectly because we are sinners. But changing the venue of our worship and meetings will not necessarily change the fact that we struggle living it out imperfectly. Similarly, he asks, at Page 62, “when was the last time you gathered with believers just to pray.” And “does prayer have a meaningful role in your church?” The assumption with these questions/statements is that if we continue to meet in corporate church settings, ie., church buildings, prayer will not have a meaningful role, but if we meet in homes as the early church did, prayer will magically start to become a vital part of our gatherings. I don’t think there is any basis in experience or evidence to suggest people will automatically become devoted to prayer if they attend home churches. For that matter, there is no indication people will not continue to have a consumer mindset if they meet in smaller gatherings or in homes.
Chan also seems to argue that people will be more unified if they live and thrive in “missional communities” . . . or home churches (p. 76). I don’t think that is necessarily true. The small groups I attend in big church are very unified and we look out for each other. I attend “big church” and my small group members regularly text me and check in on me. On the other hand, the first church I knew of that was focusing on “missional communities” meeting in homes quickly broke up when the leadership had a disagreement over methods. So merely meeting in homes and smaller communities is not necessarily going to lead to the type of unity Chan seeks. Chan asks, at page 82 “what would happen if a group of people sought Jesus fervently, loved one another sacrificially, and then shared the gospel boldly?” He implies this will be the norm if we meet in homes and community settings. I don’t necessarily see the connection.
Chan then argues on page 92 that it is not possible for people to use their gifts in corporate church settings. “Even if we wanted all people to use their gifts, is it even possible with the way we currently do things? There isn’t time. When we reduce church to a ninety minute service where one person teaches for forty five minutes and another leads music for thirty minutes, we are left with fifteen minutes for announcements and forced handshakes with people sitting near you.” Again, this is a gross misstatement of what happens in big church. There is obviously some truth here, but its a gross overstatement. Chan ignores the many small groups that exist in most big churches as he unnecessarily places too much emphasis on the one corporate worship event most churches have. However, many in the church break up into small groups either directly after the worship event or in homes during the week. This is where most ministry occurs and where most use their gifts.
Mark Gott
Francis Chan sets up the issues beautifully:
He begins with a discussion on the importance of unity. He recognizes, correctly, that we live in a day and age where some church leaders are willing to pounce on you for any missteps. He then pivots to a discussion of the sacredness of the church. He quotes Ecclesiastes 5 which warns us to “guard your steps when you go to the house of God.” Chan then correctly notes that in our pragmatic church culture, we have slipped into a “whatever works” type of orthopraxy. Too many in church leadership view attendance numbers as the mark to success. Thus whatever methods can generate success are acceptable. Its looking at the end results to justify the means. Achievement has almost become our idol.
Chan ends chapter one by implying that the American church of today is addicted to “energetic music, great videos, attractive leaders, and elaborate lighting.” In fact, we have been “trained … to become addicted to lesser things.” I agree wholeheartedly with Chan on the problems as espoused in chapters one and two.
In Chapter 3, Chan moves from a discussion of the problems facing the church of today to a discussion of what Scripture says the church should be. He correctly notes that many church leaders do NOT take this necessary step. Instead of implementing what Scripture commands, modern church leaders try to implement programs that people think they want to cater to felt needs of consumers. This is not the method of Scripture.
Then on page 46 (chapter 3) Chan goes through a list of what Scripture “commands” for the new testament church. He lists things like “love one another”, “visit orphans”, “make disciples,” and that we are commanded to “bear one another’s burdens”. Interestingly, Chan omits the elder responsibilities of “teaching sound doctrine” (Titus 2:1, 2; Timothy 2:15; Col 3:16; 2 Tim. 2:2 ; Eph 4:11-16 “... And he gave some . . . shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints… so that we may no longer be children tossed to and fro…; and last, Paul’s admonition to the Ephesian elders to “proclaim[] the full counsel of God’s word,” (Acts 20). This is in fact a notable omission in my view. For one of the hallmarks of our time is biblical illiteracy. If we are not careful to focus on the elder’s responsibility to teach sound doctrine, we may miss the mark entirely.
