Emergent Church According to Those Two Guys

My summer reading box just arrived from Amazon.

I have very high hopes for reading four books this summer. Among them is Why We're Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be) by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck. DeYoung is a pastor, Kluck a sportswriter. Together they analyze the emergent movement and explain why they're not on board. In Divergent from Emergent, BreakPoint's Travis K. McSherley reviews the book. DeYoung and Kluck's critique of the movement is "needed" he says:

The emergent church rejects many of the methodologies and rigid proclamations of traditional, conservative Christianity, which it accuses of being unloving or arrogant. No doubt, some of those shoes fit all too well. But the emergent response has been to go to war (not literally, of course) against preaching, theology, certainty, exclusiveness, and perhaps even orthodoxy itself—the philosophical backbone of the faith.

The book is a mixture of doctrinal analysis by DeYoung and human interest bits by Kluck. McSherley explains why the format works:

Although placing DeYoung's more theological arguments side by side with Kluck's stories makes for a bit of an unorthodox (so to speak) read, the presentation works quite well. And it demonstrates nicely what may be the central idea of the book: that the emergent movement is right in what it draws attention to but wrong in what it throws away.

In fact, as Tim Challies notes:

Ultimately the authors conclude, as have many Christians, that "Emergent Christians need to catch Jesus' broader vision for the church—His vision for a church that is intolerant of error, maintains moral boundaries, promotes doctrinal integrity, stands strong in times of trial, remains vibrant in times of prosperity, believes in certain judgment and certain reward, even as it engages the culture, reaches out, loves, and serves. We need a church that reflects the Master's vision—one that is deeply theological, deeply ethical, deeply compassionate, and deeply doxological."

If you want to learn more about the emergent movement, this user-friendly book may be a good place to start. (Tom also offers some helpful thoughts here.) McSherley concludes:

Why We're Not Emergent may not be the authoritative final word in the emergent discussion, but it is a well-written and helpful contribution from two writers who, as the subtitle suggests, "should be" carrying the emergent torch themselves. Instead, they have crafted a thoughtful rebuttal that not only offers plenty of reasons to question the emergent trend, but also encourages and challenges the Body of Christ to seek both truth and love.

Sounds like a worthy course of thought for me to entertain this summer.

HT: The Point

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

1. Joshua said the following at 2:22 PM on Jul 2:

"Why We're Not Emergent" is perhaps the best book I've read in a long time. I've read "Velvet Elvis" by Rob Bell and his take on Christian doctrine cannot be more 'out there'. Brickianity? We should be more like trampolines? I hope the trampoline isn't on another trampoline... Give me bricks!

2. kris said the following at 2:25 PM on Jul 2:

i think this statement from you post says it better than i have ever heard:

that the emergent movement is right in what it draws attention to but wrong in what it throws away.

i still like the old school stuff. i guess because i a a little bit of a rebel and i don't like people telling me/or implying to me things like; you must raise your hands or close your eyes to worship, dressing up for church is not needed, lets have dinner during the preaching, hymns are irrelevant. i think we can all get along (wasn't that another post of yours?) I don't mind and even like the new stuff (i have been a believer since the cradle), but i still like the old stuff too. i have thought for a long time that the new emergent church movement, if you will, has been throwing the baby out with the bath water.

the doctrine issue is, of course, the highest priority and it has been so watered down it is sometimes hard to find. church goers today do not know what that word means and do not know how to self feed.

kinda scarey

great post

3. Mandi said the following at 4:07 PM on Jul 2:

Should be an interesting read, Suzanne!

As is this.

Ultimately, this issue brings to a head what church is, and is not, and what our Faith is and is not. And why.

4. Elizabeth said the following at 5:13 PM on Jul 2:

Though this book isn't on my current reading list, I would like to read it at some point. It'd be interesting to see how it compares to Young, Restless and Reformed (which I have read, and which pretty much describes me).

5. Dave Mitchell said the following at 6:34 PM on Jul 2:

I just finished this last night. Fantastic read, very engaging, and extremely well-researched. Each chapter has endnotes, though Deyoung's chapters have literally about 10 times as many as Kluck's. I'm going to make sure this is available at my church's library, and recommend it to my small group. Accessible and informative.

6. Anne said the following at 6:41 PM on Jul 2:

THANK YOU SO MUCH for the heads up. I have often found myself frustrated by the emergant church, alone in my frustration, and unable to articluate what it is that frustrats me.

I cannot wait to read this book and see if it resonates with what I've been trying to say...

If that makes sensce:)

PS. Joshua (post 1) I am sooooo unbelivably with you on the trampoline illistration, and yet no one I have talked has agreed with me! What a relife to hear that I'm not alone!

7. Nathan said the following at 9:41 PM on Jul 2:

Have we distinguished between emerging and emergent churches?

i.e. we probably should distinguish the McLaren brand of re-packaged theological liberalism with the generally reformed and theologically orthodox of people such as Driscoll, Goodmason, etc. Acts 29 and the rest of similar churches are fairly flexible in format, style ... yet sound and Biblical in terms of substance.

8. George said the following at 11:55 PM on Jul 2:

Emergent, non-emergent, emerging or non-emerging, all these are just names which men came up with to define the churches they're in.

Why can't we just stick with Biblical names for churches? Either a church is hot/cold or lukewarm. Either a church is alive, teaches from the Word of God, and its members putting into practice what they are taught from the Bible or the church has strayed from God's Word, its people have gone apostate, and Jesus has taken away His lampstand from it.

