Jake Colsen is the author of So You Don’t Want to Go to Church Anymore. Jake Colsen does not exist. Rather, he is a pseudonym for the combined work of Dave Coleman and Wayne Jacobsen. You may recognize Wayne Jacobsen as one of the founders of Windblown Media, the company that published a little book called The Shack—a little book that has gone on to sell well over a million copies. As The Shack has found international renown, it has pulled in its wake Windblown Media’s two other titles, both of which are written or co-written by Jacobsen. At the moment I write this review, So You Don’t Want to Go to Church Anymore is ranked #259 in Books at Amazon and #4 in Religious & Spirituality Fiction (placing behind three editions of The Shack). Its success is very clearly related to that of The Shack (where it has an advertisement on the back page).
While So You Don’t Want to Go to Church Anymore must be evaluated on its own merits, comparisons to The Shack are inevitable. Both are works of fiction but fiction designed to teach theology; both involve an ignorant Christian who meets a wiser person who explains to him the truth about Christianity (in The Shack this person is God while in this book it is a man named John); both books focus primarily on dialog and are in no way Ted Dekker-like thrillers where the theology is veiled in the story; both are successes for their publisher and, in their own way, most unlikely successes.
So You Don’t Want to Go to Church Anymore is a story about a man named Jake (the book is meant to be fictitiously autobiographical where the author, Jake Colsen, writes about his own experiences). Jake is an associate pastor at a fast-growing mega-church. In the book’s early pages he encounters a man named John whom he comes to believe may just be the Apostle John (though this question is never actually resolved). While he does not have much of an opportunity to interact with John at first, he hears words which set his heart and mind reeling. He realizes quickly that his Christian faith is almost hopelessly rote and anemic. “Although I had been a Christian for more than two decades, I had no concept of who Jesus was as a person and no idea how I could change that.” This book covers a span of months or years which sees him grow from a pastor of immature faith to a man of wisdom and mature faith.
The book is framed around continued encounters with this character John. In fact, almost every chapter begins with Jake thinking or worrying about a particular issue, only to have John quickly and mysteriously materialize. John helps Jake overcome his fears and his questions and then disappears to leave him to think about and to implement the things he now knows.
The predominant theme of the book is issues surrounding the local church (and because I would like to keep this review reasonably short, I will deal only with this issue in the review). The overall teaching is that the church as most Christians understand it is a human institution and one designed primarily to gain and to protect power. The Bible, according to the authors, does not teach that Christians should be part of any kind of institutional church. This is not to say that we should leave mega-churches to join smaller house churches; rather, we should abandon this kind of church model altogether. While the authors do not clearly or precisely share what Christians should or can do in its place, it seems that it would look something like this: “Instead of trying to build a house church, learn to love one another and share one another’s journey. Who is he asking you to walk alongside right now and how can you encourage them? I love it when brothers and sisters choose to be intentional in sharing God’s life together in a particular season. So, yes, experiment with community together. You’ll learn a lot. Just avoid the desire to make it contrived, exclusive, or permanent. Relationships don’t work that way.” The book’s appendix is a pamphlet written by Jacobsen which addresses his view of church life. Here he says, “Fellowship happens where people share the journey of knowing Jesus together. It consists of open, honest sharing, genuine concern about one another’s spiritual well being and encouragement for people to follow Jesus however he leads them.” By the book’s closing pages, Jake has left the church and now meets irregularly with an irregular group of people from his community. This is presented as being a form of authentic spirituality that is closer to the biblical model than that which is practiced by the vast majority of Christians today. It is the better alternative to church as most Christians know and experience it.
Of course I would be drawn to this model, too, if my church was anything like the one Jake comes from. His congregation is much like a drunken fraternity. The pastor is an angry man who holds tightly to his power, who expects people to lie to protect his reputation and who is having an abusive affair with a vulnerable congregation member. The members of the church are petty and divisive, heartlessly shunning those who disagree with them, demanding immediate restitution for any perceived wrong, persecuting children who do not properly memorize their verses, and fighting for positions of prominence within the local church. Overall, the authors give an exceedingly negative portrayal of the local church. It is a portrayal that includes all the stereotypes so treasured by those who hate Christianity. The church members are hopelessly ignorant, able to recite chapter and verse but knowing nothing of the “heart” of Scripture. Hence even two lifelong pastors react with apparent shock when they learn that “church” in the Bible primarily refers not to an institution but to a people (as if no Protestant has ever bothered to distinguish between the visible and the invisible church). Against this brutal portrayal of Christian community, the authors present their alternative. And needless to say, it looks awfully good in comparison.
