Customer Reviews

The Church in Emerging Culture: Five Perspectives

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(7)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I picked up this book because I've read a lot about Brian McLaren and the emergent church, but I haven't read much actually written by this group. This book seemed like a good place to start, as it collects thoughts from both McLaren and Sweet, and D.A. Carson references it a few times in Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church: Understanding a Movement and Its Implications. The basic set-up is that Sweet hosts a gathering of five people with a variety of perspectives on what the church should look like in contemporary culture. The nature of the conversation is kind of an emergent church parlor trick, and Sweet's introduction is heavily weighted toward praising the virtues of a church that is willing to create new methods and messages, but other views were presented with fairness and respect, I think.

The format, though, is what put me off and convinced me to give up on the book. I will paraphrase it here:

Introduction - SWEET: I am going to babble on for a while with tortured metaphors and flowery language that reveals a certain paralyzing intellectual insecurity. No joke, I am going to describe gardens and glens and parks and meadows with dragons with theological stings in their tails.

Conversation 1 - CROUCH: So, there's postmodernism (MCLAREN: I need to jump in every three or four sentences to write a paragraph or two about my thoughts. I disagree with your definition of postmodernism, as you mean it to say "Everything I don't like today," while I think it should mean "Everything I DO like today, except where that ties me to an argument I don't want to support."), and it's like the Mall of America. But if churches would just take the sacraments more seriously (MATHEWES-GREEN: This is the part where I just can't restrain myself from sharing a humorous observation. Not something that would actually make you laugh, more like the kind of "Aren't we humorous" observation that is popular on NPR. Oh, and I am frequently disappointed that people don't take the Orthodox Church into consideration when discussing the church as a whole in United States society.)(MCMANUS: Hey man, I really like you, I do. I think you're totally wrong on a lot of things, like your assumption that appreciation of sacraments is the magical cure for everything that ails the church, but I really care for you.)(HORTON: I'm Reformed! My comments don't really connect to anything you've written, but I want you to know I'm REFO-O-O-O-RMED!)(MCLAREN: This is another one of those points in the discussion where I am going to be infuriatingly correct. Crouch makes so many generalizations that it is easy for me to accurately point them out. This will certainly frustrate a reader who is not inclined to agree with me as a matter of principle. And no, I don't think Sweet's editorial position has anything to do with me being the one in position to hit every softball that Crouch lobs.), then we would be just fine (MCLAREN: Please, allow me to share a few sentences about what I think the terms "just fine" should mean. I like to share.).

ME: I'm giving up on this book.

Two comments have already been made, but I would like to reiterate. The light gray, italicized, 6 pt font used for interjections by other authors during an essay is hard to read. McLaren talks way too much, especially when he says the same thing over and over and takes EVERYTHING personally. He thinks his point of view is the only one worth having, and seems rather arrogant in his intellect.
Having said the few negatives, it is overall a good read. I would love to hear a more detailed view of what each author truly believes church should be like (which I know most of them have been published and anyone could read what they've written elsewhere). It also seems that the only real discrepancies are in their view of what "postmodernism" really is. As far as the actual workings of church, they could probably find a lot of common ground. But, they give very little actual advice on what church should be like.
Overall, it is an interesting book full of interesting ideas about the current culture. Leonard Sweet's introduction must be read to truly understand the rest of the book, but it gets a little too flowery at times.

Here are six individuals, actually five participants and one moderator/editor who tackle between themselves the topic of what does Christ do in changing, emerging cultures.

As reviewers have pointed out, salient to this dialogue is the method exhibited of each of five providing essay, then other four comment as it seems at will. The essayist than at the end responds to this sprinkled comments.

Of course, one of my confession would lean towards Horton, who certainly wins the day with his comments seeking return to text and history, rather than inventiveness and questioning always from our cultural arrogance stance.

Useful to see contrasts. Too much of McLaren. Would like to seen more "orthodox" participants in line of Horton.

Andy Crouch. Skeptical of postmodernism, Arminian, (but curiously) open to the New Perspective of Paul & Law, seeks recovery of baptism and eucharist as the enduring means of grace. "Postmodernism is encroaching consumer culture which we must overcome via service and sacraments".

Michael Horton. Reformed, dismissive of postmodernism as a determinant of Christian thinking, critical of 'low-church' theology, believes that justification by faith is Scripture's key question. "Postmodernism is the next bad thing in secular modernism which we must resist with truth and tradition".

Brian McLaren. Emergent, path-finder for a storied, multi-layered, 'refreshed' Gospel centered in Christ. "Postmodernism is the new world in which we must embody and communicate God's message."

Frederica Mathewes-Green. Eastern Orthodox, practical, down-to-earth in a mystical kind of way, offers a relational kind of atonement theology. Postmodernism is irrelevant to our role as God's healers and questioners."

Erwin Raphael McManus. Metropolitan, multi-cultural, urban jungle orientation, pitching an all-out-for-Jesus, never-give-up, all-it-can-be church. "Postmodernism is a radical God-starved jungle we must love and serve!"

