What do you think?
Rate this book
Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church: Understanding a Movement and Its Implications
A careful and informed assessment of the “emerging church” by a respected author and scholarThe “emerging church” movement has generated a lot of excitement and exerts an astonishingly broad influence. Is it the wave of the future or a passing fancy? Who are the leaders and what are they saying? The time has come for a mature assessment. D. A. Carson not only gives those who may be unfamiliar with it a perceptive introduction to the emerging church movement, but also includes a skillful assessment of its theological views. Carson addresses some troubling weaknesses of the movement frankly and thoughtfully, while at the same time recognizing that it has important things to say to the rest of Christianity. The author strives to provide a perspective that is both honest and fair.Anyone interested in the future of the church in a rapidly changing world will find this an informative and stimulating read.D. A. Carson (Ph.D., University of Cambridge) is research professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois. He is the author of over 45 books, including the Gold Medallion Award-winning book The Gagging of God, and is general editor of Telling the Truth and Worship by the Book. He has served as a pastor and is an active guest lecturer in church and academic settings around the world.
234 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 2005
35 people are currently reading
403 people want to read
About the author
D.A. Carson
338 books738 followersDonald A. Carson is research professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois. He has been at Trinity since 1978. Carson came to Trinity from the faculty of Northwest Baptist Theological Seminary in Vancouver, British Columbia, where he also served for two years as academic dean. He has served as assistant pastor and pastor and has done itinerant ministry in Canada and the United Kingdom. Carson received the Bachelor of Science in chemistry from McGill University, the Master of Divinity from Central Baptist Seminary in Toronto, and the Doctor of Philosophy in New Testament from the University of Cambridge. Carson is an active guest lecturer in academic and church settings around the world. He has written or edited about sixty books. He is a founding member and currently president of The Gospel Coalition. Carson and his wife, Joy, reside in Libertyville, Illinois. They have two adult children.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 44 reviews
March 4, 2015
Introduction
The book is an honest critique. Nothing more, nothing less. Carson begins gently and then pulls no punches.
The Problem of Definition
So what is “emergent” or “postmodernism?” This is an annoying question because at any moment in the critique, someone can say, “Yeah, but that’s not our position.” Emergent is easy enough to define. Most of the emergent guys write books with emergent in the titles, so we can assume that is their position. Postmodernism on the other hand, is a thorny problem. It is not synonymous with relativism nor are all postmodern philosophers saying the same thing.
But this might not be an insurmountable problem. Emergent guys play off postmodernism as the “Other” of modernism. That might be a workable enough definition.
Where the Emergent Church Accidentally gets it right
It’s not all bad. And not all emergent guys are Obama-voting hyper-relativists. It is true that our world is changing and simply opting to have more Sunday School rallies won’t win the lost and won’t even make a dent in culture. No argument here. Further, with regards to epistemology, we can agree that we are indeed finite knowers, and any act of knowing is already always an act of knowing-at-a-specific-moment-and-a-specific-place. We didn’t need MacIntyre to tell us that (however interesting his work is).
Postmodernism’s Story of Philosophy
This is where the Emergent Church gets it badly wrong. Or at least they are irresponsible. The EC tends to read anyone who doesn’t hold to “post-foundationalism” as holding to an extreme form of Cartesian Rationalism. Yet I don’t know any solid Evangelical that did this, not even Carl F Henry.
Carson’s Critique
This section was masterful. I stood in awe. Carson called them out on their shallow readings of modernity (and a slight point of correction. Both Carson and Emergent guys kept saying “modernism” instead of “modernity.” Modernism is a literary response to modernity) .
Not only are EC guys irresponsible in historiography and philosophy, they are sloppy in hermeneutics and ethics. Carson’s section on the hermeneutical spiral was simply brilliant.
The EC hasn’t shown the contradiction between a) affirming objective reality and b) acknowledging we are finite knowers. If (a)-(b) hold, then the following works:
(c ) there can be accurate statements about the world, truth, religion.
In fact, EC guys will make value judgments about George W. Bush, Capitalism, Colonialism, and white males, and assume there is a connection between their judgments and real, moral truth. If there weren’t such a connection, then why even make the argument?
