Why We Love the Church: In Praise of Institutions and Organized Religion

(If I were more strict, the book was probably four stars, but I gave it five anyway.)_____________If you claimed to have a great "relationship" with a friend but you constantly mocked and belittled his wife, whom he loved, would you really be a good friend? If you tried to justify your dislike of his wife by pointing out that she has warts and is ugly, could you possibly expect a punch in the nose, if not a kick to the cojones? Well, if you're a Christian and you treat the church with similar derision, how is this scenario any different than what you do to the bride of Christ? Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck try to show that there really isn't any difference in, Why We Love The Chruch: In Praise of Institutions and Organized Religion.Recently, in the best popular-level Christian book of 2008 (so I say), Michael Horton wrote of a Christless Christianity. DeYoung and Kluck (D&K), authors of Why We're Not Emergent, by Two Guys Who Should Be, write here of a Churchless Christianity.The book is mainly a critique of the arguments for why the church is "uncool," or why it needs to be redone (meet at Starbucks with some Christian friends and discuss the "spirituality" of The Matrix). Thus, the title is a little deceptive in that the book is not so much a positive argument for why the authors love the church, though that is definitely included, but I guess even the negative functions as positively as that kick to the cajones would in relaying how much your friend loved his wife whom you mocked.D&K take the approach Eminem did in the final battle in the movie 8 Mile. In that movie B-rabbit owned up to all his faults and thus took the steam right out of Papa Doc's attempt to cut B-rabbit down. They own up to many of the various critiques the "church sucks" crowd and the "redo church according to a Starbucks model" crowd have offered. They also point out that many of the criticisms are quite over exaggerated. And they also argue that the answer isn't to leave the church. Besides, given the fall and man's sinful state, as well as the already/not yet tension, there will never be a perfect church before Christ returns, so the attempts at redo's will certainly face problems of their own (and quite apart from the fact that when the remodeling is done, you're not left with the church anymore).Some of the anti-church (or anti-church-as-we-know-it, aka the redoers) arguments addressed by D&K are complaints like: (1) the early church didn't do things like we do today, (2) the church isn't a building, it's wherever two or three are gathered in Jesus' name and talk about "spiritual" things, (3) the current way of doing church will result in the removal of the church from the American landscape, (4) church is boring, Christians are lame and closed-minded, and the church doesn't care about (insert personal vision), (5) the church is dead or too commercialized, the preaching is boring or typical self-help psychology, (6) house churches are better, or "the" way to "do" church, (7) modern Christin church is re-heated paganism, etc. I think they do an all around good job responding to these objections. For those who disagree, they at least point out where we have problems with the "anti-church" (i.e., church-as-we-know-it) arguments and so hopefully the disgruntled can offer responses meeting these objections head-on so that the debate can progress.As I said, D&K are the first to admit some valid criticisms, owning up to various problems and bad consequences from a Christianity that tried to please the boomers with consumerism, self-help, and malls converted to mega churches to please the suburban corporate executives in their BMWs. But they also offer correctives to some of the over exaggerated criticisms, or, if called for, outright refutations. In the defenses and critiques you can see why they love the church, and why you should too.The best parts of the book are when D&K admit the flaw but argue for why none of this means we should leave the church. In doing so they set forth what I would call a biblically-informed view of the church that Jesus established. They also call for the "church critics" to inspect their own hearts. A lot of church-loathing stems, and I would say this is right given my experiences on both ends, from a lot of self-righteousness. Yeah, the church has problems, but so do you. The answer isn't to ditch it or deconstruct it. The church isn't supposed to be hip, edgy, cool, relevant, or even sexy, if we measure what counts as those things according to culture. That unbelievers don't like the church doesn't necessarily mean the church has the problem. Why would an unconverted soul particularly like preaching done right? Sure, they wouldn't mind "a conversation" with a "conversation facilitator" where there is no dogma proclaimed and no call to repentance. The church isn't culture. It isn't part of what is fading and passing away. Of what is temporary. It is where the Lord meets his people and feeds them by word and sacrament. Where what Jesus did on behalf of his people is proclaimed and tired sinners are called to trust and rest in what Christ has done for them. These truths are dogmatically proclaimed by the herald of the king. In the city of man things are quite different. Church is the weekly rest stop for pilgrims passing through a land in which they are foreigners. They are feed and replenished by hearing of what was accomplished on their behalf so that their working could cease. Along with the preaching of the Word and delivery of the Sacraments, discipline is also a vital function of the church (ala 1. Cor. 5, etc). The elders are charged by God to look over the souls of their sheepIn my review of D&K's other book, I wished there would have been some more rigorous argumentation and analysis of the arguments of the church critics. Same here. Besides a more rigorous critique and analysis as counter arguments, some more historical arguments could have been brought to bear than were used. For example, some of the church critiques tried to claim that the "extraordinary rise" of Christianity in the first three centuries was because there were no churches with steeples yet (i.e., church buildings), just house churches. D&K were right to point out the flaws in even this assumption, but, to go further, as sociologist Rodney Stark has pointing out in (for example) The Rise of Christianity, there was really nothing "miraculous" about the growth of Christianity in terms of mere numbers. In fact, he shows that the growth rate is quite common, and is almost the same as other major religious movements (e.g., Mormonism). Now, if anything, Mormonism has some awesome church buildings, and some regular ones too. So "massive growth" in terms of numbers can't really be said to be do to the absence of formal church-on-the-corner type structures. I would also like to have seen some additional questions asked to the "church is where ever a couple of Christians are gathered and talking about 'spiritual' things." If me and a couple Christian buddies go to a Muslim mosque, is church at the mosque? How about if we go to a church of Satan in San Francisco? How about a husband and wife going upstairs to make love. If they talk about something spiritual are having sex in church? I must admit, that would be a handy codeword to keep the kids guessing. "Hey honey, want to go upstairs and do church after the kids go to bed?" These may be absurd questions, but answering them will help in showing just how the anti-church-as-we-know-it crowd demarcate church from non-church. If any of these are not church, then church is something more than just "a couple of believers tripping out together about how Neo spelled backwards is 'One' and this is an image of Christ, or something."I would recommend this book to all Christians. The church is the bride of Christ. We need to quit thinking we're too cool for school and that we're going to start the next "big thing", especially when this takes place apart from and without the main means Christ has given his people: Word and sacrament. We need to love the church with all of her faults. This doesn't mean we have to be satisfied with the status quo, but we don't leave the church as an answer, especially when much of the problem comes from our own rebellious hearts. To reject Christ's bride because of the hypocrites (or whatever) is to reject Christ. This puts you opposed to Christ, same side as (unrepentant) hypocrisy, actually. Read this book and become an advocate of institutionalized and organized religion. Forget the pious sounding platitudes about being "spiritual but not religious." Forget the absurd claims of "loving Christ but not the church." That's like saying you love me but hate my wife. If you do, you don't love me, regardless of what warped thinking tells you that you do.

