Why We're Not Emergent

by Kevin DeYoung, Ted Kluck

You can be young, passionate about Jesus Christ, surrounded by diversity, engaged in a postmodern world, reared in evangelicalism, and not be an emergent Christian. In fact, I want to argue that it would be better if you weren't.

The Emergent Church is a strong voice in today's Christian community. And they're talking about good things, like caring for the poor, peace for all men, and loving Jesus. They're doing church a new way, not content to fit the mold. Again, all good. But there's more to the movement than that. Much more.

Kevin and Ted are two guys who, demographically, should be all over this movement. But they're not. And here’s why—they do life founded upon orthodox beliefs about God, propositional truths about Jesus, and the authority of Scripture. In Why We're Not Emergent, Kevin and Ted diagnose the emerging church from both a theological and an on-the-street perspective. They pull apart interviews, articles, books, and blogs, helping you see for yourself what it's all about.

Provocative yet playful, this book seeks to show you why being emergent isn’t the only, or even the best, way to be passionate about Jesus Christ.

Genres: Theology, Christian, Nonfiction, Christianity, Church, Religion, Ecclesiology

256 pages, Paperback

First published April 1, 2008

About the author

Kevin DeYoung is the Senior Pastor at University Reformed Church (RCA) in East Lansing, Michigan, right across the street from Michigan State University.

Reviews

[Taylor Callen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reading this book was wild because at the time the emergent church was huge but now it’s almost totally faded away. Looking back, it’s wild to realize that many of those “influential voices” are now nobodies. This book did help me finally understand a few popular pastors today who have always puzzled me (because they’re basically emergent but without the label).

Overall, I really appreciated how grounding this book was. It’s a helpful reminder of the importance of clear doctrine over against pragmatism and vague mysticism. I did find myself getting bored around the halfway point (the authors made their case well early on and then just kept making it) but the final chapter pulled me right back in. Their reflections on the value of dying well hit hard. It was a sweet reminder that a Christianity built on propositional truth actually comforts the soul when facing death, unlike the soft, experiential theology that struggles to offer real hope about salvation or eternity.

[Paul · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's funny reading some of the reviews from the emergents. They have barely any substance to their reviews and mostly engage in name-calling. One "reviewer" said the two authors of Why We're Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be seemed to lack "education and experience, judging from their arguments." Of course, any critical interaction with their arguments was, as you might expect, missing. Furthermore, I don't even know what that accusation amounts to. What doth experience hath to do with arguments? Arguments are good or bad if they are valid or invalid, sound or unsound, cogent or uncogent. It's not like you need to sleep around and snort coke like Scarface in order to put forth a good argument. Yeah, you'd be "experienced", but that doesn't mean you need to do that to have a good argument. Or is this the wrong way to take "experience"? I confess, I don't know how to take it, vague, ambiguous, and prima facie irrelevant as that word seems in this context.

Another reviewer critiqued Ted Kluck with some odd false dichotomy which implied that if the emerging church was just a gnat on the Christian landscape, then you wouldn't pay attention to it; or, you're just upset at losing some of the market share to Rob Bell. The reviewer topped this off by using a capital "T" for the word truth (how hip and po-mo, and just plain witty), as if that was a critique, and made some comments that total depravity and penal substitution made for a "bleak worldview." Well, there's always the Disney worldview. Not sure how true it is, but at least the oceans are made of chocolate milk. It may not be true, er, True, but at least it aint bleak.

I guess these examples serve as paradigm cases of how emergent-type people "engage" those they disagree with? I wouldn't know, I find it good for the soul to not "engage" with po-mo emergent types. It all reminds me of those parties where the stoned guy asks what is the sound of one hand clapping and all the rest of the partiers think he's deep.

I thought the book was good and the dynamic between the two authors, each authoring alternating chapters, made for a unique reading experience. DeYoung's chapters were more "scholarly" while Kluck's really fulfilled the aim of the title -- he's just a regular guy who "should be" emergent. Of course a seminary trained Reformed pastor wouldn't be emergent, he's been brain washed. But what about some dude? Some dude who seems to have a fair amount in common with emergent types? Why doesn't he dig your way of doing "church" (emergents don't really call it "church" anymore. That's kind of uncool. People want "love fests", or something)?

The authors succeeded in showing why they are not emergents, and they did so for reasons. Reasons that were argued for. They cited numerous statements by emergents, which should show any Bible believing Christian the dangers of the "movement" (but I guess they don't want to call it a movement. I think they like "discussion"). Of course, I have seen many reviewers claim that the authors attacked straw men. Well, I saw them interact with lengthy quotes, and none of the reviewers bothered to put the quotes into context and so demonstrate the charge of straw man burning.

