Jim & Casper Go to Church – Book Review

Ever thought to hire someone to go to church with you? No, this isn’t desperation-evangelism. Far from it. A former pastor and executive director of Off the Map, Jim Henderson hires an atheist acquaintance, Matt Casper, to visit churches across the country because he wants to learn from his observations and experiences.

Jim and Casper fascinated and refreshed me. You’ve probably heard the saying, “things are clearer from the outside looking in.” The experiences of Jim and Casper illustrate the cliche well. Casper’s point of view is provoking and intelligent. His ability to hone in on aspects of church culture that I gloss over from familiarity was stimulating. I respect Casper for approaching the project (visiting house churches, mega-churches, and everything in between) with an open mind and quickly giving credit and praise where it was due. Yet with nothing to lose and honesty as his guiding principle, Casper says things I’ve rarely heard about church let alone said within church, and thus consistently and effectively also fells herds of sacred cows. Perhaps most challenging was Casper repeatedly returning to the question, “Is this what Jesus told you guys to do?”

Besides keeping me laughing at Jim & Casper’s humor, this book had me wondering, “Yeah, why do churches do that / say that? Where does that come from? How are we perpetuating empty practices?”

The tagline for this book is “A believer, an atheist, an unlikely friendship…” Perhaps one of my favorite parts of the book was eavesdropping on the relationship develop between Jim & Casper. They show that relationships between atheists and believers don’t have to be unlikely at all.

This book was well worthwhile and to the church’s benefit to read.

Jesus on how to throw a party – Audio Post

Where did Church Names Come From?

From infancy through today I’ve attended various local churches, each with its own name. A sample: Northlake Christian Church, Calvary Christian Assembly, Scum of the Earth Church. Church names are normative – every church has a name – and for that reason I never thought much of it.

But I wonder why/when/how did church-naming start?

The New Testament refers to the church of various localities such as “the church in Jerusalem” (Acts 8:1), “the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria” (Acts 9:31), “the church at Antioch” (Acts 13:1), “church at Cenchreae” (Romans 16:1), “the church of God that is in Corinth” (1 Cor 1:2) and there are many more. But these are not the same as our church names. To me this sounds more like, “the part of the body of Christ that is in Antioch” whereas our church names have more to do with posturing and positioning (intended or not).

If Paul were writing a letter to the church in America today, might our epistle contain a section about church names comparable to 1 Corinthians 1:10-13 (below), where Paul addresses division rooted in leadership preferences?

I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? (ESV)

Aren’t church names kind of the same? At the end of the day, aren’t they more about distinctions among God’s people?

Am I making too much of this? Am I being too serious?

It’s not like God hasn’t used church names, after all. Personally, I’ve seen him use Scum of the Earth to bring people closer to Jesus.
And we all know this verse: “And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.” (Rom 8:28) All things. Church names too!

But just because God can work good from all things does not mean all things have his blessing. My hunch is that there is more to be had but we settle – we miss out. I’m not here to say church names are wrong. I am wondering if there is a better alternative. Just because church names have been our norm does not mean they express God’s vision for the church. We cripple ourselves to use personal experience as a guiding standard, especially when we dismiss what God is doing around the world.

At the end of the day, especially in an era where church names are “the way it is”, it’s hard to know whether church names are ultimately more helpful or unhelpful. We might do well to consider what church names have cost the church.

What reasons prohibit us from pursuit of simply being nameless and faceless disciples making disciples, loving God and our neighbors, letting the Holy Spirit lead, passionate about the Kingdom and its King, and finding our identity in Jesus alone?