Customer Reviews

Deep Church: A Third Way Beyond Emerging and Traditional

5 star:		(30)
4 star:		(14)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I have only read a few books with church in the title that were any good. Most of them read like religious versions of the marketing solutions for small businesses. In other words they were no help at all in my thinking about this crazy, messy and weirdly beautiful institution we call "the church."

If you add to the fact there is a raging battle going on in the western church about how to do/be/plant a church, the list of books worth reading actually becomes far narrower. Either the book is so irenic to the point of not daring to criticize anyone or anything in particular or the author simply writes off everyone not like him.

Enter Deep Church by Jim Belcher. Wait, no, lets back up. About, I don't know - 6 months ago, I think - I became friends on facebook with Jim Belcher. We had a number of mutual friends and seemed to have some similar sentiments/feelings/opinions on a number of things. Anyway, when I saw a blurb about his new book coming out with Tim Keller endorsing it, I pre-ordered it. You see, I have a rule that goes something like this: Order everything that Tim Keller endorses. Pretty safe rule. I also recommend touching his garments for church healing powers.

Now, enter Deep Church by Jim Belcher. Within 48 hours of receiving it, I finished it and filled it full of asterisks and underlinings and exclamation points. A breath of fresh air, it was easily the best book on the debates that are raging in the church today. So, what sets Deep Church apart from all others?

First, most books are arguing for either a `traditional' or `emerging' way of thinking about church life, Deep Church seeks to forge a `third way.' And this third way is not what you might think it is. It is not some Utopian pie in the sky, `can't we all just get along?' dream. What he does is criticize both groups where it is needed and celebrate what both groups bring to the table. What I appreciate the most about this was how he sympathized (as I and many others have) the questions of protest posed by the `emerging church' about the traditional church. The first 3 chapters are a great introduction about the debate, getting a handle on what the emerging church is and a description of `Mere Christianity' - those beliefs that all Christians everywhere and at all times have agreed on. In the next 7 chapters, he deals with 7 protests of the emerging church and he engages them well, celebrating the concerns they have and seeking to evaluate their answers. Why is this so valuable? Because in my gut I know they have raised some great points. And I want to learn from them without sacrificing `Mere Christianity.'

Second, Jim Belcher writes with real humility. This is important because most guys seem to write about the church with a certain bravado. It's the difference between "I've got all the answers" and "lets try this and see if this will work." His admission of frustrations and failures and difficulties was refreshing. Not merely for authenticity's sake but for the sake of saying, "Hey, I don't have it all together. But God does." His humility throughout the book makes for a very pleasant read.

Third, - and I have no idea how to label this reason for liking this book but - I actually marked this book up a good bit. I do this so rarely that it is a big deal when I do. I cannot keep a writing utensil near me to save my life so when I would read something I wanted to go back and read again or what I thought was noteworthy I would mark it - even if I had to get up out of my chair, step over my children begging me to play with them and go find one. Only those who rarely mark up books will get it.

Fourth, books on the church are not really known for emotionally moving the reader. This one did. I was moved to the point of tears more than once. Once because of the beauty of what I was reading and once because of the ugliness of my own lack of grace and charity and willingness to learn from those who are so different from me. What many may take for granted was very profound for me...

...the emerging church is passionate about the health of the church. They have serious problems with the traditional church and want to see changes. Since they are our brothers and sisters, we have a responsibility out of love, to take them seriously, to listen to them and to understand them accurately. (48)

It really struck me how little charity I show those I disagree with me, acting as if they want to hurt the church. Deep Church convicted me and emboldened me. And that seems to be the way of good books.

Last, the book is just very well written. Books about church life and practice written by pastors should have engaging stories. I mean, that is what is going on in the church on a huge level - people with their own story bumping up against other people with their story and all trying to find themselves in the Great Story of Redemption. To be honest, I had trouble putting this book down. I ignored my family during that 48 hours and when I finished I reintroduced myself, "Hello, I am your father and husband and I want to pastor a Deep Church."

How far is too far? Where in terms of theology, ecclesiology, worship, preaching and mission do we draw the line in the sand and say this is too far and has lost sight of orthodox or biblical Christianity. And with regards to ecclesiology, or worship, or contextualization, where the Bible is interpreted differently, by what criteria do we even being to decide that something is too far?

These are some of the issues that have been raised with regards to the Emerging Church movement. Criticisms and even charges of heresy have been leveled against Emergent leaders and their methods, while the emergent leaders accuse the traditionalists of being out of touch, irrelevant and stuck in the past.