The authors take time to point out some of the good concerns emergents have. They give them a nod when they see a valid complaint. But where the emergents are off, they're really off. One of the main complaints DeYoung and Kluck have is that emergents are too skeptical of doctrine and propositional truth. They point out that propositional truths are very important in the Bible. Salvation comes by believing in a historical person and what he did. Trusting and resting in actual things he accomplished in history. These truths matter, and so do stating the doctrines properly. Emergents never want to get pinned down it seems. They never want to affirm anything, other than "the church got it all wrong for two thousand years" and "holding to doctrines as the truth is dogmatic and arrogant." But like all po-mo and relativist types, these claims just seem self-defeating to me. Deyoung and Kluck point out that it's really not intellectually virtuous to throw out Christian doctrine and claim some kind of skepticism or ignorance in the name of "humility."

My only complaint is that I wish there had been more of a philosophical analysis of the emergent church. So far it seems to be mainly theologians interacting with the emergent church. Anyway, I would recommend this book if you are thinking about becoming emergent or have friends who are. I'm not sure it would do much good in the hands of an emergent Christian; after all, we got a glimpse of how they butchered it and treated it in my opening paragraphs. I could also be wrong about emergents, and wouldn't mind being corrected and shown that they are confessional, or at least hold to an identifiable set of positive doctrines, about the way things are. About how man is saved, and what happens to him when he dies. Stuff like that.

[Ben Zajdel]

The emergent church is an emotional and controversial topic. One of the latest books in the emergent "conversation" is Why We're Not Emergent(by two guys who should be). The book has an intriguing title and a very emergent-looking cover. But the best part is that there is substance and style to this manifesto.

DeYoung and Kluck, as the title claims, are perfect candidates for the emerging church movement. They prefer, however, traditional church, and spend a good portion of the book explaining why. They also delve into the teaching of many "emergent"(I use quotations because some of the authors they cover aren't quite emergent) authors and the errors of their arguments.

I enjoyed this book, though I disagreed with the authors on many points. But they seem to come at the topic with clarity and distance, which was something that was refreshing. This isn't an assault on emergent culture. It is a point by point declaration of the authors' faith, and how that faith is similar to traditional Christianity and different than "emergent" Christianity. Two of the topics I enjoyed the most were the chapters on Modernism and propositional language of the Bible. The authors quote liberally from the Bible and emergent books, so the amount of research done is impressive.

This is a great read for anyone interested in the emergent church movement.

[Matt Wilder · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'm still in the middle of this one, but its obvious that these two are missing the point. The emergent church is a healthy response to the long stated rigid theology of evangelicals. I think the two authors are re-enforcing the message of the emergent church in this text. I also think they lack education and experience, judging from their arguments.

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Surprisingly relevant and helpful to me even though the "emergent church" conversation is largely over.

[Faith · Rating 4 out of 5]

A thoughtful addition to the conversation on the 21st century church and the emergent movement.

Ted Kluck and Kevin DeYoung carefully examine the triumphs and failings of the emergent movement and what it means for the future of western Christianity. I liked the way that they were careful to praise the wonderful things that this movement has brought to light, and very respectfully presented the areas where the vagueness and gray area leave us wanting.

This was a very helpful book for me personally, as it helped me to come to terms with, and nail down the things that bothered me about some of the churches that I recently visited. I think this book is a very well done part of the emergent conversation.

[Reese Walling · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent critique of the emerging/emergent church.

The church does need clear articulation of truth (I.e. dogmatism), rejection of biblically-defined immoral behavior, and missionary zeal motivated by eternal destinies.

While these unpopular notions in our postmodern society have pushed many former evangelicals out of their conservatism into the “conversationalsism” of the emergent church, we ought to be girded up in them as the multitude of our “cloud of witnesses” were over the last two millennia.

Very well written, fun read, and only 200ish pages. Had some light to shed on things I’ve heard from Scot McKnight and N. T. Wright as well (who are not quite as “emergent” as McLaren, Bell, or Tony Jones).

[Rick · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an important book. I have read a couple popular emergent titles [Blue Like Jazz, Velvet Elvis:] and was proufoundly impacted by parts, but a bit unsettled by other parts.

The authors here are quick to applaud the emergent conversation when it issues needed correction to evangelicalism. But they offer a stinging indictment when the emergent discussion wanders from the faith.

Well researched and well crafted.

[Cabe · Rating 1 out of 5]

Does offer a few decent critiques of Emergent (and a few bad ones as well), but what they would replace it with is often undesirable. I'm also unconvinced that they understand Emergent that well.

[Josiah Richardson · Rating 4 out of 5]

The emergent church is a term that was en vogue awhile ago, but has (along with many other Christian fads) become obsolete over the years. It was a Post-x movement, looking beyond the typical monikers within Christianity, calling themselves post-Protestant, post-evangelical, post-liberal, and even going as far for some to say it is post-Christian. This was a movement typically found within the younger Christian camp, church planters, and the so called hipsters.

DeYoung and Kluck fit most of that description when they wrote this book but the major difference is that they had a theological backbone and could not be swayed by the winds of this doctrine. They delineate the movement and show why it falls short of scripture. I don’t know whether they realized the long standing impact that the emergent church would have on the church, or if they did, whether they recognized it as just another derivative of the neo-liberal theology of Brunner, Barth, and Pannenberg. Regardless, I think many thought the movement would die out quickly and it truly did. It was gone as quickly as it came to be, but nobody could have seen how instrumental it has been in pulling the church into liberalism and weak theology.

