"Reimagining Christianity"

One of the common threads among almost all Emerging Church books is ambiguity. And this is to their benefit. If anyone criticizes them they can always say that they were understood, taken out of context, or the critic has failed to fully grasp what the author was trying to say. Clever. But empty. It is easy to grow a movement by saying nothing. It is difficult to sustain a movement by holding to nothing.

But Alan Jones is less ambiguous. I have read a lot of Emergent books, blogs, articles, tweets, forums, podcasts, etc. and I have not found a book as clear and honest as Jones' "Reimagining Christianity: Reconnect Your Spirit Without Disconnecting Your Mind." Although, like all Emergents, Jones will hate the label, but what he offers in these pages is nothing short of postmodern liberalism.

I do not intend on giving a full review by summarizing the entire book. But I want to give a few examples that support my case. First, Jones does not consider Christianity as the sole source for truth. On the one hand, this is true. Every other religion is evidence of God's general revelation and common grace to all men. However, Jones takes it farther than that. Jones, like other Emergents, seem to want to blend various religious traditions, especially Buddhism, with Christianity. What we are left with is a mystic form of Christianity that looks nothing like authentic, undiluted Christianity.

Here are a few examples:

I think of the many versions of Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism now playing in the world and I wonder: Why label? Why ask is it Christian, Muslim, Buddhist? Why not ask simply: Is it true? Diversity of belief and practice have existed from the beginning, at least in Christianity. Wilken continues, 'There is no original Christian faith, no native language, no definitive statement of the meaning of Christ for all times.' (33)

The test of dogma is in the character and life it builds. I suppose there would be few objections to hoping that human beings would be more Christ-like, and it wouldn't hurt if the human family embodied more of the spirit of the compassionate Buddha. If we think of Christianity as a story rather than as an argument, we might avoid the trap of spiritual-empire-building and allow other traditions to be in conversation without own. (144)

As spiritual pilgrims in a wide-open world, some of us have not only learned to trust people on paths other than our own but also have discovered that we cannot go forward on our journey without their help. The central images of Christianity elicit a spirit of hospitality and openness. The pregnancy of new possibilities, the vulnerability of suffering love, the free gift of communion - none of these images bullies or coerces. Each invites conversation. Christ and Buddha are not antithetical. They are not at cross-purposes. Neither are they identical. The man on the cross and the princely contemplative are different images telling different stories. But they are not at war. They can be in conversation. There is grace in both.

Buddha has brought many back home to Christ, and Buddhism enables many to go on calling themselves Christians because the form of Christianity they experienced earlier in their lives had become a suffocating tomb. (146-147)

The honest truth of such statements is: you cannot be a Christian and believe this. That might sound intolerant, but truth is by its definition intolerant. Jones, if he were honest, would have a hard time reconciling these statements with repetitive statements regarding other religions in both the Old and New Testaments. I find it interesting that Jones has more negative to say about Christianity than about Buddhism.

Secondly, Jones strongly dislikes literal interpretations of the Bible. For example

I believe the Bible and the creeds but not literally, and I am no atheist. I love the tradition and am nurtured by it. I have a great devotion to Mary the Mother of God but am agnostic about her literal virginity - or, to put it bluntly, I couldn't care less about it. It's all right by me if people believe it literally as long as they get the point that it turns your idea of God upside down . . . Literalism cripples the imagination because it cannot fathom that something could be true on one level and not on another: true as metaphor and teaching but not rue literally. (31)

I haven't mentioned Mary's virginity (perpetual or otherwise). Nor have I taken on the Roman Catholic doctrines of the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption . . . While these doctrines (or better, devotions) can be occasions of fruitful meditation, they are, on the whole, distractions and allow people to miss the point of Mary's true role in the story. She reveals eh awesome humility and availability of God. For my part, I won't allow those who insist on a literal interpretations of these myths and doctrines to deprive me of my devotion to her. Was she literally a virgin? I don't know. I do know that in the old stories and commentaries about her, virginity was often a code word for absolute dedication. Christ, in this regard, was even referred to as the archvirgin. But much of the emphasis on virginity arose from a negative and destructive view of sexuality. So I doubt very much whether Mary was literally a virgin, but I know many who sincerely believe that she was. (175)