Conclusion
There is much, much more to this book. Carson has succeeded in his task. It is both scholarly and accessible to the lay reader.
July 28, 2017
Note: I read McLaren's "A Generous Orthodoxy" the week before I read this book.
I found it difficult to read Carson's book (I hate conflict), yet I was impressed by several of his arguments and by his ability to maintain an open mind about the emergent church while still correcting its weaknesses. In that spirit, I also tried to maintain an open mind about Carson's opinion.
He makes very good points in some places, especially about the emergent church's aversion to certain aspects of the Bible such as sin, hell, and idolatry. Although the emergent church does a good job focusing on acceptance and love, it sometimes sacrifices justice and truth, as Carson rightly points out. I did take issue with how harsh Carson is in some places, especially when he calls McLaren's book "manipulative," "ignorant," and "silly" (162).
However, I very much appreciated Carson's emphasis on grounding our theology in Scripture rather than appealing too much to culture. Picking and choosing the "feel-good" parts of Scripture is a trap into which the emergent church can easily fall. I especially loved his argument that God's "glory and goodness" are bound up together (223). The emergent church should be thinking the same way about God's holiness and justice, which are also bound up with his goodness, but which the emergent church sometimes avoids discussing. I am as guilty of this as anyone, since it is admittedly much easier to think about God's love than about his judgment, but Carson's book reminded me that both are integral aspects of God's character.
The future of the emergent church will fall somewhere in between McLaren and Carson, at least to my hope. Perhaps we should not go as far as McLaren in our acceptance, and perhaps we should not go as far as Carson in our denunciation of views like McLaren's that are valuable to those harmed by the church. To explain further -- McLaren came from a place of fundamentalism that was damaging to his view of the gospel, and in his book he works through the ways in which he came to a better understanding of Jesus. Carson refutes this: "a fair amount of [the emerging church's] heat and overgeneralizing seems to spring from the mistaken assumption that most of traditional evangelicalism is just like the conservative churches from which they came" (86). Perhaps the emergent church does overgeneralize in this respect, but for some, the emergent church's grand view of the gospel helps them heal from these negative backgrounds. This positive effect should not be ignored.
All of this to say that we need voice like Carson and McLaren in the body of Christ. Some, like McLaren, help us dream big about the reach of the gospel and remind us that it is cosmic, loving, and available to all. Some, like Carson, remind us that we cannot go too far in our dreaming without being rooted in Scripture and thinking critically about our theology. I appreciate both these authors and hope that the emergent church can forge a path between their views while "preserving the gains of their movement," as Carson hopes (234).
I found it difficult to read Carson's book (I hate conflict), yet I was impressed by several of his arguments and by his ability to maintain an open mind about the emergent church while still correcting its weaknesses. In that spirit, I also tried to maintain an open mind about Carson's opinion.
He makes very good points in some places, especially about the emergent church's aversion to certain aspects of the Bible such as sin, hell, and idolatry. Although the emergent church does a good job focusing on acceptance and love, it sometimes sacrifices justice and truth, as Carson rightly points out. I did take issue with how harsh Carson is in some places, especially when he calls McLaren's book "manipulative," "ignorant," and "silly" (162).
However, I very much appreciated Carson's emphasis on grounding our theology in Scripture rather than appealing too much to culture. Picking and choosing the "feel-good" parts of Scripture is a trap into which the emergent church can easily fall. I especially loved his argument that God's "glory and goodness" are bound up together (223). The emergent church should be thinking the same way about God's holiness and justice, which are also bound up with his goodness, but which the emergent church sometimes avoids discussing. I am as guilty of this as anyone, since it is admittedly much easier to think about God's love than about his judgment, but Carson's book reminded me that both are integral aspects of God's character.
The future of the emergent church will fall somewhere in between McLaren and Carson, at least to my hope. Perhaps we should not go as far as McLaren in our acceptance, and perhaps we should not go as far as Carson in our denunciation of views like McLaren's that are valuable to those harmed by the church. To explain further -- McLaren came from a place of fundamentalism that was damaging to his view of the gospel, and in his book he works through the ways in which he came to a better understanding of Jesus. Carson refutes this: "a fair amount of [the emerging church's] heat and overgeneralizing seems to spring from the mistaken assumption that most of traditional evangelicalism is just like the conservative churches from which they came" (86). Perhaps the emergent church does overgeneralize in this respect, but for some, the emergent church's grand view of the gospel helps them heal from these negative backgrounds. This positive effect should not be ignored.
