"The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment is a truly important work-one that should be required reading not only for church leaders, but for all sober-minded laypeople as well."

John MacArthur (From the Foreword)

"If you were more discerning you’d probably buy this book. If you do read this book, you will be! This book on discernment is simple, clear, well-written and well-illustrated...

Mark Dever

Welcome to the online home of Tim Challies, blogger, author and web designer. My first book, "The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment," is now available everywhere.

Read about the book, about the blog or about the author.

03/26/08
Comments (11)

Book Review - Why We're Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be)

Why We're Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be) by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck“What is this emerging church I keep hearing about?” If I had a dime for every time I have been asked that question or one like it, well, I’d be several dollars richer at least. Emerging is one of the buzzwords in the church these days and one that begs for greater explanation. Unfortunately it is not an easy term to define. To borrow a tired cliche, defining the emerging church is much like trying to nail Jello to the wall. It’s a near-impossible task, but one Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck attempt with great success in their new book Why We’re Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be). These are two young men who, if we were to look to demographics, would be top candidates for involvement in the emerging movement. Yet they’ve turned away from it, opting instead to commit to ministry and service within more traditional churches. In this book they explain why and in so doing explain what the emerging church is about and warn of the danger it poses.

In an editorial decision that turns out to be quite successful, DeYoung and Kluck alternate chapters throughout the book (though you’ll want to watch for an exception at the very end where Kluck writes two consecutively). DeYoung’s chapters are the more academic ones—they provide some in-depth interaction with the theology of the emerging church. Kluck’s chapters, on the other hand, are less formal and more reflective. They actually read, perhaps ironically, not unlike something Don Millar might have written.

Kluck typically begins his chapters by discussing a book he has been reading or an emergent speaker he has heard. He bridges to some of the shortcomings of the emergent movement and some of the ways it has proven unbiblical. He includes several poignant and profound descriptions of his church and the kind of classical Christianity that has fallen out of favor among emergents. Speaking of his search for a church he writes, “I was looking for a theology and a body that I could give my life to and entrust with my children. The reason I love Christianity and the Bible is that I think they are really the only things in this world that don’t need to be periodically ‘repainted’ or reframed.” Quoting a friend, Kluck writes, “My other main concern is [emergents] seem to have adopted the American demographic marketing model. I may be wrong, but I’m afraid that a movement that claims to care about justice, community, and inclusivity seems to just be tailor-made for white, suburban, affluent professionals in their twenties and thirties. That concerns me from a self-delusional standpoint.”

Meanwhile, DeYoung’s chapters are the real heart of the book. He covers a variety of topics of great theological importance including the Bible, Christian doctrine, the impact of modernism on theology, and the doctrines of Jesus Christ. He shows the danger inherent in the emergent unwillingness to take stands even on doctrines closest to the heart of the Christian faith. The claim that emerging theology is still in process is no excuse. “It’s one thing for a high school student to be in process with his theology. It’s another thing for adults to write books and speak around the world about their musing and misgivings. I agree there must be space for Christians to ask hard questions and explore the tensions of our faith, but I seriously question that this space should be hugely public where hundreds of thousands of men and women are eagerly awaiting the next book or blog or podcast arising from your faith journey. No matter what new label you put on it, once you start selling thousands of books, speaking all over the country and world, and being looked to for spiritual and ecclesiastical direction, you’re no longer just a conversation partner. You are a leader and a teacher. And this is serious business…” Neither can emerging leaders simply claim that they should not all be lumped together. “Call it a friendship, or a network, or a web of relationships, but when people endorse one another’s book and speak at the same conferences and write on the same blogs, there is something of a discernible movement afoot.”

Ultimately the authors conclude, as have many Christians, that “Emergent Christians need to catch Jesus’ broader vision for the church—His vision for a church that is intolerant of error, maintains moral boundaries, promotes doctrinal integrity, stands strong in times of trial, remains vibrant in times of prosperity, believes in certain judgment and certain reward, even as it engages the culture, reaches out, loves, and serves. We need a church that reflects the Master’s vision—one that is deeply theological, deeply ethical, deeply compassionate, and deeply doxological.” We serve a God who is knowable and who wants to be known. We do not need to establish doubt as the essence of faith, but can have confidence in what God teaches about Himself. We need to be Christians who are first deeply theological and who allow ethics and justice and compassion to grow outward from that theological base. This has been the great failing of much of the emergent church.

Why We’re Not Emergent is not a scholarly treatment of what is largely a popular-level movement. Instead this is an eminently accessible book and one that should have very wide appeal. It will introduce you to the key leaders and foundational books of the emerging movement. It will show you why this emergent movement is so deceptive and so dangerous. If have been searching for a book that will help you to understand the emerging church or if you have been seeking to answer a friend’s question “What is the emerging church?,” this is just the book you’ll want. I heartily recommend it.

Book Review - Why We're Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be)

Comments (11) »


1. Truth Unites... and Divides
March 26, 2008
11:04 AM

Please go to the website and download the two free pdf’s!

They are excellent!! And they fully confirm and substantiate Tim’s hearty recommendation of this book.


2. Leslie
March 26, 2008
11:09 AM

I just put this on my wishlist last night, and I’m ordering it now


3. Geoff
March 26, 2008
1:52 PM

I always love your book reviews. I’ve heard about this book, but haven’t yet picked it up. I’m going to have to get my hands on a copy (I’ll add it to the pile of “to read” books!).

I love the questions emergent/emerging are asking, yet I also see the shortcomings too. Don’t really like “labels” so won’t call myself emergent, or anything else really. Just Christian. In some ways I am emergent, in others not so much! There’s value in different traditions. Each bring something to the table so to speak.

