Why We're Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be (edition 2008)

This book starts with an extremely measured and theologically responsible summary of 'emergence' in which Kevin DeYoung concludes - surely rightly - that many of us are already to some extent 'emergent' within the existing churches; it approaches its conclusions with what seems to me to be a similarly thoughtful plea against the extreme 'coolness' of emergence - the way in which it is not only self-knowingly cool, but - I find if I spend too much time with it - stiflingly so.
I think that this framework provides a sympathetic basis for an exploration of emergence in the (mainly) North American churches - but I was much less persuaded by the authors' teasing out of questions, in between, about the basis of 'certainty' - especially doctrinal certainty, and - needless to say - the morality of gay sex. At times their plea for 'boundaries' and clarity of principle seemed to me to reflect a restlessness with the possibility that, in fact, some things might not be clear, rather than a sound epistemic reason for thinking that they are so: I mean - it isn't good enough to say that Christian attitudes to gay sex, for instance, or the Virgin Birth, MUST be definite simply because we feel uncomfortable with uncertainty.
Let me put some cards on the table. I agree with Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck that we either think homosexuality is OK or we don't - and I agree that we ought to be transparent about that: I don't agree with them that it necessarily follows that the church need be a place in which everyone has to accept a single normative view about the issue. To that extent I think that BOTH sides are a bit shifty. I take the gay issue in so far as it is a cipher - THE cipher, whether we want to accept it as such or not - for the whole agenda of the debate within the churches.
But, mainly, thankfully, the text of this book is not about sex. It is a more doctrinal account of 'immoveable theological assertions', as 'orthodoxy' is described about half way through; and it is about the importance of doctrinal formulae which the authors are at pains to demonstrate are very much more (and more ancient) than mere constructs of 'modernity'. And that is surely true.
At this stage I want to step outside the debate and ask both sides to define their concept of orthodoxy. It seems to me that in the emergence of relational and fluid concepts of doctrine the emergents are possibly much less trendy than they seem: for all of their appropriation of postmodern modes of thought, the kind of Christianity which they describe contains resounding echoes of the apophatic theology which has been an intrinsic part of Greek Nicene Christianity from the beginning. [If the debate about emergence goes back, endlessly, to Mars Hill, we might want - once in a while - to hang out there specifically with Dionysius, maybe: and YES, I know that the mystical texts come from much much later.] We might legitimately ask what 'orthodoxy', properly, IS - and whether an 'immobile' set of statements from the Reformation really has good claim to supersede the more dynamic ('relational', 'spiritual', 'fluid' - you choose your descriptors) 'Orthodox' orthodoxy of the Patristic Creeds, as articulated through the theology of people like the ('Spirit-led' AND 'Bible-based') Cappadocians, to pluck some names from thin air. We could play endless word-games over all of this, and DeYoung and Kluck would surely be right that many in the emergent movement (or whatever it is: a 'village'?) have no more time for St Basil's theology of the Holy Spirit than they do for John Calvin's understanding of the importance of the Word. But in the moderate emergence, these echoes of the deep Tradition are certainly worth noticing - and they require the debate to be framed in a much more nuanced way than simply an argument about whether it is possible to be Christian and postmodern. The Gospel, even, tells us to bring out from the treasury things both new and old - so let us do so.
Having said that, I agree with this book that 'normal' Christians may well be driven 'bonkers' by emergent statements such as this: 'God is nowhere. God is now here. God is present; God is absent. The future of faith rests in the tension between these words.' It is exasperating! But the idea that just because we find the jargon and the lattes and the profanity (I was HUGELY cross to chase up an expletive used by Tony Jones in 2006 and unrepeatable in this book to find only that it was 'bloody') - just because we find these things irritating does not mean, in itself, that there is no ambiguity at all between what in the old days might have been called the transcendence and the immanence of God. Let's all just step back and chillax a bit, please.
So: I disagree almost completely with the basis on which this book is written (and a little bit of me died when, midway through, DeYoung started on the centrality of 'propitiation' in our understanding of atonement: I know enough Greek to be aware that the nuances of this word include 'reconciliation' and 'mercy' - rather emergent words, one might think - before they contain c16th, let alone Calvinist, interpretation) - but I share with the authors, whose styles are completely different, and refreshingly so (Ted Kluck nicely earths the text in real life; DeYoung nicely grounds it in serious theology; either on its own would be as stifling as the emergent literature itself can be), a sense that emergence does need to deal more adequately with some of its ambiguities if it is to be entirely persuasive.
The final paragraphs - which are an exegesis of the words given to the seven churches of Asia Minor in the Book of Revelation - are extremely apt; more than that, they are eloquent and moving: if every single one of us on every side of these 'conversations' heeded them, that itself would be blessed.
Read this book: be enormously stimulated by it - but don't necessarily agree with it. ( )

Kluck and Wells do a good job looking at the flaws of the Emergent Movement. What they don't seem to do is show much grace about it. They seem far more intent on showing inconsistencies, silly stances, and general problems than they do on looking at why the Emergent Movement exists and what we can learn from it. The book is well worth reading for Evangelicals who are wondering curious about Emergent thought, but I would recommend reading some Emergent works as well. ( )

Why We Are Not Emergent is an engaging book written by a pastor and a sports writer. They set out to research the emergent movement and critique it using Scripture and Orthodoxy as a guide.
The authors seem to be genuinely interested in seeing the emergent movement in the best possible light, however as they progress through the book it becomes evident that they were disappointed with the lack of conformity to Scripture and historic Christianity. Their most devastating evaluation was that the vast majority of emergent pastors and churches lack a doctrinal center. While the questions that the movement is asking are its greatest strength, its greatest weakness is its refusal to allow the questions to be answered. ( )

DeYoung and Kluck seek to provide corrective boundaries for the theological exaggerations and abuses that they perceive within the emergent movement. While seeing some perspectives and emphases to be admired, DeYoung and Kluck identify a number of themes within the emergent church that seem contrary to historical orthodoxy, whether explicitly or by omission. Why We’re Not Emergent is generally fair and accurate, if at times a bit uncharitable in its characterizations (Kluck’s chapters seems especially quick to mock rather than engage emergent leaders). The book asks, appropriately, where are the theological boundaries of the emergent church, a movement which often spurns theological definitions and creeds. B+ ( )

After reading "Jesus for President", I needed some sound theology to cleanse my palate. I found it in "Why We're Not Emergent" by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck. Their style is hip, their tone is gentle, and their critique relentless.

DeYoung is a pastor, and Kluck is a sportswriter. Together they offer two perspectives on the Emerging (or Emergent) Church--a movement that at times defies definition ("trying to nail jell-o to the wall" is one way it is put in the book). The chapters written by DeYoung are quite theological, while those written by Kluck are personal and anecdotal.

Both authors go out of their way to be fair, and to express areas where they think the Emergents have good points. Their chapters are extensively documented with copious footnotes.

If you are unaware of what the Emergent movement is or represents (and considering that the leaders of the movement consistently refuse to define it, I suspect many fall into this category) pages 20-22 will be quite helpful. If you have encountered the movement through the numerous blogs of it's adherents, then the rest of the book will provide you with some thoughtful, biblical analysis and critique.

I highly recommend the reading of this book by Christian leaders and laymen alike. ( )