All of this to say that we need voice like Carson and McLaren in the body of Christ. Some, like McLaren, help us dream big about the reach of the gospel and remind us that it is cosmic, loving, and available to all. Some, like Carson, remind us that we cannot go too far in our dreaming without being rooted in Scripture and thinking critically about our theology. I appreciate both these authors and hope that the emergent church can forge a path between their views while "preserving the gains of their movement," as Carson hopes (234).
January 21, 2014
This book is a very thorough examination of the modern "Emerging Church" movement spearheaded by such men as Brian McLaren. D.A. Carson does his usual superlative job presenting the Biblical arguments for true Christian Orthodoxy in opposition to the mostly warmed-over ideas of early 20th c. Christian liberalism marketed by the so-called "Emergent Christian Conversation."
This book misses 2 more stars primarily because while D.A. Carson is a very intelligent academic of the highest caliber, his writing tends to be rather dry much of the time. This is unfortunate in a book like this that is meant for laymen and not just other theologians. In addition, his quest for thoroughness sometimes comes at the expense of more appropriate brevity.
My first recommendation for a book refuting Christian Liberalism continues to be the perennial classic by J. Gresham Machen: "Christianity and Liberalism."
This book misses 2 more stars primarily because while D.A. Carson is a very intelligent academic of the highest caliber, his writing tends to be rather dry much of the time. This is unfortunate in a book like this that is meant for laymen and not just other theologians. In addition, his quest for thoroughness sometimes comes at the expense of more appropriate brevity.
My first recommendation for a book refuting Christian Liberalism continues to be the perennial classic by J. Gresham Machen: "Christianity and Liberalism."
July 29, 2013
There's probably not a lot that I can add to what has already been written about this book, both good and bad, so I'll try to keep my comments brief.
This was a difficult read for me, both because of the contentiousness of Carson's arguments and the level of theology at which it is written. I normally don't take three months to read a book, but there was a lot to digest.
This book could have been titled, "Why Emergent Thinkers Are Actually Heretics Who Are Going To Hell". But he would not have sold near as many books with that type of title, and he probably knew that (I wouldn't have bothered). I've read a few books by Carson because of my time at Seminary, and I generally like his stuff. But it was clear from the writing at the outset that by "becoming conversant" he really meant "explaining why emergent thinkers are all wrong." The primary recipient of his vitriol is Brian McLaren. I've read "A Generous Orthodoxy" and I do NOT agree with everything that McLaren believes. But I also don't believe in throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I honestly don't mind honest and open biblical criticism, but the way Carson writes about emergent thinkers comes off as very petty. He seems to be mostly angry at the fact that emergent churches are growing and they are attractive to post-modern non-Christians. He writes, for example, "Emergent writers commonly so prioritize belonging that it is difficult to see how one can honor the precious responsibilities and privileges of those who have actually become Christians." He makes some kind of argument about the church being able to communicate with non-believers, but he is apparently offended that someone would feel like they belong to a church before they are actually saved. It just sounds childish to me, as if his concern is that someone who isn't actually saved might take his parking spot at church. Should we have membership cards for "real" members? It just sounds hollow and pharisaical.
He goes so far as to emphasize the dividing effect of Jesus' ministry, based on Matthew 25:31-46. It sounded very much like an argument I heard once from an old saint that any church that grows is probably not being faithful to the Word, since the Bible says that the Cross is a stumbling block and and some parts of the Bible are offensive. In effect, he was saying that if you preach the Word, you will drive people away. Huh? What happened to the good news? I don't understand Carson's near insistence that because emergent thinking happens to be popular at the moment, it must be heretical.
