• Reviewing Deep Church by Jim Belcher

    May 19, 2010

    Jim Belcher, the author of Deep Church: A Third Way Beyond Emerging and Traditional, and I have much in common.

    We both did masters degrees at Fuller Theological Seminary.

    We both have a heart for church planting.

    I teach a class on the Emerging Church based on the intensive that he references in his book. (35)

    We get frustrated when people talk past one another, defaulting to caricatured stereotypes rather than embracing a posture of openness.

    And we both value looking for a “third way” to approach dichotomistic thinking.

    He is right when he says,

    It seems that every time someone criticizes the emerging church, they pick the worst-case scenario or the most extreme statements. (49)

    He is also correct in noting,

    It seems the emerging church, for rhetorical purposes, uses sweeping generalizations about the traditional church that are unfair. (76)

    The larger Body of Christ would indeed be served well by discourse that is deeper, more specific, and marked by a sense of humble openness.  Belcher’s chapters on Deep: Truth, Evangelism, Gospel, Worship, Preaching, Ecclesiology, and Culture, are essentially his attempts  to facilitate just that – a worthwhile enterprise in my opinion.

    While Belcher’s book is truly helpful in this regard, I’m not sure he really hits the mark in terms of articulating a true “third way” as a means of engaging these topics.  Very often, his conclusions in these chapters are a combination of a chastened version of the EC position he articulates and an expanded version of the traditional position he articulates (usually w/ reference to Tim Keller and his church!).  I suppose this is a kind of “third way,” maybe even precisely the one Belcher desires, but I’m not certain it’s the most helpful kind of third way for the Church to pursue.

    The mistake, I believe, comes in the assumption that one can simply pit the positions of the EC against the positions of the traditional church.  The main problem here is that many in the EC camp are themselves trying to articulate and maneuver a “third way” between the modern categories of conservatism and liberalism, a feature that Belcher seems to either overlook or discount w/o comment.  An indication of this is his quick dismissal of the Anabaptist tradition from which many in the EC draw as one which is able to circumvent many of the dichotomies addressed in this book on account of its fundamentally, Christendom-rejecting, stance.  Belcher never seems to ask, “How might people in the EC camp already be searching for a third way in response to classic approaches to these issues?,” but assumes that their positions are simply reactions against the positions of traditional churches.

    Belcher sets himself on this course in stating,

    We need to define it [the emerging church] as a movement, particularly its theology.  The best way to do this is to look at what the emerging church movement is against – the things they are protesting and the rasons why they are calling for change. (38)

    For the life of me, I can’t grasp why someone would want to define a movement by what they are against (even it it is a protest movement) rather than what they are for.  We certainly regard what the classic reformers were for as far more more important than what they were against!  But more than this, Belcher fails to identify missiology as a core motif for the EC.  For many, if not most, in the global EC movement, it is an attempt to participate with God and God’s mission in the world that is reshaping how they understand the sorts of topics that Belcher raises in his book, not vice versa.

    These criticisms notwithstanding, I am glad that Jim wrote this book and don’t doubt for a second that it has an will continue to help many.

    **Jim has recently decided to resign from his position as lead pastor at Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Newport Beach, CA.  You can read a letter he wrote to the congregation regarding this transition here and some additional discussion about this sort of trend here.

    Posted in: bible, books, christendom, church, church planting, culture, doctrine, emergent, emerging church, evangelicalism, Fuller Seminary, gospel, kingdom, modernity, post-christendom, postmodernity, theology

Recent Comments

  • Jason Coker said...

    1

    Nicely done. I too was bothered by the short shrift given to Anabaptists in Deep Church.

    By the way, interesting side-note: In the book Belcher recounts an interaction that occurs between him and Eddie Gibbs and Ryan Bolger in a class he took a few years ago on the Emerging Church at Fuller, and it turns out (I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this) the class was none other than MC535 – there very class that YOU are teaching online and I am attending.

    Not only that, but Belcher was in the class that was videotaped for the online lectures! The exchange Belcher refers to in the book is actually captured in the online lectures. You can clearly hear Belcher in the background (off camera) asking the very question he recounts in the book (which had to do with McGavran and the Church Growth Movement).

    Kind of funny : )

    05/19/10 6:37 PM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    2

    Yeah, I was thinking about that as I read that part in the book. Any chance you remember the specific lecture file it was in?

    05/19/10 6:43 PM | Comment Link

  • Tweets that mention Reviewing Deep Church by Jim Belcher | lifeasmission -- Topsy.com said...

    3

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by JR Rozko, Lloyd Chia. Lloyd Chia said: RT @jrrozko: via lifeasmission: Reviewing Deep Church by Jim Belcher http://j.mp/bNigLO #FB [...]

    05/19/10 1:54 PM | Comment Link

  • Jason Coker said...

    4

    It's in the first couple of weeks…whenever they were talking about McGavran.
    My recent post Why I’m Reluctant To Tell People I’m Planting A Church

    05/19/10 6:57 PM | Comment Link

  • Jonathan Brink said...

    5

    JR, I'm led to think Belcher isn't suggesting defining the EC movement simply by defining what it is against. The comment is, "The best way to do this is to look at what the emerging church movement is against." He say the movement needs to "look at", not be defined it. In many ways contrast provides a beginning basis for understanding a solution. The definition of the movement then becomes the response. The problem is that the EC movement has been slow to respond. But its coming.

    Much love brother

    05/20/10 2:19 PM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    6

    Hey Jonathan. Sorry, but I'm not entirely sure what you are getting at here. Can you say more?

    05/20/10 9:29 PM | Comment Link

Leave A Comment

Mail (will not be published) (required)