[Tom James · Rating 4 out of 5]

While this book may seem a bit dated today, it is still just as relevant, since the Emergent Church movement and it's proponents (e.g., Rob Bell, Brian McLaren) have become even more audacious in their heterodox pronouncements. Everything that Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck predicted would happen as a result of the Emergent movement has come to pass (and then some). And while the authors are cautioning readers to be wary of this movement within evangelical Christianity, they do so in a gracious manner, something that is not always the case when engaging in polemics.

[Christian Barrett · Rating 4 out of 5]

While the alternating authors every chapter could be confusing at times, Kluck and DeYoung write off one another well. The duo make a biblical argument as to why the “emergent church” is not the answer to issues in the church. Of course much of this material is dated. For example Bell has gone to such extremes within the emergent church movement that he created a documentary about himself titled “Heretic.” Obviously the two had no access to how far the emergent leaders would eventually go. Even though the content here is dated to an extent, there is much gold here as the ideas and concerns remain true today. This is is specifically helpful when examining the rise in churches seeking to fight for racial justice, reach the LGBTQ community, and fight against abortion. While this book does not speak to these conversations directly, it does pave a way for one to know how to have a healthy dialogue about issues and focuses on how to actually disagree with others.

[Jarrod · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good introduction to the emerging movement. P. 218-222 alone are worth the read as is the epilogue. It is a balanced, fair, theological and witty critique of the movement and your own church.

[Bill Stegemueller · Rating 4 out of 5]

I get really confused when I hear the term EMERGENT. This book helped me to clear a lot of that up. EMERGENT is essentially the latest form of liberalism. In fact, it is so liberal that it’s extremely difficult to nail down a firm definition. Kevin DeYoung writes, “Defining the emerging church is like nailing Jell-O to the wall.” Emergent Leaders often refuse to take a stand on controversial issues like Hell, Original Sin, Atonement, Exclusivity of Christ, Authority of Scripture. Their silence speaks volumes.

The Emergent Movement intentionally moves away from DOCTRINES in favor of having a CONVERSATION in which key elements are discussed and in some cases redefined. WHY WERE NOT EMERGENT is a book that seeks to enter the “conversation” from an Evangelical point of view. DeYoung points out, “There is a time for conversation, but there is also the possibility of certainty, not because we have dissected God like a freshman biology student dissects a frog, but because God has spoken to us clearly and intelligibly and has given us ears to hear his voice.” (p.41)

In not taking a stand, these Emergent Leaders are making incredible statements with damaging implications. All throughout the book I found myself writing in the margin, “Tickle.” The Bible says that the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears TICKLED, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires and will turn away their ears from the truth.” (2 Timothy 4:3-4)

Some of the “ticklish” points of the book that caught my attention:

1. Truth is not a destination… it’s a journey
2. The Christian life requires less doctrinal reflection and more personal introspection.
3. God is too big to understand.
4. Truth is too mysterious to know with certainty.
5. We want to embrace mystery, rather than conquer it.
6. We need to trust God more than our beliefs (doctrines) about God.
7. We worship the Word made flesh, not the words on a page.
8. The Bible isn’t the Word of God, but simply contains the Word of God.
9. The authority is not in what I say the text says, but in what God says the text says.
10. Spirituality is hot and religion is not.
11. The Gospel is an event to be proclaimed, not a doctrine to be preserved.
12. The question is not, do I believe in God?, as much as does God believe in me?
13. A better question that who’s right is who’s living rightly?

I walked away from the book with the idea that the Emergent Church believes that as long as you’re sincere it doesn’t matter what you believe. This is RELATIVITY packaged in a new way, “What’s true for you doesn’t have to be true to me and what’s true for me doesn’t have to be true to you.”

It was surprising to hear Rob Bell’s interpretation of Jesus statement in John 14:6, “I am the way the truth and the life… nobody comes to the Father, but through me.” According to Bell, “Jesus was not making claims about one religion being better than all other religions. That completely misses the point, the depth, and the truth. Rather, he was telling those who were following him that his way is the way to the depth of reality. This kind of life Jesus was living, perfectly and completely in connection and cooperation with God, is the best possible way for a person to live. It is how things are… perhaps a better question than who’s right, is who’s living rightly.” (p.201)

DeYoung describes one of the biggest differences between Emergent Christianity and Evangelical Christianity, “Being a Christian (Emergent)… is less about faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ as the only access to God the Father and the only atonement for sins before a wrathful God, and more about living the life that Jesus lived and walking in His way. (p.120)

Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck take turns writing the chapters of WHY WERE NOT EMERGENT. DeYoung is more the scholar and Kluck is more practical with his observations. You can probably get the main message by just reading the chapters DeYoung wrote, but I found that the chapters Kluck wrote gave my brain a rest in between DeYoung’s chapters. Each chapter was heavily footnoted and both authors back up their points solidly with Scripture. Both authors also point out that their intention is not to demonize or question Emergent’s love for Jesus, but rather to point out some serious flaws in their thinking.

