Deep Church: A Third Way Beyond Emerging and Traditional

by Jim Belcher

Feeling caught between the traditional church and the emerging church? Discover a third deep church.C. S. Lewis used the phrase "deep church" to describe the body of believers committed to mere Christianity. Unfortunately church in our postmodern era has been marked by a certain shallowness. Emerging authors, fed up with contemporary pragmatism, have offered alternative visions for twenty-first-century Christianity. Traditionalist churches have reacted negatively, at times defensively.Jim Belcher knows what it's like to be part of both of these worlds. In the 1990s he was among the pioneers of what was then called Gen X ministry, hanging out with creative innovators like Rob Bell, Mark Oestreicher and Mark Driscoll. But he also has maintained ties to traditionalist circles, planting a church in the Presbyterian Church of America.In Deep Church, Belcher brings the best insights of all sides to forge a third way between emerging and traditional. In a fair and evenhanded way, Belcher explores the proposals of such emerging church leaders as Tony Jones, Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt. He offers measured appreciation and affirmation as well as balanced critique. Moving beyond reaction, Belcher provides constructive models from his own church planting experience and paints a picture of what this alternate, deep church looks like--a missional church committed to both tradition and culture, valuing innovation in worship, arts and community but also creeds and confessions.If you've felt stuck between two extremes, you can find a home here. Plumb the depths of Christianity in a way that neither rejects our postmodern context nor capitulates to it. Instead of veering to the left or the right, go between the extremes--and go deep.

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

233 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 2009

About the author

Author of In Search of Deep Faith: A Pilgrimage into the beauty, goodness and heart of Christianity (IVP) and Deep Church: A third way beyond emerging and tradtional (IVP). For more information go to www.jimbelcher.net

I am theDirector of the Practical Theology Department at Knox Seminary in Fort Lauderdale, Fl.

I love reading travel writing, creative non-fiction, long narrative journalism, history and biography.

Reviews

[Matthew · Rating 4 out of 5]

I’ve been somewhat fascinated by the Emerging Church since I first heard about it a few years ago. Not sure if “fascinated” is the right word, as I’ve disagreed with the vast majority of the theology and practices coming out of the movement (although it's clearly not a homogeneous thing), but I’ve been intrigued for reasons I couldn’t quite place. After reading Jim Belcher’s book, Deep Church, I think I’ve figured out why I was interested in the movement. While I disagree with much of the theology and many of the methods the Emerging Church has produced, I share many of the same critiques and frustrations with the Traditional Church. If you always find yourself discouraged by false dichotomies between solid beliefs and culturally accessible designs, you will appreciate this book.

Belcher describes himself as one “caught in between” the Emerging and Traditional Churches. Orthodox in belief yet progressive in methods, Belcher’s California church has been his attempt to capture these traditional beliefs within a church context that appeals to and reaches our current era. As such, he clearly resonates with many in the Emerging movement as far the areas they find the Traditional Church lacking. In the book, Belcher essentially examines seven aspects of the church (truth, evangelism, gospel, worship, preaching, ecclesiology, and culture) and then details the critiques from the Emerging leaders. Then, he describes how the Traditional Church has pushed back and why. Finally, he presents his “third way,” an attempt to learn from Emerging without abandoning Traditional.

The strength of this book is clearly Belcher’s ability to fairly represent both sides on these divisive issues. In fact, I routinely found myself reading the Emerging critique, agreeing with people I never thought I would. Belcher takes great care to paint the pictures carefully, often visiting Emerging leaders and describing the heart behind the new ways of doing things. Then, he’s able to turn around and crank up the orthodoxy and point out problems when they exist. I didn’t always agree with his “third way,” but in most cases, it truly involved both sides.

With so many rifts existing within Christianity, and Evangelicalism in particular, I enjoyed this book as a way to guide the discourse towards civility, pointing out problems with a gentle spirit, but nevertheless calling a spade a spade. He also gives some very helpful framework to discuss the issues. Terms like foundationalism, centered-set, bounded-set, and relational-set beliefs were all new to me, but allowed me to understand more of where those in the Emerging Church are coming from. I don’t agree with where they’ve gone, but I can understand better.

As I said, the “third way” Belcher proposes to each issue will not satisfy everyone. How could it, really? I don’t believe it’s possible to design a church that will appeal to every person out there. It’s a helpful model to use, however, with whatever modifications are necessary for your context.