I find that treating the Bible literally kills its ability to probe me with disturbing questions. Literalism kills argument, and what's great about the Bible ist hat it invites dispute and conversation. The ancient rabbis went in for endless interprtation. That's why I can believe it could be the Word of God. Its meaning is elusive and leads to more and more questions. The philosopher Nietzsche described the Hebrew Bible as the best book in the world. It had this distinction because it is not just a system of worship and beliefs. the Bible is great because it is in constant argument with itself. (202-203)

That last quote is interesting. The Bible could be the Word of God. Well, who decides that? In the end, I do. Furthermore, note his reference to Nietzsche. Once some one kills God, I'm not interesting in knowing what he thinks about the Bible.

But the main criticism of Jones' treatment of taking the Bible literally is in the argument itself. Isn't it interesting that Jones doesn't take doctrines like the Virgin Birth or predestination literally, but he does take the doctrines of God's love, the commands to love one's neighbor as themselves, or to pray for those who despise us literally. Maybe God's love isn't literally true, maybe it is poetry that really means something else.

Finally, Jones' understanding of the cross and the gospel are skewed. He writes:

Are there parts of the Christian language and vocabulary that should be revised or even abandoned? The Roman Catholic writer James Carroll certainly thinks so. He believes that we have made the sacred mistake of putting the cross at the center of Christianity in the wrong way. Carroll insists that Catholics must not only 'reverently and silently' remove the cross from Auschwitz but, far more fundamentally, must remove the cross from the center of Christianity. The Church's fixation on the death of Jesus as the universal saving act must end, and the place of the cross must be reimagined in Christian faith. Why? Because of the cult of suffering and the vindictive God behind it.

Such writing disturbs our inherited certainties and, for some, seems to mean the total dismantling of traditional Christianity. It also invites us to learn a new language. Many Christians have come to see that the very foundational documents of Christianity are polluted . . . (132)

The other thread of just criticism addresses the suggestion implicit in the cross that Jesus' sacrifice was to appease an angry God. Penal substitution was the name of this vile doctrine. I don't doubt for one moment the power of sin and evil in the world or the power of sacrificial love as their antidote and the peculiar power of the cross as sign of forgiveness and restoration, but making God vengeful, all in the name of justice, has left thousands of souls deeply wounded and lost to the Church forever.

What does the image of the cross mean to me? It is a sign of the necessary crucifixion of ideologies in the face of concrete human experience - the crucifixion of power plays, the crucifixion of a god we think we can conceptually control. It also is a sign of humanity's need to find someone to blame for its ills. When we suffer or are threatened, we look for scapegoats. (168)

With these statements, Jones is not a Christian. It is impossible to be a Christian apart from a proper understanding of the cross. Though many have found other inherent meanings of the cross in additional to penal substitution, one cannot deny that It was for the purpose of substitution on which Christ bore the penalty due us all that He bore the cross. Jones can repaint the cross into something else all he wants, but he is not left with a masterpiece. He is not left with the gospel.

Again, of all of the books that can be considered Emergent, this is the most honest and unambiguous (although there are many moments of ambiguity). When it comes down to "brass tax" Jones is at least honest. He despises penal substitution, fundamentalism, literalism, and exclusivity. Jones seeks to reimagine Christianity. But, as J. Greshem Mechen said regarding Protestant Liberalism, he does not reimagine Christianity, he has created a whole new religion.

"The Blue Parakeet"

One of the major criticisms of the Emerging Church is that there is very little support from the academic community. And where there is support, and where Emergents find their allies, are among the most liberal of academics. However, there is one major exception to this rule: Scot McKnight. McKnight has authored and co-authored and edited a number of books on the Bible, interpretation, theology, exegesis, etc. He is well respected and has been in academia for a long time. He is, at the same time, strongly supportive of the Emerging Church movement.

