Deep Church

My latest column at Christian Week:

Just when I thought the discussion on the emerging church had ended, Jim Belcher comes out with the best book on the topic so far. It turns out the discussion isn't over, and there's still lots that can be salvaged no matter who you are.

The book is Deep Church: A Third Way Beyond Emerging and Traditional. It takes me back to the early days of the discussion before things got so polarized. Belcher describes the tensions that many of us felt in the early days. He is theologically conservative, and yet he was part of the early movement. He considers himself an insider and an outsider at the same time.

He's written Deep Church for those of us caught in between, who "are unhappy with the present state of the evangelical church but are not sure where to turn for an answer." It's also useful for those who want to understand what the emerging church is all about, as well as for seminarians and pastors who want to sharpen how ministry is practiced in their context.

Belcher begins by telling his story. In the 1990s, he began to crave the deep fellowship he had experienced as a Ph.D. student at Georgetown, or the kind that Francis Schaeffer had developed at L'Abri in Switzerland. He started by inviting a few friends to his apartment for a weekly discussion. Within a couple of years, the group grew to a couple of hundred young adults. Belcher first thought that this group was unique within the larger church world, but he soon discovered that similar groups were starting all across the country. They weren't satisfied with how church was presently done. Belcher began to develop friendships with other leaders including Rob Bell, now pastor of Mars Hill church in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Belcher still appreciates a lot about the emerging church. He likes that people are trying to rediscover what the church should be like and how it should impact culture, and what it means to be a Christian in a changing world. He thinks the emerging church has done a good job of assessing the problems in the traditional church. But he also has qualms about some of the answers the emerging church has offered to the questions they ask.

In the main section of the book, he takes us through seven areas of discussion: truth, evangelism, gospel, worship, preaching, ecclesiology, and culture. Belcher wants both sides to understand each other, finding agreement in areas of classic orthodoxy described in the ancient creeds while allowing second-tier differences. "Learning from traditional and emerging voices," he writes, "I believe that deep church moves beyond them to a more excellent way - mere Christianity."

To be honest, I've been disenfranchised lately with the direction of the emerging church. Belcher's book reminded me of what I used to appreciate. I've been wrong to be too dismissive. I needed this correction.

But if you're worried that Belcher will be either too sympathetic or too critical, you can relax. I thought he did a good job of presenting the positions of people in the best possible light, refusing to paint caricatures or to take cheap shots. The endorsements from emerging thinkers indicates that he succeeded. But he isn't afraid to analyze these arguments and point out where he thinks they are wrong.

It's not a perfect book. Belcher probably errs on the side of graciousness. He may be too optimistic about the possibility of a genuine third way when things seem so polarized. I sure like that he is trying.

The real strength of the book is that it poses the key issues asked by the emerging church, questions which, after all, still need to be answered. It pushes us to a holy dissatisfaction with the weaknesses of the traditional church and shows us that we can do better. At the same time, it avoids the excesses of some who criticize the traditional church, and emphasizes the need for classic orthodoxy.

"It is my hope that Deep Church will become a platform for working out a third way in the church." It's a tall order - but it's sure worth a try.

The Emerging Landscape

My latest column at Christian Week:

Once in a while I look at the title of this column ("Emerging Issues") and feel guilty. I don't always write about the emerging church, even though I try to stay close to the assignment Doug Koop gave me three years ago. "What are some of the key issues challenging effective and appropriate Christian witness in Canada today and down the road a bit?" he asked. " How can we respond most faithfully and constructively?"

It's probably time to take a look at how the shape of this discussion has changed in the past three years.

Dan Kimball, who wrote the book The Emerging Church in 2003, now writes, "I can't defend or even explain theologically what is now known broadly as 'the emerging church' anymore, because it has developed into so many significantly different theological strands. Some I strongly would disagree with."

