Deep Church by Jim Belcher – Quick Thoughts
I’m in the midst of a God thing right now, whereby I think I’m being led – with the help of others – to plant a church near downtown Nashville. It’s all very preliminary, but I’m in the process of reading a lot about church planting and trying to cinch down some ideas. So you, the reader, should not be surprised to see a lot of references to books on ecclesiology on this blog in the near future. My most recent foray into church planting has been Deep Church by Jim Belcher.
Deep Church is Belcher’s attempt to plot a course for a “third way” of ecclesiology between the emerging church and the traditional church. He wants to take the best aspects of both camps: the orthodox beliefs of the traditionalists, and the cultural concerns of the emerging churches and combine them into a new movement.
I listened to this book via audio and now I want to get my hands on a physical copy so that I can go back and underline / rethink many of Belcher’s insights.
But here are a few quick thoughts
1. Belcher is truly kind to both traditionalists and emerging folks.
2. He truly understands the ideas and complaints of both sides.
3. Belcher is an evangelical and his suggestions for a deep church are extremely well stated.
4. Personally, I think he’s a little too soft on McLaren, Jones, and Pagitt. I wonder if his tone might be slightly sterner now that McLaren’s most recent book, A New Kind of Christianity, has been released, because frankly it is pure heresy.
5. Belcher helped me gain a key insight into postmodernity. Different people define the movement differently. I’ve been well aware for quite some time that some think postmodernity is good for Christianity and some think it is evil, but Belcher helped me to understand that often these two sides talk right past each other because they define the movement differently. Some see postmodernity as ultra-modernity, while others see postmodernity as contra-modernity. This is probably why there seems to be so much confusion about postmodernism and why it seems so elusive to define.
6. I think the church that I’m helping to plant may gain important insights from thinking through some of Belcher’s ideas.
7. In the end, I’m not sure that Belcher’s Deep Church is really a “third way.” For me, it’s more or less “the way” that I’ve been striving after for quite some time. And, I don’t think I’m alone. However, Belcher’s ideas have helped me to add clarity to many of my thoughts and for that I am grateful.
For a more in depth review, check out DeYoung
Also, after I get a physical copy of this book and rescan it, I may post some helpful insights here in the comments.
Related Posts:
No commentsBrian McLaren Reaches New “Damnable” Heights
While I’ll admit that the title of this post is shocking, (and intentionally so), it is none-the-less true. Brian McLaren has been on this heretical trajectory for quite some time, but really shows his true colors in his new book A New Kind of Christianity. This panel discussion about the book by Al Mohler, Bruce Ware, Jim Hamilton, Stephen Wellum, and Gregory Wills is extremely insightful. My hope is that Christians will be wary of McLaren and those who espouse his teachings.
Related Posts:
1 commentBook Review: Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis
Precursory Thoughts
It’s been my intention for quite a while to spend time with the writings of C.S. Lewis. Four or five years ago I read nearly half of Mere Christianity, but at the time I was also reading several other books and attending seminary. The mixture of busy-ness made it easy to put this book down half way through.
Lately I’ve read several other authors who, quoting Lewis, have increased my desire to pick up Mere Christianity once again and give it a go. John Piper, whom I respect tremendously, often quotes Lewis; he does so especially in his seminal book, Desiring God. Likewise Tim Keller,whom I also respect, refers to Lewis as a huge influence and quotes from him liberally in The Reason for God. Lastly, Brian McLaren, whom I do not respect (his theology, not the man), also uses Lewis as a source of inspiration in some of his writings. The problem with this of course is that two men whom I greatly admire and agree with, site Lewis as a large influence. Contrariwise McLaren, whom I do not respect, sites Lewis as a reference too. In fact I would say that many of the most-loathsome beliefs that McLaren espouses seem to be founded in the thought of C.S. Lewis.
Watching a recent talk by John Piper about Lewis has helped clear the air for me in many respects. In the talk, which I encourage you to watch, Piper discusses some of the problems with Lewis, but he also discusses the rewards that C.S. Lewis has wrought within his own life.
Review
Mere Christianity was originally delivered as a series of Radio Broadcasts in the 1940′s, only later in 1952, was it developed into a book. As a result, it’s a very approachable read with subjects divided into nice, bite-sized chapters. The book is organized into four separate books each with its own chapters. The books are as follows: Book 1 – Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe, Book 2 – What Christians Believe, Book 3 – Christian Behaviour, Book 4 – Beyond Personality: Or First Steps in the Doctrine of the Trinity. Mere Christianity is essentially part apologetic for Christianity and part explanation of Christianity, and I have to applaud Lewis for doing a good job in his defending and explaining.
Personally, I enjoyed the apologetic in the beginning of the book and the thoughts on the Trinity at the end of the book most thoroughly. The book is a bit slow in the middle. Spiritually speaking, Mere Christianity gave me some interesting ways of thinking about Christianity. In fact Lewis’ greatest contribution may be that he allows readers to see problematic portions of Christianity in a new light through his vivid descriptions.
