Why We're Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be by Moody Publishers

	Title: Why We're Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be Purchase Item Manufacturer: Moody Publishers List Price: $14.99 Our Price: $9.12
Customer Reviews:
Why We're Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be by Moody Publishers preaching to the choir
Great for people who once explored Emergent and Emerging type theology and ministry and found it to be hollow. Probably not so great for people still in it.
Why We're Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be by Moody Publishers Don't throw the baby out!
I enjoyed reading "Why We're Not Emergent." It was an engaging and informative read. It is a welcome addition to the "conversation." The tag-team authors are complementary in style, providing both substance and connection with the reader. I would caution those, however, who have an interest in the emerging church to not "throw the baby out with the bathwater." DeYoung and Kluck deal almost exclusively with the popular leaders of the "movement," especially Bell and McLaren. They rightly point out concerns conservative evangelicals should have regarding the theology of these persuasive leaders. But the authors of "Why We're Not Emergent" rarely deal with the real theologians who, while not leading the conversation, have certainly contributed to evangelical engagement with post-modernism. Stan Grenz, Scot McKnight, and Robert Webber are mentioned only in passing, and then generally in a positive light. There is another side of the emergent church that has something to say to the modern evangelical church. The authors mention Dan Kimball a few times - a popular and recognized leader in the "conversation" - but don't really criticize him because he is theologically conservative. Before the reader determines that the emerging conversation is something to be shut down, I encourage reading Grenz, McKnight, and Webber - all generally respected within conservative Christian circles. Do yourself a big favor and google "a call to an Ancient Evangelical Future" and check out the AEF Call. While not technically a part of the emergent "movement" there are many common points of resonance. Upon reflection, I think you might find real meat for renewal in the church. I consider myself an emergent sympathizer and supporter even though I agreed with most everything that DeYoung and Kluck wrote. The conversation is broader and deeper than Bell and McLaren. Dig deeper. There's hope for the evangelical church to be found in the conversation. Nevertheless, I welcome this book. It is a positive contribution that may serve to clarify renewal efforts that are sorely needed in the Church today
Why We're Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be by Moody Publishers A 'Must Read'
Every page and every paragraph of this 256-page book was thoughtful and salient. The authors unwrap the emerged package of the postmodern-Christian religion using the very words of the movement's de facto leaders: Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, Don Miller, Erwin McManus, Stan Grez, Doug Padgitt, and others. But the best part of the book is the Epilogue. Diverging from the central theme of analyzing the emergent movement, the Epilogue is a short treatise on the seven churches of Revelation 2-3. This is an inexpensive book; you need to read it. It will help you trim your wick and develop a deeper love for Christ & His Church and will, at the same time, challenge you to lovingly discern what is true and false in the professing Church today.
Why We're Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be by Moody Publishers A fantastic and much-needed resource
This is an excellent and much-needed assessment of the emerging church movement. While D.A. Carson and R. Scott Smith both offered very helpful critiques of this movement in 2005, this new book is really quite superb in giving us a balanced appraisal of, and serious warning about, the emergent movement. Consistent with postmodernism, the emerging church folk have a strong dislike of rationality, theology, and propositional truth. They look down on dogma, rules, teaching, preaching, boundaries and doctrine. While they reject some things we should reject - legalism, unloving judgmentalism, head over heart, and so on - they have a tendency of throwing the baby out with the bath water. In reacting to one extreme, they go way over to another extreme. What is needed is biblical balance, not wild pendulum swings. Consider the issue of our knowledge of God. The emergent crowd generally argues that we should be content with mystery, wonder and questions. We cannot pin down God and he is too big to be put in a theological box. That all may be true, but they go to unnecessary extremes here. Emergent leaders "are allowing the immensity of God to swallow up His knowability. In good postmodern fashion, they are questioning whether we can have any real knowledge about God in the first place." But God is a God who reveals himself, who speaks, who acts, and discloses truths about himself to finite mankind. If God does not have a problem with this, why do the emergent leaders? Sure, we only have partial knowledge of God, but we can still have true truth about God. Many emergent leaders argue that we can know God personally, but we cannot know him propositionally. We can have a relationship with God, but we cannot really know too much about him. But this is just plain silly, as well as unbiblical. How can a man love his wife, for example, while knowing little about her? Knowledge about others is necessary in order for us to have a relationship with them. Similarly, the emergent crowd makes much of relationship over against rules and regulations. Do's and don'ts and laws just don't cut it anymore. Instead, Christianity is all about love and relationship. But as the authors rightly remind us, relationships must be guarded and preserved by rules: "Try telling your wife after you've had an affair, `Come on, I thought our marriage was about the relationship, not all these do's and don'ts'." Emergent leaders also buy the whole postmodern idea that we