Customer Reviews

Why We Love the Church: In Praise of Institutions and Organized Religion

5 star:		(24)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Some time ago a dear friend and fellow ministry partner sat down with me and strongly yet lovingly urged me (and my wife) to go back to church. Even though he intimately understood why we left our traditional church, my friend sincerely believes that it is good for us and for the church that we be connected to a local body of believers. Since that time, we have been praying about and occasionally looking for a church that we believe fits the biblical qualifications of what a church is and does.

A variety of "good" reasons have come up why we think that we don't need to be involved in a church to be the church. In some ways these reasons justify us being "churchless" Christians (Note the equivocation of "church" here. In this post, context should make it evident how "church" is used; primarily "church" means "traditional church."). Many of our reasons are addressed in Why We Love the Church and, after reading a review by my good friend Louis at Baker Books, I decided to read the book by DeYoung and Kluck. To say the least, I was surprisingly encouraged and challenged.

This book is a candid, balanced, biblically thoughtful, historically informed, and pastorally sensitive corrective to radical Christianity that says "NO!" to traditional church. Honestly, many of my ideas and feelings about traditional church have been not only addressed but adjusted at several points.

At first I was reluctant to begin this book because of past hurts and pains with traditional church.
Lord knows we have some deep pains (as you may) with churches. Not 20 pages in to the book and it seemed this would be just an apologetic for "church as usual." Statements like "I might as well have a basement without a house or a head without a body as despise the wife my Savior loves" (p. 19) made me uneasy, to say the least. After all, isn't "despise" strong language? Must every gathering of believers be tied to or connected with a traditional church model lest they be accused of "despising" the church?

Thankfully, after moving into Chapter 1 it became apparent that Kevin DeYoung's analysis (I'll reserve comments to his chapters only) has most to do with the church being the champion of Gospel proclamation, rather than a mere change agent of society couched in biblical terms like "missional." His call for the church's faithfulness to believe, rely on, accurately proclaim and live out, pray for, train up families in, and trust God for the Gospel is hardly a point that I (or any responsible Christian) could argue. DeYoung insists that "proclaiming this message of redemption is the main mission of the church, even more than partnering with God to change the world." Spot on, Kevin...spot on!! This book does not discourage transformational efforts in our communities and around the globe; only they need to be under the priority of Gospel proclamation. Even though not being in a traditional church for some time, my wife and I have always maintained: If we do not put the central message of Christianity at the heart of every activity, then all other efforts carry little weight at best and certainly have zero eternal value. After finishing this chapter, I had to keep reading.

Chapter 3 speaks to the relevance (or irrelevance) of the church. Church is boring, outdated, too big, abusive, inauthentic (fill in your own nomenclature). DeYoung challenges these charges while admitting some truth to them where appropriate. The audience here is individual churchless Christians asking that we consider what is really being rejected: the church or the faith; one institution (traditional church) for another (homeless shelters); genuine joy in the Lord if it does not share a cynicism toward church; an opportunity for growth by sticking with an imperfect church? Although my wife and I clearly have not nor could ever leave the faith because of an imperfect expression of it, I had to prayerfully consider the other questions.

"The Historical: One Holy Catholic Church," Chapter 5 is a pointed response to some of the churchless books (which I've purposefully not read because my own cynicism has been sufficiently caustic at times) charging the traditional model with "pagan" forms of doing church. One of the net deductions of DeYoung's research (and that of well-known scholar Ben Witherington, see here, here, here, here, and here) is that whether surrounded by four walls with paid staff or neighborhood gatherings and home Bible studies, we cannot escape pattern and structure. Thus in some sense, churchless Christianity may be cutting off its rebellious nose to spite its radical face.

The last section of this chapter, "A Sorry Bunch of Christians," has some keen psychological insights into how traditional-church-sucks types enjoy apologizing for the sins of the church rather than sharing in the Body's burden as a family. This is worth considerable reflection and shows a great deal of maturity from the rather young DeYoung pastor of only 32 years.

Chapter 7 hit me the hardest. "The Church of Diminishing Definition" lays down solid responses to "churchless Christianity." Rather than a "minimalist ecclesiology," DeYoung argues for a "sharpened understanding" to the distinction between invisible and visible church. Admittedly, the visible church is an imperfect reflection of the invisible church, but "instead of using the invisible-visible distinction as a way to avoid church commitment, church-leavers would see the distinction as an impetus for patience with the [visible] church" (p. 163). As such, "we'd be more like the Reformers who never used the distinction to undermine the place of the organized church, but to emphasize the spiritual essence of God's gathered people...[which] needs to be made visible." Other important contributions in this chapter include:

"Though individual believers are indwelt with the Holy Spirit as temples of God, only the church constitutes the body of Christ."