Jim Belcher's new book, Deep Church, looks to steer a third way between the emergent movement and the traditionalist / reformed approach. Why a third way? According to Belcher there is good to be found in both positions. The birth of Emergent came from the desire for the church to be more engaged with our postmodern culture. They raise excellent questions at some of the irrelevance and detachment of the traditional church. Each chapter of Deep Church is an analysis, critique and response to seven `protests' of the emerging movement against the `traditional' Church; 1. Captivity to enlightenment rationalism, 2. A narrow view of salvation, 3. Belief before belonging, 4. Uncontextualized worship, 5. Ineffective preaching, 6. Weak ecclesiology & 7. Tribalism (i.e. unwilling to engage the culture). The traditional church in response claims to stand on 2000 years of historic Christianity which they feel the emergent movement is simply discarding. Of course the debate (or argument) that usually takes place between these two sides too often focuses on the extremes of each tradition, and making any unity or move towards each other very difficult.

Belcher writes clearly and with objectivity. He represents both sides with fairness acknowledging both the good and the bad. He also writes as someone who has traveled this journey and personally wrestled with the issues on both an intellectual and practical level. Neither is he writing from a position of here-say or assumption. Belcher has visited the churches, spoken with and has even becomes friends of many of the leading emergent figures.

Belcher's response in each chapter is his proposed third way and it is the core of the book. This is no symbolic attempt to mediate between the two sides. This is a very real, practical and reasoned proposal for being church. From my perspective the emerging church has been stuck in `critique' mode. Its only message being "the traditional church is dying". All the books I have read have not really moved the `conversation forward from critique to real action. The traditionalists have also been stuck in critique mode, offering no real response. Here, in Deep Church, Belcher offers a way forward - a real response.

What I love about the book is that unlike other recent books that have tackled the emergent movement, Belcher speaks as one who has a real foot in both camps. He sees the real issues that the emergent movement have raised, but he is not willing to accept the complete re-write of historic Christianity which some in emergent are moving towards. For Belcher the anchor, or the line in the sand for the emergent movement should be the authority of scripture and the traditional historic creeds and confessions of the ancient church. But that should not quench creativity in worship, relevant and exciting (but biblical) preaching and strong community which leads to a real and transformative commitment in Jesus Christ as savior.

For this reason Belcher's book is both timely and important.

I have commented (here & here ) on my own frustrations with the emergent movement. I have appreciated the questions they raise and have sympathized with their frustrations. I was involved with an emergent type church in the UK and I have even had a chapter published in a book edited by Spencer Burke here in the States. But I also feel that too often they cross the line of biblical Christianity.

Belcher's book thoroughly resonated with me and it is a book I would highly recommend and encourage people to read.

What sets Deep Church apart is that it explains the emerging church phenomenon without putting it in a box. Belcher allows the diversity of the movement speak for itself, and does an excellent job of dispelling some of the myths and mischaracterizations that have dogged the emerging church and its proponents.

Highlights for me included: 1) Belcher's call in Chapter 3 to find common ground in classic/orthodox Christianity (the Apostle's Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed) which, if applied, would dramatically reduce some of the name-calling and accusations of heresy that have been most unhelpful in the discussion between the emerging and traditional camps, 2) Belcher's fabulous treatment of postmodernism and postfoundationalism in Chapter 4, where he rightly explains that when talking about postmodernism, folks in the emerging church and the traditional church are using the same term to refer to two completely different things, and where he concludes that "a third way rejects classical foundationalism and hard postmodernism," and 3) Belcher's fair handling of the atonement issue in Chapter 6, in which he clarifies that most emergering church leaders "are not against atonement theories and justification, but want to see it balanced with the message of the kingdom of God." These are just a few examples of Belcher's remarkably balanced approach, which is such a breath of fresh air.

Of course, in a book like this, it is inevitable that those of us who tend to identify with one side or the other will nitpick some of the author's characterizations or claims. For example, I disagree with complementarian positions that limit the role of women in church leadership, but I don't think this puts me in the category of "revisionists" who are "open to questioning key evangelical doctrines on theology and culture," as Belcher asserts on page 46. I felt that occasionally, Belcher's Calvinism got in the way of his third way, (particularly in Chapter 6 on "gospel" and Chapter 10 on "culture"), but I am of course a bit oversensitive to that because of my general aversion to systematic theology, particularly Reformed Theology.

These are little things considering Belcher's ambitious goal of trying to both define and bridge the gap between the emerging church and the traditional church--which he does marvelously. I am deeply grateful for his fair treatment of the subject and his commitment to pursue unity and understanding within the Church. Blessed are the peacemakers!

