One fairly easy way to increase blog traffic is to involve yourself in endless controversies. Despite 1 Timothy 6:4’s warning, this is exactly what many Christian bloggers and ministries do, day in and day out. But I’m past the point of really caring about promoting this blog and I know my own sinful tendencies too much, so I pretty much try to avoid most online debates. It is with much trepidation that I offer my opinion on controversial matters. I’m not convinced that just because I have a blog (who doesn’t, right?!), you really want my opinion on anything and everything.

But one exchange recently caught my eye, really got me to thinking and prompted the urge to respond. One of the best books I have read this year has been Jim Belcher’s Deep Church: A Third Way Beyond Emerging and Traditional. In turn, one of the worst book reviews I have read this year has been Greg Gilbert’s treatment of the book for 9 Marks Ministries.

I’m not so sure it’s a good thing when you have a pretty good idea of what a book review will say before you even read it. Such was the case here. I suspected that Gilbert would very quickly go after the issue of penal substitionary atonement as a defining issue and I also suspected that he would dismiss the book outright, associating the entire emerging church movement with Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones, saying that orthodox believers have no “middle ground of agreement” with such men and therefore, a “third way” is not even possible. I was not disappointed. Gilbert delivered in spades.

I don’t say that this is one of the worst book reviews I’ve read this year simply because I disagree with Gilbert’s conclusions (which I do) but because I have come to expect more from 9 Marks Ministries. Though I don’t always agree with their conclusions, I have come to expect thoughtful consideration, even of opposing viewpoints, filtered through Scripture and delivered an irenic manner. Instead, Gilbert offers generalizations delivered in a harsh tone. Gilbert lays his cards down near the beginning of his review:

Frankly, I’m surprised that Belcher, after seeing what his research brought to light, decided to press on with the idea that emergents and traditionals could reunite somehow.

The rest of piece simply explains Gilbert’s reasons for this snarky comment. The problem, of course, is that Gilbert neglects the nuances of Belcher’s arguments. For example, after identifying three different camps within the “emerging movement” (”Relevants,” “Reconstructionists” and “Revisionists”), the bulk of Belcher’s book runs on the premise that we can have active dialogue with, and perhaps reach a center with two-thirds of this movement. The other one-third we can at least learn from. Gilbert, however, takes the “Lalalalala, I’m not listening because you’re not Biblical” approach the minute McLaren is mentioned, and it’s honestly like he just stopped listening to the book and instead turned his presuppositions up on full volume.

Not only does Gilbert dismiss the book because of the emerging movement’s associations with certain individuals, Gilbert takes notion that we can find a middle ground in ancient, creedal Christianity. But in a measured response, Belcher also shows that Gilbert’s concerns about drawing from the ancient creeds is simply without merit. Gilbert argues:

The creeds are not Scripture, and they are not heaven-sent, inspired, once-for-all standards of what it means to be a Christian.

and then concludes:

I’m amazed that Belcher—a PCA minister who is presumably well-versed in what was at stake in the Reformation—would think that affirming the ancient creeds would be a sufficient ground for ecclesiastical unity. I’m sure the pope will be delighted to hear that!

Belcher responds:

He, as a Baptist, really can’t say this. His position, historically, is much closer to the traditional church argument that I describe in the book. His next statement, “I’m sure the pope will be delighted to hear that!” just does not understand the argument the Reformers were making in regard to the church Fathers. The point they were making was that Rome had no longer held to this Tradition but had added much teaching that went against the church Fathers or what was called the “rule of faith.”

Does Gilbert really think that Belcher is arguing that we replace Scripture with the Creeds? His argument here simply dumbfounds me. It is simply without merit. No, the Creeds are not Scripture but Belcher is not saying that. Instead, he’s saying that they can help us find the center of orthodoxy. They are a tool and can certainly be used as such.

I think what disappoints me most is that 9 Marks holds tremendous influence with a large and growing number of reformed believers and ministers, especially young(er) men. Instead of using this as an opportunity for real and thoughtful dialogue, even when there is genuine disagreement, Gilbert has simply brushed Belcher’s book and point aside, even implying that the entire book is silly and without merit. I believe this is simply irresponsible at best and damaging at worst. Gilbert’s treatment of the entire emerging movement as being so unorthodox that we can’t even talk to them is simply a presuppositional bias defined for Gilbert by the primary issue of penal substitionary atonement and the primary character of Brian McLaren. This is exactly the type of short-sighted treatment of diverse opinions that so many of us have grown weary of and Belcher tries to move beyond.

I don’t want to read too much in to things, but it’s almost as if 9 Marks, through Gilbert, is drawing lines in the sand within the larger Reformed, Evangelical world. I’m simply not comfortable with the tone of the piece or what it insinuates. If anything, Gilbert’s review simply reinforces the need for a book like Belcher’s.

I’m honestly not upset that 9 Marks Ministries doesn’t like a book I found to be tremendously thoughtful, and, I continue to pray, influential. I’m also not upset that Greg Gilbert chose to do the equivalent of a “drive-by book review,” taking lots of shots but not aiming them well. More than anything, I’m disappointed that a ministry I have had so much respect for in the past chose to publish this irresponsible review.

Am I overreacting? Have I read either Belcher or Gilbert incorrectly? What did you think of Belcher’s book? Gilbert’s review? Let’s flesh this out together.

• Read Deep Church: A Third Way Beyond Emerging and Traditional by Jim Belcher
• Read Greg Gilbert’s review
• Read Jim Belcher’s response