To read this review and others log onto http://www.thispilgrimland.com

One of the things I have said many times over is that we cannot expect to change people. Too many times religion is used to shape someone into some kind of moral elitist, but that is not what following Christ is about. Religion, though it can be a good thing, can be harmful and unnecessary. Farley hits on this point, and I’m glad he did.

For the first half of the book, Farley explains some of the issues that have developed over the past 2000 years since Jesus was around. The second half then goes into some of his theology and such.

I like the idea, but am not completely akin to his theological views. But then again, do any of us have the same theology?

When all is said and done, only one thing will really matter; your relationship with Jesus. This is what is really what is at the heart of The Naked Gospel, and I couldn’t agree more.

Farley is a recovering legalist, someone who added a great deal to the simplicity of the gospel in order to prove his keep to the God that supposedly loves him. In a story that has been told repeatedly with many small variations, during his high school years Farley was a popular, intelligent, athletic, and attractive young man who seemed to have everything going for him. Yet, by his own recollection, all of those successes provided him with little sense of security, for he felt that in his spiritual life he was nothing but a failure. He always felt as though he wasn’t doing enough. It wasn’t until he discovered the heart of the gospel, a stripped down account of Christianity, “an intravenous shot that wasn’t poisoned with religiosity,” that he experienced freedom in Christ. He discovered grace.

The beauty and simplicity of this book is compelling. Jesus plus nothing. Those words are featured on the jacket, are prominent throughout the argument, and are the clear implication of Farley’s presentation of the New Testament message. In essence, those three words sum up the book from beginning to end. And though many Christian preachers may betray that message with their actual presentation of what constitutes the Christian life, on the surface I believe that most in Christian circles would agree with Farley’s message. The question then becomes how Farley makes the case. Is his argument convincing; his logic sound? Is his exegesis true to the text on all occasions, or does he prooftext his argument? In the words of Scripture, does Farley “rightly divide the word of truth?”

In this regard, I submit that he does not. It isn’t that I disagree with the gospel of grace, or the magnitude of such a claim. I disagree with Farley’s use of the texts that underly his argument. I disagree with Farley’s assessment of “supercessionism” and his claim that he is most definitely not guilty of suggesting that his argument leads to such a conclusion. I disagree with Farley’s suggestion that the gospel of grace is as rare as he claims it is in Christian proclamation, and that the church today is wrought through with a rampant form of legalism that suffocates, misleads, and binds most Christians today to various forms of inaction, guilt, and works-righteousness. I think that Farley’s own testimony, which includes transparent accounts of his own struggles with guilt-ridden perfectionism and a need to prove his worth to God, is overextended in its application to most of Christendom. Farley projects his story, in my opinion, too broadly. And while there will be others in Christendom who resonate and identify with his testimony, I think the reality on the ground is much more complex. His diagnosis of the malaise the church exhibits is too simplistic, focusing on one symptom of a much larger disease.

In addition, throughout The Naked Gospel I found myself faced with eisegesis and straw-men arguments. For example, very early in the book, Farley presents his readers with a quiz intended to expose forms of legalism that have been adopted in contemporary church practice. The quiz itself is a farce, reducing such important ideas as repentance, confession, the Old covenant, Christian anthropology and isn, judgment, tithing, God’s wrath, and imputed righteousness to simple statements, and then brushing them aside by saying that all of these things are forms of “religiosity” that the gospel has abolished. Later, Farley tells a story of his encounter at a pastor’s training event, and recounts an argument concerning the relevance of the Ten Commandments to those under the New Covenant with a group of other pastors. In sum, Farley wins the argument by saying that because the pastors with whom he spoke said Sabbath observance was no longer mandatory, neither does the remainder of the Ten Commandments have any binding force for Christians today. Farley lacks a sophisticated account of the relationship between the Old and New covenants. As for eisegesis, I do not care to recount places where I would contend that Farley’s interpretation of Scripture is problematic, but from my recollection my most serious concerns stemmed from his handling of Galatians, as well as his handling of Romans 7.

I trust that Andrew Farley is a wonderful person. He has a significant ministry in the city of Lubbock, and serves on the faculty of Texas Tech University. He has a TV program that is an extension of his ministry as Pastor of Ecclesia: Church Without Religion. He has a family, and I’m certain he is a loving person. Though it is difficult to separate any assessment of a work with the person who created it, I believe I must state boldly that my review is not meant as a personal attack on Andrew Farley. Yet I strongly disagree with his theology. I found this book lacking in so many ways. I found the biblical evidence lacking and even myopic, with too much focus on Hebrews and too little attention to how that book fits with the full scope of the canon. I found the personal anecdotes tiresome, and overly sentimental. I found the theology undergirding the doctrine of sanctification far too weak. I also found his historical account of the early development of Christianity hollow, full of two-dimensional caricatures that opposed the “Jesus plus nothing” message, clinging to “religion,” as though those who opposed early Christianity were a cast of cranks firmly committed to keeping the rules. I think this is poor historiography, and therefore poor evangelical theology, which seeks to understand the texts as they were intended for their original audience.