Thanks again for the review, seems this book may be one I’ve been looking for.


4. Brian
March 26, 2008
2:21 PM

Do the authors make any distinction between emerging and emergent? Do you recognize a distinction?

I understand that there are those out there that would describe themselves as emerging, but maintain a high view of scripture and sound, orthodox doctrine. As opposed to the emergent who seem to shy away from any definitive statements of doctrine or theology.

I think there are many churches that would describe their methods, rather than their message, as “emerging” due to either deficiencies they have recognized in many traditional churches or due to their desire to reach a segment of the population not likely to engage with the traditional church. I hesitate to mention his name, as it too often leads to off the topic discussions, but I think Driscoll could be described this way. Even Tim Keller, to an extent, seeks to engage the post-modern culture in ways that are different than the traditional church, while maintaining, at least to my knowledge, an orthodox theology.


5. Frank Turk
March 26, 2008
10:49 PM

The authors make it clear that they do not split the emerging/emergent hair. But they also make it clear that they are not tossing Mark Driscoll in with Rob Bell.

BTW, that distinction is one that Pastor Driscoll has engineered, and I think it is a last-ditch effort by him to pull people out of the Emerg* train-wreck for the sake of getting people who really do (or ought to, or still might) care about Jesus and the Gospel out of a very attractive, trendy, well-promoted movement that seems about the right age and demographic to be “my church” for a lot of guys between the ages of 25 and 40.

My opinion is that people need to get over the Enlightenment hyper-categorization of alleged missional strategies and ask themselves three serious questions — all of which are either implied or stated in this book:

[1] Who calls out the church?

[2] Who has the right to define what the church is?

[3] Who should be the object and the center of the church?

There is a one-word answer for all three of these questions, and when someone gets that right, they will immediately be over any swoon they feel toward Emerg* performance art and will be in a position to return to their first love.


6. Shannon Lewis
March 27, 2008
3:22 PM

As one who toyed with the ‘emergent’ end of the emerging church for a short time, I quickly realized that all of it’s strengths were predominantly shared by the neo-calvinist (kuyper-ian & l’abri influenced) branches of the reformed church already, and didn’t have to end up a heretic to speak the gospel in a way that relevantly engaged our culture. The book sounds great…thanks for the review.


7. Tim Jones
March 27, 2008
3:37 PM

Tim, Why not “split” the emerging/Emergent hair? I find myself very “emerging” ecclessiologically, and evangelically, yet I hold to a very orthodox Reformed theological system of understanding the bible. Basically what I’m asking is; What basis do we have for throwing out bad/heretical theology with new ways of evangelizing people with the Gospel?


8. Tim Challies
March 27, 2008
4:00 PM

Tim, Why not “split” the emerging/Emergent hair? I find myself very “emerging” ecclessiologically, and evangelically, yet I hold to a very orthodox Reformed theological system of understanding the bible.

I think it’s a hair you can split if you want to, but you may not quite get it right. In this book they chose not to and their decision makes sense as you read it. I don’t think the emerging group has enough internal cohesion to accurately and objectively divide it off without just furthering the confusion. But you’ll find that these guys are critiquing Brian McLaren and Rob Bell, not Mark Driscoll.


9. Tim Jones
March 28, 2008
12:30 PM

Since my last comment I have bought the book and read the first several chapter. I think I understand why they chose to not differentiate, though I do appreciate guys like Acts29 and others. I especially appreciated the Rebel Without a Cause analogy, that we (young emerging types) are looking for someone worth submitting too.


10. Thom Mullins
March 30, 2008
4:39 PM

The only Person you will find “worth submitting to” is Jesus himself. That said, He has established the Church and leadership within the church to look after the flock. Too many times over the course of my walk I have found leaders whose emphasis is “submission” to their “authority”; they fail to understand the other side of that coin - responsibility. That is the flip side that most leaders don’t talk about. I will “submit” to people who, even in their fallen, imperfect state, exhibit a responsibility before God to present me faultless and who are willing to walk through life with me, exhibiting the grace, patience, and commitment to my Christian maturity, not because they have to but because they want to. I have to exhibit that to my family; if I don’t, they won’t follow my example.


11. Jesse
April 1, 2008
8:20 PM

Thanks for the review - I picked up the book from the library and haven’t been able to put it down, and not because I agree with every word written. Rather, I am fairly involved with a small emergent church cohort in the central Ohio area and so I was very curious to read the critique the authors offered. Keven DeYoung is a great thinker/writer, and I can see why Ted Kluck would be proud to have him as his pastor. His chapters are informative and expose the reader to a variety of Emergent books - although notably a small sub-set, and not the most recent. I would highly recommend anyone who is interested in finding out what the emergent movement is all about also picking up Tony Jones’ new book, “The New Christians” - it is also an accessible read, and offers good reasons as to “Why We Are Emergent.” My biggest frustration with the book is epitomized in the subtitle: “By two guys who should be.” No one should or should not be emergent - and even to label someone or something emergent misses the point (as does the tiresome modern/postmodern debate). Rather, some Christians simply believe this is a better way to follow Jesus - plain and simple. We will disagree, and we should dialog and converse. But it has nothing to do with being white, middle class, male, a coffee-lover, a mac user, burned by a conservative evangelical church, a fan of U2, or any other stereotype. I align myself with the emergent camp not because I want to be “like” anyone, but because I agree with their theological interpretation, and I am perfectly fine with DeYoung and Kluck having a different interpretation. And I am immensely enjoying the dialog.