As the "conversation" continues in the Emerging Church, dialogue regarding Scripture seems to be where everything is heading. Many are doubting and questioning Sola Scriptura (see Tickle's book, "The Great Emergence"), many are questioning the inerrancy of Scripture (by emphasizing mystery and story), and others are allowing the culture to determine how to interpret Scripture. The debate over Scripture seems to be one of the main conversations going on right now.

McKnight has added to that conversation. For the most part, McKnight is unwilling to go as far as the conversation is going. Emergents continue to drift closer and closer towards liberalism and farther and farther away from orthodox Christianity. Although McKnight has not gone that far himself, his treatment on the subject certainly opens the door.

In his book, "The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read the Bible," McKnight lays out how we should interpret the Bible in the modern (or should I say postmodern?) context. There seem to be two major emphases in this book.

First, the Bible is Story and must be interpreted as such. This is prevalent in Emergent writings. Rather than see the Bible as the "place with all the answers," Emergents see the Bible as Story wrapped in mystery. McKnight resists such a temptation to emphasize mystery and ambiguity. However, his argument for seeing the Bible as Story is not new in the Emergent movement.

An interesting part of his argument is the "Wiki-stories." To McKnight, the Bible is one major Story and that Story is told in a number of Wiki-stories. Moses writes his story. David writes his. Daniel writes his. Luke writes his. Paul writes his. Peter writes his. And John writes his. They are all retelling the same story.

The second emphasis of his book regards the statement, that was then, this is now. Whenever I hear someone say this in regards to interpreting Scripture, I automatically assume that what follows is not good. McKnight is not the first Emergent to raise this issue. In fact, virtually all Emergents interpret Scripture through the lens of culture.

It works like this: the Bible was wrong about slavery, and we overcame that. The Bible was wrong about women's rights, and we got over that. The Bible was wrong about divorce and remarriage, and we got over that. The Bible got it wrong regarding women pastors and church leaders, and we got over that. The Bible is wrong regarding homosexuality (or at least how Christians have traditionally interpreted it), and now we are getting over that. Many have remarked that 100 years from now, our great-grandchildren will be laughing over such debates as issues like homosexuality will be the norm and adopted.

This is what it means to have a cultural-saturated hermeneutic. Emergents are covered with it and McKnight has joined their ranks. McKnight states it clearly that the passages that forbid women in leadership positions in the church to be culturally mandated. In other words, it applied to the women in Corinth in the 1st Century, not to women living today. That was then, this is now.

Such a hermeneutic is dangerous. Although this is not McKnights intent, he is forcing Scripture to submit to culture, and thereby to man, rather than man submit to Scripture. McKnight seeks to offer an honest guide to hermeneutics. He argues that no Christian honestly lives and applies all of Scripture, but rather picks and chooses the parts they want to follow. Though there is some merit to this argument, his overall approach to interpretation remains flawed. To write something off as culturally mandated for that day and time, and some things in Scripture are, is dangerous.

An honest debate about what the text actually says is fine, and McKnight offers that. But the assumptions that things have changed, its time for an upgrade is dangerous. The gospel doesn't change, it is transcendent. God does not change, He is immutable. And Scripture and its meaning has not changed, it is binding. Although McKnight offers an honest critique regarding modern Evangelicalism, he is treading on shaky ground.

For more:

Dr. Thomas R. Schreiner - The Blue Parakeet Review (5 Parts)

"When I Don't Desire God"

As a student at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, I am well acquainted with John Piper. I can't say that I am his biggest fan or am a Piper-ite. I have had the privilege of hearing him preach personally on a number of occasions. To this day, my favorite quote I have ever read or heard from him is without a doubt "it took me 14 years to convince my church that 'elder" is not a Presbyterian word." His point was that in ministry, patience is a key virtue. If only more young ministers would learn that.