Deep Church is a challenging book written by a pastor with a clear heart for the church and for the truth about Jesus Christ. It has been a welcomed addition to my library, and I think many in the church would benefit greatly from it.

[Jennifer · Rating 1 out of 5]

I'd have rather given this one and half stars. I did not dislike it, but I did not like it, either. In part, this was because the two types of churches the author describes are not ones in which I have spent most of my time. I've never experienced an "emergent church," and Belcher's "traditional church" is not what I would describe as traditional. To me, traditional is Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran. It took me a bit to fully grasp that Belcher's traditional is 20th century, non-liturgical, and fundamentalist. So my frame of reference was a bit off for this book.

I'm not suggesting that everything he said lacked resonance for me, but it all required me wading through a lot of Belcher's criticisms of churches with which I've had limited exposure. The book is basically a critique of those two church models, with his own ideas set forth as a third way. He gives no acknowledgment that there are other churches out there, embracing neither of the two philosophies he is critiquing.

In a book where the author's voice and opinions are so prominent, I find it much easier to read if the author seems to be someone I would like. Belcher, not so much. He starts his book by recounting his grad student days living RENT FREE in Georgetown, having DEEP, meaningful conversations with other grad students for hours and nights on end. True community! It was a never to be recreated experience, he laments. Um, yeah. After that everyone had to grow up, get jobs, pay bills, and feed their kids. Who expects to live like a college student forever? So, Mr. Belcher made a poor first impression on me, and you know what they say about first impressions.

[Rose · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm not sure how to rate a book like this. Really helpful book in regards to thinking through what a church should look like. Gave me some really helpful vocabulary for talking about church. Good specifics on how to live "deep church" as well as the theological/ theoretical underpinnings. One things I really appreciated was the gentleness and care the author took with all opposing sides. Time after time he mentions reading and rereading other's work to make sure that he does not misconstrue the meaning.

[Радостин Марчев · Rating 4 out of 5]

Много интересна книга търсеща трети път между традиционните евангелски църкви и emering (по-скоро emergent) движението. Макар че пише много ясно и достъпно авторът определено знае за какво говори. Неговата начетеност по темата и доброто му образование се усещат на всяка тема, на която се спира. Отношението му е доброжелателно и изцяло лишено от нападателност. Лично аз намирам анализа му като цяло за добър и верен и предложенията му за много разумни.
Докато четях неговият анализ забелязах две неща, с които лично не съм напълно съгласен. Първото е определението и описанието, което дава на ревизионисткото крило на emergent church. Според него тяхната "ревизия" поставя под въпрос доктрини като непогрешимостта (innerancy) на библията и заместнчиеското изкупление на Христос. Първият въпрос отдавна не се ползва със статута на "свещена крава" в евангелския свят, а второто е прекалено неясно понятие, което бих трябвало да се уточни. Подозрението ми е, че в повечето случи спорът се води не толкова за заместническото изкупление per se колкото за определена, конкретна конструкция на механизма на последното (Между другото от кратките бележки, които прави на няколко места Белчър дава ясно да се разбере, че това е област, в която е достатъчно грамотен). Аз съм, съгласен с автора, че ревизионистко крили в emergent church не само има, но то често изпраща смущаващи богословски сигнали. Това е една от причините самият аз съм критичен към автори като Брйън МакЛарн и Тони Джоунс например. Просто намирам богословските проблеми за по-различни от Белчер - макар че в някои неща, които казва по-късно той допълва картината по начин, с който се солидаризирам.
Второ, аз изпитвам съмнение относно неговото откритие за запазване на здрава църква чрез включване в деноминация, която може да представлява контролен механизъм в случай че нещата тръгнат на зле в локален аспект. От една страна той е напълно прав. От друга положителна регулация е възможна единствено при положение, че конкретните хора изпълняващи тези регулаторни механизми са здрави. Ако те не са ефекта може да е точно обратния т.е. една иначе здрава църква да бъде спъвана в своята дейност. С това по никакъв начин не искам да кажа, че предпочитам свободното църковно движение и го намирам за по-добра алтернатива. Просто подчертавам, че въпросът има и друга страна.
Тези неща обаче са сравнително второстепенни. Най-големият й недостатък според мен лежи на друго място. Белчер представя евангелското движение като напълно откъснато от т. нар. мейнлайн деноминации. По този начин той не само пренебрегва големият брой вярващи, които напълно отговарят на определението (колкото и непрецизно да е то), но, по-важно, алтернативите, които вижда се ограничават неоправдано, а понятията започват да се размиват. Например кгато гооври за "традиционна" църква под това той има в предвид нещо много по-различно от, да кажем методистката или англиканската традиционна църква. Подобно разделяне може да има някакво основание в скорошната американска църковна история (макар че въпросът е открит за дебат), но е много по-проблемно когато напуснем Америка и прескочим напр. в Европа. По този начин неамериканският читател започва да се чуди пред опциите, които Белчер разглежда и е в недоумение защо той предлага опции, които са повече или по-малко залегнали в други традиции от дълго време (напр. литургичните форми или ресурсите на Великата традиция). Според мен това създава немалко объркване в една иначе много полезна и добре написана книга. Това е и причината да дам 4 звезди не нещо, което лесно би заслужило 5.