In fact, not only does Chan not focus on doctrine or teaching Scripture, there are places where he seems to clearly deemphasize teaching. At page 48, he chastises churches for having lengthy sermons. In Chan’s words, “Many of us have become so accustomed to various traditions that we think they are commanded…. It may surprise you that a forty-five minute sermon isn’t commanded but ‘bear one another’s burdens” is. Understandably, Chan is using some hyperbole here. He is correct that long sermons are not commanded. However, Elders are responsible for teaching God’s word.
Later in chapter 3, Chan again goes in to valid criticisms of American Christianity. Many believers and christians have “strippted the offense” away from our teaching. We try to make things palatable for the hearers. We “use marketing and the lures of entertainment to attract people…” And, Chan correctly notes that the more “we try to fulfill their desires, the more they complain when their desires are not met.” (p. 51). We have adopted a “consumerist mentality.” (p. 53). Chan notes that the early church, per Acts 2, was NOT strategizing ways to get people interested. Rather, they were devoted to what was commanded in Scripture, like meeting in people’s homes for prayer, breaking bread, and having all things in common.
On page 57, Chan does speak on the need to follow the Apostles Teaching, (Acts 2). However, then Chan pivots to talk about the importance of “reading” the Word in church settings. At pages 57-59 Chan literally focuses on reading the word, and NOT teaching and explaining the Word. He says “ If we believed that the Word of God was this powerful, … we would READ these words and expect them to have a life of their own…” (p. 57) Then Chan sites 1 Tim. 4:13 “devote yourselves to the public READING of Scripture”. So he is clearly stating that what is required is to merely READ the word without teaching and explanation.
But is this what 1 Timothy 4:13 really calls for? I think not. Since Scripture interprets Scripture, we must look at other passages to glean the responsibilities we have in this regard. In Acts 8, the Centurian was confused about the Word. He specifically asked how he could understand without someone explaining the words to him. In Acts 17 we see that Paul spent time “reasoning” with people in the temple. There is no indication he merely READ the words. And, if you look at the Apostle’s sermons as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, they were clearly teaching and explaining the word (Acts 13:16-41; Acts 15: 7-11; Acts 17: 22-35; Acts 20: 17-35). Last on this point If Chan is correct that we are to place more of an emphasis on reading the Word than we to teaching the word, then whole passages of Scripture would make no sense. Why in fact would some need to have the gift of teaching? That gift would be rendered of no effect. Further, this interpretation of Scripture would nullify the command in Ephesians 4 to teach the saints in such a way that they mature in Christ and are no longer tossed to and fro by every wave…
And on page 68 Chan states that it matters “little who is reading.” This is patently not true as Scripture equips some saints for teaching and instructing others in righteousness.
My last general critique is that Chan seems to flood readers with a number of red-herrings and overstatements. For instance, he says on page “the fact that we have reduced the sacred mystery of church to a one hour service we attend is staggering.” The fact is, some may do that. But most genuine believers I know who attend corporate worship services would resist the notion that we have done that - and instead seek to live out Christianity at home, in their neighborhoods, in small groups, and at work. We live that out imperfectly because we are sinners. But changing the venue of our worship and meetings will not necessarily change the fact that we struggle living it out imperfectly. Similarly, he asks, at Page 62, “when was the last time you gathered with believers just to pray.” And “does prayer have a meaningful role in your church?” The assumption with these questions/statements is that if we continue to meet in corporate church settings, ie., church buildings, prayer will not have a meaningful role, but if we meet in homes as the early church did, prayer will magically start to become a vital part of our gatherings. I don’t think there is any basis in experience or evidence to suggest people will automatically become devoted to prayer if they attend home churches. For that matter, there is no indication people will not continue to have a consumer mindset if they meet in smaller gatherings or in homes.
Chan also seems to argue that people will be more unified if they live and thrive in “missional communities” . . . or home churches (p. 76). I don’t think that is necessarily true. The small groups I attend in big church are very unified and we look out for each other. I attend “big church” and my small group members regularly text me and check in on me. On the other hand, the first church I knew of that was focusing on “missional communities” meeting in homes quickly broke up when the leadership had a disagreement over methods. So merely meeting in homes and smaller communities is not necessarily going to lead to the type of unity Chan seeks. Chan asks, at page 82 “what would happen if a group of people sought Jesus fervently, loved one another sacrificially, and then shared the gospel boldly?” He implies this will be the norm if we meet in homes and community settings. I don’t necessarily see the connection.
