Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
23 of 25 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
"Churchless" Christianity?, July 19, 2009
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.
|
|
|
8 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Christ loves his bride - After reading this, you will too., August 10, 2009
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.
|
|
|
7 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
You don't like me if you don't like my wife, August 3, 2009
(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.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Kevin DeYoung
by Kevin DeYoung
by Ted Kluck
