Why We're Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be Reviews

• An Introduction and Corrective

  
  By AEYEAH3C78BBZ on 2008-03-25
  "What is this emerging church I keep hearing about?" If I had a dime for every time I have been asked that question or one like it, well, I'd be several dollars richer. Emerging is one of the buzzwords in the church these days and one that begs for greater explanation. Unfortunately it is not an easy term to define. To borrow a tired cliche, defining the emerging church is much like trying to nail Jello to a wall. It's a near-impossible and entirely thankless task. Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck give it a shot in their new book Why We're Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be). These are two young men who, if we were to look to demographics, would be top candidates for involvement in the emerging movement. Yet they've stayed away from it, opting instead to commit to ministry and service within more traditional churches. In this book they explain why and in so doing explain what the emerging church is all about and the danger it poses.
  
  In an editorial decision that turns out to be quite successful, DeYoung and Kluck alternate chapters throughout the book (though you'll want to watch for an exception at the very end where Kluck writes two consecutively). DeYoung's chapters are the more academic ones--they provide some in-depth interaction with the theology of the emerging church. Kluck's chapters, on the other hand, are less formal and more reflective. They actually read, perhaps ironically, not unlike something Don Millar might have written.
  
  Kluck typically begins his chapters by discussing a book he has been reading or an emergent speaker he has heard. He bridges to some of the shortcomings of the emergent movement and some of the ways it has proven unbiblical. He includes several poignant descriptions of his church and the kind of classical Christianity that has fallen out of favor among emergents. Speaking of his search for a church he writes, "I was looking for a theology and a body that I could give my life to and entrust with my children. The reason I love Christianity and the Bible is that I think they are really the only things in this world that don't need to be periodically `repainted' or reframed." Quoting a friend, Kluck writes, "My other main concern is [emergents] seem to have adopted the American demographic marketing model. I may be wrong, but I'm afraid that a movement that claims to care about justice, community, and inclusivity seems to just be tailor-made for white, suburban, affluent professionals in their twenties and thirties. That concerns me from a self-delusional standpoint."
  
  Meanwhile, DeYoung's chapters are the real heart of the book. He covers a variety of topics of great theological importance including the Bible, Christian doctrine, modernism and its impact on theology, and the doctrines of Jesus Christ. He shows the danger inherent in the emergent unwillingness to take stands even on doctrines closest to the heart of the Christian faith. The claim that emerging theology is still in process is no excuse. "It's one thing for a high school student to be in process with his theology. It's another thing for adults to write books and speak around the world about their musing and misgivings. I agree there must be space for Christians to ask hard questions and explore the tensions of our faith, but I seriously question that this space should be hugely public where hundreds of thousands of men and women are eagerly awaiting the next book or blog or podcast arising from your faith journey. No matter what new label you put on it, once you start selling thousands of books, speaking all over the country and world, and being looked to for spiritual and ecclesiastical direction, you're no longer just a conversation partner. You are a leader and a teacher. And this is serious business..." Neither can emerging leaders simply claim that they should not all be lumped together. "Call it a friendship, or a network, or a web of relationships, but when people endorse one another's book and speak at the same conferences and write on the same blogs, there is something of a discernible movement afoot."
  
  Ultimately the authors conclude, as have many Christians, that "Emergent Christians need to catch Jesus' broader vision for the church--His vision for a church that is intolerant of error, maintains moral boundaries, promotes doctrinal integrity, stands strong in times of trial, remains vibrant in times of prosperity, believes in certain judgment and certain reward, even as it engages the culture, reaches out, loves, and serves. We need a church that reflects the Master's vision--one that is deeply theological, deeply ethical, deeply compassionate, and deeply doxological." We serve a God who is knowable and who wants to be known. We do not need to establish doubt as the essence of faith, but can have confidence in what God teaches about Himself. We need to be Christians who are first deeply theological and who allow ethics and justice and compassion to grow outward from that theological base.
  
  Why We're Not Emergent is not a scholarly treatment of what is decidedly not an intellectual movement. Instead this is an eminently accessible book and one that should have very wide appeal. It will introduce you to the key leaders and foundational books of the emerging movement. It will show you why this emergent movement is so deceptive and so dangerous. If have been searching for a book that will help you to understand the emerging church or if you have been seeking to answer a friend's question "What is the emerging church?," this is just the book you'll want. I heartily recommend it.
  
  

• A constructive critique

  
  By A3NGNFNXXFSCIC on 2008-03-27
  A couple of years ago, I found myself disappointed with many of the critiques of the emerging church. Some were nasty, and some did a poor job of capturing the movement (or whatever you call it).
  
  But something's changed: the quality of the critique. A case in point is this book.
  
  The authors, Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck, don't take themselves too seriously. They write differently: Kevin is the more scholarly pastor, while Ted is the less academic guy who writes shorter, more experiential chapters. You get propositional arguments in this book, but you also get to visualize Ted reading Rob Bell while his wife's family cottage while discussing the contents with his brother-in-law, or sheepishly admitting that he likes Rob Bell's Nooma videos to his mother-in-law, who likes them too. I really enjoyed the voices of the authors in this book. "Emergent leaders have often cried foul when their books have been held up to academic scrutiny. 'We're not professional scholars,' they say, and neither are we. So it's a fair fight - more fair than fight, we hope."
  
  I also like the way they approach the subject. They have read the books, and not just one or two either. They've been to some of the churches, conferences, and classrooms. They admit when they like the authors and speakers, and never forget that they're talking about real people. They like some aspects of the emerging church. They understand the difference between emerging and emergent. They don't think one voice speaks for the entire emerging church, and they speak appreciatively of those who are more theologically conservative.
  
  They're also realistic about their goals. "We're not really writing this book to change people's minds because, let's face it, that rarely happens...This is our attempt at joining the 'conversation.'"
  
  So what is their problem with the emerging church? Here they cover a lot of ground. They point out some of the problems with thinking of the journey as more about experience than a destination. They argue that humility is not the same thing as uncertainty. They argue for the value of propositions, which are not a modern phenomenon. They suggest that the emerging view of modernism is often caricatured. They gently poke fun at emergent speak. They present some of their problems with the notion, "Give me Jesus, not doctrine," and the emphasis on orthopraxy at the expense of orthodoxy. They question "whether the emerging church even has the category of theological error," concluding that some do, but also fearing that many do not. They suggest that the emerging church has an over-realized eschatology (too much "now" and not enough "not yet"). They argue for the value of boundaries, argue that preaching should not be thrown out, and highlight some of the contradictions and problems within popular emerging books. They defend the doctrine of penal substitution, which has been dismissed by some, as well as the doctrine of God's wrath. All of this and more. I really appreciated the way they engaged the theological issues within this book.
  
  The epilogue of the book is a reflection on the letters to the churches in Revelation. "Emergent leaders need to celebrate all the strengths and shun the weaknesses of the seven churches in Revelation 2-3 - and admit that Jesus' prescription for health is more than community, authenticity, and inclusion." The letters in Revelation speak to all churches, including, they argue, emerging ones.
  
  I have to admit that I was nervous in picking up this book. The last thing we need is another critique that's well-meaning but sloppy, misguided, or mean. I'm no longer nervous. I'm sure not everyone will agree with or appreciate everything in this book, but we can all appreciate three things:
  
  It provides greater understanding - This book will help those outside of the emerging church to understand the emerging church better, and vice versa.
  
  It clarifies the issues - This book is a primer on what the issues are. It goes beyond some of the other critiques I've read that focus only on one or two writers or one or two issues.
  
  It advances the "conversation" - I've always said that my emerging friends welcome critique when offered in the right way. I think this book qualifies. It may not change too many minds, but it may clarify some points of disagreement, and it may even lead to some discussion and correction. I highly recommend this book.
  