A few years ago, my wife and one of our youth purchased Piper's book, "When I Don't Desire God: How to Fight for Joy," for a number of reasons. The two were encouraged and benefited great from it. Now, a number of years later, I find myself studying the subject of joy. At our church we are marching through the Fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22) and we are now discussing joy and are walking through the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:1-12).

What I enjoyed most about this book was that, like all things Piper, joy is rooted in the glory of God. In fact, if you read any of Piper's book, this theme will be prominent. However, Piper makes it clear that joy is rooted in the justification of the sinner and the sanctification of the believer. In other words, joy is rooted in our standing before God (justification) in that though we are sinners, on account of Christ's death and resurrection, we are counted as righteous, and it is rooted in our continual reformation as holy one's of God (sanctification). Real joy is not in what the world offers, what we have or posses, our prestige or power, or in anything else. Real, lasting, true joy is rooted in the cross and resurrection of Christ.

Piper walks the reader through these issues and shows how they contribute to joy. He discusses the cross, the resurrection, the importance of studying, meditating, and memorizing Scripture, the importance of "praying without ceasing," and other key aspects on "how to fight for joy."

As a pastor, I was encouraged by the depth of the exposition and historical theology, and at the same time, the pastoral care in which Piper writes. Although at times Piper discusses issues that new believers may struggle with, he raises issues that every Christian must understand. It is imperative for Christians everywhere to understand that the cross of Christ and His empty tomb is practical, not just theological. Real joy, real love, real patience, real righteous living, real endurance, real evangelism, real etc. are rooted in the cross and resurrection. Unless we understand this, we will only continue to run around in vain like the rest of the world. The Christian is born at the foot of the cross and will die at the foot of the cross.

For those lacking desire for God searching for real joy, I highly recommend this book. It is straightforward and thorough. Furthermore, let me make it clear: real joy, lasting joy cannot be found in this world or from anyone except in Jesus Christ our Lord who, though we did not deserve it, died on our behalf reconciling us with our Creator who loved us even while we were yet rebelling against Him. You have worth because you were first worthless.

"Our Sufficiency In Christ"

We are sufficient in Christ. We need nothing else. Such a statement is foreign to most persons today (believers and nonbelievers). In an age of psychology, charmismania, cultural accommodation, etc. it seems foreign to think that believers have every spiritual resource necessary in Christ alone.

That's the argument of John MacArthur in his book, "Our Sufficiency in Christ." To him, to many Christians are going outside the Biblical worldview and outside of Christ to find fulfillment, answers, help, assurance, salvation, and hope. MacArthur is calling us all back to the simple truth that we have all that we need in Christ and in Christ alone.

The book begins by looking at the dangers of modern psychology. MacArthur is not anti-psychology. He does, however, have concerns. MacArthur lays out that the believer can find the answers to their problems solely in Scripture. This does not mean that MacArthur finds psychology unnecessary, but that it has lead to all-out assault against the sufficiency of Scripture and thus, the sufficiency of Christ.

Although MacArthur is not surprised that the culture has abandoned the belief in the sufficiency of Christ, he is shocked that Christians are so easily led astray from it. It says something of the faith and belief of Christians whenever they begin to go elsewhere for answers and for truth.

Perhaps the most helpful section of this book, at least for me, regards his discussion on sanctification. He begins by surveying two major extremes: pietism and quietism. Each movement focuses primarily on one aspect of sanctification. Pietism emphasizes the believers roll in sanctification. Quietism emphasizes God's roll in our sanctification. MacArthur lays out the foundation of both our and God's roll in sanctification. Both are involved in sanctifying the believer.

This was perhaps the best, and yet somewhat brief, discussion on the doctrine of sanctification. It was nice to step back and look at sanctification and what the Bible says about it and then see the specifics.

Overall, I recommend this book, as well as with his other books. MacArthur cares about what the text says and nothing else. He is unwilling to compromise. MacArthur, in my opinion, is the best Bible teacher of our day and any book, article, or sermon we can get your hands on will be bring fruit to your soul.

