Nice. I think this sums up so much!

Very helpful summary, wouldn’t necessarily call myself emergent but I resonate with all of these points so maybe I am

“After sketching Ed Stetzer’s types (relevants, reconstructionists, revisionists), Belcher makes a point: traditionalist critique of emerging has found the worst case scenarios and the most extreme statements. As no Calvnist wants Calvinism reduced to burning Servetus, so no emerging leaders wants its movement shaped by its extremist ideas. And the emerging folks need to avoid the same and need to recognize the good in the traditionalist church. ”
Is fair but not an acurate comparison the 7 sticking points listed are not the most extreme examples of a select few leaders within evangelicalism but core-mainstream fundamentals within the movement

THere’s a lot of wisdom here. Two brief comments. I think the summary of point 7 is good in content, but the header, “tribalism”, doesn’t work, because if I understand tribalism (an us and you mentality of division – “we are not of you and you are not of us”), emerging appears quite tribalist in its separation from evangelicalism. And second, the closing comment is true of any strong disagreement. Disagreements between Christians, political parties, nations etc. always tend towards identifying the opponent with the extreme positions held within that party. This is a disturbing trend but not unique to this discussion or either party in the discussion.

I think either there is a point missing on the list of 7, or else #1 needs to be expanded. Yes, captivity to “Enlightenment rationalism” (truth only via propositions, human reason as ultimate arbiter) is a problem.
But that is not the only Enlightenment baggage in the Evangelical church. What about modernity’s focus on the autonomous individual? A significant emerging critique of Evangelicalism is the privatized “me and Jesus” spproach to faith that is so common, with more emphasis on the community of faith in (at least some) emergent circles.
Another possibly missing item is the captivity (at least in the US) of much of the Evangelical church to the political “religious right”. A significant force in some emergent streams is the desire for Christian political witness to be driven more by Jesus and less by James Dobson and Rush Limbaugh.

My observation is that emerging also critiques the perceived rigidity (and exclusionism) of traditional evangelical churches that extend standing firm on the basics of the faith to an unspoken, but de facto, rigidity on details– dress, political parry affiliation, etc. This is why you see emerging churches putting green haired youth with piercings in prominent support positions or openly proclaiming welcome to both Democrats and Republicans. Otherwise, I think the list is good.

This is so interesting. The problem is that we’ve all come through different doors of evangelicalism, some closer to fundamentalism and some less so. This muddies the water a bit.

This is a good list. I too would add the political monoculture in some parts of evangelicalism. And perhaps something about a far too expansive list of “non-negotiables”.

I am part of a house church, have been for 30+ yrs, we meet in houses. We sit in a circle and the teacher sits in the circle too. We get to interact during the teaching and afterwards, disagree, urge to clarify, make another point etc. So I resonate with wanting more than “speaching.” I don’t think I could handle going somewhere where I had to listen to the sermon and not get to interact about it.

I agree with #5 AHH, that the emphasis on the individual and the captivity to the religious right are both areas of major concern.
I was not aware of Ed Stetzer’s types (relevants, reconstructionists, revisionists). I just finished Flory and Miller?s book on ?Finding Faith? and have been thinking in terms of four types: innovators, appropriators, reclaimers and resisters. What is the name of his book? My objections to these seven or eight characteristics of evangelicalism began to surface around 2000 before I had ever even heard of ?emerging? or Brian McLaren.

Josenmiami-
Here is Stetzer’s article describing emerging types:
http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=22406

Belcher faced an extraordinary challenge in trying to define something as diverse and nuanced as the emerging church movement, and I thought he did a good job. Throughout the book, he allows the complexity of the emerging church to speak for itself – highlighting a wide range of pastors/leaders with a wide range of perspectives. I thought he was really gracious and fair.
This is a good list I think. However, I would echo Travis’ point about politics and theological/ideological “non-negotiables.” I would have liked to have seen Belcher address the issue of religious pluralism (which is something I think a lot of young adults wrestle with) as well as disenchantment with evangelicalism’s captivity to republican politics. And maybe even a word or two on gender issues…and questions surrounding the concept of biblical interpretation. Okay, now I’m getting too picky!
Perhaps I would simply add an eighth protest against “false fundamentals” (of which religious exclusivism, republican politics, complementarianism, etc. are a part.)
I’ve reviewed the book in more detail on my blog.

