What do you think?
Rate this book
The Outsider Interviews: A New Generation Speaks Out on Christianity
Statistics tell us that Christianity has an image problem. But what are the stories behind the stats? This question led Jim Henderson, Todd Hunter, and Craig Spinks to host a national interview tour with young non-Christians and Christians in Kansas City, Phoenix, Denver, and Seattle. They wanted to hear why Christians get such a bad rap and what we can do to improve.The Outsider Interviews is a DVB, a book you can watch. This DVD/book combination features films of the interviews, humorous and moving outtakes, and engaging chapters on a broad range of relevant topics including postmodernism, the Bible, homosexuality, judgmentalism, abortion, and evangelism.Inspired by David Kinnaman's bestselling book unChristian, The Outsider Interviews provides close encounters with what a new generation really thinks of Christianity and helps readers learn to live faithfully in a fast-changing world.
- GenresChristianChristianity
198 pages, Hardcover
First published July 1, 2010
2 people are currently reading
45 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
November 17, 2014
Overall, I thought there was some good insight into the outside of the church fences. I did struggle to relate with some of their comments though. Can I learn from this book? Yes, I can certainly gain a better perspective on the outside world in relation to my outward appearance as a Christian. I can also see how certain approaches may be perceived. It does cause me to look a little more deeply at how I approach sharing the Gospel with others. It also gives me perspective on how I live my life. However, the theology of the authors was something found lacking. The real question then is if the below theological issues are true of the authors, is their suggested approach honoring to God? I listed below the specific sections where I found issues with the content.
1. Page 45 hit on the issue of apologetics. At least one of them stated they did not like apologetics because it was all about arguing. Not saying we can do a bad job of it, but that just seems wrong to say that we should not do it. That is basically saying let's not do one of the commands of God because it's unpopular.
2. Page 72-74 Craig discusses how "beliefs are pretty subjective, if I knew that my beliefs were true, then it wouldn't be faith anymore." I totally disagree with this. He is basically saying that we ought to jump blindly into faith. We can know that our beliefs in God are true. Faith comes in knowing who saves us, where we are before a holy God, and the hope that we have in Him for salvation and Heaven. The author has a very skewed view of doctrine. How many times in 1 John alone does it say, "so that you will know" when discussing a truth? While I will admit that sometimes Christians get in the habit of dividing over things that should not cause division, this is the other extreme where doctrine does not matter and that is more dangerous in my opinion.
3. Similar to #2 on page 74-75 Craig talks about the women serving the poor is walking in the footsteps of Jesus whether she realizes it or not. He then says we need to celebrate right practice and not focus so much on right belief. This is a very postmodern statement. Let's not get hung up on what we think the Bible says or means, let's just go do nice things and things we think God might approve of. The Postmodern is completely saturated with a focus on orthopraxy and moving away from orthodoxy. The Bible says that our good deeds are like filthy rags, so "Erin's sister" who serves the poor is no more like Jesus than the serial killer actively trying to kill random people and hating God. I think we can use "good deeds" to begin a discussion with people, but we should never encourage them that their good deeds are good enough to merit salvation or that they are like Jesus. We can never merit that because it's a free gift of grace and something we can never repay.
4. Page 7-787 uses the term CBT (Catch them doing something right, blame them for successful things, and tell others about it through gossip). It further goes on to say that this is what Jesus practiced. Now, I can see how this may have been used with the centurion, but not with the other examples. In fact, all three C, B, and T are not present in the other examples. He summarizes the CBT by saying that God, and Christians, should be looking for the best in people. While I agree that friendliness should include love to other humans, I feel like the Gospel cannot be presented without pointing out the material flaw that we all bear (our sin problem). This just sounds like fake admiration in an effort to make a sale. There is nothing wrong with paying a compliment - Paul did it when he recognized the Athenian people in Acts 17 were "very religious" thus paying them a compliment, but he did not stop there. He went on to preach the God of the universe and His sovereignty. Again, nothing wrong with compliments, but there idea of CBT sounds like a sales gimmick, with ulterior motives - which they say outsiders are weary of from Christians. Maybe parts of this are helpful, but I don't think their Scriptural support was valid and we ought to be careful in how we approach using compliments with people we are sharing the Gospel with - are you complimenting because you genuinely care or because you want to butter them up before the sales pitch?