  

• Sometimes brilliant, sometimes overstated

  
  By A1IXKIWYGZ8AEP on 2008-08-09
  I must confess that I often judge a book by its cover... the back cover that is. If the title and trendy cover artwork for Why We're Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be) aren't catchy enough already, the endorsements on the back cover are what really grabbed my attention. Those who are familiar with the current mini-feud within evangelicalism between liberal "emergents" and conservative Calvinists will recognize names like scholar D.A. Carson, pastor Mark Dever and blogger Justin Taylor, all of whom are well respected in Calvinist/Reformed circles. Because of their high praise for this book, I was half-expecting another dry and academic roast of Brian McLaren's irreverent writing, which often distracts critics from the broader emerging movement's missional focus.
  
  While reading the opening chapters, I quickly discovered that my pre-conceptions were largely incorrect. Gen-X authors Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck have done their homework and the result is a witty, engaging and accessible critique, certainly the most nuanced and evenhanded anti-emergent book yet published. While it's no surprise that their perspective is clearly Reformed (thanks to a healthy dose of penal substitution atonement theory, human depravity and unconditional election), their observations and conclusions will be helpful to readers across the Christian spectrum. With alternating chapters, DeYoung's pastoral/academic lens provides the theological substance while Kluck, a culturally savvy sportswriter with an eye for the ironic, supplies a colorful layperson's perspective.
  
  Regardless of how one describes what it means to be `emerging' or `emergent' (the authors acknowledge there is a difference), it is unmistakably one of the most controversial movements in the church today. "Defining the emerging church is like nailing Jell-O to the wall" writes 30-year-old pastor Kevin DeYoung in the book's introduction. Even though the `emerging church' is not a denomination, nor does it have a statement of faith beyond the "values and practices" described on the Emergent Village website, it's safe to call it a "diverse, but recognizable, movement" and not just "a conversation" as some adherents are fond of doing. For a movement so heavy on terminology (emerging, emergent, missional, postmodern, incarnational, praxis, ancient-future, etc.) there is a glaring, intentional absence of clear definitions. I can identify with DeYoung when he says:
  
  "It's frustrating because the `we're just in conversation mantra' can become a shtick whereby emergent leaders are easy to listen to and impossible to pin down... No matter what label you put on it, once you start selling thousands of books, speaking all over the country and world, and being looked to for spiritual and ecclesiastical direction, you're no longer just a conversation partner. You are a leader and a teacher." (p. 17)
  
  For someone expressing such clear opposition to the movement on theological and philosophical grounds, it's commendable how DeYoung goes to great lengths to cultivate respectful dialogue, a practice frequently espoused by emergents. With generous disclaimers in the introduction, he acknowledges the possibility that his understanding of the movement may be different than that of his readers. He does his best to allow the movement to define (or not define) itself on its own terms. He acknowledges that some emergent authors "if push came to shove, would sound much more orthodox and evangelical than they come across in print" (I would agree). He welcomes correction if he's misunderstood anyone and he understands that everyone can't be lumped together under one label. He concedes that certain authors like Rob Bell and Donald Miller don't label themselves as "emerging" while some like Dan Kimball are more theologically responsible than others like Spencer Burke (no kidding). He doesn't want to think of his opponents as "bad guys" or criticize those who have been blessed by their ministries. He claims to not dislike all things emergent and refers to emergent believers as "brothers and sisters." He even gives a tip of the hat to Rob Bell, calling him "a good teacher."
  
  Once the definitions and qualifiers are in place, DeYoung uses his 135+ pages as a passionate call for classic Protestant orthodoxy, addressing a variety of concepts that some (not all) emergent writers tend to downplay: the knowability of God, absolute truth, the need for doctrine/theological boundaries, the authority of Scripture, the existence of hell, the reality of God's judgement, the uniqueness of Christ, the nature of the atonement and the balance between law and gospel. Responding to a diverse host of writers including McLaren, Bell, Miller, Kimball, Burke, Doug Pagitt, Peter Rollins, Leonard Sweet and Tony Jones, DeYoung sometimes overstates his case, but for the most part, he makes a genuine attempt to engage his opponents fairly. Here is a sampling of my favorite slices:
  
  "The Christian movement at its inception was not just a way of life in the modern sense, but a way of life founded upon a message... As soon as you say Jesus died and rose again for your sins according to the Scriptures, you have doctrine. You have a message about what happened in history and what it means. That's theology. There is no gospel without it." (p. 113)
  
  "Yes, yes, a thousand times yes; we do see through a glass dimly; we do not fully understand; we don't know God as God knows Himself; our words can't capture the essence of God. God is greater than we can conceive- but what about the 1,189 chapters in the Bible? Don't they tell us lots of things about God that we are supposed to do more with than doubt and not understand? Aren't the Scriptures written so that we might believe and be sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see and even proclaim this faith to others?" (p. 123-124)
  
  "Does anyone really believe that creedal formulations began with modernism, as if Christians suddenly got obsessed with doctrine in the wake of the Enlightenment? ... This is systematic theology- taking a question and trying to hear what all of Scripture says about it. Isn't that what McLaren has done about the kingdom or Dan Kimball about worship?" (p. 151)
  
  "Does the emergent Jesus demand that all nations worship Him as their God and Savior or merely that everyone live like He did? ...Obviously, Jesus was chided for fraternizing with sinners and tax collectors, but why did the Jews crucify Him? They killed Jesus for His outrageous Godlike claims- that He was the Son of God and the King of Israel." (p. 204)
  
  If DeYoung supplies the book's intellectual reasoning, Ted Kluck brings the satirical spark. Unlike his co-author, Kluck makes his points with subtlety, sharing what are more like meandering impressions (think Anne Lamott without the swearing) rather than blunt statements of condemnation. By diffusing defensiveness with a charming, self-deprecating approach (confessing that he too wears the Rob Bell glasses and gives "weak" responses to smart questions), he satirically questions the movement without spelling everything out. Never hesitant to poke fun at himself, he admits that "writing a book titled Why We're Not Emergent probably won't help at all in the `further alienating friends and acquaintances' department" (p. 99) adding later that "The idea that people read much of anything and have their minds changed by it is less and less realistic to me." (p. 234)
  
  In chapter 2, Kluck does an excellent job of exploring (with a little bit of mystery and imagination I might add) the themes of protest and rebellion, tongue-and-cheekly calling himself a "rebel" for making what sounds like a hilarious short film about Christian stereotypes. Many readers, myself included, will identify with his anti-"evangelical cheesiness" stage. Kluck successfully deconstructs the appeal of protest and rebellion by pointing to examples from history that illustrate how protesting the status-quo is really nothing new. Ironically, this book, like much of emergent literature, is also a protest.
  
  Kluck is at his creative best when he is describing the faddish trends embraced by the evangelical subculture, emergent or otherwise. Describing a theologically-minded friend of his named Dave, he says this:
  
  "I wouldn't go so far as to put him in the "rabid young John Piper groupies" department, but if he met a beautiful young girl wearing glasses, no makeup and an indie-rock T-shirt, reading Calvin's Institutes, he probably wouldn't hesitate to ask her to 'court.'" (p. 99)
  
  Some of my other favorite Ted Kluck snippets include his humorous description of a "web-based experiential prayer module" (p. 210) and this reflection on holiday letters:
  
  "I hate holiday letter time. You know the time of year- it's the time when successful Christian couples send you the glossy photo of themselves in the yuppie uniform of the year surrounded by a passel of lovely children... The blonde housewife looks a little tired but nevertheless hot in a conservative Christian meets Desperate Housewives sort of way. And there's the husband, who has put on a little paunch since he sat on the Young Republicans committee in college and was the head of his class in his business school." (p.174)
  
  One of the book's recurring themes is the need for balance. On page 156, DeYoung says, "We must refuse false dichotomies that force a wedge between head and heart, rationality and faith, truth and experience." In the epilogue, he reinforces the imperative this way:
  
  "I pray fervently that my church not be a lopsided church that excels in one kind of virtue at the expense of other virtues... I fear emergent leaders are creating a host of false dichotomies that will produce lopsided churches, even as they respond to lopsided churches in the opposite directions." (p. 251)
  
  For the most part, DeYoung and Kluck use sound reason and keen observation to expose many of the false dichotomies that abound in emergent literature including: belief vs. practice, destination vs. journey, information vs. transformation, doctrine vs. ethics, life after death vs. life on earth, scriptural commands vs. scriptural narratives and the gospel as an event vs. the gospel as a doctrine. On these issues, many influential emergent writers do in fact have a lopsided focus for which Why We're Not Emergent provides helpful correctives.
  
