Aren’t the Anabaptists already the ‘third way’? I wonder if his conclusions bear any resemblance to the Radical Reformation? Just thinking out loud.

To Blecher’s three concerns:
#1 Age segregation: I do not think this is a problem restricted to the emerging church, but is a problem throughout evangelicalism. Depending on what emerging church we look at this may or may not be a problem, but this does not seem to be a problem that the emerging church in particular suffers from.
#2 I think this is a legitimate fear for the emerging church.
#3 Evangelicalism, with it’s diminished ecclesiology, desperately needs to establish a theology of worship. Traditional evangelicals on up into the most emerging groups need to reexamine their theology of worship, and determine whether they are responding to God’s love with adequate and correct worship.
#4 Like a recent article from iMonk I too wonder what gospel centered-ness entails. Is it a particular emphasis on sin and repentance? Then most likely, yes, the emerging church is less gospel-centered then it should be, but if the gospel is wider then simply sin and repentance then I am not prepared to say that the emerging church is less gospel centered than traditional evangelicalism.
I am interested in hearing about Belcher’s further thoughts on why the emerging church isn’t a solid critique of evangelicalism and there needs to be a third way.

When the big first wave of emergent discussion/books/blogs hit a decade or so ago, I applauded and participated in a limited, end-user sort of way. The conversation (such a popular word in those circles!) validated my growing concerns about the consumer-driven, theologically-shallow, historically-disconnected evangelicalism in which I’d been immersed. The questions (another popular word!) echoed my own.
The conversation and questions empowered me to voice my thoughts. They told me I wasn’t alone. For that, I am profoundly grateful.
But, like Belcher, I found I could not follow some of those emergent voices into the theological territory in which a number headed. I am still struggling to figure out what a third way is supposed to look like. I attend an Anglican Mission in America church; but my Jewish heritage increasingly shapes my concerns and questions in my present context. (Perhaps it is that heritage that has encouraged me to value conversation and questions.) Though I am a layperson, I continue to wrestle with theological issues – and always, I find myself wondering how to faithfully follow Jesus today, in this moment, now.
Something tells me that Belcher’s book might be just what the doctor ordered.

Thanks for the heads up on what sounds like a very interesting book!

Well, I think the beauty of Emergent is that, while many of the “leaders” (as well as me) are treading into theological territories others “can’t go,” the tent is big enough for all sorts of theologies. The only thing Emergent encourages is conversation about these theologies whatever they may be.
Now, I will say that some “Emerging” churches seem to be a reincarnation of seeker-sensitive churches and I see no difference between the two. It’s seeker-sensitive in a new wrapper.

it seems to me that fragmentation of evangelicalism is inevitable, just a fragmentation was inevitable between Luther and the Roman church in the Protestat Reformation. A “Third Way” simply means an attemtp to look at the issues objectively but critically without polarizing.
To use Flory and Miller’s typology: as long as there are strong elements of “resisters” and “innovators” … fragmentation is going to happen.

People who come to Christ from other religions sometimes have to walk away from family, traditions, trained religious instincts.
A strength of the emerging church was helping me to realize that it is possible for Christian church culture to almost become a false religion that needs almost that same drastic response – being willing to be rejected by others as one follows Christ away from established habits and biases. A strength was asking questions that weren’t easily answered that were sometimes swept under the rug. My own personal belief, and I have never self-identified as a full-fledged member of emerging/emergent so this comes from my own personal evangelical location and bias, is that emerging did a better job of asking than answering. Sometimes that was the point but sometimes it’s not enough.

Steve: your final point is one issue with emerging that concerns me. I am disatisfied enough with what someone above called “shallow seeker-orriented” worship. I would hope that emerging would re-think the theology of worship while rethinking social issues and other theological issues.