5. Page 92 the author states that the Gospel is boiled down to "Jesus is the God who likes people." While you may consider this as a part of the Gospel this is not the Gospel and it is not a summary of the Gospel. In the author's defense, he does say that this statement would not satisfactorily address the issue of sin for some. That's true, it does not, but acknowledging that does not mean it's ok. The statement above is more of a fact about Jesus rather than a summary of why He came to earth. The Gospel could be summarized like this: God, man, Christ, response. In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth. He was perfectly holy and righteous. God then created man in His image and gave them a whole world free of sin and evil with one command to refrain from eating any fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. For breaking God's command was sin and the punishment for sin was death and Hell. Man committed the first sin by eating of the fruit forbidden by God thus plunging all of human kind into sin by passing on a sin nature on all who were born. All men have a propensity to sin and seek themselves over God. We have all sinned and deserve punishment. While we were still sinners, God sent His only Son, Jesus Christ, to come to earth to die on a cross for the sins of those who might call out to God for salvation. Christ was perfectly righteous, without sin, and was God. After dying on the cross, three days later, Christ rose from the dead, conquering death, and purchasing salvation and redemption for those who would call upon His name. Lastly, response. Understanding that we are all sinners, unable to escape from this punishment, it is Christ alone who can save - who can satisfy the punishment we deserve. The Bible says that those who call out to Christ, believe in Him, repent from their sins, and commit to following Him will be saved from that punishment. That is the Gospel. I only see the statement above as a fact about the Gospel, not a summary of it.
6. Page 105, the author states, "I really don't know what I believe about homosexuality. On the one hand, it doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to me, but when I get beyond the stigmas I was taught, it doesn't feel all that wrong either. Frankly, I don't feel like I have to decide if homosexuality is right or wrong anymore. It just doesn't matter." That's completely wrong. Now, I agreed with the next sentence that we should treat this people group with respect and love, but going to the extent that there is nothing wrong with their lifestyle is adjusting the Word of God. What if I said that about murder? What if I said that murder being right or wrong isn't really something I need to decide anymore? No, it's wrong. I can show love to death row inmates, but I don't have to change my stance on murder to reach them. This goes too far to "reach people" by adjusting the Gospel. "Hey, come meet Jesus, He loves you just the way you are and you don't have to change because you decide what is right or wrong." That is a slippery slope and not one that any Christian should venture towards.
7. Page 108, the author discusses bounded sets and centered sets in relationship to how communities organize. The author stated that we should be moving away from bounded sets (which focuses on who is inside and who is outside of the boundary circle) and towards centered set (focusing on who is moving towards the center (Christ) and who is moving away from the center). My concern with their approach is that the church is given the responsibility to bind and loose those who are truly followers of Christ and those who are not. The church determines if someone has truly repented and is following Christ through the use of membership and accountability. Now, ultimately, only God knows the hearts of men, but the church is responsible for drawing a boundary line and saying either you are with us or you are not. For this very same reason, churches are commanded to practice church discipline because the act of excommunication is used to draw the person back into the fold. Those who are truly followers of Christ will repent and those who were never saved in the first place will leave and go to the next thing. While I agree that we can take things too far and get to the "frozen chosen" mentality, the church has the responsibility to set the boundary lines and watch over the flock to ensure they are not venturing past the line. I would agree that another goal of the church is to be pushing its members closer to Christ. Therefore, elements of the centered set do ring true, but we cannot forsake the responsibility to draw the line so that others might know who has accurately professed faith in Christ and who has not.
8. On page 126, Craig paints a very postmodern picture of his faith. He explains that he does not need church in the traditional sense, but finds the connecting with a community and regular encouragement elsewhere and so church becomes unnecessary. I have a problem with that because he is forsaking the church. Craig throughout the book makes me very nervous with his beliefs. He crosses several lines that I don't think should be crossed. It's fine that he wants to think outside the box on some things, but I feel like he loses his identity as a follower of Christ when he crosses some lines. He looks no different than the unbelieving world around him. We are not called to be of the world, but in it. We are also called to be salt and light to a dark world. How can you be any of that when you are trying so hard to be just like the world?
9. Chapter 7 was very frustrating. Craig's father saw being gay as a sin (just like any other sin) and actively pursuing a gay lifestyle without repentance (just like any other sin) proves that you are not a Christian. Craig's view is that they just view the passage differently and it's ok. Sorry, but the Bible is incredibly clear that 1) practicing homosexuality is a sin, and 2) any sin pursued as though it is not a sin demonstrates that you have not died to sin and been buried with Christ and raised in new life. The Bible asks the question, how can you be freed from sin in order to live for it? Craig is massively confused and is buying into the postmodern view that some truth is relative. I may be in his age group, but I don't buy into what the world is selling.