I meant to say “questions surrounding the concept of biblical inerrancy.” Not sure if I want to draw attention to that…but that’s what I meant.

Scott, Good blog content, but too many ads. Any way to turn some of this stuff off? (I know it’s not your fault; it’s the host’s biz model)

What might be most indicative of the truth that Belcher has done a good job in finding a third way and articulating deep church is that both the emerging and traditional reviews I have read wanted Belcher to deal more with their issues and concerns.

Jim (and others),
By using Firefox you can install adblocker to pretty much filter out 90% of ads. Sorry beliefnet, but enough is enough. Speaking of which, it’d be nice if we didn’t have to cancel out the new newsletter banner at the bottom of the page EVERY time we log-on. Come on beliefnet, you can do better.

I think Belcher’s done a pretty thorough job of naming the major emergent/emerging protests. And, along with others on this blog, I would agree that hyper-individualism and hyper-certitude (both implications of modern, Enlightenment-thinking) are major issues.
As time goes on, the more I step back and try and see evangelical approaches to these two issues with perspective, the more they seem off-base to me. Speaking of which, that’s one thing that any tribal group doesn’t often get to gain from: I’m speaking of having enough time away from the clan to see its peculiarities for what they are. And I mean that in terms of any tribe, certainly not just evangelicals.

Hey Friends, Thanks for all the comments. They are helpful and engaging. And thanks for the tone; it makes dialogue possible even on points we may disagree. What I think the emerging church is saying in point 7 on tribalism is that the traditional church seems to be tribalistic when it comes to culture and engaging the postmodern world around us. They are standoffish; more critical and condemning than engaging. Emerging folk have a heart for evangelism so this troubles them. Now some of you brought up that the traditional church does not seem tribalistic when it comes to politics, i.e. the Christian right. I think that is correct; but not entirely. Let me try to explain. My response to this objection is found in end note 17 from chapter 10 (Deep Culture). Since so many of you have raised this point (a good one) I am thinking I should have kept this point in the main text! The end note reads thus: “Can it be the traditional church bought into the public-private split, when they are so involved in politics? Over the past twenty-five years the traditional church, particularly the more fundamentalist wing, has become involved in politics. The Moral Majority, the Christian Coalition and the Family Research Council are examples of this.They have encouraged evangelicals to get involved in the political process, to take back America. Yet, at the same time, others in the camp, writers like Ed Dobson and Cal Thomas, have called Christians to retreat from political entanglements and return to the church. Who speaks for conservative Christians? I am not sure, but I think Dobson and Thomas are being more consistent with the history of fundamentalism.I would even make the case, if I had the time and space, to say that even when traditionalists have been involved in politics, it has been mostly as a defensive posture,to protect their own safety and communities, and to take back areas that have been lost. It is one of reclaiming or protecting but not one of proactively constructing or cultivating on a broad scale. This is why they have often been accused, with some truth, of being single-issue focused. Moreover, I would argue that if America
returned to a bygone era, when America was ?Christian,? they would exit politics altogether. They would not be needed and would retreat behind their own protective walls, living their lives, building their families and churches. They don?t have a broad-based biblical view of political philosophy or cultural engagement. It is purely
return to their long-held belief that culture is not changed by laws and politics, but by transforming one heart at a time through the church. So the Christian Right still holds to the sacred-secular dualism that has characterized the movement since the
1920s.”
I hope this helps. What are your thoughts on this? Enjoying the dialogue.
Jim