I am seldom this harsh when it comes to book reviews. Most of what I choose to feature on my blog are works that I thoroughly enjoy. But this book provides a sterling example of the trouble with much of contemporary theology. This book is shallow, simplistic, at times theologically absurd, extremely selective in the application of the Bible, terribly neglectful of the significance of the Old Testament and Jesus’s relationship to and significance for Israel, and, most regrettably, anemic concerning how Christians are sanctified by the work of Christ through his cross and resurrection. For all of these reasons, I do not recommend this book. Read something else. There are plenty of other works that have developed a better account of the “Jesus plus nothing message.”

With that said, I still think that I would recommend this book to others. I would recommend this book to those that some times need to be hit over the head numerous times before things sink it. The topics within the book, were not mind-blowing or staggering. The fact that the book centered on the idea of “Jesus plus nothing” is obviously not a new convention. Churches and people have been arguing on the proper way to do “Jesus plus nothing” for ages.

I appreciated the approach that Farley took with this book though. It felt conversational and easy going as opposed to a book that relied on demonstrating superior knowledge in order to woo the reader into thinking the author was much more intelligent and therefore must be right. I was able to leisurely approach the book and find enjoyment in the metaphors that were used. I enjoyed the discussion on the law and the new spiritual creation that one becomes when they are reborn.

Overall I appreciated the message that Farley was wanting to bring and share. I got bored when it seemed that it was slow to move from one idea to the next. Or at times, I would think we had moved on, only to return to the same old topic and the same conclusion.

If I had a star system to rate this book, I would still give it 3.5 out of 5. The material is presented in a way where most anyone could understand it and be encouraged by it. Even in the areas where my personal beliefs did not line up with the authors, I did not feel threatened by the differences. It never came across to me as a “my way or the highway” book and that is something that is commendable in today’s culture.

After you get past the dust jacket, then things start going south.

Farley attempts to replace the Hebrew Scripture’s legalism with New Testament perfectionism. That somehow, God’s grace, transmitted through Jesus’ death, makes Jesus’ followers free from sin and the law.

Some thoughts I had while reading…

Replacing legalism with Christian perfectionism is not a positive replacement.

If you’re going to have the word “gospel” in the title of your book, then perhaps you should quote more from Matthew, Mark, Luke and John than Paul’s letters. This book would be more appropriately titled “Paul’s Gospel”.

The back cover blurb of this book is a lie. It reads “Jesus plus nothing. 100% natural. No additives. It’s the truth you may never hear in church. the Naked Gospel is a chapter by chapter assault on the church jargon and double talk of our day…”

As I turned each page, I kept waiting to read the good news. And with each turn, I grew more and more disappointed. I think people know Good News when they read it, hear it, see it, experience it. This book failed on all accounts.

Final thought: I wouldn’t even put this book for sale on Amazon.com for fear that someone might think Farley is right. I’ll just recycle it so that it might be turned into something more useful. But I will keep the cover…cause that was pretty innovative.

Unfortunately, my excitement waned after beginning to read the book – for reasons which I will name in a moment.

First though, I’d like to give a general overview of the book. Farley starts by introducing us to his story – growing up in a fundamentalist, legalist background where you are never good enough, Farley became addicted to evangelism, as a means of relieving the guilt he would constantly feel for not being perfect. What follows is a discussion from Farley on what he has discovered in the Bible and how it has helped him recover from the issues he acquired through his background.

Before I begin a critique, I want to start by mentioning that I agree with much of what Farley had to present. Legalism, the idea that somehow we can earn being right with God, is a harsh danger towards a number of Christians, and unwittingly robs many of really understanding freedom in Christ. I whole heartedly agree with Farley in this regard.

What I found however was that through much of the book, it felt like Farley swung the pendulum too hard in the opposite direction… Since the Gospel isn’t legalism, then the Sermon on the Mount must not actually be about a way to live, but about showing you you can’t live a good life. Since the gospel isn’t about how you live, then certainly James’ statement that faith without works is dead must mean something different than what it appears to mean. John’s encouragement in 1 John that we confess our sins? Us not believing that Christ’s sacrifice is sufficient. To make many of these points Farley has to jump through hoops and attempt poor re-readings of texts to make his points. As part of this, Farley concludes that the Christian tradition of confessing sins is no longer needed. In his attempt to protect the Gospel from Legalism, Farley misses just how much of New Testament teaching IS about how we live. Farley has to make the stance on the old testament that it is totally about a broken system, making the way that Jesus relates disjointed from the Old Testament – Jesus is not the continuation of how God has been at work through Israel, but rather the end of that plan, leading me to the question of why God would toy around with all of us for so long.

The thing about The Naked Gospel is that it’s not all wrong, it asserts many points correctly and many points which I agree with. But in it’s attempt to argue that the Gospel is not legalism, it vastly oversteps its bounds moving too hard in the opposite direction, which is ironic since Farley also mentions the Gospel to not be antinomian.

In the end, I found myself having a hard time viewing this as a book I would suggest to many of my friends, because I think that Farley takes it too far. Thank God that we aren’t called to legalism, and it’s that that I can agree with Farley about.