10. On page 140, the discussion about using a secular song (I need to wake up) by Melissa Etheridge seemed weird. Now, if this band at this Seattle conference was just entertainment then fine, but if this band was used to lead the folks present in worship to God through song then I have concern about the content. "Rocking the house" and using secular songs, which has no basis in Christ, Christianity, or the church at all, is not worship. Words have meaning. Simply singing songs about change doesn't mean anything. What are you changing, why are you changing, etc.? I'm concerned that American church songs have been boiled down to a few lines that are "fun to sing" but have no content or value. Not saying all modern day Christian music is bad, but I have experienced enough new stuff to know that not all of it is glorifying to God, but just sounds really good. There are good Gospel saturated, God honoring songs out there too, but knowing what you are singing is important. Not all that is labeled "Christian" is honoring to God.
11. Several chapters discuss this problem of Christian "swagger" or having the perception of know-it-all. While pride can get anyone in trouble, it seemed like they did not allow Christians to grow, learn, and have convictions. If you have studied something deeply, why wouldn't you speak up? If people are spouting incorrect facts, or have clearly not studied something, why wouldn't you share a different perspective? Not saying that you have to respond to every conversation you overhear, but remaining silent seems wrong too. Page 146 says, "Christianity has become way too certain of itself. Couple that with political involvement and public exposure, and you get swagger. We've exchanged faith for certainty...I hope it pushes us back where we belong, which is in the faith business." First, faith and certainty are synonymous. The faith they paint is of blind faith without confidence. God never asks us to jump out into blind faith, but to test Him, search for Him, and see that He is God. Second, isn't the Gospel about a certainty of a God that sent His only Son to die on a cross to bear the sins of lost sinners? Isn't certainty about Christ and His work a requirement for being a Christian? If you take away certainty, I think you are left with relativism - and that does not save anyone. Now, is it possible that the authors would respond that some things are certain but not all things? Possibly, but to make a statement that we need to get away from certainty and towards faith is nonsensical.
12. Page 166 shows a quick blurb from Craig on dialogue with outsiders. On the one hand, some of his insights are very helpful. Many Christians don't realize how they come across to the outside world. On the other hand, people like Craig make me very nervous. His pluralistic and "accept all" attitude might be inviting to an unbelieving world, but my concern is that those people who are invited in are never challenged to change later on. Sure, he might have great conversations with others, but when you can't confront or explain why certain thoughts, doctrines, etc. can be dangerous or unbiblical it's very hard to build the church up when they don't know who they are, what they are, what they believe, or what their standing before God is. Not say all people like this cannot be effective evangelists, I just think this is the other extreme where you have a huge church full of outside people but few of them really have any solid conviction based in Scripture, are challenged on a regular basis, or know what it means to be a Christian. I hate this point because it sounds like I am categorizing all people like this into one type of person. That is not true. In this instance though, throughout the book Craig makes several comments that I just flat out don't agree with and it makes me nervous that people like him are out there evangelizing. Now, since he won't make absolute statements because he doesn't want to have swagger I'm not really sure how he can evangelize anyone.
13. Page 174 encourages us to emulate and be like unbelievers. I recognize that there is something to adjusting to your surroundings, but never in Scripture does it tell us to do this. In fact, the opposite is true. Why should a Christian act like an unbeliever so that he can persuade him to be like him? There is no difference if you are the same as the other person. This I believe is a fatal flaw. How can you be salt and light to a dark world if you act like the dark? Now, maybe he was just saying dress like the dark or hang out in the same places as the dark. I don't have a problem with that, as long as the dark places or dark clothing doesn’t violate a command in Scripture. I also recognize that Paul states he becomes like all people so that He might win some to Christ. Again, no issue with that, but the way this book is written sounds like the unbeliever is living the right way and we should be living like they are and being just like them. If you are in Christ though, there should be a huge difference in perspective, action, and your life compared to unbelievers.