[David Shane · Rating 4 out of 5]

This excellent book, written tag-team by the two authors with alternating chapters, does two very helpful things. First, they do their best to define who comprises the "emergent" or "emerging" church, settling on a list of people including Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, Spencer Burke, and others, who seem to be saying roughly the same things, endorse each others books, and sometimes make joint statements. Once that is settled we learn, by examination of the writings of these people, exactly what it is that "emergents" believe - and, in many cases, why it is wrong.

The authors don't do this, but perhaps you could put most of their criticisms into two categories - bad logic, and bad theology. First, the leaders of the emergent church are bad logicians because they routinely present false dichotomies or work with vague definitions. So, for example, emergent types often emphasize the mystery of God, to the point of actually questioning whether we can have any real knowledge of God in the first place. Instead, they say, it is more important to focus on having a relationship with God, rather than trying to make propositional or creedal statements about him. But this is nonsense. To have a relationship with someone is to know things about them. To know things about them is to be able to make propositional statements about them. We cannot focus on relationship with God while ignoring propositional statements - indeed, we must do both. And, suggesting that we cannot really know God is bad theology as well - the Bible, inspired by God, is filled with statements describing his character.

The theological problems are just as great. DeYoung refers to one of the bigger theological problems as the "boundary problem" - if emergents have a hard time telling us what they believe, they have an even harder time telling us what they don't believe, or what they believe is wrong. Examples range from refusals to say that homosexuality is immoral to affirmations of quasi-universalism that make conversions to Christianity unnecessary and the cross of Christ unimportant. The impulse behind this wishy-washiness probably isn't all bad - they want to have inviting churches. But in the end, refusing to tell people that the way they are living is wrong, that the things they are believing are wrong, doesn't help anyone.

This is just a taste of what the book discusses. I should add that the authors don't think emergents are working with malicious intent. In fact, they think that in many cases they have noticed real problems with many American churches (like focusing on doctrine but neglecting love for others, for example), but that the emergents themselves have responded by erring much too far in the other direction.

One final note - as I said, the book contains alternating chapters written by DeYoung and Kluck. I really enjoyed this format. The DeYoung chapters offer the meatier theological arguments against emergent-dom. Kluck usually writes books about sports, and his chapters are lighter but still valuable, more personal experience than argument. One thing I especially sympathized with was his pointing out the sort-of practical hypocrisy he has encountered in emergent churches and writings. For example, emergent churches spent a lot of time talking about being "authentic", and try to encourage "authenticity" - with the result that sometimes that "authentic" living actually feels a lot more forced to Kluck than what he has encountered in more traditional churches. Some of Kluck's complaints, this one included, actually reminded me of a campus ministry (which I liked!) that I once attended - but that's another story.

[John · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book was given to me as a proselytizing "gift" of sorts from a friend. I probably wouldn't have bought it myself, but it has actually been very informative if not in the way the authors or my "closet reformist" friend intended. First off, I didn't care much for Ted's chapters at all. He is a sports writer (?) and even suggests that people could skip over his chapters in the book if they wanted to. I second that suggestion. I think the intent of incorporating his voice into the book was to give a colloquial account of a neo-reformist's reaction to a perceived emerging church theological threat. And matters of being cool and hip in a certain demographic are just distractions. http://axxess.org/?p=16 For me, Ted's chapters just watered down to anecdotal criticisms. Heck, I can and do like to pick on megachurch pastors all the time and I'd probably pick on Rob Bell too if I knew anything about him, but it doesn't warrant the attention of a book... a blog post or two at the most. But why do they care so much about the emerging church movement anyway? Are they defending Truth? If the emerging church really is just a passing fad--a gnat on the american christian landscape, why are they elevating its credibility by writing a book about it? or are they just seeing a loss of marketshare to Rob Bell and they want in on a peice of the action by writing a book with a provocative title/subtitle? (now I'M being smart-alecky)

That said, I think that Kevin's chapters were definitely more substantive. He had tried to engage the louder voices of the emerging church movement by reading a good number of their books. And he has come to a difference of opinion theologically and believes that reformed theology is the place to go... a la Piper, D.A. Carson. (Don't know if he would endorse Mark Driscol, but Mark's kind of a different animal anyway. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/mag...) While I may hold to some different theological positions as Kevin, he has indirectly spurned me on to inquire about the neo-reformist movement in the states and the "truth propositions" to which they ascribe to such as total depravity of man, sola scriptura, predestination, a wrathful eschatology, and penal substitution. All of which combine to create a very bleak cocktail of a worldview which is alluring to some. But he may rightly bring up a few valid issues with ec such as biblical references about homosexuality and assert that many in the emerging church are "ducking the issue." I think that this is an excellent example of what he calls "critiquing the emerging church is like nailing jello to the wall" because you will not find anything close to a consensus on this issue within the emerging church movement.