I think many of us who call ourselves emerging had some of the same concerns as Jim. And many of us have already moved past the gen-x stuff. I like many of Jim’s ideas and critiques, but unlike him, I don’t see them as being “not emerging.” He set up one particular version of the emerging church and then proposed a “third way,” but his third way simply reflects what the emerging church is for a lot of us. I’ve only read sections of the book so far – there is a lot I like, but also many place where he just doesn’t seem to get the diversity in the emerging conversation. But to write a book like this the EC had to be put into a box to be defined and critiqued – I just don’t think he made that box big enough. But the book has the potential to spark some good conversations – hopefully it wont just be used as just one more reason to bash emergents.

All his concerns listed here seem to be the same issues that the emergent crowd has raised as well. Based on this, I don’t see the distinction he’s making. What am I missing?

I wonder if we aren’t jumping the gun a bit with the emergent movement. It is at best 20 years old. In terms of historic movements it is has bearly left the gate. Perhaps with our current and evolving technology movements mature quicker, but still, shouldn’t we give this time to grow into what God has in mind. It just seem to early to judge the ultimate direction the emerging movement will take.

I just happened to read this book over the weekend and got more and more excited as I read. When I got to chapter 4 lights started going on like flashbulbs at a celebrity event. Belcher is to be commended for his gentle spirit in calling both sides to define their terms, listen and HEAR each other and understanding the other side before popping off. Tim Keller’s front cover blurb is right on when he says, “This is an important book.” I am so glad that someone took the time and made the effort to ask good questions and explore the answers before carelessly shooting off with unfounded and uninformed opinions. I will urge many to read this bood and adopt its attitude before suiting up to spill

ecclesiastical blood.

Wasn’t emergent itself supposed to be a “third way” between conservative evangelicalism and liberal progressivism? How many “third ways” so we need?

I enjoyed the book and look forward to the discussion. Belcher focuses on some important things that initially attracted me to emergent conversation, particularly the shallowness and a-historical character of the evangelical context I was experiencing at the time, as well as its epistemic arrogance. I literally wept when I first read McLaren’s “New Kind of Christian,” on an airplane coming home from a business trip.
As we get further in the discussion of the book, though, I think I’ll have a few concerns about what Belcher proposes as the third way:
– he doesn’t deal with the huge problem of developing a robust theology of scripture and doctrine of Biblical authority that isn’t tied to a rationalistic notion of inerrancy. This is an A-list issue for many of us evangelicals who are attracted to emerging stuff, I think (it sure is for me!). Neither the “conservative” nor the “liberal” poles seem to do justice to all that a carefully articulated doctrine of revelation, inspiration and scripture must entail.
– at times, I feel like his idea of the “third way” sounds too much like “become a moderate-conservative Reformed Presbyterian!” He offers Abraham Kuyper, for example, as a model for third way social engagement. Well, I appreciate Kuyper — but I also think the religious right culture warriors have shown how easy it is to misuse Kuyper’s ideas. And I also appreciate Yoder, Hauerwas, Popes John Paul II and Benedict, and so on.
– I worry that this third way is too white. I don’t see any mention of the Pentecostal movement or the Latin American, Asian, or African churches, except for some jabs at the prosperity gospel. I’m no propserity gospel guy, but surely the black church has something to teach those of us who lean Reformed?

I agree with dopderbeck above. While I think Jim brings an excellent sense of fairness and balance to the analysis of this current fight between emerging and traditional figureheads, in the end it sounds an awful lot like he’s saying, “Hey everyone, I’ve found a radical new third way…the Presbyterian PCA!”
Personally, I don’t feel that even begins to answer many of the deep and serious misgivings I, and others, have about the reduction of the gospel to penal substitution (which Jim essentially endorses, IMO), the bifurcation of the church into professional and amateur classes (which Jim never addresses but implicitly endorses by his ecclesiastical model), and the triumphalist approach to engaging culture (see dopderbeck’s comments about Kuyper above).
If we’ve learned anything from the last 10 years it has to be that there aren’t any easy answers to these (and other related) questions. Again, I think Jim does an excellent job of modeling an irenic tone, but I honestly don’t see how his recommendations constitute a genuine third way. He’s basically just taken a traditional Presbyterian ecclesiology and added Hiebert’s “centered set” posture toward outsiders. My own denomination has basically canonized the centered-set approach, but that hasn’t kept us from all the errors that emerging churches have sought to address, and I fear it won’t do so for Jim’s church either.

