Book review
Why We Love the Church
Full description of book:
Kevin DeYoung & Ted Kluck, Why We Love the Church — In Praise of Institutions and Organized Religion, (Chicago, IL, USA: Moody Publishers, 2009). ISBN 978-0-8024-5837-7.
Review:
This book is the second of its kind co-written by Pastor Kevin DeYoung and his church member Ted Kluck. The first, Why we are not Emergent (By Two Guys who should be), was indeed a great book written in a very engaging format. For obvious reasons, I like the section by DeYoung more since he deals with the theological issues while Kluck deals more with the experiential aspect. This book is no different. Although I am sure Kluck's portion are good and could be of help to some people, I unfortunately cannot appreciate his sections much, and thus will mainly stick with DeYoung's sections in the book.
In his fight for organized religion, the main antagonists DeYoung faces are the decentralists and anti-institutionists found especially in the American house-church movement, with the main spokesmen being the emergents, the pollster George Barna and house church leader Frank Viola. In the introduction, DeYoung outlines for us this new anti-institutional house-church phenomenon, and the way he would address the issues involved. As DeYoung states, he is writing this book for four kinds of people, of which I am sure all four would benefit greatly from reading this book by him. They are
1. The Committed. Many reading this book are, no doubt, already faithfully attending and involved. We hope to spur you on to keep working hard and ministering steadily in your local church. Further, we hope this book can give you a thoughtful response to disillusioned former churchgoers you know and love.
2. The Disgruntled. Lots of churchgoers are still committed to the church but pretty ticked off at her limited impact and corporate failings. We sympathize with some of the frustration. But we hope to show that the frustration is sometimes out of proportion to the offense and at other times misguided.
3. The Waffling. Here we are thinking of those who are currently in churches, but more or less uninvolved and quietly dissatisfied. To paraphrase the imitable P.G. Wodehouse, you may not be disgruntled, but you are certainly far from gruntled. You are intrigued by the notion of churchless Christianity and wonder if checking out of Sunday morning might be the way to go. We hope to show you that such a move would be not only biblically unfaithful, but harmful for your soul.
4. The Disconnected. These are the ones getting the most press these days — the Christians (sometimes ex-Christians) who have left the church in their quest for God. Maybe you feel more spiritual than ever since leaving church or maybe you walked away years ago and deep down know you are far from God. Or maybe, you are exploring a new kind of fellowship that seems way deeper and hipper than church ever was. In any case, we hope you will read this book with an open mind, considering what the Bible says about the importance of the church as organism and organization, as a community and an institution, as a living entity with relationships and rules. We hope, with you, to pay attention to the wisdom of that most neglected community — the community of the dead — and to listen for what the Holy Spirit may be saying through the Word of God to discern the thoughts and intentions of our hearts (Heb. 4:12)
(p. 15-16)
In order to tackle this task, DeYoung addresses the topic from four perspectives: 1) the missiological, 2) the personal, 3) the historical, and 4) the theological, which are covered in one chapter each.
Before we continue, let us give DeYoung's definition of the Church for this purpose (i.e. not exhaustive definition). By church,
I [DeYoung] don't mean the "church" that consists of three guys drinking pumpkin spiced lattes at Starbucks talking about the spirituality of the Violet Femmes and why Sex and the City is really profound. I mean the local church that meets — wherever you want it to meet — but exults in the cross of Christ; sings songs to a holy and loving God; has church officers, good preaching, celebrates the sacraments, exercises discipline; and takes an offering. This is the church that combines freedom and form in corporate worship, has old people and young, artsy types and NASCAR junkies, seekers and stalwarts, and probably has bulletins and by-laws. (p.19)
Barring the Americanisms, I am sure that is a good working definition of what the Church has historically been taken to mean, and this is the definition we would use throughout this entire review.