Six and a half years ago I had finished my education at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY and was living in Lexington, KY, working as missionary to international students. I started to hear about something I know now as the "emerging church" (EC in this review).

At the time I was already concerned about how "locked in" traditional churches were to a programmatic mindset, a cold orthodoxy, professional pastoring. I was reading my Bible and seeing something different. I started reading books by people in or around the "emerging church conversation" and found the same hunger for community, authenticity, and church vitality. I started blogging on emerging issues and found a whole community of young SBC'rs who were trying to recover a healthy tradition as well as forge a way forward by healthy questioning of traditionalism.

Over the past 5 years I've been pastoring a traditional church in Northern IL with the intention of bringing the church to something different, and now that's best defined by Belcher's Deep Church.

-----

When I saw Deep Church by Jim Belcher was coming out, I had to get my hands on it. I too have been looking for "a third way beyond emerging and traditional." Without using those words, that's the place where I already considered myself to be. This book showed me exactly where I am on the map and why I'm there, how I got there, and why this is where the church needs to be.

The difficulty in discussing Deep Church is that I didn't merely read the book. I experienced it. It kept me up one night. It had me giddy on another. Rather than give a typical review, I want to give you four things that came to mind first when processing this helpful book. I'm still processing.

I should start by saying there are two main sections of the book: 1. How Jim Belcher took a journey in both the traditional and emerging church to get to the Deep Church, and 2. The Deep Church explained through the seven protests of the emerging church (issues of truth, evangelism, gospel, worship, preaching, ecclesiology & culture).

1. You had me at "hello" -- It only took about 10 minutes to know I was going to love this book. Belcher's story resonated with my own story in many ways, and my own longing as a pastor now. If you have a story somethign like mine, I think you will quickly attach to Deep Church. In chapter 1 Belcher wrote about his longing to discard the superficial and "develop geniune family" among Christians. He started a weekly meeting that grew to a couple hundred within a few years. These were 3-4 hour meetings of in depth discussion - and it wasn't a church plant.

It's easy to hold up remarkable examples and expect it to be the norm when they will never be. But I think Belcher is on to something, born out of a love for the gospel and sharpened by the dissatisfaction of the EC to the current state of evangelicalism. It's where I am.

2. Amazing analysis -- While I'm not an expert on the "emerging church, I don't think I'm going too far to say that this is probably the best analysis of it to date. Scot McKnight, who has spoken much on the EC, has a blurb on the back cover saying the same thing. I think Belcher gets Emergent/EC issues right, McLaren right, and several other EC voices right. He has not just read their books, but gives great detail from experiences talking with EC leaders and visiting their worship services. A great resource for all interested in the good and bad in the EC.

But Belcher isn't just an analyst-critic of the EC. He's living with a foot in the EC world and the traditional church world. He speaks to both with grace and restraint. Where there is true criticism, he goes to great lengths to explain how he gets there. Deep Church isn't just a guide toward a "third way," it's also an example of speaking from a truely "generous orthodoxy." He tries to understand first, and then offers critique.

3. The Well - Born out of Frost and Hirsch's The Shaping of Things to Come, it's the idea that what we need is a centered-set church. A bounded-set (traditional) church builds fences, much like a farm would for livestock. But for Belcher a better approach is a centered-set where a well is in the middle of a farm without fences, knowing that cattle will only stray so far because they are dependent upon clean water from the well. The Well for the church is Jesus Christ.

This is a key idea from the book, from the chapter Deep Truth. And it's crucial to the approach of Belcher to these very divisive issues, as well as to the "third way" he is describing. Though this idea isn't totally new to me, it has hit me afresh and affected my thinking about my church deeply. It works well with the conversation lately about being "gospel-centered."

4. Restrained application -- Far from a "how-to" book, Deep Church carefully threads the needle with practical advice. Often it's not merely advice, but rather a "how we do it" explanation of Belcher's church, which allows us to see the "third way" in a context rather than as an abstract. If you want a book about quick, superficial changes for your church so that you can baptize more people asap, look elsewhere. Belcher makes you think and rethink so that your conclusions will be reasoned and deeply rooted.

Conclusion -- I think the bottom line is that Deep Church is about the roots of the traditional church, the helpful questioning and critique of the emerging church, and better answers than many in the EC could deliver. You could say that Belcher (as one in the EC) finally found the answers to the EC's questions while staying thoroughly biblical and theological, solidly traditional and historical. These are the answers so many of us have been looking for and only finding in bits and pieces along the way. They aren't new answers. But they have never been explained better as they pertain to the emerging church and the traditional church.

