Can You Critique An Undefined Movement?

This is a review by Dan Marler of the book "Why We're Not Emergent", Kevin DeYoung & Ted Kluck, Moody Publishers


Young people seem to have a way of looking at the status quo and finding flaws and errors; and feeling frustrated at the existing structures and beliefs and traditions. And, so, they criticize and challenge and initiate change. Frankly, that can be good and it has its place and it is, no doubt, an inevitable part of life.

Sometimes, however, after the years go by, and these young people have aged and gained some experience at the school called “life”, they come to see that some of those old structures and beliefs and traditions had some wisdom that they had overlooked in their youthful omniscience and zeal.

That is, of course, a great oversimplification of reality, but that’s the thought about the “Emergent Movement” that kept occurring to me as I read “Why We’re Not Emergent”.

This is an interesting book that does a good job of explaining and critiquing a movement that is inherently hard to define and has no recognized headquarters or statement of beliefs—it’s a movement where even its recognized leaders and spokespersons will sometimes not identify themselves as part of the movement. The authors characterize the task of defining and critiquing the Emergent movement as being like trying to nail jello to the wall. (At least, I think I read that in this book. I might be wrong. If I am, disregard the last three sentences and move rapidly to the next paragraph shaking your head and saying, “tsk, tsk.”)

The book is interesting and funny and the positions of the authors—who are definitely not Emergent—were well reasoned and well stated. But, I appreciate that it was also, in my opinion, a reasonable and irenic treatment of the Emergent movement and its ideas and approach.

DeYoung and Kluck don’t back down from stating their beliefs, but you get the impression that they were really trying to disagree lovingly. To “disagree lovingly” is a form of tolerance that is not well recognized in our culture because we’ve redefined the whole concept of tolerance so that many believe it means that everyone is always right. But DeYoung and Kluck write in a manner that evidences the true spirit of tolerance—which includes disagreement.

Why We’re Not Emergent would be a helpful book for people who would like to gain some familiarity with the Emergent movement. And it could also be a profitable intellectual challenge and, dare I say, corrective, for those who consider themselves to be Emergent.

Dan Marler
Oak Lawn, IL

www.VisitUsOnline.org