What do you think?
Rate this book
Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches
What are the beliefs of the new movement known as the emerging church? In thought-provoking debate, prominent emerging leaders John Burke, Mark Driscoll, Dan Kimball, Doug Pagitt, and Karen Ward discuss their sometimes controversial views under the editorship of author and educator Robert Webber. Hear what they say about their views of Scripture, Christ, the atonement, other world religions, and other important doctrines, so you can come to your own conclusions about the emerging church.
240 pages, Paperback
First published February 1, 2007
5 people are currently reading
99 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
January 26, 2008
They're so pitiful, except for Driscoll! Learn to read between the lines if you expect to discern what's going on with this crew. I am frankly so appalled that the evangelical church is still failing to recognize liberal, naturalistic theology when they see it, I don't know what to do. Paggit looks like an unbeliever in this book.
October 30, 2025
It was strange to read this 18 years after its publication but 20 years after its writing because the change wrought in the authors and the communities mentioned.
Really, it’s because the emergent movement no longer exists; the authors have either been reabsorbed into a change evangelicalism or branched into Liberal Christianity.
Mark Driscoll, the traditional biblicist, essentially destroyed Mars Hill and is now pastor of ANOTHER church.
Solomon’s Porch in Minneapolis (now closed) and Church of the Apostles fully embraced Liberal Christianity.
John Burke and Dan Kimball remained the closest to who they were when they wrote this book.
While it gets a couple stars for nostalgia and historical insight, it was less toothy than I would have liked; the authors were friends and kind to each other, but real disagreement was tempered (I think too much) with kindness.
Really, it’s because the emergent movement no longer exists; the authors have either been reabsorbed into a change evangelicalism or branched into Liberal Christianity.
Mark Driscoll, the traditional biblicist, essentially destroyed Mars Hill and is now pastor of ANOTHER church.
Solomon’s Porch in Minneapolis (now closed) and Church of the Apostles fully embraced Liberal Christianity.
John Burke and Dan Kimball remained the closest to who they were when they wrote this book.
While it gets a couple stars for nostalgia and historical insight, it was less toothy than I would have liked; the authors were friends and kind to each other, but real disagreement was tempered (I think too much) with kindness.
December 12, 2020
Some writers went too theoretical and in times I got bored. The best part of the book were the responses from the other writers. It was great to see the common ground and parts they didn't agree on. It gives a great opportunity to rethink and re-evaluate your own theology.
Maybe the best part was Webbers conclusion when he summed up the major thoughts. Every Christian and church leader/planter must work on from that.
"One weakness of emerging theology is porous borders. It lacks of clarity and is kind of an evangelical liberalism." helps us to work on, find out and experiment the right proportion of your own soup ingredients.
Maybe the best part was Webbers conclusion when he summed up the major thoughts. Every Christian and church leader/planter must work on from that.
"One weakness of emerging theology is porous borders. It lacks of clarity and is kind of an evangelical liberalism." helps us to work on, find out and experiment the right proportion of your own soup ingredients.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 2, 2008
...is what emerging churches are about, at least according to this book (with the exception of Mark Driscoll's contributions). I say "contributions" because each of the five contributors not only writes a chapter of his/her own, but responds to each of the chapters by the other contributors. So by the time you've finished the parts written by the contributors, you have a pretty good idea of what the contributors are thinking about things.
In addition, this book contains some context for the conversations of the contributors, provided at the beginning and end by evangelical theologian Robert Webber. He contends American evangelical Christianity is at the beginning of the fourth of four roughly twenty-year cycles, seeking how to interact with a post-Christian, neo-pagan culture, finding that the questions to which they have answers aren't being asked anymore.
The placement of the names on the cover is a pretty accurate reflection of where the contributors are theologically. The only change I would make is swapping Karen Ward and Doug Pagitt.
Each of the five contributors have different diagnoses of the problems with American evangelical Christianity in the early 21st century:
Mark Driscoll says the problem is watering down the truth of Scripture, giving Jesus a makeover to make him more attractive to our culture. His prescription is to unapologetically present the message of Jesus as told by an authoritative Scripture. As I read his words, I remembered Bible teacher J. Vernon McGee saying "The chief sin of the church is ignorance of the word of God."
John Burke says the problem is that American Christians are both hypocritical, unchanged in their character and behavior, and judgemental, believing they have a monopoly on truth. His prescription is to invite people to come as they are, recognizing it might take a while for changes in people to take place.