To non born-again Christians, the Word of God is rigid (do not be yoked together with unbelievers), unloving (not everyone who calls Jesus, "Lord, Lord" will go to Heaven), and may sound arrogant (there is only One Way to God, not many ways), but that's the standard any true, born-again Christians are called to.

9. Stephanie K. said the following at 8:33 AM on Jul 3:

I actually just finished it recently and was pretty impressed. When I found out it was written by two reformed guys I wasn't sure I would finish the book, but they did achieve a style that argues intellectually, yet isn't overly dry.

10. Nathan said the following at 12:03 PM on Jul 3:

8 - George, thanks for that thought. I agree, it would be much easier to use the biblical terms. The only problem is that sometimes other people use different terms to describe themselves and others (who is ever going to call *themselves* the Lukewarm Christians!!)

At that point, we probably - like Paul in Acts 17 - would be wise to investigate what they're saying before we start talking about them.

11. Jake said the following at 12:58 PM on Jul 3:

I haven't read the book, although I've heard that it offers an attempt at a fair critique of Emergent (unlike much of the vitriol that is often thrown their way). But perhaps "if you want to learn more about the emergent movement", the best place to do that would be a book written by someone associated with the movement, not someone critical of it. Tony Jones' recent book "The New Christians: Dispatches from the Emergent Frontier" is a good introduction.

12. brx said the following at 3:41 PM on Jul 3:

I think it's important to realize that just because we don't "get" what somebody is saying or writing or drawing or building, it doesn't necessarily mean they are "wrong". Sure, they might be wrong, but it might also be a communication disconnect - the meanings not meeting - between imperfect people in their own contexts.

Regardless of movements or denominations or other labels, I suggest we evaluate local churches and leaders as individuals, in person, the same way we would advise someone about finding a local church home.

BTW, it still sounds like a neat book!

Grace, peace & adventure

13. Matt Stone said the following at 1:06 AM on Jul 4:

"Why can't we just stick with Biblical names for churches?"

Hmmmm, can you point out for me where "Reformed" or "Protestant" or ohh, just about any tag we have for a denomination or movement fits what you are asking for?

14. brx said the following at 2:04 PM on Jul 7:

Initially, I thought the book sounded interesting after reading the review article, Divergent from Emergent By Travis K. McSherley...

Then over the weekend I caught McSherley's Q&A bit with with the authors Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck... They spewed insults in their answers and displayed what appears to me as a real lack of humility. It gave me the strong impression that the book will be little more than Church-internal bickering over what a church gathering should look like.

In contrast to that Q&A with those guys, I caught up on some Boundless Show episodes including the one where LisaA asks TomN for some of his take on the 'emergent church'. Tom clearly disagrees with some things, but he certainly isn't a jerk about it. I was impressed with Tom (& Lisa) wrapping it up by encouraging a focus on what's important rather than leaving things in a state of us/them opposition. (I'd mention the episode number but it's not in the .mp3 tag info and my player doesn't show long file names)

15. brx said the following at 2:08 PM on Jul 7:

Quick thought regarding bricks & springs...

springs have a normal position and tend to push or pull attached objects toward that normal position... bricks can make great anchors for springs...

16. Al said the following at 4:42 PM on Jul 7:

brx,

I haven't heard the clip you mention, but I've read the book. Although the language is firm and in moments faintly sarcastic (a tone not unfamiliar to Paul, who authored half of the New Testament, and almost a prerequisite to being heard by anyone under 30), it is also in my opinion very fair in its analysis of the Emerging/Emergent church movement and its troubling tendencies. Dan Kimball, who is often classified as an "emergent evangelical" himself and referred to in the book found it to be more balanced and even-handed than most other critiques, even if he naturally disagreed with some of their thoughts. He also described his correspondence with Young and how gracious he has been in their interactions:

http://www.dankimball.com/vintage_faith/2008/03/interesting-and.html

It's a solid read, and it's definitely not about how church should be done-- but rather whether doctrine matters and how sections of the emergent movement has allowed bad theology to influence its thinking as a result of its aversion to "proposition truth".

Kevin Young is actually a seminary classmate and a close friend to my friend and pastor. My friend's actually mentioned in the thank yous, so maybe I'm a little biased. But as someone who empathizes deeply with the emergent church's concerns, especially regarding social justice and our tendency to flatten and simplify God to theological bullet points on Powerpoint-- and who's a little irked when suburbian middle-class Americanism gets confused for Christianity, I find the book even-handed and well argued. I've found other critiques and attacks on the emergent church infuriating and frustrating, even when I held the same theological position as the authors and would largely agree with them.

17. brx said the following at 10:39 PM on Jul 7:

Al (#16),

Thanks for bringing Dan Kimball's post to my attention. Dan's graciousness, patient listening, and reception of criticism has always amazed and encouraged me. I followed with interest, the formation and growth of Vintage Faith church of which Dan is the snr pastor. Later, I met him and the staff and received some very helpful advice and insight on some issues I was restless about and wrestling through.

Having attended Dan Kimball's church for a period, I would say they in particular, communicate quite well their orthodoxy and their desire to live out intentional orthopraxy.

Ok. So, I'll keep DeYoung & Kluck's book in the reading pile, but probably not near the top.

Grace & peace

18. sjb said the following at 9:28 AM on Jul 9:

I've read the book and found it a very good read. I liked the writing style it made it easy to read. I found it on a great website cbc-select.com for less than Amazon or Christian book distributors. They had a lot of great books for pretty cheap.