The missiological
In chapter one dealing with the missiological aspect, DeYoung interacts mainly with the Emergent/Missional crowd. He humbly admits that he has not attended a "seeker church" or a "hard-nosed fundamentalist church" before (p 38), and as such he would not be able to fully empathize with the struggles they might have faced. Having said that, DeYoung addresses some of the issues the "missional" crowd has with the church. He first addresses the issue of the non-growth of the church by emphasizing the Scripture which does not indicate that "church size is the measure of success" (p. 31). DeYoung does not therefore washes his hand off the issue by merely referring everything to the sovereignty of God (though that is true), but asks conservative churches also to consider whether they are actually getting in the way of the Gospel and "wear smallness as a badge of honor" (p. 32). Towards the other side, DeYoung asks the Missional crowd other questions that they should also consider in their disenchantment with the church. After all, if we are concerned for the Church, then are we doing what the Scripture tells us to do for her growth? The questions DeYoung asks us to consider are:
If we and the missional crowd are not even interested in using the God-ordained methods of evangelism and "church growth", then no one should complain about how bad we are at "doing church".
DeYoung next addresses the issue of "community transformation". He asks us to consider what the church is actually called to do, and calls upon us to "reflect more carefully on the difference between the responsibility of the church's calling and the individual Christian's calling." (p. 40). There are a lot of good things to be involved in, but the fact of the matter is that the Church cannot do all of them. No doubt the church should help, but DeYoung rightly counter-argues against the missional critique by stating that, just as we should not assume that police officers are worthless because we still have crime, so therefore "the existence of an unmet need or ongoing tragedy in the world" cannot be assumed to be unassailable proof of the church's failure (p. 41). Many churches including DeYoung's are indeed involved in various form of community care and outreach, so although they may not "be as good as they could be", they are "not as bad as many think" (p. 41). DeYoung furthermore points out that the missional crowd seems to be selective in their idea of community transformation. He questioned why is it that "working at an AIDS clinic" is kingdom work but "opposing gay marriage is not", noting that there are no unrepentant homosexuals in the kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9) (p. 39). DeYoung finally warns of the dangers for the "social justice crowd", that
Most of their causes demand nothing of us Christians except psychological guilt and advocacy. This often means that middle-class kids feel bad about being middle class and complaining that other people (the church, the White House, multinational corporations, those fat cats on Wall Street, etc.) aren't doing more to address these problems. The problems are almost always far away and the solutions involve other people caring more. (p. 44. Bold added)
Indeed, this is a strong indictment of many of these social justice crowd. They and their message would be much more credible if they live the talk instead of playing the blame game such that all problems are always other people's fault (never theirs).
The main focus of the church is the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. In DeYoung's words, "what makes the church unique is its commitment, above all else, to knowing and making known Christ and Him crucified" (p. 45). Critiquing both the left and right wings of those who "talk the most about bringing [in] the kingdom", viz the emergent/missional and the dominionist/theonomist crowds respectively, DeYoung states that
Both camps have a point, but both are selective in their view of the kingdom, and both have too much "already" and not enough "not yet" in their eschatology. We need to remember that when the disciples asked Jesus before His ascension whether He was now going to restore the kingdom, He not only told them no, but He told them their main responsibility was to be His witnesses (Acts 1:6-9). We are less the reincarnation of Christ in the world ushering in His kingdom and more His ambassadors bearing testimony to His life and finished work (2 Cor. 5:20) (pp. 39-40)
DeYoung concludes this section by voicing his concern that possibly "lurking beneath the surface in much of the current disillusionment with the church is a dis-ease with the traditional message of salvation" (p. 50), stating his personal observation that "as people grow tired of hearing about the atonement, salvation, the cross, and the afterlife, they grow tired of church" (p. 51), and sums up the chapter with this excellent paragraph
So much as the church has been nothing but a holy huddle at times and as much as I admire zeal for good works, there is a danger in much of the missional literature that the gospel of God's grace towards sinners get swallowed up in urgent calls for world redemption and cultural transformation. There is a danger of centering our churches on the message of a heavenly Father who adopts unworthy children of wrath through the work of His Son on the cross. There is a danger that we find our unity in doing good missional deeds for our community and not in the good news of the gospel. There's a danger our Christianity becomes all imperative and no indicative, all about what we need to do with God and little about what God's done for us. There's a danger that when people get disinterested in the gospel, they get disinterested in the church. And once they leave the church, they're left the only institute whose mission aims for eternity and whose gospel is truly good news. (p. 51)
Amen.
The personal
Chapter 3 of the book is entitled 'On Hurt and Heresy'. In this section, DeYoung deals more with the personal side of the Church, and tackles the issue in two areas: outsider perceptions and insider angst.
