Getting to the Bottom of the Deep Church: A Review of Jim Belcher's Book, Part One

I have read Deep Church by Jim Belcher, twice—once in pieces and once from start to finish. The reason for this is that I immediately found chapters so intriguing I read them first, isolated from the rest of the book. I was actually shocked by some of the chapters conclusions, so I felt to fully understand the book I needed to start at the beginning and read it all the way through before I could really form an opinion of the book, so I did. It turns out that this exercise helped me to understand what Belcher was saying, and yet I found that my initial concerns were confirmed.

What got my attention was his bold embrace of tradition to define church as deeper. While many of us are trying to break from tradition, Belcher espouses that we need to get back to it in order to find a peaceful way to get along. But his idea of tradition is quite specific (or is it? more later on this).

The title of the book comes from a phrase C.S. Lewis coined in his book Mere Christianity. It is a Christianity that holds to the Great Traditions of the original creeds—The Apostles Creed, The Nicene Creed and The Athanasian Creed to be specific and this is what Lewis calls “Deep Church.” Honestly, after reading the entire book I still think that the title comes off as sounding arrogant even after all the explanation, as if those who do church this way are truly in the deep end of the pool while the rest struggle in the shallows. I must say, though, that Belcher himself does not come across as arrogant, for the most part.

First, I want to share some of the things I liked and then in my next post I will share a couple of things that I didn’t.

In an attempt to find a third way rather than be in either the emerging church camp or the traditional church side, Belcher takes a kind, respective and honest look at both sides. This is one of the things I greatly appreciate about the book and is quite frankly rare. In these days full of people shouting across the aisle at one another without ever really hearing what is being said this is refreshing. Belcher not only listens, but he is fairly articulate at espousing what each is saying before he offers his “deeper” alternative. He would actually make a good marriage counselor. In each chapter he begins with writing about what the emerging church is protesting over the traditional church, then covers how the traditional church counters before he finally settles the issue with his own alternative, which he refers to as Deep Church. He looks at truth, evangelism, the gospel, worship, preaching, ecclesiology and culture in this way.

When it comes to understanding the emerging church, he uses Ed Stetzer’s categories of Relevants, Reconstructionists and Revisionists. Relevants are those who are not changing how church is formed or structured and definitely not changing the doctrinal stance but merely working to make the church relevant to the postmodern world. Mark Drischoll and Dan Kimbal are offered as leaders of this type of church. Reconstructionists are questioning the old systems and structures of church but not the doctrines as much and Alan Hirsch, Mike Frost and Myself are offered as the type of leaders found in this camp. Revisionists are questioning our epistemology—how we understand and believe what is true/real. Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt are cited as leaders among this group.

Belcher also uses Hirsch’s and Frost’s idea of “bounded-set” verses “centered-set” to help forge a way of peacefully working together. A bounded-set is where those who are in and who are out are clearly defined by a well-established list of beliefs and practices. Only those who subscribe to the boundaries are allowed into the camp, everyone else remains outside. He thinks it is far healthier (and I agree) that we function in a centered-set manner where there is no in or out but we simply stay in close proximity to a central set of doctrines—core beliefs that we can all agree on—and allow open hands and discussions on the views that are not part of this core set. With this in mind, he offers a two-tier view of doctrines, the essentials and the nonessentials, as a means to be centered and get along.

We (CMA) have done this consistently within our own movement defining the core doctrines as “bullet doctrines”—those that we would rather take a bullet for than renounce. The non-bullet doctrines are those that we believe but will not take a bullet for (or shoot anyone over). With this in mind, we want unity in the essentials (bullets), liberty in the non-essentials (non-bullets) and love in everything (even for those who would pull the trigger). I find it interesting, and perhaps slightly inconsistent, that he suggests a centered-set approach but clearly defines the boundaries of the emerging church, dividing the whole thing into three camps with people that are in each one. Nevertheless, I can understand that he needed to make the book coherent to the reader and there is much confusion over what is emerging, what is emergent and who is doing what. So overall, this is helpful and makes the conversation more reasonable.

I found myself liking Belcher as I read, even though I often disagreed with his final suggestions. He is definitely likable and thoughtful. He has done his homework and I can tell he is a real thinker who enjoys learning. He actually comes across child-like in the way he enjoys discovery. His child-likeness is also evident in the somewhat naive way he believes that he will find a viable third way that will bring us all together to sing Kumbaya around the campfire of the Great Tradition. I can’t help but love the guy because he is so endearing in this child-like enthusiasm, idealism and optimism. I am confident that I would enjoy his company and we would have some great discussions around that campfire even if we do not agree on some of the non-essentials, so maybe he is not as naive as I first thought.