  But despite their genuine efforts to maintain balance, there are more than a few instances when DeYoung and Kluck seem to present their own set of false choices by elevating one virtue at the expense of another. Some of these include: Scriptural wisdom over corporate wisdom (p. 79), belief in Christ over following the way of Jesus (p. 112), Jesus as Savior over Jesus as Servant (p. 188), atonement theory over economic justice (p. 191), sin and rebellion over suffering and brokenness (p. 194), "sin, justification and undeserved mercy" over "community, inclusion and journey" (p. 248) among others.
  
  On pages 32-33, DeYoung emphasizes that the destination is more important than the journey. He describes the emerging path as "more about the wild, uncensored adventure of mystery and paradox" which is contrasted with Biblical passages about being sojourners in this world. He's right that there are certainly many passages in Scripture that talk about heaven, but there are just as many, if not more, that talk about how to live. Emergents clearly err on the side of emphasizing journey, but so do the Quakers and mystics from the contemplative tradition. DeYoung's Reformed tradition falls closer to the destination end of the spectrum, but both traditions are important to evangelicals and it would be a mistake to exclude either. Because DeYoung is so focused on the destination, it didn't surprise me that he is not a big fan of personal introspection:
  
  "We are so in-tuned with our dysfunctions, hurts and idiosyncrasies that it often prevents us from growing up, because maturity is tantamount to hypocrisy in a world that prizes brokenness more than health." (p.34)
  
  I would contend that becoming aware of and understanding our brokenness/depravity is a very important mark of the Christian life. This is not the same thing as "prizing" it. Perhaps the reason why "authenticity and sincerity have become the currency of authority" for postmoderns is because they have heard too many hypocritical "authorities" use doctrine as a tool to control others. Doctrine is critical to Christianity, but to set it up as a rival with personal introspection is another false choice that need not be made.
  
  On the subject of preaching vs. discussion Kluck seems to imply that generation Xers are drawn to emergent because they hate truth or can't handle the truth:
  
  "I would be hard pressed to find anything our generation hates more than `preaching.' When talking about our faith we're careful not to sound `preachy.' The word carries great baggage. It is especially important, too, to lead us to believe that we've figured something out on our own, rather than telling us anything." (p. 61)
  
  I don't think this generation hates "preaching" as much as they hate preachers who don't speak the truth in love. As Kluck himself says using a James Dean movie character as an example, people really don't want to rebel as much as they want somebody worth submitting to. On page 64, Kluck says that he "was looking for a theology and a body that I could give my life to and entrust with my children." I would add that this is also what many emergents are looking for. Truth and love together. However, when people begin think that the only truth-tellers are mean-spirited or that the only people who will love them are people who deny the existence of absolute truth, we have created a false choice between truth and love.
  
  As I scrawled a multitude of reactions in the page margins, I found myself vacillating between agreement and disagreement, sometimes even on the same page. I would often write "excellent point" and "false dichotomy" within the span of a paragraph or two- kind of like when I read Brian McLaren! The mix of brilliance and overstatement made for some roller coaster reading. One minute, Kluck is making terrific observations about the marketing strategies used by some churches, but before you know it, he's comparing emergents to tobacco lobbyists (p. 97). In another instance, he likens emergent preaching to a "Jesus-as-therapist approach" (p. 218), but I doubt that this concept would be as easy to dismiss if biblical names for God like Healer, Comforter or Counselor had been used instead. In a single paragraph, DeYoung goes from issuing a valuable warning about the emergent imbalance between the "already" vs. "not yet" to rebuking the movement's emphasis on fighting poverty/injustice since "Jesus said the poor will always be with us and wars and rumors of war will continue to the very end." (p. 187) Another example of this tottering occurs when Kluck astutely points out the pretense of emergent jargon:
  
  "Why is it living incarnationally to drink Chai and listen to sitar music in a coffee shop, but not living incarnationally to eat cheese fries and watch big trucks crush things?" (p.230)
  
  A fair point, but on the very next page, he seems to make fun of people who join intentional communities or practice "new monasticism" by sarcastically referencing those who "have time to read all of the books on missional living, which would tell him [his pastor friend Cory] to intentionally get a house in an urban area, get some kind of job that would allow him to rub shoulders with `regular people' and then `do life' with them." (p. 231) In a matter of paragraphs, DeYoung goes from making a solid exegetical case for balance based on the 7 churches in Revelation to pitting Donald Miller against Jonathan Edwards in theological mismatch of historic proportions! (p. 250)
  
  My final criticism, perhaps a minor one, concerns the book's subtitle. Part of the marketing appeal and surface credibility of the book hinges on the idea that DeYoung and Kluck are "two guys that should be" emergent. This clever subtitle seems to imply that there's something about the authors that gives them a better understanding of the movement- that they are closer to the action in some way which gives their critique more weight than say, an academic rebuttal by D.A. Carson who is on the outside looking in. While it's true that both authors are young, culturally savvy, and grew up in Christian homes, these are hardly the defining characteristics of people who've joined the movement. As their book correctly stresses, questioning the way we `do church' is a huge, if not defining, element of being an emergent Christian. A major component of the emergent experience is being dissatisfied or disillusioned with your experience of the evangelical church, which then prompts you to question the way things should be done.
  
  DeYoung speaks very positively of his conservative Reformed upbringing and was never interested in leaving it behind, much less becoming emergent. As far as Kluck is concerned, the closest he came to joining the movement was talking with a friend who tried unsuccessfully to recruit him into it. If everyone were this happy and content with their evangelical church experience, it's doubtful that an emerging movement would have ever "emerged" in the first place. The authors don't seem to question the way their Reformed community does church, just the way that some emergents do. To be clear, there's nothing wrong with critiquing something you're not part of and I truly rejoice that both guys appear to be thriving as part of their own faith tradition. But there's no evidence from either of their spiritual journeys that these guys were ever remotely interested in becoming emergent, so it's a somewhat of a misleading marketing gimmick to say that they "should be." I would not expect two Calvinist complementarians from western Michigan to be emergent any more than a I would expect a left-leaning open theist attending Fuller Seminary to be Dutch Reformed!
  
  Personally, I consider myself someone who identifies with certain aspects of the movement, but I avoid the "emerging" label for its connotations of theological liberalism and doctrinal uncertainty. Based on my experience, I cannot say that this book provides a completely balanced description of what the movement is about. While it's true that certain writers and pockets of the movement are merely attempting to sell books, make people feel good, target a marketing demographic, provide disillusioned young Christians a forum to vent, promote liberal politics and protest evangelical authority, the emerging church has still made some positive contributions beyond their diagnosis of what's wrong with mainstream evangelical Christianity. A renewed interest in contemplative spiritual disciplines, the narrative depths of Old Testament, liturgical/sacramental worship, communal living, social justice (not just charity), participation in the Kingdom of God, spiritual formation, peacemaking, creation care and the way of Jesus are a few that come to mind. It's not that emergents are the only ones who care about such things, but the authors tend to either gloss over these aspects of the movement or treat them as distractions to the gospel.
  