That outsider perceptions of the church is negative shouldn't be that much of a problem given Jesus' promises in this regard (Mt. 15:22-25; Mk. 13:13; Lk. 12:17, Jn. 15:18). Yet, it is insisted that people love Jesus but they do not love the church, as Dan Kimball's book with a similar title says. However, DeYoung points out, as Kimball has admitted, "what outsiders like is a pop-culture Jesus" (p. 78). And when outsiders detests the church, it is oftentimes true because of 2 Cor. 4:4, that the god of this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers. Therefore, standing up for biblical teachings like biblical marriage and creation would look like antigay and antiscience respectively to the world (p. 79). While we shouldn't add to our own problems, the fact of the matter is that outsider perceptions are not useful in evaluating the church at all.
DeYoung next addresses the issue of insider angst. In doing so, he lists out the issues Christians have with the church: that the church is boring, they are tired of the outdated Christian subculture, they hate the megachurch, disgruntled insiders feel like the church is abusive and the church seems inauthentic. While acknowledging some of them may be legitimate, DeYoung cautions the critics to examine themselves first, since in his experience many time the problem lies within himself, and not the church. After this, DeYoung lays out a few questions for these insiders to ask:
Under the first question, DeYoung asks them to examine their motives for rejecting the church. Using the example of William P. Young, the writer of The Shack, DeYoung shows how Young has actually rejected the Faith altogether with his heretical views. Is such rejection therefore of the church or of the faith?
In the second question, DeYoung cautions against placing unrealistic demands on the church, and thus wanting to have our cake and eat it too. For those who serve in the homeless shelter, DeYoung states that "they leave the institutional church with its buildings and programs and paid staff..., never stopping to think that someone pays the bills for this building, someone turns on the heat in the morning, and someone maintains a calendar of events every month" (p. 87), and thus the homeless shelter is an institution too. DeYoung continues:
The church-is-lame crowd hates Constantine and notions of Christendom, but they want the church to be a patron of the arts, and run after-school programs, and bring the world together in peace and love. They bemoan the over-programmed church, but then think of a hundred complex, resource-hungry things the church should be doing. They don't like the church because it is too hierarchical, but then hate it when it has poor leadership. They wish the church could be more diverse, but then leave to meet in a coffee shop with other well-educated thirtysomethings who are into film festivals, NPR, and carbon offsets. They want more of a family spirit, but too much family and they'll complain that the church is "inbred." They want the church to know that its reputation with outsiders is terrible, but then are critical when the church is too concerned with appearances. They chide the church for not doing more to address social problems, but then complain when the church gets too political. They want church unity and decry all our denominations, but fail to see the irony in the fact that they have left to do their own thing because they can't find a single church that can satisfy them. They are critical of the lack of community in the church, but then want services that allow for individualized worship experiences. They want leaders with vision, but don't want anyone to tell them what to do or how to think. They want a church where the people really know each other and care for each other, but then they complain the church today is an isolated country club, only interested in catering to its own members. They want to be connected with history, but are sick of the same prayers and same style every week. They call for not judging "the spiritual paths of other believers who are dedicated to pleasing God and blessing people," and then they blast the traditional church in the harshest, most unflattering terms.
They'd like to have their cake and eat it too. (pp. 87-88)
For the third question, DeYoung calls us not to make an idol of "authenticity". He is for "authenticity if it simply meant the opposite of fake, contrived hypocrisy (p. 89). However, godliness demands more than us being real; that "we stop acting like we want to and start acting like Christ". In his observation, DeYoung states that "authenticity" functions "more like a convenient cover for endless introspection, doubt, uncertainty, anger and worldliness" (p. 89), and thus those who do not grow in godliness and do not suffer from these issues would be despised for being "inauthentic". DeYoung therefore calls upon Christians to stop valuing "authenticity" but rather honor godliness.
