Why We’re Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be), by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck, is a good introduction to the emergent/emerging church movement, if you (like me) are inclined to be a bit skeptical.
One challenge of writing (and reading) a book about the emergent/emerging church is defining what it is. In fact, to some, there are definite distinctions (other than spelling and form) between emergent and emerging, ironically foreshadowing my conclusion that saying the same things with different, “hip” words is a big part of the movement. Kevin DeYoung states that “defining the emergent church is like nailing Jell-O to the wall.”1 This difficulty in defining the movement stems, in part, from the movement not defining itself, and even questioning the value of definitions. DeYoung offers this definition, which is really more of an explanation and less of a definition.
Back to the question at hand — attempting an explanation of the emergent church. To some “emergent” means nothing more than a new style and approach to worship (”couches, candles and coffee”). To others it signals an appreciation for postmodernism. To yet others it means a return to a more ancient, primitive, and pristine form of Christianity. At a popular level, “the term emerging church has been applied to high-profile, youth-oriented congregations that have gained attention on account of their rapid numerical growth; their ability to attract (or retain) twentysomethings; and their ability to promote themselves to the Christian subculture through websites and by word of mouth.” Or, as Andy Crouch puts it in Christianity Today, emerging churches are “frequently urban, disproportionately young, overwhelmingly white, and very new.”
One of its critics has described the emerging church as a protest movement — a protest against traditional evangelicalism, a protest against modernism, and a protest against seeker-sensitive megachurches. Others, sympathetic to the movement, have used the acronym EPIC: experiential, participatory, image driven, and connected.2
In the event that that explanation doesn’t resonate, try this:
After reading nearly five thousand pages of emerging-church literature, I have no doubt that the emerging church, while loosely defined and far from uniform, can be described and critiqued as a diverse, but recognizable, movement. You might be an emergent Christian: if you listen to U2, Moby, and Johnny Cash’s Hurt (sometimes in church); use sermon illustrations from The Sopranos; drink lattes in the afternoon and Guinness in the evenings, and always use a Mac; if your reading list consists primarily of Stanley Hauewas, Henri Nouwen, N.T. Wright, Stan Grenz, Dallas Willard, Bernnan Manning, Jim Wallis, Frederick Buechner, David Bosch, John Howard Yoder, Wendell Berry, Nancy Murphy, John Franke, Walter Winks and Leslie Newbigin (not to mention McLaren, Pagitt, Bell, etc.) and your sparring partners include D.A. Carson, John Calvin, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, and Wayne Grudem; if your idea of quintessential Christian discipleship is Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, or Desmond Tutu; if you don’t like George W. Bush or institutions or big business or capitalism or Left Behind Christianity; if your political concerns are poverty, AIDS, imperialism, war-mongering, CEO salaries, consumerism, global warming, racism, and oppression and not so much abortion and gay marriage; if you are into bohemian, goth, rave or indie; if you talk about the myth of redemptive violence and the myth of certainty; if you lie awake at night having nightmares about all the ways modernism has ruined your life; if you love the Bible as a beautiful, inspiring collection of works that lead us into the mystery of God but is not inerrant; if you search for truth but aren’t sure it can be found; if you’ve ever been to a church with prayer labyrinths, candles, Play-Doh, chalk drawings, couches or beanbags (your youth group doesn’t count); if you loathe words like linear, propositional, rational, machine and hierarchy and use words like ancient-future, jazz, mosaic, matrix, missional, vintage and dance; if you grew up in a very conservative Christian home that in retrospect seems legalistic, naive, and rigid; if you support women in all levels of ministry, prioritize urban over suburban, and like your theology narrative instead of systematic; if you disbelieve in any sacred-secular divide; if you want to be the church and not just go to church; if you long for a community that is relational, tribal and primal like a river or garden; if you believe doctrine gets in the way of an interactive relationship with Jesus; if you believe who goes to hell is no one’s business and no one may be there anyway; if you believe salvation has little to do with atoning for guilt and a lot to do with bringing the whole creation back into shalom with its Maker; if you believe following Jesus is not believing the right things but living the right way; if it really bugs you when people talk about going to heaven instead of heaven coming to us; if you disdain monological, didactic preaching; if you use the word “story” in all your propositions about postmodernism — if all or most of this tortuously long sentence describes you, then you might be an emergent Christian.3
The authors rightly conclude that many of the questions and complaints that the emerging movement has for the “traditional, evangelical church” are valid and worthy of discussion. However, there are several disturbing trends that suggest that some of what is labeled “emergent” is, in fact, more properly called “another gospel.”4 If this rings alarm bells with you, and especially if you find yourself attracted to some of the emergent terminology, then read this thoroughly researched and footnoted book yourself.
All quotes offered so far have been from Kevin DeYoung, a pastor. Yet, the book has two authors. The second is Ted Kluck, a sports writer. It’s no surprise, therefore, that their writing styles are different. Kevin DeYoung writes from a more scholarly, theological perspective. Ted Kluck, in contrast, writes from a more everyday, common sense perspective. The combination is quite effective, as each writes (mostly) alternating chapters.
Take this example from one of Ted Kluck’s chapters.
“Ain’t gonna let nobody turn be ’round, turn ’round, turn me ’round.”
“Ain’t gonna let injustice, turn me ’round, turn me ’round, turn me ’round.”
A quick look around the room at Mars Hill Bible Church, at the five thousand or so other middle-class, suburban white people, and I really wonder what injustice it is that they’re singing about. Not finding their size at the Gap?
All kidding aside, I’m surprised to see that the clientele at Rob Bell’s church is so, well, normal. And I can honestly say that watching thousands of tall, white, Dutch folk — baby boomers, yuppies, college and high school kids — belting out a Civil Rights-era spiritual is just about the weirdest thing I have ever seen. My black buddy L.J. would blow his stack if he saw this. I’m glad he’s not here.5
Why We’re Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be) is both entertaining and informative. It isn’t reactionary and identifies some positive areas of the emergent movement; yet it also provides some cautions worthy of consideration.
1. page 17
2. pages 17-18
3. pages 20-22
4. see Galatians 1:1-9
5. page 214, and evidence that I did read past the first few (extensively quoted from) chapters!