This book needs to be read by those in or interested in the EC. It needs to be read by pastors in traditional churches who see the need for change. I think it will be very helpful for those who see "missional" as a key term for our churches, a key correction for the traditional church.

I highly recommend Deep Church to you.

If you desire a careful treatment of the central issues raised by the sometimes contentious debates between the advocates of the "emergent church" and the "traditional church" look no further than Deep Church. Jim Belcher has provided a carefully reasoned and sensitive "third way." The interesting thing about this book is that the "third way" is rooted in ancient Christianity. This ancient faith is robust enough to be lived and celebrated in our modern/postmodern mission context. Deep Church is just what Protestant Christians need if they are to engage their communities with the good news in fresh and effective ways.

I specifically listen to the diverse voices in the present church/mission discussion because I teach mission and evangelism. For this reason I have the joy of dialog with a wide array of leaders on an every day basis. I now happily recommend Deep Church to my students and peers. The author has done serious research yet he does not write as a researcher. He writes as a visionary thinker who loves the church and longs to see it become even more faithful to Christ. Understanding Four Views on Baptism (Counterpoints: Church Life)Understanding Four Views on the Lord's Supper (Counterpoints: Church Life)

This book is very well written, and shows deep reflection at many points. Jim Belcher describes both his personal journey and interaction with key leaders in three streams of the emerging church movement(s). Aptly summarizing the views and priorities of each, Belcher notes how each group interacts with the current generation and specifically postmodernism:

(1) Relevants seek to transform traditional church structures and forms to effectively communicate the gospel to our culture and thus effectively reach our postmodern generation.

(2) Reconstructionists seek to replace traditional institutionalism with organic New Testament principles; though they are not motivated by postmodernism, this more organic approach does resonate with the current generation because it explicitly relies on interactive relationships (every-member-functioning body) rather than institutional structures and hierarchical leadership.

(3) Revisionists, unlike the first two groups who uncritically hold to orthodox theology, seek to change the emphasis of the gospel message itself away from what they claim is an enlightenment-centric focus on transactional concepts like the atonement to a relational gospel which focuses on reconciliation.

Belcher then spends several chapters diving into various topics where his interactions with emerging church leaders shed light into Deep Truth, Deep Evangelism, Deep Gospel, Deep Worship, Deep Preaching, Deep Ecclesiology, and Deep Culture, drawing from the emerging church proponents that he sees having the most insight into the topic. In almost every chapter, I was impressed by Belcher's sincere interaction with various leaders, showing great respect and desire for understanding rather than charicature. Several of the church leaders he met with personally, re-reading their books and seeking clarification and feedback to make sure he got their perspectives right.

I appreciate his efforts to seek common ground in universal theological principles and practices among Christians, though his preference is clearly his own Reformed tradition, with a deep respect for the Great Tradition, not only the theology expressed in the ancient creeds but also the liturgy embraced in common by Catholic, Orthodox, and Reformed traditions among others.

Unfortunately, as another reviewer noted, this graciousness does not extend to Anabaptists and other simple church proponents like the Brethren; it is clear he simply does not relate. Thus we turn to the chapter that desperately needs rewritten.

I expected a chapter named "Deep Ecclesiology" to be among the most profound in a book titled "Deep Church", and was not surprised to see the author he chose to feature in this chapter was Frank Viola. Having just read Viola's sweeping treatise From Eternity to Here, on the church as the expression of God's eternal purpose, and Viola's numerous references to the metaphors in Scripture that form the basis of a profound ecclesiology, I read with anticipation. Boy was I disappointed. Belcher's primary interaction with the reconstructionist group was the reading of Pagan Christianity (a completely deconstructionist work, which says in its own text that it omits what the church should be), and a visit to a house church meeting. Since there are at least five or six different kinds of house churches, that's about as useful as visiting a Baptist church (once) and writing a chapter on all the Baptist denominations. Ignoring postive books like From Eternity to Here, Reimagining Church, Finding Organic Church, or the seminal themes of the reconstructionists (found in works like Ultimate Intention by Devern F. Fromke or The Normal Christian Life by Watchman Nee), Belcher posits this formulation that totally misses the point:

