I have had a strange reaction to Jim Belcher and his book Deep Church. I know, I’m almost a year late on this (I can explain later). I think the book is written well, the narrative style keeps it moving. Jim’s a good writer. I think Jim is a smart dude, able to summarize the issues well. He isolates truth, evangelism, gospel, worship, preaching, ecclesiology and culture as the key issues of this kind of post-evangelical territory of the emerging churches versus what he calls the traditional churches. He nicely describes the ideas that animate the two sides. I learned from this book. It’s irenic. It delivers on these levels. I don’t know Jim, but I think if Jim and I met, we could enjoy a good friendship.
But Jim is a Reformed thinker, pastor. It’s obvious eh? And because of these theological commitments, for me, it is questionable whether he comes up with a “third way beyond emerging and traditional.” To me the formulations of Deep Church amount to a revision of the Reformed evangelical theology that got evangelicalism into trouble in the first place.
Don’t get me wrong, I am an evangelical. (I could be described as a Neo Anabaptist Missional-Holiness Church- Evangelical -Baptist Seminary -professor person). I am painfully aware that there has been a creeping malaise in this country over the sons and daughters of evangelicals for the last fifteen-twenty years. Thus came the emerging church. Over in the more protestant mainline world the Gospel and Our Culture Network was responding to a different problem. That work gave birth to the Missional church which later spread to evangelicalism. In reaction to the perceived inadequacies of these movements, but also appreciating the very real issues being posed by them, people like Tim Keller advanced a version of Reformed church (what some have called Neo Puritan) that sought the renewal of the gospel and its engagement with culture. The impact of his Redeemer church in NY and beyond has, in some respects, been breathtaking. A lot of good has come forth.
But this is not a third way.
In forthcoming posts, I want to outline why the Neo-Reformed movement of the Gospel Coalition, Tim Keller & the Redeemer churches, leaves me asking for more. I have learned much from people like Tim Keller and Jim Belcher. But there are profound limits to this “brand” of theology. This is not a third way.
In order that I might maintain the readership on this blog, I offer the following salvo that should give you an indication of where I am going in my contention that the Neo-Reformed Missionals are not a third way.
Neo-Reformed Theology is built on the same logic as evangelical theology. In fact this is also the same logic as the protestant mainline theology and for that matter the Emergent theologies. They all rely on the cultural foundations of the West and in particular the Enlightenment. And, for me, this means all of these movements will eventually fail to engage the new and changing cultures of Post-Christendom in the West for the gospel, they will fail at resisting the consumerist forces of modern American society, they will fail at tranfromational engagment (eventually). They will all end up repeating the fate of evangelicalism – i.e. being successful at harvesting those who are already in some way culturally inclined towards Christianity but not capable of inhabiting the new post Christendom cultures of the West for the gospel. THIS IS WHY WE NEED A THIRD WAY!! Of course, this doesn’t mean that Neo-Reformed thought won’t be immensely successful at gathering in Christians and ministering to the Christendom populations that still exist in the US (and they are many). But the surging post Christendom populations shall continue to be unreached (and grow). This is the reason why I think we need to continue to talk about a third way (although we may want to think about forgetting “the third way” logic).
I know I have just aggravated even the best of my friends and so I ask for a little grace as I try to expound on just what the heck I just said in forthcoming posts. In the meantime, do you think we need a third way? Should we get rid of this logic entirely? Is it helpful?
BTW I’m going to try to pull my brother Bob Hyatt into this one. I’m hoping to convert him to Neo-Anabaptist Holiness (He needs to get saved 
). I can’t promise anything.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
I enjoyed Belcher's book and found some parts of it very helpful. He had some good interactions with some of the theology coming out of the emerging church and its theological and therefore missional shortfalls. He offered some helpful suggestions for building areas of dialog that can keep us focused on unity. But as a Wesleyan- Holiness- Missional – Emergent – Nazarene pastoring kind of guy I struggled with some of the underlying theological assumptions of the book. All of that to say I am looking forward to your interaction with it because I am hopeful you will put to voice some of my struggles with it that I couldn't quite express.
I came away from Belcher's book feeling the same way that you did David. I enjoyed reading it, but I did not feel like there was much of a shift. I am part of a community that struggling at the same old practices in a new world, and everyone I ask is frustrated. Each change we make is a failed attempt at the bar set up by christendom, so a third way forward is important. I look forward to a dialogue because change begins through conversations.
David,
What would you consider examples of a Post-Christendom person or culture that these various versions of Cultural Christianity (evangelical or mainline) will not be able to reach? Multiculturally formed millennials would be one example I have personal experience with, but do you have others?
I wonder how far out from today's evangelicalism or mainline protestantism would a Third Way have to be in order to inhabit these types of cultures.
i always wonder that if we are looking for a third way that it means we have lost our way.
but with that said, yes, we need a neo-anabaptism political-missional theology between post-Christendom and postmodernity.
Looking forward to this. I reviewed Jim's book and was bothered by the way he seemed to gloss over the (largely unsettled) debates concerning the nature of the gospel itself and completely ignored an anabaptist perspective.
