Book Review: The Emerging Church by Dan Kimball

Date May 25, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton

We live in an increasingly post-Christian culture. In times prior we could “preach the word” using words like sin and repentance and people would at least know what we’re talking about. The times today are such that the language American Christianity has spoken is no longer the language of American culture. In this book, Dan Kimball offers a mindset for how Christians can adapt and reach the changing culture with an unchanging message.

Dan begins by setting the stage contrasting the “seeker-sensitive” model and the “post-seeker-sensitive” model (the emerging church mindset). Churches that are seeker-sensitive, for instance, are more focused on getting people in the church doors than meeting them where they are. People in the postmodern culture understand things differently, and the seeker sensitive mindset simply will not reach most of the postmodern/emerging generation.

After outlining the cultural shifts that have taken place and dealing with some of the theological issues that arise, Dan moves on to the larger part of the book, “Reconstructing Vintage Christianity in the Emerging Church.” This second part deals with the more practical aspects of what it looks like for Christian churches to reach out to the current culture around them.

Dan Kimball is an excellent writer. He’s clear, straightforward, and writes as though he’s thought extensively about these issues ahead of time (that’s becoming harder to find these days). There were many things I loved about this book. Dan repeatedly places the emphasis of church on Jesus. “Absolutely everything we do when we design worship gatherings for the emerging church should have Jesus at the center as we lift up His name.” (121)

There were a few times when a concern about something would start to grow in the back of my mind and then almost immediately Dan would speak to that concern, as though he saw it coming. E.g.- After speaking about multisensory worship I became worried about how it was too focused on feelings and emotions. Then Dan said, “The danger, of course, is focusing so much on experience that we teach people to respond only by feelings and emotions… I believe the more the emerging church uses multisensory worship and teach, the stronger and deeper our use of Scripture needs to be.” (131)

Of course, there were a handful of things I didn’t care for. One is Dan’s emphasis on lectio devina, silence, and listening prayer- all of which I believe to be dangerous practices not supported by Scripture. However, those issues aren’t specific to emerging churches since many other people practice them as well. Another issue I had was the occasional false dichotomies between the “Modern Church” and the “Emerging Church.” For instance, Kimball states that the modern church said,  “evangelism uses reason and proofs for apologetics,” while the emerging church says “evangelism uses the church being the church as the primary apologetic.” (201) Francis Schaeffer said our “final apologetic” as Christians is love, and I think Schaeffer especially would fit both views of evangelism. Most apologists I know are more of the Schaeffer type than the “reason and proofs” only type, so I don’t believe this dichotomy is accurate.

Overall, this is a great book. With the exception of only a few points I would recommend it to just about anyone wanting to make a difference for Christ in the postmodern culture. Dan Kimball has some good ideas for how to do church differently and reach the culture without capitulating to it and becoming the culture.

Related posts:

  1. Book Review: They Like Jesus but Not the Church by Dan Kimball
  2. The End of the Emerging Church
  3. Dan Kimball: A Revolution in Church and Teaching (EC BIOLA #1)
  4. Defining the Emerging/Emergent-Church/Movement/Conversation
  5. Book Review: The Out of Bounds Church? By Steve Taylor
  6. ETS 4- John Hammett on the Emerging Church

6 Responses to “Book Review: The Emerging Church by Dan Kimball”

  1. Anonymous said:

    I'm glad to see that you have connected to someone in the emerging church that you can trust, respect, and hear beneficial things from.
    It helps someone like me who has positive feelings for the emerging church movement to have someone we can commonly respect within the emerging group.

  2. Anonymous said:

    I agree. I do fear we're becoming something like a Dan Kimball fan site though :) Kimball fans who aren't fans of the emerging church… Maybe I'll have to do a post against listening prayer to balance this all out…

  3. Anonymous said:

    I would like to hear that. I don't know what you are specifically referring to, but I don't understand what you would oppose regarding listening prayer. You mentioned your opposition to lectio divina as well. When I was initially introduced to it, I was turned off by it because I was more interested in learning the content of scripture. I have since come to appreciate it as a form of prayer.
    I believe that the Holy Spirit leads us. I hold this to be secondary and under the authority of scripture. However, I believe that practices such as lectio divina can be a valid discipline of listening for the Spirit to speak in the midst of our lives.

  4. Anonymous said:

    I agree that the Holy Spirit leads us, the question is how. I don't intend to get much into this now, but I don't believe the Bible teaches that we are lead through listening prayer. Lectio devina is a type of listening prayer, perhaps the most formal type. I have a book I'll be reviewing on it some time this summer- The Art of Listening Prayer by Seth Barnes. I'll probably also review another book on it, like Willard's Hearing God so I can get a more representative perspective. In the mean time, I have an article, “Does God Whisper?”, that touches this issue.

  5. Anonymous said:

    Roger I read the article. I don't agree with you. I know that to enter into a discussion with you I would have to do an exigetical study and I don't have the time for that at the moment so I will not. I would ask though, is there any Christian tradition or denomination that affirms the position you take? Are you part of a group that denies that God speaks to individual Christians. You are the first person I have heard espouse this theology.

  6. Anonymous said:

    I want to give you feedback, too, Roger. Referring to your article on Ambassadors For Christ led me to believe that you had written an article that was received and published by some group other than yourself, or at least larger than yourself.
    I am not suggesting that you intended this. Lest you give folks the false impression though, you may want to make more clear on the Ambassadors For Christ site that it is your own creation, and not affiliated with any larger institution than yourself, Amy and Chad… unless I am mistaken. Is AFC operating under the authority of or endorsed by any church or parachurch organization outside of yourselves?
    If it isn't easy to put that into the heading of the page so that people would undestand when they went to read the article, it might be worth making some small statement as you refer to an article such as, 'in this article I've posted on my other site.'

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.