[Dave Brown · Rating 1 out of 5]

Belcher makes a promise he doesn't keep, and the end result is noise that smacks of the "pastoral theology" books that were required reading in grad school. What Belcher does well here is accurately portray a deep division in Western Christianity. While he over-simplifies in his categories of "traditional" and "emergent," I think he does so in the interest of expediency, which I understand. He accurately analyzes the two sides of the debate, pulling no punches in their weaknesses and sparing no praise in their strengths. Where Belcher falls short is his presentation of a "third way," to which he refers as "deep church." His proposal, however, seems to still be moored in the institutionalized, business-model approach of the church growth movement, and trapped in denominationalism. I found this to be disappointing, and naive to think that any proposal supporting denominationalism and the Western concept of a corporation-style religion to be part of the solution. I would argue that it is, in fact, part of the problem.

[Jason · Rating 4 out of 5]

I liked this book simply because Belcher attempted to fairly portray both camps: the traditional and the emerging. It's nice to read a writer who avoids caricature and sarcastic, hyperbolic belittling of those whom with he disagrees (unless said writer does it well, like Douglas Wilson or G.K. Chesterton). Belcher encouraged my empathy. His "third way" (i.e., deep church) seems more traditional than emergent but not as doctrinally exclusive as most traditional churches I've experienced. So, if you want to learn more about the differences between the two viewpoints, I recommend Belcher.

[Kim · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a fantastic look at the issues that divide the traditional (and "happy clappy") church from the emergent church without setting up straw men. In fact, it burns a few of them.

I highly recommend this book to any thinking Christian who wants to find the "third way" between the two extremes in a fair and loving way.

[Nancy Peifer · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent and thought provoking. A book I will be re-visiting soon.

[Xue Ting · Rating 4 out of 5]

In Deep Church, Jim Belcher (lead pastor at Redeemer Presbyterian Church) expounds on a vision for a “third way” beyond fundamentalist “traditional” churches (of the 20th century) and emergent (post)modern relational-focused churches, through the exploration of 7 aspects (Truth, Evangelism, Gospel, Worship, Preaching, Ecclesiology and Culture). This definition of “deep church” is based off C. S. Lewis’ “mere Christianity,” classic/orthodox Christianity which “is the starting point for unity and discussion.” Overall, from my understanding, he tries to find a thoughtful balance between the two, which is affirming of the vital role of the Bible, Tradition and Mission (which together = deep ecclesiology.)

I didn’t find anything fundamentally new in his argument from my POV, but it did help to flesh it out. I appreciated his sincere dialogue with people in the two camps of what he deemed as traditional / bounded-set and emergent / relational-set churches (and the care he takes not to stereotype either side by giving the most extreme examples.) He ultimately paints a vision for a centered-set church which “is defined by its core values, and people are not seen as either in or out but rather by their relationship to the center,” with everyone “potentially a part of the community.” (86)

I think I especially appreciated the portions on evangelism, gospel, ecclesiology and culture, but need to go back and reread some other portions. I think it’s a honest and genuine attempt to critique aspects of either “camp” without being too reductionistic and also highlight the best intentions of both sides. I also appreciated the balance of being realistic, without veering into idealism or cynicism. Though of course this is contextually specific as well to the U.S., but there are definitely things that can be broadly applied to create a richer, fuller vision of the Church.

Maybe if I give it a second read some aspects of the review will change, but this is it for now!