Due to his focus on inconsequential or peripheral thoughts of emergent writers, I had a hard time focusing on the legitimate criticisms, such as the emerging view of the Cross and atonement. Once I made the switch in my mind to, "This guy is just complaining about stupid stuff" I was seeing ALL of his criticism through that lens. That's my problem, not his, but I couldn't get past it. A few more examples: He cannot stomach the fact that McLaren says we can learn a lot about meditation from Buddhists. He cannot stomach the fact that McLaren says he learned a new appreciation of the role of Mary in the Bible from the Catholics. He can't stand the fact that emergent thinkers find it more helpful, from a gospel perspective, to maintain an open dialogue with other religions. And he cannot stand the fact that emergent thinkers are reaching the post-modern generation more effectively than traditional Baptist churches.
Okay, this one is petty, but I also tired very quickly of him stating at the end of each and every argument, "I could present volumes more to support my argument, but I didn't want the book to be too long." [My translation] I think that making that point during the intro and the summation would have sufficed, rather than saying it 73 times throughout the book.
The bottom line is that I don't agree with everything Brian McLaren or other emergent thinkers say or believe. But then again, I've never sat under the teaching of ANY person that I've agreed with everything that he/she says. Carson continually tries to sound pious by saying, "No one can know all of God's truth completely" but then goes on to basically say, "But I know it a lot better than you and you're wrong." He makes some valid points in the book, but he is NOT trying to be conversant with the emerging church, he is condemning them as heretics. You may agree with him, but for somehow who was really interested in simply gaining a better understanding of the movement, it was off-putting.
If you think it's a spade, then call it a spade Dr. Carson. I hope you'll change the title of your updated edition (you're a professor, so I'm sure it's on the way!) to "Condemning the Emerging Church".
This was a difficult read for me, both because of the contentiousness of Carson's arguments and the level of theology at which it is written. I normally don't take three months to read a book, but there was a lot to digest.
This book could have been titled, "Why Emergent Thinkers Are Actually Heretics Who Are Going To Hell". But he would not have sold near as many books with that type of title, and he probably knew that (I wouldn't have bothered). I've read a few books by Carson because of my time at Seminary, and I generally like his stuff. But it was clear from the writing at the outset that by "becoming conversant" he really meant "explaining why emergent thinkers are all wrong." The primary recipient of his vitriol is Brian McLaren. I've read "A Generous Orthodoxy" and I do NOT agree with everything that McLaren believes. But I also don't believe in throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I honestly don't mind honest and open biblical criticism, but the way Carson writes about emergent thinkers comes off as very petty. He seems to be mostly angry at the fact that emergent churches are growing and they are attractive to post-modern non-Christians. He writes, for example, "Emergent writers commonly so prioritize belonging that it is difficult to see how one can honor the precious responsibilities and privileges of those who have actually become Christians." He makes some kind of argument about the church being able to communicate with non-believers, but he is apparently offended that someone would feel like they belong to a church before they are actually saved. It just sounds childish to me, as if his concern is that someone who isn't actually saved might take his parking spot at church. Should we have membership cards for "real" members? It just sounds hollow and pharisaical.
He goes so far as to emphasize the dividing effect of Jesus' ministry, based on Matthew 25:31-46. It sounded very much like an argument I heard once from an old saint that any church that grows is probably not being faithful to the Word, since the Bible says that the Cross is a stumbling block and and some parts of the Bible are offensive. In effect, he was saying that if you preach the Word, you will drive people away. Huh? What happened to the good news? I don't understand Carson's near insistence that because emergent thinking happens to be popular at the moment, it must be heretical.
Due to his focus on inconsequential or peripheral thoughts of emergent writers, I had a hard time focusing on the legitimate criticisms, such as the emerging view of the Cross and atonement. Once I made the switch in my mind to, "This guy is just complaining about stupid stuff" I was seeing ALL of his criticism through that lens. That's my problem, not his, but I couldn't get past it. A few more examples: He cannot stomach the fact that McLaren says we can learn a lot about meditation from Buddhists. He cannot stomach the fact that McLaren says he learned a new appreciation of the role of Mary in the Bible from the Catholics. He can't stand the fact that emergent thinkers find it more helpful, from a gospel perspective, to maintain an open dialogue with other religions. And he cannot stand the fact that emergent thinkers are reaching the post-modern generation more effectively than traditional Baptist churches.
Okay, this one is petty, but I also tired very quickly of him stating at the end of each and every argument, "I could present volumes more to support my argument, but I didn't want the book to be too long." [My translation] I think that making that point during the intro and the summation would have sufficed, rather than saying it 73 times throughout the book.