I have been reading the book over the last few days. First off, its an excellent read. I highly recommend it for the history it covers, and for the fair, even-handed, mutually-informed way he deals with both sides of the debate (what he terms “traditional” and “emerging”.)
I do however agree with Doperback above, that Belcher doesn’t really fill-out his theology of scripture and doctrine of biblical authority. In that sense it ends up feeling a bit vague and seems to assume a false consensus amongst the “traditional” streams.
Belcher also critiques Brian McLaren for what he doesn’t say, moreso than for what he does say. Key here are the concepts of atonement and justification. Belcher thinks McLaren – while not outright denying traditional penal atonement theory – does undermine it with the lack of mention. And he considers this particular aspect of the gospel should be “first among equals”. But even here of course there is a range of opinion. The recent debate between John Piper and NT Wright highlight this fact.
I guess, ultimately, I was a little surprised (and a tad disappointed) when Belcher would write things like “how can we move forward in these areas, while holding onto a traditional reliance of the Bible”. Now, he didn’t say that, but things like that. But my question is: is it fair to draw in such broad strokes? And is traditional reading and interpretation of scripture right JUST because its old? Surely Wright’s recent correction on the kind of “older” theology that Piper subscribes to calls this into question.
All that said, again, great book. And I think it will move conversations forward, opening up new avenues of possibility as it does.

#15 (dopderbeck):
I share your concern about ethnicity, re: the third way is too white. Although I have browsed an early chapter of Belcher’s book, and am familiar with all of the titles and personalities cited in reply: I recall an early observation that endures to now. You find very very few- if any- men and women of color (or the same from outside NA) participating or getting published.
It’s a huge vacancy, and while I appreciate all of the questions and criticisms from the “emerging/emergent” movement and third way attempts, this is the blind spot that makes me wonder if it will ever venture into this obvious weakness.

Having grown up rather secular and then having emerged from a liberal protestant background, I have sought the third way from a different direction than many on this blog. I envision the third way, for instance, as culture creating movement that offers an alternative to the way liberal progressives have typically done social witness. Some of you coming from conservative evangelical circles may be reacting against a culture creating movement because you see its flaws and shortcomings. Part of what makes these conversations difficult is that defining third way is so dependent upon our personal narratives. How do we links these diverse narratives so they have some sort of coherence?
(#15) I have to agree with your concerns about lack of cross-cultural engagement. As a third culture christian this is becoming a bit of a red flag for me. Shouldn’t third way approaches involve at minimum a nod to peoples and cultures at the margins, who by virtue of their social location have constantly dealt with the same issues that are so critical to advocates of a third way Christianity? I know Asian Christians who have held to deal with how to reconcile with parents who not only are generationally different, but often of a different religion. As well, the African American Church has historically found third way forms of social witness even when contrasting views of the bible might potentially divide leaders and laypersons. These are just two examples, but surely there are more out there.

@Rebekah said: “How many “third ways” do we need?”
There will always be another third way. We are always oscillating between one extreme or another trying to find the correct balance, missing it, messing up, and trying to correct again — a process that won’t end until Jesus stops it personally.
Come, Lord Jesus.