14. I saved this for last, because the above items are far more important. If you are still reading then I hope this does not disappoint. The references to beer throughout the book were frustrating. I have a personal conviction that I will not drink anything. If you are a Christian and don’t have the conviction, then by all means have a beer. Having a beer is not a sin. Drunkenness is a sin. If I were writing a book why would I keep bringing this topic up? I felt like they were trying to desensitize us to alcohol because we were in the wrong and needed to change our perspective. It felt like an attack on conservative Christians who will not go near alcohol. If your book is on outsiders and how they view the church, then stick to that. Continually talking about how many beers you had or the need to get more beers is inappropriate. It gives the wrong idea to your readers. Again, if you want to have a beer as a Christian and you have no conviction not to, then do it. But don't throw that in the face of others who have the conviction to abstain from it. That is no different from me throwing it in your face that you should not drink because that is my conviction.
1. Page 45 hit on the issue of apologetics. At least one of them stated they did not like apologetics because it was all about arguing. Not saying we can do a bad job of it, but that just seems wrong to say that we should not do it. That is basically saying let's not do one of the commands of God because it's unpopular.
2. Page 72-74 Craig discusses how "beliefs are pretty subjective, if I knew that my beliefs were true, then it wouldn't be faith anymore." I totally disagree with this. He is basically saying that we ought to jump blindly into faith. We can know that our beliefs in God are true. Faith comes in knowing who saves us, where we are before a holy God, and the hope that we have in Him for salvation and Heaven. The author has a very skewed view of doctrine. How many times in 1 John alone does it say, "so that you will know" when discussing a truth? While I will admit that sometimes Christians get in the habit of dividing over things that should not cause division, this is the other extreme where doctrine does not matter and that is more dangerous in my opinion.
3. Similar to #2 on page 74-75 Craig talks about the women serving the poor is walking in the footsteps of Jesus whether she realizes it or not. He then says we need to celebrate right practice and not focus so much on right belief. This is a very postmodern statement. Let's not get hung up on what we think the Bible says or means, let's just go do nice things and things we think God might approve of. The Postmodern is completely saturated with a focus on orthopraxy and moving away from orthodoxy. The Bible says that our good deeds are like filthy rags, so "Erin's sister" who serves the poor is no more like Jesus than the serial killer actively trying to kill random people and hating God. I think we can use "good deeds" to begin a discussion with people, but we should never encourage them that their good deeds are good enough to merit salvation or that they are like Jesus. We can never merit that because it's a free gift of grace and something we can never repay.
4. Page 7-787 uses the term CBT (Catch them doing something right, blame them for successful things, and tell others about it through gossip). It further goes on to say that this is what Jesus practiced. Now, I can see how this may have been used with the centurion, but not with the other examples. In fact, all three C, B, and T are not present in the other examples. He summarizes the CBT by saying that God, and Christians, should be looking for the best in people. While I agree that friendliness should include love to other humans, I feel like the Gospel cannot be presented without pointing out the material flaw that we all bear (our sin problem). This just sounds like fake admiration in an effort to make a sale. There is nothing wrong with paying a compliment - Paul did it when he recognized the Athenian people in Acts 17 were "very religious" thus paying them a compliment, but he did not stop there. He went on to preach the God of the universe and His sovereignty. Again, nothing wrong with compliments, but there idea of CBT sounds like a sales gimmick, with ulterior motives - which they say outsiders are weary of from Christians. Maybe parts of this are helpful, but I don't think their Scriptural support was valid and we ought to be careful in how we approach using compliments with people we are sharing the Gospel with - are you complimenting because you genuinely care or because you want to butter them up before the sales pitch?
5. Page 92 the author states that the Gospel is boiled down to "Jesus is the God who likes people." While you may consider this as a part of the Gospel this is not the Gospel and it is not a summary of the Gospel. In the author's defense, he does say that this statement would not satisfactorily address the issue of sin for some. That's true, it does not, but acknowledging that does not mean it's ok. The statement above is more of a fact about Jesus rather than a summary of why He came to earth. The Gospel could be summarized like this: God, man, Christ, response. In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth. He was perfectly holy and righteous. God then created man in His image and gave them a whole world free of sin and evil with one command to refrain from eating any fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. For breaking God's command was sin and the punishment for sin was death and Hell. Man committed the first sin by eating of the fruit forbidden by God thus plunging all of human kind into sin by passing on a sin nature on all who were born. All men have a propensity to sin and seek themselves over God. We have all sinned and deserve punishment. While we were still sinners, God sent His only Son, Jesus Christ, to come to earth to die on a cross for the sins of those who might call out to God for salvation. Christ was perfectly righteous, without sin, and was God. After dying on the cross, three days later, Christ rose from the dead, conquering death, and purchasing salvation and redemption for those who would call upon His name. Lastly, response. Understanding that we are all sinners, unable to escape from this punishment, it is Christ alone who can save - who can satisfy the punishment we deserve. The Bible says that those who call out to Christ, believe in Him, repent from their sins, and commit to following Him will be saved from that punishment. That is the Gospel. I only see the statement above as a fact about the Gospel, not a summary of it.