3 Stars out of 5

On the back of the book Farley says, “Jesus plus nothing. 100% natural. No additives. It’s the truth you may never hear in church. The Naked Gospel is a chapter-by-chapter assault on the churchy jargon and double-talk of our day. It puts forth a message that is simple but life changing.”
With those words I was expecting a mind blowing, faith challenging, world shifting book. And unfortunately that is not what I experienced.

Now that isn’t to say that I enjoyed some parts of the book. Farley helped me to realize again that it isn’t what I do for God, but that God loves me unconditionally. That no matter what happens, no matter how many times I sin, no matter how I mess up living the values of the kingdom, Jesus’ love is constant. That is a great reminder that we all need time and time and time again. And that it isn’t by our own wisdom, strength, faith, belief, or service that we obtain salvation, but only by the work of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

My main issue however is a large one. The book is called “The Naked Gospel.” Questions then arise in my mind, What is the Gospel, What did Jesus mean by The Gospel, What do the 4 writers of the “Gospels” mean? All those questions that I have/had, weren’t found in this book. The book relies heavily on the Pauline letters instead of the 4 gospels. I was hoping more for an in depth look on what Jesus said was the gospel, the good news of the kingdom of God. It was sorely missing.

I agree with the thoughts of Scott Ziegler (above) when he says, “I found it somewhat ironic that Farley’s new, Naked Gospel was based not on the gospels, synoptic or otherwise, but on the writings of Paul and the unknown writers of other epistles. In fact, I would guess that, though he would never admit this (wait actually he does), the teachings of Jesus are part of the old covenant and not relevant for Christians today. So ‘Naked’ is actually a completely new gospel. Please turn with me to Naked, Chapter 14, verse 4.
The Sermon on the Mount make you feel guilty? That’s ok Farley tells a parishioner. The Sermon on the Mount may have been Jesus’ greatest moment; its principles may have been his ‘stump speech’ through most of his ministry. BUT, says Farley, it was not for you, you in this case being New Covenant folks. It was written for the religious elite and Jews who were still under the old covenant. No guilt necessary because the Sermon on the Mount contains rule and those rules no longer apply.”

I am not saying that this book wasn’t helpful. But for me, I read Paul through Jesus not Jesus through Paul (though I don’t believe Paul and Jesus stand in opposition). Let’s get back to focusing on what Jesus calls the Gospel, the good news of the kingdom of God both now and in the future.

Farley provides an excellent critique of our desire to remain staid in our own complacent following of hollow rules that we perceive make us good Christians. However, I am not sure that early Christians would agree with his reading of the meaning of old and new and the ways that he argues Christians are called to live a new life without considering the laws or the Jewish Scriptures. It makes no sense to advocate the very heavy disregard for the early Christians’ previous religious experience, especially because there is substantial evidence to the contrary. In fact, the very people Farley discusses—Peter, Paul, and the other apostles—did not leave the Jewish faith. They merely reconfigured their previous beliefs to fit with their newly acquired faith in Jesus as the Messiah. Particularly, Matthew adheres to his Jewish roots as he tried to convince both Gentiles and Jews that Jesus is the Messiah. Making such an adamant break from discussing Jewish traditions and religion is a major weakness of Farley’s text. I do agree with his assessment that Christians need to learn to avoid “the painful symptoms of un-necessary religion” (31), but does this need to be done by completely breaking away from tradition or previous manifestations of religious worship? I think not. Even Paul, who Farley quotes sometimes very out of context, references his own religious and secular traditions as well as the religious and secular leaders of his time.

The main tenet that Farley proposes with which I agree is the idea that we are free from sin. We are always already forgiven, and too many Christians don’t realize it. They are crippled by the perceived necessity to keep accounts of their sins and to compulsively ask forgiveness for those sins, sometimes to the point of unhealthy self-reflectivity and analysis. I love the song “Everything Glorious” by David Crowder Band, because it makes this claim so well. I think Farley is getting at the same question as Crowder: “You make everything glorious and I am Yours, so what does that make me?” According to Farley, “It’s important to understand that we’re joined to the risen Christ, not to a dead religious teacher” (180). I would even take this a step further and say that we are the risen Christ. Whatever is to be done on this earth now, is to be done through us as we are the manifestation of the work that Jesus did on the cross. We are required to be Christ to people: “Genuine growth occurs as we absorb truth about who we already are and what we already possess in Christ” (187). I concur.

In short, I liked this book because it challenges several commonly held beliefs in contemporary Christianity, such as the idea that we have to change who we are to be perfect Christians. As Farly writes, “Having Christ live through you is really about knowing who you are and being yourself. Since Christ is your life, your source of true fulfillment, you’ll only be content when you are expressing him” (194). I agree but my main complaints about this book can speak directly to this idea: what if the way you experience Christ living through you includes a love for and an adherence to those “Old Testament” ideas that he claims are null and void? Can we really claim that the naked gospel is a gospel void of any sense of tradition or Jewish scripture, relying solely on tradition and reason to inform our actions as Christians? I don’t think so. I don’t think this is really “Jesus plus nothing.” It’s more like Jesus nothing with a heaping helping of misread Paul. I would recommend this book, simply so people could wrestle through all of these ideas as Farley adeptly challenges the reader to think critically about a variety of ideas.

All of this is at first attractive. There is something daring, thrilling even, to standing up to a bully and telling him off. Exciting, yes but also dangerous.

Unlike the bully, the Tradition of the Church is not oppressive but liberating. It is “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (see, Jude 1:3, NKJV). And while I would acknowledge that tradition–even the Christian Tradition–can be used to oppress the person, the rejection of tradition is a far worse state of affairs.

Without tradition, without a clear and shared sense of the norms of human life, a humanly meaningful life itself becomes impossible. And if this is true generally, it is even more the case for Christian life. Yes, there is the first thrill of rebellion. But then what? What happens when our enemy (real or imagined) is overthrown? What do we do then?

Within the broad context of Protestantism is that people criticize yesterday’s critics. We come to see yesterday’s heroes as those who would bind us, the new generation, even as they were once bound by those who came before them. The dynamic here is almost Oedipal. Just as a man rebels against his father, his son in turn rebels against him. But this isn’t maturity but childishness.

The vision of Protestantism is that of “neoliberalism.” The Orthodox Christian patriarch of Moscow, Kirill I in a recently published essay (“Norms of Faith, Norms of Life”) describes neoliberalism as an ideology “based on the idea of the liberation of the human person from everything that he believes could limit the exercise of his will and his rights. This model presumes that the purpose of human existence is the affirmation of individual freedom; and it affirms that from this, the person derives his absolute value.”

Thanks to my relationship with the Ooze, a site “dedicated to the emerging Church culture,” I’ve had the opportunity to read and reflect on works significant to the Emergent Church movement. For all that I admire the energy and enthusiasm of this movement, I’ve concluded that it is simply the latest manifestation of the anti-Traditionalism that is at the core of both Protestantism and neoliberalism. And like both, I fear the Emergent Church movement will in time fragment into every smaller sects, leaving it is wake spiritually and psychologically damaged men and women. Andrew Farley’s new book, “The Naked Gospel: The Truth You May Never Hear in Church” is latest example of this.

While the author makes some compelling points about what the back cover described as “the churchy jargon and double-talk” of contemporary Evangelical Christianity, his solution is not to return to the Christian Tradition but to move even further from it. Based on comments he makes along the way, I’m not sure that Farley even understand the Christian tradition as embodied in the life and practice of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

Take his argument that like “Saul of Tarsus [and] Martin Luther” Mother Teresa of Calcutta “wrestled under a religious system that brought [her] no enduring sense of satisfaction or accomplishment, but only misery” (p. 36). What Mother describes in her journal is not oppression under a religious system but what St John of the Cross calls the dark night of the soul. That Farley confuses spiritual purification with oppression suggest that he doesn’t even have a good, theoretical grasp, of the Christian ascetical and mystical tradition.

Or take his comment that “Within the Catholic vein of thought, saints are those who have suffered for the gospel [sic]. They’ve performed miracles and supposedly [!] achieved a higher moral state than the average Joe or Jane” (p. 98). Where do I begin? To anyone even remotely familiar with the Christian Tradition this statement is simply absurd. Did some saints suffer for the Gospel? Yes, certainly–the St Stephen, the Apostles Peter and Paul and the early martyrs chief among them. And did they perform miracles or develop the life of virtue more fully than others? I won’t speak for others but they’ve got me beat.

Contrary to his own assertions, Farley’s book is not about the Gospel. While I think he is right in rejecting the deformation of Evangelicalism, he simply substitutes his own idiosyncratic view of the Gospel for the one under which he grew up. This is simply another in a long string of attempts to justify Evangelical Christianity’s love affair with rebellion against Tradition. St Anthony the Great warns his monks about just this when he says “A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him, saying, ‘You are mad; you are not like us.’”

The problem here is that without a solid grounding in the Christian Tradition, the Emergent Church movement, like Protestantism and Evangelical Christianity before it, has little to offer. My earlier reference to Oedipus was not accidental. Like the rebellious adolescent, Farley’s book confuses criticism with mature thought and supplanting one’s father with being an adult. This is not a surprise; criticism is easy. But stripping away the neuroses of Evangelical Christianity is different from presenting the Gospel in its fullness.

Farley does not present the Gospel in its fullness; he wants to present the “Naked Gospel.” But the Gospel isn’t, and never has been, “naked.” Like Joseph, the Gospel has always worn that divinely tailored coat of many colors (see Genesis 37:3) called Holy Tradition. “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle” (2 Thessalonians 2:15, NKJV).

If readers finds Farley’s critique compelling, they owe it to themselves to seek out an Orthodox Church and discover the Christian Tradition in its fullness. It is possible to live a life that is more than criticism. Through the sacraments of the Church you can become a “partaker of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4), progressively freer from your sins and evermore the person God created you to be.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

It’s called The Naked Gospel by Andrew Farley. It’s subtitle is ‘the truth you may never hear in church’. While the subject of grace is certainly heard in church, I suppose Andrew may be correct. The level to which he takes grace could take much longer to preach and teach than most pastors are willing to give to one topic.

And that’s too bad.

This book hits hard and honest on Grace and all of its questions, problems, balancing acts, scripture verses, applications and implications. Drawing largely from the book of Hebrews, Andrew brings to light God’s economy of grace and why the blood payment of Jesus issued in the New Covenant. It should change everything and it does change everything.

In one chapter he talks about conversing with a friend in college. “I don’t really know how to explain it. But the real thing isn’t about trying hard to act differently. Becoming a Christian is like dying and waking up the next day as a totally new person.” Six months later his friend recounts how he thought about that and asked God to kill him. Andrew admits that “God, kill me” isn’t your typical salvation prayer, but that is what this is about.

It could easily be said that the topic is too elementary to visit again. After all, shouldn’t we understand grace? I say this topic should be revisited over and again because this is foundational truth meant for or hearts and minds. As Jesus taught with the men who built homes on rock and sand, respectively, foundation makes all the difference.

read the original review at http://www.ricknierwoo.blogsppot.com

About half way through, I kept waiting . . . waiting . . . waiting . . . two-thirds of the way through I actually went to the Viral Bloggers website to seek out some of my fellow reviewers in hopes of finding something positive to say. What I found there, instead, reinforced the opinion I was forming.

The premise to Farley’s book is well-intentioned. He confesses to having been consumed with an unfulfilled religiosity that had basically created a monster. He had become a stereotypical evangelical preacher/evangelist and was serious about it – heartfelt, ambitious, and (mildly successful. However, in the midst of all that – he felt as though he was missing something. For the most part, a beginning exercise that prefaces the gist of many evangelical books gracing the new release shelves as of late. However, in my opinion, Farley falls far short of following through.

In hindsight, I think there is a great deal of similarity between what Farley attempts to do with his book and what David Dark does in his book: The Sacredness of Questioning Everything in attempting to get beyond a rules-based “Uncle Ben” (from Dark) kind of God who is lurching in the dark to zap his people for their sins. Unfortunately Farley isn’t nearly as adept in navigating this premise. I don’t wish to question Farley’s ambition or the the relevance of this “naked gospel” for himself and others who have benefited. I am glad that he has found rescue from the oppressive and guilt-ridden past. However, there are so many glaring weaknesses, for me, I did not find this book enjoyable or helpful much at all. To summarize some of my biggest disappointments:
- I found Farley’s Reformed theology to be an obstacle to overcome. I certainly have no problem reading material that stands outside of my own preference or belief, but I found Farley’s Reformed take to be trite and lacking in several areas.
- While I applaud Farley’s desire to rescue Christians from the guilty pretense of salvific works and moralism, I was disappointed by his exclusively individualistic focus. The communitarian (essential – I would say) aspect of faith is all but absent. Salvation remains the outlook solely of the individual for Farley.
- Farley’s perspective of sin was also something I found too narrow. Related to the above point, Farley seems to completely overlook the communal nature of sin. What of the sin inherent in the powers and principalities? What of the addictive powers of sin? I could say more about this shortcoming, but I’ll leave it at that.
- The disconnect Farley draws between the old law and new law (old and new covenant) is much too sharp. To relegate Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount as simply convicting the Jews of the impossibility of keeping the own laws with no real moral implication for Christians today since we’ve been relieved of the law (I think that is a fair take on Farley’s presentation) was seriously lacking for me. His Reformed bias didn’t do much for me and his treatment of James as well.
- Beyond the theological and ideological shortcomings I saw in The Naked Gospel, if I would have resonated better with Farley’s writing style I could have become more engaged. Instead, I found Farley to be often trite with many shallow and random illustrations that didn’t flow well and were often over-explained. I found myself saying, “OK, I get it.”

Unfortunately, I couldn’t wait to be done with this book and move on to something else. There were times when I felt like I was reading some kind of Reformed version of Joel Olsteen – probably more from his style than from his theology. A few words synopsis: Not what I expected, Good intention with poor follow-through.

But Farley reminds us, “Our forgiveness and cleansing are solely because of the finished work of Jesus Christ.” It is FINISHED. Once-and-for-all forgiveness.

As I read his words, I could really feel the burden being lifted from Farley’s shoulders. He dealt with being driven by a guilt-based faith for many, many years, which only led to depression. When he discovered the LIFE that God intended to give us through His Son’s sacrifice, Farley began to experience freedom and God’s truly unconditional love.

“Jesus exposed the futility of life under law,” Farley explains. No one can keep every letter of it, and God doesn’t expect us to. He simply desires for us to love Him and accept His grace and forgiveness. He doesn’t want us to get down on ourselves when we sin; He wants us to simply desire what He desires. And since, as Christians, He truly does live in us, His desires become our desires. If we do not desire what He desires, then He is not in us.

“The message of ‘Jesus plus nothing’ from start to finish is often too humbling for us to swallow. Instead, we opt for performance hoops to jump through in order to impress God . . . The secret is that grace deactivates our pride. Removing the law from our lives means our self-effort is no longer prodded to control behavior. The law excites human effort. It encourages us to depend on resources outside of Christ. But unconditional acceptance deactivates human effort and allows the Holy Spirit to be all that he wants to be through us.” I love this. This is the freedom God intended.

It is vital for everyone–Believers and non-Believers alike–to be exposed to The Naked Gospel. The author’s fervor is contagious; his words are well-written; and his message is clear (as is the book cover–ha!) and well-delivered. Read it. And share it.

This was a book I really wanted to read, even though it was not in the vein of book I usually read…my wife even commented something to the effect of “You wanted to read this?”

Two big red flags jumped out right away.

1) “You might throw this book down in disgust.” (15) If you have to tell me, it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

2) “Are you ready to peel away layers of religiosity in order to discover an exhilarating reality – always keeping in mind that truth is supposed to set you free?” (28) I have a healthy distrust of current Christian writings on Christian freedom. “Freedom” seems to be the new catch-word in the church. Many authors have tackled the issue. They always, always, always lead to a watered down gospel of cheap grace. Farley is no exception.

My biggest observation was Farley’s attempt to reconcile ‘law and gospel’.

There were times I felt that Farley was playing the semantics game. Here’s an example from early on:

“Paul wrote to Timothy:

‘We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for the lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious …. And it is for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.’ 1 Timothy 1:8-11, italics added

What purpose does the law serve? Paul says that it is exclusively for unbelievers. Under the Old, God recognized two kinds of people – Jews and Gentiles. Today, he recognizes two different groups – believers and unbelievers. In the Old Testament, the law was only for the Jews. Today the law speaks to only one group, namely, unbelievers. “(47, bold added)”

Using Farley’s own text, “lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious” we can clearly see that ‘unbeliever’ in not mentioned by Paul at all.

I think a discussion Luther’s simul iustus et peccator would have been better suited here, however, I think Farley would disagree with me. Why simul iustus et peccator? We are, at the same time saint and sinner. And therefore, the law still applies to us. Christ tells us that “it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to become void.” (Luke 16:17) Again in Matthew 22:40, Christ tells us, “On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” The commandments Christ refers to here is love of God and love of neighbor. Christ clearly didn’t discount the Law and we shouldn’t either.

I feel that Farley has swung too far into anti-nomianism. Because of that, I didn’t want to read this book.

Overall, I was not very impressed with the book. I did not find it to be a particularly difficult read. I think the naked gospel that Farley presents waters down the gospel and make grace cheap.

Typically, before writing a blog, I spend way too much time analyzing it. Jotting down my ideas as I read, highlighting things, writing questions in the margins. This time, I just want to write about how this book spoke to me. This isn’t really a “book review.” I mean, it involves a book but it’s more about what this book said to me that I want to write about.
Recently, I had actually been feeling quite down for various reasons. Work was stressing me out. Things with the loved ones in my life weren’t how I wanted them to be, fighting, breaking up and more fighting. And I had been keenly attuned to the failures in my life to live up to what I wanted and perceived my life in Christ to be.
I had actually taken a break from doing these book reviews because I needed to de-stress myself and trying to read a book within a relatively short period of time (when your life is chaotic as mine had been), trying to make the review meaningful and all the while allowing the book to speak to me seemed too much.
Then I got my message from Mike (I’ll be honest, I love it when I receive a message from him). More books have become available for review. I remember the Naked Gospel being available with another book that I actually thought looked much more interesting; however, I felt compelled to go with this book.
I set all of this up for you, my fictitious audience, because this is an important work. This book has spoken to me more deeply than many have in the past (which is partially why I’m apparently super-verbose right now).
In no sarcastic way — I cannot do this book justice by going chapter by chapter and review it.
What I can do is describe what has happened within me.
I, like many others, have lived a life defined by what I knew of the Gospels, of salvation, and of life. This book has drastically, wonderfully altered that. Remembering why I came to place my trust in Jesus, being reminded of my place before God, and encouraging me to life more fully because that’s all that I desire — this is what the book has done for me. I became a Christian because the promise of a redeeming God, a sacrificial son, and a guiding Spirit were so good, so real, that I surrendered myself to it. To be ensured that I was loved by God and that Christ took up dwelling within me was the most exhilirating experience of my life.
All too shortly after that, I was told that my life was to reflect a God who demanded constant repentance or risk losing mine and other souls.
You know what, I digress. And I’m going to leave this digression in here because its a reflection of what’s happening in my mind right now. It’s a confluence of spirit, goodness and life and leads me to talk and talk and talk.
This book will help you identify yourself. And you are in Christ and he in you. Be encouraged by that. Take that truth and live. That’s what we’re supposed to do with it.

The thing that is great about the book “The Naked Gospel” is this; it does not need the word in the title to make it appealing! From the back cover of the book comes this introductory line, “Jesus plus nothing. 100% natural. No additives.” Those three phrases alone should be enough to incite a reader to plunge into the pages, anxious to seek this stripped away relationship with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For my dollar, the book does not disappoint.

In today’s church culture, especially in America, modern-day Christians have become comfortable in living out their faith through a mixture of Jesus plus something else. It may be Jesus+denominational allegiance. It may be Jesus+heritage/tradition. It could be Jesus+what my granny told me about Jesus. Regardless of what the “plus” is, the American church lives it out, and therefore has lost some, but not all, of its power. Not power in the political realm, or power in the economic world…no, the power lost is the power of the Gospel. The power to not only teach but live in such a way that people, specifically lost people, see Jesus as relevant to their life and needed in their life. From multi-million dollar budgets to continued sexual abuse scandals (in all denominations) the church has lost her way, and books like “The Naked Gospel” remind us what we are truly supposed to be about.