"...to say the church is the people of God is not the same as saying that wherever the people of God are there you have a church."

"The church manifests itself in churches. And churches do certain things and are marked by certain characteristics."

"The `revolutionary' understanding of the church is right in what it affirms....but wrong in all that it leaves out."

"The Bible simply does not teach a leaderless church."

"We cannot throw out the pastoral office just because we prefer a `flat structure' or just because some pastors are goons."

"The priesthood of all believers does not negate the need for authority structures in the church." (p. 184, footnote 36)

Perhaps the strongest statement here, from a senior pastor of a mid-sized church no less, and one that clearly shows a striving for objectivity and balance is:

"If house churches have good preaching, good leadership, good theology, intentional discipleship, appropriate structures, rich worship, and administer the sacraments and practice church discipline, then I don't care if they meet in my basement. House churces aren't the only way to do church, but done right, they are a way" (p. 179).

The epilogue, written by DeYoung, basically makes an appeal to the Reformed (and in my estimation thoroughly biblical) principle of total depravity. At first I wondered how he would tie in the first point of Calvinism with ecclesiology, but within a few pages it made perfect sense to me. In a word, the church is full of "sinning saints and sinning sinners." Consequently, we should keep our idealism in check and recognize that the Body of Christ, though redeemed for all eternity, is a work in progress. In fact, this is a common motif running throughout the entire book and clearly colors the authors' view on the nature and function of the church. In a candid moment, DeYoung remarks:

"This book is not meant to be an apology for nothing but more of the same; rather, it's a plea for realism. Things are not the worst they've ever been. The end of the church in America is not nigh upon us. There are grave failings in the church, in the evangelical church as much as anywhere. We need better preaching, better theology, more love for Jesus, more involvement in our neighborhoods, more evangelism, more crossscultural missions, more generosity, more biblical literacy, less worldliness, less trend-tracing, and better discipleship...But in the midst of our struggles, we need to guard against wild hyperbole. We need to exercise more caution before we pronounce the end of the church as we know it. We need a little more humility before we announce everything must change. And we need more wisdom before we reinvent the church for yet another time-let alone before we pitch her to the crub altogether."

I especially appreciated the balance brought by this book. Where the church has failed, the authors make clear their agreement and lament her failures. Where the church has succeeded, they shine a bright light on the Bride of Christ showing all her radiant beauty. Perhaps one of the most important principles that I came away with was this: It is only as the church of Christ that it can properly discharge her mission for Christ in proclaiming the Gospel. Her identity defines her function.

Thanks to DeYoung and Kluck for sharing their burden for the Bride of Christ.

It's trendy these days for Christians to claim to love Jesus and want community with other believers, and at the same time ridicule, insult, and abandon Christ's bride, the church. In response to these inside attacks from the likes of Leonard Sweet, William P. Young, and George Barna, authors Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck (of Why We're Not Emergent fame) seek to defend the traditional ideas and practices of the church in their newest book, Why We Love The Church: In Praise of Institutions and Organized Religion.

In the introduction to the book, we learn they are writing to 4 different groups: The Committed (those faithfully attending and involved in a church), The Disgruntled (those who are part of local church, but becoming increasingly frustrated), The Waffling (the uninvolved and quietly dissatisfied), and The Disconnected (Christians or ex-Christians who have already left the church). Obviously the message towards each of these groups is different. Ultimately, though, the book is intended to acknowledge the church's faults while kindling a new love for our Savior's bride. Yes, there are improvements that need to be made, and much can be learned from why some people are leaving the church, but ultimately, the church is where Christians exist. If you love Christ, you will love what Christ loves, and Christ loves the church.

As with Why We're Not Emergent, the authors take turns writing chapters, DeYoung (the pastor) handling the more theological and historical chapters, and Kluck (the sports-writing layman) writing the more observational ones. Much of DeYoung's chapters consist of summarizing the ideas of "leavers" like Barna and Young. I really appreciate DeYoung's ability to remain irenic most of the time. He has an ability to disagree with his "opponents" in this book without taking cheap shots at them and gives ample space to communicating the opposing positions fully. He is also very skilled at articulating orthodox doctrine in a fresh way. I think his best chapter was the epilogue where he discusses original sin. The church has all kinds of problems, he argues, because it is full of sinners. Isn't that kind of the point? How can we expect the church to be perfect when Christ hasn't returned and we're all still sinners? He quickly points out that this doesn't excuse all the problems, but it should help explain some of them and help us be patient with the church's flaws.