6. Page 105, the author states, "I really don't know what I believe about homosexuality. On the one hand, it doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to me, but when I get beyond the stigmas I was taught, it doesn't feel all that wrong either. Frankly, I don't feel like I have to decide if homosexuality is right or wrong anymore. It just doesn't matter." That's completely wrong. Now, I agreed with the next sentence that we should treat this people group with respect and love, but going to the extent that there is nothing wrong with their lifestyle is adjusting the Word of God. What if I said that about murder? What if I said that murder being right or wrong isn't really something I need to decide anymore? No, it's wrong. I can show love to death row inmates, but I don't have to change my stance on murder to reach them. This goes too far to "reach people" by adjusting the Gospel. "Hey, come meet Jesus, He loves you just the way you are and you don't have to change because you decide what is right or wrong." That is a slippery slope and not one that any Christian should venture towards.
7. Page 108, the author discusses bounded sets and centered sets in relationship to how communities organize. The author stated that we should be moving away from bounded sets (which focuses on who is inside and who is outside of the boundary circle) and towards centered set (focusing on who is moving towards the center (Christ) and who is moving away from the center). My concern with their approach is that the church is given the responsibility to bind and loose those who are truly followers of Christ and those who are not. The church determines if someone has truly repented and is following Christ through the use of membership and accountability. Now, ultimately, only God knows the hearts of men, but the church is responsible for drawing a boundary line and saying either you are with us or you are not. For this very same reason, churches are commanded to practice church discipline because the act of excommunication is used to draw the person back into the fold. Those who are truly followers of Christ will repent and those who were never saved in the first place will leave and go to the next thing. While I agree that we can take things too far and get to the "frozen chosen" mentality, the church has the responsibility to set the boundary lines and watch over the flock to ensure they are not venturing past the line. I would agree that another goal of the church is to be pushing its members closer to Christ. Therefore, elements of the centered set do ring true, but we cannot forsake the responsibility to draw the line so that others might know who has accurately professed faith in Christ and who has not.
8. On page 126, Craig paints a very postmodern picture of his faith. He explains that he does not need church in the traditional sense, but finds the connecting with a community and regular encouragement elsewhere and so church becomes unnecessary. I have a problem with that because he is forsaking the church. Craig throughout the book makes me very nervous with his beliefs. He crosses several lines that I don't think should be crossed. It's fine that he wants to think outside the box on some things, but I feel like he loses his identity as a follower of Christ when he crosses some lines. He looks no different than the unbelieving world around him. We are not called to be of the world, but in it. We are also called to be salt and light to a dark world. How can you be any of that when you are trying so hard to be just like the world?
9. Chapter 7 was very frustrating. Craig's father saw being gay as a sin (just like any other sin) and actively pursuing a gay lifestyle without repentance (just like any other sin) proves that you are not a Christian. Craig's view is that they just view the passage differently and it's ok. Sorry, but the Bible is incredibly clear that 1) practicing homosexuality is a sin, and 2) any sin pursued as though it is not a sin demonstrates that you have not died to sin and been buried with Christ and raised in new life. The Bible asks the question, how can you be freed from sin in order to live for it? Craig is massively confused and is buying into the postmodern view that some truth is relative. I may be in his age group, but I don't buy into what the world is selling.
10. On page 140, the discussion about using a secular song (I need to wake up) by Melissa Etheridge seemed weird. Now, if this band at this Seattle conference was just entertainment then fine, but if this band was used to lead the folks present in worship to God through song then I have concern about the content. "Rocking the house" and using secular songs, which has no basis in Christ, Christianity, or the church at all, is not worship. Words have meaning. Simply singing songs about change doesn't mean anything. What are you changing, why are you changing, etc.? I'm concerned that American church songs have been boiled down to a few lines that are "fun to sing" but have no content or value. Not saying all modern day Christian music is bad, but I have experienced enough new stuff to know that not all of it is glorifying to God, but just sounds really good. There are good Gospel saturated, God honoring songs out there too, but knowing what you are singing is important. Not all that is labeled "Christian" is honoring to God.