Dan Kimball says the problem is that we're still stuck with those dispensational end-time charts, and scared that someone is going to ask a question to which we don't know the answer. His prescription is to create a worshipping community of missional theologians, people who are well-versed in the study of the nature of God, and inquiring into religious questions.
Doug Pagitt says the problem is any number of assumptions about the way we do theology, an unwillingness to address new questions raised by scientific advances, and an unwillingness to think about the increasing rate of cultural change. His prescription is to challenge these assumptions and address new cultural realities.
Karen Ward says the problem is the modern pastor-as-CEO model. Her prescription is an apprentice model of discipleship, distributing as much of the mentoring as possible. Her prescription also involves a metaphor of theology as the cooking of tasty, nutritious food, as opposed to the metaphor of theology as architecture.
Robert Webber provides a helpful summary of the contributions in his conclusion section. In my opinion, Webber's Appendix 2, "What is the Ancient-Future Vision?" and Appendix 3, "A Call to an Ancient Evangelical Future" should have been placed immediately after the conclusion section, because Webber just wasn't finished commenting. It is unfortunate that some readers of this book won't read these parts because of where they are placed.
I considered my complaints about the placement of names on the cover, and the placements of the appendices to be insufficient to take the fifth star away from a revealing book about American evangelical Christians in the early 21st century.
Full Disclosure: I attend Solomon's Porch in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Doug Pagitt, one of the contributors, is my pastor.
In addition, this book contains some context for the conversations of the contributors, provided at the beginning and end by evangelical theologian Robert Webber. He contends American evangelical Christianity is at the beginning of the fourth of four roughly twenty-year cycles, seeking how to interact with a post-Christian, neo-pagan culture, finding that the questions to which they have answers aren't being asked anymore.
The placement of the names on the cover is a pretty accurate reflection of where the contributors are theologically. The only change I would make is swapping Karen Ward and Doug Pagitt.
Each of the five contributors have different diagnoses of the problems with American evangelical Christianity in the early 21st century:
Mark Driscoll says the problem is watering down the truth of Scripture, giving Jesus a makeover to make him more attractive to our culture. His prescription is to unapologetically present the message of Jesus as told by an authoritative Scripture. As I read his words, I remembered Bible teacher J. Vernon McGee saying "The chief sin of the church is ignorance of the word of God."
John Burke says the problem is that American Christians are both hypocritical, unchanged in their character and behavior, and judgemental, believing they have a monopoly on truth. His prescription is to invite people to come as they are, recognizing it might take a while for changes in people to take place.
Dan Kimball says the problem is that we're still stuck with those dispensational end-time charts, and scared that someone is going to ask a question to which we don't know the answer. His prescription is to create a worshipping community of missional theologians, people who are well-versed in the study of the nature of God, and inquiring into religious questions.
Doug Pagitt says the problem is any number of assumptions about the way we do theology, an unwillingness to address new questions raised by scientific advances, and an unwillingness to think about the increasing rate of cultural change. His prescription is to challenge these assumptions and address new cultural realities.
Karen Ward says the problem is the modern pastor-as-CEO model. Her prescription is an apprentice model of discipleship, distributing as much of the mentoring as possible. Her prescription also involves a metaphor of theology as the cooking of tasty, nutritious food, as opposed to the metaphor of theology as architecture.
Robert Webber provides a helpful summary of the contributions in his conclusion section. In my opinion, Webber's Appendix 2, "What is the Ancient-Future Vision?" and Appendix 3, "A Call to an Ancient Evangelical Future" should have been placed immediately after the conclusion section, because Webber just wasn't finished commenting. It is unfortunate that some readers of this book won't read these parts because of where they are placed.
I considered my complaints about the placement of names on the cover, and the placements of the appendices to be insufficient to take the fifth star away from a revealing book about American evangelical Christians in the early 21st century.
Full Disclosure: I attend Solomon's Porch in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Doug Pagitt, one of the contributors, is my pastor.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 29, 2015
Plucked from my review at [http://www.apolarity.com/?p=118], I’ve always liked the “point/counterpoint”-style books, where I get to peek into the minds of various people, and see how people with different worldviews approach a problem. I like the atmosphere of mutual respect, admiration, and “agree-to-disagree” that authors generally provide for one another.
Such was definitely the case with this book. The authors, ranging from “conservative” to “liberal”, mainline to evangelical, and a host of other cultural and spiritual differences (although more than one stated his/her dislike for such labels), found common ground in discussing missional, incarnational theology in a postmodern world, and freely expressed their concerns without chasing rabbit-trails, resorting to ad hominem attacks, mischaracterizations, or bad faith arguments.