Another thing I liked about the book was Belcher’s honesty. He not only fairly treated both sides, but he was bold in his own embrace of tradition in order to maintain his church view, in spite of the fact that it is not always clearly taught in the Scriptures. Let me explain what I mean by this. In Christendom it is common for people on all sides to claim that their view is the “biblical view,” thus informing everyone that disagrees that they are not biblical. We even put scripture verses in parenthesis next to our comments to make sure everyone knows we are Biblical. Belcher is too smart to buy or sell this. In order for him to hold to a traditional view of what church is, and yet honestly deal with the arguments from the emerging side, he has brazenly chosen to appeal to tradition for his authority. In other words he doesn’t defend tradition against the attacks, instead he dives “deeper” into it by appealing to the more ancient traditions for the authority that the Bible does not provide for his church practices. Honest, yet dangerous. People think that my approach (non-hierarchical, non-controlling leadership) has dangerous implications should carefully evaluate what Belcher is appealing to for authority in his ecclesiology.

Belcher is unapologetically reformed. He is one of the many Neo-Reformed leaders that are increasing in the US. There are some great doctrines in the reformed tradition. Many of my closest brothers and coworkers are reformed, and my own denomination (Grace Brethren) has a strong and growing reformed influence over it. The reformed church however is full of structures, systems and ideas that are solid and inflexible practices, treated as doctrine but not really found in the Bible. In order to be truly reformed and also be honest, one has to deal with the many practices that are not found prescribed in the Scriptures. Okay, I will let you reformers fume a second and then I’ll give you a few examples. Are you ready yet? Whew, okay. The clergy and laity separation is a good first example. Lets stay with that one for a bit. Granted, the reformation brought the “priesthood of believers” back to the doctrinal round table, the practice established in the reformed church tradition has yet to actually release this important doctrine. Now, as I walk down this theological aisle you will see how more and more of what is dogma in the reformed church comes from tradition rather than Scripture. Watch: Ordination of pastoral leaders and presbytery is a very core doctrine in the reformed tradition and is hard to find in Scripture without some heavy handed manipulation. To say you cannot be ordained as a pastor without at least a Masters of Divinity degree from a specific reformed seminary is not a biblical idea, it comes from tradition, nevertheless it is carved in stone for most reformed denominations. The idea that only ordained pastors can perform baptism or communion is found nowhere in the bible, it is a tradition that has been well established and passed on as doctrine. Am I right? Is this making sense now? Be honest. Within the reformed tradition, church offices are established doctrine, though the idea of “offices,” in my opinion, must be imported into the Bible to make it stand upright. Elders and deacons and the fivefold gifts of Eph 4:11 are all found in the NT but to call them “offices” forces upon the biblical text ideas that are foreign to the inspired scriptures. If I were to ask for Biblical support for "offices" rather than functional roles, Van Til, Owen, Edwards and even Calvin himself would have a hard time doing so.

Belcher is an honest reformed theologian, so it is not a surprise that he appeals to what he calls the Great Tradition for authority for church practices and polity, which the New Testament does not provide.

In my next post I will look at a few of the more troubling concepts in the book.

Listen up Sheep: The Fold vs The Flock

I found this brilliant passage in an article by the late F.F. Bruce recalling a powerful teaching from E.H. Broadbent. The article by Bruce was addressing the things that went wrong with the Jerusalem church, one of which was legalism. So many of us look to the Jerusalem Church as the model we wish to emulate, but many things went wrong with that church. There are far more healthy examples in the NT than the mother of all churches.

I wanted to pass on to you this important lesson about sheep in a flock vs sheep in a fold:

Many years ago I (F.F.Bruce) heard E.H.Broadbent speak on the fold and the flock in John 10. He pointed out that the sheep in the fold are kept together by the surrounding walls while the sheep of a flock are kept together by the shepherd. Moreover, the number of sheep that any fold can contain is limited, while there was nothing to hinder the sheep which the good Shepherd led out of the fold having their number increased by the adherence of those ‘other sheep’ that had never belonged to the original fold. But, he went on, developing the parable, some of the sheep argued that in spite of the care and devotion of their Shepherd, they would feel safer if they had walls around them, and so they started to build some. But, said Mr. Broadbent, ‘sheep are not good builders.’ Some of the walls they built were effective enough in a way, but so restricted that they shut most of the flock out; there were other walls, on the contrary, which were comprehensive enough, but so badly constructed that they let several wolves in too, with predictable consequences. The moral is that the people of Christ need no walls to keep them together. We may learn valuable lessons from the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, but Nehemiah’s wall is not a model for churches to follow.