The bottom line is that I don't agree with everything Brian McLaren or other emergent thinkers say or believe. But then again, I've never sat under the teaching of ANY person that I've agreed with everything that he/she says. Carson continually tries to sound pious by saying, "No one can know all of God's truth completely" but then goes on to basically say, "But I know it a lot better than you and you're wrong." He makes some valid points in the book, but he is NOT trying to be conversant with the emerging church, he is condemning them as heretics. You may agree with him, but for somehow who was really interested in simply gaining a better understanding of the movement, it was off-putting.
If you think it's a spade, then call it a spade Dr. Carson. I hope you'll change the title of your updated edition (you're a professor, so I'm sure it's on the way!) to "Condemning the Emerging Church".
April 28, 2007
Having been curious about the philosphy and practice of the emergent for quite sometime, I finally got around to reading this book. I've heard D.A. Carson speak several times and I have always been very impressed with his way of thinking and I trust his theology is Bible-based. I found this book to be a balanced approach to the movement that helped me better understand the major movements of thought throughout history, explore postmodernism, and grasp the reaction of the church to the movement of postmodernism.
January 18, 2009
Very good.
February 21, 2010
A fantastic analysis of the Emerging Church.
October 18, 2023
Carson is the research professor at Trinity Evangelical School, and has written quite a book here. The book is highly philosophical and deep at times, yet he has done an admirable job, i believe, of presenting and challenging the principles of the “emergent church” - a church that presents itself as the way to reach others outside of the church in the face of the postmodern era. This is beyond the so-called “seeker sensitive” church, primarily having difficulty with the “absolutism” of the traditional church.
Carson spends time explaining both postmodernism and the emergent church, taking the time to identify what is good in the movement - reading the times, pushing for authenticity, recognizing our own social location, evangelizing others and probing links with tradition. However, says Carson, the EC seems to be seeking to replace absolutism with authenticity, to the loss of biblical truth. indeed, truth cannot be known unless it is known omnisciently, according to the EC leaders.
Carson then shows what he sees as the key weaknesses of the movement in two significant books by EC leaders - A Generous Orthodoxy, by Brian Mcclaren and The Lost Message of Jesus, by Steve Chalke and Alan Mann. t]These books are treated honestly and intelligently from what seems to be a solid evangelical viewpoint.
This extraordinary book ends with an extensive list of biblical passages on truth, knowledge and pluralism, closing with a short chapter Carson calls “a biblical meditation on truth and experience,” including a fascinating study on 2 peter 1:1-20 (not following cunningly devised fables).
Carson spends time explaining both postmodernism and the emergent church, taking the time to identify what is good in the movement - reading the times, pushing for authenticity, recognizing our own social location, evangelizing others and probing links with tradition. However, says Carson, the EC seems to be seeking to replace absolutism with authenticity, to the loss of biblical truth. indeed, truth cannot be known unless it is known omnisciently, according to the EC leaders.
Carson then shows what he sees as the key weaknesses of the movement in two significant books by EC leaders - A Generous Orthodoxy, by Brian Mcclaren and The Lost Message of Jesus, by Steve Chalke and Alan Mann. t]These books are treated honestly and intelligently from what seems to be a solid evangelical viewpoint.
This extraordinary book ends with an extensive list of biblical passages on truth, knowledge and pluralism, closing with a short chapter Carson calls “a biblical meditation on truth and experience,” including a fascinating study on 2 peter 1:1-20 (not following cunningly devised fables).
July 28, 2025
The emergent church movement was projected early on to be just a flash in the pan, theologically speaking. There was good reason to think this would be the case, and largely it was. It had no real foundation, no real leader, and its major belief was that doctrine and dogma ought to be eschewed in favor of a more open and affirming system. It’s no wonder it really didn’t last, having a following of people entirely convinced that postmodernity was the gospel and rejecting any historical heritage.
But to some degree it has lasted, though if you weren’t paying attention during its growth phase, mentioning the emergent church to people today won’t get many responses of recognition. But where it has outlasted the expectations is in the cultural averment of its view points - which, to be fair, aren’t that different from postmodernism anyway. You can hear remnants of the movement in a lot of modern preachers today and read it in many of the books being written in Christian circles.