  Of course, I wouldn't expect DeYoung and Kluck to fully survey the merits of the emergent movement any more than I would trust Brian McLaren to provide a faithful summary of historic Reformed doctrine! But if you are looking for a moderate, theologically responsible description of what the emerging church is, I highly recommend the work of Scot McKnight, a respected evangelical scholar who has identified himself with Emergent Village, but is not afraid to offer a firm biblical rebuke of the movement when one is needed. A case in point was McKnight's rebuttal of Spencer Burke's A Heretic's Guide to Eternity, which represents the radical unorthodoxy and quasi-universalism awaiting emergents if statements of faith, moral boundaries, established doctrines and church history are ignored. DeYoung mentions on page161 that McKnight even has a few criticisms for Rob Bell's interpretation of 1st century Jewish history. As Kluck says on page 213, "When I see the emergent movement described by Scot McKnight, I like it a lot better than when I see it hashed out by Brian McLaren and Tony Jones." I couldn't agree more.
  
  Although it is far too one-sided for me to suggest this to those looking for an introductory survey of the movement, I highly recommend Why We're Not Emergent to those who are already participating in the "conversation" as well as anyone who wants a summary of its weaknesses. You're not likely to find a more respectfully nuanced (and engaging to read) case against the emerging church than the one presented in this book. DeYoung and Kluck have provided an articulate call to historic orthodoxy that should be, and hopefully will be, welcomed at the discussion table.
  
  

• The Literary Lesson of Lovelessness

  
  By A2V7UVKOFG57IW on 2008-06-29
  I requested this book for review from Moody Publishers and they were kind enough to comply.
  
  As I flipped to the first page inside the cover, there's an endorsement at the top of the page by D.A. Carson. Carson's book, published in 2005 entitled, "Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church" was hardly a fair handed treatment of the topic the title purportedly represents. Furthermore, Carson's claims that Brian McLaren has "largely abandoned the gospel" (pp. 186-187) was evidence to me that Mr. Carson neither knows Brian or has any legitimate grasp of what McLaren is all about in terms of his literary contributions over the past several years and the way McLaren has lived and currently lives his life. Carson captures the essence of why I developed the motivation and went through the effort to read "Why We're Not Emergent - By Two Guys Who Should Be" by Ted Kluck and Kevin DeYoung when he writes: "If emerging church leaders wish to become a long-term prophetic voice that produces enduring fruit and that does not drift off toward progressive sectarianism and even, in the worst instances, outright heresy, they must listen at least as carefully to the criticisms of their movement as they transparently want others to listen to them." (p.234 - Carson, D.A. "Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church" Zondervan, 2005). Well, D.A., transparently, that's why I read Ted and Kevin's book that has your endorsement as numero uno inside the front cover.
  
  From purely a literary and style standpoint, this book is extremely well written and easy to read. The author's intentions for writing the book are quite clear: "We write this book because the more we learn about the emerging church, the harder it is to swallow (p.23). DeYoung and Kluck even spell out what success might mean to them in writing it when they state: "In fact, if our book makes emergent folks indignant enough to stand up and tell us more definitively what they believe, we will consider this book a success."(pp.23-24). The authors also confess what they suspect may be one of the outcomes of their book: "It reminds me of how sad this all is --- this us/them mentality --- and how writing a book titled Why We're Not Emergent probably won't help at all in the "further alienating friends and acquaintances" department." (p.99). Well, when you take 256 pages to attempt to discredit and seemingly dismember a whole group of folks (none of whom you indicated you had an actual face-to-face conversation with) who were created by the same loving God you profess has created you...well...you get the picture.
  
  The overall effect this book had on me was to ponder the existence of lovelessness within the so-called Christian community. Using an excerpt from this book, DeYoung and Kluck succinctly characterize the essence of this impact when they write:
  
  "Ephesus' lovelessness manifested itself in another kind of sin, not just a lack of life-giving fellowship but a lack of life-giving witness. The followers of Christ were so busy battling and protecting and defending that they had turned inward to self-protection and suspicion. They were navel-gazers, with no vision or purpose outside themselves. They were great at keeping the world out of the church, but they were terrible at taking the church out into the world...It is sad but true. Theologically astute churches and theologically minded pastors sometimes die of dead orthodoxy. Some grow sterile and cold, petrified as the frozen chosen, not compromising with the world, but not engaging it either. We may think right, live right, and do right, but if we do it off in a corner, shining our lights at one another to probe our brothers sins instead of pointing our lights into the world, we will, as a church, grow dim, and eventually our light will be extinguished." (p. 244).
  
  The book by Kluck and DeYoung is filled with the theme described in the paragraph above --- lovelessness. It is clearly a bush league sucker-punch from a methodological standpoint in terms of what might be characterized as a form of legitimate social research. It is essentially a review of the published emergent literature (books and blogs) where excerpts are used to validate the points being made by the authors, without sufficient (in some cases any) impartial, substantive reference to the context of the material excerpted. Furthermore, there are no interviews with the likes of those duly dismembered like Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, Rob Bell, Donald Miller, Dave Tomlinson, Steve Chalke, Spencer Burke, Doug Pagitt, Barry Taylor, Erwin McManus, Dwight Friesen...sorry if I might have missed you. The authors really missed an opportunity to write a vastly more valuable and legitimate literary work had they taken the opportunity to sit down, engage in face-to-face interaction, and discuss their points of inquiry beyond the sole sources they relied upon.
  
  This book is an intentional, unfortunate approach to protecting and defending what Kluck and DeYoung claim to know as truth. The lovelessness inherent throughout the text (save for numerous places where they clearly attempt to exhibit graciousness - they do) by shining the light on their brother's perceived sins caused my light to grow dim. Kluck and DeYoung are convinced that they think right, do right and live right. Yet, they've done it off in a corner, behind the backs of their brothers, sucking the oxygen out of the room that prevented the life giving witness this project had the distinct potential to become to be snuffed out before the ink was dry on the pages.
  
  The vast distinction between these two authors and the people they take 256 pages to attempt to discredit is summarized in the following quote from Kluck and DeYoung: "One of the things that keeps me grounded as a pastor is to ask myself, "Will this help me and my people die well?" (p.252). Well, that's one of the fundamental reasons why I'm not enamored with your book, or the life you script for those who claim the name of Christ, who still live and breathe as I do on this planet. As Neil Cole wrote in his book, Organic Church - Growing Faith Where Life Happens: "Christianity is always just one generation away from extinction. If we fail to reproduce ourselves and pass the torch of life into the hands of the next generation, Christianity will be over within just one generation. Yet, because of the power of multiplication, we are also one generation away from worldwide fulfillment of the great commission. The choice is ours." (p.105).
  
  I would refer you to a splendid source of superb social research to reconsider your stated thesis above about "dieing well." This research is laid out in David Kinnaman's newly released book (October 2007) entitled, unChristian - What a New Generation Really Thinks About Christianity - And Why It Matters. Kinnaman has been George Barna's protégé over the last 12 years and is President of the Barna Group, unequivocally the ongoing source of reliable social research about Christians, Christianity and the Church, particularly in the U.S..
  
  This book is sobering. I wept at certain parts of it. We Christians have made a mess of Christianity in North America and the established Church most certainly has its share of the blame. As Kinnaman says, "We can't change what we are known for unless we change how we live." (p. 231). This "living" includes the "life" of the Church. Kinnaman goes on to say that we must "discern how deep and serious the problems are, so that our missional engagement in the coming years won't be more of the same." (emphasis is mine).
  
  It is my prayer that we shall choose to cease engaging in the lovelessness that we birth and perpetuate in well intentioned books like Why We're Not Emergent - By Two Guys Who Should Be. Of course, we can conjure up all sorts of rationalizations and justifications based upon various perversions of duty and a maligned sense of self-righteousness. However, the world yearns for the life-giving witness that only the presence of such lovelessness prevents. The choice is ours.
  
  Call Brian McLaren and Tony Jones. Buy them lunch. You can't help but love these guys. The love of Christ remains contagious. May we all infect this, His world, with the same. The choice is ours.
  
  
  

• A fantastic and much-needed resource

  
  By A27EK1P0L7A1LA on 2008-04-24
  This is an excellent and much-needed assessment of the emerging church movement. While D.A. Carson and R. Scott Smith both offered very helpful critiques of this movement in 2005, this new book is really quite superb in giving us a balanced appraisal of, and serious warning about, the emergent movement.
  
