If you are unfamiliar or uninformed with what the term "emergent" means, you are probably not alone, even among emergents! Why We're Not Emergent is a good place to start educating yourself, albeit from the angle of critique instead of commendation. Deyoung and Kluck have provided an excellent resource that is accessible and keyed-down in rhetoric and tone. There are three strengths and one weakness that I would point out about this work.

Strengths. (1) The authors are fair in their critique. The emergent movement is basically a reactionary movement. The problem with reactionary movements is that they tend to over-react, and this is the case with the emergent church. However, the emergent church has called attention, and rightly so, to the dead-orthodoxy, traditionalism, and cultural-disengagement of the established church. We must be careful to not only point out their weakness, but have the honesty and integrity to deal with the failures of the church. Deyoung and Kluck are quick to agree with emergents when the criticisms of our present-day church are justified!

(2) Informed. Deyoung and Kluck have done their homework! A quick glance at the endnotes of each chapter will attest to this assessment. However, blogs, books, sermons, and papers are not where their research ends. Both authors have done extensive personal investigation of emergent worship, maintained relationships with those in the movement, and carried extensive conversations with adherents. They have an experiential connection, and this helps to communicate that this movement is composed of people, people who have either been hurt by the established church or have simply become frustrated with its inability and unwillingness to confront its own weaknesses.

(3) This is an excellent "layman's" critique of the emergent movement. I do not use the term "layman" in a negative sense at all. We need these kinds of tools when new movements arise in the Church. (BTW - for a more detailed analysis of where the emergent trajectory is leading us, read "The Courage to be Protestant" by David Wells.) Here are a few logical/theological fallacies and biblical errors that proponents (Brian McLaren, Donald Miller, Rob Bell, etc.) of this movement are committing.

a. Undermining the knowability of God. In reaction against dogmatic arrogance, adherents argue that while God can be known, one cannot know much about Him. This is a flat rejection of biblical revelation, inspiration, and authority. God has spoken, and quite clearly about who He is in the Scripture. Sure, we cannot know all about God, but we can know what He has communicated to us. Emergents attempt to cloak this "uncertainty" in spiritual language like "mystery" and "humility" to justify their hesitancy for affirming clear, propositional truth as revealed in the Bible. The authors observe, "Uncertainty in light of our human limitations is a virtue. Uncertainty in light of God's Word is not" (p. 44). What this amounts to is a disdain for doctrine. Paul the Apostle was surely concerned with right doctrine! If our faith is not grounded in revelational propositions and sound doctrine, what is its foundation? An emergent may reply, "It is grounded in Christ!" Yes, of course, our faith is in Christ. But which Christ? And why Christ? And when you attempt to answer those questions, you begin to state doctrinal affirmations about the person and work of Christ. Emergents must understand this point! To jettison biblical affirmations will end in a rejection of the faith!

b. Misunderstanding of saving faith. The authors summarize, "This is maybe the biggest difference between emergent Christianity and historical evangelical Christianity. Being a Christian-for Burke, for McLaren, for Bell, for Jones, and for many others in the emerging conversation-is less about faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ as the only access to God the Father and the only atonement for sins before a wrathful God, and more about living the life that Jesus lived and walking in His way" (p. 120). The danger here is getting the cart before the horse! The new birth is essentially prerequisite to true, Christian living! We are not justified by works, but by faith (Rom 3:28); it is our faith that is justified by our works (Ja 2:18).

c. The irony of their position. The authors conclude, "For all their chastisement of all things modern, they are in most ways thoroughly modern. Many of the leading books display a familiar combination of social gospel liberalism, a neoorthodox view of Scripture, and a post-Enlightenment disdain for hell, the wrath of God, propositional revelation, propitiation, and anything more than a vague moralistic, warmhearted, adoctrinal Christianity" (p. 160). This "new" movement is nothing "new," it is just wrapped in new language. Without a major refocus within this movement, it will go the way of liberalism and end up as "another gospel."

d. Rejection of constructive criticism. The epilogue is particularly insightful. The authors appeal to emergents to take note of their own weaknesses and not only focus on the problems within the established church. The chapter is based on an overview of the seven churches of Revelation. Emergents need to "admit that Jesus' prescription for health is more than community, authenticity, and inclusion" (p. 239). The authors propose that the established Church looks like the church of Ephesus while the emergent movement resembles the Pergamum and Thyatira churches. We both have our strengths and weaknesses. We both must be willing to confess, repent, and change!

(there are many more weaknesses of the emergent movement outlined in this book)

Weakness. Too much "filler." Maybe the authors wrote this way to appeal to their emergent, post-modern readership, but the background information on visiting the coffee shop, driving down the road, sitting in the backyard, etc. is a distraction and has nothing to do with the purpose of the book. It sounds more like journaling rather than substantial information.

Having said that, however, the book is still very much worth the read, and I commend it to you. The authors are to be commended for approaching this task with a tone of love for wayward brothers instead of harsh, mean-spirited rhetoric, which is what you get sometimes when hot-headed professors or pastors fire off rebukes without taking the time to get to know the personalities behind the movement. Don't misunderstand me, there comes a time to be stern and dogmatic! But that is after much prayer and loving confrontation (Mat 18:15-20).