11. Several chapters discuss this problem of Christian "swagger" or having the perception of know-it-all. While pride can get anyone in trouble, it seemed like they did not allow Christians to grow, learn, and have convictions. If you have studied something deeply, why wouldn't you speak up? If people are spouting incorrect facts, or have clearly not studied something, why wouldn't you share a different perspective? Not saying that you have to respond to every conversation you overhear, but remaining silent seems wrong too. Page 146 says, "Christianity has become way too certain of itself. Couple that with political involvement and public exposure, and you get swagger. We've exchanged faith for certainty...I hope it pushes us back where we belong, which is in the faith business." First, faith and certainty are synonymous. The faith they paint is of blind faith without confidence. God never asks us to jump out into blind faith, but to test Him, search for Him, and see that He is God. Second, isn't the Gospel about a certainty of a God that sent His only Son to die on a cross to bear the sins of lost sinners? Isn't certainty about Christ and His work a requirement for being a Christian? If you take away certainty, I think you are left with relativism - and that does not save anyone. Now, is it possible that the authors would respond that some things are certain but not all things? Possibly, but to make a statement that we need to get away from certainty and towards faith is nonsensical.
12. Page 166 shows a quick blurb from Craig on dialogue with outsiders. On the one hand, some of his insights are very helpful. Many Christians don't realize how they come across to the outside world. On the other hand, people like Craig make me very nervous. His pluralistic and "accept all" attitude might be inviting to an unbelieving world, but my concern is that those people who are invited in are never challenged to change later on. Sure, he might have great conversations with others, but when you can't confront or explain why certain thoughts, doctrines, etc. can be dangerous or unbiblical it's very hard to build the church up when they don't know who they are, what they are, what they believe, or what their standing before God is. Not say all people like this cannot be effective evangelists, I just think this is the other extreme where you have a huge church full of outside people but few of them really have any solid conviction based in Scripture, are challenged on a regular basis, or know what it means to be a Christian. I hate this point because it sounds like I am categorizing all people like this into one type of person. That is not true. In this instance though, throughout the book Craig makes several comments that I just flat out don't agree with and it makes me nervous that people like him are out there evangelizing. Now, since he won't make absolute statements because he doesn't want to have swagger I'm not really sure how he can evangelize anyone.
13. Page 174 encourages us to emulate and be like unbelievers. I recognize that there is something to adjusting to your surroundings, but never in Scripture does it tell us to do this. In fact, the opposite is true. Why should a Christian act like an unbeliever so that he can persuade him to be like him? There is no difference if you are the same as the other person. This I believe is a fatal flaw. How can you be salt and light to a dark world if you act like the dark? Now, maybe he was just saying dress like the dark or hang out in the same places as the dark. I don't have a problem with that, as long as the dark places or dark clothing doesn’t violate a command in Scripture. I also recognize that Paul states he becomes like all people so that He might win some to Christ. Again, no issue with that, but the way this book is written sounds like the unbeliever is living the right way and we should be living like they are and being just like them. If you are in Christ though, there should be a huge difference in perspective, action, and your life compared to unbelievers.
14. I saved this for last, because the above items are far more important. If you are still reading then I hope this does not disappoint. The references to beer throughout the book were frustrating. I have a personal conviction that I will not drink anything. If you are a Christian and don’t have the conviction, then by all means have a beer. Having a beer is not a sin. Drunkenness is a sin. If I were writing a book why would I keep bringing this topic up? I felt like they were trying to desensitize us to alcohol because we were in the wrong and needed to change our perspective. It felt like an attack on conservative Christians who will not go near alcohol. If your book is on outsiders and how they view the church, then stick to that. Continually talking about how many beers you had or the need to get more beers is inappropriate. It gives the wrong idea to your readers. Again, if you want to have a beer as a Christian and you have no conviction not to, then do it. But don't throw that in the face of others who have the conviction to abstain from it. That is no different from me throwing it in your face that you should not drink because that is my conviction.
January 26, 2016
My husband picked up this book and has been reading it. I decided to join him in it. While I've read the book, we haven't watched the videos yet. (It's harder to find time to watch the videos together while there are kids in the house.)
So, I'll write my review, but may update it after I've seen the videos.
This book interviews people outside the Christian faith about their impressions of Christianity. It is about how present-day Christianity is perceived by others in a mostly negative fashion and why. Interviews were conducted at four large cities - Kansas City, Phoenix, Denver, and Seattle, with several "Outsiders" being interviewed at each city. The word "Outsider" was used because the outsiders didn't know Jesus' parable of the word "lost" and felt it was derogatory.