This goes for all the authors, that is, except Mark Driscoll. John Burke, Dan Kimball, Doug Pagitt, and Karen Ward seem to be having a really productive exchange - challenging each other, presenting new perspectives, discussing ways of “being” in the world, the role of Christianity and Christians, how to relate to unbelievers and people of different faiths, etc. - and then Mark would come in, guns blazing, blasting someone for not espousing his version of orthodoxy. Mark has always been a big fan of “man’s man” metaphors - I imagine he pictures himself as William Wallace in Braveheart: “I’m going to pick a fight.”
At first, this made me really mad (see, for example, [http://www.apolarity.com/?p=117], my earlier post, about his theology of hell) - I wanted to yell at Mark for being unfair, for using logical fallacies, for nitpicking abstract theological “issues” (penal substitutionary atonement, eternal literal hell, plenary biblical infallibility) and ignoring the real substance of the other authors’ statements about collaborative theology, the importance of community, incarnational ministry, and the realities of living in a post-Christian, pluralistic society. After continuing to read it, though, I stopped being mad/offended. I realized the dynamic of what was going on in this discussion: Mark Driscoll was simply not having the same conversation that everyone else was. He wasn’t absorbing what the others were saying in order to respond thoughtfully; he was in full battle mode, looking for errors to expose. It stopped being a tragedy, and turned into a farce. Any admission by him of missional living, or of the centrality of praxis in the life of a church/Christian, was absolutely tangential to “theology” in the abstract. He made it abundantly clear that that was his topic, and he wasn’t going to be sidetracked by what anyone else was saying.
As the book went on, I took him less and less seriously. He was so far afield from the conversation everyone else was having, he may as well have been saying “…So I said, ‘Look, mother! It’s my life, oo-kaay? So if I want to live on the beach and walk around naked…’ ”
Mark Driscoll as Janice the Muppet.
Such was definitely the case with this book. The authors, ranging from “conservative” to “liberal”, mainline to evangelical, and a host of other cultural and spiritual differences (although more than one stated his/her dislike for such labels), found common ground in discussing missional, incarnational theology in a postmodern world, and freely expressed their concerns without chasing rabbit-trails, resorting to ad hominem attacks, mischaracterizations, or bad faith arguments.
This goes for all the authors, that is, except Mark Driscoll. John Burke, Dan Kimball, Doug Pagitt, and Karen Ward seem to be having a really productive exchange - challenging each other, presenting new perspectives, discussing ways of “being” in the world, the role of Christianity and Christians, how to relate to unbelievers and people of different faiths, etc. - and then Mark would come in, guns blazing, blasting someone for not espousing his version of orthodoxy. Mark has always been a big fan of “man’s man” metaphors - I imagine he pictures himself as William Wallace in Braveheart: “I’m going to pick a fight.”
At first, this made me really mad (see, for example, [http://www.apolarity.com/?p=117], my earlier post, about his theology of hell) - I wanted to yell at Mark for being unfair, for using logical fallacies, for nitpicking abstract theological “issues” (penal substitutionary atonement, eternal literal hell, plenary biblical infallibility) and ignoring the real substance of the other authors’ statements about collaborative theology, the importance of community, incarnational ministry, and the realities of living in a post-Christian, pluralistic society. After continuing to read it, though, I stopped being mad/offended. I realized the dynamic of what was going on in this discussion: Mark Driscoll was simply not having the same conversation that everyone else was. He wasn’t absorbing what the others were saying in order to respond thoughtfully; he was in full battle mode, looking for errors to expose. It stopped being a tragedy, and turned into a farce. Any admission by him of missional living, or of the centrality of praxis in the life of a church/Christian, was absolutely tangential to “theology” in the abstract. He made it abundantly clear that that was his topic, and he wasn’t going to be sidetracked by what anyone else was saying.
As the book went on, I took him less and less seriously. He was so far afield from the conversation everyone else was having, he may as well have been saying “…So I said, ‘Look, mother! It’s my life, oo-kaay? So if I want to live on the beach and walk around naked…’ ”
Mark Driscoll as Janice the Muppet.