Some people have characterized this book as one huge exercise of the straw-man argument. That could be accurate, but Kevin's chapters mainly just pick out examples of where emerging church authors make statements that don't align with (evangelical) reformed-theology. Meh. And Ted's chapters just amount to school-yard bullying, points of style, and anecdotes of culture clashes. Bleh.

[James Bunyan · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was brilliant.
Articulated very well what is worrying about the emergent movement, without going so far as to write it off. Holds several key members to account for their confusing and very liberal theology and also points out some of the pastoral implications of their work.
They understand the movement really well, interacting with several aspects of the theology before writing an epilogue on what we could learn from the 7 churches of Revelation.
I couldn't put it down and I am so grateful to both of them for sticking their heads above the parapet in this way.

Made me feel like I love Jesus more!

[Deanna · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book, written smartly (and occasionally smart alecky!) discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the emergent church.

[Tom · Rating 5 out of 5]

i would rather be true to scriptures than hip. start with Truth and then allow the Holy Spirit to make it relevant--don't make relevance and broad acceptance the principle goals.

[Mike · Rating 1 out of 5]

I have to be honest. I didn't like this book. I would not classify myself as "emergent." But I do think that I have a sympathetic disposition toward the "movement." I think they are saying some good things. I don't agree with everything but I think their critique is going to have to be understood and the greater church will have to respond. Which leads me to my primary problem with the book. The authors demonstrate the chronic inability to listen.

I can't deal with everything I didn't agree with so I will limit it to a couple of categories:

- Wrongly identifying the "emergent" church with liberal protestantism.

- Maintaining the status quo.

I will deal with these issues and then speak to what I did like about the book. But before I do that I have to mention some stylistic issues that just bugged me.

While I didn't agree with most of the book I generally enjoyed the well reasoned arguments and dealings with significant issues in the debate. The only time this wasn't the case was for all the even chapters. I read chapters two, four and six and was compelled to give up because they were an intolerable waste of time. What I gleaned from these chapters was that "emergent" Christians are simply immature and once they get married and have babies they will see the light of reformed theology and will be willing to participate in "big boy" church. I also learned that "emergent" Christians are stupid enough to like "emergent" leaders because they are younger and better looking then intellectual giants like J. I. Packer, John Piper and D. A. Carson. In chapter four, Kluck sits in a car with D. A. Carson and discusses the pros and cons of blogging. When you sit in a car with D. A. Carson while you are writing a book about the "emergent" church and talk about whether he likes blogging, that fact makes you a sports writer. It shows an unjustified concern over inane biographical details that would command the attention of a reader that already knew the statistics of their favorite quarterback.

In that same chapter, Kluck attempts to climb the highest peek of irony when he talks about the benefits of an editor.

We agree that there is something good about the editing process, the idea that your work sits for awhile and is evaluated before being thrust before the world. (Kluck, p.93)

This was one of the few statements in the book for which I was in unqualified agreement. It made me wonder if this book would have benefited from the same process.

Now onto issues that aren't petty in nature.

Wrongly identifying the "emergent" church with liberal protestantism

This was the most aggravating claim that weaved its way through the whole book. This claim made me think that the writers simply didn't understand or were ignorant of both movements.

The claim that liberal protestantism is the same as the "emergent" movement is simply wrong. The philosophical underpinnings of both are so radically different that it cannot be the case. It would be like saying that Eisenhower and Hitler are the same because they both built interstate highway systems. Its true that they both offer similar critiques to "conservative" Christianity but that is where the similarities end.

Liberal Protestantism was a direct reaction and incorporation of the Enlightenment. It demystified the Gospels, taking out the miraculous, making God the clock maker and Jesus the moral exemplar. It christianized the idea of human progress completely through human reason and couched it in biblical language.

The "emergent" movement takes its cues from postmodern philosophy which is the antitheses to enlightenment's idea of human progress. Postmodernity has called into question and has a general incredulity toward everything that the Enlightenment (and Modernity in general) was about. To compare them and call them the same is foolish because it just ain't true.

To be fair, I see how easy it would be to confuse the two. The "emergent" church doesn't have a strict adherence to doctrine which would make them prime candidates for banishment from any conservative congregation. The only other option is to go to a liberal protestant church (or one that doesn't have the doctrinal preoccupation that the conservative church does). This would tend be your mainline churches (note: I don't think mainline churches are overwhelmingly liberal, but they differ in outlook from conservative churches in general). At which point the "emergent" views on social justice become identified with the liberal agenda.

Why I think it is inexcusable for the authors to make this claim is because they simply didn't listen to self described "emergents" who clearly express a strained relationship with both the conservative and liberal churches. They don't fit into either camp so they tend toward the only camp that will accept them. The other option is to form there own groups, meetings, or cohorts which garner less respect then the first option.

The authors have scanned the text and found the quotes to support their position but in the end missed that which was most important, the motives behind the claims.