[Jeremy · Rating 4 out of 5]

I picked this book up from one of the Logos sales, and started to read it right away. The book was written in 2010 as the author grappled with the diverging paths of the emergent church and the "traditional" evangelical church. The author describes being pulled in both directions, yet not feeling at home with either camp. In this book, he offers a third way, which he calls "Deep Church" and stands in between the other two options. I must admit that I am not in a church context where emerging church and traditional church is hotly debated, but I resonated with his sense of discomfort with both camps. Overall, I appreciated his approach, and felt comfortable with many of his conclusions. I particularly appreciated his willingness to listen and give the other side a fair hearing, but then he determined the path that he felt was best. The author displays a healthy respect for tradition, particularly the Great Tradition of the catholic (little c) church, including ancient forms of worship. He sees historic Christianity and tradition as providing an "anchor" as the church seeks to contextualize the gospel for the culture around it. He examines 7 different critiques of the emergent church, and they were all helpful. One of the more helpful chapters for me was the last chapter on Deep Culture, where he argues the the deep church should counter-cultural community but also a culture-affirming and culture-creating community. This was connected with Kuyper's understanding of the church as both an institution and an organism, where the church functions as both an alternative community to the world and as individual Christians take their perspectives into the community as salt and light.

[Adam Ross · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book has been making waves in broader evangelical circles than those in which I usually run. But, it has been recommended to me from so many corners (such as from men I respect in Andrew Sandlin's sphere) that I thought I would give it a read. It also bears a commendation from John Armstrong, another man I respect. However, it also bears recommendations from men like Tim Keller and Rob Bell, who concern me more and more.

The book is, much like Michael Craven's "Uncompromised Faith," good but not great. It seeks a third way between the emerging and traditional church forms. It must be stated at the outset that people use the terms "emerging" and "emergent" interchangably when they really shouldn't. Mark Driscoll says that "the emergent church" represents problem men like Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, and others who are fleeing Biblical church forms into something totally new and different, whereas "emerging" churches are those who are recovering areas of the gospel lost by more traditional churches and are seeking to integrate them into the whole. I still see problems in the "emerging" movement, but it does not nearly concern me so much as the "emergent" revolt.

Belcher, like Driscoll, is both pleased with and concerned by the emergent and emerging movement and seeks a balanced corrective. Belcher is definitely sympathetic to elements of the "emerging/emergent" divide, and I would say almost to a fault. He is far too nice to some of the wildly heretical things claimed by Emergent folks for my tastes, but then InterVarsity didn't ask me to write the book.

He identifies seven areas in which the emerging church is taking the traditional to task, and then in seven chapters tries to see the good in both and combine them. Depending on the chapter, I think he is too sympathetic to one side or the other.

His seven areas of emerging protest against traditionalism are:

1) captivity to Englightenment rationalism,
2) a narrow and individualistic view of salvation,
3) the emphasis on believing before belonging,
4) worship that is uncontextualized to the current culture,
5) ineffective preaching,
6) weak ecclesiology, and
7) a retreat into tribalism in the church.

Briefly, I strongly agree with 1, 2, 5-7, but passionately disagree with the emergers on the troubles of 3 and 4.

Issues 1 and 2 are absolutely correct, though I differ with the emerges and Belcher on the solution. They both are skeptical of knowing truth through rationalist Enlightenment philosophy and science, to which I agree, though both Belcher and the emergers reject foundationalism (the idea that absolute truth can be certainly attained). Now, when they reject this idea, they are rejecting the Enlightenment idea of abstract truth and rationalism, which I also reject. But neither the Emergers or Belcher point out that that truths are also *clear*. Jesus is the Truth, and the Church is another ground and pillar (foundation) of truth (1 Tim. 3:15), two things which the book does not mention.

My biggest concerns are over issues 3 and 4. The first is the idea that believing must precede belonging. The emergers argue that by making belief in a set of propositions prior to church membership and belonging in the community, they exclude those who come into the church for the community and are converted later. They argue that belonging is prior to believing. In the whole discussion, no one has mentioned the sacrament of baptism. They assume to become part of the community you have to become a member of the church. Nonsense. The entrance into the Church and the community is *baptism* and one must believe before they are baptized. Now, does that mean someone has to have the whole set of propositions of the Westminster Confession and Larger and Shorter Catechisms down before they are baptized? Of course not! We baptize our children, do we not? No, when one confesses Christ as Savior and Lord, they are baptized (entered into the community) and then learn what it means to be a part of that community. Belief leads to belonging, and belonging to further believing. By removing baptism from the discussion, the emergers are short-changing both belief and belonging.