(Belcher's formula) Bible + Tradition + Mission = Deep Ecclesiology

It completely shocked me to read this formula. Why shocked? In every other chapter, Belcher sought common ground with the folks he was interacting with. But we know the reconstructionists reject Tradition (at least the post-first-century tradition Belcher is appealing to) out of hand. In this case, he put Viola and anyone else who rejects the liturgy of the Great Tradition in the same boat as the anabaptists, and completely dismisses them. I was expecting Jim Belcher to show the same respect and honor toward the reconstructionist group as he did the relevants and revisionists. To do this, he would interact with the four metaphors for "ekklesia" found in Scripture that are prominently featured in the ecclesiology of the reconstructionists:

(Reconstructionist-style formula) Body of Christ + Bride of Christ + Family of God + House of God = Deep Ecclesiology

It would be wonderful to see Belcher shine the light on these metaphors and truly interact with the reconstructionists on their terms. For example, each of these four are both Christ-centered and emphasize the nature of the church. Jesus is the head, the groom, the elder brother, and the chief cornerstone. The church is the ever-member-functioning body; the New Jerusalem made of gold, silver and precious stones that descends as a bride for her groom at the eternal wedding feast of the Lamb; a house, the dwelling place of God, built together as living stones from these same materials; and the brothers and sisters who share the same Father and the inheritance made possible by the firsborn Son. Viola and many others trace these themes from Genesis to Revelation, with prominent stops along the way in the gospel of John and the letters to the Ephesians and Colossians.

How could Belcher miss all this? I think he just didn't dig deep enough due to his own "Great Tradition" blinders.

The profound weakness of the Deep Ecclesiology chapter, however, while it leaves a gaping hole in the book, does not detract from the wonderful writing and insight found in the other chapters. I sincerely hope that there will be a second edition to this book, and that Jim Belcher takes the time to rewrite the Deep Ecclesiology chapter. I would certainly love to see him truly interact with the reconstructionists to the same degree he did the other two camps, pushing past the instinctive dismissal, and look for the common ground. I'm sure the result would be ... deep.

In full disclosure, this book was authored by a dear friend of mine, and the man who served as my Pastor for nearly seven years, Jim Belcher. I am very glad that Jim wrote this book, because it needed to be written, and there are not a lot of people out there who I believe could do what Jim has done. Let me scratch a bit deeper.

The "emerging" church has created a lot of discussion in recent years, mostly of a controversial nature. Some of the responses have been downright nasty, and others have been cogent, concerned, and appropriate. I would like to be able to provide a sort of "definition" of the movement, but I am unable to do so. Belcher is fair to point out that this is anything but a monolithic movement, and there appears to be a great deal of different shapes and sizes within it. Nonetheless, the approach Belcher takes is this: He commends the emerging church for the problems they identify within the traditional church, he maintains a need for the core orthodoxy of the traditional church in the meantime (relying heavily on the remarkable works of Tom Oden in this regard), and sets out to find a sort of "in between way" that maintains the historic faith in its epistemology, its theology, and its ecclesiology, yet manages to accomplish much of what the traditional church has often failed to accomplish in terms of discipleship, connectivity, and cultural outreach. He believes in gospel shalom, and sets out a vision for church that can pursue and even accomplish all of the above.

I really think this would have been a fine book even if all it was trying to do was lay out a constructive vision for "deep church" (he borrows this term and concept from C.S. Lewis, and later also uses Lewis's concept of "mere Christianity" in providing the core required tenets of orthodoxy; there are few people more reliable than C.S. Lewis that a believer can default to in defining important concepts - particularly these ones). This book happens to have its genesis in Jim's own history with the emerging church, and subsequent interaction with their leaders while simultaneously planting his own vision for church within a traditional denomination, but the book is really quite remarkable just as a positive demonstration of this church vision. He articulately shifts between critical analysis, positive theological work, and biographical narrative, using examples of this "deep church" vision from his own Redeemer church plant in Southern California. If pastors read this book just for the apologetic he offers of a liturgical church, a historical church, an orthodox church, and a relevant church, I believe they would benefit immensely.

But beyond that positive vision, Jim does get into the nitty-gritty of the emerging church leadership. And he does so with a remarkable amount of graciousness and humility. I am saying this as a compliment - for I believe Jim's demeanor makes possible some degree of correction, confrontation, clarification, and conversation with these folks. I confess that in reading Jim's treatment of much of their work, I found myself admitting that I could never respond with the graciousness that he was extending. Indeed, in several occassions, he actually spoke for these men, clarifying what they probably meant, instead of relying on their own black and white words. Usually, I see critical authors make a "straw man" argument by worsening their opponent's position - not improving it. Jim is "too kind". I trust his emerging friends are grateful for this.