In the last section, DeYoung draws on the history of the "Jesus people movement" to show us that disillusionment with the church is not new. DeYoung tells us that the church is slow to learn, but that she will lear her lesson if the Spirit is blowing in those winds, and thus we should be patient with her
DeYoung closes this section with a kind pastoral exhortation to those who are leaving or have left the church, which is indeed much appreciated
However I am worried for church-leavers. I wonder if they will be happy in five years with their new form of church. I wonder if they will keep up the revolution without the life-support of structure and routine. I wonder if they will escape their own cynicism and anger. Most of all I worry that in leaving the church they are leaving the faith of the church and the Christ of two thousand years of church history. I feel sorry for their hurts and worry about their hearts. (pp. 92-93)
The historical
In this section, DeYoung turns his gaze upon the anti-institutional [American] house church movement, especially as promoted by George Barna and Frank Viola, and takes them to task for their blatant historical revisionism. DeYoung aptly states that "as they [Barna and Viola] see it, the church has been bankrupt for two thousand years, but with their research, we can finally take the "red pill," have "the curtain pulled back" and see "the true story of where your Christian practices came from". (p 117) In doing this, Viola and Barna have no interest whatsoever in the catholicity or universality of the church's witness and worship (p. 117).
Historical hubris litter Viola's book. For example, Viola argued that not only pulpits, stained glass, robes etc do not have to be in church, he tried to prove that they can't be in church either. However, this kind of reasoning is ridiculous, as DeYoung shows
But just because pews come later in the church's history, or even if pagans used them first, doesn't make them unChristian. If you don't like pews, fine. But they're just benches. Can we not have hinges on our church doors if a nonChristian invented them? This is the same sort of logic I [Kevin] read in conspiracy theorists who claim that we are all worshipping Roman gods because we have church on Sunday (the day of the sun) and prayer meetings on Wednesday (i.e. Woden's Day) (p. 118)
Of course, I have never heard anyone complain that worshipping on Saturn's Day (Saturday - Jewish Sabbath) is pagan in nature!
Viola next continue to attack church buildings and how they are all pagan in nature as the early church met in homes, a ridiculous motion that DeYoung calls "much ado about nothing" (p. 121), showing through Ben Witherington's research that Roman homes could be quire spacious and thus such meeting in homes are not merely "small group Bible study". As DeYoung states,
You have to meet somewhere.Even if you don't own a building, presumably your worship gathering does not meet in a random, always-changing, undisclosed location (unless you're facing persecution). You do have some address. There is some place where your church meets. Sure, strictly speaking, you may want to think of that place as more of a meeting house (a la the Puritans) than a church. But if you call the building "a church" I think God will understand (p. 121)
DeYoung continues to expose Viola's book in the area of worship, spirituality and spontaneity, and liturgy (pp. 122-127), and finish off this section by showing us that an examination of early church documents like for example The Didache (early second century) show the existence of specific worship orders in the early church, thus proving that Viola's argument for a "completely spontaneous, structureless, antiliturgical, brand-new-every-week worship service in the first centuries of the church is an argument against the plain facts of history" (p. 127)
Moving back to church history, it is a habit of some to dig out the historical misdeeds of the Church to confess the sins of the Church. DeYoung aids us here by showing us the truths behind such charges like a flat earth (pp. 128-129), the slave trade (pp. 129-131) and the Crusades (pp. 131-135). While not excusing the errors made by professing Christians, DeYoung shows us the history behind these things and corrects some misunderstanding on the topics, thus helping us to understand the motives behind some of them and mitigate the charges.
One major danger of this whole issue of identification repentance for these historical errors is that "we are not really confessing any of our own mistakes" (p. 135). DeYoung summarizes an article of C.S. Lewis on this topic as follows:
His [Lewis] basic point is that it is always dangerous when we are apologizing for something we disdain in someone else. Some solidarity with your country or your own history can be a good thing, but it can also easily turn into the sin of pride where we "confess" all the stupid tings our benighted forefathers weren't smart enough to avoid" (p. 135).
As Deyoung further says,
In confessing all the sins of the church, we have everything to gain and nothing to mortify. This isn't to suggest that the church hasn't gotten things dreadfully wrong, but it is to suggest that slavery and the Crusades are not the things thirtysomething Americans are likely to get wrong today. We would do well to listen to [C.S.] Lewis from seven decades ago: "The communal sins which they should be told to repent are those of their own age and class — its contempt for the uneducated, its readiness to suspect evil, its self-righteous provocations of public obloquy, its breaches of the Fifth Commandment. Of these sins I have heard nothing among them. Till I do, I must think their candour towards the national enemy a rather inexpensive virtue." (p. 137)
Rounding off this historical section, DeYoung addresses those leaving the Church for purportedly historical reasons.
