In the ongoing conversation/controversy (and one might say, debate) that goes on within and around the emerging church, a new book has been released that seeks to offer clarity and perhaps even mend relationships between those seeking to break new ground, and those content with the status quo. The book in question is Jim Belcher’s Deep Church. The sub-title says as much: A Third Way Beyond Emerging and Traditional.

In my mind, the book is a welcome addition to a list of works that have often done as much to bring heat, as they have light, to the discussion. Belcher is clearly not out to prove either side wholly in error. Rather, he very evidently wants both sides to be understood. And for this he should be commended; even if some of his conclusions might leave some of us, on either side of that fence, a little unsatisfied, and perhaps even a little perplexed.

If there is one thing that is probably more frustrating than anything else when it comes to the existing church’s critique of the emerging church, its that what’s often being critiqued is either a "straw-church" (can I say that?), or a church that can only be identified as a fringe within the broader emergent movement. When Jim Belcher sat down to write Deep Church, it’s abundantly clear that he was aware of this frustration among emergents. And so he responded by really doing his homework. And I mean that. He really did. He didn’t draw conclusions from a blog entry here or there, nor from second or third-hand remarks. Rather, while researching the emerging church, Belcher engaged with some of the chief protagonists of the movement. That means he read the books in question (by people such as Brian McLaren), and flew around the country to speak in person to others (like Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones). He also spoke with philosophers and culture experts, in order to really get at the heart of what spawned the emerging church, and where it was headed.

Belcher was in fact so intent on getting at the fabric of the emerging quilt in Deep Church, that he devoted a large part of the book to the critiques that launched the emerging church to begin with. Now, a point of clarification would be in order here: Some people have complained that this book is a little like the documenting of a closed family squabble between evangelicals and their ex-members, the post-evangelical emergents. I think this is a fair summary of the book.

Now, to his credit, Belcher basically admits this evangelical focus. In fact, when he speaks of “traditional” church, in this book, Belcher makes it clear he’s speaking of the traditional evangelical stream of Christianity. The Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, and even to a large extent the liberal Mainliners, as well as others, are largely left out of the conversation. Now, this could be an article unto its own, but let me just say that this decision – to compare emergents against a solely evangelical stream – is what many emergents might consider indicative of some of the arrogance of the evangelical stream to begin with. In other words, there are some assumptions about what is “True Church” behind that editorial decision. I’ll just leave it at that. For, as I say, that could be an entire article in its own right.

Getting back to Belcher’s discussion of the emergent critiques of the traditional evangelical church, they are largely as follows: the buying into of Enlightenment rationalism, a one-dimensional description of salvation, irrelevant worship styles, un-impacting preaching, narrow ecclesiology, and cultural entrenchment. Now, many of these are spot-on. However, when it comes to styles and forms in particular, I think that this kind of critique was more common five years ago. Today the emerging conversation has gone deeper (in many circles anyway), and delves into the expression and even the formulation of theology. Now, even as I say that, I should offer the same disclaimer that Belcher is wise to give: The emerging church is a broad movement. It, like any kind of postmodernly-informed movement, is difficult, nay, impossible - to draw bold lines around. So it should be taken as a given that when it comes to expressing critiques, or anything else for that matter, there are almost always exceptions to the rule(s).

Now this same kind of broad engagement with the emerging church, while fair-handed and intellectually honest, can also be a little frustrating for those of us who represent one particular slice within that broad swath. Because Belcher is trying to engage the fullness of the emerging stream, for those of us on the progressive end it can, at times, feel like a conversation we remember having five, or maybe even ten years ago. Here again I refer to style versus substance questions.

For instance, while I respect the concerns of someone like Dan Kimball, in my mind, his concerns only touch the tip of the iceberg when it comes to a truly postmodern critique of the traditional evangelical church. And here again, a clarification would be helpful. There are two ways to address the postmodernism question. For some, like Mark Driscoll for instance, who’s mentioned as part of the movement, postmodernism is something to be countered by the gospel. For others, like Doug Pagitt for instance, postmodernism is a reframing lens for the gospel. By the way, here I speak of what Belcher terms "soft-postmodernism", or what I might call "second-generation postmodernism", which, please note, is NOT complete moral relativism. Either way, obviously these two perspectives (Driscoll's and Pagitt's) are continents apart. And yet Belcher tries to cover all that ground in between. Again, for the most part, he’s effective in doing so; even if that leaves little room for in-depth analysis of particular elements within the larger stream.

Now, as I’ve been saying, Belcher really does deserve full marks for his thoughtful, even-handed, ecumenically-inspired, intellectually honest approach to the emerging church. I think in many ways he really does nail it. And, for that alone, I would highly recommend this book; especially to those looking for a primer on what all the hoopla is about to begin with. For people looking for that kind of introduction, this book will prove invaluable. And not only does Belcher discuss the emerging critique of the traditional evangelical steam, but he also devotes equal room and voice for a “push-back” from the traditionalists.

At the end of the day we should ask this question: is this book what it claims to be, a third way forward? One that moves beyond the traditional and emerging streams?  In many ways I think it is – especially in terms of creating a space, even a sacred space, for those who desire to enter into and engage in the conversation without feeling they have to immediately pick sides – so to speak. In that sense Belcher’s Deep Church really does chart a helpful course.

What I find a little unsatisfying and perplexing about this book - as I hinted at to begin with - are some of the conclusions Belcher arrives at after having so thoroughly researched the thrust of some of the emergent critiques. In my mind, his desire for change falls a little short – perhaps even a long way short. Personally, I think the traditional evangelical church needs a lot more than a mere tweaking. I think it really does need a – to use a Brian McLaren metaphor - full-on reboot of the system.

As I hinted at earlier, for those of us who take the Catholics, Orthodox, Mainliners, and others, as dance-partners in this proposition, such a reboot is not nearly as dismissive as it may sound; for evangelicalism alone isn’t the church. It, in itself, is just one particular stream; one that must - if it is to reach fulfillment - enter into conversation with the rest of the family.

Now, while Belcher does make reference to the importance of deferring to the Great Tradition – even in the way we interpret the Bible – it still feels like this particular version of the Great Tradition is still but one stream of many. What about the others? Don’t they have something to add to the mix? I think many emergents, myself included, think they do. And we also believe - probably to a degree that makes people like Belcher nervous - that we too, here in the 21st century, also must faithfully invest into that Great Tradition, rather than just draw from it. But well-meaning, sincere, intelligent, Spirit-led people, will disagree. And that’s okay. That’s part of the journey. And learning to disagree - not just agreeably, but also brotherly and sisterly, is essential in that regard. And again, to that end, Belcher is a prime example of someone who is very much dreaming into, and living into, that very ideal.