This book wasn’t life changing for me, but it was definitely a worthwhile read. If nothing else, I see portions of Christianity more clearly than I used to, and I have a bunch of Lewis quotes that will make me sound smart if I use them. The problematic parts of Lewis’ philosophy make this a hard book for me to whole-heartedly recommend (see Piper’s talk). Many will be blessed by its content and some may be led astray. As always we must place the Bible’s revelation of itself ahead of man’s interpretations. Our personal interpretations are subject to the scrutiny of Bible. I’m going to continue to read more of Lewis and see how my opinion develops after delving further.
Piper’s talk – http://theresurgence.com/why-cs-lewis-influenced-john-piper
Related Posts:
No commentsBook Review: A New Kind of Christian by Brian McLaren
A New Kind of Christian by Brian McLaren
Let me start by saying that I hesitate to even write a review of this book because there stands a chance that even posting a picture of this book on my blog might lead someone to think that I am endorsing Brian McLaren. I am not endorsing Brian McLaren or this book!!! However, I do understand the necessity to stretch myself, and think differently, and read widely from different people. So I read this book to do those things, and also to help keep myself abreast of modern, popular, Christian books.
I’ve heard and known for quite some time that McLaren’s beliefs and teachings were sketchy, but I was unaware of how sketchy until I trekked though A New Kind of Christian. Simply put, many of the beliefs that McLaren espouses in this book are outside of what can be called Christian orthodoxy. I believe that the Bible is intentionally grey on some issues, leaving us room to discuss and debate and seek the leading of the Holy Spirit, but much of the Bible is straight forward. To deny a clear teaching of the Bible is sin and dangerous, and to change the Gospel message is damnable according to Paul in Galatians 1. Without a clear system of belief in place, Christianity is nothing more than a social club, and Christians are above all to be a pitied people. I’m afraid that in McLaren’s attempt (and I don’t doubt that it is an earnest attempt) to understand Christianity better, he has perhaps gotten more confused.
In A New Kind of Christian, McLaren denies or calls into question several key tenants of the faith. For example: 1) the existence of hell and punishment of unbelievers ,2) the necessity of faith in Christ, 3) the meaning of Christ’s death, 4) the universality of truth, and 5) the authority of the Bible. Calling into question these central beliefs poses a problem if you believe the Bible.
A second problem I have with this book is its understanding of the categories “modern” and “postmodern.” The good ideas (and there are quite a few) that are put forward about Christianity in A New Kind of Christian are labeled new, and original, and postmodern, but I find many of them quite old. The characters in this book categorize Christian thinking and practice into the categories of “modern” and “postmodern.” Any representation of Christianity that seems shortsighted is always put into the “modern” category, while better representations of Christianity are always labeled “postmodern.” The problem is that much of what is considered postmodern, is in reality what many faithful churches have been practicing all along. Perhaps the issue is not “modern” versus “postmodern”, but “paying attention to the Bible” versus “ignoring the Bible.”
Another third problem I have with this book is that it is an overreaction to some of “issues” in the modern church. A New Kind of Christian is a book about a fictional pastor who misunderstands the Gospel, who is burned out, and who is coming to terms with the fact that his faith is screwed-up and rather weak. He realizes that a lot of what has been labeled Christianity in his upbringing is wrong. However, in his attempt to reform his previously misguided faith, he simply takes the opposite opinion on most everything. This is all done through a seemingly authentic and academic discussion, that purports to take the Bible more seriously, but perhaps takes the Bible even less seriously. A New Kind of Christian proposes a kind of thinking that is relativistic and anti-logical. Thinking of this sort cannot logically claim any truth whatsoever. While much of the Bible literature is poetic, historical, apocalyptic, etc., much of it is also carefully arranged and logical. McLaren may want to deny a foundational / logical approach to the Christian faith, but in denying all forms of concrete thought, he necessarily has to deny many of the writings of the Apostle Paul (who did write concretely and logically). And…logically speaking, McLaren’s arguments about a non-concrete approach to the Bible are in fact concrete arguments themselves, and thus his arguments are in that regard self-defeating.
All of this to say that you probably shouldn’t read A New Kind of Christian except as an academic exercise to better understand the thinking of the emergent, liberal left. If you want to understand how to be more Biblical, read and study the Bible. McLaren adds more confusion than clarity.
I’m not saying that Brian McLaren is an idiot, or that I hate him, or anything like that (in fact I’d jump at the chance to sit down and discuss faith with him); however, I am saying that according to the Bible he would be considered a “false prophet” in regards to the Gospel. While much of what McLaren says is good, and interesting, and thought provoking, too much of what he says is also a direct dismissal of the teachings of the Bible. Unfortunately his influence amongst certain sectors of Christianity is large, and this poses a threat to the proper understanding of the Gospel. A Gospel which Jude said we should defend (Jude 3). Ultimately that is why I have taken the time to write this brief review. I’m not trying to start arguments, but rather to defend the “faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.”