Jim does not fail to call them out where they need to be called out. I was disappointed that he left in a footnote (as opposed to the meat of a chapter) a criticism from Scot McKnight of emerging leader, Brian McLaren, wherein he challenges McLaren's treatment of those who dare to ask tough theological questions. The reality is that McKnight in this footnote better mirrored by own feelings about Brian McLaren than anything I have read. McLaren is far nastier to his "fundamentalist" opponents than any traditional and orthodox Christian I have read have been to him (though some are close), and often the source of this contentiousness is the mere desire for clarity over what McLaren is actually saying. Jim does not say it in his book, and I am glad he didn't, but so much of the controversy in this dialogue has been caused by the immense confusion the emerging folks have created. They are not precise philosophically or theologically, and are actually rather proud of this when they are pushed on it. I feel more of an understanding of what drives them in terms of epistemology and ecclesiology from reading Jim's book than I have ever had reading their own books, articles, and blogs. (I also would like to add that Jim was extremely gracious in not taking to task the emerging leaders who have as of late used their pulpit and notoriety to promote a political leftism, far more extreme than any of the right-wing dogmatism they often attack; Jim avoids it altogether, and it helps him to keep the book on point. If I were writing this, I would not have been able to hold back in critiquing their rank hypocrisy on this subject; once again, Jim was the right guy to author this book).

At the end of the day, I am rather resolved (personally) that the emerging church does not have a lot to offer me. I need to see a far more respectful treatment of church history and creedal orthodoxy than I see there. But I do appreciate much of the "soft" emerging folks, and find the concept of "missional Christianity" to be important. Jim's book helps in so many ways here. I believe that much of the traditional church has been irreparably harmed by their love affair with modernity, and I am not sure that the emerging church's appropriate rejection of foundationalism (one that I share) can possibly make sense of their friendliness with the more insidious parts of postmodernism. Jim's evaluation of this is very useful.

It is good for a low-church guy like me to read this book. I live in a consistent cynicism about the usefulness of church within the Kingdom, and believe that the institution of church is more important to God than it is to me. Some day, more "traditional" churches might share a vision for cultural relevance, for relational discipleship, and for heartfelt worship. The various wars I have seen inside some traditional churches are more despicable and disconcerting than any of the intelelctually questionable teachings I have seen from the emerging church (yes, I would rather go to one of those emerging churches where they are sitting on a couch and doing "group preaching" than ever have to observe the things I have observed very up close and personal in my life again). But of course, I should not have to choose between those two things. There needs to be a generation of church leaders produced who value "deep church". This generation is not one of those. Celebrity pastors, entrepreneurial pastors, statist pastors, market-driven pastors, lazy pastors, insensitive pastors, out-of-touch pastors, and just plain bad pastors abound. Jim's book is a needed wake-up call that a third way exists. If the next generation is to value church more than this one does, I pray they will find it.

One of my personal yardsticks for measuring a book, for good or for ill, is the number of dogeared pages, underlined or highlighted passages. If I read a book and find nothing noteworthy to agree or disagree with, then I have wasted my time and my money. After finishing Jim Belcher's Deep Church, my copy is replete with dogears and underlining, most for positive reasons and as such meets my test for a solid, worthwhile book.

Jim takes on a difficult and frankly thankless job. He is not going to make many friends, especially in the traditional corners of the church (as evidenced by a hit piece "review" from 9 Marks, a ministry that ought to be more gracious). I am not expecting to find Deep Church on my seat next year at Together for the Gospel. It is however an absolutely vital conversation to have and one that is overdue. I just hope it is not too late.

First and foremost, I commend Jim for being gracious to those that the traditional and Reformed communities have been anything but gracious to for far too long. I appreciate that Jim is willing to use words that get you in trouble (missional, community), to read books written by Christians and talk to Christians who are given the stink eye from much of the church, to ask questions and come to conclusions that are not in line with the most rigid segments of the traditional church. Jim gives these concerns and questions a real hearing, not a passing dismissal and again for that I thank him. I have plenty of books from Reformed authors that hammer the emergent/emerging crowd with nary a thought as to whether their criticisms are valid.

Much of the book is structured around the concerns of the emergent church, the response of the traditional church and the proposed "third way", the "deep church" way. What I found to be unfortunate is that often the emergent argument was actually the one based more in Scripture and less in knee-jerk reactions and empty traditions. That tended to be a hallmark of the traditional camp, a camp that I find a great deal of common ground with. In far too many instances, the conservative traditionalists even among the Reformed are as reactionary as the most ardent fundamentalists railing against dancing and Pokémon cards.