The Church in Emerging Culture: Five Perspectives - a book examining different views on the relation between church, world, gospel and discipleship, in no particular order.

After a good introduction from Leonard Sweet (which some say was worth the price of the book alone - I'd agree, if the price was lowered...), Crouch and Horton locked horns from the start with McLaren on the issue of what postmodernity/ism is and much space was spent clearing the misunderstandings surrounding the word (McLaren even claimed Crouch was paying 'rhetorical hardball'). Crouch virtually ties postmodernism to consumer culture and Horton can't seem to take his eyes off postmodernism's negatives (labelling it 'most-modernism' given the impossibility of there truly being a radical break with the supposed modern past).

Crouch is non-Reformed evangelicalism at its 'safest' i.e. neither too liberal to earn Horton's wrath or too stiff to have his books shunned by pro-emerging folk. McLaren, as one might expect, took the postmodernism challenge best to both Horton and Crouch with his creatively worded 'yes-but' subversive poking at their (largely traditional) strongholds.

It's clear, though, that - unless Crouch and Horton don't mind rethinking their ingrained definitions (let alone value-judgments) of postmodernism - a lot of work still needs to be done to even get pomo emergent and 'modern' conservative evangelicals on the same page. To really 'connect' with people like McLaren, McManus, etc., folks like Horton/Crouch have to empathise far beyond what their present suspicions and arms'-length repudiation of postmodernity are allowing them. Criticism and the use of what's "tried and true", undoubtedly the favorite tool of theologians, isn't going to be very helpful here.

Naturally, Horton isn't pleased at the slightest shift away from established Reformed doctrine. He continuously red-flags (what he sees to be) false dichotomies and liberal theology by the others (especially McLaren and McManus). Horton's write-up, IMO, embodies precisely what many are frustrated about in the church : People are exploring new directions, asking new questions, even seeking new experiences but not only are the responses by conservatives not very different from decades ago, it seems like one could reprimanded for not thinking traditionally(!).

If you've not read McLaren before, his essay should be a good first blush with his thinking (although maybe 'questioning' could be a better word). Via questions and reflections, McLaren came to (tentatively, I'm sure) conclude that the Gospel is narrative-formed, multi-layered, cumulative, performative, catalytic i.e. so much more than what tradition and churches have extolled it to be (hence, the annoyance many have with church). Typically emergent, McLaren counsels a spirit of inquiry, continuous seeking, asking, trial-and-error and rethinking as a way of proclaiming a Christ-centered Gospel in ever-changing situations.

In the midst of the Horton vs. McLaren encounters, Mathewes-Green and McManus were more or less cheer-leaders, questioners and one-line provocateurs (especially the former).

Interestingly enough, I found Mathewes-Green's write-up to be the most relaxing and inspirational. Hers was a good break, done in a subversive Q&A format, from the standard 'pop-academic cum evangelical' style of the first three. I'll never forget her line which went, "What might real rebellion look like? Standing outside an abortion clinic on a cold Saturday morning wearing really uncool sneakers and an uncool cardigan, praying."

McManus' essay read more like an inspirational for church growth and ministry and less a theological for-or-against towards postmodernity. Nevertheless, it's clear he's on the left of McLaren with statements like, "In modern times, Scripture have been demeaned into God's comprehensive encyclopedia...we have moved from a missiological hermeneutic to a theological hermeneutic and have lost the power of the Scriptures in the transition."

When all is said, though, this is a book whose gist I find hard to "grasp" and say I've truly understood. The novel format - where comments and questions from the co-authors are inserted within a presenter's essay - was both boon, as it depicted a 'real' conversation, and bane, as it was distracting. Tip: IGNORE the addendums until you've finished reading each section on its own.

Read Crouch and Horton for the best in time-tested theology and if you want some material for a largely cerebral "Intro to Postmodernism" lecture. Read McLaren and you could be quietly inspired to do something new, although you could have more questions than answers. Read Mathewes-Green and you'll want to pray. Read McManus and you feel like jump-starting the next urban crusade.

With such a spectrum of slants and priorities, this book is both a mindtrip and a minefield for learning - you'll learn a lot, but you may not be sure where to step next: Welcome to the new church/world(?)

If you're new to the postmodernism question, then this book isn't for you. Better to start someplace else. And if you been looking at postmodernism for a while now, you've probably already read other, more extensive works by the authors of this volume, so you don't need to read this book either. So basically, there's no good reason to read this book.

And if you were going to read it, you would have a hard time because of the way its laid out design-wise. Being postmodern and all, Zondervan tried to design the inside of this book as "with-it" as they could. Unfortunately, while I enjoy postmodern book covers, when that same style is applied to the insides of a book it can make for some very tedious reading. Much of the text is printed as a light shade of gray using an italic font, which, as any graphic designer reading this review will tell you, is a big no-no. It just makes for hard reading.

Oh, and future editions of this work should edit out Fredica Mathewes-Green's attemps at humorous commentary throughout Horton's piece.

Cheers.