My favorite chapters from Kluck were chapter 8, where he discusses life in his church. I could see many characteristics of my own church, some good, some bad, but that's life together in the body of Christ. Additionally, Kluck's short letter to his son really hit me as a new father. It made me love my church and kindled a determination to communicate that love to my children.

Whichever of the 4 groups you currently find yourself in, you should read this book. It's honest. It doesn't gloss over the fact that churches mess up. Some do downright strange and ridiculous things sometimes. The book does, however, present biblical, historical, and practical evidence that the church is where the Christian life happens, for better or for worse. Christ loves his bride, and you will love her more after reading this book as well.

The back cover reads, "These days, spirituality is hot; religion is not." The last decade has seen countless books published by those who have left the church, and who encourage others to do so as well. Many who have grown up in church are disenchanted, disillusioned, and otherwise disinterested in attending church services.

In response to the dearth of anti-church literature that has hit the shelves in recent years, Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck have written this book to four groups of readers: The Committed (faithfully attending and involved), The Disgruntled (committed but frustrated), The Waffling (attending but uninvolved and dissatisfied), and The Disconnected (those who have left the church in their quest for God). DeYoung is a pastor in East Lansing, MI, and Kluck is an author who is a member of DeYoung's congregation. The two men alternate chapters, approaching topics from different angles. Both are gifted writers, balancing theological insight with wit and humor throughout the book.

The book addresses four primary reasons given by church-leavers, responding at each point with reasons why the visible, institutional, organized church is still the appropriate place for the believer. These four reasons are "Missiological" (the church isn't accomplishing its mission), "Personal" (I've been hurt by Christians or by the church), "Historical" (real or perceived crimes committed by the church throughout history), and "Theological" (different definitions of what the church should be).

Neither author denies that many of the criticisms are valid, and that there are some very real problems which must be addressed; they simply argue that running away from the church is not the solution, and caution against many unseen problems with the critiques themselves. The church is not perfect, but it's also not nearly as bad as most of its detractors believe it to be.

In fact, one of the primary reasons people get so fed up with the church is that they have unrealistic and unbiblical expectations of what it should be able to accomplish. We have a tendency to have the expectation of a perfection unattainable by those who Luther called simul iustus et peccator -- at the same time justified and sinner. The Bible is clear that one day Christ's church will be perfected, and there will be no more war, disease, death, or any of the other effects of the Fall, but it is also clear that this will only happen when Christ returns. Until then, the church is populated by sinning sinners, who will make mistakes and fail to live up to the standard set by our Lord. However, the church is also the chosen vehicle by which Christ's kingdom is announced to the world.

DeYoung writes:

"The fact of the matter is we are not going to 'transform the face of planet Earth to a place of justice, peace and equity, a place without suffering.' It's no coincidence that disillusionment is such a big theme in the church-leaving literature. Many of these passionate, well-intentioned youngish church-leavers have a vision for the world that is so unlike anything promised on this side of heaven that they can't help but feel disappointed and angry with the church for not getting the world where they think it could go."

The best part of the book, in my opinion, is its epilogue, titled "Toward a Theology of Plodding Visionaries." Here DeYoung posits that what is most lacking in today's churches -- and most responsible for our poor understanding of the nature and role of the church -- is a proper comprehension of the doctrine of original sin. The modern evangelical tendency to shy away from teaching about sin and man's inherent sinfulness has led to a generation with unrealistic expectations about Christians' individual and corporate ability to change the world. When these expectations go unfulfilled, cynicism and disenchantment toward the church often result.

What we need instead, as DeYoung rightly states, are "plodding visionaries": humble, grace-filled believers with a biblical understanding of both the limits and the possibilities of the church and of individual Christians, who live lives of "long obedience in the same direction." Far from being boring and insignificant, the lives of such visionaries are marked by the joy of their salvation and exultation in God's glory. They realize the immense privilege it is to be vessels of mercy; a part of the Body of Christ, his beloved bride, the church.

