Why I Am Not Emergent--A Review

At our January pastor's meetings, the conference president gave all of us the book, Why We're Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be) by Kevin DeYoung (a theologically educated pastor) and Ted Kluck (a sports writer). [Yes, it's a curious combo.]

I don't ordinarily read books that are "anti-"

And I laughed when I read in the introduction DeYoung's description of his own preaching: Long, doctrinal, expositional sermons that proclaim the uniqueness of Jesus Christ, the reality of [eternal] hell, the demands of obedience, the call to evangelism, the duty of mercy ministry, and the glorious truths of unconditional election [predestination]and particular redemption [the belief that Christ's death was targeted only toward those already predestined to be saved--if I understand it correctly].

So I'm supposed to read a critique of the Emergent Church by an author who sees eternal torment as the second most important component of his preaching and views predestination and limited atonement as "glorious truths" central to his gospel proclamation?

But the book was given to me by my conference president. Given my own outspokenness in pastors' meetings, I owe the president the courtesy of reading books he recommends as a way of listening seriously to him.

So I kept reading past the introduction.

I am puzzled by the book. It is clear that one of the authors' major concerns with the Emergent Church is their downplaying of eternal torment. Both authors return to this repeatedly throughout the book. Of course, we Adventists applaud the Emergents for their "seeing the light" on this doctrine.

The larger concern of the author, however, though he never uses the word, is epistemology. He insists we take the inerrant Bible as our guide. He argues the Emergents have no clear authority--not the Bible, not the Church, not "their church", not the Holy Spirit. It is not only that the Emergent movement is intentionally doctrinally amorphous. It is that the movement insists there is no proper way to be definite about any truth.

Reading the quotations DeYoung cites, I am reminded of classic apophatic theology but without the stability and wisdom offered by deep connections with the history and traditions of the Christian Church. Emergent authors question all theological affirmations while appearing to uncritically make strong ethical, social and political affirmations. I am sympathetic to the social concerns characteristic of the Emergent movement, but I think DeYoung's criticism of their epistemology is apt.

I think DeYoung is right in some of the questions he raises. From attending a Soularize conference in Seattle, I would agree with his assessment that the Emergent movement is primarily defined by its rejection of conservative Evangelical beliefs and practices. It does poorly in articulating its spiritual, theological core.

It reminds me of some Adventist dissidents and former Adventists who are nothing without their contempt for Adventism.

DeYoung also highlights a certain arrogance among the Emergents that I think is characteristic of the young and idealistic: Emergents scorn or view with condescension all those poor, unenlightened traditional Evangelicals who are doing regular church. If only they could see the light and join God's true church, the Emergent Church!

I agree with DeYoung that the Emergent Church at best is a youthful, generational fad. It is populated almost exclusively by young, White people who grew up in conservative Protestant churches and now have "found freedom and relevance" in congregations that celebrate the arts and endorse drinking beer.

Of course, the minute I consider the remedies DeYoung proposes for the problems of the Emergent Church, I am repulsed. His remedies are: An inerrant Bible, eternal torment, predestination, and a keen focus on God's demands. In response Adventists would point out our belief DeYoung's "inerrant Bible" requires Sabbath-keeping, allows for human choice, and points toward annihilationism. (Of course, our high view of Scripture is not identical with his "inerrant Bible.")

I honor DeYoung's quest for a "preachable gospel" and for "truth." But his dogmatic confidence in hell, predestination and inerrancy makes the tentativeness in doctrinal assertions which is a hallmark of the Emergent Church look rather attractive. DeYoung's dogmatic certainty appears to me to also be more properly the characteristic of immature zeal than mature spiritual development.

More later.

John