We simply must let the Great Shepherd lead us and stop building walls. Bruce went on to apply this to the Jerusalem church as it grew more "zealous for the law":

"The Jerusalem church, however, as time went on became increasingly concerned with ways and means of keeping the wrong type out. It was not so in the beginning, then the presence of God’s holiness among the believers was so manifest that ‘none of the rest dared join them’ Acts 5:13. There is a certain plausibility about the affirmation that ‘separation from evil is God’s principle of unity’, but it is not really so; God’s principle of unity is positive, not negative; it is the principle of unity in Christ; and separation from evil is a corollary of the principle, not the principle itself."

Bruce concluded with this poem from William Barclay to summarize how ugly the fold can get...

"We are God’s chosen few,
All others will be damned,
There is no room in heaven for you:
We can’t have heaven crammed."

May we not be found in such a way. Follow Jesus outside of the camp (Heb 13:13).

From: Prof. F.F. Bruce, "The Church of Jerusalem," Christian Brethren Research Fellowship Journal 4 (April 1964): pp. 5-14

Dr. Wagner's Cart Has Been Pulling The Horse for Too Long

For years missional leaders have repeated the refrain articulated by Dr. C. Peter Wagner that "The best means of evangelism under the sun today is church planting." I myself have even quoted Dr. Wagner in some of my earlier resources. This statement has become a banner for church planting in the US for the past 20 years.

The reason given for this statement is that new churches tend to be hungrier, evangelistically speaking, than their more established sisters. The very survival of the new church depends upon her outreach ability, so the people are more motivated to do evangelistic work. Statistically this is proven to be true as well. New churches do win more converts than long standing ones, but does that make the quote right?

In the past few years I have come to realize that Dr. Wagner got it backwards. We need to make a shift in our missional understanding:

The best means of church planting under the sun today is evangelism (gospel sowing).

You see, we have a great many people starting churches today but not necessarily doing any true gospel work. There are a number of fast growing churches that simply draw Christians from other churches to form new ones. I do not believe that such a practice is indeed the best form of evangelism or of church planting--but it can still fly the banner quoted by Dr. Wagner.

No, we must get back to seeing church as a fruit of evangelism not the other way around. The Bible never commanded us to plant a church or even instructed us in church planting. The gospel (the good news of the intimate reality, redemption and rule of Jesus daily) is the seed we plant, not a church. If we sow the gospel much, we will reap many more disciples and a whole lot more churches will be started as well.

Of course we must also shift to a more holistic understanding of the gospel and the kingdom of God than we have had. Simply throwing out a lot of tracts or shouting at people on a megaphone is not likely to reap spiritual disciples or churches. Jesus brought the kingdom with him to the people who needed it most in a very incarnational and transformational manner. That is what He instructed us to be about.

Stop planting churches, start planting Jesus. Don't build churches, that is not your job or mine. Jesus said, "I will build my church." What He told us to do is to "Preach the gospel," and make disciples (or followers) of Jesus. To risk being cliche: the horse must come before the cart. The seed must come before the tree, and the fruit will follow. Plant Jesus, and let him start the churches. Frankly, He is better at it than we are anyway.

The 4th of July is losing its Appeal

It is the 4th of July, a celebration--yet I mourn.

As I returned from buying some sparklers and two tickets to the local fireworks show, I passed many empty houses with dead lawns, lock-boxed door handles and no window coverings. These are houses void of the dreams they once held, now full of nothing but broken promises. There seemed to be a house like that on every block. These homes are now owned by a bank that our government felt needed some assistance because they over extended themselves with loans...poor bank.

Reading About Writing

I just finished and sent to the publisher my latest manuscript and found myself with unreserved reading time (a rare commodity these days). I decided to improve my writing skills so I picked up some books about the craft (much to my editor's good pleasure I'm sure).