But what if Jacobsen, instead of fabricating a ridiculous parody of a church, had looked to the New Testament church? While So You Don’t Want to Go to Church Anymore is theological fiction, the reader may well note that there is little reference to the Bible. Because it is fiction we might not expect to see direct references to particular passages (and, indeed, we do not) but there is little by way even of indirect references. John assumes a certain knowledge of Jesus and common sense spirituality and uses this as his bridge to the hearts and minds of the reader. Rather than saying, “The Bible says this…” he tends to say, “This is what the church is like… Doesn’t my version look better?” And of course, with such a dysfunctional church in mind, it really does look better. He looks to the New Testament church on occasion, but is awfully selective, taking only those elements that further his case. He eschews any kind of church hierarchy or office (such as elder and deacon) and in its place leaves only peer-to-peer relationships. If it is in any way formal or organized, it is wrong, it would seem.
Though Jacobsen does occasionally affirm that institutional churches may do some good, the theme of the book comes through loud and clear. In the appendix Jacobsen says, without any apparent trace of hyperbole, “I can tell you absolutely that my worst days outside organized religion are still better than my best days inside it.” And from cover-to-cover, the book is heartlessly negative towards the local church. Christians should, and perhaps even must, withdraw. But the case is made through emotion and through false comparison. Those who hold closely to Scripture may affirm some of what Jacobsen teaches in this book, but they must reject its overall message.
Here are a few interesting quotes from the book:
“Most of what we call ‘church’ today are nothing more than well-planned performances with little actual connection between believers. Believers are encouraged toward a growing dependency on the system or its leadership rather than on Jesus himself. We spend more energy conforming behavior to what the institution needs rather than helping people be transformed at the foot of the cross!”
“Jesus indicated that whenever two or three people get together focused on him, they would experience the vitality of church life.”
“My favorite expression of body life is where a local group of people chooses to walk together for a bit of the journey by cultivating close friendships and learning how to listen to God together.”
“By providing services to keep people coming, [an institution] unwittingly becomes a distraction to real spiritual life. It offers an illusion of spirituality in highly orchestrated experiences, but it cannot show people how to live each day in him through the real struggles of life.”
“The more organization you bring to church life, the less life it will contain.”
“As long as we see church life as a meeting we’ll miss its reality and its depth. If the truth were told, the Scriptures tell us very little about how the early church met. It tells us volumes about how they shared life together. They didn’t see the church as a meeting or an institution, but as a family living under Father.”
“Any human system will eventually dehumanize the very people it seeks to serve and those it dehumanizes the most are those who think they lead it.”
“[God’s wrath at the cross] wasn’t an expression of the punishment sin deserves; it was the antidote for sin and shame.”
“Religious systems prey on people’s insecurity. They haven’t learned how to live in Father’s love, to follow his voice and depend on him.”






Comments (18) »
1. carissa
August 26, 2008
11:37 AM
thanks for this review. while i’ve thought in the past that some negative reviews of The Shack can be overblown, this book truly sounds awful - poorly written (based on the quotations given), new age/postmodern to an embarrassing degree, and uninformed at best. it does sound more like forcefeeding than the honest searching and “rediscovery” that advocates of “personalized church” purport. yikes.
2. Laurie
August 26, 2008
11:46 AM
“…avoid the desire to make it contrived, exclusive, or permanent. Relationships don’t work that way.” Apparently not, judging by the divorce rate these days. Really though, the “relationship” of marriage is specifically representative of Christ and the Church, which is nothing if not exclusive and permanent (I would add contrived, but I honestly don’t know what he means by that.)
Thanks for the review.
3. JJ
August 26, 2008
12:16 PM
I’m seeing a scary trend in “Christian fiction”. I’m sure The Shack and this book aren’t the first of their kind, but they’re the first to be accepted (and adored) by many Christians. It scares me that so many Christians could be sucked into something so unbiblical.
4. Kevin Sorensen
August 26, 2008
12:17 PM
Thanks, once again, Tim, for providing a thorough review of a book that I probably won’t have or take the time to read. I pastor a small church that sounds almost diametrically opposed to the “church” depicted in this book: it is a loving, caring group of people, in solid relationship with one another and with our Lord Jesus Christ, who, while striving to look more and more like Him, still do not (may God have grace and mercy upon us).
The actual quotes you provided were fascinating and, in some respects, proof of the observation that neither did the author provide Scripture references or include, at least, paraphrases of verses in the course of conversations. I found this one intriguing: “Jesus indicated that whenever two or three people get together focused on him, they would experience the vitality of church life.” I would like to ask “Jake” where this is located in the Gospels, or indeed, even in the rest of the New Testament. If he has in mind that passage about “where two or three are gathered”, then he’s not only missed the context, but also provided evidence for relationships that are exclusive and impermanent, for this passage in Matthew 18 speaks about corrective church discipline and the leaders of the church (the two or three spoken of) who are to cast a “brother” out and treat him like a pagan or a tax-collector.