In summary, this is an excellent book, and one which has helped me to overcome some of my personal frustrations with the church. I pray that many more would have a renewed love for the church as they come to see afresh the way God's glory is manifested in the church, and to see the irony in the arguments of those who claim to be followers of Jesus but will not follow him in love for his bride. As the book concludes: "Don't give up on church. The New Testament knows nothing of churchless Christianity. The invisible church is for invisible Christians. The visible church is for you and me."

"Now to him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen." ~ Ephesians 3:20-21

This book had me underlining things all over the place. Full of great quotes. However, it never seemed to really set forth the positive case for Church in great detail ... or even average detail. I think a much better book at the same readership level is God's New Community: New Testament Patterns for Today's Church. Beynon's book is straight ahead Bible exposition. Maybe book could be read in conjunction to get the American and British slants on how to encourage fidelity to the local church.

I haven't written a formal book review in quite a while, but felt compelled to concerning the book "Why We Love The Church: In Praise of Institutions and Organized Religion" by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck. The editorial description reads as follows:

Why We Love the Church presents the case for loving the local church. It paints a picture of the local church in all its biblical and real life guts, gaffes, and glory in an effort to edify local congregations and entice the disaffected back to the fold. It also provides a solid biblical mandate to love and be part of the body of Christ and counteract the "leave church" books that trumpet rebellion and individual felt needs.

I would be curious to know just how many of those the authors label "disaffected" who have read the book have been "enticed back into the fold." When it comes to "institutional church" within the sense that most Westerners understand it, there is no doubt that God works through it. However, many times the good is enemy of the best, and I believe the organic church model is the best of the good-versus-best scenario. Now that you know where I'm coming from, I'll get onto the book review and some of the issues I had with the way the authors were posing their arguments.

First, some general observations about the book and the authors... DeYoung and Kluck's previous contribution to Christian literary works was "Why We're Not Emergent". I didn't read that book, but basically it's a book about how the emergent movement is wrong and they're right. They followed up that work with the current one about how those who seek Jesus outside of the "four walls" are wrong and that their way is right. I will give the authors credit in that they actually talk about this in the book and how they were reluctant to do two books like that back-to-back, but they wrote them nonetheless. I understand where they are coming from in their desire to write the book, but unfortunately they write off the faith of others as somehow weaker than their own because of the context in which they worship.

In addition to the write off of faith outside the institution, it would seem the authors think they have it all figured out on the type of person who they would label a "leaver." The authors begin the introduction with a Mad Lib that breaks down all the reasons why people "leave the church." (at least, of course, all of the reasons they think someone would leave). I'm sure there are some who would fit the bill for their Mad Lib, but that's a shoe that doesn't fit me, and as such I felt it was a tad smarmy and arrogant to think that they had everyone, including me, pegged. I think they would have been better off not trying to fit everyone into their neat little categories. That does a good job of keeping those agreeing with you buying your books so they can continue to feel like part of the club, but it's a poor way to start a book by insinuating to the readers that you already have them figured out.

Before I get into some of the specifics of the book, I'd like to make one last general observation in their taking to task of the book "Pagan Christianity" by Frank Viola and George Barna. Many of their arguments fall to pieces when viewed through the light of Viola's follow-up work, "Reimagining Church," which was released in 2008. I can't help but believe it is no matter of coincidence that the authors chose to make their arguments based on an incomplete picture of organic church (at least in terms of their references to Viola's work) so as to make their arguments appear more valid and strong. Pagan Christianity explores the roots of contemporary practices, whereas Reimagining Church gives a fuller of picture of the vibrancy of life as the Church within an organic setting in today's world. In a way, it was as if the authors were saying, "Look at this rotten apple," even though they were pointing to an orange.

Getting into the main chapters of the book, I'll first comment on some points of agreement with the authors. I'm not a fan of the "Gospel According to _____________" type books -- be it according to Starbucks, The Lord of The Rings, Star Wars, etc. So on that point we can agree. I also don't think two guys golfing on a Sunday morning talking about football is "church" (not that there is anything wrong with golfing or talking about football). We do however need to "be the church" in those places and be about Kingdom business seeking to do what we "see the Father doing." I also agree with the nonsense of apologizing for something done a year ago, hundreds, or thousands of years ago if I didn't do it. Whether it's the crusades or some other type of oppression I wasn't involved in, there is no point in me apologizing for it.