  Consistent with postmodernism, the emerging church folk have a strong dislike of rationality, theology, and propositional truth. They look down on dogma, rules, teaching, preaching, boundaries and doctrine. While they reject some things we should reject - legalism, unloving judgmentalism, head over heart, and so on - they have a tendency of throwing the baby out with the bath water. In reacting to one extreme, they go way over to another extreme. What is needed is biblical balance, not wild pendulum swings.
  
  Consider the issue of our knowledge of God. The emergent crowd generally argues that we should be content with mystery, wonder and questions. We cannot pin down God and he is too big to be put in a theological box. That all may be true, but they go to unnecessary extremes here. Emergent leaders "are allowing the immensity of God to swallow up His knowability. In good postmodern fashion, they are questioning whether we can have any real knowledge about God in the first place."
  
  But God is a God who reveals himself, who speaks, who acts, and discloses truths about himself to finite mankind. If God does not have a problem with this, why do the emergent leaders? Sure, we only have partial knowledge of God, but we can still have true truth about God.
  
  Many emergent leaders argue that we can know God personally, but we cannot know him propositionally. We can have a relationship with God, but we cannot really know too much about him. But this is just plain silly, as well as unbiblical. How can a man love his wife, for example, while knowing little about her? Knowledge about others is necessary in order for us to have a relationship with them.
  
  Similarly, the emergent crowd makes much of relationship over against rules and regulations. Do's and don'ts and laws just don't cut it anymore. Instead, Christianity is all about love and relationship. But as the authors rightly remind us, relationships must be guarded and preserved by rules: "Try telling your wife after you've had an affair, `Come on, I thought our marriage was about the relationship, not all these do's and don'ts'."
  
  Emergent leaders also buy the whole postmodern idea that we are only left with interpretation. The emphasis of the deconstructionists is that we can never really know what the author intended. All we have is our own subjective understanding.
  
  The emergent infatuation with deconstructionism is dangerous business indeed. By abandoning any sure word, by saying we are only left with interpretation - not final truth - the emergent crowd is leaving us all in a sea of relativism and uncertainty. But God is quite able to communicate to us and to use words in such a way that are understandable and meaningful.
  
  Of course we all misinterpret things, because we are fallen and finite. But Scripture throughout insists that there is real meaning in the text, that is can be communicated to us, and that we can have some genuine understanding of it, albeit in a limited and not exhaustive fashion.
  
  But if we can never be sure about anything, why do the emerging leaders seem so certain about what they are trying to tell us? The authors remind us that the emergent leaders want to tell us that our traditional understandings (for example, about hell, exclusivism, the nature of the atonement, etc.) are faulty, yet they somehow seem certain about this, and that their alternative understandings are the ones to adopt.
  
  They say traditional evangelicals have been misinterpreting the Bible, all the while saying we can never really know that any interpretation is true. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. If anything goes in interpretation, then why should we heed the emergent leaders any more than, say, Paris Hilton?
  
  The authors point out that the emergent writers confuse humility with uncertainty. They think it is a good thing that we are not dogmatic, but instead live with ambiguity, mystery, doubt and questions. Indeed, many of them equate faith with doubt. They dislike hard and fast theological systems, and they dislike those who claim to have some solid handle on the truth, equating that with pride and intolerance.
  
  But that does not square with the Biblical writers, especially the early apostles. They claimed to have the truth, to know the truth, and to proclaim the truth. They proclaimed the gospel as certain truth, and were willing to die for their strong convictions. But the emergent crowd wants us to hold onto things so loosely and so tentatively that one must ask, what gospel are they in fact offering to people?
  
  "The apostles never preached with the double-talk and ambiguity you find in so many emergent books" the authors state. And the idea of a non-doctrinal Christianity - the no-creed-but-Jesus mentality - is simply the stuff of old-fashioned theological liberalism. It is weak and wishy washy, and converts no one.
  
  The emergent gospel leaves a lot to be desired. Many in the movement have real trouble with saying Jesus is the only way to salvation; are squeamish about propitiation; dislike talk of hell; and have a very low view of Scripture. It is really quite identical to the old theological liberalism. "The only difference is that the old liberalism accommodated modernity and the new liberalism accommodates postmodernism."
  
  The books of McLaren, Bell, Pagitt, Kimball, Jones and others will undoubtedly continue to sell well, and their conferences will probably still be sell-outs. But it is a movement that is in urgent need of balance. And this book is an excellent resource in helping to bring about that balance. It has a message that desperately needs to be heard.
  
  
• Good but....
  By A3QJQVHK62DUJD on 2008-03-26
  I am a pastor of a church in Tyler,TX that at first glance would seem Emergent due to the more modern style that we have in our meetings. As people get to know us, however, they would come to see that we are in complete agreement with these guys on all of what this book speaks about. My problem is the label that begins with Mclaren and Bell, but then leaks out onto ministries like Acts 29 (of which we are seeking affiliation) and other churches who choose to be both Reformed and Missional. My strong advice is that as people read this book they consider carefully the introduction portion and make sure that the terminology is sorted out first. If not, I am afraid that in the future, anyone seen preaching in jeans will be considered a heretic and stereotyped before they are clearly heard. The issue/concern (as this book clearly lays out) is about doctrine and truth. I recommmend this book highly, but also recommmend "Listening to the Beliefs of the Emerging Churches" as well.
  
  B.W. Davis [...]
  
  
• Absolutely Wonderful!
  By A1U4PYQY02M5YG on 2008-03-25
  Others, including D.A. Carson have done great books on responding to Postmodernism. Deyoung and Kluck however, (if I may borrow a little postmodern terminology) are speaking my language. I love weighty tomes of obscure theology. But I don't always like to read such heavy material. This is far from heavy, yet solid at the same time. The thought process involved is obviously brilliant. The theology is sound. The academic work is of the highest quality. AND it is easily readable and a wonderful explanation of how we can be young and relevant and NOT postmodern. Great work guys! A must read!
  
  
• Engaging, helpful, fair-minded book
  By A304OC1YMXP9WG on 2008-03-20
  This is a very good book for understanding the serious concerns related to the emergent church/movement. The authors focus on the weaknesses of the movement (although noting some strengths too), and they do so in an insightful, fair (and often funny) way that is easy to understand.
  
  So if you've been wondering what the Emergent Church is all about, and why some are so concerned about its serious and significant departures from Biblical Christianity, this is a great book to read.
  
  
• Don't throw the baby out!
  By A1DWZA7XXHOZOQ on 2008-05-01
  I enjoyed reading "Why We're Not Emergent." It was an engaging and informative read. It is a welcome addition to the "conversation." The tag-team authors are complementary in style, providing both substance and connection with the reader. I would caution those, however, who have an interest in the emerging church to not "throw the baby out with the bathwater." DeYoung and Kluck deal almost exclusively with the popular leaders of the "movement," especially Bell and McLaren. They rightly point out concerns conservative evangelicals should have regarding the theology of these persuasive leaders. But the authors of "Why We're Not Emergent" rarely deal with the real theologians who, while not leading the conversation, have certainly contributed to evangelical engagement with post-modernism. Stan Grenz, Scot McKnight, and Robert Webber are mentioned only in passing, and then generally in a positive light.
  
  There is another side of the emergent church that has something to say to the modern evangelical church. The authors mention Dan Kimball a few times - a popular and recognized leader in the "conversation" - but don't really criticize him because he is theologically conservative. Before the reader determines that the emerging conversation is something to be shut down, I encourage reading Grenz, McKnight, and Webber - all generally respected within conservative Christian circles. Do yourself a big favor and google "a call to an Ancient Evangelical Future" and check out the AEF Call. While not technically a part of the emergent "movement" there are many common points of resonance. Upon reflection, I think you might find real meat for renewal in the church.
  