September 22, 2007
A pretty good book so far. I feel bad for Mark Driscoll - he stands out as being the least capable of thinking. Further, he seems the least "emergent" of the group. He even refers to "emergent thinking" as if he's not in it at all. I, too, am a bit curious as to why he's even in this book. Seems like this book has an agenda that is actually more important to the book than the actual content of the book. Something along the lines of showing "emergent's" broadness/inclusiveness, ease-of-discussion, it's not just recent liberals, etc.
Some of the contributers are so nice as to be worthless in the "discussion" sections - like they are trying to keep the "really, it's a discussion and anyone is invited." I appreciate Pagitt's willingness to be the more aggressive in actually pointing out where his view and theirs depart or are at-odds. Here, again, Driscoll stands out. Not in a good way. Instead of responding to others' writings, he grandstands. Poorly.
It's an enjoyable book, pretty easy read. It's easy to skip sections when they get boring in that the use of headings is very well done.
Update: finished the book. Pagitt's section starts well and ends poorly. He calls for an acceptance of the subjectivity of the theologian/any-theological-system. A very good point in my opinion. But then he goes off on his metaphors and points-of-view that are either NOT relevant to today or are too young to be worthwhile (e.g. quantum understanding of sub-atomic particles, etc.). I like Doug a lot, but maybe because I always find something new to think about. But I seldom agree with him. As Dan Kimball wrote in his response, Doug has a way of poking where a system is weakest. He's a great gift to anyone's theology - a friend who can poke where needed. Driscoll's response is either funny or depressing.
Karen Ward's section (actually her whole church) is mind-numbing. I skipped most of it.
I can't stand the editor anymore: Robert Webber. Can he do ANYTHING without self-promotion? It's even worse when I find his approach/life-goal to be anemic.
My favorite quote in the book comes from Dan Kimball whom I don't normally like all that much, "I see the idea of the emerging church as more of a mind-set about theology." (p. 84).
I keep decreasing my rating of this book the more I read it. It just wasn't worth my time. Except to get a quick glimpse at these people's theologies. I'm sure they'd hate it, but I liked how I can now create neat little boxes to put around them so I feel I understand them more fully than I do ;-)
Some of the contributers are so nice as to be worthless in the "discussion" sections - like they are trying to keep the "really, it's a discussion and anyone is invited." I appreciate Pagitt's willingness to be the more aggressive in actually pointing out where his view and theirs depart or are at-odds. Here, again, Driscoll stands out. Not in a good way. Instead of responding to others' writings, he grandstands. Poorly.
It's an enjoyable book, pretty easy read. It's easy to skip sections when they get boring in that the use of headings is very well done.
Update: finished the book. Pagitt's section starts well and ends poorly. He calls for an acceptance of the subjectivity of the theologian/any-theological-system. A very good point in my opinion. But then he goes off on his metaphors and points-of-view that are either NOT relevant to today or are too young to be worthwhile (e.g. quantum understanding of sub-atomic particles, etc.). I like Doug a lot, but maybe because I always find something new to think about. But I seldom agree with him. As Dan Kimball wrote in his response, Doug has a way of poking where a system is weakest. He's a great gift to anyone's theology - a friend who can poke where needed. Driscoll's response is either funny or depressing.
Karen Ward's section (actually her whole church) is mind-numbing. I skipped most of it.
I can't stand the editor anymore: Robert Webber. Can he do ANYTHING without self-promotion? It's even worse when I find his approach/life-goal to be anemic.
My favorite quote in the book comes from Dan Kimball whom I don't normally like all that much, "I see the idea of the emerging church as more of a mind-set about theology." (p. 84).
I keep decreasing my rating of this book the more I read it. It just wasn't worth my time. Except to get a quick glimpse at these people's theologies. I'm sure they'd hate it, but I liked how I can now create neat little boxes to put around them so I feel I understand them more fully than I do ;-)
December 29, 2015
If you don't know what the emerging church is about, this is fantastic. The authors range start to finish from a more conservative to a more liberal understanding of Christianity as it relates to this postmodern, pluralistic, relativistic, neo-pagan culture that is coming forth in America. Each author, a pastor of an emerging church, writes about what they believe are the key elements of theology when talking about the emerging church engaging postmodernism, specifically addressing Scripture, the Trinity, and the Atonement. For each chapter, the other 4 authors are asked to do a short response, and the effect is this dialogue about contemporary issues.