I of course have some qualms. I found that a lot of the retained "Great Tradition" and other traditions that are based more in religion than Scripture to be misguided. He also favors the "ancient" rituals of the church: Reciting set prayers, liturgy, church officers, hierarchies. These traditions that stem from antiquity are not my cup of tea and I think until we unleash ourselves from these extra-Biblical traditions and the institution of the church we are going to struggle.

Another troubling aspect is how much of the book is about Jim, his church, his way. Over and over we get anecdotal stories from Jim's life and ministry (some of which are helpful) as well as "this is how we do it at Redeemer". In some places the book sounds more like a pitch to come join as members of Redeemer than it does an academic work about the "deep church" or it smacks of having discovered something heretofore unknown among the church which always rubs people the wrong way. I understand what he is saying and why he uses "real life" examples but I also think it opens him up, fairly or not, to charges of self-promotion. I am sure that was not the intent but it certainly comes across that way more than once.

I think the biggest fault of Deep Church is that it doesn't go far enough. It looks for a middle ground in-between two traditions and misses the best source of what the church should look like: the New Testament. Much of what the deep church model is based on is creeds, confessions, schools of thought and philosophy. All very valuable but instead of being primarily concerned with conformation to the Scriptures, Deep Church seeks consensus among two streams of Christian theology and philosophy. It doesn't strike me that Jim asks the obvious question: what if neither the traditional or emerging church is right? What if the third way is not a blend of traditional/emergent but instead is something completely different?

Overall, Deep Church falls short. That is not criticism but an observation. But it does so while taking a number of steps in the right direction. By opening this dialogue and asking these questions, Jim Belcher is going to pay a price among many of my fellow Reformed believers and he already has. In spite of that, he has courageously started a conversation that will hopefully spread. There are always going to be those who are looking for the next bogeyman, the next fight on both sides but for those who are in either camp and recognize that something is wrong with the way we "do church" (and something is grievously wrong) Deep Church might just be the spark to get conversation going. I hope that my fellow Reformed brothers will take the time to read this book and seriously consider the questions it raises and the concerns of our brothers who are emerging/emergent. They are not right about everything and their solutions are often off-base or even make things worse but at least they are willing to look beyond tradition and ask the hard, uncomfortable questions. Thanks to Jim Belcher for giving us a glimpse into this world that stays true to the Gospel without being snarky to those with whom we may disagree. This review sounds very negative but there is a great deal worthwhile in Deep Church and it is a book that needs to be read in the church. I would heartily recommend this book to anyone who loves the Body of Christ and wants to see the visible expression of it be more faithful.

Just when you thought the Emerging versus Traditional conversation had arrived at the point where everyone was safely nestled in their own camps and set in their ways, a Presbyterian pastor comes on the scene and challenges our tacit approval of evangelical fragmentation.

In Deep Church: A Third Way Beyond Emerging and Traditional (IVP, 2009), Jim Belcher proposes a "third way" between Emerging and Traditional. Deep Church is for evangelicals who resonate with much of the Emerging Church's critique of contemporary evangelicalism, and yet have misgivings about some of the proposed solutions of Emerging advocates. Using the term "deep church" from a 1952 letter written by C.S. Lewis, Jim proposes a way forward that focuses on the strengths of Traditional and Emerging churches.

The book is as much narrative as theological analysis. Jim tells the story of his early involvement in the Emerging conversation. As he evaluates the Emerging critique, he visits actual churches. Far from being an armchair critic, Jim sets out to witness what the Emerging Church is like "on the ground."

Relying on Ed Stetzer's division of the Emerging Church into Relevants, Reconstructionists and Revisionists, Jim then considers the validity of Emerging concerns regarding contemporary evangelicalism. In a parenthetical statement near the beginning of the book, he sets the tone of discussion by saying, "I believe that even when I disagree with others, I can still learn from them." (36)

The central thrust of Deep Church is a call for unity around the central tenets of the faith. Jim seeks to ground our unity in the central confessions of ancient Christianity:

"We are not ashamed of our tradition; we embrace it and practice it. But at the same time we desire and promote the broader unity of the church." (65)

Jim's view has postmodern sensibility, and yet he steps back from fully embracing postmodern philosophy. He critiques Emerging leaders for "jumping on the postmodern bandwagon too quickly." He sees problems with the idea that the community's relational hermeneutic should be the final criterion for judging right from wrong. He writes:

"Apart from revelation, there is nothing to hold a particular tradition, community or history accountable. There is no prophetic voice." (83)

Jim also evaluates the Emerging emphasis on bringing people into relationship with the church before they actually believe. In the Emerging mindset, belonging precedes believing - even on mission trips! Jim carefully considers the Traditional church's criticism of this idea. In the end, he advocates a nuanced view that portrays the church's proclamation of the gospel as a well. The well attracts people closer to conversion. But at some point, Jim believes there must be an inside-outside boundary.