Having said that, Jim's a great guy. I've met him and interviewed him regarding the book, and found him the be as like-able and humble in person as he is in his writing.
There sure are a lot of comments related to how one feels about the book and the propositions contained there in. Who cares if it is "third way" or not? Why apply a created hermeneutic and then try to force it into that mold? Isn't that what causes the demise of evangelical thinking in the first place? All writings, Deep Church included, must be analyzed and brought under the authority of scripture, unless of course you don't recognize the authority of scripture.
2+2=4 no matter how you feel about it or if you somehow feel something lacking because of the tautology. Although, if there is a third way in describing 2+2= anything else but 4, I would love to hear it.
"Jesus Wept" is a both statement of fact and communicates something about ourselves and our Lord. How you feel about it will never change the fact that Jesus Wept.
Question: are you suggesting that there is a "non-created," pure hermeneutic? And that only those who use this "non-created," pure hermeneutic recognize the authority of Scripture?
Miguel, the subtitle to Deep Church is "A Third Way Beyond Emerging and Traditional" – So Fitch is critiquing the book on its own terms, on what it claims to be.
And rickcruse's questions are good ones. What other kind of hermeneutic is there besides a "created" one?
"This is not a third-way" Got it. Got it.
One of the salient points of Belcher's book is that postmodern-epistemology/theology/whatever is very good a deconstructing but falls short in actually constructing anything. In the end we are left with a lot of "that's not that way it is or ought to be" but not a lot of alternative. While that is great in a Seminary lunchroom, I look forward to future posts that are more than a "not-third-way" – and perhaps even a beginning at constructing something. So, David, my plea as a Pastor in a city wrestling with pluralism, poverty, and brokenness is "give us something better!" – which I look forward to you doing.
Miguel,
Blessings
"All writings, Deep Church included, must be analyzed and brought under the authority of scripture" – which view of authority?, which cultural hermeutic? – Reformed, Anabaptist, Protestant Liberal? Everyone, yes Brian McLaren brings his writings "under the authority of Scripture (ever see how much Scripture he draws from in his writings? The Secret Message is expository preaching!). I can't see how your statement solves anything? Tell me what I'm missing?
Roger … I heard you … I'll keep trying … and hopefully listening to voices like yours will improve the thinking around here
Dave,
Off topic – Is there going to be a 3rd GLBTQ post coming up? I was enjoying that series and thought there was another one coming.
Jeff
yep, one maybe two … er maybe three more …
Now this will be an interesting series to follow… If I'm honest, I must say I have no connection whatsoever with reformed theology at all. I grew up part of a marginal pentecostel minority in a dechristianising catholic country (Belgium; when I was a kid in the 80's the catholic school I was in was at the very end of a 'slippery slope' from liberal catholcism to secular atheism or agnostic 'somethingism') and later as a teenager was part of a vineyard church plant. After that I've been exploring other Christian tradtions (at least in reading books about them) and broadened my view.
Peeling away the parts of my christian background that lost any meaning or appeal to me, I'm still left with some Wesleyan roots with a charismatic flavor (though very careful and somewhat uncertain on that) and some catholic quietness (I don't know how else to call it) and from vineyard I did inherit a strong Kingdom-focussed outlook on the gospel; enriched with some neo-anabaptism. And Oh I'm hopelessly and irrevocably postmodern…
But the reformed way fo thinking stays alien to me, how hard I might try. It feels a darksynchretism to a world that isn't mine. I can't see atonement in a mainly legal way; I can't even care take the determinism serious, and I feel like they're reading things into the bible all the time that aren't there at all (wait, that happens all the time in other traditions too)
So I'll be looking forward to what you have to share
shalom
Bram
I have now twice had the experience of formulating a book in my head, even getting to the point of outline and in one case proposal and finding others had already written it- one was The Great Giveaway
The other was Deep Church.
But that was awhile ago… and now, in answer to your question at the end, I don't know that we need a third way. We need all kinds of ways. Some will work less well as time goes on, but to everything there is a season… I still know attractional Megachurches where people get saved
So, I'm not sure I share your angst (though I think I understand where you are coming from). It seems to me that the Gospel always finds a way. In the same way that information wants to be free, the Gospel wants to be contextualized and enculturated. It always has been and it always will be.
And while there may be a gap/learning curve/whatever (e.g. 20th and early 21st Century Europe) while we figure out how God is moving and how we can join Him, the fact is, He is moving already in "the new post Christendom cultures of the West."
Ultimately, while we bear responsibility to prayerfully plead with the Lord of the Harvest for savvy workers who know their fields, it's His responsibility to prepare and send them (through us, of course). I guess, that while sharing a sense of urgency that the Gospel not lose ground, that people hear and believe, I think what I don't feel is the weight of responsibility to come up with or formulate the type of Gospel Presentation that will reach postmoderns. Particularly because in many ways, I aren't one.
I think there's a lot of strength to some of the neo-reformed approach though at this point, I think any theology/system that doesn't give women their due (as in Gal 3:23) is, in post-Christendom, increasingly in danger of becoming a dead end.
