Deep Church by Jim Belcher
This is a book I've been looking forward to every since I saw that it was coming out. InterVarsity Press has released the first chapter of the book and so far it is living up to its expectations. (You can download the first chapter here.)
Jim has been around (and within) the Emerging conversation before it was even known as such. What he offers is a fair (although I wouldn't say completely unbiased, as nothing is) perspectives of the flaws in traditional church (i.e. Post Baby Boomer Seeker churches) and the rise of Gen X and the upheaval of modern culture and how this rise has affected the culture in which 'church' takes place. He recognizes there has been a shift and seeks to reconcile the church's ministry. He also recognizes the Emerging church has done a lot of good things in the way of being relevant to culture, but has lacked a deeper theological/biblical root and denominational oversight (that is a sort of accountability to something larger than itself).
I consider myself part of this Emerging conversation, whatever that means. I find the Emerging perspective to be a breath of fresh air when it comes to ecclesiology and 'being' church, something many Post Baby Boomer churches have sufficiently lacked. It will be interesting to here his argument fully fleshed out, as I'm especially interested in what it he finds lacking in the Emerging church.
As far as his specific arguments (about the grievances of the Emerging church), I don't want to flesh them out just yet because I haven't read the book in its entirety. I will wait until I get my hands on a copy before I comment on it.
If you've read the chapter, what do you think?
Wes
a) I'm somewhat tired of people discussing modernism as if all that came about in the last four hundred years in the has best wars, death, and colonialism. It's also been some of the greatest developments in medicine, economics, and democracy. We all know that there were issues but it's a hell of a lot better than feudal systems and religious wars. Read this for an interesting critique: http://www.inhabitatiodei.com/2009/06/26/why-modernity-is-not-the-problem/ & http://www.inhabitatiodei.com/2009/06/29/why-modernity-is-not-a-christian-heresy/
I believe if you want a better critique than one-liners you should check out some of radical orthodoxy's critique about the divide btw church and state, it's so very informative.
Also I might check out Jameson's Cultural Logic for Late Capitalism, which is a Marxist argument that postmodern culture is a by-product of later capitalism, pretty good. I would argue that the emerging church and denomination churches only function within a capitalist economies
b) I loved the substitutionary atonement reference
c) I would agree somewhat that there might be an underemphasis on the gospel or doctrines, but that seems to be a rather large critique for a movement that is entirely too large to justify. Again, I would assume that his desire for rootedness and theology is important, but what gospel does he refer to? Again, if he believes that a recitation of the church creeds is what's lacking in the emerging church, I believe he has failed to take seriously the 20th century theological critiques of orthodoxy (especially from liberation theology as I tried to show with the atonement and intend to demonstrate with Christology). But, I imagine he is correct that the emerging church has been too accommodating towards culture. Why does the emerging church conversations always focus on ecclesiology and mission? This is why I'm starting to refuse to read any of these books, they seem to lack theological depth.
d) I'm also tired of people proposing a third way. Honestly these proposals tend to require that one caricature two perspectives so as to force them into being opposites, leaving your better alternative mediating the two and absorbing all the good aspects and rejecting all the bad.