Chan then argues on page 92 that it is not possible for people to use their gifts in corporate church settings. “Even if we wanted all people to use their gifts, is it even possible with the way we currently do things? There isn’t time. When we reduce church to a ninety minute service where one person teaches for forty five minutes and another leads music for thirty minutes, we are left with fifteen minutes for announcements and forced handshakes with people sitting near you.” Again, this is a gross misstatement of what happens in big church. There is obviously some truth here, but its a gross overstatement. Chan ignores the many small groups that exist in most big churches as he unnecessarily places too much emphasis on the one corporate worship event most churches have. However, many in the church break up into small groups either directly after the worship event or in homes during the week. This is where most ministry occurs and where most use their gifts.
December 12, 2020
I thought Chan provided some good things to think about when looking at aspects of your local church and the importance of being a part of a local church. Good book (got a tiny bit boring at times), but would recommend.
April 21, 2021
One of the most thought-provoking books I’ve read in a while. Forced me to look into and research what scripture says about the church for myself, and will absolutely impact the view I have on the church as a whole and the church in America in the future.
November 15, 2022
A great reminder of what the church was meant to be and how much we complicate, fluff, and water down God’s design for his gathered people. Now to come away from this patient and humble, not demanding change in our churches…that will be the difficult part
October 5, 2018
Francis is a prophetic voice I believe. This is convicting and thought provoking. He ought to be admired for his desire to pursue the gospel and it being spread at any cost.
May 17, 2019
What would the church look like if we erased the modern, western church experience from our memory and built a church based on what we read in the New Testament.
I read this book from a different perspective than most. While the church I grew up in and currently attend does not meet in a home, it is a small church that feels like family and is led by multiple elders who maintain regular jobs (or are retired) and are not paid by the church. Many of the radical, back-to-the Bible concepts Chan brings up didn't feel that radical to me. Instead, these chapters were an encouraging affirmation of a church structure and experience that I love but is often viewed with suspicion by "mainstream" Christianity.
Other chapters of the book were more challenging. Chan gives examples of the discipleship and multiplication that causes churches around the world to regularly plant new churches. In contrast, my church family has steadily aged without adding consistent new members to the flock. Chan reminds readers that this is not how it is supposed to be.
My one complaint with the book was the (respectful-ish) bash of homeschooling. I get what Chan is saying. Christians shouldn't keep their kids sequestered out of fear. But by the same token, public school may be a practice ground for evangelism, but it isn't a training ground for either. I can speak from experience to say that homeschooling equipped rather than crippled my willingness to be different from those around me.
If you are willing to have your view of traditional church structure challenged, this book is a great primer from someone who has been on both sides of the fence.
I read this book from a different perspective than most. While the church I grew up in and currently attend does not meet in a home, it is a small church that feels like family and is led by multiple elders who maintain regular jobs (or are retired) and are not paid by the church. Many of the radical, back-to-the Bible concepts Chan brings up didn't feel that radical to me. Instead, these chapters were an encouraging affirmation of a church structure and experience that I love but is often viewed with suspicion by "mainstream" Christianity.
Other chapters of the book were more challenging. Chan gives examples of the discipleship and multiplication that causes churches around the world to regularly plant new churches. In contrast, my church family has steadily aged without adding consistent new members to the flock. Chan reminds readers that this is not how it is supposed to be.
My one complaint with the book was the (respectful-ish) bash of homeschooling. I get what Chan is saying. Christians shouldn't keep their kids sequestered out of fear. But by the same token, public school may be a practice ground for evangelism, but it isn't a training ground for either. I can speak from experience to say that homeschooling equipped rather than crippled my willingness to be different from those around me.
If you are willing to have your view of traditional church structure challenged, this book is a great primer from someone who has been on both sides of the fence.
December 28, 2023
I feel bad leaving a negative review because 1. Who am I judge, and 2. Jadee gave me this book (jadee, if you see this, I love you and I am still very glad I read).
I enjoyed learning about the differences of the Church today and the Church in Paul’s ministry, and I agree that the American Church can tend to overcomplicate things. I don’t think the Church is always meant to be comfortable. I value the simplicity of the churches you read about in Acts, 1 & 2 Cor., etc. - the focus on communion and worship, the use of everyone’s gifts and tithes, and not rushing to fit the gospel into a 90 minute time slot.
