Deep Church but the Deep Ecclesiology chapter needs a rewrite

This book is very well written, and shows deep reflection at many points. Jim Belcher describes both his personal journey and interaction with key leaders in three streams of the emerging church movement(s). Aptly summarizing the views and priorities of each, Belcher notes how each group interacts with the current generation and specifically postmodernism:

(1) Relevants seek to transform traditional church structures and forms to effectively communicate the gospel to our culture and thus effectively reach our postmodern generation.

(2) Reconstructionists seek to replace traditional institutionalism with organic New Testament principles; though they are not motivated by postmodernism, this more organic approach does resonate with the current generation because it explicitly relies on interactive relationships (every-member-functioning body) rather than institutional structures and hierarchical leadership.

(3) Revisionists, unlike the first two groups who uncritically hold to orthodox theology, seek to change the emphasis of the gospel message itself, away from what they claim is an enlightenment-centric focus on transactional concepts like the atonement, to a relational gospel which focuses on reconciliation.

Belcher then spends several chapters diving into various topics where his interactions with emerging church leaders shed light into Deep Truth, Deep Evangelism, Deep Gospel, Deep Worship, Deep Preaching, Deep Ecclesiology, and Deep Culture, drawing from the emerging church proponents that he sees having the most insight into the topic. In almost every chapter, I was impressed by Belcher’s sincere interaction with various leaders, showing great respect and desire for understanding rather than caricature. Several of the church leaders he met with personally, re-reading their books and seeking clarification and feedback to make sure he got their perspectives right.

I appreciate his efforts to seek common ground in universal theological principles and practices among Christians, though his preference is clearly his own Reformed tradition, with a deep respect for the Great Tradition, not only the theology expressed in the ancient creeds but also the liturgy embraced in common by Catholic, Orthodox, and Reformed traditions among others.

Unfortunately, as another reviewer noted at Amazon.com, this graciousness does not extend to Anabaptists and other simple church proponents like the Brethren; it is clear he simply does not relate. Thus we turn to the chapter that desperately needs rewritten.

I expected a chapter named "Deep Ecclesiology" to be among the most profound in a book titled "Deep Church", and was not surprised to see the author he chose to feature in this chapter was Frank Viola. Having just read Viola’s sweeping treatise From Eternity to Here, on the church as the expression of God’s eternal purpose, and Viola’s numerous references to the metaphors in Scripture that form the basis of a profound ecclesiology, I read with anticipation. Boy was I disappointed.

Belcher’s primary interaction with the reconstructionist group was the reading of Pagan Christianity (a completely deconstructionist work, which says in its own text that it omits what the church should be), and a visit to a house church meeting. Since there are at least five or six different kinds of house churches, that’s about as useful as visiting a Baptist church (once) and writing a chapter on all the Baptist denominations. Ignoring positive books like From Eternity to Here, Reimagining Church, Finding Organic Church, or the seminal themes of the reconstructionists (found in works like Ultimate Intention by Devern F. Fromke or The Normal Christian Life by Watchman Nee), Belcher posits this formulation that totally misses the point:

• (Belcher’s formula) Bible + Tradition + Mission = Deep Ecclesiology

It completely shocked me to read this formula. Why shocked? In every other chapter, Belcher sought common ground with the folks he was interacting with. But we know the reconstructionists reject Tradition (at least the post-first-century tradition Belcher is appealing to) out of hand. In this case, he put Viola and anyone else who rejects the liturgy of the Great Tradition in the same boat as the Anabaptists, and completely dismisses them. I was expecting Jim Belcher to show the same respect and honor toward the reconstructionist group as he did the relevants and revisionists. To do this, he would interact with the four metaphors for "ekklesia" found in Scripture that are prominently featured in the ecclesiology of the reconstructionists:

• (Reconstructionist-style formula) Body of Christ + Bride of Christ + Family of God + House of God = Deep Ecclesiology

It would be wonderful to see Belcher shine the light on these metaphors and truly interact with the reconstructionists on their terms. For example, each of these four are both Christ-centered and emphasize the nature of the church. Jesus is the head, the groom, the elder brother, and the chief cornerstone. The church is the every-member-functioning body; the New Jerusalem made of gold, silver and precious stones that descends as a bride for her groom at the eternal wedding feast of the Lamb; a house, the dwelling place of God, built together as living stones from these same materials; and the brothers and sisters who share the same Father and the inheritance made possible by the firstborn Son. Viola and many others trace these themes from Genesis to Revelation, with prominent stops along the way in the gospel of John and the letters to the Ephesians and Colossians.

How could Belcher miss all this? I think he just didn’t dig deep enough due to his own "Great Tradition" blinders.

The profound weakness of the Deep Ecclesiology chapter, however, while it leaves a gaping hole in the book, does not detract from the wonderful writing and insight found in the other chapters. I sincerely hope that there will be a second edition to this book, and that Jim Belcher takes the time to rewrite the Deep Ecclesiology chapter. I would certainly love to see him truly interact with the reconstructionists to the same degree he did the other two camps, pushing past the instinctive dismissal, and look for the common ground. I’m sure the result would be … deep.