Jim B. #18, thanks for participating and clarifying.
With regard to politics, I think there are two aspects, and you answered one of them:
1) Political “entanglement”
2) Political “orientation” — even if one does not join the Moral Majority or whatever in active participation in the political end of the “culture wars”, there is the background assumption that to be an Evangelical Christian entails holding the same views on issues as Falwell, (James) Dobson, D. James Kennedy, etc.
I think your reply does not address #2, the fact that even in churches that are not entangled in politics a person who prefers Barack Obama to Rush Limbaugh will often feel very unwelcome and out of place. It is that sort of groupthink that many seek to emerge from. And on #1, I wonder what fraction of Evangelicalism follows the “entanglement” mode (James Dobson) as opposed to the “retreat from entanglement” mode (Ed Dobson). It sure seems like James Dobson has more influence, but maybe that is my local view (living about 100 miles from Colorado Springs).

AHH, good questions.
Way out here on the West Coast, James Dobson’s appeal is much less, I think, than where you live, close to Colorado Springs. I think group think is a problem in any church or group. I can imagine that a Rush fan would feel out of place at an evangelical church where the people voted for Pres. Obama. The goal is to make everyone feel welcome, regardless of politics. Too many churches preach more politics from the pulpit than Christ; and this goes for those on left as much as those on the right. We are to keep Christ at the center. He is the only stumbling block to a guest. Partisan politics should never be. For example, my PhD is in political theory. Though it influences the way I preach and think about all of life I never, never, allow partisan politics to come out of my mouth in the pulpit. Does this mean we are tribal and don’t care about the social realm of life?–not at all. In fact, the opposite. We want, encourage, and desire to train people to be involved in all areas of life, including the political. We have local officials, both Democrat and Republican at our church. We have Obama voters on our leadership team. We have Bush backers, which is no surprise because we are in Orange County. It makes for some amazing dialogue. But we rally around Christ, which we are all certain about.
Regarding your other question, I think most evangelicals, despite how vocal the Christian Right can seem, are too busy raising their kids to be involved in politics or to care much. I am not saying this is good or bad just what the studies show. Most evangelicals only engage once every four years and sometimes not even that. What I would like to see is an evangelical church that is much more, not less, engaged in politics and the social realm (but not from the pulpits) and much more trained properly in a solid Christian view of the world. But this takes work and most people don’t want to or don’t have the time to make the effort. This is the argument I make in chapter 10 of my book.
Does this make sense. Push back if I am not being clear or you disagree? I love the dialogue and chance to learn through this exchange.

a voice of sanity, thanks Scot. I have copy of Jim’s book on the way and am looking forward to reading the ideas he outlines.

Hey, Jim. You know I LOVED the book, and am only nitpicking here.
But I guess that having grown up in a very politically-charged conservative evangelical subculture and then dramatically changing my views after reading Yoder’s “The Politics of Jesus,” Claiborne’s “Jesus for President,” and Boyd’s “The Myth of a Christian Nation,”
I am perhaps overly suspicious and reticent of the call for MORE Christian involvement in politics that you write about in Chapter 10 of “Deep Church.” (This may also have something to do with some of my Anabaptist leanings, which you mention in that chapter!)
In your comment, you talk about training people to have “a solid Christian view of the world.? This is a phrase that raises all kinds of red flags for me because for most of my life ?a solid Christian view of the world? meant ?a solid Republican view of the world.? It also meant believing in young earth creationism, limiting the role of women in church leadership, and accepting religious exclusivism without question. (This hits on the ?too many non-negotiables? objection shared by a lot of emergers.)
It just seems to me that there is no such thing as one, solid Christian view of the world. All Christians view the world a little differently. This is why, despite my overall favorable impression of the book, I had trouble swallowing the call for more political activism among believers, especially if it involves using the name of Christ as adjective to support certain positions (the ?Christian? view of health care reform, the ?Christian? view of abortion, the ?Christian? view of war.)
I just don?t see how this can do anything but harm the name of Christ, whose teachings were far too radical to be claimed by any political party or platform.
I don?t have a problem with Christians participating in government. I just don?t like it when they claim that Jesus shares their views.
Perhaps you share this assumption yourself. Let me know if I?ve misunderstood you.
Again, I loved the book. And I agree that it says a lot that both emerging folks and more traditional folks are participating in the dialog. Just look at the blurbs on the back of the book! Rob Bell and Mark Driscoll!