What this seems to indicate to me, even on the surface through the reading of a review rather than the book itself, is a very casual glance at Scripture, even worse than really bad proof-texting. It may appear that this book is fiction, much like The Shack. However, in my few conversations with those who have read The Shack, they really don’t view it as fiction, when it comes to how their thinking about God is shaped by that book. They will argue to me, “It’s just fiction; don’t get so bent out of shape by it” and then turn around and say, “This has taught me so much about God and who He is.” Heaven help us. God help us. And God have mercy on us all.
5. Tim Challies
August 26, 2008
12:30 PM
“If he has in mind that passage about “where two or three are gathered”, then he’s not only missed the context, but also provided evidence for relationships that are exclusive and impermanent, for this passage in Matthew 18 speaks about corrective church discipline and the leaders of the church (the two or three spoken of) who are to cast a “brother” out and treat him like a pagan or a tax-collector.”
That’s the great irony, isn’t it? The passage he uses here is one that speaks directly and clearly the reality of some kind of formal church organization! “Two or more” has been abused probably more than any other passage in Scripture…
6. Jeri
August 26, 2008
12:45 PM
All I will say is, thank the Lord for godly pastors and teachers who are expounding God’s word from the pulpits of their local churches. Six years ago at my church, the people would have been sucked in by this. Now, by God’s grace and through the faithful teaching and preaching of His word, they won’t.
Thanks for the review, Tim.
7. Whitney Capps
August 26, 2008
2:10 PM
Thanks so much for your review. Providentially, I came across an endorsement of this book on a blog yesterday, and I was intrigued. While I may still to choose to read it I am pleased to have your context as I dive in.
I wholeheartedly believe that the Church is still God’s agent for sharing the good news. My church isn’t perfect. But if God chooses to use any agency in addition to His Holy Spirit He will always be working in spite of that agent’s fallen, broken efforts to bring honor to His name. Why would we hold the church collectively to a higher standard than that of its individual membership? We are His bride but our beauty, perfection and ultimately usefulness are a reflection and funtion of our Groom.
Oh that we would reflect Him better, but our union is one for better or for worse. I believe the better days of the church are ahead. To God be the Glory.
8. Kevin Higgins
August 26, 2008
11:33 PM
I was given a copy of this book last year while I was pastoring through some rough spots in our church. A friend had read it, found it to be helpful and validated his reasons for having left the church he belonged to.
The book also resonated with what I was feeling at the time, but the theology it teaches (and yes, this piece of fiction was very much written with a theological agenda) is dangerous to believers who have a genuine desire to live for Christ but may be unaware of the Scriptural teachings about church or body life.
Thanks for the post!
9. Steve
August 27, 2008
8:51 AM
Tim:
I suspect that if you realized the truly atrocious condition of “Christ’s Bride - local” in America you might be a little more charitable in your review. I have read the book and you are correct — if one accepts the premise that the “Church” is as flawed and pitiful as the authors present, then their alternative becomes cogent.
Sadly, a solid case can be made that the overwhelming majority of churches in the US are indeed as deeply flawed as portrayed in the book. At one extreme lie deceptive, gospel-less, show biz pastors a la Rick Warren or barking Pentecostals; at the other, graceless legalists with extra-biblical agendas; and in between, a confused muddle.
I wonder, Tim, if you comprehend the rich, heretical stew that comprises the Arminian Protestant church in America. And those heresies — whether New Age earth-worship, or good old-fashioned Baptist statistic worshipping, or the remnants of the Holiness Movement — have severe and inevitable consequences in the churches that embrace them, the actions of pastors that endorse them, and the church members who endure them.
Should we abandon “church”? My conclusion has been, no. It is where God’s people gather. But can I comprehend someone reaching a different conclusion based upon current realities? You bet.
10. Jason
August 27, 2008
9:23 AM
“But can I comprehend someone reaching a different conclusion based upon current realities? You bet.”
I can certainly understand a person being disillusioned, but this sort of thinking, as with the perspective of the authors, is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
To condone moving outside of a biblical model because of one’s own experiences, no matter how well intentioned and no matter how atrocious the experiences, is to do what is right in one’s own eyes, not a method with a good track record, and certainly no worse than whatever straw man caricature the authors would like to establish.
11. J.P.H.
August 27, 2008
9:41 AM
Most of his criticisms of church organizations are valid, unfortunately, and could be applied even to bodies of believers that don’t match the caricature he uses in the book. Even in the ideal situation, i.e. a church with good theology, committed believers and staff who are humble, wise and good-seeking, that church will most likely still differ from the new testament model in many significant ways.
Now, clearly Jacobsen’s model of “no structure whatsoever” is not biblical, since the new testament writers clearly reference certain “roles” in the nascent church. Deacon, elder, etc. But on the flip side, I doubt these first century groups of believers met in their own buildings, were so large that individual members didn’t know each other, or has “executive pastors”.