  I consider myself an emergent sympathizer and supporter even though I agreed with most everything that DeYoung and Kluck wrote. The conversation is broader and deeper than Bell and McLaren. Dig deeper. There's hope for the evangelical church to be found in the conversation. Nevertheless, I welcome this book. It is a positive contribution that may serve to clarify renewal efforts that are sorely needed in the Church today
  
  
  
• Clear, calm and well researched
  By AS362TNVP4NGI on 2008-04-23
  The book is tag-team written by two very different authors. Deyoung (a 30-something pastor) and Kluck (a 30-something writer) both generally feel the same frustration that the emergent church has embodied, but without chucking the theology and epistemology that make the church possible. Kluck brings a casual, cynical style that tries a little too hard to be cool, but that's the attitude that started this "conversation" in the first place so what the heck. Deyoung brings the big guns of research and clear thinking. He exposes several alarming trends among the influential people in the emergent conversation (particularly Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, Peter Rollins, Spencer Burke, David Tomlinson, Leonard Sweet, Rob Bell, and Tony Jones). This book is so well-written and well-researched that it is the first of its kind that I feel comfortable recommending to both laypersons and academics. I hated chapter 10 where Kluck interviewed a pastor with whom I agreed, but the guy was inarticulate and a little grumpy. Lots of other pastors (like Deyoung) could have presented the same argument without coming across as exactly the kind of pastor that most emergents can't stand. My favorite chapter was Deyoung's Epilogue which is honestly worth the price of the book. He explores the 7 Letters to the Churches in Revelation to affirm that the emergent church has indeed identified serious issues of concern in modern evangelicalism, while at the same time they have not remained faithful to other essentials.
  
  In summary: concise, intelligent, helpful, kind, worth the price of admission.
  
  
  
• Helpful and Balanced Critique...
  By A3S1SU6DSEZ9FR on 2008-04-15
  This book was written by two guys who couldn't be more different in their background and writing styles. Kevin DeYoung is the young, Reformed pastor, that takes this subject on a very subjective theological level, exposing carefully the doctrinal errors found in the Emergent church. Ted Kluck is just the opposite. Also, young, but a former athlete (he would love to hear that I said former), former semi professional football player, current sportswriter, and unapologetically sarcastic and whimsical. He takes on the subject much like I would, exposing the errors with witty banter and "low hanging fruit."
  
  The book layout was great. Each author took a subject and then the chapters went back and forth throughout. So, you would get hit with the longer, theological, linear chapters of DeYoung, and then read the shorter stories and witty rebuttals from Kluck. I really enjoyed this as you really got the feel from two totally different perspectives of what is going on in the Emergent church.
  
  The book's purpose is to really help people just better understand what the Emergent church is and what it does, or maybe better put, doesn't stand for. The main people that are refuted would be the same if you looked on any blog, namely, Brian McLaren, Rob Bell and Tony Jones. What seemed to be the main focus of the entirety of the book would be the Emergent's focus on Kingdom living, instead of the totality of the work of Christ. In other words, more focused on morality, than understanding what is the first importance: the gospel.
  
  DeYoung and Kluck came to the same conclusion that I have with the Emergent church and others that think just like them, which would be the fact that they are reacting to the more fundamental, legalistic churches, but doing so in the wrong manner. DeYoung and Kluck show that some of the questions that the Emergents bring to light are true and helpful to/against the mainstream church in America, but the way that they answer those questions are not only wrong, but actually harmful, and in some cases, flat out heretical.
  
  The authors did much research for the material, so much so that they went to the different churches and events of this movement to "get their hands dirty". I found this book very helpful and know that those who are in the Emergent church will just see this as another "conversation" not worth having. But, for those who are on the fence or are starting to understand the Emergent problems, will find this a very helpful book on understanding the things that are going on with the Emergent leaders.
  
  Actually, the best part of the book was in the epilogue, when DeYoung went through the churches in Revelation with special focus on Ephesus, Pergamum and Thyratira. This part was very balanced and showed how every church should try to take the good out of each of these churches and learn from them and also learn from the admonishment that Christ gives each as well. Of course, in the end, the idea was for the Emergent church to take a look at what is missing in their movement, which would be the very strongest part in the Ephesian church: defense of doctrine.
  
  I would highly recommend this book to anyone wanting to understand the Emergent church in more detail. I just hope that people are able to learn from this book from within the movement and it isn't just used as ammunition to debate with.
  
  
  
• Painful, Solid, Grounded, & Liberating with More to Explore
  By AMC10O8BJR681 on 2008-04-22
  It was painful to read the first few pages of this book. Not because it rubbed me the wrong way intellectually or came across as rigid or strict. It was painful because I realized that I had been lead, grown, and fed this unhealthy, excessive emergent meal.
  There is a part of the book that proposes "you are emergent if..." and I lined up with 85 to 90 percent of the description. I'm not against the emergent church or the Christians that consider themselves to be emergent, I'm just being honest about it being something dangerous to consume. This comes from my own experience of tasting the postmodern discussions of the mid to late 90's as a high school student to now ending my gluttony of emergent material. I spent years exploring this whole thing that has only recently given itself the title "emergent" and I must say that none of the books have lead me to any firm grounding or real answers. Many of the authors of emergent literature, leave you hanging (although in some areas satisfied, with bits and pieces of a Jesus and no whole picture) but in a strange way wanting more. What I fear is that people, because left with no real answers and just more questions, will end up following the emergent "person's" view of Jesus and the Kingdom and ultimately that particular emergent "person", instead of the Jesus Christ revealed in the Bible. The emergent "person" becomes enthroned and feeds the reader's heart to the point that intimacy is sought out with that person because of their personal views of the how to live Christianity. There is depth in the emergent message but it in my opinion can only go so far.
  This book is solid because it really gave me the answers to what I was looking for. I grew up in an Assemblies of God church and was heavily influenced by a very liberal Youth Pastor. While I had many experiences, there was never any real conviction to be grounded in the Bible. This book heralds that cause in the most loving (but in your face) way. I used to encounter a lot of "Conservtive Christians" that never came across or showed grace for that matter, like Kevin Deyoung and Ted Kluck did. The guys I encountered poked fun at my pentacostal background and even pegged me as wishy washy in my faith.In fact, most of them were very aggressive and prickly in their demeanor. They never gave me the time of day to even try to explain where I was coming from. (They must have been from Ephesus, so I went to Pergamum and found a pseudo-niche there; Read the Epilogue of WWNE)
  Thank you to the authors for being bold and honest in their conviction. I appreciate the substance found in this book and find myself full but wanting more, now of course, in consistent moderation. My hope is that others would hear the voice of Jesus, find themselves believing in the truth of his atonement and be liberated in His death and ressurection in this life, by becoming slaves to the one and only King. There is so much more to explore now that I have found a place to stand and can truly consume of His Flesh and drink of His blood. After all this is the gospel.
  
  
• A 'Must Read'
  By A12MFYHKWMIQLC on 2008-04-26
  Every page and every paragraph of this 256-page book was thoughtful and salient.
  
  The authors unwrap the emerged package of the postmodern-Christian religion using the very words of the movement's de facto leaders: Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, Don Miller, Erwin McManus, Stan Grez, Doug Padgitt, and others.
  
  But the best part of the book is the Epilogue. Diverging from the central theme of analyzing the emergent movement, the Epilogue is a short treatise on the seven churches of Revelation 2-3.
  
  This is an inexpensive book; you need to read it. It will help you trim your wick and develop a deeper love for Christ & His Church and will, at the same time, challenge you to lovingly discern what is true and false in the professing Church today.
  
  
• A good roadmap in a minefield.
  By A2072F8GAHSVIS on 2008-06-26
  I have worked full-time in Young Life for 30 years and am also ordained in the PCA. And I have been very disturbed by the number of our young staff and leaders who are jumping on the Emerging bandwagon without any theological reflection whatsoever. I've read a ton of Emerging stuff, and also D.A. Carson's very heady critique of the movement. But this book is just what I was looking for. It's well researched, appropriately humble, appropriately tough, and extremely readable. These guys deal with nearly all of the landmines and deficiencies of the Emerging movement and make a strong case for the idea that it is not nearly as "emergent" as it says it is. They take some of the Emerging icons to task for shoddy and even sub-Christian theology. A valuable book to share with those who are captivated by this Emerging fluff.
  
