We may as well face it: the whole level of spirituality among us is low. We have measured ourselves by ourselves until the incentive to seek higher plateaus in the things of the Spirit is all but gone. -A.W. Tozer

Emerging church. Church growth movement. Non-traditional. To many people these words mean little or nothing. To those who have entered the broad world of evangelicalism they are words of controversy. Why controversy? Because there seems to be little middle ground when it comes to these issues. Either you’re gung-ho for the new and exciting and annoyed by anyone standing in your way….or, you’re on an evangelical street-corner proclaiming 'emergent' evils with an "It’s the end of the world" sign strapped to your chest (no REM reference, of course).

On the gung-ho side of the spectrum is Bill Easum. He’s one of the head honchos of Easum, Bandy, and Associates which is a church consulting group. He’s the author of books, and an overall big fan of all things new, growing, and trendy. One of his partners at Easum and Bandy is Bill Tenny-Brittian, the co-author of Under the Radar. Bill Easum’s name sports about a 50-point font on the cover, while Bill Tenny-Brittian has to deal with 25-point font. …I’m not sure what this implies, but perhaps BTB reports to Mr. Easum at Easum, Inc.

Under the Radar is a 115 page book that follows the trendy ministries of the Protestant churches of today. The two Bills (Easum and Tenny-Brittian) lead us on an exploration of an internet church, a church focused on incorporating the arts and monasticism, and a house church movement, among others. If this was all the book did, possibly I wouldn’t have too hard of a time recommending it. However, its attempt to prep us for the discussion of these “emergent” churches is brief, inconsistent, and lays a poor foundation towards the credibility of what is to come.

Things get off to an ominous start in the Introduction with the following statement. Don’t allow yourself to be boxed in by the trappings of the traditional church. If they aren’t working now-and they aren’t-they won’t be working in the near future. If the authors were trying to perk my attention they did it…you know, with the idea that later they would explain themselves. The only problem is that they don’t explain themselves. They just assume that everyone is on board with this idea that the “traditional church” (whatever that means) is bad news, and very pragmatically, they state, if it’s not working now…it is useless. What they’re saying may be true, the “traditional church” may be useless, but it could also be like me getting my Mom TiVo for her birthday. (Maybe I should give my Mom the benefit of the doubt, but she never did figure out the whole program-the-VCR thing.) So, if I got my Mom TiVo there’s a high chance that she would never figure the thing out. I think it’s likely that my Mom would say “this thing doesn’t work…it’s broken…useless”. But, the fact that she’s not using it correctly doesn’t mean that it’s useless. I’d like to argue that the traditional church is perhaps not being used correctly rather than that it is ‘boxed in by trappings’ and that the traditional church won’t be working in the future. I’d never say that there aren’t flaws, but I would say the flaws are more in the spirit behind what is being done rather than in the activities being done.

So, we move on to chapter one, and again I’m frustrated with what is behind said. Here are a few examples:

Confusing sentence(s) #1 – The fact is, people are interested in spirituality, but not in the church. One of the reasons is the present misunderstandings about what it means to be a church. (p. 4)

So, I take this to mean that people are interested in spiritual things, but they aren’t interested in “going to church”, because to them “church” means going to a boring pew & preaching service. So, is the inverse of this statement true? If spiritual people understood the book's definition of church: companionship of disciples gathered to intentionally follow Jesus and accomplish the Four Greats…if spiritual people understood this, they would come to church? …I’m skeptical.

Confusing sentence(s) #2 - In the past, the church was the most effective way to reach new people for Jesus Christ. Not anymore. [the very next paragraph] And yet consistently we find that the most effective way to introduce unchurched, irreligious people to Jesus Christ is to start new churches. (p. 4, 5)

So according to the book, the church is not an effective way to reach new people for Christ…but, it actually is? If I give them the benefit of the doubt, I guess they’re saying that existing churches drew irreligious people in the past…now, only new churches draw irreligious people…? However, I think my greater reaction is to wonder if the authors were so anxious to get to fixing-the-problem that they rushed through stating-the-problem.

A key part of their argument is that current, traditional churches can’t do the job. So, they need to get to a definition of ‘church’ that is broad enough that all of their newer, trendier, emerging churches fit the bill. This leads to confusion #3…

Confusing sentence(s) #3 – For the sake of this book, and as an invitation to all, we’d like to offer this definition (of church): Any companionship of disciples gathered to intentionally follow Jesus and accomplish the Four Greats (p. 9)

…So, my wife and I both consider ourselves ‘disciples’…we seek ‘to intentionally follow Jesus and accomplish the Four Greats (according to Under the Radar the Four Greats are: love God, love others, follow Jesus, make disciples). So, does that mean that my marriage is also church? If my wife and I say a prayer together are we ‘having church’? If I’m on the internet instant messaging my brother-in-law in Missouri, is there something church-ish happening?

This is where the authors could benefit in making a greater distinction between the universal and local church. The distinction is useful. For example, my brother-in-law and myself are both part of the church on the large scale (universal), however, we are not part of the same local church…with all the accountability and fellowship that accompanies it. The two Bills seem to be blurring the line (possibly so an internet church can fit their definition?) and it causes confusion.

We can now move on to chapter two, which isn’t quite as fun since I think they get into a fairly appropriate/profitable path. In chapter two they point out that a big problem in churches is that they try to be other churches (most frequently Willow Creek or SaddleBack-With-Purpose). Instead of cloning another church, the authors suggest that you should see the good in another church and then adapt that good to the culture you are trying to reach, a culture you should be familiar with. As they state: It’s not about cloning but about seeing what’s exciting and adaptable from these under-the-radar churches and then adopting and tweaking those key strategies that may work in our particular context. (p. 13) It’s a message that is important for America’s church culture to hear.

The best moments of Under the Radar occur when the Bills state the strengths and weaknesses of the book’s church models. It’s at these points that you realize how gifted these guys are at noticing strengths and weaknesses. They offer a great example of how to look critically at something and bring the positives and the negatives to the surface, without the absolutes of this will or this will not work that can end up leading to discouragement. They do all this in a succinct fashion, and yet it has a depth to it that is not attained at other portions of the book. For an example of lack of depth…

…you have moments that don’t seem to fit the spirit of what the book is trying to accomplish. For example, there’s a 3 page (39-41) section on how to start an internet church, which is pretty much pointless. A) If I were to start an internet church I would need something much deeper than three pages. B) Hopefully an internet church-starter will be nerdy enough to know that they need a “unique domain name” and that they need to “design their site” and “keep up with maintenance”.

After the Bills take us to several different styles of emerging churches, they debrief with an excellent chapter entitled “Why Some Under-the-Radar Churches Will Go the Way of the Wind”. The chapter shows us that these guys aren’t gung-ho for every type of ministry, but instead, they aren’t afraid to ask the “what ifs”. It would be great if they would expand this chapter into a book entitled “Potential Flaws of the Emergent Church”(…or something catchier). They list the following:
- Lack of Evangelistic Zeal
- Lack of Gifted, Entrepreneurial Leadership
- Lack of Thinking Ahead
- Lack of Financial Planning
What I wish they would have included is “priority of the message” or “foundation of the gospel”. Instead, what they’ve listed (while relevant weaknesses of churches) could be stated of most start up companies. There’s little here that represents something unique, which the Bible definitely claims to be. However, there is a “business” side of the church world…there are plans to be made and bills to be paid, so their advice is not without value.

Under the Radar is a book with potential. The potential lies in two men who have a great ability to discern strengths and weaknesses. However, the potential is not reached becuase of some problems, which, in my opinion, are foundational to what they are doing. This is where my extended critique of the book's opening chapter comes back into play. A specific concept of 'what the church is' as well as a specific concept of 'why it isn’t working' is vital toward offering advice on how to fix things. I don’t agree with much of the foundation which they build off of (partly perhaps because they don’t spend enough time developing their thoughts), so their critiques of the churches, while good for what it is, does not have the feel of hitting the nail on the head. Stating that traditional churches don’t work, and then moving on to a broad definition of church seems like watching a movie on fast-forward, you’re missing important stuff. Perhaps the point lies less in a method, but more in a spirit of love motivated by the love that Christ showed to us? …maybe this would even lead toward artsy monastic people worshipping with geeky internet friendly folks? Something’s fishy with Easum and Tenny-Brittian’s book, and I think it may have something to do with the quote that opened this article. We have measured ourselves by ourselves until the incentive to seek higher plateaus in the things of the Spirit is all but gone. This isn’t to ignore what Under the Radar says…it’s just to say that it feels incomplete.

-----
A.W. Tozer quote is taken from: "We Must Have Better Christians"
http://www.sendrevival.com/pioneers/awtozer/we_must_have_better_christians.htm

Recommended: No