This book is not your usual book discussing some topic or idea within Christianity where a single author puts forward a point or idea and the reader is left to interact only with that one point. This work asks five writers to discuss how Christianity can reach out to present culture in the West (modern, postmodern, ultramodern, hypermodern or what-have-you) and engage it. Each author comes from a very different perspective and thus offers different ideas and critiques of what should be done, what will work and what may not work.

What makes this book special, however, is that the other contributors have been allowed to insert comments into each essay. The author of the essay is them allowed a "final word" to address those comments. This creates a dialogue for the reader to see and engage with intellectually. Often, one of the other contributors offered a comment or criticism that I hadn't thought of that really helped me in my process of critically thinking through the issues at hand. I then got to see how the author of the essay responded. The book's very unique approach really allowed me to better work through the issues presented and I applaud the editor and contributors for having the courage, respect and humility to enter into the dialogue with those who don't agree with their perspectives. The result is a discussion that I found truly enriching.

I was intrigued by this book given the diversity of views and capability of the authors. The primary questions listed on the back cover were pivotal: "What should the church look like today?", "What should be the focus of its message?", "How should it present that message?" These are profoundly important questions, and I was disappointed to see that they were not questions well addressed in this book. Instead some of the key ideas in response to these questions were: a need to recover baptism and eucharist and enduring means of grace (Crouch), a cry to return back to well established Reformed doctrines (Horton - solid though those doctrines may be), and some other ideas further 'out there' (McLaren). The writing was far too often unnecessarily dense, cherishing cleverness over clarity, loquacity over lucidity. There was also a terrible formatting choice that rendered a significant fraction of the book completely illegible - the use of 6-pt light gray font to intersperse comments by other the authors outside of their own sections.

There were two high spots in the book, earning the two-stars in this review. Leonard Sweet's introduction was outstanding, with a thought provoking discussion of the nature of interaction between Christ and Culture, painting the picture of a garden, park, glen and meadow. It's the most interesting section in the book. The other high point for me was the presentation by McManus. On relevance: "To become relevant is to catch up with the time in history you were intended to serve. Relevance is not about conformity; it is about clarity and connectedness." On the role of the church: "The church is in the truest sense a biblical community when we incarnate the presence of Christ, reflect the character of God, and open the eyes of the world to the reality of God evident in all of creation. Like creation, the church is here to reflect God's glory, and like Christ, we are here to bring the world to its Creator." On the power source of our mission: "The power of the gospel is the result of a person - Jesus Christ - not a message. The gospel is an event to be proclaimed, not a doctrine to be preserved." And in his wrap up: "The issue of the relationship of the church to culture must not remain in the realm of theory. Our condition is too desperate for that." (The feeling of too much of the rest of the book was the opposite, dwelling too much on theory and opinion.)

While some people will find this an engaging book, for me it's a distinct 'pass' - the book fell short of what it could have been, but if you get a chance to read the introduction or the section by McManus that would be time well spent.

I completely agree with the review entitled "pass". The layout of this book makes it very difficult to understand or track with.

I took a class on Christianity and the Post-modern World at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (Charlotte, NC) and I was most excited about reading this book because of the folks participating in the conversation. Placing practitioners like Erwin McManus and Brain McLauren in the same room with with thinkers like Andy Crouch and Leonard Sweet should make for very interesting dialog. On top of that you introduce an Oxford trained, reformed theologian like Mike Horton and a former NPR commentator who has converted to Eastern Orthodoxy in Frederica Matthewes-Green. Sadly the book didn't deliver like I thought it would. It would have been better to have the audio or video of their conversation. They seem to talk past each other and spend the majority of their time critiquing each others points rather than putting forward any clear perspectives as the title implied they would.

I was really impressed with this book. For some reason, I have not really heard it talked about or seen it advertised very much. I ordered it not knowing much about it and have been truly impressed.

The book is sort of a modern day reflection of the classic book Christ and Culture. The book looks at different ways of addressing the issues the emerging is facing:
1. preserving message, preserving methods
2. preserving message, evolving methods
3. evolving message, preserving methods
4. evolving message, evolving methods

Definatly check this one out. The author's don't always agree on what postmodernism is or how we should treat it.

The Church in Emerging Culture was generally unremarkable. Each of the five essays contained thought-provoking ideas, but overall they lacked coherence. The points brought out by one author were so unrelated to the points brought out by the next that the reason that any two essays were collected together was a mystery to me. The format of the book was a mixed bag as well. Comments by other authors inserted directly into the essay seriously broke the flow, even though it was fun to see the "immediate" reactions of other authors. All of the authors, except maybe McManus, made much stronger points in their responses to others' essays than they made in their own.

I was relatively unmoved by the first four essays, but I was pleasantly surprised by McManus, with whom I was unfamiliar before reading this. My theology lies more along the lines of Horowitz (I was appreciative of his comments to the other essays), but I thought that McManus's essay really addressed the issue at hand. He made some powerful statements ranging from affirmation of our unambiguous knowledge of God to practical evangelical issues like the need to change the passions of people, not simply their beliefs. His essay was clearly the crème de la crème and the only one that I think really addressed the relationship between the Church and culture.