Maintaining the status quo

Having wrongly dismissed the philosophical underpinnings of the movement the authors simply write off any critiques to the status quo, which allows them to toe the conservative line without much reflection on their part. I would say that the "emergent" critique of the conservative church has been primarily oriented around a heaven focused, growth oriented, politically republican agenda. They have made it obvious that social justice is apart of the gospel and that the people of God must take action in light of this demand.

But the authors of this book try to make any endeavor to feed the poor or create world peace suspect of promoting the politically liberal agenda. Regardless if Jesus thought it was a good idea or not.

In a momentary flash of genius Deyoung writes,
Without the personal glory of Christ and his redeeming work front and center in the gospel, the kingdom of god often ends up sounding largely political. (Deyoung, p.189)
He even goes so far as saying that people on "both sides of the aisle" need to be careful of over identifying Jesus with their politics. But not even a page later he is back to square one saying that we should be concerned with abortion and gay marriage and comparing all other political implication of the gospels with Rauschenbusch and liberal protestantism. What makes this infuriating is that the authors themselves say that actions like feeding the poor are important but when it comes from the lips of an "emergent" it is just liberal. Why not simply affirm that they are correct and be done with it. Why not hear the critique and affirm they are correct.

I don't think that the conservative church has wholly ignored social justice. I have been apart of churches that have supported food banks and done similar missions. I have also over heard congregants that have found every excuse they can find under the sun to not give to the poor. Homeless shelters have required the listening of gospel presentation prior to eating and I have even heard of soup kitchens changing their mission to exclusively evangelism because they felt that the food drew from the preaching of the word. While not every church fits into this critique I think that the "emergent" church has a point here.

Doesn't the gospel require us to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and visit the imprisoned? Then why throw stones at those who bring this truth to light.

Final critique

My final critique is that the authors seem to have a broad idea as to who counts as "emergent." When you place McLaren, Miller, Grenz, Raschke, Pagitt, Campolo, Bell, and Friesen all in the same camp you appear to be the proverbial monkey throwing your feces at anything in range. It is true that some of these guys associate with each other but it is certainly not true in every case and I didn't see any attempt to deal with how they differ from one another.

What I liked about the book

Without a doubt the authors care about the church and the preservation of the message of redemption that is offered in the Bible. They see the rejection of doctrine as a sure sign that this message will get lost. I think that doctrine is important and that the "emergent" church has in some cases thrown the baby out with the bath water. The "emergent" church has rejected doctrine because they needed to deconstruct the church and its mission, but you can deconstruct forever and never manage to do anything of value. At some point they are going to need to reconstruct what church is for, who Jesus is and what our mission is. I am hopeful that the conservative church will hear the critiques, offer some alternatives and help the "emergent" church reconstruct their theology.

I think that it will be give and take. I think that doctrine and scripture will play a different role then it has in the past or at least the current idea will be nuanced a bit, but I don't think it will be at the expense of orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is no worse or better than orthopraxy but another important aspect to a faith that everyone in this debate cares about.

One specific case in which I agreed with the authors is in some of their arguments for the doctrine of hell. I don't think you can read hell out of the text and I think that "emergent" and even evangelicals in general get a bit squeamish when it comes to preaching about hell.

One critique that I found to be relevant was in reference to authority. I think it is a fair criticism to say that the "emergent" church is skeptical of authority and I would say that this has come from that authority being abused at times. Even so authority is part and parcel to life let alone the church. It needs to be incorporated and understood in the right context but it cannot be eliminated.

Ultimately

Ultimately, I would not recommend this book. It isn't a good introduction to the "emergent" vs. reformed debate. It shows a lack of understanding with the philosophy involved. It either serves as a rallying point for those who want to trash on the movement or to further distance a group of people who already feel like they don't belong anywhere. Neither of these options is going to bridge the divide and there are other books that would be helpful to read to understand each side of the debate in the effort toward reconciliation.

[Justin Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kevin DeYoung is an interesting character in evangelical Christianity. Coming from a strong reformed tradition, he is turning heads by becoming involved in big projects with the Gospel Coalition. He considers himself "Young, Restless, and Reformed," a movement that stems from millennial's coming into the Church holding onto important tenants such as expository preaching and election.



Interestingly enough, the early 2000's produced a movement of evangelical Christians that tried to appeal to millennials by producing hip pastors with soul patches, fancy coffee drinks, and contemporary music. Most importantly, they embraced existentialism and shy away from strict doctrinal stances that seem to them an anachronism. This movement was called the "Emergent Church," and for awhile they posed a great threat to Christian Orthodoxy.



DeYoung partners with Ted Kluck to investigate this movement, what they believe (or don't believe) and how it is effecting Evangelical Christianity. They admit it is a hard task to undertake. Perhaps this is because emergents are unequivocally mysterious about what they claim to believe in particularly on doctrinal issues. For example, no where can you read Brian McLaren's stance on homosexuality. Is it right or is it wrong? Emergents thrive on ambiguity and embrace spirituality, not religion. They are big proponents of the social gospel: the thought that making a change in the world by doing is better than sitting in coffee shops debating theology. Theology and doctrine are the enemies to the emergent. What does it matter if you deny the trinity? What does it matter you deny the virgin birth? Shouldn't Christians be getting out and showing the love of Jesus instead of sitting on their knowledge, their fat, obese intellect, and doing nothing for the world?