  What more can I say... I liked it so much that I bought 25 copies and have already mailed 14 out to friends who need to understand why the Emerging movement is such a dangerous thing. And I'm sure the last 11 will be gone soon!
  
  
• Understand the Emergent Movement
  By AICCCJN3MMQTK on 2008-04-20
  Two of the problems I've had, as the Emergent (Emerging) Church movement has spread across the country, is both trying to figure out what it is that "emergents" believe and then providing a gracious--and certainly Biblical--response. DeYoung and Kluck do this.
  
  DeYoung and Kluck, each writing alternating chapters, take the major themes and beliefs of the Emergent Church and hold them up to Biblical scrutiny. DeYoung's chapters are more theological; Kluck's are more practical and often feature stories which illustrate the points he is making.
  
  Among the strengths of this book is the amount of research which was done to make sure that the leaders of the Emergent Church are quoted accurately. While an admittedly difficult task, because the Emergent "conversation" continues, DeYoung and Kluck have done an admiral job of scouring both books and blogs. One thing those who may criticize this book absolutely cannot say is that the Emergent leaders were misquoted. They are not; they are quoted frequently and in detail. The authors have done their homework.
  
  If you are confused by the Emergent Church and what the movement believes, this is the book for you. You will not be disappointed.
  
  
• Can You Critique An UnDefined Movement?
  By A1MBD6GZAA2AHW on 2008-06-06
  Young people seem to have a way of looking at the status quo and finding flaws and errors; and feeling frustrated at the existing structures and beliefs and traditions. And, so, they criticize and challenge and initiate change. Frankly, that can be good and it has its place and it is, no doubt, an inevitable part of life.
  
  Sometimes, however, after the years go by, and these young people have aged and gained some experience at the school called "life", they come to see that some of those old structures and beliefs and traditions had some wisdom that they had overlooked in their youthful omniscience and zeal.
  
  That is, of course, a great oversimplification of reality, but that's the thought about the "Emergent Movement" that kept occurring to me as I read "Why We're Not Emergent".
  
  This is an interesting book that does a good job of explaining and critiquing a movement that is inherently hard to define and has no recognized headquarters or statement of beliefs--it's a movement where even its recognized leaders and spokespersons will sometimes not identify themselves as part of the movement. The authors characterize the task of defining and critiquing the Emergent movement as being like trying to nail jello to the wall. (At least, I think I read that in this book. I might be wrong. If I am, disregard the last three sentences and move rapidly to the next paragraph shaking your head and saying, "tsk, tsk.")
  
  The book is interesting and funny and the positions of the authors--who are definitely not Emergent--were well reasoned and well stated. But, I appreciate that it was also, in my opinion, a reasonable and irenic treatment of the Emergent movement and its ideas and approach.
  
  DeYoung and Kluck don't back down from stating their beliefs, but you get the impression that they were really trying to disagree lovingly. To "disagree lovingly" is a form of tolerance that is not well recognized in our culture because we've redefined the whole concept of tolerance so that many believe it means that everyone is always right. But DeYoung and Kluck write in a manner that evidences the true spirit of tolerance--which includes disagreement.
  
  Why We're Not Emergent would be a helpful book for people who would like to gain some familiarity with the Emergent movement. And it could also be a profitable intellectual challenge and, dare I say, corrective, for those who consider themselves to be Emergent.
  
  
  
  
• Well researched, balanced and sensible
  By A1SHXT55F9NVXJ on 2008-05-16
  DeYoung and Kluck have written a book that is well researched, balanced, and sensible. I resonate with the concerns they raise, especially since I have read most of the authors they quote. This book provides solid reasons why doctrine and core beliefs really do matter.
  
  
• I have been waiting for this book (long before I knew it was coming)
  By A1AOGE7C6UX0RW on 2008-06-05
  As a self described "Emerging Conservative" who has been studying Emergent over the last few years (including spending time conversing with Doug Pagitt, time at his church, and at Emergent's Summer Institute), I have been hoping for a book like this for awhile. Like the authors, I see a few things to celebrate with Emergent, think the people of Emergent that I have met are caring,neat people, and I have concerns with many key beliefs of the most forefront voices of the group. This book shows truth and love in a way that has been missing from the more "conservative" side within the published community. A must read! (www.tomhypes.com)
  
  
• Solid, entertaining and "relevant"
  By on 2008-06-09
  This is a great book to share with your family or friends who are interested in the Emerging/t movement. Although the indictment of the failing American church is a valid argument. The solution is NOT to forsake the bible and the gospel to cater to our corrupt culture. The power of the gospel is not in our feeble, human presentation but in the Holy Spirit's faithfulness to the simple truth. This is very easy to read. The handoff's between the two authors in each chapter make it addicting.
  
  
• Passionate plea for doing Church right
  By A3QV32CYFQ34IX on 2008-09-17
  This is one of the best books I have read in a decade. It not only untangles and critiques the threads of the emergent movement (and key figures and books), but it passionately presents the church as it ought to be. In between grimacing over emergent errors, I was glad to see a positive present and future for the 'traditional' local church. Buy two copies -- one to read again, and one to give away.
  
  
• Observation
  By A1QA8MCT61YD67 on 2008-10-14
  I find it very disconcerting that in all of the positive reviews that claim "fair, balanced, et al" that the review writers can make no distinction between "Emergent" and "emerging" after reading this book. If there is no distinction between the two--Emergent being an organized group (McLaren, Jones, Pagitt) and emerging being a movement within the Church--contained within this book, then it is far from deserving the praise it has received. Additionally, assuming demographics make you a candidate for the emerging movement shows a complete lack of understanding what the movement is about. What this does is paint all parts of the movement--which has taken on multiple formats and expressions (some solidly Scripture-based like Redeemer Presbyterian in NYC and others not)--into the same corner which demonstrates an even further lack of understanding of the movement itself.
  
  About every 500 years there is a huge "reformation" within the Church and too many times I see people who are "scared" of how "dangerous" they believe a certain person or organized group of people may be and have not been able to distinguish that group from the reforming movement. Where I think Satan is at work (and probably laughing about the ease with which his work is accomplished) is that he can take a group a of people who believe the same essentials and who say they can have diversity in non-essentials and pit them against each other on the basis of non-essentials. Satan is then able to prevent the growth of the Church while allowing us to grow our churches and provide us the feeling that "what we are doing is the right thing" and "what they are doing is wrong". If you can read the New Testament and not see that it is in the wrestling with the tension and struggling to live in the balance between Truth and Grace/Mercy, then you are right where Satan needs you, as a Christian, to be! Rather than trying to discern where someone else is liberal on their interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, try to figure out where you are liberal. I find most Reformed folks are liberal on the Grace/Mercy and conservative on Truth; whereas the Emergent (not emerging) folks are liberal on Truth and conservative on the Grace. Satan knows that if we ever get these two sides working in tandem, Truth of the Scripture and Christ-like Grace, that the Church will explode in a magnificent way.
  
  
• Timely and informational
  By A1P36O38B00F16 on 2008-04-22
  I can't rate this book more highly. This expose of this alarming trend in Christianity should be read by all Christians.
  
  
• Smart, Relevant & Truth
  By A1BQ5CN6L054AE on 2008-05-31
  In a nutshell, this book helped me understand the main points of the Emergent Church/Movement and what they "stand" for. I have already given away my two copies to leaders in my church so they can be educated on the subject. Like the authors, at the end of this book, I too appreciate and love my non-emergent church. The authors did a great job asking questions and revealing the lack of foundational Truth in the emergent movements.
  