The first few chapters seem to address some surface-type issues that, in their minds, are the reasons why people leave the institutional church. Again, I had a really hard time connecting with these little minor issues they were insisting were the reasons people were "walking out on the church." It seemed through much of the book they were trying to put a shoe on my foot that just didn't fit. I can't imagine that I'm the only one who feels that way who has read the book. The problem is that I doubt the authors would have an issue with a person leaving one church building to start attending a service at another church building. For some reason they seem very attached to brick and mortar with a cross stuck on top, but feel that real vibrant faith cannot take place within a tight-knit community that, say, meets in someone's home.

My biggest beef with the book probably comes in chapter 5 with their break down of 1 Corinthians 14. This is proof-texting at its finest and completely ignores the surrounding context, or even the completion of Paul's thoughts concerning the gatherings and everyone being an active participant. When I hit this point of the book I almost stopped reading it. I have little patience for manipulation of the text in such gross manner. There was proof-texting in other areas of the book as well, but this was just beyond belief. I had a really hard time taking anything the authors said seriously after that point. Perhaps they weren't expecting people to actually look up the biblical references they were citing.

Chapter 7 of the book would likely have been sent to the shredder if the authors had attempted to take on the positions in Viola's Reimagining Church. There's really not a whole lot worth commenting on as their view of organic church is flawed to such an extent that I simply don't have the time to break it all down. My suggestion is to pick up a copy of Reimagining Church, read it, and then re-read Why We Love The Church (especially chapter 7) and see if their arguments really hold any water. I don't think they do. It is also interesting to note that the authors did not visit one organic church, and they didn't interview anyone they would classify as a "church leaver." It seems like that is something you would want to do when writing a book of this nature.

Overall, I agreed with the authors on some level, but certainly nowhere near the majority of the time. I found their arguments to be heavily based on proof-texting, which in my opinion is worse than straw-man arguments, and is something they stated they wished to avoid. Out of five stars I give it one.

If you like a book about books, you will probably like this one. It is written primarily as a response to the churchless church movement. Much has been written by both camps sharing why one should leave church or why one should stay. Church is big business so there is much at stake. Having read Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola and George Barna (awesome book...didn't agree with all of it but much of it rang true), I was very eager to read an opposing point of view.

I appreciated the honesty Ted shared of his struggle to like church. I laughed at his critic of bad Christian movies. But as one who has chosen to leave church I was disappointed that no time was taken to interview actual people who have left.

While many excellent arguments were made why one cannot love Jesus and hate his bride, there was an overemphasis on the way the term "church" was used. Clearly the author believes that "church" refers to the modern way we meet here in the west. He takes great pains to suggest that the house church movement is second best as many Chinese believers would love to have the freedom to meet in large free gatherings but they meet in homes because they are persecuted.

Much of the reasons the author suggests we leave church is because we hate it, can't stand those who go, think its boring or antiquated etc. I'm sure those are true for some people but none were true for me. This book would have been much more well rounded if he could have talked to some who have left, but instead he likes to refute the examples of "church leavers" he cherry picks out of other books. I was unsure whether he had an original thought as there were over 250 citations to other books (almost 70 in one chapter). As one who has left the church, I can say for sure that I love the Lord, love his people and seek to know him more. My husband and I did not make this decision lightly and still don't. Please don't discount the Holy Spirit's proding in the life of believers outside the church. He still speaks to us outside the walls and guides us and directs us through His word.

The author talks out of both sides of his mouth...on one side saying that many pastors preach little of the word and out of the other chastising those who have left to stay. Of course there are many pastors who love the Lord and seek to teach the Word faithfully...but there are those outside the institution too.

The author writes a touching note to his son at the end expressing his wish that he stay in church despite its flaws but it was for our children that we decided to leave. Many evangelical churches including the one we attended feel the need to entertain our children to Jesus. If he is enough...HE IS ENOUGH!! Do we need the Wii in Sunday school, finger printing to drop them off, strangers for teachers, insecurity, candy to make them behave. (yes we homeschool too) As I scan the Bible, I find that it is parents who are commanded to teach and train their children...and we weigh that calling very heavily in teaching in training them at home...what do they absorb from the way we do things? I'm sure we won't get it all exactly right but when we point them to the Word, we can rest assured that it will teach them long after they leave our home.

Anyway, this has gotten far to long but if you read this book, I would challenge you do so with open eyes. If you don't know someone who has left the church, start sharing your struggles about church with those you encounter and you will meet them...I have. Or go hang out at Starbucks one Sunday and see who you meet.