DeYoung provides an interesting look at the Church at the very end of the book. He comments on the Churches from Revelation. These Churches were real at one time and had these problems he lists, but the metaphorical nature of the Church can help diagnose problems in our Churches today. He essentially breaks down a swing which is too extreme in both cases: in the first, churches are too intellectual and have little emotion, like the church at Ephesus who "lost [their] first love." On the other side, there are churches that are seemingly alive with emotion, but are dead in the way of knowledge, to which Christ responds, "I know all the things you do, and you have a reputation for being alive - but you are dead!" Both of these examples contribute to the widening divide between the stuffy churches of yesterday who are content with taking but not giving and the charismatic upheaval seen in recent years, particularly influenced by churches attempting to please millennials in a convoluted way to lull them back to the church, from the opposite spectrum.



Fortunately, the most attended churches today are those who have: 1) a strong position on what truth is, and 2) doctrine and not emotionalism in the sermons. This is encouraging because remember, DeYoung wrote this book in the hay-day of the emergent church. What we have seen since then is a rapid disintegration of the threat of emergents. This is good news, but not all is good: complacency kills, as the Marine Corps preaches, and we need to be on guard and on the lookout for dangers that threaten the truthfulness of Christianity and seek to displace the authority of the Bible in exchange for popular belief.

[Mollie Bruno · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is good, but reveals in the epilogue it could have been stellar. Fair, balanced perspective and even used some of the tools the authors brought out as the strengths of the camp they were criticizing. Especially appreciated the respect they paid their brothers and sisters in other denominations as well as their affirming liberals as part of the Christian family. Mostly conservative myself, I agreed with the authors without being bored, and was enlightened because, although I had encountered emergent theology, several factors in my life, (age, exposure to media, secular social circles specifically), has kept me in the dark about where those views were coming from. Very important book for all, whether to debate or dialogue, but I'd personally like to read a book that fills in more of what gets lost. Would have given this 5 stars if the entire book had what the epilogue did. I was impressed by the brief, simple, and clear exposition of the duality of meaning of the 7 churches in Revelation, and would love to see a play by play by (BOTH) these two of a topic briefly discussed and then contrasted with biblically rooted teaching. This was done to some extent, (and maybe the purpose of this was to simply focus on the "why not"), but, - it left me hungry to hear the what of what the emergent churches are missing, rather than why they miss. Highly recommended, especially if you don't know what the emergent church is.

[Caleb Plattner · Rating 5 out of 5]

Nearly 15 years after it was written, this book feels strangely relevant still. Though it was written to address a specific trend in the mid 2000s (that later became obsolete, at least by its moniker), the descendants of the emergent movement have changed, but largely think in the vein of their ancestry. The work is almost prophetic, as “slippery-slope” predictions of what might come from certain leaders like Rob Bell or Brian McLaren that tended to move away from orthodox Christianity largely came true in the 5-10 years following. Not to say that the authors are prophetic in and of themselves, but it does help to ratify their analysis of the trend as a whole.

In a sentence, the purpose of the book is to acknowledge that the emergent church does hold to some helpful tenets that have been largely diminished in the past, but their general dismissal of objective truth, difficult doctrines like substitutionary atonement, and the exclusivity of Christ serve to compromise their witness as participants in the body of Christ.

[Brandi · Rating 4 out of 5]

I almost stopped reading it three times. It is rambling and repetitive at times. I appreciate the time they took to research about the emergent “non movement”, along with their diligence in experiencing emergent events and dialoguing with emergent leaders. But they could have made their point well in fewer pages with a lot less quotes. In the end, though, they made it clear that the emergent movement has some pitfalls and dangers that we need to be aware of. I was going to rate it as two stars until I got to the last chapter. I read the last chapter three times — it made it worth the journey. 😏

[Wayne · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a wise, thorough, gracious, and fair analysis of the Emergent Church movement. Despite their serious concerns with the movement, Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck were extremely kind and loving to their brothers and sisters in Christ. Highly recommend the read if you want a helpful understanding of the Emergent Church. They discuss both the good and the bad of the movement, and ultimately conclude with their reasons for why they are not emergent (as you can see in the title). 5 out of 5 stars.

[Cheryl · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's 2022 and I know this book is outdated. Emergent churches are so last season as the fundamentals shout about NAR and Progressive Christianity now. But still, I found it at an used book sale and thought I'd check it out.
Honestly, i doze off every time i try to read it. Maybe it's a spirit of sleep like Derek Prince has preached about that is hindering me from discovering some great truth or maybe because my subconscious knows it's not the thing any more. Either way, I'm going to keep it for any episodes of insomnia I have....