The chapter on the "deep gospel" is important. He agrees with Emerging leaders that the traditional understanding of the gospel has been reduced to individual salvation. But Jim ably exposes the reductionism in the Emerging view as well:

"Brian McLaren's view of the kingdom, which is supposed to be so liberating, tends toward legalism. Without God's atoning grace, the message of the kingdom sounds like law. and this is, I believe, why so many of my college friends dropped out of Christianity. They could not pull it off." (119)

Regarding worship, Jim points us back to the ancient church:

"Only the living tradition of the fourth and fifth centuries, passed on through the ages... can help us contextualize the gospel in our worship without it becoming syncretistic or ossified over time." (134)

Regarding preaching, Jim refuses to pit biblical narrative against systematic theology. He writes:

"The pastors at Redeemer preach sermons rooted in the Bible - both the drama of salvation from each of the Testaments and the wonderful doctrines of Christianity." (139)

Deep Church is one of the best books to "emerge" about the Emerging Church. I found myself nodding my head in agreement with most of Jim's critique and proposed solutions. And yet, I have a few misgivings of my own.

First, as a Baptist, I disagree with the idea of setting such a "low bar for membership." Jim's church does not require members to subscribe to anything that is outside the bounds of Nicene Christianity:

"Let me provide an example. To become a member of Redeemer Church you must be a Nicene Christian, committed to `living as becomes a follower of Christ' and be willing to submit to the community. What about views on baptism? The Lord's Supper? Politics? The end times? The anti-Christ? Although important and although we hold views on each of them, holding different views on these topics will not keep you from the Well of Redeemer and belonging to our church." (158)

I agree that some of the above examples should not be a hindrance to membership. But setting the bar this low appears very invidualistic.

If some in the congregation believe in believer's baptism by immersion and others believe in baptizing infants, what will take place?

If some believe that women can and should be elders or pastors and others disagree, what will happen?

If some believe in speaking in tongues during worship and others do not, how will that be handled?

My question is this: Is it possible to have a high bar for local church membership (meaning, ask for a certain level of doctrinal unity on some secondary issues) and yet still demonstrate significant appreciation for other churches and denominations that disagree? I think so. I share a certain level of unity with Jim around the central tenets of the gospel and I agree with his "centered-set hermeneutic."

Regarding fellowship, I can cooperate with Jim as a Nicene Christian. Regarding local church membership, I belong to a Baptist church, which involves an additional level of unity on other issues. Can I still be a Nicene Christian and a convictional Baptist? Can I still be an advocate of "deep church" and have high bars for local church membership? I think so.

On another note, I wonder what the reasons are for Jim's emphasis on the fourth and fifth centuries. Jim advocates a return to our roots, to the pre-pragmatic era of Christianity. I am glad to see the emphasis on our heritage.

But even as Jim admits "there is not a golden time to return to" (136), it appears that the fourth and fifth centuries serve as a quasi-Golden Age for the book. If we are going back so far, why stop at the fourth century? Why not return to the first?

I like the Robert Webber-influenced "Ancient-Future" emphasis in this book, but I wish that Jim would have made a case for why it is appropriate that we return to the 400's. Why not return to the 16th century? Or the 900's? It appears to me that our post-Christian society is becoming more and more like the world before Constantine. I need more reasons for accepting that the Christendom era Jim describes is the most relevant to our day and age.

Overall, Deep Church is a must-read for any pastor or church planter. Jim offers a proposal filled with gentle hope. If you have felt like you are caught in the crossfire between the Emerging and Traditional camps, you will enjoy insights of Jim Belcher and his hope-filled proposal for a united, stronger evangelicalism.

If you have a heart for the global church,and are interested in what is going on in today's Christian culture,then you will love this work. Jim Belcher has literally traveled the world,seeking for this third way of "doing church." From beginning to end,the reader will travel alongside the author in this journey,this determination to find Christ and His people in unity,worshipping in one heart,one spirit,as Christians have been called to do. You will not put this book down before learning the important aspects of what these two paths,the emerging and traditional church, are leading to. Is there a balance? Is there a third way?