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:

• Book Review: A Short Life of Jonathan Edwards by George M. Marsden
• Book Review – Church Planter by Darrin Patrick
• Book Review: Religion Saves + Nine Other Misconceptions by Mark Driscoll
• Book Review: A New Kind of Christian by Brian McLaren
• Book Review: The Escondido Theology by John Frame

http://www.9marks.org/books/scoopa-nooma-part-1

Here’s an excerpt:

“The gospel as Bell communicates it in NOOMA runs something like this: All of us are broken, sinful, selfish, and prideful people. We carry around the baggage of our hurts, our resentments, and our jealousies. As a result we are just a shell of the kind of people God intends us to be. But our God is a loving God who accepts us and loves us just as we are. He can comfort us, heal us, and make us whole, real, authentic, living, laughing people. Not only that, but Jesus came to show us how to live revolutionary lives of love, compassion, and acceptance. By learning from his teachings and following him, we can live the full and complete lives that God intended.

And that’s about it. That’s not just the introduction that leads to an explanation of the cross, atonement, the resurrection and salvation, either. So far, at least, that’s what NOOMA holds out as “The Gospel.” Full stop”

My Opinion

I admire Bell’s creativity , his desire to help people, and his desire to point them towards God, it just doesn’t seem like he’s pointing people towards the God of the Bible.

Also helpful on this topic is Mark Driscoll’s chapter on the Emerging Church in his book Religion Saves (Religion Saves is also a sermon series by Driscoll that mirrors the book, see the link to the video below).

http://www.marshillchurch.org/media/religionsaves/emerging-church

Related Posts:

• Book Review: Religion Saves + Nine Other Misconceptions by Mark Driscoll
• A Quick Review of Sex God by Rob Bell
• Two Recent Reads: Love Wins by Rob Bell & Erasing Hell by Francis Chan
• Video Review: iPhone 4 Case from Amazon Basics
• Great Sermon Series

Maybe.  I’m not entirely sure, but maybe, John Piper’s sermon at the Together For the Gospel Conference 2010, is my favorite sermon ever.  I love the ministry of John Piper.  I’m not worshipping the man, but I thoroughly appreciate how God uses John Piper to bless my life and point me towards Jesus.  This sermon from T4G2010 is simply amazing.  In this sermon, Piper asks the question, “Did Jesus preach the message of imputation that Paul clearly preached?”  In other words, “Did Paul alter the message of Jesus?” or “Are Jesus’ and Paul’s theology the same?”  Piper’s answer is a resounding yes.  Jesus and the Apostle Paul are in complete agreement, and his exegesis to prove this point is remarkable.   This sermon is eye-opening and highly applicable to many of the errant teachings of emergent teachers (although Piper never makes that direct application himself in the sermon).  I highly commend it for your consideration.

Manuscript http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/2352_did_jesus_preach_pauls_gospel/

Audio http://www.t4g.org/resources/

Related Posts:

• Five Sentence Review: Think: The Life of the Mind and Love of God – John Piper
• Three Free Books on John Calvin: for free
• Loving thinking-about-God more than God / Loving worshipping-God more than God
• John Piper
• Extended Quote of the Day – Tim Keller

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:

• You Should Probably Read The Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama
• Book Review: Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis
• Book Review: Total Church by Tim Chester & Steve Timmis
• Book Review: The Lazarus Vendetta by Robert Ludlum & Patrick Larkin
• Extended Book Review – Paul and the Thessalonians by Abraham Malherbe