What Carson did here was outline the movement, point to primary sources for what they do believe, and then systematically undressed it for what it was. Carson really didn’t hold back after the first couple chapters, and there is no real reason why he should have. Anything redeeming in the emergent movement was already found elsewhere and everything else it brought was worth ignoring and defeating.
But to some degree it has lasted, though if you weren’t paying attention during its growth phase, mentioning the emergent church to people today won’t get many responses of recognition. But where it has outlasted the expectations is in the cultural averment of its view points - which, to be fair, aren’t that different from postmodernism anyway. You can hear remnants of the movement in a lot of modern preachers today and read it in many of the books being written in Christian circles.
What Carson did here was outline the movement, point to primary sources for what they do believe, and then systematically undressed it for what it was. Carson really didn’t hold back after the first couple chapters, and there is no real reason why he should have. Anything redeeming in the emergent movement was already found elsewhere and everything else it brought was worth ignoring and defeating.
February 23, 2018
I am a bit late to the party on this one. Certainly the "Emerging Church" has already emerged by now. However, I found it helpful in thinking through modernism and postmodernism. His distinction between hard postmodernism and softmodernism was helpful. Modernism made the mistake of thinking we can know the truth omnisciently. Postmodernism made the mistake of thinking we can not know the truth. In Carson's words, softmodernism acknowledges we cannot know the truth omnisciently but we can know it truly. Carson does a great job in his tone. He confronts, but he does so in a way that leaves the door open for those that have walked through the door of the Emerging church viewpoint to walk back through without unnecessary shame. There is an example here of how to reach out to someone who has started down a path of unfaithfulness. We are to be clear and appropriately confrontational but in a tone of love and desire for restoration.
February 29, 2020
This was a deeply biblical and thorough treatment, in my opinion, on the issues of the so-called "Emerging Church." Carson shoots straight and points out the positive & the negative, carefully wrapping up with a solid biblical analysis of the trends that have been emerging. Biggest take-aways for me: 1) there's a danger of getting so focused on the present culture & its perspectives & hang-ups with Christianity that the Gospel starts getting watered down, and 2) there's a danger in basing too much on personal experience & interpretation, rather than on revealed biblical Truths--as well as a concomitant belief/teaching that we as humans really can't know everything about God, so we can be more tentative, vague, and less assertive & confident. Watch out--there's a Danger Zone ahead...
June 24, 2018
ok... this book didn't turn out to be quite what i expected... though im not sure what i expected.... i appreciate the history of the Emergent Movement.... and DA Carson was way more gracious than i am or would have been.... but that is more a reflection of my own sinfulness, sigh. there isn't anything i think i disagree with in this book... a good book to read.... if you are more aware of who the "emerging" really are.... now that there are so many.... i'm still sifting through my thoughts toward this book....
February 13, 2020
To be honest, it wasn’t bad, but I was expecting a lot more from this book.
It turned out to be more a review of two emerging church authors’ books than it was a critique of the movement itself. In a nutshell, Carson argues that it is postmodernism that has shaped the emerging church movement into its state (during the 90s). While this may be true, the implications of this on their theology, as well as other factors influencing their behaviour, weren’t adequately addressed.
It turned out to be more a review of two emerging church authors’ books than it was a critique of the movement itself. In a nutshell, Carson argues that it is postmodernism that has shaped the emerging church movement into its state (during the 90s). While this may be true, the implications of this on their theology, as well as other factors influencing their behaviour, weren’t adequately addressed.
March 24, 2020
Carson does a great job of interacting with the main ideas and voices of the emergent movement in the early 2000’s. Most of those voices are no longer relevant but the ideas are still quite popular. The fruit of post-modern concepts in Christian ministry went unchecked and unchallenged, this book provides helpful pushback to its excesses.
June 5, 2019
I found Carson's approach to the emerging church as balanced, respectful, evenhanded, biblical and honest. I think it's an important read for any Christ followers who look for discernment on issues that arise from proponents of the emerging church such as Brian McLaren.
November 9, 2019
Dated but Carson is insightful and there is some good stuff here.