"The Radical Reformission"

Mark Driscoll was at one time a leader pioneer in the Emerging Church. Now, he is considered to be an influential leader in the New Calvinism movement. What a radical change. Especially whenever one compares where the Emerging Church is now. Emergents are as far from Calvinism as they can be. They are now singing the praises of Pelagius and others and ridicule Calvin and other Reformed leaders.

But prior to becoming the poster child of the New Calvinist movement, Driscoll was simply a pastor in a post-Christian culture, Seattle, learning how to reach the postmodern culture. One of his first books was "The Radical Reformission: Reaching Our Without Selling Out." In essence, Driscoll seeks to help the reader to know how to share the gospel and to grow the Kingdom in their culture. This is not, contrary to most Emergent literature, a "the culture is postmodern and so we should be." Rather, it is "how can I take the transcendent gospel and reach postmodernists?"

Driscoll lays out the many dangers of a cultural saturated gospel. He writes:

Postmodernity is tough to pin down, though, because it changes the rules of hermeneutics but keeps the Bible. Some postmodern pastors keep the Bible but reduce it to a story lacking any authority over us, feeling free to play with the interpretation and meaning of particular texts. They do not believe in a singular truthful interpretation. They believe that the interpreter ultimately has authority over the text and can therefore use it as he or she pleases rather than submit to it.

While this dance may seem novel, it is as old as Eden . . .

As we go about reformission among the cultures of the earth, we must not forget that Scripture speaks of itself as a sword, and that our enemy, the Dragon, continually seeks to run us through with that sword, as he did our first parents (168).

So although postmoderns affect on the gospel is bad, Driscoll still holds that understanding the culture is important. Perhaps the best description and definition of culture is given in this book: "Cultures are hard to untangle and understand because they reflect both the beauty of creation and the ugliness of the fall" (94). Regarding what postmodernism is, Driscoll writes "If you ask four philosophers what postmodernity is you will get 5 answers" (141). I concur.

The issue is the gospel. Driscoll, in the ends, wants Christians to be faithful to the gospel and obeying Christ's command to take the gospel everywhere. Too many Christians do not do that. Many are unable to speak in the language of their surrounding culture and thus either compromise the gospel or misrepresent it (sometimes both).

Perhaps the most convicting part of the book came during his discussions on the various persons in the 1st century Judea. Speaking on the Zealots, Driscoll writes:

The Zealots pursued political power in an effort to forward their national and moral agendas by force and authority. They routinely mistook the kingdom of God for their kingdom and sought to usher it in by might. Today this form of Christianity exists in both the religious right and left. It's present wherever people are more interested in sermons about legislative politics than in sermons about sin and repentance, wherever peolpe get more excited about elections than Easter, wherever more peolpe sign political petitions than sigh up to join a Bible study, and wherever people believe that if we simply elect more people like us the world will be a wonderful place (141)

But there is one major issue that needs to be raised (and Driscoll knows that many will raise it) and that is regarding his chapter on alcohol. Driscoll seeks to be faithful to Scripture and wishes to avoid the sins of legalism and liberty. Driscoll argues that drinking alcohol (without getting drunk) is biblically ok. Although I will go into detail what I think, I found this chapter distracting. The author explains why he raises this issue, but I felt that it got the reader off guard. I disagree with Driscoll on his conclusion on this matter, but in the end, I felt that he raised an issue that should have been avoided in this book.

Overall, however, I enjoyed this book and found it helpful. It is pleasant to read a book considered as part of the Emerging Church movement that actually cares about the gospel. Driscoll, if you consider him as Emerging, is certainly an odd duck that stands contrary to much of what the Emerging Church is doing. I appreciate the fact that Driscoll is serious about the gospel, about Scripture, and about growing the kingdom without selling out.

"The New Christians"

Tony Jones is one of the most influential leaders within the Emerging Church movement. His blog and books are read by many. In his recent books, "The New Christians: Dispatches From the Emergent Frontier." The book lays out the basic thought and root of the movement. In short, anyone who is familiar with the movement will find almost nothing new here. However, Jones does provide a good review of the Emerging Church, what they believe, where they've come from, and where they are going.

What I found most helpful in this book was his historical survey of the movement. I have never come across such a thorough account of the various leaders and persons in the movement, where they came from, how they got involved, and where they are now. Although I knew much of it, Jones filled in much of the gaps.

A good example of this regard Mark Driscoll, his initial leadership and eventual breaking away from the movement. Driscoll has repeatedly mentioned that he used to be heavily involved in the movement but has since separated himself from it. He cites a number of reasons: the need to focus on his church in Seattle, being a new Christian did not feel qualified to travel around the country and tells others how to do church, and he felt that the movement was moving theologically left.

Jones, however, provides a little more perspective on the separation of Driscoll and the Emerging Church. Driscoll's strong language (even in the pulpit) as well as his move to theological conservatism/Calvinism played pivotal roles in Driscoll and the Emergent movement to separate.

Overall, this is well written book and surveys the beliefs and history of the movement in clear to understand language. It is clear, at least to me, where this movement is heading. Although they pride themselves on being post-liberal, they are falling for the same traps that Protestant Liberalism fell for, only this time in the name of postmodernism. And as a result, will become irrelevant and fade into history.

"The Greatest of These is Love"

Recently, I recommended the book "The Greatest of These is Love" by Cale K. Burgess. We have been going through the Fruit of the Spirit for a few weeks now and we began by looking at love in 1 Corinthians 13. This book has been insightful and is full of easy to understand explanations of what the Bible teaches on the subject and how we are to live it out.

"The Lost Message of Jesus"

For the past year, I have spent countless hours studying the Emerging Church. I have especially focused on Brian McLaren who is perhaps the most influential leaders within the movement. I have read the majority of his books, many of his blogs, articles, and even books and blogs he has recommended. But perhaps the book that best lays the foundation for McLaren's thinking is Steve Chalk and Alan Mann's "The Lost Message of Jesus."


Chalk is very influential in his own right, but his influence on McLaren is significant. McLaren himself highly praises and recommends this book. As I was reading Chalk's book, I could not help but to repeatedly say, "Sounds like McLaren," or "that's where McLaren gets it from." But outside of its affect on McLaren and the Emerging Church in general, there are a number of issues throughout the book that bear some response.


First, Chalk has a faulty understanding of human nature. Essentially, this is what separates conservatives and liberals. Conservatives, traditionally speaking, view human nature as inherently sinful and evil. Conservative Christians and theologians call this original sin. Liberals reject this and argue that human nature is inherently good. Whenever man does evil it is not the result of their sinful nature, but of some other factor (lack of education, lifestyle, influences, experiences, childhood upbringing, etc.).


Chalk argues, in contrast to original sin, for "original goodness" (67). Chalk believes the church's fascination with the doctrine of original sin "is a serious mistake," the "grave error that has dogged the Church in the West for centuries." To Chalk, original sin has robbed us of emphasizing God's love. He makes it clear that he does not believe that persons do not need to be reconciled to God, but that Jesus, to him, "is rejecting any idea that we are, somehow, beyond pale" (67).

Secondly, Chalk's understanding of the Kingdom is faulty. There is a common thread throughout virtually all Emergent material: the Kingdom of God is a present reality (that is, it is here and now) not just a future hope. Emergents are frustrated that modern Evangelicals emphasize the future hope and forget the present reality. To them, this is unbalanced. However, they turn around and repeat the same unbalanced on the other end; they emphasize the present reality of the Kingdom and almost completely ignore the future hope. Chalk is no different and he lays the foundation for that mistake.