As an Emergent in Dobsons back yard (yes in Colorado Springs) it sux sometimes.
Jim, your book brings much to think about. I believe your 7 points about Emergents are largely accurate. I just finished the book and am chewing on the thoughts a bit.
Keep up the good work.

Wouldn’t this conversation be so much more fun in person? Over a cup of coffee?
Rachel, no worries about nitpicking. I know you liked the book; I read your fine review on your blog! BTW, have you posted it on amazon?
I understand your reservations about “Christian” Politics.I share many of them and can appreciate much the Anabaptist tradition teaches. What I am calling for is a third way that allows those in the Yoder stream to find common ground with those in the transformationist stream. I think it can happen. I believe there are lots of first principles about the State, governing, and politics that we can teach without being partisan. In the Christian world we often take the short cut and jump to partisan platforms to make it easier for people. Thus we simplistically attach Christian world view with Republican platform. Kind of bumper sticker politics. I am not happy with this kind of lazy thinker, whether on the right or left. What I want is deeper reflection, together, from all perspectives on what it means to engage culture and politics.
Like all these other contentious topics in the church, I think we have much more in common than we realize. But so often we focus, myself including at times, on what separates us. Some of this is the brilliance and casualty of our two party system. It forces a certain polarization. But this polarization was always supposed to take place in town meetings where everyone lived together and reasoned face to face. The problem is we live so separately, as Dan Bishop points out in his awesome book “The Big Sort.” This is very dangerous for our political system. And our churches. Anyways, I am not sure I clarified much. But we can keep trying.

Rachel I echo your same concerns about a Christian world view usually being thought of as right wing politics, but I think Jim did a fairly good job of nuancing what he meant by this in his chapter.
I do not have the book here with me but if I remember correctly he was more refering to the Christian world view of redemption and that God cares about all of creation and is interested in their welfare. This includes culture, creation, arts, and the city. I do not think Jim had in mind at all the characteristics you associated with a Christian worldview, but rather that as Christians we should be a blessing to the city and seek its good. That we should care for creation and find ways to speak what he termed “common grace” language with non-Christians in championing causes that are good for the community.

Brian,
You summarized my position well. Christians can seek the shalom of the city in a million ways without being partisan (though this has its place.) For example, Jordan Brandman, who is a member of our church. He ran and was elected to the Anaheim School board, a very sought after and influential elected office. He is doing amazing things. I asked him how much he can get done as a democrat in mostly republican Orange County. He said, “partisan politics never even enters into city politics. Everyone just wants to make the city better.” Now I am sure partisan politics plays its role but what he is saying is true–there are a million ways to seek the shalom of the city that are not strictly partisan. I want a thousand more Jordan Brandman’s on our school boards around the country, seeking the shalom of the city, working across party lines, and motivated and inspired by thier christian view of the world.

This summary of the seven criticisms is one of the great strength’s of the book.
I agree with some of the commentators here about feeling uneasy about “worldview” talk. Personally, I’ve gotten exhausted by it. Christianity isn’t a “worldview,” it’s a relationship with the Triune God through Jesus Christ. That relationship produces some characteristic ways of looking at the world, to be sure. But it’s so easy to extend those characteristic ways of looking at the world into an exhaustive, inflexible, idolatrous human system, isn’t it?

