On Monday’s blog, I talked about misrepresentations. It was the prelude to yesterday’s post and today’s post.
Yesterday, I published Jon Zens’s analysis of Jim Belcher’s “Deep Church.”
Today’s post features an analysis written by Eric Hilliard (one of Amazon’s most sophisticated book reviewers) on the book WHY WE LOVE THE CHURCH by DeYoung/Kluck.
Eric’s analysis is powerful and bristles with seminal insights.
Trying to Force a Shoe That Doesn’t Fit by Eric Hilliard
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.
Related:
Jon Zens Shreds Another Critique
My Response to Ben Witherington
An Analysis of Jim Belcher’s “Deep Church”
“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.”…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.”(see “Analysis” above, 5th paragraph)
“In addition, for many Christians, the Old Testament has fallen out of functional use. Scores of present-day believers do not find anything of spiritual value in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus,Numbers, or Deuteronomy.
The exception (sic) would be the legalists who wish to put everyone under the Law, the Theonomists who wish to turn society into a Christian state, and the apologists who wish to prove that the Old Testament is historically accurate. But for the rest of God’s people, the Old Testament has by and large lost its functional use.” (https://www.frankviola.org/beyond.pdf)
It seems to me Hilliard’s arrow has struck a target “beyond authorial intent”. Wouldn’t you agree?
I was struck by his, and from reading some of the comments above, apparently your own connotation of the term “proof-texting”. From Hilliard’s context it appears to mean any interpretation he finds fatally flawed, although I seriously doubt that’s the case. My criticism is he introduces the term into his review as though it’s a given I’d understand exactly what he means when I haven’t the faintest idea, made worse by his claim this “proof-texting” was nearly enough to cause him to shelve the book! So dramatic a term is surely important enough to define, right?
And this leads into my real criticism. From what little reading of you I’ve done you appear to me to have difficulty, judging strictly by the rarity with which you do it in the material I’ve read at this writing, articulating your points succinctly.
For example, in listing your credentials for having a personal interpretation (as if such were needed) you wrote, “There are the Pauls of this world (professionally schooled in Tarsus and Jerusalem). And then there are us Peters.” Now what is your point, given your context here is the presentation of your “credentials”? That training isn’t necessary to proper interpretation? If that’s true, why are you bothering with credentials at all? Clearly because you recognize they hae some role to play in what you’re doing. And yet what is the difference between Peter and Paul if “credentials” essentially consist in a personal, vibrant relationship with the risen Christ?
In short, your example of Peter and Paul is confusing, given your context, as is your use of “autodidact” when it is clear you regard your relationship with Christ as your Instructor. It is this kind of conversational rhetoric that seems at first glance to be making some point, but on second glance contradicts that point that winds up confusing this reader.
I hope you take the above criticisms in the spirit of brotherly love in which I’ve tendered them. I apologize if I’ve made them in the wrong section of your blog. Oh, and where can I find a concise contrast on your blog between the “institutiional church” and the “interpretive community”?
1. Your point about proof texting is confusing. I have no idea what you’re trying to say there. Hilliard’s points about it are cogent.
2. The simple answer to your question is in the same spirit that Jesus said to His disciples about paying the tax. It’s for the the sake of others. I couldn’t care two hoots about someone’s “credentials.” Many of the greatest servants of God had zero (Tozer, Spurgeon, G. Campbell Morgan, etc.). But to *some* people they mean a lot. Hence the reason for endorsements. For instance, some people in the Reformed camp only picked up and read “Jesus Manifesto” (and ended up saying it was revolutionary) only because Matt Chandler, Ed Stetzer, and Steve Brown glowingly endorsed it. Some Anglicans only read it because the then Archbishop Rowan Williams endorsed it. The content of the book remains the same without such endorsements. But not necessarily the readership.
In my newest book, “Jesus: A Theography,” https://www.frankviola.org/jesuschrist Len Sweet and I deliberately decided against having any endorsements. So far it’s not hurt the book. But time will tell.