  
• A Substantive (and Funny) Look at the Emerging Church
  By A1XUEJ1YVGY3EG on 2008-10-19
  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) (2008, Moody Press) by Ted Kluck and Kevin DeYoung. Out of the great number of books we received that week, Why We're Not Emerging quickly moved to the top of the list in my reading schedule.
  
  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.
  
  
• Valuable Reading
  By A1DV5KNU92HTPJ on 2008-08-07
  I've been reading some emergent books lately (especially McLaren), and I found this book to be a valuable read, especially in terms of helping me understand some balance between varying viewpoints. The authors seek to take the readers back to the Word of God, and they seem well-informed about the emergent movement they are critiquing. I wish they would have provided some more historical, cultural background for Scriptural references they used to defend their position. I may not agree wholeheartedly with all they say, but I was glad to read the book when I did.
  
  
• If you are not a scholar like myself you can still understand this book...
  By A33STN5TAOZDI7 on 2008-07-08
  As a former seventeen magazine reader, most critiques of the emergent movement seemed too "stuffy" to me but DeYoung and Kluck's colorful cover and "rebellious" title drew an a.d.d. girl like myself in. The words written after I opened the cover were steeped in such great truth that I am certain those who are uncertain of the emergent church will find many of their questions answered. I could go into what specifically stood out to me but I'm already bored writing. so I'll stop. grab a post modern cup of coffee and enjoy this great read!
  
  
• Clear Thinking About A Critical Movement
  By A2QJRDEOE3LA0J on 2008-09-29
  The emergent movement has taken off in many circles of the evangelical world, especially among the young and enthusiastic, and that is one of the reasons why it needs to be dealt with thoughtfully and seriously. Most emergent authors dislike the activity of serious give and take, wanting instead noncommittal "discussion," but this is just another reason why they need the light of scrutiny. I have spent a lot of time in emergent blogs and books, and emergent-critical blogs and books, and can say that this is one of my favorites.
  
  The two authors (who have refreshingly different styles) do a great job of dealing with the serious movers and players in the emergent movement, being irenic where it is called for and critical where it is called for. Each chapter tackles a different theological/ecclesiastical issue by reviewing the emergent literature through copious quotations and interaction, and then holds their views in the light of Scripture and clear thinking. Not surprisingly, very little of the emergent point of view remains standing.
  
  But this book is no polemic. It is a well though-out and well documented critique. Both authors do a good job of honestly representing the views of emergent authors and remain solidly in the core of orthodox doctrine. (I thought there was only one weak chapter.)
  
  One of the things that appealed to me was the breadth of their research, including such recent "hits" as "Velvet Elvis" and "How (Not) To Speak of God." I have not read the first (because I can only take so much of this at once), and I have read the second. Rollins needs to be dealt from a biblical and orthodox point of view, and they did a great job. I also dis/liked Rollins' book.
  
  I highly recommend this book to anyone researching or trying to make up their mind on the emergent movement. They do a great job revealing the theological underpinnings of the leaders, and it should be a revealing warning for all of us. Count me as a third guy who is not emergent, even though he should be.
  
  
  
• It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of
  By A3VX3LDXQK9VYT on 2008-10-11
  As a self described "Old Lady" (that is, a grandmother and someone who has been a Christian for a long time now), I have been flummoxed, TOTALLY flummoxed, by the latter day youngsters who seem to love Jesus yet have not embraced His Word at it's fullest, especially concerning righteous behavior. I have a lot of young Christians(under 30) in my life....they visit my home for extended visits and I've worked with them in Africa. I've seen this trend toward liberalism and it has disturbed me greatly.... And it is pure, old-fashioned Liberalism so let's just call it what it is. I try not to "preach" to these youngsters that I love like my own flesh and blood, but lately (especially during the current presidential election cycle here in the U.S.) it has been difficult to keep my mouth shut and we've gotten into some crazy discussions. This book has helped to explain a lot about what the hell has been going on around here. I came of age in the 1960's and I remember the turmoil and I saw the pain and the anguish that living a life of moral and spiritual relativity wrought in many lives. The Bible is clear about right and wrong. And it is particularly clear about what happens when anyone---saved or unsaved---ventures off that road of the straight and narrow in our personal lives. To listen to a Believer condone such matters as fornication, abortion and homosexuality is stunning.
  We Christians are here to represent to the fullest Jesus' desire and ability to heal and DELIVER. We are not called to minimize sin and sinful behavior that will always lead to death and destruction. What possible good does a Christian do for his friends if he doesn't walk in the power of God to heal and deliver? What good is a Christian who will not stand up and say, "Wrong. It's just wrong."
  It is not just irresponsible for a leader to teach that righteousness is trumped by something else, it is dangerous. As for me, I heed carefully Luke's words in 17:2----"It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin."
  Matthew 18:6---- "but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."
  Mark 9:42---- "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea."
  
  1 Corinthians 8:12---- "And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ."
  
  
  
• A Much-Needed Examination of the Emergent Church
  By A1G9TLZ8I5X0CA on 2008-10-19
  Why We're Not Emergent: by Two Guys Who Should Be is a much needed book. With the Emergent Church gaining the popularity it has and with so many people reading the books of its leaders, someone needed to take a deep hard look at what they believe. Especially considering the lengths the Emergent Church goes to avoid pinning down its own theology.
  
  This book takes a systematic look at each of the theological beliefs of the Emergent Movement. It uses published quotes from the leaders of the movement to define the edges of its belief system...leaders like Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, Donald Miller, Doug Pagitt, and Peter Rollins, to name a few. I have read books by McLaren, Bell, Miller, McKinley, Kinnamon, and Rollins, so this book was a timely read for me and added much depth and understanding to my reading experience. It also helped me see that the authors were not giving the discussion the fair take it deserves.
  
  My only qualm with this book is that while it claims in the beginning that it wants to be balanced and avoid attacking the Emergent Church because they are, after all, believers in Jesus, Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck go on to do just that. They do right to call out the areas the Emergent Movement has taken things too far, but they fail to give credit (real credit) to the areas the Emergent Movement has awakened old-school Christianity to its shortcomings.
  
  I was greatly pleased to arrive at the closing pages where the authors zoom out and finally give credit and blame to both sides of the spectrum. They turn to the book of Revelation to offer a word of Unity to the Conservative Evangelicals and the Emergent Christians, urging both sides to pursue the TOTALITY of the Gospel of Jesus and what that means toward living in Christ, instead of clinging to our dogma at the poles, which is incomplete and drains the Kingdom of God of its effectiveness.
  
  I think a great companion book to this would be Why I WAS Emergent: an Insider's Take on the Movement (or something). That said, I will be recommending this book to all my conservative friends who don't yet understand the Emergent Church Movement and would like clarity regarding its leaders, their theology, and what they should think of the whole situation. On top of that, the two writers employ completely different writing styles, one theologicalish...one sports writingish, but both quality, engaging, and easy to understand. Happy reading.
  
  --- Reviewed by Jonathan Stephens
  
  
• Thorough, gracious critique helpful for understanding the 'emergent church' movement
  By A194MQXAGS6617 on 2008-04-14
  DeYoung and Kluck cogently describe the emergent movement, providing an accessible exploration of an admittedly-slippery phenomenon. They quote extensively from emergent leaders' writings (as well as evangelical 'heroes' such as D.A. Carson and C.S. Lewis), comparing emergent arguments to Scripture, and crafting an organized snapshot of a nebulous topic in a balanced, gracious way. Reading this book grew my understanding of what the emergent/emerging church really is. It would be an invaluable resource for anyone interested in getting at the heart of the emergent movement (which really isn't as novel as it seems, if you examine trends throughout church history). It was an enjoyable read, too, a nice balance of heady theological discussion and ground-level application.
  
  If you want to understand the emergent church movement (from emergent leaders' own words), read this book!
  
  

• Do Hard Things: A Teenage Rebellion Against Low Expectations
• The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism
• The Courage to Be Protestant: Truth-lovers, Marketers, and Emergents in the Postmodern World
• Christ and Culture Revisited
• Respectable Sins: Confronting the Sins We Tolerate