I'm reading On Writing by Stephen King. I'm still waiting for a green glow and the evil clown to show up, but it isn't that sort of book. I've chuckled out loud several times while reading it but also doubted myself as a true writer more than a few. I want to go back and read some of my books and realize what I could have done better (now that would be a true horror story).

Someone asked Stephen King how he writes. His answer was, "One word at a time." I guess that is also how we get better as writers...one word at a time.

It is fascinating to read how other people write. I have much to learn. I need to find a steady balance between my travel, ministry, home and writing. I am not a very methodical person, so my balance will be different from others. So far, my writing pattern seems to be seasonal: summer and winter for writing, fall and spring for travel.

One of the strange things I have noticed is that I can't seem to write another book in the same place that I have already written one. I can tell you each place that my books were predominantly written and no two share the same space. It is like I draw a creative energy from the environment and it begins to reflect that book's unique personality, so when I try to write there again it doesn't work. I am just now discovering this, but of course that is something you wouldn't learn until you'd written a few books. I've written six so far (three other resources I've created are more like curriculum--those I can do anywhere). Imagine the difficulty of finding a new place if I wrote books as often as Stephen King! Considering my wife redesigned my eldest daughter's bedroom into a home office for me to write in after she moved out, this is a problem for even a writer with my own output. After Church 3.0 was done I haven't been able to write in the office again (save for blog posts and emails). Maybe I need to get over this idiosyncrasy and force myself to write in the same place. Perhaps this is just a rookie issue that can be overcome as a more seasoned writer. I wonder, does anyone else have this same little challenge? Any other theories about it?

Other books I am reading are: The Elements of Style by Strunk and White (a classic all should read several times over), The Elements of Story by Flaherty (which I think I will turn to often as a resource) and The Art and Craft of Storytelling by Lamb.

Screwtape's Latest Advice Regarding Church

Correspondence between a senior demon (Screwtape) and his nephew (Wormwood) regarding nullifying the church's influence:

My Dearest Wormwood,

If you want to make sure that the enemy's people are relegated to obscurity, lead them to believe that the church is for them, not the other way around. Hire professionals to make sure their church experience is more personally satisfying. If they actually evaluate how much they like (or don't like) the worship than the efforts will actually be for them and not our enemy. Rob the enemy of the worship He desires all in the name of worship! In fact, if you can, get them to compete with one another over this so that some are considered better at it than others we will gain division as well. Ask for a small percentage of their money just to provide such a service for them and their families. Don't ask for too much money though, we do not want them to actually think church is important. Let them use the greater majority of their money on their life away from the enemies activities. Do what you can to assure that no one would put much expectation beyond that small percentage of giving on the disciples themselves, let them think: "That's what we pay the pastors and missionaries for."

Put the pros in robes (suits will do) and tell them they are specially called and anointed to do what mere mortals cannot--like hand out pieces of bread and pass a cup of juice. Diminish the enemy's love feast to simply passing a small stale wafer of a bread-like substance and a thimble of juice. We do not want them to enjoy one another's company and actually love (Yuck, I hate even saying the word).

Take the commanded practices out of the hands of the regular people and make sure that those who will actually do them only do them with Christians behind the veil of sacred institutions and stained glass windows. In fact, if you really want to keep disciples from being made, command them to disobey Jesus and make it a sin for them to actually baptize others. If you can make it a sin to obey the enemy you have won a great battle. Then they are our followers, rather than His, but they think they are following the enemy! How grand our task is.

Don't let many become one of these professionals, in fact, make it extremely expensive and difficult to be allowed into the club of the sacred anointed. The fewer people that obey Jesus' commands and take responsibility for the enemy's work the better. Those who do actually practice the commands will do so with pride which is even better for us than if they didn't do them at all! If you can get them to see this service as a career, then they will bring expectations into the work that will make the practices themselves a duty under their job description. You can take all the good out of these practices if you play your cards right.

Make the church obsolete. Let people start other organizations to accomplish what she was meant to do. Leave her the tasks of marrying and burying, baptizing and communion so she will feel sacred and special in spite of not doing anything at all. Let others do the mission work, the evangelism work, the social service work, the counseling, and the leadership development. Charge her people for all those services, so they feel like they are contributing without having to actually do any of them.