So far, it sounds like this author’s concerns overlapped mine when I became attracted to what was later labeled “emerging church”. One, two and three (but not so much three) were bothersome. “Gospel-centered” was for me the gynormous question “What is ‘the Gospel’?”. “The Gospel” was supposedly self-evident among “Bible-believing Christians”, but it didn’t seem to be doing among them what was claimed for it… To ask that question – or any other question of substance – was very difficult within nearly all the Evangelical churches where I was involved. The Emerging Church gave me intellectual and emotional space to ask my questions, *with the expectation of answers*, because I don’t believe God values intentional ignorance. This is why McLaren was so important for me early on – his writings echoed my questions and actually did point to information about scripture and history that helped me come to some at least provisional answers. Additionally, I was wondering what Christian praxis was really about, including attention to social issues.
When the Evangelicalism I knew left me at the terminus of its tracks in 2000, I was really searching hard for a third way, and expecting to find it somewhere within what was Emerging. I did not believe I would find it in the RCatholicism and did not look there, as I had left RC for some good reasons. I fully expected to remain a Protestant, and for several years I looked to the serious Emerging voices, waiting and hoping for a way to unfold. I was hoping for something that really coalesced the way the “Jesus Movement” did among serious Christians when I was in college; not a “hipper version”, but something that had matured, and could sort of “gather up” everything floating around in the emerging movement that was good and worthwhile and Jesus-centered.
A way did unfold to me- and it was most definitely not the one I expected- but it did indeed gather up all those things, and more… I don’t think it would qualify as a “third way” for this author, or for most of you, dear Jesus Creed readers. But Scot knows and respects it and is glad for me, and for that I am very, very grateful.
Dana

I just finished reading this book yesterday and was blown away.
Belcher does a wonderful job by declaring that he is ambitiously seeking unity among believers. I love that Belcher does not think this is a lost cause and we are a body are doomed to tribalism from here on out.
In addition Belcher goes out of his way to promote charity and “cognitive modesty” in talking about traditional vs. emergent and our theological beliefs.
I thought the book was simply going to be be Belcher paying some lip service of looking for a third way but then at the end of each chapter just siding with the traditional church. This was not the case. Belcher really does offer some innovative routes that deserve our reflection on how the church can push for unity in this hyper-critical church world we all now seem to live in.
I would ask that for all those who keep repeating that emergent writers and leaders are not being “heard” or “understood” take the time to seriously try and listen closely to what Belcher is saying. Belcher goes to painstaking lenghts of reading, meeting, and re-reading leaders of the emergent movement to make sure he is understanding him.
His third way is not born just out of his theological beliefs, but by listening closely to the critques offered by the emerging church to the traditional church, and acting on them.
For those of you who have not read the book his chapter on foundationalism is alone worth the price of the book.

Good lord people, still asking what it is?
Maybe what was heard on the playground would help- you know it if you are it.
Maybe those who think of evangelicals as the center will never understand emerging?
Wait, drop the maybe.
I suggest not using evangelicalism as the starting point would help.
Or better yet, get on with actually doing something, anything, rather than commenting on dissatisfaction of others would be a good place start understanding.

I’ve never understood the “we need roots to our faith” critique at all. Evangelicalism enshrines traditions that are around 200 years old. Only by joining the emerging conversation was I exposed to the wider historic orthodox church. We are not running from tradition. We are returning to it. It’s the ancient-future thing. Or the lean back, swing forward thing. In any case, it’s evangelicalism that I would contend needs roots and history.

Growing up in, and eventually becoming an ordained minister in a Pentecostal church, I was steeped in the legalism of mid-20th Century American evangelicalism. No booze. No tobacco. No dancing. No movies. No playing cards. No rock & roll. And so on. We wore suits & ties/dresses to Sunday morning, Sunday night, and mid-week services. We were confident that we were going to heaven, pretty sure most other evangelicals would be going, and certain that everyone else would burn in hell. I was living in fear and realized it wasn’t “abundant life” whatsoever.
Then came the Heinekens, the cigars, and the Brian McLaren books (not necessarily in that order)! I looked on – as an assistant pastor – as our church began to disintegrate (relationally speaking). Our commitment to each other was seemingly based in our fear of going to hell or of someone thinking less of our spiritual maturity, so when those were exposed as being illegitimate motivations, all motivation was lost. We began to appear so much like the world around us, that I had to wonder if organized church was even worth it. I realized we had lost our saltiness.
Well, I haven’t read this book (yet!), but I feel like I’ve come full-circle. Yes, I still enjoy a Guiness, but I enjoy it even more whilst reading and discussing the Scriptures. And therein was the undoing of my flirtation with the emerging crowd: I needed a high view of Scripture. I needed a faith that was historical and orthodox. I couldn’t go back to the smallness of my evangelical past! Christ was restored to the center. And “deeper church” is a wonderful name for it!