[Bryan Reeder · Rating 3 out of 5]

Honestly, I haven't done much studying or research on the Emergent Church. I ahve one pastor friend that practices a lot of Emergent ideas that I completely disagree with. Reading this book motivates me to do so. The authors put a lot of research into their arguments which I appreciate. Whether you are in the Emergent movement or against it, I challenge you to read this book. Either way, you will be challenged.

[Matt Crawford · Rating 3 out of 5]

Why we’re not emergent is an elongated blog post. Although people like Kevin deyoung and more recently Doug Wilson write an article and then read it on a podcast. It’s hard to like the book based on its continuity. The authors who are very different alternate chapters. They have little in common despite being against the emergent church. That is enough though. In my estimation you’ll like a book by either author but the continuity seems more distracting that help.

[Jennifer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Okay, so, let me say straight-up, the only reason this book gets four stars is because Kevin DeYoung manages to carry it despite Ted/Tod/Tom/Tim Kluck's seeming best efforts to bash it into one-star territory with his rambling, pointless "storyteller's approach" to theology. I get that Kluck is there to try and appeal to the younger, story-oriented people who read this book, maybe even deliberately tried to engage on a level that emergent Christians would respond to, but he comes off as a middle-aged guy trying too hard to be hip.

Other things I disliked about Kluck--aside from his tendency to tell a story, leave it vaguely unfinished, and then never come back to it again, ever--included his movie references (it seemed like he never mentioned a movie rated anything less than R when using it as an example, probably to seem like someone who is cool and engages with the culture), his tendency early in the book to sound like he was being swayed or wooed or won over by the emergent movement (pg 93 specifically got marked up for this), the way he completely ignored an opportunity to ask actual questions about what D. A. Carson thought about the emergent movement, implied that Carson's opinion didn't matter anyway because Carson is old, and then spent the rest of the chapter talking with a random philosophy/theology major from MSU named Dave (oh dear sweet Jesus in the manger why did you let this chapter happen this way?? There must have been a reason, surely?), his tendency to dismiss the idea that anyone under thirty could possibly be interested in theology and his dismissiveness of the intelligence and ability to understand complex theological matters of women (this sentence in particular provoked my wrath: "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."), his constant reminding the reader that nothing he says is really all that important anyway aw shucks, and his constant insistence that people might think he's cool, but he's not, really. Seriously guys, just because he's a sports writer who interviews football players all the time doesn't make him cool. Did he mention he interviews football players? Because he does. He totally does. But that doesn't make him cool, just in case you wondered.

I wrote this in the blank space between chapters four (Kluck's chapter) and five (DeYoung's): "Abrupt ending. I understand he was trying to get the young perspective on orthodox theology since the younger generation is the one targeted by the emergent movement, but talking to some dude Kluck knows named David vs. talking to D. A. Carson--just. WHAT?? WHO PICKED KLUCK AS DEYOUNG'S CO-AUTHOR? This seems so oddly disjointed and incoherent. It's like they both wrote separate books on the emergent movement and then cut and pasted them together. At least DeYoung still seems completely coherent and well written, despite being chopped up and slapped between Kluck's clucky, disjointed mess."

That is still the best analysis of Kluck's chapters I can give you--though he does get more coherent farther into the book, more because he stops interviewing college students and actually interviews a few pastors and theologians instead. Golly gee.

Like I said before, though, DeYoung does a really great job at analyzing and explaining the emergent movement's basic tenets (or lack thereof) and then explaining how logically and biblically, the emergent movement doesn't make sense. In fact, a lot of statements that I read in the book (edited to clarify: statements made by emergent authors or churches or pastors, not by DeYoung) on the surface seemed fairly reasonable but almost immediately started falling apart once I thought about them for a little while. Logic, reasoned thinking and the emergent church seem not to mix well.

Both DeYoung and Kluck make points of not demonizing the emergent movement, which I appreciated. I have friends in the movement and (living in Grand Rapids, MI, the home of Mars Hill Church and Rob Bell, and therefore a kind of Mecca to the emergent movement) I'm sure there are lots of people around here who I know who espouse some emergent ideals who I know but haven't talked with about this. The authors quote multiple well known emergent figures, from Brian McLaren to Tony Jones to Scot McKnight. They cite a few as being more moderate emergents, who don't hold to the most liberal views in the movement, and they also talk about how the ideas behind the church experience and community the emergent movement pushes are actually not at all bad things. It's not the idea that church can be held anywhere, in any building, that DeYoung objects to, nor is it the idea that the church should be active and engaged with the community around them. It's the idea that we throw out theology and "knowing things" about God and Jesus that he finds so troubling. I have to agree.

I feel like this book was absolutely a necessary book to write. I appreciate Kevin DeYoung's work on it especially. I just wish Kluck had spent a little less time weaving narratives and a little more time actually interviewing people.

[Julia · Rating 4 out of 5]

Worth reading the whole thing, but if you only have a little bit of time, the last chapter provides a great summary of what we need to be careful of as we try to discern how God calls us to live as Christians.