The Outsiders felt that Christians had too much "swagger," that they were too arrogant. Also, the Outsiders felt they need the Christians to LISTEN to them in order to process and feel validated. Outsiders didn't want someone just teaching or preaching at them from a distance (physical or emotional) without really knowing them personally. They want to be liked for who they are. It's telling that one of those interviewed, Klarisa, said, "I've never had anybody say they want to save me and felt like they truly loved me."
They define the word "belief" differently. (In fact, it's good to make sure that there's consensus on any word when having conversations.) To some of them, beliefs are what you feel about the social issues (homosexuality, abortion, etc) while faith is what you feel about the big issues (God, Jesus, etc.)
They wanted to downplay the conversation about Hell because it's "a pretty disrespectful if not impossible way to start a relationship." They didn't seem to understand that God Himself does not like Hell, and "is not willing that any should perish." (2 Peter 3:9) Believing in the danger of a Hell does NOT mean wanting someone to go there, or hating them.
Outsiders don't like to be labeled as to whether they're in a group or not, but whether they're moving toward a common goal or not - moving towards Jesus or not.
Views on homosexuality were off-putting to friendship. One of the young Christians (20's) said of himself, "Treat me with some dignity. you may think I am dead wrong, but the more you tell me I'm wrong, the less I'm going to listen to you. Don't try to prove me wrong. If you'd like to share how you've come to believe a certain way, that's great. But I'm going to start running you out the second you start referencing absolutes I can't argue with (yes, that means scripture.) When you do talk about Scripture, please keep in mind that I may approach Scripture differently than you do. Don't use Scripture as a weapon."
Outsiders like to be asked to serve alongside, even if they don't believe.
Outsiders feel Christians are too involved in politics and power-mongering.
Favorite quotes were:
"Neurotic dodging of the truth, for example, in order to live in all manner of harmful behavior is not good for anyone. But honest seeking, which temporarily increases a sense of uncertainty, is not only a good and normal thing, it's the basis for beautiful conversations about faith."
"Bashing Paul doesn't elevate Jesus. A better tact would be to follow the teachings of Jesus the way Paul did."
"Along the way some see that there is something real in the Christian community and begin to ask questions about faith in Jesus and what it means to follow Him."
"Young insiders and outsiders share a commonality in wanting to make the world a better place."
"The vast majority of outsiders genuinely desire a spiritual life. They would love to talk about it if they could find some good dialogue partners."
So, I'll write my review, but may update it after I've seen the videos.
This book interviews people outside the Christian faith about their impressions of Christianity. It is about how present-day Christianity is perceived by others in a mostly negative fashion and why. Interviews were conducted at four large cities - Kansas City, Phoenix, Denver, and Seattle, with several "Outsiders" being interviewed at each city. The word "Outsider" was used because the outsiders didn't know Jesus' parable of the word "lost" and felt it was derogatory.
The Outsiders felt that Christians had too much "swagger," that they were too arrogant. Also, the Outsiders felt they need the Christians to LISTEN to them in order to process and feel validated. Outsiders didn't want someone just teaching or preaching at them from a distance (physical or emotional) without really knowing them personally. They want to be liked for who they are. It's telling that one of those interviewed, Klarisa, said, "I've never had anybody say they want to save me and felt like they truly loved me."
They define the word "belief" differently. (In fact, it's good to make sure that there's consensus on any word when having conversations.) To some of them, beliefs are what you feel about the social issues (homosexuality, abortion, etc) while faith is what you feel about the big issues (God, Jesus, etc.)
They wanted to downplay the conversation about Hell because it's "a pretty disrespectful if not impossible way to start a relationship." They didn't seem to understand that God Himself does not like Hell, and "is not willing that any should perish." (2 Peter 3:9) Believing in the danger of a Hell does NOT mean wanting someone to go there, or hating them.
Outsiders don't like to be labeled as to whether they're in a group or not, but whether they're moving toward a common goal or not - moving towards Jesus or not.
Views on homosexuality were off-putting to friendship. One of the young Christians (20's) said of himself, "Treat me with some dignity. you may think I am dead wrong, but the more you tell me I'm wrong, the less I'm going to listen to you. Don't try to prove me wrong. If you'd like to share how you've come to believe a certain way, that's great. But I'm going to start running you out the second you start referencing absolutes I can't argue with (yes, that means scripture.) When you do talk about Scripture, please keep in mind that I may approach Scripture differently than you do. Don't use Scripture as a weapon."