I found all of it interesting and challenging, agreeing mostly with John Burke, then with Driscoll and Kimball. I wanted to root for Karen Ward, as the only female author, but our beliefs diverged so much I couldn't say that I loved it. But it was challenging. Having come to the book unaware of a thing called the emerging church, this has been a challenging and enlightening journey through their theologies, especially, as I am prone to do, through using it as a conversation topic for long, deep discussions. With my dad specifically, I had over 10 various hours of meaty conversations about the ideas in the book. I would say it's worth the read, underline and dog-ear the heck out of it, talk about the ideas with your family and friends over coffee or tea, and read it again when you need a refreshing breath of air about what is true for the church and doctrine in whatever context, specifically postmodernism. Definitely a top book on my shelf.
I found all of it interesting and challenging, agreeing mostly with John Burke, then with Driscoll and Kimball. I wanted to root for Karen Ward, as the only female author, but our beliefs diverged so much I couldn't say that I loved it. But it was challenging. Having come to the book unaware of a thing called the emerging church, this has been a challenging and enlightening journey through their theologies, especially, as I am prone to do, through using it as a conversation topic for long, deep discussions. With my dad specifically, I had over 10 various hours of meaty conversations about the ideas in the book. I would say it's worth the read, underline and dog-ear the heck out of it, talk about the ideas with your family and friends over coffee or tea, and read it again when you need a refreshing breath of air about what is true for the church and doctrine in whatever context, specifically postmodernism. Definitely a top book on my shelf.
May 9, 2013
What a great format for discussing issues related to the emerging church. Each of the five contributors wrote a chapter about their perspective on defining beliefs of the emerging church, then the remaining four contributors wrote a short response.
I was a little startled at my own reactions to each contributors' beliefs. I found Doug Pagitt's thoughts on the changing, highly contextualized nature of theology uncomfortable, yet he made the most sense to me. His criticisms of other contributors' more conservative or traditional frameworks also made a lot of sense to me. This is foreign territory that I suspect will demand more consideration from me.
As an aside, if you're not already familiar with the emerging church, good luck in trying to quickly understand it. To quote from Wikipedia, "Emerging churches are fluid, hard to define, and varied..." I guess that's why books like this are written.
I was a little startled at my own reactions to each contributors' beliefs. I found Doug Pagitt's thoughts on the changing, highly contextualized nature of theology uncomfortable, yet he made the most sense to me. His criticisms of other contributors' more conservative or traditional frameworks also made a lot of sense to me. This is foreign territory that I suspect will demand more consideration from me.
As an aside, if you're not already familiar with the emerging church, good luck in trying to quickly understand it. To quote from Wikipedia, "Emerging churches are fluid, hard to define, and varied..." I guess that's why books like this are written.
February 10, 2009
Pretty much 5 leaders of the emerging movement comment on their description of how they "do" things in their church. You get to see how different they are in their methodology and theology.
Each leader gets to give a basic idea of their theology in a chapter and then the other leades respond to what they wrote. It was interesting reading the responses because they all know each other and you get to see their interaction.
I think each has something to offer yet i dont think everyone would agree with everything they have to say.
It was an interesting book to read and just see where they are at.
Each leader gets to give a basic idea of their theology in a chapter and then the other leades respond to what they wrote. It was interesting reading the responses because they all know each other and you get to see their interaction.
I think each has something to offer yet i dont think everyone would agree with everything they have to say.
It was an interesting book to read and just see where they are at.
February 5, 2008
This book is what it is.....just 5 emerging pastors in the Christian faith explaining their theology or lack there of and their practice on how to do Church. I thought the Karen Ward chapter was defiantly not up to par with something worth being published.
The interesting thing about this book is that the best part of it (especially on the topic of the emerging church) is the introduction by Robert Webber. I wish he would have written the whole book off of the introduction.
It was an interesting book, but there are many better books on the topic.
The interesting thing about this book is that the best part of it (especially on the topic of the emerging church) is the introduction by Robert Webber. I wish he would have written the whole book off of the introduction.
It was an interesting book, but there are many better books on the topic.
September 29, 2007
The book gives an interesting overview of the emerging/emergent distinction and allows a newcomer to the issue understand where different people fall in their relationship to orthodox understanding of the faith. Well worth the read for those who are interested in some of the major players in the emergent and emerging movements.
Read
July 29, 2011Emergent cannot be labeled. You will learn that diversity is the key to understanding Emergent. And one thing notable is the humility among the emergent 'leaders' (the ones in the book are just a handful of them)
January 27, 2008
5 pastors debate about God's Word, culture, and methodology, etc. Two speak assclownery while the other three point to the truth.
March 21, 2011
A revealing look into some leading voices in the (thankfully) now-declining
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews