There were some good features about this book, but overall it was seriously marred by issues related to style, content and manner of argument.
On the plus side there were 3 particular areas of strength:
1) He validly challenged two widely accepted misunderstandings that can have profound affects on the possibility of developing deep relationships with God.
Firstly, the often anaemic, uninspiring & remote vision of Jesus. created by a failure to appreciate and represent the full and authentic reality of Jesus’ humanity.
Secondly the equation that relationship with God = religion, contending in fact that institutional religion is often a negative influence on attempts to develop real relationship with God.
These were by no means original observations, nor was this the best investigation and exposition of the negative effects of these two misunderstandings, or of the positive effects to be gained by jettisoning them. For a far more concise, rigorous & well written piece, John Bell’s “10 things No One Ever Told Me About Jesus” + some of his published sermons, are much better.
2) He was very good on the use of imaginative reading of gospel (a method with a long tradition) passages e.g. on pages 81 – 83 he discusses the healing of the leper in Matthew’s gospel 8: 1-3. He provided a sound and enlightening interpretation of the responses of the various characters involved, by fleshing out their likely emotions and tones of voice.
3) In many places he gave good pastoral advice related to specific issues.
There was however a strong down-side to the book. The faults were numerous.
1) Arguments were of poor quality and were reminiscent of the worst techniques of tabloid journalism.
For instance a major contention of Eldredge’s was that Jesus was misrepresented by false images of him as “wispy and pale”. This is quite legitimate, and provided a more rounded portrait of Jesus, by demonstrating a spectrum of very human characteristics in his words and actions as seen in the gospels.
However, he used as a major tool in presenting his case, the creation of just the same type of nonsensical cardboard cut-out images of a variety of people and groups of people. For instance, in his chapter “Fierce Intention” he used the story of Jesus driving the traders from the temple to show Jesus as capable of anger, hostility to injustice and of commanding personality. He then counterpoised this against an image from a worship song comparing Jesus to a “rose trampled on the ground.” Such a dreadful line is hardly difficult to demolish. However he goes on to say this:
“Helpless, lovely Jesus. Vegetarian, pacifist, tranquil. Oh wait – that was Gandhi. Not Jesus.”
Apart from the crass and insulting nature of the comments, he has obviously failed to read any accounts or words of Gandhi, or any accounts of real pacifists or opposers of warfare (e.g. conscientious objectors,antiwar protestors, ploughshare groups or Greenham Common women, with their own ‘fierce intentions’, their commitment to the point of accepting violence, imprisonment and, in the cases of some conscientious objectors, death. Nor has he understood the motivations of principled vegetarians.
Perhaps more a matter of concern was his use of similar crass misrepresentation in relation to a whole world faith. Having described the short-comings of a Christian college which encouraged a “religious” rather than a relational approach to Jesus, and where the motivations were pressure & guilt, he then describes this as “A kind of Christian Islam”. The faith of millions of people across the world is homogenised into the worst kind of tabloid headline, scare-reports about Islam.
I found it interesting that after these examples he could then write:
“Branding someone prevents them from ever being able to prove that they are innocent, or state their case. It’s a cheap and effective ploy that’s been around a long time, a particular favourite of the religious. Tar and feather them.”
Hmmm! Physician heal thyself?
Chapter quality was varied. Probably the worst was “Extravagant Generosity”. This was repetitive, muddled & at times close to incoherence. As an example this is a footnote related to the story of the wedding feast at Cana:
“Watch this – if you want proof of the current religious spirit, its ugly nature, watch how folks freak out over this. Websites will crop up. Theologians will step forward to argue the amount (“It says ‘holding from twenty to thirty gallons’”). Okay, take an average- twenty five gallons per jar. That’s still 150 gallons, 757 bottles. They’re not going to like that, so they’ll tell you it wasn’t really wine or their wine isn’t like ours. I’ll be accused of encouraging drunkenness. I am not. The scripture forbids drunkenness. Look – I didn’t do the miracle. I just did the math. Are you going to tell Jesus he can’t do this.”
There were some stylistic irritations. I hated the use of the word “friend” as he made some of his statements. This was one example of his dreadful folksiness. Maybe the worst came in his discussion of the ‘normal’ nature of Jesus:
“This is a problem gang. People loved to be with Jesus, just be with him in normal life – walking down the road, having dinner, talking on the beach. If your spirituality doesn’t ‘fit’ into normal life, it is religious.
Ooops – now I am gearing up for a tirade.”
At his worst he had the approach and language of a salesman. ‘Here, I’m including you in my gang too.' Sorry, but much of the time I had no desire to be part of his 'gang'.
Overall the concept of the book was valid, the execution often poor, muddled & repetitive.