The other major problem I had with it was its emphasis on the importance of the contextualization of worship. I am against contextualization, in one sense. If by this term all is meant is making the service understandable and followable, then I am all for it, but the emergers and Belcher use the term to mean the service should be relevant to postmodern people. Belcher does not want to follow the emergers into a wholesale rejection of worship tradition, but still wants it relevant.

The emergers and Belcher both claim the traditional churches aren't relevant to a postmodern audience, but to me the battle is seen a little differently. The battle is not between emergers who want the church relevant and the traditionalists who don't want to become relevant. The battle is between the emergers who make worship relevant to the contemporary generation, and the traditionalists who a generation ago make their worship relevant to their age. In contrast to both of these, the covenant renewal worship movement provides the proper balance. In terms of music, there are fights over whether we should sing the songs of this generation or of three generations ago. Rather, our priority should be on *God's* songbook, the Psalms. R. C. Sproul Jr. makes a great point in saying that we are commanded to honor our fathers, and this means in worship the honoring of ourselves last, our fathers before us, and God first. Thus, Psalms, then older music, and only once those are mastered should we consider bringing contemporary music in. In worship itself, we should follow God's prescriptions before those of our age and those of our tradition (for more on this, I commend Jeffery Meyers' "The Lord's Service."

Far and away, however, the biggest problem I had with the book was the lack of Scriptural interaction. There are less than twenty Biblical passages cited in the book, many of them in quotations by other writers, and definitely five or less that actually quoted in the text. In the assembly of a third way, surely Scripture could come to bear on subjects like truth, worship, culture and preaching?

There is more to interact with, but most of the rest of it are quibbles. Belcher in many places draws his lines in good places. I find him more sympathetic to the emergers than I am, but there is much good here too. Certainly the book should be read since it is likely to be leading the way in future evangelical worship and we should be up to speed.

[Derek · Rating 4 out of 5]

Belcher addresses a very relevant issue facing the church today. I appreciate that he adopts a balanced, even academic, approach, instead of making an emotive appeal.

The book is helpful in laying out both sides of the debate (traditional and emergent), articulating clearly the main issues, and the strengths and weaknesses of different arguments. His categorical and sober treatment of the subject matter was beneficial in helping me think more clearly about these things.

However, Belcher falters in achieving the main goal of the book - to arrive at a third way. Much of his solution is quite simply to hold a balance of both, which is to really say nothing at all. His primary suggestion is to learn from the Great Tradition, but I found his argument not very convincing. It is also not exactly clear what this entails.

In general, read this to gain a clear-eyed insight into the issue, but don't expect a straight answer.

[Rich Thornton · Rating 5 out of 5]

This year I am endeavoring to hear/read books that are outside of my usual authors, viewpoints, and other differences. Deep Church let me take a look at the author's research/interviews/thoughts on the possibility of a third way of church. Not the traditional church. Not the emerging church. But what the author calls Deep Church. It is a descriptive term and he is not derogatory towards the other two but instead looks at all three while obviously favoring the third way, Deep Church.

There is a lot to plow through and consider in this book. Lots of principles and practices over the centuries with looking at how they are practiced today. I am glad I kept going because even though it stretched me it was definitely worth the effort.

[Wes F · Rating 4 out of 5]

An overall good introduction to the differences/tensions between the traditional and emerging views of what church is and what it should do/be in a postmodernist world. Fact is--the church needs to be the church that we see set out in Acts and the Epistles of the New Testament.

[Tom · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent survey of authentic Christianity. Urges a reconnection with the Tradition of early Christian teaching and practice. This is a solid prescription for renewing the spiritual life of the Church. I highly recommend this practical guide.

[Ben · Rating 3 out of 5]

Already a little dated, yet helpful in many of its critiques. I wish there was a condensed version.

[Jonathan Franzone · Rating 3 out of 5]

I hated to love this book, and loved to hate this book. There was much that I disagreed with, much that caused me to think, and much that I loved. It was complicated read for me.

[Shane · Rating 5 out of 5]

Best book I've read in 2019!

[Peter Lineham · Rating 4 out of 5]

In finding what he Hope's is a middle way, Belcher can be a bit wooden but he does genuinely listen respectfully to both sides at least as they stood when he wrote.

[Tyler Neethling · Rating 2 out of 5]

Some decent practical ideas, but the core philosophy does not value Scripture highly enough for my liking.

