I’m just getting started on it, maybe a third of the way through, so far. And I’ve glanced at a number of reviews, etc., in the blogosphere, and the overarching consensus (which you seem to share)is that these guys have “a generous but valid critique” of the emerging conversation. And I see the generosity. Actually, its kind of funny how the book reads much like an emergent critique of the modern church, just the other way around.

The book starts off expressing frustration about how trying to critique the movement is like “trying to nail Jell-O to a wall.” In other words, the authors are frustrated that they cannot pin the movement down to one set of articulable beliefs. It sounds like the same frustration that the scribes and the Pharisees must have felt.

But I digress.

Like I said, I see the “generous” part, but I don’t get much of where the critique is, outside the hidden argument that “these emergent guys are saying things that don’t jive with our Reformed tradition, and the foundations on which that tradition is based.” In other words, the line of thought (so far, to be fair) is that “these emerging types are saying A, B, and C, but since we know that Luther and Calvin said C, D, and E, be weary of them and their newfangled efforts to get you to forget D and E.”

Having said that, I’m enjoying the book.

Grace and Peace,
Raffi

Thanks for the review. I just finished reading the book as well, about a week ago. Read it with another friend/pastor and found it wonderfully helpful to come together once a week and discuss a couple chapters.

BTW, this book is a model of how a critic ought to be done.