Kevin DeYoung's & Ted Kluck's book on the church is a fantastic read for anyone dealing with the church, from those committed to those who have left. Addressing many of the criticisms of the church and justifications for leaving, this work is well researched and written, yet easy to read and understand. They make a solid case for a realistic view of the church, as well as why we should stay and continue on as "plodding visionaries". Definitely worth the read.

This book will challenge the church-leavers and the church-critics to reconsider their claims of living the Christian life without the church, or at least the biblical definition of the church. More importantly, I believe this book will give you a refreshed perspective, re-envisioned purpose, and revived appreciation for your local church. This was an enjoyable read...theological, entertaining, and real.

(If I were more strict, the book was probably four stars, but I gave it five anyway.)

_____________

If you claimed to have a great "relationship" with a friend but you constantly mocked and belittled his wife, whom he loved, would you really be a good friend? If you tried to justify your dislike of his wife by pointing out that she has warts and is ugly, could you possibly expect a punch in the nose, if not a kick to the cojones? Well, if you're a Christian and you treat the church with similar derision, how is this scenario any different than what you do to the bride of Christ? Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck try to show that there really isn't any difference in, Why We Love The Chruch: In Praise of Institutions and Organized Religion.

Recently, in the best popular-level Christian book of 2008 (so I say), Michael Horton wrote of a Christless Christianity. DeYoung and Kluck (D&K), authors of Why We're Not Emergent, by Two Guys Who Should Be, write here of a Churchless Christianity.

The book is mainly a critique of the arguments for why the church is "uncool," or why it needs to be redone (meet at Starbucks with some Christian friends and discuss the "spirituality" of The Matrix). Thus, the title is a little deceptive in that the book is not so much a positive argument for why the authors love the church, though that is definitely included, but I guess even the negative functions as positively as that kick to the cajones would in relaying how much your friend loved his wife whom you mocked.

D&K take the approach Eminem did in the final battle in the movie 8 Mile. In that movie B-rabbit owned up to all his faults and thus took the steam right out of Papa Doc's attempt to cut B-rabbit down. They own up to many of the various critiques the "church sucks" crowd and the "redo church according to a Starbucks model" crowd have offered. They also point out that many of the criticisms are quite over exaggerated. And they also argue that the answer isn't to leave the church. Besides, given the fall and man's sinful state, as well as the already/not yet tension, there will never be a perfect church before Christ returns, so the attempts at redo's will certainly face problems of their own (and quite apart from the fact that when the remodeling is done, you're not left with the church anymore).

Some of the anti-church (or anti-church-as-we-know-it, aka the redoers) arguments addressed by D&K are complaints like: (1) the early church didn't do things like we do today, (2) the church isn't a building, it's wherever two or three are gathered in Jesus' name and talk about "spiritual" things, (3) the current way of doing church will result in the removal of the church from the American landscape, (4) church is boring, Christians are lame and closed-minded, and the church doesn't care about (insert personal vision), (5) the church is dead or too commercialized, the preaching is boring or typical self-help psychology, (6) house churches are better, or "the" way to "do" church, (7) modern Christin church is re-heated paganism, etc. I think they do an all around good job responding to these objections. For those who disagree, they at least point out where we have problems with the "anti-church" (i.e., church-as-we-know-it) arguments and so hopefully the disgruntled can offer responses meeting these objections head-on so that the debate can progress.

As I said, D&K are the first to admit some valid criticisms, owning up to various problems and bad consequences from a Christianity that tried to please the boomers with consumerism, self-help, and malls converted to mega churches to please the suburban corporate executives in their BMWs. But they also offer correctives to some of the over exaggerated criticisms, or, if called for, outright refutations. In the defenses and critiques you can see why they love the church, and why you should too.

The best parts of the book are when D&K admit the flaw but argue for why none of this means we should leave the church. In doing so they set forth what I would call a biblically-informed view of the church that Jesus established. They also call for the "church critics" to inspect their own hearts. A lot of church-loathing stems, and I would say this is right given my experiences on both ends, from a lot of self-righteousness. Yeah, the church has problems, but so do you. The answer isn't to ditch it or deconstruct it. The church isn't supposed to be hip, edgy, cool, relevant, or even sexy, if we measure what counts as those things according to culture. That unbelievers don't like the church doesn't necessarily mean the church has the problem. Why would an unconverted soul particularly like preaching done right? Sure, they wouldn't mind "a conversation" with a "conversation facilitator" where there is no dogma proclaimed and no call to repentance. The church isn't culture. It isn't part of what is fading and passing away. Of what is temporary. It is where the Lord meets his people and feeds them by word and sacrament. Where what Jesus did on behalf of his people is proclaimed and tired sinners are called to trust and rest in what Christ has done for them. These truths are dogmatically proclaimed by the herald of the king. In the city of man things are quite different. Church is the weekly rest stop for pilgrims passing through a land in which they are foreigners. They are feed and replenished by hearing of what was accomplished on their behalf so that their working could cease. Along with the preaching of the Word and delivery of the Sacraments, discipline is also a vital function of the church (ala 1. Cor. 5, etc). The elders are charged by God to look over the souls of their sheep