[Greg D · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very well researched and thought out. This is an excellent book by Jim Belcher that attempts to unite the polarized views of the emerging church movement with the traditional church, thus creating a third way called "Deep Church". Belcher does a great job in remaining objective and I sincerely applaud his efforts in attempting to bring the two different views together. His heart for unity, grace, and truth are very evident in the way he presents himself throughout this book. And, I learned more about the emerging church and what they believe, along with their protests against the traditional views. Although a noble attempt, I believe Belcher falls short in bringing about reconciliation between these two views. He touches on seven issues at which the two sides are at odds: Truth, evangelism, Gospel, worship, preaching, ecclesiolgy, and culture. In each chapter he systematically presents the emerging view, the traditional view, and then describes what the third way should look like. In most part it seems that Belcher has succeeded in reconciling the two views. However, as a minister in the Presbyterian church he can't help but revert back to the institutionalized and dogmatic ways of the traditional view. After all, he has a presbyter that he is held accountable to. Although Deep Church seems compelling, it seems a bit imbalanced, favoring the traditional views. In his review of Deep Church, conservative and neo-Reformed author/theologian Kevin DeYoung thinks Belcher went too easy on the emerging church, while I think Belcher went too easy on the traditional church. Perhaps this is indicative that the two sides are too polarized. However, if we can remain united on the fundamentals then I am hopeful that someday there will indeed be a Third Way that we can all agree on. Until then, I hope both sides will look past their differences and continue to impact our culture for Jesus Christ.

Here are some of my favorite quotes taken from the book:

When the stress is only on how people are saved from sin, Christianity turns into nothing more than "fire insurance" for the end of life. It does not teach how we are to live and witness in the here and now. (page 41)

The church is known for what it is against more than what it is for. (page 43)

How do we get to the point where both sides can talk about their differences and learn from each other without being accused of heresy? By first agreeing about what binds Christians together. It is that simple. We have to arrive at what John Stott calls the "unity of the Gospel". (page 53)

We place doctrinal purity over unity, or we stress relational unity over sound doctrine. The reality is that Jesus wants us to be equally committed to both. (page 54)

The best description of a twenty-first century human is a person watching TV alone. (page 73)

A third way rejects classical foundationalism and hard postmodernism. This i what it means to be the deep church. (page 83)

I think its legitimate to have an unbounded set with no barriers to the church community so that non-Christians can wander in and out. But the bounded-set of the traditional church also has positives, there are reasons for pushing people to make a decision to accept certain truths in order for them to understand that they are being converted from one way of life to another. (page 100)

The more I study the Bible and reflect on the life and teachings of Jesus, the more I think most of Christianity as practiced today has very little to do with the real Jesus found there. (page 108 quoting Brian McLaren)

For Jesus, the kingdom wasn't something we build or advance or expand. It was something we see and enter and receive. (page 118 quoting Brian McLaren)

In the quest for truth, nothing can be privileged over the community, and certainly not a theology that had been worked out in the fourth and fifth centuries. (page 146)

Christianity can't exist without boundaries. Being a Christian in any biblical sense requires that we not only say yes to many things, but that we are also willing to say no to a number of beliefs and behaviors. (page 150 quoting Kevin DeYoung)

God's vision for the church is one of thrilling mission, not one of ingrown tribalism. (page 162)

The traditional church is pacifist in the area off culture but not in the realm of politics, and the emerging church is pacifist in the realm of politics but not in the realm of culture. (page 190)

[Paul Dubuc · Rating 5 out of 5]

A few years ago, I took a seminary elective class in Emergent Christian Spirituality. I had read some things about emergent/emerging Christianity that I found interesting but which also raised questions in my mind. We read and discussed several good books by emergent church leaders or about the emergent church. We even designed our own emergent church service. It was a very good class. I think I gained a good understanding and appreciation for the positive contributions that emergent churches are making and I became quite sympathetic to the complaints they have with their more traditional evangelical church roots. But I couldn't completely embrace emergent spirituality. I felt like I didn't have a good home in either camp. I had to agree with some of the problems the more traditional evangelicals see in the emergent church. I wished for a third way. Jim Belcher has articulated that third way very well in his book.

Belcher is very familiar with both sides of the divide between traditional evangelical and emergent Christians. He sees both the valuable and the problematic aspects of each and sincerely wants to embrace a third way that promotes what is good and true in each while avoiding the problems. "I am caught in between, and am comfortable with this ambiguity. It allows me to learn from both the traditional church and the emerging church as I follow a different route-the deep church" (p. 33).