Let them find success in how many people attend their sacred event once a week so that they are not concerned with any sort of success the rest of the week. Oh what a victory if you can make them feel proud about doing barely anything at all! It's like having two wins for the price of one. In fact, if you can get them to feel like their lack of contact with the other people in the world is a spiritual obligation that God desires of them we will not have to worry about the enemy's work in the world. It will all be ours! If we can keep them from being in the world or doing anything of substance, and actually feeling proud of being more spiritual in doing nothing we can win this war entirely. Oh, I get so excited thinking about the possibilities!

Make their "faith" about everything they do not do, rather than the things they should be doing. If people think that they are Christians because they don't dance, drink, dip or double-dip then the attention is off of the actual responsibility of hearing God and doing what He says. Make it about everything other than love, keep love out of the picture in all ways possible. In fact, if you can get them to think they are serving God better with hate than the enemy loses everything. Let them evaluate how good a person is by how much they look like themselves. Oh we have done well if that is the case. Then they have actually come to see themselves as the standard of goodness and led them to live in judgment of all others. Imagine how good it will be if the church all looks the same--smug and content with so little!

In fact, remove from them any chance of actually hearing God's voice. Let them hear other people who tell them what God is saying...then pass off things that are not important through those other voices. Stay away from the real dangerous words that are in the Bible. Let the pros use the Bible to only defend their own opinions. Let them think the enemy is on their side so that they have greater confidence in spouting off their opinions about meaningless things. Do, however, allow them to speak some good things so everyone feels good about hearing them, but keep the actual words of the scripture away form the people. Good words are fine, and better than the truly powerful words that we all fear and hate so much.

Let a few of these pros become popular because they tell good jokes, stories and witty sayings, so that people are deluded into thinking that they have just heard from God because they got teary eyed after laughing. Let the people feel like the Bible is so magical and mysterious that ordinary people without the degrees (or robes) are incapable of using it right and would only create a mess. Keep the ordinary people from hearing the enemies voice at all costs. This is your most important task Wormwood. Do not fail in this.

Take my advice and you will do well.

Fondly,

Your Uncle Screwtape

NOTE: Please know this is not from C.S. Lewis, and that I mean no disrespect to this great mind in this post. It is just an attempt to use his same sly manner in addressing a spiritual problem. Read the Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis if you want to understand this post and want to read a real good example of what this is attempting in a far less effective manner.

To the Ends of the Earth

I did some organic church training in Ethiopia a few years ago with church planters from all over the horn of Africa. Men traveled from as far as the Sudan and Somalia to be there and all had stories to tell of persecution.

Wow, it was a real blessing to be in a room full of people who have looked down the barrel of a gun or taken a blade in the side for Jesus and that are still preaching His word. I felt humbled. I had much more to learn from them then they did from me.

I carry in my Bible pictures of brothers who have lost their lives in this region for the sake of the Gospel. My favorite coffee in the world is grown by organic church planters in Ethiopia! I think about them daily when I have my morning brew. Join me in praying for their work as you sip the fruit of their labor as both organic farmers and organic church planters.

There was at least one way that I think I may have been able to help this movement, and in so doing may actually also have helped the rest of the world. Painted in bold letters on the wall in the room we met in was the purpose statement of the movement: To fulfill the great commission in the horn of Africa in this generation.

Admirable as that is, it is not correct, and can never be fulfilled. Why? because the great commission goes to "all the nations (Matt. 28:18-20)" and "to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8)." You cannot fulfill the great commission in just one place of the earth. This was the problem the Jerusalem church struggled with until the persecution spurred on by Paul in Acts 8:1 pressed them out (amazing as it is, Paul is responsible for planting churches even before he followed Christ!). I actually wanted these noble apostolic church planters to raise their vision higher than the horn of Africa. The whole world could be blessed by their passion, faith and love, not just the horn of Africa.

This is something we all need to learn. Having a true Great Commission vision will affect all you do. For instance, when we evaluate our tools and methods, we ask if what we are doing will work in Calcutta as much as California. Will our methods work in Athens Greece as much as Athens Georgia? If it will only work in a US context we shelve it no matter how much we spent developing it (Note: TruthQuest is the one exception, we realize it is limited in where it will work, but encompasses enough of the world that it merits being produced).

A global perspective alters your view of what you are doing like nothing else. If what you are doing will reach the suburbs of South Orange County but will not work in the Sudan than you are not going to fulfill the Great Commission with what you are doing. This is why we scrutinize our materials so much and why we celebrate our "Shelf of Shame" where we place methods and resources we have created that will not multiply to the ends of the earth.

Is the Great Commission altering the way you do ministry? Perhaps it should.