And don't you like the neo-reformed emphasis on dead guys?
I have to say I share your reaction to Belcher's book. But hey, at least he's stepped away from pastoring to publish more of them. I think that speaks something to the underlying worldview doesn't it? -As well as implicate the consumer/publisher cycle.
I find myself initially suspicious about books and christian media that sells well: if it's popular can it actually be new or challenging? Anyways, it seems to me Belcher is more concerned about engaging "postmoderns" i.e., emergents, than post enlightenment Christian thought, so the conversation is still basically a narrow, internal conversation between American evangelicals. Is this fair?
Bob, always the irenic one, this is why we need each other, and BTW I think we both need Belcher, for I think he has in his writing tapped into something. But I think what we're doing here is all part of you describe as "the Gospel always finding a way." I am but more angst ridden than you because I might be a bit more convinced that evangelicalism has lost its way … and God is calling us into the far country. And my question for the Neo-reformed is, are they journeying into the far country, or retreating in an enclave?… This is the kind of conversation I want to have … and next time you and I are drinking an A&W Rootbeer … I'll be ready!
Erin … keen observation at the end of your comment… thanks
[...] Fitch begins a series examining Jim Belcher’s Deep Church. (HT: [...]
I may be a little late on this…but what it the third way was more about worldview, more about attitude. McNeal claims that missional is a worldview, once you put on the lenses, you see everything through them. Therefore, it is not primarily about theology. It is a worldview that people from many theologies can embrace and move forward in their own unique direction.
It seems to me that Belcher, while Reformed in his theology, has a more missional worldview and is more open and accepting of others who share the worldview but have differing theologies. Keller is much the same way. Why, then, criticize Neo-Reformers who share the worldview but not the theology? That strikes me as more limiting than they themselves are (though I admit there are many non-missional Neo-Reformers that are closed minded etc, but Belcher and Keller were the examples).
I guess in all this I agree with Bob. There are many faithful ways to be on mission. Let's not go back to the evangelical/fundamental debate of disagreeing about the disagreement (as Philip Cary says). Or am I reading you incorrectly?
Hey Dave,
I'm a little late to the discussion but I'm perplexed by your post.
As you know, I have been greatly influenced by your ministry and the ministry of Life on the Vine. I feel as though I was raised there. In many ways, LoV is where I grew up in Christ . I will always be indebted to you and the church family there. So I have a tremendous appreciation for what you are doing, though I've been gone these past seven (seven! already!) years. (By the way, miss you guys tremendously.)
As another caveat, let me offer that typically, you're a few years ahead of me. That is, I hear you for awhile, think you're a crackpot, then live, experience, learn on some stuff and eventually circle back around to where you've been all along. And I'm open to the idea that's the case here.
But this post, brother – it's gobbledygook! Or, at least, I can't understand it. It seems like a meaningless intramural debate.
I hear you saying that the neo-Reformed movement epitomized by Jim Belcher is not an adequate third way because – what? It's too tied to the cultural foundations of the west, esp. the Enlightenment? What does this mean?
Can you please help me understand how your neo-anabaptistic, holiness, missional, evangelical, baptist seminary (you forgot Alliance) (hereafter referred to as N.A.H.M.E.B.S.A for short) rubric for life and ministry is different? So far, I'm with Roger on this one – it's too easy to deconstruct someone else's thing. Is NAHMEBSA theology and practice somehow not indebted to the cultural foundations of the west, particularly the Enlightenment?
OR, if we wanted to take some potshots and deconstruct your deal, wouldn't it be just as easy to say that Dave Fitch's NAHMEBSA thinking is too tied to postmodern philosophy and will eventually become the new old liberalism. It's just so easy to say something like that without any appreciation for the ministry you're doing. I could pull a couple quotes from your book, conjecture a little, diddle with words and voila! Fitch does not have a third way.
Finally, what do you mean when you say it will repeat the fate of evangelicalism? Have you ever met any of the converts of the neo-reformed movement? Can you really say that they will only be effective reaching Christians and neo-Christendom? I feel like you're turning up your nose to a fairly compelling body of work and I don't understand why. That is, I believe I am seeing a neo-reformed movement that is having a tremendous impact in the post-Christian west. What are we seeing differently?
With warm regards,
Mike,
… that has made salvation a benefit program … that has largely been unaffective in bringing the gospel to its culture, indeed has facilitated its culture becoming grotesquely pagan …
thanks for piping in like only you can do … I hope and apparently need to explain myself … so I'll get to it on posts that lie ahead. For now, can I say that if Jim Belcher, whom I like alot, is writing a book that recognizes the current conundrums of evangelicalism, his solutions do not escape the logic that led to the problems in the first place … I'm not snubbing my nose at the Reformation. There's no turning back on that. But the way it has morphed intoa brand of theology an been popularized within the borad evangelical church in N America has led to (in my estimation) a fiasco … a church that looks like Wal Mart
So before I stick my foot in my mouth one more time .. I'm grateful for your comments here (reallyyyyy) … and I', going to get about the task of trying to explain myself in the posts to come …
Blessings bro … and God bless your labors in the great north …
DF