I personally identified with this book on many levels, not the least of which were the sections regarding the difficulty so many Christians today have concerning the old and new covenants of the bible. So many of us have struggled, or continue to struggle, with the concept of living “in Christ” while at the same time feeling pressure to adhere to the old regulations of the Old Testament. Sometimes these pressures are from church leadership, while in other instances the pressures fall from our peers around us. The author states it eloquently when he says, “Grace is the system that the Holy Spirit uses to counsel and teach us on a daily basis.” Grace is what so many of us lack in our daily lives, as well as what is lacking in churches. Not simply grace in terms of being nice to another person, but grace in its mightiest term…the grace of Christ which draws us to God and teaches us how to live.

Author Andrew Farley is the lead pastor of Ecclesia Church in Lubbock, Texas. You can find his church website here Ecclesia Church. You can also reach the website for this book here The Naked Gospel.

Disclosure: This book was provided to me free of charge by The Ooze Viral Bloggers.

I recently received a copy of Andrew Farley’s book The Naked Gospel: The Truth You May Never Hear in Church. The back jacket alone was enough to pique my interest:

Jesus plus nothing. 100% natural. No additives. It’s the truth you may never hear in church. The Naked Gospel is a chapter-by-chapter assault on the churchy jargon and double-talk of our day. It puts forth a message that is simple but life changing. With a fresh take on Scripture and an unapologetic style, The Naked Gospel will challenge you to reexamine everything you thought you already knew.

Jesus plus nothing? An assault on churchy jargon? Be prepared to reexamine everything you think you know? Understandably, I was stoked about reading this book.

In the end, the book failed to deliver on the back jacket’s promises.

The Naked Gospel is a good — not great — read. Farley’s primary conviction is to purge legalism — in all its forms — from the Christian faith. The author aims to do this by demonstrating the ineptitude of the “Old Covenant” and the complete superiority of the New Covenant founded by Christ. Beginning with his own upbringing, Farley confronts the myriad paths we seek to earn our salvation by adding something (evangelism, Bible study, prayer, etc.) to the Jesus = Salvation equation. But, as the bold font on the jacket flap declares, the “naked gospel” is Jesus + nothing.

What’s surprising, then, is how much of an emphasis Farley places on the words of the NT epistles. Farley posits that most of Christ’s teachings were addressed to “Old Covenant” thinkers and the purpose of these teachings was to demonstrate to the people their need for a Savior. This diminishes the teachings of Jesus — in particular, the Sermon on the Mount — as archaic and mostly irrelevant to Christian experience; conversely, it elevates the NT epistles as the clearest representation of Gospel-life.

And this is where I fundamentally disagree with Farley. I would argue (vehemently, in fact) that Christ stands as the full revelation of God’s will (Col. 1.19). Christ stands in tremendous continuity with the OT law and prophets; in fact, He claims to be their embodied fulfillment (Matt. 5.17). Farley never deals with this in a satisfactory manner, instead building a case for the inferiority of the Old Testament covenant. For the author, the gravity point in Scripture is found in the NT epistles (in particular, the book of Hebrews). But this is yet another point where I disagree with Farley. I understand Christ as inaugurating the Kingdom reign of God through His ministry (Matthew 4.17; Mark 1.15). Jesus himself claims that His teaching regarding the Kingdom of God is “good news” (Luke 4.43), the very reason He was sent by God. For Farley, the only portion of Scripture that seems important is the material that takes place after the resurrection. (Nevermind the fact that the Gospels were written AFTER the resurrection.)

This is not to say that the text is without benefit. Farley demonstrates the sufficiency of Christ’s death to bring about reconciliation and atonement for those who believe. Readers will come away with a renewed understanding of the nature of the New Covenant. And Farley’s honesty about his own struggles with legalism are helpful and they give the rest of his arguments an air of authenticity. But these merits must be held in tension with what I would consider to be considerable weaknesses to Farley’s presentation of the Gospel.

Farley reminds us that “the old has gone; the new has come,” and, as Christians, we live under the new. That means, folks, that we don’t answer to the Law. We live in the Spirit just as the Spirit lives in us. We are born sinners and that’s just part of our make-up. What we don’t need to do is spend all our time self-flagellating and “getting right with God.” All of our sins–every. single. one.–were wiped out on the cross. We’re wasting our time and denying the saving work of Christ when we fixate on our flaws, shortcomings or sins. Unfortunately, most Christians focus there and not on the resurrection that happened three days later. Farley points out that “we’re inundated with a lackluster gospel that advocates partial forgiveness, a pressure-filled motivation for behavior change, and the promise of earned rewards in heaven or a cash return while on earth” (p. 192).

Farley helps to liberate the reader from this lackluster gospel, providing a new way of thinking about the message and work of Christ. And, if we take the time to adjust our views, liberated we become. When we stop focusing on the inevitable (that we will continue to screw up), we can focus more on the important things of loving God and people–which is really what it’s all about.