He's not alone. The emerging church is in increasingly slippery term, and the movement has gone in several different directions. Emergent, an American organization, first centralized, and is now decentralizing. Some used to call themselves emerging, but now distance themselves from the theology of others in the movement. Even proponents of the emerging church have given up using the term. It's hard to even know what the term "emerging church" means anymore.

Emerging issues have gone mainstream

The early issues raised by the emerging church are now being discussed within the church as a whole.

A conservative denomination is planning a conference this year on what it means to be missional. A pastor of a large church is wrestling with what it means to be small and organic, rather than just large and institutional. Evangelical churches are discussing the importance of social action, and how to effectively minister in a post-Christian society. These are no longer emerging issues; they are issues for all of us now.

This is significant. Even if you reject the beliefs of the emerging church, there is no question that they have caused the church as a whole to rethink how to live effectively in our changing culture.

Traditional churches are supposed to be dying, and younger people are supposed to reject the old. But, surprisingly, the traditional church seems to be doing just fine. A recent study by Professor Bruce Guenther of ACTS found that attendance at evangelical churches has actually grown by 50% in two decades. Mainline churches, as well as Catholic churches in Quebec, are in decline and skew the numbers, but evangelical churches aren't doing as badly as many seem to think.

Journalist Colin Hansen writes, "While the Emergent 'conversation' gets a lot of press for its appeal to the young, the new Reformed movement may be a larger and more pervasive phenomenon." New churches are launching with an emphasis on reaching younger people with solid, orthodox theology. Conservative conferences like Together for the Gospel attract mostly younger crowds. I keep bumping into people who love the writings of John Piper or the sermons of Mark Driscoll or James MacDonald. While some embrace authors like Shane Claiborne and Rob Bell, just as many embrace authors who are anything but emerging.

The emerging church has raised important questions about effective ministry in a changing culture, but that not everyone is satisfied with the answers they offer. We can thank them, however, for their concern for social justice and orthopraxy (right action), and for raising the questions.

Traditional, orthodox theology and ministry is just as relevant in a post-Christian culture as it has ever been. The most effective ministries I know have not changed their theology, but instead are rethinking how to let that theology shape their ministry in a world that has drastically changed. Michael Wittmer writes, "To remain faithful to the gospel we must regularly update our understanding of it."

We should be encouraged. The challenges are significant, but God has shown himself more than equal to them. He has not abandoned his people. He is still on the move no matter how bad things sometimes seem to be.

Don't Stop Believing: Why Living Like Jesus Is Not Enough

Michael Wittmer, author of Heaven is a Place on Earth, has a new book coming out in December. It's Don't Stop Believing: Why Living Like Jesus Is Not Enough. If it's anything like his first book, then it will be excellent.

Here's a brief description of the book:

Must you believe something to be saved? Does the kingdom of God include non-Christians? Is hell for real and forever?

These are big questions. Hard questions. Questions that divide Christians along conservative and liberal lines.

Conservatives love their beliefs and liberals believe in their love. Each pushes the other to opposite extremes. Fundamentalists imply that it doesn't matter how we live as long as we believe in Jesus, while some Emergent Christians respond that it doesn't matter what we believe as long as we live like him.

Theologian Michael Wittmer calls both sides out of bounds and crafts a third way that retains the insights of each. He examines ten key questions that confront contemporary Christians and shows why both right belief and right practice are necessary for authentic Christianity.

Here is an urgent reminder that best practices can only arise from true beliefs. Genuine Christians never stop serving because they never stop loving, and they never stop loving because they never stop believing.

You can check out his blog as well. Today's topic: what do you like about emergent?

Stetzer and Sweet on the emerging church

Ed Stetzer has written a good piece on the emerging church from a missiological perspective. I appreciate Ed's approach. It's well researched. Ed is honest, but he doesn't appear to have an axe to grind.

You can read some of Ed's background or download the issue that contains Ed's article, and reactions to it, in PDF.

