Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck have brought out another book, this time tackling critics of institutional church. I really enjoyed their book on the emergent church and I gave it a mostly favourable review.

I finished their second book in a matter of days and I enjoyed a lot of what was written. I agree with a lot of what was written. However, the book left me feeling uncomfortable in several areas.

  1. Their are too many ‘broad strokes’ in this book. In fact it could be said that the book is one huge broad stroke. DeYoung in particular attempts to lump every critic of the church together along with every modern ecclesiologist and attempts to respond and correct to all of them. This creates the problem of not dealing with authors fairly.
  2. Those who are meeting together in new ways for missiological purposes are criticised as harshly as those who are abandon church altogether. The missiological expressions of church were really not dealt with fairly. Nothing was mentioned of Mark Driscoll or the Acts 29 network who would undoubtedly share DeYoung’s theology of salvation but would differ greatly in his criticism of missiology.
  3. Organic church people are slated quite heavily for their criticism of the institutional church. While some of the criticism are valid i.e their weak view of preaching, to simply regard organics as people who have commitment issues is simply unfair. In many cases those in organic churches are far more committed to each other than those who only gather a few times a week. Secondly, Deyoung only tackles Viola’s Pagan Christianity, and as a result often misrepresents Viola’s views. In order to get the full picture you would have to read Viola’s Re imagining Church and other materials. In many ways I probably agree more with Deyoung’s view of church than I do Viola’s however I have to say some of the strengths of Viola and organic church were completely overlooked and at times mocked. One chapter revealed a real lack of understanding of Viola’s teaching on ‘body participation’ and it also revealed a lack of charismatic experience in this area. In DeYoung’s church people obviously have not learned how to be led by the Holy Spirit in open and participatory meetings. This is sad as having experienced this level of fellowship and ministry myself, it is a very edifying and Christ exalting experience. If only the Reformed churches had embraced the charismatic movement!
  4. There comes across a real lack of spirituality in the book. I think this perhaps comes from the fact that intellectualism can be predominant in Reformed churches and there can be a lack of emphasis on the inner spiritual life. The Christian life is not just about believing the facts of the gospel it is also about entering into the life of Christ that is now possible through the cross and resurrection.

Overall some of the dangers of the new models of church are highlighted well, particularly their abandonment of the gospel. However, the guys reminded me of a debate I once had on a reformed discussion board regarding the question ‘Did the Reformation go far enough in ecclesiology?’ You would have thought I had been promoting a real heresy by asking this question! Most of the people who responded were reformed Presbyterians who were convinced that their particular view of the church was the complete restoration of what had been corrupted through Roman Catholicism! The argument went a bit like, ‘we are happy with church as it is, we are biblical, to suggest otherwise is to depart from the bible’. I found it interesting that most of the baptists on that board were rather quiet during ecclesiological discussions. Church history shows that the church has had to continually renew itself and reform. Institutionalism can easily become an oppressive system that kills all spiritual life.

For those who want to practice new forms of church but want to abandon the gospel (or church) this book is a good corrective, however for those who who love the gospel  and care about the wellbeing and growth of the church this book will prove very frustrating at points.