Outsiders like to be asked to serve alongside, even if they don't believe.
Outsiders feel Christians are too involved in politics and power-mongering.
Favorite quotes were:
"Neurotic dodging of the truth, for example, in order to live in all manner of harmful behavior is not good for anyone. But honest seeking, which temporarily increases a sense of uncertainty, is not only a good and normal thing, it's the basis for beautiful conversations about faith."
"Bashing Paul doesn't elevate Jesus. A better tact would be to follow the teachings of Jesus the way Paul did."
"Along the way some see that there is something real in the Christian community and begin to ask questions about faith in Jesus and what it means to follow Him."
"Young insiders and outsiders share a commonality in wanting to make the world a better place."
"The vast majority of outsiders genuinely desire a spiritual life. They would love to talk about it if they could find some good dialogue partners."
March 10, 2011
Asking outsiders their opinions of Christians and the Church is kinda like asking criminals their opinion of the justice system. Mostly a waste of time.
The authors did come across one useful conclusion: Christians should be nicer. And this is good to know. very important.
But asking them Questions about theology or church services or Christian values is a total waste of time. The spiritually blind do not have a trustworthy opinion on these topics. Should we ever gear our churches towards them? NO. But thanks to modern preachers and people who make books like this we are.
Would Jesus drive a girl to an appointment with an abortion clinic? I doubt very much that he would.
Would Jesus drive a person to an appointment to have a marital affair? No. But its the same thing.
Would Jesus drive a junkie to meet his pusher? Most likely No.
He would go with them - but he definitely wouldn't be the person driving.
The authors here attempted to do a good thing - but a dangerous thing too!
October 8, 2010
The unusual format (this is a DVB... DVD + book) actually works quite well... in fact, my review would be much less gracious if it wasn't for the excellent interview content on the DVD.
The book itself makes some excellent observations about the perceptions of outsiders (and insiders) re: Christianity... but then there's some odd conversations that seemingly undermine the value of orthodox theology (not sure that's what the authors intend, but that's how it comes off) and a ridiculous obsession with the alcoholic beverage intake of the authors that are jarring (to say the least).
The DVB really shines when it lets young outsiders speak for themselves... and it is for that reason that I recommend this resource to church leaders attempting to reach the next generation.
The book itself makes some excellent observations about the perceptions of outsiders (and insiders) re: Christianity... but then there's some odd conversations that seemingly undermine the value of orthodox theology (not sure that's what the authors intend, but that's how it comes off) and a ridiculous obsession with the alcoholic beverage intake of the authors that are jarring (to say the least).
The DVB really shines when it lets young outsiders speak for themselves... and it is for that reason that I recommend this resource to church leaders attempting to reach the next generation.
February 26, 2012
This is a project inspired by the book 'unchristian.' Jim Henderson, Todd Hunter, and Craig Spinks conducted interviews with 'outsiders.' By this they mean people in their 20's that don't fit in traditional church (some are atheists, unbelievers, and some Jesus followers who don't like to self-identify as Christian because of the baggage). They asked them questions about various issues and perceptions of Christianity. The DVD provides the footage of the interviews. The book is the authors' reflections upon the interviews and the whole project.
The video is fine and even has some interesting parts. The book is kind of blah. I didn't gain many 'insights' from either. Apparently we are supposed to listen to people now, and love them
The video is fine and even has some interesting parts. The book is kind of blah. I didn't gain many 'insights' from either. Apparently we are supposed to listen to people now, and love them
March 7, 2014
I have been familiar with Mr. Henderson's work for about thirteen years now. I was introduced to him at a evangelism conference in Cincinnati. His strength is in the commitment to hear the perspectives of those people who are outside the church. So many times insiders function on a stereotype of outsiders. Henderson is all about crushing those stereotypes. He does so with good reason. How can we communicate the good news to people that we haven't taken the time to listen to, or learn about. Much evangelistic efforts are geared toward numbers instead of relationship. One disturbing quote was from a young woman who said that she had never felt loved by the very people who were trying to get her saved.
There is a DVD that comes with the book that is fun to watch as well.
There is a DVD that comes with the book that is fun to watch as well.
August 9, 2010
I used this with our HS Youth Group....helping us all understand how "outsiders" feel about being around those that claim to be Christians. A valuable dvd accompanies the book. Great insight. Produced awesome discussions with our HS kids.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews