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

"In emergent circles," writes Kevin DeYoung, "spirituality is hot and religion is not." This, according to DeYoung and co-author Ted Kluck, is the central problem with the new, ambiguous, and popular movement known as the emergent church. The assertion also justifies-first to themselves, then to their readers-why DeYoung and Kluck have chosen to remain outsiders, though categorically they could easily be poster boys for the church emergent. After all, the emerging church is about "asking good questions...dialoguing...community, caring for the poor, loving Jesus." They are, too. As Gen-Xers (Yers, busters, millenials?) more accustomed to stories and images, more apt to view their religiously-conservative upbringing as stifling, and more comfortable with cultural, philosophical, and moral ambiguity, DeYoung and Kluck should be chaffing against their rigid, dogmatic, evangelical past.

But they aren't. And Why We're Not Emergent clearly articulates their reasons.

Of chief concern is the movement's comfort with ambiguity. Sound doctrine and clearly defined and articulated definitions of right and wrong reek of the old evangelicalism. Black and white are out; the emergent church almost wholeheartedly embraces the gray. Kluck neatly summarizes this phenomenon in his title to chapter three: "Maybe-the New Yes."

Though careful not to issue blanket indictments on every emergent leader, the authors cite numerous examples of the troubling tendency among the movement's most famous spokesmen to intentionally remain vague. Emergent leaders like Brian McLaren, Donald Miller, Doug Pagitt, and Rob Bell, appear coy about their beliefs, cautious with words lest they be painted into even the largest of corners. The Bible is no longer inerrant, but it's still authoritative. Then again, maybe it isn't:

"The text has its own intention, which begins in the author's intended meaning but is not exhausted by it. We must start with the original meaning of the text, but we are not bound by it. For God has spoken, but he still speaks. The words of Scripture, therefore, are not the norming norm but the Spirit speaking through the Scripture becoming the Word of God."

In the end, according DeYoung and Kluck, emergents just don't know what to believe. In fact, they persistently run away from belief. After all, belief implies certainty. Who can be so bold as to state with certainty that they have correctly interpreted the Bible? Or as Donald Miller put it in his wildly popular Blue Like Jazz, "Who knows anything anyway?"

This problem grows out of emergents' postmodern emphasis on experience. As Deyoung puts it: "The destination matters little. The journey is the thing." Thus, the Christian life is less doctrinal reflection and more personal introspection. This holds great appeal for a generation whose introspection borders on narcissism. While extreme amounts of introspection may ultimately prove harmless, there are more serious problems along the emegent's journey. Emergents, for example, question the "knowability" of God. They wonder whether one can have any real, accurate information about Him. Further, they masquerade uncertainty as humility. Here, DeYoung and Kluck leave ample room for the emergent leaders to speak. Almost unanimously, we are told of the dangers of thinking that we have God pinned-down or shrink-wrapped. Fair enough, say the authors, but the emergents are so afraid of pinning God down, that they fail to hold on to anything of substance. To them, as stated by Rob Bell, "the Bible is open-ended." Therein lies the biggest danger of emergent theology.

Throughout the book, the authors swap chapters, providing their audience with a provocative, yet lively read. DeYoung, the senior pastor at University Reformed Church in Michigan, plays the academic heavyweight, discussing the need for doctrine and the demands of obedience. He is at his best when he is illuminating the crippling contradictions in emergent thought. While emergents are critical of doctrine, stressing that "to know Jesus is not an event, a ritual, a creed, or a religion," DeYoung counters by asking that if we have

"no events, no creed, and no ritual, what do we have? His glory and His life, [Jonathan] Campbell suggests. But once we say something about why Jesus is glorious and what his life was like and what it accomplished, aren't we settling back into dogma and religion again?"

In many ways, DeYoung provides the necessary structure to Kluck's engaging mix of hit-and-run journalism and disorganized, postmodern, inner-monologue self-reflection that emanates from today's young adults. It's no surprise to discover that Kluck's work has been featured in ESPN the Magazine, a venue in which this type of stream-of-consciousness, always-looking-to-point-out-the-tragic writing thrives.

As expected, DeYoung provides ample, serious footnotes. Kluck does not. He doesn't need to. He is the provider of anecdotal evidence-the storyteller that if we are to believe their reading of the emergent membership, will have more success in conveying the message. DeYoung is the bait for the heady intellectuals. Remarkably, he succeeds in keeping their attention while not losing the Kluck crowd along the way.

In the end, though, it may be Kluck who unmasks the emergent phenomenon. In a reprinted email exchange that he had with a friend who was seriously considering joining the emergent movement, he wrote:

"I think your assessment of a lot of affluent, suburban churches is dead-on accurate. I always hated that 'wealthiness is next to godliness' 'Republican party/homeschool' ethic. There's so much pride wrapped up in that stuff. Makes me ill.

That said...I don't think Emergent is the answer. What I'm feeling more and more is that Emergent is just a new set of conceits-a love of philosophy, leftist politics, and a theology that is more man-centered than God-centered. To the Emergent, Christianity is a story from which ethics are gleaned, rather than a life-saving proposition."

While informative, fair, well-reasoned, and well-written, Why We're Not Emergent will likely fail to turn many souls away from the emergent movement. Though aimed at individuals who see the old evangelical churches as out-of-touch and reactionary, this book will undoubtedly be seen by most emergents as, well, out-of-touch and reactionary. One gets the sense that DeYoung and Kluck wrote it more for themselves, at first, to determine exactly why they weren't on board with this movement. After all, as a pastor, DeYoung must feel the pressure to re-attract those young adults in rebellious drift away from substantive, Bible-based, Christian doctrine and Kluck admits that he, too, came close at times to leaving the old church for something fresh and exciting. Though to some it may, this should not take anything away from their message. Why We're Not Emergent is of enormous value in helping the "submergent" understand those who may have left evangelical waters entirely.