However, I felt like Chan had a narrow mindset while writing this book. I think the idea of a Home Church is really cool and reflects Paul’s ministry very well (and I would love to go to one someday), however, I don’t think it should be the only option and it felt like Chan made a villain out of any other church.
I enjoyed learning about the differences of the Church today and the Church in Paul’s ministry, and I agree that the American Church can tend to overcomplicate things. I don’t think the Church is always meant to be comfortable. I value the simplicity of the churches you read about in Acts, 1 & 2 Cor., etc. - the focus on communion and worship, the use of everyone’s gifts and tithes, and not rushing to fit the gospel into a 90 minute time slot.
However, I felt like Chan had a narrow mindset while writing this book. I think the idea of a Home Church is really cool and reflects Paul’s ministry very well (and I would love to go to one someday), however, I don’t think it should be the only option and it felt like Chan made a villain out of any other church.
October 31, 2019
This is a helpful book. Helpful for those who have been STUCK. Stuck in a church model for spiritual life; Stuck in the apathy of thinking that Holy Spirit power looks like what they see on Sunday; Stuck in middle class North American Christianity. It is a helpful reference point for the churches of tomorrow who will care less about buildings and want to reach back, behind their present ecclesiology, to root the mission in the practices of the early church even as new churches take shape.
The only push back I have is the last full chapter. Read wrongly one might think that the saving of the of Church's mission is a new but smaller church model- a house church model.
The only push back I have is the last full chapter. Read wrongly one might think that the saving of the of Church's mission is a new but smaller church model- a house church model.
April 10, 2019
This book was so challenging and convicting. "The way things have always been done" is never a reason to continue in them. Francis Chan challenges the reader to search the scriptures and to fervently pray when considering practices of the church. That is never wrong to do.
There were points in the book that led me to real soul searching and repentance, especially when he talked about worship.
No one will agree with any book of this nature 100%, but in every point he made, there was something to think about.
I highly recommend it!
There were points in the book that led me to real soul searching and repentance, especially when he talked about worship.
No one will agree with any book of this nature 100%, but in every point he made, there was something to think about.
I highly recommend it!
August 15, 2021
I've read a lot of good stuff this year. This absolutely takes the cake for read of the year. 6 stars. Convicting, written in pure love for the church. This isn't a book you read, but one you deeply experience. Thank you, Francis, for laying this out.
February 3, 2019
A challenging look at what the American church is today and what it should be based on scripture. This is one everyone can read, but I found Andy Stanley's Deep and Wide more helpful overall with it's very practical tips.
July 25, 2023
If you care about the church, this is a great book. I appreciate his focus on scripture and that programs/best talent aren't what make a church. I didn't agree with all his points, but his heart for revamping "church" is refreshing.
December 3, 2020
Eye opening and convicting, but at the same time, this book is refreshing because it clearly aligns Biblical truths with the way we do church. Refreshing because with all the things I feel the modern church falls short in are ways that we are not necessarily fully seeking God in. It’s not meant to be this way, and that room to grow is exciting. Francis Chan talks about things that feel overwhelming relevant right now, so that’s wild. Things that I’ve been thinking a lot about in the past few weeks. Like how we should expect suffering and count it as joy to suffer in Jesus’ name (like the question “why do bad things happen to good people?” - not really relevant for many reasons, one being that the Bible tells us to expect suffering. Not sure why we always forget that) and everything he says about the Spirit! Yes! Why do we make church about entertainment and leave no room for the Spirit to move? We should EXPECT the miraculous. And spiritual gifts! The church should talk about this! And I realized we seek comfort way too much. I’m deeply humbled by the way many Christians outside of the US truly live out their faith. I desire that and their eagerness to suffer for the Lord. It doesn’t have all the answers—but challenges the Church to look more like that of the New Testament. And the part of me that doesn’t feel convicted and discouraged is very excited for what the Church could look like when we are all seeking intimacy with the Lord and ways to use our gifts and disciple others. Lots to think about!
March 25, 2022
This book is amazing encouragement for pointing believers in Jesus back to classic disciple making and the works of the early church. Francis Chan talks about the home church model and how it is effective for ministry in an ever changing building driven American church scene. So many good things to think about in this book and things to incorporate into our own churches and disciple making.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,323 reviews