I [Kevin] see many leaving the church instead of loving her for better or for worse. I see lots of my peers who have 20/20 vision for the church's failings, but are nearsighted to their own pride, self-importance, and mutual self-congratulation. I see a willful ignorance to the church's history, a simplistic understanding of its past errors, and a childish impatience for her current struggles.
To be sure, let us lament with broken hearts the impurities yet to be washed clean in Christ's bride. But let us never forget that the first errors to confess are not those sins belonging to our grandparents or the crusaders, but our own. (p. 138)
The theological
In this section, DeYoung addresses the theological aspect of Barna's attack on the Institutional Church, focusing on the area of the concept of the church, dismissing the idea that relationships are enough (pp. 162-163), and that the church does not need structure (pp. 167-170), finally addressing the issue of the sermon as being an important aspect of the church (pp. 172-176)
On the concept of church, Barna states that the church merely refers to the people in the church, and thus "church is plural for Christian" (p. 165). The problem with this minimalist approach , as DeYoung states, is that "it confuses definition and function" (p. 166). As DeYoung explains, the church is indeed made up of the elect people of God, but it is manifested (function) in churches, which "do certain things and are marked by certain characteristics" (p. 166). As DeYoung states:
When Paul wrote his letters to local churches, he wasn't addressing three Christian guys who shared an apartment and talked about the spirituality of Euripides. He was writing to a group of Christians who embraced a certain structure, participated in a certain kind of worship service, and shared a certain kind of doctrinal and ethical standard. This makes their gathering a church and not just an exercise in hanging out. (p. 166-167)
Barna thus confuses definition with function, and thus his attack on organizational Christianity is in error.
The church, as the elect people of God, is both organism and organization. The church is a breathing, growing, maturing, living thing. It is also comprised of a certain order (1 Cor. 14:40), with institutional norms (5:1-13), doctrinal standards (15:1-2), and defined rituals (11:23-26). The two aspects of the church — organism and organization — must not be played off against each other, for both are "grounded in the operations of the glorified head of the church through the Holy Spirit." Offices and gifts, governance and the people, organization and organism — all these belong together. They are all blessings from the work of Christ. (p. 170)
With regards to the idea of preaching, Barna is in error of denigrating it. The sermon came from Judaism (p. 174), and as such is not pagan. Preaching is proclamation.
The Greek word for preacher is kerux. It is different from the word for teacher or apostle (2 Tim. 1:11). A kerux is a herald. He is not the leader of an inductive Bible study, as important as those are. He is not engaged in give-and-take dialogue, though there should be some of that in the church. ... He is a herald, declaring a message for the King. ... The answer to bad preaching ... is not no preaching, but better preaching — preaching full of meat and marrow; preaching that manifestly comes out of the Scriptures and leads us back to them week after week; preaching that is unquestionably soaked in godliness and the presence of God; preaching delivered with passion and humility as from a dying man to dying men. When pastors preach like this, some will love it and some will not. But no one will have the right to label the sermon "a little talk" or "an inspiring oration." (p. 176)
In concluding the analysis of the promotion of the house-church movement, the issue has never been churches meeting in homes. Rather,
The problems is that "house church" in America often means anticlergy, antiauthority, antiliturgy, antisermon, antibuilding, anti-most ways of doing church over the past 1,700 years. ... House-church advocates often argue that traditional church ignores real life and makes genuine relationships impossible.
Conclusion
This book by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck is indeed an interesting look and defence of the Church as an institution, against the attacks by the American house-church advocates and the missional Emergents. DeYoung's concern for those who are hurting and disillusioned by people in the Church is indeed appreciated, and by listening to the charges and interacting with them in light of Scripture, he has shown that he cares for the souls of men and that he defends the Church not because he is a pastor, but because she is the God-ordained vehicle for the Gospel, the proclamation of His Word and the impartation of His grace. May this book indeed be helpful in bringing souls back to the sheep-fold of the chief shepherd our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.