My comment is not related to this chapter – but I must say that I loved what you had to say about community in the small bit of the book I could peek at on Amazon. While I waited for my book to show up I blogged about it… http://laurieonlifestyle.blogspot.com/2009/09/community-saying-goodbye-part.html
Looking forward to catching up on my reading…

Thanks for the the thorough response, Jim.
I agree with the overall message of the chapter – that God cares about all of creation and that his grace is present in culture, creation, arts, and the city. And I agree that followers of Christ should feel free to participate in all of these areas. (I’m not exactly drowning in the Yoder stream!)
My main concern was with the Christ-as-adjective thing – “Christian worldview,” “Christian perspective on [fill in the blank].” Perhaps later, (when chapter 10 is discussed here), you could clarify what sort of instruction members of Redeemer receive regarding politics during the semester-long worldview class mentioned in Chapter 10. It would be wrong of me to assume that it’s the same sort of conservative-based instruction I received in my Christian worldview classes in college. If they reflect a similar approach as you yourself take, well then that would be a good thing.
Isn’t it interesting how much our backgrounds affect our reactions to certain phrases? I don’t know if I will ever be comfortable with the expression “Christian worldview” again. But I think that has more to do with my personal history than anything else.
Great discussion! As always, a great forum here at Jesus Creed.

I appreciate that Jim sees the two-sidedness of the problem of tribalism in politics, that this is a human problem, not just an evangelical problem, and that he calls out those on both the left and the right who fall into that mode.
I know most emergent folks are emerging out of conservative evangelicalism and that is the context in which they have experienced the assumption that “the Christian view” on a given issue is the republican one. But after leaving evangelicalism and spending the better part of a decade in the Episcopal Church due to what would now be recognized as “emerging church” concerns/problems with evangelicalism (I had to get out or I thought I’d go crazy, for those 7 reasons and others besides), I found that liberal protestantism can be every bit as oppressive, one-sided and tribalistic as conservative evangelicalism, when it comes to what constitute the “proper Christian views” on politics.
All too often (though not always) in my discussions with emerging friends, I find a naivete’ about the fact that this binary, us/them approach is a human, rather than just a conservative, problem. “The heresies that men do leave/are hated most of those they did deceive” and thus, leaving the camp of “evangelicalism = conservative politics” behind, they tend to reserve their greatest condemnation and scorn for conservative evangelicals while giving the benefit of the doubt to those who haven’t burned them, personally (yet).
We really do need a Third Way. Not just leaving one binary view for a different one. And yet, at the end of dialogue we have to make decisions, and we run into issues about which we disagree passionately and our views on which (on both sides) are heavily shaped by our faith and our understanding of what God requires of us. How to get beyond those disagreements and seek shalom is a bedeviling question. I appreciate Scot’s efforts here to model and facilitate a community that gropes in that direction.

Just read Jim Belcher’s comment above and have been following the series. I now need to order the book. This is very stimulating and helpful. I like these seven points. Thanks.

Jesus Creed = Better version of Oprah’s Book Club
I was going to say something comparatively complimentary about Scot too, but chose to show discretion in the event that Oprah is reading here today. The review and conversation is great — Jim, thanks for your contributions.

I found the book both insightful and disappointing.
It is insightful because I think Jim has nailed most of the issues right on the head. I think he rightly sees emerging church as an Evangelical dilemma. I would say a considerable amount of the energy spent by both Traditionalists and Emerging folks is around matters of being Evangelical (either to defend it or reform/reject it).
I’ve been in the Mainline PCUSA for 26 years. Protest against the seven issues listed above are not my context. That is why I find the book disappointing. It confirms what I already knew. I’m an outsider to the core dialog even though I’m attracted to some of the missional emphasis I see emerging.
In my world, for instance, “evangelism” is a highly suspect word with many. Social Justice is evangelism. Inviting people into a community of discipleship with Jesus Christ is an imposition of our own beliefs.
So when I enter an emerging conversation where there is passion about social justice, I raise my concern about evangelism. That is usually met with a knee-jerk response of being labeled a Traditionalist and dismissal of any concerns I want discuss concerning how we understand social justice. I often feel like everything I say needs to be filtered through this Traditionalist vs Emerging lens before I say it or it will all be heard in distortion.
I suspect most people who call themselves emerging in Mainline circles are revisionists. While I share some of their critique I don’t readily embrace their solutions. It would be interesting to develop a seven complaints of Mainline emerging types.
To be honest, the emerging conversation often feels like being present at someone else’s family argument.