Related Posts:
No commentsA Quick Review of Sex God by Rob Bell
I recently finished the audiobook version of Sex God by Rob Bell, and to be honest I tried to read it with especially discerning ears (not eyes in this case) while still trying to give Bell a fair listen. I’m weary of Rob Bell for a few reasons that I’ll list:
1) He has had a known open-theist, Greg Boyd, preach at his church.
2) He has acknowledged Brian McLaren as an influence.
3) Mark Driscoll has cited several disturbing facts about Bell’s theology.
None the less, I feel it’s important to stay somewhat abreast of current issues and popular teachers such as Bell because, like it or not, they are influencing many people.
I want to say that there are many parts of Sex God that are really well stated, and honestly the book contains some important Biblical teachings that many Christians could benefit from hearing. However, I cannot recommend this book because I believe it is flawed in some rather dangerous ways. Here are a few concerns I have:
1) In chapter 1, Bell defines heaven and hell rather peculiarly. He says heaven is “not a fixed, unchanging, geographical location somewhere other than this world. Heaven is the realm where things are as God intends them to be…(heaven) can be anywhere, anytime, with anybody. (minute 16).” And hell he defines as “a realm where things are not as God wants them to be, where things aren’t according to God’s will, where people aren’t treated as fully human (minute 17).” While I have questions about both these definitions (and questions about relating these specific definitions of heaven and hell to the meaning of Jesus words in Matt 5:27-30), I’m most concerned that “hell” in Bell’s definition nowhere mentions God’s punishment of evildoers. While I’ll grant that “hell” in the English language has a wide semantic range, and that Bell’s definition fits perfectly within that semantic range, it is downright misleading to simply define “hell” in a Biblical since as anything less than a place of God’s punishment that is justly deserved. In fact we all deserve punishment in hell, but thankfully God has redeemed all who will call on His name. I find Bell’s definition of heaven and hell convenient for his subject matter, but an obvious oversimplification. In fact, in my observation, Bell often oversimplifies theological teachings when he preaches.
2) In chapter 5, Bell says that because God chose to love humans, people who can break His heart by their actions and disobedience, that God took a risk. According to Bell, God risks by loving. This sounds poetic and great, and yes we can grieve God, but it is a misunderstanding of the Bible to see God as a risk-taker. God knows beginning from end. He knows the elect from the foundation of the world (Eph 1), He has already planned the defeat and punishment of Satan, and throughout the Bible prophecies always come true because God is pulling the strings. People do make real choices, but these choices in no way infringe upon the sovereignty and rule of the King of the Universe. Bell sounds more and more like an open-theist (heresy) the more I hear him speak. And while I’ll grant that issues of God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility are confusing, it is a lie to attest that God doesn’t know all things. A God who knows all things cannot by definition take a risk. (John Elderidge proposes this same sort of “God the risk-taker” idea in Wild at Heart, and he is mistaken as well).
3). In chapter 6, Bell proposes the idea that the husband and wife are to be mutually submissive towards one another. While there is some truth to this statement, it is not a good representation of the Bible’s teaching about husbands and wives. Mutual submission does appear in statements like 1 Cor 7:4, and the Bible does teach that both husband and wife equally give and work in the marriage relationship; however, the wife is to submit to the husband in a way that the husband does not submit to the wife. It is not as if the Bible is chauvinistic toward women, but clearly the husband has a leadership role within the marriage that is his alone (Eph 5:22-24 – Christ is not mutually submissive to us is He?). I fear that Bell has slightly misunderstood the Biblical teaching about the roles of men and women, and this is dangerous to Christian marriages. I’m also pretty sure that he misunderstands the Greek usage of verbs when he discusses this topic.
I’m sure there are other issues that could be discussed in regards to Sex God, and like I said above, “there are some good points in the book,” but I have deep concerns about Bell’s underlying theology. I believe that some of his fundamental thoughts about God are flawed. Most notably, I am concerned about his open-theistic tendencies. The last thing Christians need is a weak and heretical view of the sovereignty of God.
Addendum (added later on):
I want to be really careful not to intentionally offend anyone with this review. I believe Rob Bell is doing a lot of good and has an unbelivable heart for people. At the end of the day though, I just have to call theology the way I see it. In fact Bell invites this sort of discussion in the beginning of Velvet Elvis. I’m simply trying to call attention to some problems I have with the theology he seems to be portraying. I hope this is received in a winsome way. I don’t hate the man, and I don’t want to have closed-ears believing that I know it all. I’m appreciative for a lot of what Bell has done, but I still worry about what I perceive to be some dangerous trends within his theology.
Related Posts:
2 comments