When I read the bible, I get the sense that they were much more communal and organic. Something that would, no doubt, greatly appeal to Jacobson. Each body was fairly limited in number. They met in peoples’ homes. They shared meals together. They worshiped, yes, but as a group, almost surely not led by a dedicated “choir”. There was teaching, but I would be surprised if it were the same individual delivering the “message” every time these early churches met.
Anyway…you’re right to criticize Jacobsen’s conclusions, but imho perhaps too quick to defend the “modern” church model, which Jacobsen rejects.
12. Larry Geiger
August 27, 2008
3:15 PM
“Anyway…you’re right to criticize Jacobsen’s conclusions, but imho perhaps too quick to defend the “modern” church model, which Jacobsen rejects.”
The “modern church model” is what the Spirit has given us for our time. We don’t live in small farming villages and towns. We gather at “the church” to be the Bride. The Bride is always there. The Bride is not always everyone inside “the church”, but she is always there. Always working, caring, sharing, witnessing.
Home churches in Paul’s day had sorceresses, adulterers, thieves and false prophets. The same folks are in “the church” today.
Matthew 13:
29” ‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. 30Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’ “
13. J.P.H.
August 27, 2008
4:47 PM
I’m not suggesting that the early churches were perfect. If the epistles are any indication, that’s clearly not the case. What I’m suggesting is that the current prevailing model for “church” differs in significant ways from the model depicted in the Bible, and that maybe Jacobsen et. al. are right to criticize it. Like someone else pointed out, though, they go too far when they reject “structure” altogether.
14. Laura
August 27, 2008
5:16 PM
I have not read this book, but I am disheartened when I hear of fellow believers and family members buying into this idea of abandoning the church. I teach a Bible study to high school girls who have voiced (whether their own opinion or their parents’) frustrations with their church. It it sad to live among a generation that likes “try on” churches as one would try on clothes, and where no one wants to be too committed to anything. For a great read on the priority of the church in the believer’s life, read The Enduring Community! This book presents a biblical view of what the local church should look like. It addresses many of the frustrations that people have with the church today, but challenges them to take responsibility for a lot of these problems. This book holds to the biblical view that even though the there is no perfect local church (nor will there be until we are glorified), Christ established His people, the Church, as His Bride and He loves her despite her faults. No, we should not abandon the church, but be patient and loving with her as Christ has been with us, the Church! To order a copy, visit www.reformeduniversityministries.org.
15. Michele
August 27, 2008
5:44 PM
Ick, it really bugs me how he says “Father” instead of “the Father”. I don’t know why, but it’s annoying.
16. Tim Moffett
August 28, 2008
5:03 PM
I love the local church. I find the grace of God demonstrated through its members nearly every day.
I have seen a bit of ugly over the years, but far, far more of the ongoing beauty presence of Christ in the lives of flawed but committed disciples.
I can not be too critical of the church, but every church I have been in has been filled with folks just like me. Hitting some times, missing it others. But most of the time, earnestly seeking to get it right.
Tim
17. Lisa
September 1, 2008
8:38 PM
It’s interesting with the blurring of fact and fiction that occurs in ‘The Shack’ and in this book that a Christian bookstore in Australia has listed it in the Christian Living/General section, rather than fiction, and the fictional main character is given as the author. http://orders.koorong.com/search/details.jhtml?code=9780964729223.
18. Dario
September 6, 2008
12:55 AM
it saddens me how everyone who opposes the message in this book say it’s unbiblical simply because he does not make a reference to a bible quote every 5 minutes.
the message is simply church is more than just a body of believers it’s your spiritual FAMILY! the whole church ROUTINE is very confusing and impressionable to a child and i think the problem is with peoples attitude towards death especially Americans. Until you christ changes you from within. and are willing to give up your financial security and even your life for his call to love Him and your fellow man you CANNOT BEGIN to even think u can teach others!! for he who loves Jesus and hates his life does not continue to sin and others will be able to tell this quality from the fruit you bear. and even when those who lead you fail, remember that they are only human but christ will never fail you even if you were to fall into the hands of your enemy and be sawn in half! you all are so quick to condemn you really don’t know what motivates you!
there’s those who argue that the bible had elders and such, but one must remember these were natural leaders. men with experience, tact, bravery, and righteousness (most often the eldest grandfather). Theres a quote in braveheart that I take to heart “Men don’t follow TITLES, they follow COURAGE” and righteousness for Christ sake.
One can set his sails but ultimately he’s at the mercy of the winds of God and all is as God wills it. now this isn’t an excuse to become passive for christ wants u try in this O-so-futile life. but remember no matter what you do u can never 100% take credit for what you’ve done. But theres one thing u can do and that is pray that God will spare u of the test and give you the serenity to accept the things you cannot change, the courage to change the things u can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
God Bless All of You!