Comments on: Deep Church Shallow: Greg Gilbert’s 9Marks Review

By: Garrett Wishall

Garrett Wishall — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:10:30 +0000

Owen,

I was intrigued to see that Deep Church is required reading for Bruce Ware’s systematic theology III class in the spring. In an email to me, he said “I think you’ll find it very stimulating and helpful,” referring to Deep Church.

Trevin Wax had a pretty favorable review of the book if I recall correctly, so I was surprised to see Gilbert’s not so favorable review.

I look forward to reading the book myself.

By: caleb

caleb — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:55:24 +0000

I agree with the sentiments of the commenters above. While Belcher’s book is not perfect, it is humble, irenic, and wise. The atonement conversation has to be had (and there is a very strong argument for the primacy of a penal substitutionary model) but it is not the ONLY conversation worth having, as Gilbert frames it. The kind of pugnacity that Gilbert’s review exhibits to brothers and sisters in Christ along the spectrum of biblical orthodoxy is guaranteed to be unhelpful to anyone who is not already in bandwagonesque agreement with Gilbert’s position. Such work builds a separatist wall around itself that can only end badly.

Lots of heat here, not much light.

By: Al

Al — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:31:18 +0000

FYI, Belcher has responded to the Gilbert review here:

http://trevinwax.com/2009/11/04/jim-belcher-responds-to-critics-of-deep-church/

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:54:57 +0000

I haven’t yet finished Deep Church but I have read many of the sections referenced in this review. While it is perfectly okay to critique a book, it’s important to do so with charity: an author should be able to read a review of his or her book and say “well X certainly doesn’t like my ideas, but those truly are my ideas.” I don’t know if Belcher would recognize many of his ideas in this review. For example, Deep Church does not define the emerging church as a monolith as Gilbert and 9 Marks tend to. In this review, Brian McLaren is held up as a spokesman for the entire spectrum of the emerging church – and that is simply not what Belcher argues. There are some in the emerging church with whom I – as an orthodox and Reformed evangelical – would happily unite myself. There are others who deny cardinal tenets of the faith. Even these figures may be able to point out important problems and deserve a hearing. While I need to do more thinking on some of Belcher’s points, I think he has written a very helpful book that is an important contribution to a controversial field.

By: Steve McCoy

Steve McCoy — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:21:40 +0000

Owen, I’m going to echo Scott here. I can’t believe you’ve actually read the book if you agree with this review. This is a hack review, plain and simple. I’m embarrassed for 9 Marks and Gilbert.

By: scott

scott — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 05:06:04 +0000

Owen,

Did you actually read Belcher’s book or just Gilbert’s review? Because your conclusion seems to have nothing to do with the book itself. If you did read the book, well, I guess you missed the point. If you didn’t read the book, then perhaps you should actually read the book and thoughtfully interact with it rather than just add your “Amen” to Gilbert’s review.

Which is it?