Finally, Chalk has a faulty understanding of the cross. Perhaps the most quoted passage from The Lost Message of Jesus regards the statement that substitutionary atonement is "divine child abuse." Quoting John 3:16, Chalk asks, "how then, have we come to believe that the at the cross this God of love suddenly decides to vent his anger and wrath on his own Son?" To Chalke, penal substitution contradicts God's love:

The fact is that the cross isn't a form of cosmic child abuse - a vengeful Father, punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed. Understandably, both people inside and outside of the Church have found this twisted version of events morally dubious and a huge barrier to faith. Deeper than that, however, is that such a concept stands in total contradiction to the statement "God is love". If the cross is a personal act of violence perpetrated by God towards humankind but borne by his Son, then it makes a mockery of Jesus' own teaching to love your enemies and to refuse to repay evil with evil (182-183)

To Chalk, penal substitution has a number of flaws. First, it is "child abuse" because God punishes Jesus for something he did not do. Secondly, it is "morally dubious and a huge barrier to faith." Therefore, it is implied, Christians should discard it as unnecessary not because it is necessarily unbiblical, but because it has become a "huge barrier" to those seeking the faith. Finally, if God is love, then how could He pour out His wrath and torture His Son in a vengeful way? Did Jesus not Himself say to "love your enemies and to refuse to repay evil with evil?"

In Chalke's theology, the cross is the ultimate symbol of love: "It is a demonstration of just how far God as Father and Jesus as his Son are prepared to go to prove that love" (183).

To put it frankly, Chalk is not a Christian. No matter how hard one tries to redefine the cross, to deny the atonement as propitiatory is heretical and anti-Christian. Although persons like NT Wright have tried to argue that Chalke doesn't deny penal substitution, it is difficult, at least from this book, that to make such an argument. Chalke is obsessed with God's love that by misunderstanding it he has really diminished it. Only whenever we understand God's justice and holiness can we see the cross, not as "divine child abuse" but as an even greater (not just a symbol) act of love. Even though we were still sinners . . . Christ died for us! Now that is love.

Overall, for anyone wanting to have a deeper understanding of the Emerging Church, especially McLaren, this book is helpful. But for those wishing to be enriched in the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3), look elsewhere.

"Truth and the New Kind of Christian"

As the Emerging Church continues to gain steam, many have and will continue to articulate what the movement is, what it stands for, where it is going, and how to critique it. Sadly, very few have adequately defined and engaged the movement by reaching its core. Although there are many good critiques, none, at least none that I have read, have really understood the movement at its basic assumptions and therefore have accurately critiqued them.

One of the biggest mistakes scholars make is by overemphasising the postmodern aspect of the movement. But let me make clear before going any further: understanding postmodernism is critical to understand the Emerging Church. Emergents admit this repeatedly throughout their writings, their blogs, their articles, their "conversation." However, the problem becomes whenever we take it too far. Emergents are not, for the most part, associated with the far far wing of postmodernity. They believe in truth, but do not believe that one person, or one source (Scripture for example) contains all truth. Their version of "relativism" insists on community, an ongoing conversation, and inter religious dialogue.

A recent book that I have read is "Truth and a New Kind of Christian: Emerging Effects of Postmodernism in the Church" by Dr. R. Scott Smith makes this mistake. Dr. Smith offers a great review and critique of postmodernity and applies it to the Emerging Church. Most of what he says is correct. Therefore, this book provides helpful insight into what postmodernity is and how it affects the Emerging Church. However, I feel that Dr. Smith knows more about postmodernism than the Emerging Church.

Dr. Smith offers, for the most part, a great critique of Brian McLaren and others, but just takes postmodern philosophy too far. It seems that once persons hear that Emergents are postmodern, they critique Emergents by critiquing postmodernism. This is all well and good, but limited. Postmodernism is only part of what the Emerging Church is and to only focus on this aspect alone is to limit oneself to a more complete critique of the movement. Perhaps this is why Dr. Smith limits himself, for the most part, to only a few of the major Emergent leaders.

Overall, for those who have studied this movement in great detail, I would recommend this book. However, it is rather deep, philosophical, and difficult at times. Dr. Smith offers a great review on postmodernism and applies it to the Emerging Church. But to anyone who has read and followed Emergents themselves, I believe you will find that perhaps he takes things farther than Emergents would allow.