Belcher's definition of the emerging church seems very accurate, as I understand it. It's easier to describe what the emerging church is against than what it is for. There are seven areas of concern that are explored in the book which are the main criticisms that the emerging church has with the traditional evangelical church: Their captivity to Enlightenment rationalism, a narrow view of salvation, belief before belonging, uncontextualized worship, ineffective preaching, weak ecclesiology, and tribalism. Belcher devotes a whole chapter to exploring each of these criticisms under the headings of: Truth (or doctrine), evangelism, the Gospel, worship, preaching, ecclesiology (the nature of the church), and culture. He derives a very satisfying synthesis from the best of both sides while trying to avoid the pitfalls of each. This isn't just an academic exercise for Belcher. He and the church he pastors are sincerely trying to live out the third way. It seems to me that this way requires more vigilance on the part of its followers than either end of the spectrum, maintaining a dynamic tension that keeps Christ at the center of our vision and a continuing dependence on the Holy Spirit for guidance and grace, lest we fall into a comfortable rut that takes too much of our own way of thinking for granted.

[Andrew · Rating 3 out of 5]

Mixed feelings on this one. I genuinely enjoyed the book and I want to be as generous towards its author as he is towards the authors he writes about. (Contrast this with Hunter's 'To Change the World.') I think he ultimately comes out in the right place on most subjects. It provides a great balanced introduction to the emerging church's critique and what a healthy church might look as it takes on-board the truth within those critiques.

And yet...

I left unsatisfied on a number of points. Perhaps because he tried to be so comprehensive, I felt that several of his 'third way' solutions were insufficiently explained. The question of the authority of tradition remains problematic: what allows us to take what he calls the 'Great Tradition' (essentially Nicene Christianity) as authoritative but not later tradition? How were those first few centuries of church councils qualitatively different from, say, medieval Catholicism? Doesn't this fall into the trap he identifies of positing a 'golden age' of the church? The terms 'bounded set,' 'centered set,' and 'relational set' seemed to do a lot of explanatory work without being sufficiently defined. How does his 'third way' hermeneutic get us out of postmodern subjectivism, allowing us to transcend our culture and see reality for what it is?

It also struck me as either short-sighted or arrogant to call this a 'third way' since, as Kevin DeYoung points out in his review, Belcher ultimately winds up in the traditional camp on most things, with perhaps some emergent emphases. Many of his 'third way' proposals are not new within the traditional church. Reformed epistemologists criticized foundationalism before the emerging church came along, ideas of a hierarchy of doctrines are common in 'traditional' circles, etc. The same goes for narrative preaching, cultural engagement, and an openness towards outsiders. Part of the problem is Belcher's failure to define 'traditional church.' While he gives the emerging church a fairly careful differentiation and analysis, he doesn't do the same for the 'traditional church.'

Still his emphasis on the best of Christian tradition, classic orthodoxy, vibrant community, and cultural engagement make it a valuable starting point for anyone wondering what the church should aim for as its ideal.

[Jardinier · Rating 3 out of 5]

Jim Belcher sets out to bridge the conversation between two distinct perspectives, the emergent and traditional view of what the Church (the body of Christ) should look like, feel like, and act like in todays culture. I greatly appreciated the clear evaluation of the broad spectra of different churches across America and their perspective of what it means to worship as a Church and exemplify the character of God. In addition, Jim also provides insight to the development of key perspectives and reasons for why the emergent and traditional church hold to the views they do. Jim Belcher goes on to present in response to both perspectives a "Deep Church" approach as a third way that takes aspects from both sides in accordance with scripture.

I did not agree entirely with some of the author's assessment for why traditional and emergent churches hold to some of their key philosophies. For example, one the great attributes of the emergent church is their passion to foster participation from the congregation to deepen their community, while the traditional church has been criticized (often rightfully so) for the lack of opportunities given to the congregation to participate in the life of the church. Belcher goes on to present the need to promote participation without placing any responsibility on the individuals themselves. Although church leadership needs to encourage participation and allow for it, I would have liked Jim to go on to explain that it is a shared responsibility. Too often (myself included) we take on a consumer mentality at church and blame it on the church leadership, when we need to be told to take action, to seek out areas that need servants and provide the things that we spend so much time whining about.

