Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Deep Church - Initial Thoughts
I am about a quarter of the way through Jim Belcher’s Deep Church and have enjoyed it thus far. What I really have appreciated so far about Jim Belcher is his gracious treatment of the emerging church crowd. Far from the mockery and more visceral reactions just shy of pitchfork and torches you get from many more traditional conservative Christians, Belcher has the grace to recognize that while he has disagreements with the emerging crowd, for the most part they are disagreements with brothers. Are there some false professors among the emerging crowd? Certainly, just as I would say there are certainly false professors among the Reformed. Far from of resorting to caricature, Belcher starts off by recognizing that the emerging crowd has some very legitimate beefs with the traditional church. I agree that many of the concerns of the emerging crowd are legitimate but like Belcher my issue is with some of the emerging church's solutions to the problems. Too many people in the traditional church are unwilling to even admit that there is a problem or if they do admit that there is a problem, the answers is that the problem is probably with us, not with the institution. So I am highly encouraged by what I have read so far. Full review to follow.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Eventually I will get around to reading this book. I would argue, though, that there are very large sections of the emergent church that has slid into full blown heresy--actually their beliefs are almost indistinguishable from the "classic liberals" of the late 1800's/early 1990's(for example, Tony Jones and crowd)--except, of course, these guys are more influential with pop culture.
There are true brothers in the movement, of course. I do not deny that.
Does 'Deep Church' recognize this heretical trend to any degree?
Josh, he doesn't pull punches when it comes to heretical teaching. I think what I respect most is that he doesn't label a vast swath of people as "emergent" and condemn them as heretics like far too many people do. I should have it read in a week or so, you can have my copy when you are ready to read it.
I agree. In fact, I recently published a post praising Dan Kimball. My issue with Kimball isn't over essential doctrine, but rather over methodology and what I see as a watered-down version of the Gospel. Still, that is a difference among brothers in Christ, and should be handled as such.
The "H-word" (heresy) must only be pulled out when absolutely necessary.
Hey Josh! Thanks for the support and encouraging words. I am glad you understand that about us with doctrine - and in Deep Church you will read how Jim happened to be there when I gave a sermon on the exclusivity of Jesus for salvation - I also I would love to hear how you feel we "water down the gospel" (as you put it) at our church? We have 40 minute sermons in our 3 Sunday gatherings, generally from large texts of Scripture. We have several hundred people in mid-week community groups going through books of the Bible verse by verse. We regularly teach on sin, repentance, heaven/hell, the cross. This Sunday we are giving a sermon on sin/repentance.
We do use art in addition the the preaching and prayer areas sometimes in addition to the sermon (not replacing a sermon or teaching). But in our culture and town they fit in missionally and we see God working in many lives here.
So I am thankful you are supportive of understanding we are evangelical theologically, but would love to know why you feel we water down the gospel as you wrote that. Can you share any specific examples of what you have seen or read where we water down the gospel?
Thank you so much! Hope we get to meet one day!
Thank you!
Dan
Dan, you can't comment here. If they see that, they will take away my secret Reformed decoder ring!
Dan,
So glad you commented. FYI, just to know how highly I think of you, I invite you to read the blog post I referred to in the above comment:
http://www.joshgelatt.com/2009/10/kimball-speaks-out-on-emergent-movement.html
The term "watered-down" can come across harsh. I guess I would argue that its something inherent in the overall methodology and approach to Sunday worship--much the same way I would level this criticism against the (probably improperly called) 'seeker-sensitive church'.
But, I do believe we "Bible guys" (who live for all things expository) can learn much from what you guys are doing at Vintage Faith Church.
Hi Josh! Thanks so much for responsding and also for what you wrote in that blog post. I want to always ask for specific reasons or direct observations that one makes to conclude something - so wanted to ask. I also am a "Bible guy" as we take the Bible very seriously as I wrote some ways our church does that in the previous comment.
For us, we have taught about the saying "Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime." But we change that for our church and teach them "Give a man a sermon; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to study the Bible on their own; and you have fed him for a lifetime."
So a lot of our emphasis goes into helping people develop the skills and heart and passion to be studying Scripture on their own during the week, so Sundays is not only seen as their day to be "fed". But that is why we do what we do as I explained.
Anyway, thanks for what you wrote and hope we get to meet one day!!
Post a Comment