In my review of D&K's other book, I wished there would have been some more rigorous argumentation and analysis of the arguments of the church critics. Same here. Besides a more rigorous critique and analysis as counter arguments, some more historical arguments could have been brought to bear than were used. For example, some of the church critiques tried to claim that the "extraordinary rise" of Christianity in the first three centuries was because there were no churches with steeples yet (i.e., church buildings), just house churches. D&K were right to point out the flaws in even this assumption, but, to go further, as sociologist Rodney Stark has pointing out in (for example) The Rise of Christianity, there was really nothing "miraculous" about the growth of Christianity in terms of mere numbers. In fact, he shows that the growth rate is quite common, and is almost the same as other major religious movements (e.g., Mormonism). Now, if anything, Mormonism has some awesome church buildings, and some regular ones too. So "massive growth" in terms of numbers can't really be said to be do to the absence of formal church-on-the-corner type structures. I would also like to have seen some additional questions asked to the "church is where ever a couple of Christians are gathered and talking about 'spiritual' things." If me and a couple Christian buddies go to a Muslim mosque, is church at the mosque? How about if we go to a church of Satan in San Francisco? How about a husband and wife going upstairs to make love. If they talk about something spiritual are having sex in church? I must admit, that would be a handy codeword to keep the kids guessing. "Hey honey, want to go upstairs and do church after the kids go to bed?" These may be absurd questions, but answering them will help in showing just how the anti-church-as-we-know-it crowd demarcate church from non-church. If any of these are not church, then church is something more than just "a couple of believers tripping out together about how Neo spelled backwards is 'One' and this is an image of Christ, or something."

I would recommend this book to all Christians. The church is the bride of Christ. We need to quit thinking we're too cool for school and that we're going to start the next "big thing", especially when this takes place apart from and without the main means Christ has given his people: Word and sacrament. We need to love the church with all of her faults. This doesn't mean we have to be satisfied with the status quo, but we don't leave the church as an answer, especially when much of the problem comes from our own rebellious hearts. To reject Christ's bride because of the hypocrites (or whatever) is to reject Christ. This puts you opposed to Christ, same side as (unrepentant) hypocrisy, actually. Read this book and become an advocate of institutionalized and organized religion. Forget the pious sounding platitudes about being "spiritual but not religious." Forget the absurd claims of "loving Christ but not the church." That's like saying you love me but hate my wife. If you do, you don't love me, regardless of what warped thinking tells you that you do.

So, the rebel annoyance of church leavers have written a lot of books about what is wrong with the traditional church and why people are leaving, and after engaging their ideological adversaries of the emergent variety in their previous book, Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck haul out the big guns and start firing away at all variety of church leavers with this book. Or, should I say, all variety of books about leaving the church. In short, Kevin DeYoung has read a lot of books about what is wrong with the traditional church, and he has written a book about what's right about it by hitting back at the books he's read. This is more than anything else a book about books.

One thing that struck me as I was formulating this review is that upon finishing the book I did not remember a single account of either author actually conversing with a Christian who had left a traditional church. I scanned through the book again to make sure. There is an account in chapter 4 -- by Kluck I assume -- who had a blogosphere discussion with an athiest, but there seemed to be no discussions with mature Christians who had left the traditional church to perhaps learn first hand why they did. (Of course, in Kevin DeYoung's world, "mature Christian" and "left the traditional Church" probably can't describe the same person.)

So, I must assume that nobody has ever become disgruntled with Kevin DeYoung's church and left (in which case he should write a book about how his church has accomplished that) or that Pastor DeYoung finds it easier to sit and read books about why people leave churches than to actually go and find out first hand. After all, getting out that church directory and calling people who have left (assuming you've even noticed that they're gone) might actually take some time away from attending conferences and writing books.