Travis your critque of Belcher is off. He appeals to what he calls the “Big Tradition” of the church. That is the entire 2,000 year history of the Church and the saints that have come before us. His argument is not concerned with a just a 200 year window but much more expansive.
Your confusion over this critque might be a good example of why it would be beneficial to try and listen very carefully to what the third way Belcher is talking about and understanding his ideas, in order to more effectively advance the conversation.

Mark A.-
Sounds like your childhood was more of an experience of fundamentalism rather than evangelicalism, although there can be some overlap.

Simple questions, but some that might help with direction:
A “third way” to what? I assume we are all talking about the same thing, but are we? It is not stated.
Is it to do something? To be something? Something else?

Rick (#28) you ask an excellent question. I think Belcher is talking about a “third way” between the “emerging” and “traditional” streams of the evangelical church. But we could also talk about a “third way” between “liberal” and “conservative” Christian theology, and Belcher also appeals to this when he talks about “mere Christianity.”

Rick- Could you offer up a definition/understanding of fundamentalism? It seems everyone has a different vantage on this.

Hey Friends,
I have been tied up most of the day and only now have a chance to weigh in on this fantastic dialogue. I am glad the book is getting everyone thinking and dialoguing. I am glad it has blessed a number of you. That is my hope. I love the church and want her to be as healthy as she can be. In our little corner of the Christian world, we talk about maintaining the “peace and purity” of the church. This means that being Biblical in our teaching and discipleship is important. And worth contending for. But so is the purity or the unity of the church. I really believe we are called to uphold both with the same vigor and intensity. How we love one another, work out our differences, learn to live together–this is the final apologetic to a watching world. Deep Church is my love letter, if you will, to the church and a call to unity. I look forward to being part of the dialogue as much as I can. I can’t promise you I can answer all your questions or even that I have an answer for each question but I will always try. If you have not read the book I encourage you to do so. I think it will bless you. You can also read the introduction and see a lot of the recent blog reviews here for more background: htt://thedeepchurch.com
Shalom,
Jim Belcher

I guess the “conversation” is over huh Doug? If I am reading you right your saying, either you get emergent or you don’t and in order to get it you have to be emergent. Not sure how one is to converse with this kind of attitude.
I think Belcher was much more kind and charitable toward understanding you, than you seemd to be in understanding others.

Taylor George-
It is difficult in this platform to give a full description of what I see as fundamentalism (due to its surprisingly diverse nature).
However, to sum up what I had in mind in this context are the aspects of fundamentalism that reacted (or over-reacted) against modernism by stressing purity and distinction. This prioritizing, without a sufficient sense of love and outreach, unfortunately led to a sense of legalism and separation.
I know that is painting with an overly broad brush, but those traits are what I had in mind.

Defining “fundamentalism” is a tricky thing. Within evangelical circles, a distinction might be made between “evangelicalism” and “fundamentalism”. But to much of the world-outside-the-box, the two are largely interchangeable.
So once again, perspective and personal narratives really matter here.
One point that Doug (Pagitt) made that I think IS important here is that Jim (Belcher) does seem to draw evangelicals at the center of the circle, as opposed to beginning from a wider orbit of the Church catholic and historic. Now, to be fair, Belcher makes it pretty clear that’s what he’s doing. The book is mostly an interaction between traditional evangelicals and emergents.
But for those of us in the emerging stream, this editorial choice in itself is problematic – and somewhat indicative of the arrogance of evangelicalism.