are only left with interpretation. The emphasis of the deconstructionists is that we can never really know what the author intended. All we have is our own subjective understanding. The emergent infatuation with deconstructionism is dangerous business indeed. By abandoning any sure word, by saying we are only left with interpretation - not final truth - the emergent crowd is leaving us all in a sea of relativism and uncertainty. But God is quite able to communicate to us and to use words in such a way that are understandable and meaningful. Of course we all misinterpret things, because we are fallen and finite. But Scripture throughout insists that there is real meaning in the text, that is can be communicated to us, and that we can have some genuine understanding of it, albeit in a limited and not exhaustive fashion. But if we can never be sure about anything, why do the emerging leaders seem so certain about what they are trying to tell us? The authors remind us that the emergent leaders want to tell us that our traditional understandings (for example, about hell, exclusivism, the nature of the atonement, etc.) are faulty, yet they somehow seem certain about this, and that their alternative understandings are the ones to adopt. They say traditional evangelicals have been misinterpreting the Bible, all the while saying we can never really know that any interpretation is true. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. If anything goes in interpretation, then why should we heed the emergent leaders any more than, say, Paris Hilton? The authors point out that the emergent writers confuse humility with uncertainty. They think it is a good thing that we are not dogmatic, but instead live with ambiguity, mystery, doubt and questions. Indeed, many of them equate faith with doubt. They dislike hard and fast theological systems, and they dislike those who claim to have some solid handle on the truth, equating that with pride and intolerance. But that does not square with the Biblical writers, especially the early apostles. They claimed to have the truth, to know the truth, and to proclaim the truth. They proclaimed the gospel as certain truth, and were willing to die for their strong convictions. But the emergent crowd wants us to hold onto things so loosely and so tentatively that one must ask, what gospel are they in fact offering to people? "The apostles never preached with the double-talk and ambiguity you find in so many emergent books" the authors state. And the idea of a non-doctrinal Christianity - the no-creed-but-Jesus mentality - is simply the stuff of old-fashioned theological liberalism. It is weak and wishy washy, and converts no one. The emergent gospel leaves a lot to be desired. Many in the movement have real trouble with saying Jesus is the only way to salvation; are squeamish about propitiation; dislike talk of hell; and have a very low view of Scripture. It is really quite identical to the old theological liberalism. "The only difference is that the old liberalism accommodated modernity and the new liberalism accommodates postmodernism." The books of McLaren, Bell, Pagitt, Kimball, Jones and others will undoubtedly continue to sell well, and their conferences will probably still be sell-outs. But it is a movement that is in urgent need of balance. And this book is an excellent resource in helping to bring about that balance. It has a message that desperately needs to be heard.
Why We're Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be by Moody Publishers Clear, calm and well researched
The book is tag-team written by two very different authors. Deyoung (a 30-something pastor) and Kluck (a 30-something writer) both generally feel the same frustration that the emergent church has embodied, but without chucking the theology and epistemology that make the church possible. Kluck brings a casual, cynical style that tries a little too hard to be cool, but that's the attitude that started this "conversation" in the first place so what the heck. Deyoung brings the big guns of research and clear thinking. He exposes several alarming trends among the influential people in the emergent conversation (particularly Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, Peter Rollins, Spencer Burke, David Tomlinson, Leonard Sweet, Rob Bell, and Tony Jones). This book is so well-written and well-researched that it is the first of its kind that I feel comfortable recommending to both laypersons and academics. I hated chapter 10 where Kluck interviewed a pastor with whom I agreed, but the guy was inarticulate and a little grumpy. Lots of other pastors (like Deyoung) could have presented the same argument without coming across as exactly the kind of pastor that most emergents can't stand. My favorite chapter was Deyoung's Epilogue which is honestly worth the price of the book. He explores the 7 Letters to the Churches in Revelation to affirm that the emergent church has indeed identified serious issues of concern in modern evangelicalism, while at the same time they have not remained faithful to other essentials. In summary: concise, intelligent, helpful, kind, worth the price of admission.
Why We're Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be by Moody Publishers Product Description
“You can be young, passionate about Jesus Christ, surrounded by diversity, engaged in a postmodern world, reared in evangelicalism and not be an emergent Christian. In fact, I want to argue that it would be better if you weren’t.” The Emergent Church is a strong voice in today’s Christian community. And they’re talking about good things: caring for the poor, peace for all men, loving Jesus. They’re doing church a new way, not content to fit the mold. Again, all good. But there’s more to the movement than that. Much more. Kevin and Ted are two guys who, demographically, should be all over this movement. But they’re not. And Why We’re Not Emergent gives you the solid reasons why. From both a theological and an on-the-street perspective, Kevin and Ted diagnose the emerging church. They pull apart interviews, articles, books, and blogs, helping you see for yourself what it’s all about.