Book Review: Why We're Not Emergent
By Trevin Wax on May 21, 2008 in Book Reviews | 
Print This Post | Share (Twitter, Email, Facebook)
One of the books given to all who attended this year’s Together for the Gospel conference in Louisville was Why We’re Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be
I had my doubts about the book: Would this be a book that misrepresents the Emerging Church and its representatives? Or would this be a book that provides a thoughtful critique? Thankfully, the authors take the second route, and they have a little fun along the way.
The authors of Why We’re Not Emergent focus on the “who” of the Emerging movement, not the amorphous, ever-changing “what” that the movement’s followers believe. So DeYoung and Kluck interact with pastors and writers from within the heart of the movement as well as the periphery: Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, Dan Kimball, Scot McKnight, Doug Pagitt, and others.
The result is actual dialogue. The authors do not merely throw hand grenades into the Emerging Camp. They listen thoughtfully to the Emerging perspective and then very simply explain “why they are not emergent.”
Pastor Kevin DeYoung provides the substantive look at the Emerging Church. Ted Kluck provides the humor. The two authors take turns writing. After reading a chapter of extensive research and commentary, you then enjoy a humorous chapter that pokes fun at much of the faddishness of the Emerging movement. I rarely enjoy books that change up the style so much, but for a book on Emergent, the eclectic positioning of the chapters provided insight as well as some entertainment. Listen to Ted Kluck’s tongue-in-cheek description of the rise of Emerging Church:
“In the early 2000s the offspring of the 80s generation got disillusioned with their dads’ arenas (where you can get a Christian haircut, a Christian oil change, and buy Christian clothes) and started blogging about their feelings. Let’s meet on a beach (nothing wrong with that), let’s meet in an empty warehouse with exposed brick and ductwork (nothing wrong with that either), and let’s start a movement that won’t have any leaders and that we won’t actually call a movement. Instead of pastors we might have discussion leaders and worship gathering facilitators. Because non-movements are the new movements.” (58-59)
DeYoung and Kluck actually agree with much of the Emerging Church’s critique of today’s evangelicalism. But they are able to make a contribution to the discussion by refusing to be bound to the “either-or” dichotomies so prevalent in Emerging literature. DeYoung writes:
“The emerging church will be a helpful corrective against real, and sometimes perceived, abuses in evangelicalism when they discover the genius of the ‘and,’ and stop forcing us to accept half-truths. (75)”
DeYoung and Kluck are at times prophetic in their call to biblical faithfulness. They helpfully unmask some of the hype that surrounds the Emerging movement. Kluck pokes fun at Doug Pagitt’s sharp distinction between storytelling and testimony time. “So, let me get this straight. They aren’t testimonies, just stories that serve as testaments to what God is doing in our lives. Sounds like a testimony to me. (154)” They also ask tough questions about why this movement (for all its talk about incarnational living) tends to reach out to only one segment of the American population, while mocking other segments (Nascar, rural, etc.) (230).
The authors sometimes generalize a little too much. Kluck believes that college students would rather read Donald Miller over Chuck Colson, Rob Bell over John Piper, Doug Pagitt over J.I. Packer (97). Perhaps. But the interesting phenomenon in the Emerging Church movement and the parallel Reformed Resurgence is that many college students are reading men from both perspectives.
Overall, I highly recommend that those inside and outside the Emerging Church read Why We’re Not Emergent. It’s a terrific addition to a growing number of books whose authors have accepted the Emergent invitation to dialogue.
written by Trevin Wax © 2008 Kingdom People blog
Related Articles:
5 Reasons the Emerging Church is Now Receding
Book Review: Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches
Book Review: Young, Restless, Reformed
© Copyright by Trevin Wax | Print This Post | Share (Twitter, Email, Facebook)
Trevin,
Thanks for the review. I just finished reading the book as well, about a week ago. Read it with another friend/pastor and found it wonderfully helpful to come together once a week and discuss a couple chapters.
BTW, this book is a model of how a critic ought to be done.
Michael Awbrey | May 21, 2008 | Reply
Trevin,
I’m just getting started on it, maybe a third of the way through, so far. And I’ve glanced at a number of reviews, etc., in the blogosphere, and the overarching consensus (which you seem to share)is that these guys have “a generous but valid critique” of the emerging conversation. And I see the generosity. Actually, its kind of funny how the book reads much like an emergent critique of the modern church, just the other way around.
The book starts off expressing frustration about how trying to critique the movement is like “trying to nail Jell-O to a wall.” In other words, the authors are frustrated that they cannot pin the movement down to one set of articulable beliefs. It sounds like the same frustration that the scribes and the Pharisees must have felt.
But I digress.
Like I said, I see the “generous” part, but I don’t get much of where the critique is, outside the hidden argument that “these emergent guys are saying things that don’t jive with our Reformed tradition, and the foundations on which that tradition is based.” In other words, the line of thought (so far, to be fair) is that “these emerging types are saying A, B, and C, but since we know that Luther and Calvin said C, D, and E, be weary of them and their newfangled efforts to get you to forget D and E.”
Having said that, I’m enjoying the book.
Grace and Peace,
Raffi
Raffi Shahinian | May 21, 2008 | Reply
A couple of years ago I went to a pastor’s conference that featured Brian McLaren. The buzz in the audience was that Brian woundn’t articulate what he believes. At that time I didn’t think he owed us an explanation. (like Jesus and the Pharisees) But now I think it is arrogant of Emergent leaders not to articulate what they believe. I think integrity calls for that now as the movement is maturing. It keeps them above the fray of the conflicts that denominations have to deal with. Like the Episcopal church issue and some of the New Perspective issues in the Reformed camp. I think it is honorable to stick with your “family” and work on the divisions as opposed to an elitist stance.
Bob | May 22, 2008 | Reply
Hi Trevin. I appreciate your review and I also appreciated “Not Emergent”. Something that struck me about a well known Emergent leader in his critique of D.A. Carson’s book, “Becoming Conversant with the Emergent Church”, was his challenge to Carson about how Carson shouldn’t speak critically of the Emergent church if he’s never visited one. This thinking is flawed in a few ways, two of which I want to comment on. First, from the scathing caricatures the Emergent leaders build of evangelical churches, this challenge could be pointed back at them. What evangelical churches have you been in lately that don’t at all care about personal relationship with God (for example)? Secondly, if Carson must visit their churches in order to get a proper view of who they are and what they believe and teach (or discuss), then what makes up the content of their books? Are they not faithfully representing themselves in their written material? If not, why are they writing it? If someone can’t take them at their written word and comment and reflect upon it as a true respresetation of what they are all about, they had better stop writing.
Dan Glover | May 23, 2008 | Reply