February 21, 2014
"The gospel of the Kingdom invites us into a large, all-encompassing story; the stories of Adam and Eve, Israel, and the church were always intended to be lived in. Living there is a huge privilege. Choosing to live outside God's story has serious ramifications (a wasted life and hell come immediately to mind)." [p. 22]
"We want to learn to live faithfully in a fragmented world." [p. 33]
"Evangelism is disciple making and is bound up with conversation, friendship, influence, invitation, companionship, challenge, opportunity, dance, something you get to do." [p. 58]
"Sermons are filled with mere cliches. There is little intensity in confession, little joy in absolution, little delight in the gospel, little urgency in evangelism, little sense of privilege and gratitude in witness, little passion for the truth, little compassion for others, little humility in our evaluations, little love in our dealings with others. To expose such inauthenticity is a good thing; to hunger for authenticity in all our existence, not least our walk with God and with other Christians, is also a good thing." [p. 50]
"We want to learn to live faithfully in a fragmented world." [p. 33]
"Evangelism is disciple making and is bound up with conversation, friendship, influence, invitation, companionship, challenge, opportunity, dance, something you get to do." [p. 58]
"Sermons are filled with mere cliches. There is little intensity in confession, little joy in absolution, little delight in the gospel, little urgency in evangelism, little sense of privilege and gratitude in witness, little passion for the truth, little compassion for others, little humility in our evaluations, little love in our dealings with others. To expose such inauthenticity is a good thing; to hunger for authenticity in all our existence, not least our walk with God and with other Christians, is also a good thing." [p. 50]
July 28, 2011
I slowly ruminated on this book (just a chapter or so a week) right alongside another title: Above All Earthly Powers: Christ in a Postmodern World", by David F. Wells. Both works are provocative and call into question a lot of the assumptions made by churches and writers in their attempts to reach post-moderns, while affirming them at other times. The main critique I've read about this book is that he picks on his critics unfairly without ever actually entering into personal dialogue with any of them, which is the title of the book!
In addition to staying in touch with the North American post-modern culture, I also found both of these books personally helpful in reminding me how my thought processes are driven by WESTERN modern and post-modern assumptions, and how these are similar at times but completely different at others from the Asian culture in which I have been living these past 12 years. I'd recommend either title heartily to anyone wanting to learn about the so-called "Emerging Church."
In addition to staying in touch with the North American post-modern culture, I also found both of these books personally helpful in reminding me how my thought processes are driven by WESTERN modern and post-modern assumptions, and how these are similar at times but completely different at others from the Asian culture in which I have been living these past 12 years. I'd recommend either title heartily to anyone wanting to learn about the so-called "Emerging Church."
November 23, 2011
The fallacies of the more radical wing of the Emerging Church movement are evaluated with clarity, passion, exegetical competence, and grace. Above all is Carson's glorious, ironclad commitment to the truth of the Gospel.
Besides all of that, Carson writes extremely well. Favorite phrases: referring to both conservatives and liberals as having been "snookered by modernism"; saying that MacLaren's points are often alternately "right, wrong, and silly"; and giving credit to MacLaren credit for "remarkable theological chutzpah" for his ridiculous hijacking of the famous TULIP anagram.
In short, this is recommended for anyone working within theological or ecclesiastical circles, anyone interested in the effects of postmodern thought on the church, and anybody who just really likes interacting with the concrete thoughts of a well-informed mind.
Besides all of that, Carson writes extremely well. Favorite phrases: referring to both conservatives and liberals as having been "snookered by modernism"; saying that MacLaren's points are often alternately "right, wrong, and silly"; and giving credit to MacLaren credit for "remarkable theological chutzpah" for his ridiculous hijacking of the famous TULIP anagram.
In short, this is recommended for anyone working within theological or ecclesiastical circles, anyone interested in the effects of postmodern thought on the church, and anybody who just really likes interacting with the concrete thoughts of a well-informed mind.
August 8, 2007
I did not plan on being part of an Emerging Church, but that is where God wanted me. I would not change anything in the world for the experience. This book helped me. Coming from an Evangelical perspective it helped me better appreciate the good things of the movement and to be better informed about the extremes of the movement. It helped me be less "reactionary" about some subjects and authors and better informed about discussing those topics and issues. I am no longer part of the Emerging Church I mentioned. Not because it was "bad", but because God helped me move toward other things in His own way. I really recommend this book to anyone looking into this movement.
