I like to read, though I don't read as much as I should. I'll probably read 20 or so books a year and after a few days or weeks, much of what I read doesn't do much for me. Not this book, though. Deep Church thoughtfully and gracefully written by Jim Belcher, is one that will stick. The book's subtitle, A Third Way beyond Emerging and Traditional captures its essence.

In his introduction, he aptly describes who should read the book. "The book is written for those who are caught in between. They are unhappy with the present state of the evangelical church but are not sure where to turn for an answer. They like some of what the emerging and traditional camps offer, but they are not completely at ease with either."

In this blog, I'm not giving a formal review nor am I trying to capture all the main points. Rather, I've simply listed in bullet fashion some of the his insights that struck me most. And I don't always quote directly.

I highly recommend this book, so much so that I'm purchasing a copy for each of our deacons, elders, and staff. On the book's web site, www.deepchurch.com, he lists an impressive group of endorsers including Tim Keller, Mark Driscoll, Rob Bell, and Ed Stetzer.

So, here you go.

• The emerging church is protesting these issues: captivity to enlightenment rationalism, a narrow view of salvation, belief before belonging, uncontextualized worship, ineffective preaching, weak ecclesiology, and tribalism.
• Three groups make up the emerging family: relevants (they take the Gospel in the historic form of church and attempt to make it understandable in emerging culture), reconstructionists (they take the same Gospel but question and reconstruct much of the form of the church), revisionists (they question and revise the Gospel and the church). He credits Ed Stetzer for this.
• On unity: "No unity is possible without boundaries of thought and belief around something. There is always a limit to what any group can tolerate without being torn apart."
• "Apart from revelation, there is nothing to hold a particular tradition, community or history accountable. There is no prophetic voice."
• Belonging is great. Just don't shortchange belief.
• Bible+tradition+mission=deep ecclesiology.
• There is a place for critiquing culture but we are called to also create it.
• The church is both institution and organism (Abraham Kuyper).
• Evangelicalism best thrives when it is simultaneously distinct from and engaged with the wider society (Christian Smith).

This snippets only scratch the surface of the insights Jim offers in Deep Church. If you struggle with wanting to embrace some of the emerging church's learnings yet don't want to lose your moorings to Scripture and sound theology, you should have this book in your library and its content in your mind.

As a pastor of a mid-sized church, I try to read broadly enough to understand the current Christian vernacular. My current read, Deep Church, unpacks the terminology of emerging/emergent church and those that think more traditionally and suggests an in-between position. I recommend it.

Through my reading, I've noticed the past few years that the church's vernacular seems to be in constant flux, depending on who you read or listen to. The church growth movement taught me avoid certain words or phrases for fear of turning off the listener. Other recent voices suggest new terminology as well.

• Some replace such terms as justification, sanctification, and atonement with other words with less syllables.
• The term seeker was/is used as a preferred word for  a lost person.
• Salvation is now cross the line of faith.
• The newest replacement phrase is follower of Christ in lieu of Christian or believer.

When I preach and teach, I try to use theological terms that make sense to the listener. If you listen to any of my messages, you'll probably find that my word choice matches the above.

But the last one, follower of Christ, even though I sometimes use it, feels disingenuous to me.

I'm not sure why I feel that way.

Is it because I've used believer and Christian for so long that subconsciously I don't like change?

Is is it because I feel like I'm trying to be theologically hip by using the coolest new words or phrases? (I am not the coolest pastor around. I don't drink beer, smoke cigars, or study at Starbucks while having deep spiritual conversations with the barista. A future blog post.)

Or, is it just too new for me to feel comfortable using it?

I'm still wrestling with this one. I'd welcome your thoughts.

At a recent church leadership conference, I heard an author criticize those who believe in propositional truth.

This speaker built a straw man and then tore it down with arrogance and a dismissive spirit.

He even made a comment something like, "Those who teach and believe this stuff are misguided, misplaced, and downright wrong." He accused those who believe in propositional truth of making propositions and then beating the (heck) out of people. Interestingly, he used propositions to make his point.

On the other hand, I'm reading a refreshing book, Deep Church-a Third Way Beyond Emerging and Traditional, by a guy named Jim Belcher. He graciosly uncovers the weaknesses of both traditional foundationalists and extreme emergents as well as drawing out the best from each.

I look forward to delving deeper into Deep Church. It would be a great book to add to your library.