This chapter demonstrates one of the greatest strengths of Belcher’s book: he really does an excellent job of understanding and representing emergent viewpoints. This stands in stark contrast to the majority of critical books about the emerging church prior to this. Even on the points in the book where I just plain disagreed with Belcher’s negative assessment of certain emerging views (relational set vs. centered set, for instance), it wasn’t because I felt like he was misrepresenting emerging views. I can’t tell you how refreshing that is. I don’t mind honest disagreements at all, as long as I feel like the other person at least understands what I’m trying to say.
Anyhow, I like this list, though other commenters here have done a good job listing other emergent critiques that Belcher could have also mentioned. I don’t fault him for that though. An author can’t cover everything, and the bits that he does focus on are pretty central, at least to the post-evangelical segment of emergent (and, with respect to Michael Kruse, there are plenty of emergents coming from the mainline world as well – Presbymergents for instance – and they bring their own set of critiques, which are not necessarily the same as those us recovering evangelicals bring. If you’ve only ever heard emergents talk about the latter, I don’t think it’s because the other isn’t out there. They’re just not as visible/vocal. And of course, Belcher, being wholly enmeshed in the evangelical world himself and not even deigning to deal with mainline “liberal” theology at all in his book except to dismiss it as “clearly” heterodox and therefore completely out-of-bounds, obviously represents only one stream of the emergent critique here. Again, I don’t fault him for that. An author can only do so much, and can only speak from their own experience.)
I do have one bone to pick with this post however, and I’m not really sure whether it’s with Belcher or with Scot, to be honest. Scot writes:
“Belcher makes a point: traditionalist critique of emerging has found the worst case scenarios and the most extreme statements. As no Calvnist wants Calvinism reduced to burning Servetus, so no emerging leaders wants its movement shaped by its extremist ideas.”
I’ve heard this point made by many others, and in one sense it’s right: the emerging church shouldn’t be evaluated solely based on the views of those most theologically “adventurous” among us, nor do folks with emergent leanings need to be scared off if they don’t think they can embrace everything that some folks in the conversation espouse. However, I’m put off by this language of “extremism”, and I fear it misses the point. It comes across as very condemning and exclusionary: as if the person is saying “don’t worry, not all emergents are extremists like _________” (fill in the blank – Belcher fills it in with Doug and Tony), with the implication that ________ is a heretic and should really just be marginalized and rejected (thereby also marginalizing those of us who happen to like what these extremists say). I guess my problem is that the label “extremist” doesn’t actually address whether or not their views have any merit or truth to them, but only how far they deviate from some predetermined “center”. But this begs the question and misses the point of the emerging conversation in the first place. The point is that it is a safe space to explore and examine ALL of one’s beliefs, not just ones outside of what someone else defines as the “center”. And it is because of this “safe space” idea that one is not required to necessarily agree with anyone else in the conversation, whether with “extremists” OR with less theologically adventurous folks. Emergents aren’t required to agree with Doug or Tony or Brian, but neither are we required to agree with Jim Belcher or Thomas Oden or Tim Keller or whoever. No one owns the conversation, and no set of “extremes”, on whichever side (because after all, one person’s “extremes” is another person’s “center”, and vice versa), defines what it is or gets to say which set of questions is off limits.

I have appreciated much of the discussion coming out of the USA on this matter. I do wonder whether the reference points used in navigating through this are enough to develop a rounded theology.
In that they are cultural bound they can only produce sign posts.
It seems that the church awareness in the states allows for alternatives to be presented and to some degree understood.
In the UK we don’t have this church awareness and therefore the reference points are not useful.
You can only produce a Third Way if you have two definitive ‘ways’ to stand between. It presume that these are the only two original alternatives within which to place an alternative.