3. When people use the term “audodidact” they rarely ever use it in the strictly narrow sense that you seem to understand it. No one is purely “self-taught.” Like Tozer, I’ve had *many* teachers, many of whom teach/taught through the printed word. Just no formal theological training and deliberately so. That’s the sense in which I’ve used it.
Putting all that to rest, I’m curious how you found this blog post seeing how old it is. And did you read “Pagan Christianity” for yourself to see what it actually says or did you just read what some other people said about it?
Wow Frank, you just verbalized my thoughts on the book you reviewed. It seemed to have connected with the wild youth, running around looking for some feel good experiences. Ohh and the gross misrepresentation of Pagan Christianity and especially the Bible….WOW! Thanks for your feedback, it’s nice to know we’re in tune!
All Christ,
Russ
Glad you liked the review, Russ. But I didn’t write it. I just published it.
Frank, could you point me in the direction of a healthy take on the emergent chuch, a discription and critique? (Sorry if you’ve written about it before. I must have missed it.) Many thanks!
Well, it’s murky. Opinions vary. Depends on who you ask. I’m not a part of it so I cannot give you any recent news; it’s not something I follow closely either.
Yeowch. Excellent, though.
After I read “Pagan Christianity” and “House Church” by (Steve Atkerson), I had three friends who are pastors of institutional churches caution me against Pagan Christianity. All they could really say was that it is “emergent literature.” They recommended WWLTC. I was excited to read it because I thought it must be good. Quite frankly, it was one of the worst books I have ever read. Like Arthur said above, if that is the best defense of the institutional church, then it sure is in desperate trouble.
There comes some point in all the verbage concerning ecclesiology that I just say, “Been there, done the programs, promoted the programs, did my duty, shouted all the right slogans–but I ain’t goin’ back and I don’t care to be in the company of Professional Christians like DeYoung and Kluck.
And I don’t feel guilty for saying so. And, to go back would be the redivivus of the old guilt trip and pointless monologue.
T
The part about proof-texting was especially interesting to me as I’ve grown up in church, went to a Christian university and worked for several international ministries. I was introduced to this concept through some of your articles and even in yesterday’s review, the author had a nice breakdown of a couple verses from 1 Cor 14, comparing proof-texting with the contextual breakdown.
This just to say, if you’re looking for post ideas, I’d love to see an article from you on proof-texting, along with some relevant examples of scriptures that have been commonly taken out of context and your thoughts.
Christopher, I go into proof-texting quite a bit and also give what I believe to be the alternative to it in my book THE UNTOLD STORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH. http://www.ptmin.org/untold
I read that book as well. I loved how imaginative and creative you and Leonard displayed Jesus Christ. It was very different from the strictly intellectual indoctrinations of our Lord I had read before yet equally if not more enthralling!
Excellent review. I would say that WWLTC is designed more to keep people in the pews than it is to draw people back. I have often been referred to WWLTC in response to some of my critiques of the institutional church as if it demolishes the concerns of any and all people who have rejected the IC. My general response is that if WWLTC is the best defense out there of the institutionalized church, the IC is in far worse shape than I thought.
While reading Pagan Christianity I mentioned to the elders at the institutional church we were attending some of the many issues that I felt needed to be dealt with. The response I got was “that book is emergent garbage, you should read this book instead.” referring to Why We Love the Church. I haven’t read it yet but I get the impression that if I do I may come away feeing like I have abandond all thing orthodox and become emergent. I know that I haven’t done any such thing. I find those judgements slanderous and not at all edifying. Why would I want to read it now?
Bobby … the funny thing is, I’m not emergent and neither is George. And the book isn’t “emergent” in the least. Yet I wouldn’t recommend that book to any leaders of an institutional church. And I wouldn’t recommend it to any Christian who is happy with the institutional church. They aren’t the audience we are writing to.
I’d rather recommend JESUS MANIFESTO to such people. And I have a notion that these elders would find someone who endorsed it whose opinion they trust: https://www.frankviola.org/thejesusmanifesto/