Overall, I felt that the 'third way' Jim defines as "Deep Church" provides a strong direction for building a community that provides a structured faith, but is yet filled with mystery that engages the world around us for the glory of God.

[Calvin Coulter · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting

[Chauncey Lattimer]

The writing style: engaging. The topic: timely. The content: provacative. The questions raised: right out of my own struggles.

Deep Church, by Jim Belcher, is a book was very difficult to for me to sit aside for any extended period of time. When I did manage to get my nose out from between the covers, I still could not divert my attention. Setting the book aside only provided an opportunity to mull over the questions and struggles raised by author.

The book was written specifically for me... "those who are caught in between... unhappy with the present state of the evangelical church but ...not sure where to turn for an answer."

The book was written specifically for me... "those who are attempting to work out their ecclesiology..."

The book was written specifically for me... "pastors who have been in the ministry for a while and have begun to question how ministry is practiced in their context."

Even the organization of the book is rewarding as Belcher begins by mapping his own journey, defining what has been proposed as the 'alternative' - the emerging church, and then dealing with what he defines as the "seven major protests of the emerging church." Each protest is answered in terms of depth: deep truth, deep evangelism, deep gospel, deep worship, deep preaching, deep ecclesiology, and deep culture.

While I did not find myself totally in agreement with Belcher, the book is a must read!

[Dale Critchley · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a great book for people trying to find a third way. The author gives concrete examples of the opposing camps of Emerging and Traditional and proposes a third alternative that's not just a compromise of the 2 but uses the strengths of both. For me, my only problem was that I didn't find much new in here, but I might just be ahead of the curve. Maybe I've read a lot from people who've already read this.

[Dave Courtney · Rating 4 out of 5]

Deep Church is not a book intended for every audience. It is particular to the current divide between what has become known (in very limited terms) the "emerging Church" movement and the traditional Church. In good fashion he travels the road between the two sides, upholding a sense of faithful orthodox belief while dismantling some common misconceptions that are present with both parties.

Belcher has a good handle on the questions and experience of growing up in the midst of this tension and the changing landscape of the Church. Those that might not have a personal investment in the debate though might find themselves a bit removed from the discussion. But he does offer a decent tool to help move both sides towards a better understanding of themselves and each other, despite some unreconcilable differences. The ability to articulate it effectively appears to be a large part of the battle. The book may appear to lose some relevance quickly though as we move further from what is arguably a cultural movement, which is a disadvantage of writing with such a particular message and purpose. But for the time being it remains effective for those who find themselves caught in the midst of the confusion and tension of inevitable change.

[Chris · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is dated now given that Rob Bell and Mark Driscoll are not in church ministry anymore. But while the "emerging/traditional" conversation has moved on the underlying issues are still being discussed. I think on the whole he brings up good points and gives some good direction for moving forward. Some of the earlier chapters were better. The later ones in ecclesiology and culture good have benefited from a better articulation of the core issues. The common critique among emergents and evangelicals of "tradition" ignores the "tradition" they have inherited. He basic point is a good one... Don't ignore the wisdom of the past. I also don't feel like he defined "the Great tradition" well. I was sure what exactly he was referring to and this is critical if people are to truly listen to what is good about "tradition" and not associate with their negative views of tradition as inhibiting progress and promoting fundamentalism. In the end this book will continue to be helpful for many people who are still asking questions about what the church ought to look like in the 21st century. Of course this assumes one is charitable enough to actually listen to what the author is trying to say with the same grace Belcher himself models well.

[Jim Dressner · Rating 4 out of 5]

While this book is not as ground-breaking as one might expect from reading some of the published reviews, its real value is in the analysis and description of issues in the evangelical debate of "traditional" and "emergent" churches. Here are a few examples of insights that I found helpful:

* a helpful delineation of Emergent Church factions (Relevants, Reconstructionists, Revisionists)
* an explanation of foundationalism, its effect on the "traditional" church, and why Emergent leaders criticize it
* the use of "bounded set", "centered set", and "relation set" models to analyze views
* the good of holding on to church as both "institution" and "organism"
* the church's role in creating & shaping culture, rather than either withdrawing or dominating
* the value of learning from history and tradition

The author is able to explain at a conceptual level and also show application in particular situations. He is one of the all-too-few people who are tall enough to have their heads in the clouds AND their feet on the ground.

I like reading books that challenge my thinking and positions. This book did not really do this but I found that it gave me concepts and language that help me express ideas that had remained fuzzy in my mind.