"Why We're Not Emergent (by two guys who should be)" is a must-read book for developing an awareness of the direction of emergent spokespeople. Blending propositional and random writing styles, Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck present a forthright critique of the emergent radical drift toward denying the realities of hell and sin and substitutionary atonement and just about anything else having to do with the substantive good news of the Gospel. I would say that the epilogue (Listening to All the Churches of Revelati0n) by Kevin DeYoung is worth the price of the book. It should be read first and then read in its assigned place at the end.
Although the book is a critique of the emergent movement, it is not a diatribe. The writers are faithful in mentioning areas where God can use the movement to force Fundamental and Evangelical groups to do some soul searching. As DeYoung puts it: "...though our approach is critical, don't assume we dislike all things emergent. The long sentence above describes Ted and me in some ways too. But because this book is
Why We are Not Emergent and not
An Evaluation of the Emerging Church, we will not take much time to list what we appreciate about the movement, though we could." (p. 22)
The one frustration I had in reading the book has to do with that "long sentence above" to which the writer refers. That long sentence, under the heading "Are You Emergent?" (pp. 20-21) reveals in list form several things which, when taken together, pretty well identify someone who is a practicing emergent. DeYoung and Kluck are right on the mark as far as I can see. The frustration with the list is that there are several items which are very important to me as well. Forty years in Fundamental / Evangelical ministry have taught me that we tend to take lists in an all-or-nothing way. If someone embraces any part of the list he is suspect of embracing the whole. Therefore, with this review I feel the need to speak to some of the points which the reader (but not the authors) might riase as yellow flags concerning me as one of the Fundamental / Evangelical fellowship.
(1) They drink lattes in the afternoon. Actually, I prefer what I call a cafe-com-leite even though some insist that "latte" is the proper term. And, beyond that, I am more apt to drink one in the morning unless wanting to visit with a friend in a casual setting such as the local college-hang-out-coffee-shop which is owned and operated by someone not at all on the same page as I am in most cases.
(2) They are politically concerned about poverty, AIDS, CEO salaries, consumerism, racism, and oppression. Me,too (although maybe not as "politically concerned" since I am also concerned about politics itself). I should add that I am also concerned about abortion (which doesn't seem to be high on their list) AND about the fact that we in Fundamental / Evangelical circles are not heavily known for reaching out to the un-aborted un-wanted. I am also opposed to gay marriage (which is not an emergent strong point) AND annoyed by the fact that we in our circles seem to be limiting our discussion to the family relationship category rather than articulating a full-orbed biblical understanding of true, natural love.
(3) They loathe words like "linear," "propositional," and "rational." Thankfully, I don't loathe these words. In fact, I camp on them. However, I do think we can slip into linearism, propositionalism and rationalism which can cause us to divorce letter from spirit in the presentatin of truth. Maybe their loathing is meant by God to drive us to examine the next (related) feature.
(4) They spurn systematic theology and embrace narrative. Well, I like theology - both systematic and narrative. However, I have long thought and still think that one of our problems in the Fundamental / Evangelical community is a failure to present doctrine imaginatively. By that I do not mean a free-wheeling Picasso. I mean, searching the Scripture in its narratives as well as its propositions to "see" what various truth categories look like. Jesus did that marvelously in parables. He did not give a definition of "neighbor." He told a story which forced his hearers to "look" at the subject. The emergent repudiation of the atonement must be countered not only by restating the great propositional statements about propitiation, but by drawing word pictures which can help people embrace what it looks like. I contend that people are, at their core, imaginative thinkers. As we speak propositionally we must be careful to define our terms carefully and know how the listener might be "seeing" or "hearing" what we are saying. An ongoing debate between my wife and me illustrates this point. She cautious (and I do listen, really) about the use of the word "story." I say, by definition, that it is a legitimate word to use. She says, correctly, that to the ear of many people it refers to fantasy or fiction. Thus, when I speak of the "unfolding story" in Scripture, my hearers could be thinking I'm speaking about something fanciful when, in fact, I mean real events with a divinely overarching plot and meaning and destination.
(5) Like the emergent, I do like the imagery of church as a community that is relaitonal. I'm not so much into the tribal picture, though, unless I'm allowed to mean that there is some biblical truth to the assertion that "it takes a village" to do many of the things we would like to think we can do on our own on an isolated farm in the mountains. There is more to
koinonia than Sunday events and pot-luck suppers. Maybe God is using the emergents to put that thought onto the table of our thinking.
(6) I do not believe that "doctrine gets in the way of an interactive relationship with Jesus." However, I do believe that wrong conclusions based on unbalanced true doctrine can do exactly that.
I would recommend that one of the great features of "Why We Are Not Emergent" is the ability to make you think through your own thoughts. It is not the kind of book that lets you get away with declaring "everything about those people is wrong." Rather, it is the sort of book which clearly identifies their significant errors but presents enough of their overall views to strike some familiar ideas in your own belief system. When that happens you are forced to sit back and ask, "Why do I believe that and in what way am I different from those who profess to believe the same thing but have drawn drastically wrong conclusions in other areas?" It also gives you the freedom to conclude that your belief is biblical even though held by someone whose overall belief system is unbiblical.