Brian @ 26,
I should have spelled out that I have not read this particular book. To be more clear, I was responding to the general critique of emerging as somehow lacking tradition in a way that evangelicalism doesn’t, not “Deep Church” specifically. Darren @ 34 gives a more effective voice than I to the problem with this critique.

I should add that I think the age segregation is a valid critique of emerging, although this is a two-way street, frankly. “Gospel-centeredness” is a poor way to describe a certain allergy to personal evangelism (fueled frequently by too many evangecubes and Roman Roads and bridge diagrams in our past), I think, but it’s a valid critique too.

Thanks for the clarification Travis that makes more sense as to what you were commenting on.

I’ve read Belcher’s book a couple of times now, and I have to agree with my wife, there are some things that are great about it (and he’s one of the few “critics” of the emerging church who actually seems to understand what he’s critiquing), and there are quite a few things that I just plain disagree with him on. However, as my wife also said, my biggest disappointment was with his assumption (which was really built into the structure of the whole book) that his “third way” is actually something outside of the realm of emergent perspectives. In reality, I would simply say that Jim is on the relatively more conservative end of the emerging church spectrum, but that he’d probably actually find a lot of emerging folks who would embrace large sections of his “third way”. In other words, there’s no need to present it as an alternative “way” set up on opposition to the emerging church.
Specifically in response to his critiques of Gen-X ministry mentioned in this post, I’d say that if he still thinks these are relevant critiques of the emergent movement, he’s about a decade too late. In fact, much of the emergent movement developed and evolved out of exactly the same kind of critiques he has of Gen-X ministry. Sure, there are still a few “coffee and candles” churches out there, for whom “emerging” just means “cool worship for young adults”, but honestly, most of the conversation has long since moved on from there.

Hey Mike I would suggest another reading of Jim’s book because I think you have not gotten it yet.
The whole ambition of the book is unity. He is striving for unity at all costs between the traditional church and emerging church of the last 15 years. He is not claiming that some emergent churches are not already on board or doing the things he is saying or anything like that. If your getting this from it, your reading into something that is not there.
Belcher is getting after an idea much bigger than, “well emerging churches are already doing some of this stuff,” but rather we can all find biblical unity around looking at some of the strengths and weaknesses of both the emerging and traditional church.

Maybe I am missing his point Brian, but the sense that I got from the book was that Belcher was setting up his “Deep Church” as an alternative to both traditional and emerging church. Perhaps that wasn’t his intent, but that is what comes across (to me at least) in the way the book is framed, especially in the whole notion of a “third way”.

Mike maybe I did not say it as clear as I could, forgive me for that. I think what Belcher is getting at is that the alternative includes a third way that can unite or bring along BOTH the emerging and traditional church.
More than just creating a new catagory (or alternative) alongside the emerging church and traditional church, Belcher is aiming at how we can end the tribalism amongst the two and find common ground of a unified church for the sake of the Gospel and its mission to the watching world.

I just finished “Deep Church,” and have reviewed it on my blog.
Regarding evangelicalism: I think that evangelicalism seems to take center stage in the book simply because this is where the current debate is taking place. Though the emerging church movement (which is of course nearly impossible to define) draws from a variety of traditions, I think that most would agree that it primarily arose from within evangelicalism and has seen the strongest push-back from traditional evangelicals. I think that in Chapter 3, Belcher demonstrates pretty clearly that his view of orthodoxy is broad – that all who can affirm the creeds of classical Christianity should be considered part of The Church.
Regarding the third way: Belcher is definitely advocating an alternative, but I’m not sure that he would say that it stands in opposition to either emerging or traditional, but rather includes what he sees as the best elements of both (which are, of course, up for debate). I agree with Mike that Belcher sounds a lot like someone on the more conservative end of the emerging spectrum and that it seems strange to call his perspective a “third way” in opposition to emerging when so many emergers would agree with just about everything he says. But, like Brian, I think the ultimate purpose of the book was to try to find common ground rather than to make a new tribe.

Brian (and Rachel) – I certainly hope the both of you are right about Belcher’s intent and that my impressions are incorrect.