I was surprised to read this quote by Len Sweet about Emergent. "So far, [Sweet] asserts—rather than reach back into 2000 years of Church history, Emergent stopped at the 'liberal turn' wherein the Gospel became all social and no gospel." Sweet emailed Stetzer:

The emerging church has become another form of social gospel. And the problem with every social gospel is that it becomes all social and no gospel. All social justice and no social gospel. It is embarrassing that evangelicals have discovered and embraced liberation theology after it destroyed the main line, old line, side line, off line, flat line church.

Agree or not, it's certainly worth exploring this issue. It's not the first time I've heard this statement from someone who has been a friend to the emerging church. Wounds of a friend?

Check out more at Ed Stetzer's site.

The Cross: Can We Have More?

The latest issue of Christianity Today has an article by Scot McKnight called "McLaren Emerging". The whole article is worth reading, including this comment by McKnight on the cross as the unmasking of evil:

Yes, I believe this unmasking role of the Cross is not only true, but also vital to a political reworking and revitalizing of the Cross. Given the sociopolitical focus of these two books, perhaps McLaren didn't think any more needed to be said.

But I feel obliged to ask, "Can we have more?"...

The most stable location for the earliest understandings of the Cross, from Jesus all the way through the New Testament writings, is the Last Supper - and not a word is said there about violence and systemic injustice. Other words are given to explain the event: covenant, forgiveness of sins, and blood "poured out for many." In fact, I question whether a cross that only undoes violence is enough to create liberation, peace, and a kingdom vision.

I know that Brian McLaren has come under attack from critics, but Scot McKnight is a friend, and this is a very significant issue. It's hard to think of one that's more significant than this.

This came to mind as I read Michael Krahn this morning (found via Challies). Krahn attended the Everything Must Change conference in Oakville this weekend. McLaren answered a question about what the gospel is:

...the good news isn't the good news of Christianity, it's the good news of the Kingdom of God. And I think that Fatmire [Muslim peace activist also present at conference and sitting next to him on the panel] working for peace, is an agent for peace, and I'd much rather her be working for peace being who she is than... becoming a person in a church worrying about the list over there on that wall. [on "the list" are things non-essentials like speaking in tongues, etc.)

So, to me there's something we really have to grapple with about whether the border of a religion is the border of the kingdom of God. And I think that's a question we'd be wise to raise. I liked what you said about there not being despair when you're among the extremely needy people. Wouldn't it be interesting if we found out that God is present wherever there's suffering because God is there bringing healing and God is really present wherever people are working against injustice because that's the work of God, wherever people are working for peace. And then the we find that the place that God isn't is where you have a bunch of affluent people who are self-absorbed... and that wouldn't surprise me why they would get depressed, because, in some way, it's not that God isn't present but they're snoring through the presence of God.

The last thing I want to do is join a pile-on, but this statement concerns me. I agree that the gospel includes news of the Kingdom, and that it trumps secondary issues. I believe that the gospel contains good news for the poor, and that it has cosmic implications. I realize that a brief statement can't say everything. I won't even get into his statements on the borders of religion - some other time. But here's the thing: I want to hear about the cross. I echo McKnight: "I feel obliged to ask, 'Can we have more?'"

In A Quest for More, Paul David Tripp writes:

Focus on Christ will always result in focus on the cross. You cannot be Christ-centered without becoming cross-centered. The crucified Christ is to be the center of everything I know about myself and my world. You cannot have any real hope for flawed people in a fallen world unless there is a Redeemer to rescue us from the evil that resides both inside and outside of us. Real restoration to God's created design requires the cross. It is the cross of Christ that alone will restore my allegiance to Christ and his rightful place at the center of everything in my life. (via)

If we lose our focus on the cross - even if we don't deny it - we lose everything. Yet it's so easy to lose, if not the cross, then our focus on the cross.

So in the end, this isn't just an issue for Brian McLaren. It's an issue for all of us. It's not just an issue for his critics; it's an issue for his friends, and for anyone who claims to be Christian. And it's a serious one. About the cross: can we have more? More of all of its significance, including forgiveness of sins as well as its wider implications? Not just from McLaren, but from all of us? Please?