August 10, 2011
I am very glad I read this book as a contrast to everything else I've been reading. He brought up some good points here and there. I especially liked the last chapter that began to discuss how truth and experience could go together. At the same time, he had a lot of faults. While he accused a lot of emerging thinkers of creating straw man arguments, I think he falls to the same criticism at times. I also think it's interesting how both Carson and McLaren both condemn reductionism and praise Chesterton by quoting him positively. There may be more in common then both of those authors think.
December 30, 2013
This is often quoted as the standard evangelical appraisal of the emergent movement. However, it is not a comprehensive look at all the various strands of the movement; Carson devotes his attention to the views of the major thinkers in the movement. Brian McLaren gets a lot of attention (you can read some of McLaren's responses on the Internet) amongst others.
The conclusions won't surprise you but this book will make you smarter as to the philosophical assumptions of the emergent movement and their theological implications.
Read only if you are interested in 'studying' the movement in some depth. This is not an easy read and you will not find many quotable quotes to take away.
The conclusions won't surprise you but this book will make you smarter as to the philosophical assumptions of the emergent movement and their theological implications.
Read only if you are interested in 'studying' the movement in some depth. This is not an easy read and you will not find many quotable quotes to take away.
November 29, 2007
Excellent. Carson, I believe, does a good job at explaining the diverse "movement" and acknowledges it's strengths while not overlooking it's weaknesses. He's fair to describe the whole thing and tries not to generalize too much. I recommend this book to anyone who would like to try to grasp what some well known authors are trying to say about how to live in a post-modern society but this book reminds us that there are biblical thruths we must stand by and not compromise. We need to remember both Spirit & Truth.
January 21, 2008
Here Carson offers a mostly evenhanded response to the Emerging Church Movement (or Conversation) and its association with postmodernism. Taking a balanced approach, Carson highlights both what the “Confessional” Church needs to learn from the Emerging Church, and vice versa. Carson’s criticisms are at times overdone, seemingly missing the forest for the trees, but is generally accurate and well stated. Carson also includes a useful Biblical reflection on truth and experience. A-
July 28, 2008
Very intellectual, and very focused on one specific topic--albeit a topic that should be very important to any Christian in the evangelical and confessional community. Carson gets a bit "scholarly", but this is still a great read that addresses some serious problems that face the Christian community as it continues to delve into a postmodern quagmire and "over-tolerance" within the confessional church. In short, Carson addresses the problems where the church has gone to a liberal extreme.
October 10, 2012
Perhaps the "emergent" movement is past its prime, but in its wake there's still likely to be found a vast number of evangelical churches remaining sympathetic to emergent thinking. Carson is very careful to give attention to legitimate concerns of the emergent movement, as well as to where it goes wrong. His concluding chapter, where he lists many of the scriptures suggesting that truth can be (confidently) known, is almost worth the entire book's price.
August 5, 2010
Engaging analysis, and Biblically solid. Carson does not mess around but tries to show what our basis of truth is, why it is important to maintain these truths, and why they should be central to engaging the culture in a way that is mindfull of the Gospel. While the Emergent movement raises some great questions about important issues, Carson shows that their answers fall short of Biblical truth.
November 2, 2016
A thorough look at the Emergent Church. I liked it, especially chapter 8 where Carson discussed the issue of experience and the word of God. It's clear the author is an outstanding Biblical scholar. The book may be a bit of challenge for the lay reader who may find parts of it dry and rather difficult at times to track with the author.
December 5, 2007
Carson does a superb job of showing the reader both the strengths AND the weaknesses of the Emerging church movement. Perhaps he could have spent slightly more time on the positives, but considering many authors within the movement have already done so, it was probably unnecessary for him.
March 31, 2011
My review here: http://lunchboxsw.wordpress.com/2011/...
All my book reviews are here: http://lunchboxsw.wordpress.com/categ...
All my book reviews are here: http://lunchboxsw.wordpress.com/categ...
Displaying 1 - 30 of 44 reviews