This book would be much more appropriately titled "Why People who don't love Institutions and Organized Religion are Wrong and We are Right", because that's what almost all of this book is about. The chapter that explicitely describes how to "love the church" (meaning Pastor DeYoung's kind of church) starts on page 187 and is all of ten pages long, or less than 5% of the book.

And, this chapter almost makes the entire book a parody of itself. First, DeYoung shares his vision of his "year of jubilee" and says "You may wonder why someone who makes a chunk of his living writing Christian books would suggest a year without buying, sellling..." And I thought, how about a year of Real World for professional Christians? How about a year of Pastor DeYoung doing a job that requires him to so something unpleasant, marginally dishonest, messy, tedius, or risky to life and limb over and over and over while working and being supervised by non-believers? Just an idea. I wouldn't mind taking a year off to attend a few Christian conferences and write a pop-Christian book.

One of the reasons I don't belong to a traditional church is that I got tired of being asked for large chunks of money to pay professional Christians to go to conferences and write books (pay their way while they persue more money making opportunities) while those professionals never bothered to call me up and ask me how things were going for me.

He describes "surviving" the first few events in his morning worship service, and then why he loves his church. He loves his church because he knows what his church believes and affirms; he likes the sincerety of his church's praise team; his small group; a couple he likes; a person he likes; "mentoring"; structure, elders, and deacons; a lack of happy endings; community; and preaching. That's all great, but so much of it happens not because of but rather in spite of organized religion! It's the stuff us ordinary sheep get in return for suffering through all the ritual and ceremony. It's the stuff that happens by accident before and after the mandatory "corporate worship".

Now, I was going to give this book one star because it does not deliver on what it's title promises. It's really not a "why I love" book, but rather "what's wrong with you if you don't love" book. However, I will say that I appreciate DeYoung bashing some of the things I like to see bashed. He takes pages to bash The Gospel According to Starbucks. (That was funny to me because I did it first, and my review is still the number one review for that book here.)

DeYoung also bashes Christians who apologize for church sins that they really had nothing to do with. I totally agree with him on the subject of "false apology syndrome". To me, apologizing for something you know you had nothing to do with is a form of narcissism. It's false humility plain and simple. I also like the way DeYoung defends the church in history with regard the flat earth, the slave trade, and the Crusades.

But then of course, I got the completely predictable proof-texting exercise which shows that traditional church practices are right there in the New Testament and are therefore always right. On page 179, DeYoung writes "Later in 1 Corinthians 16 we read instructions for setting aside a collection 'on the first day of every week', suggesting that the church met for services of worship every Sunday." Yes, wherever you see anything in the New Testament that looks like something that might happen in a traditional church on Sunday morning, it's a proof of "worship service" on Sunday. It might also "suggest" that after a meeting on the Sabbath, after the sun went down and the Sabbath ended (handling money on the Sabbath was forbidden I understand), that believers put aside money each week until Paul arrived to take their gift to help the poor in Jerusalem. And I don't even want to get into what DeYoung writes on page 126, where DeYoung engages in the also predictable exercise of reading his traditions into the scriptures. Tell me, how many recorded baptisms in the New Tesatament occured during a "worship service"?

Now, in closing, I'll add a bunch more stuff.

On page 57 DeYoung writes, "Those of us who aren't ready to chuck centuries of worth of church history, and years of unglamorous but God-glorifying growth in the name of revolution." Yes, but even DeYoung's church was started by one who was likely thought of as a revolutionary in his time. There's narcissistic revolution and godly revolution, and I suppose discernment is required to know which is which. And, by the way, I don't want to chuck centuries of church history. I wish I'd learned more church history in church. What I would like to "chuck" are practices that are centuries old and might have been useful in their time, but perhaps aren't the best way to do things now.

Finally, on page 171 DeYoung writes, "But a church that does not assemble regularly for corporate worship is not a church. Worship services are not peripheral to the life of the church." No doubt why the term "worship service" appears nowhere in the New Testament. One of the hallmarks to me of institutional religion is that it's the stuff that's NOWHERE in the New Testament that's the essential stuff.

Then DeYoung goes on to write, "Our gathering for worship is an exercise in covenant renewal, a weekly celebration of the resurrection, and a foretaste of the heavenly banquet to come." Again no scripture, just an assertion that Sunday at Traditional Church is "covenant renewal" time. Really? Does my convenant with God expire every Sunday and need renewal at a traditional church worship service? There's the arrogance of institutional religion. It claims to manage God's covenant with the believer. I've seen enough, and no doubt written enough for now.