This book is an easy read, though the language may not be as accessible to those who are not Christians. It assumes that the reader has a Christian background–whatever form that background may take. For me, personally, it helped to articulate and even put a scriptural basis to what I was already thinking and the way in which I viewed God and what I should be about as a Christian. It’s Christ in and through me theology. The question is whether I (or any of the rest of use) will live fully in this new paradigm, this new covenant.

Farley’s examples were, at times, not particularly useful or fell short of the point he was trying to make. The book wandered quite a bit and I found myself wondering how much longer would this go on. However, the message is worth reading, and the implications are worth considering.

The Naked Gospel is a call to differentiation, to embracing who you are as a person created by God, to liberating yourself from the list of things all “good Christians” should do–from prayer to confession to tithing. This book is a reminder that Jesus liberated us from the restrictions and limitations of the Law to provide us with the freedom to love God and love people.

The second half of the book Farley seems to start interpreting a lot of verses based on his redemptive theological lens which at times seems to be dancing around what seems to be obvious truth. A term he accuses others of doing. Well I suppose we all do it to some degree. Difficult passages are solved easily by saying they are applied to non Christians. The seemingly difficult faith vs works passage in James is easily solved by saying it is referring toward salvation only. Another example is the over-comers in Revelation. These are according to Farley “all Christians”. His interpretation of 1John on confessing sin does seem however to fit rather well to this lens.

The end of the book was also a bit disheartening as he mentions the signs and wonders in acts were mainly for the lift off of the church and are not really meant for today. He does not go so far as saying he does not believe in them but merely that we now have the written word so we don’t need them any more. His next book is also going to explain how those in Heb. 6 who tasted of heavenly gift and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost were really non believers which were enemies of God. Can anyone say more dancing. All in all though it is worth the read just for his excellent treatment of the identity of the believer.

The book is not really what I expected. Farley appears to be a fairly young guy, and the title and back cover text is fairly provocative. So, I expected something a bit edgy, or at least bold. However, on the whole I found it to be rather tame (possibly the work of an overly conservative editor?). The book is a fairly quick read–even armed with a highlighter and stick-on tabs (my usual way to read non-fiction), it only took 2-3 hours to finish.

Bottom line, I agree with most of his conclusions, although I’m still on the fence about some of the ways he gets there. While I stay pretty close to Paul’s arguments in Galatians, Farley relies more heavily on Hebrews, which I found quite interesting. One of the problems for me is that Farley doesn’t necessarily “show his work;” that is to say, he doesn’t lay out all his thinking from point A to point B (the book itself seems a bit disorganized), and doesn’t always provide a lot of context for the verses he quotes. At least for me, reading many of his arguments left me scratching my head:

* For example, his discussion of covenants is based on the Hebrews 9 passage, and he does not address Paul’s discussion of the Abrahamic covenant in Galatians. According to Farley, all covenants are like wills, not taking effect until the death of one of the parties. However, this is not the case with the Abrahamic covenant (and with other OT covenants), where death was not a requirement, but a penalty for not keeping the covenant. As the concept of a required death is important to Farley’s thinking, I would like to have seen Galatians brought into the discussion.

* On pages 97 – 100, he says that it takes zero sin to make us sinners. We are born sinners, without having sinned. However, while I think I know what he is trying to say, I disagree; I believe we are born with a nature that is defective, prone to sin. However, as Paul says, “all have sinned” and that is what makes us sinners.

* He also seems to believe that Christians no longer sin; it is “sin” living in us that sins.

* In pp 110-114, he tries to explain how our “flesh” is not our old self, nor is it our sinful nature. I don’t think he succeeds. I think “flesh” is simply acting out of human effort, rather than being the work of the Spirit. However, Farley says things like the flesh “is something that is with us, but it’s not us.” He seems to be saying that Christians are automatically morally 100% pure, even though we often choose to follow the flesh (whatever it is) rather than the Spirit. So, “living a life of dependency on the Spirit is really nothing more than being ourselves.” Again, I think I know what he’s trying to say, but I don’t think he succeeds.

* On p143, he states that Jesus’ death satisfied God forever, implying that he believes in a Calvinistic, wrathful God. I don’t think it was God who had to be “satisfied.”

* He explains the Lord’s Prayer (“forgive us as we forgive those…”) as being an Old Covenant prayer, no longer applicable. While I would agree that much of Jesus’ preaching was indeed preaching the Old Covenant to show our need for a real savior, I have a different understanding of our need to forgive.

* Finally, he tries to reconcile James with the rest of the NT by saying that “Faith involves a decision–a work,” so that faith without a decision to believe is a dead work. I don’t think this works at all; rather, James seems to be talking about what Paul calls the fruit of the Spirit. Basically, if you’ve no fruit, you don’t have the Holy Spirit (and faith).

This isn’t to say that this isn’t a book worth reading; he does bring out a lot of good points that could be very helpful to a great many people. And, as I said, I do agree with his basic conclusions:

* Jesus took care of our sins, once for all.
* The Gospel is that we are saved by Jesus, plus nothing else.
* We live our lives by grace; again, Jesus plus nothing.

So, if readers only understand these points, the book has been worthwhile.