We live in a Christian culture that has helped make The Shack a runaway bestseller. This book has enough theological bones in the proverbial fish to choke any unsuspecting reader. Among the subtle slights of theological hand wielded by the author of this fiction is his assessment and dismissal of the church. On page 162, Kevin DeYoung observes:"In the runaway bestseller The Shack, the Jesus character explains that he doesn't like religion and he doesn't create institutions. The church we see is only a man-made system. The church I came to build, Jesus tells us, is `all about relationships and simply sharing your life."`Now go ahead and couple this view of the church with the energy of the emerging and house church movements that eschew organization & institution almost as much as they do suits and ties and you see an undercurrent of evangelicalism that is wearing away at the base of the church, which is the bride of Christ. It is dangerous and troubling to think that the centers of influence in Christian thinking are trying to trade the bride of Christ into a more contemporary sexy model of herself. We are supposed to call out 50 year old husbands for doing that and we need to do the same to professing Christians.Enter Kevin DeYoung & Ted Kluck with their new book Why We Love the Church: In Praise of Institutions and Organized Religion. These guys are concerned churchmen who are trying to remind Christians of the importance of the church. The authors attend the same local church in Michigan. DeYoung is the pastor and Kluck, a layman (for lack of a better term). I think this is a great fit in light of the topic they address. It provides a real life context to hang their honesty and passion for Christ's church. They write as Christian men who are firmly convinced of the value, relevance, and beauty of the church.The authors previously teamed up in Why We Are Not Emergent and did a terrific job pointing out various concerns within that movement. Now, teaming up again, they write this much needed book for this time.They write with clarity, passion, humor, honesty, and an edge. They are informed about the issues surrounding the contemporary church and they seek to faithfully and honestly interact with them. They spend time interacting with books from the popular voices such as Dan Kimball, Doug Pagitt, Brian McLaren, George Barna and Frank Viola (not the former baseball player). In their interaction I found them thoughful, fair and biblical. Their graciousness with discernment are an instructive and refreshing model in such discussions.They disclose that the book is written for four kinds of people: 1. The Committed: Those that attend regularly and are on the team. The hope is that the book will encourage further faithfulness and equip them with a thoughtful response to those with church related issues. 2. The Disgruntled: Those who are frustrated with the lack of overall impact. The aim is to show that frustration is often out of proportion. 3. The Waffling: Those who not involved in the church and see no problem with checking out and watching NFL Live might be more interesting and beneficial. The aim is to show that this is unbiblical and harmful to the soul. 4. The Disconnected: Those who have left the church in their quest for God. They are exploring new ways of spirituality. The aim is to show what the Bible says about the church.And then they operate within the framework of objections to the church. There are four categories here: 1. The Missiological: The church does not work. It is not having an impact therefore we need to make some significant changes, maybe even a complete different entity. 2. The Personal: In many people's view the church has offended everyone. The church has an image problem. It is just a bunch of right wing Republicans. Without fixing the image there will be no effectiveness. 3. The Historical: The current version of the church with its buildings, pastors, liturgies, offerings, etc are not like the early church and so therefore it is not right. We have been corrupted beyond recognition. 4. The Theological: Many people believe that `church' is just plural for Christian. All we need are a few Christians together and we have a church. The church is reduced to just loving Jesus and other people.This really is the framework and the tone of the book. The authors are fresh, clear, and compelling. As a Christian and a pastor who loves the church I can say that was refreshed and encouraged by the book. I heartily recommend it even if you are not in the midst of a debate with those who devalue the church; it is good with or without the controversy.

Kevin DeYoung has a gift for writing and making theological concepts accessible to the average reader.