I am very torn on this book and do not personally recommend it at this time. There are several things I agree with and several things that are not Biblical and misleading.

For example; Farley makes a statement, “Too often, I see the church today functioning like any other morality-focused group. It’s time for us to wake up and realize that being born of the Spirit means we possess an amazing life within us.”

Right on, I could not agree more. I have made comments for several years that the church often resembles the local country club. Then on the other hand Farley appears to be so grace based that there is no need for baptism, or allowing the Holy Spirit to convict us of sins.

This is not a theological book and he does not seem like he desires to narrow in on a particular subject and really unpack the truths of scripture. It is theological in framework, but is missing the inside or the completeness for the audience he desires to address.

Farley does a great job of weaving stories throughout the book and giving metaphors to try and make point in light of a scripture. In essence Farley is writing about a principal that we are new creations in Christ and the Holy Spirit is dwelling in us and his conclusion is that we are saved once and for all once we realize the freedom in Christ.

Like I said there are several things I agree with and many that I disagree with. My desire is not to take your time and list every detail. Overall I enjoyed the book and the fresh reminder that living in Christ gives me life and freedom.

http://www.lantzhoward.com/2010/09/book-review-naked-gospel.html

http://culturedrivenlife.blogspot.com/2010/07/naked-gospel.html

http://my.barnesandnoble.com/communityportal/review.aspx?reviewid=1425582

I’m very mixed on this book though. I found myself ‘suspicious’ at times, more often in the first half. I don’t believe this was due to any sort of apprehension or hesitancy with the author Andrew Farley’s ideas. I think more because he seems to walk a line between Churchianity and a Christianity that’s free from an Institutionalized church.

I was quite happy to see, in chapter 7, how heavily he focused on the fact that the Law breeds sin, arouses sinful passion, and is a ministry of condemnation; that the Christian who believes they are bound to the Law have missed the point. That Christian cannot and should not mix the two.

[But on a side note, he does seem to confuse Moses' ministry of condemnation with the entire bible at times, stating, ”Once enlightened by the Scriptures, we also agree that we're born in a sinful condition.”, pg. 98]

But this angle isn’t new. Countless churches and sermons and pastors have spoken on this issue. What impressed me was, in chapter 9, the author takes it a necessary step further – takes it to the street, so to speak, and applies it to the Institutional Church’s Holy of Holies. Sabbath Observance and Tithing; membership and money.

This caught my attention, as I have pondered and questioned some of these exact same issues in Repairing the Torn Veil

…but it was also at this point where I think he dropped the ball. He never really conclusively addressed this issues of Sabbath Observance or Tithing; or the implication it would have on the future church.

The overall impression I got was that we are free of the Law and how we cannot pick and choose which laws to observe or be free of (”The law is an all-or-nothing system”, pg. 65), but yet, – somehow – in some unspoken and elusive way, Sabbath Observation (read in, Going to Church) and Tithing (revenue stream) still count.

I’d like to learn more about Andrew Farley. I believe he is being honest and genuine in The Naked Gospel, please don’t misunderstand me. However, I can’t help but feel like this is a Conservative Evangelical Christian (pastor?) attempting to repackage and remarket the same old religion.

When I say Conservative Evangelical I suppose I really mean biblical literalist. There are certain statements that quietly presume this.

”If we accept God’s blood-only economy… blood sacrifice is the only action that results in forgiveness and cleansing. This was true in the Old Testament and there’s no exception today”, pg. 135

”We believe that a flood engulfed the earth and that a man spend 3 days in a big fish. To top it off, we believe Jesus rose from the dead and then floated up into the sky amidst many onlookers. What crazy events we’ve chosen to swallow as truth!”, pg. 128

Well… you pretty much need to be a literalist to choose to wallow some of these events as fact. And God’s economy of blood doesn’t resonate very well with the more Liberal minded. Which leads me to seriously wonder, who exactly is this book aimed at?

The author tends to fall victim to speaking in Christianese; words and terms that only Christians or church-goes would readily identify and recognized. Yet he leaves these terms hanging; never retracing his steps to flesh out what they mean; I suspect deliberately allowing his reader to assume. Yet, if the initiated and experienced church-goer is the target, he shakes them up by stating,

”…[these] requirements to remain in God’s favor. This collection of “Thou Shalts” – read you Bible, share your faith, participate in a lot of “church” – was a measuring stick… criteria served as a concrete way of determining whether or not I was in right relationship with God”, pg. 81

…are unnecessary, or even wrong.

~

In the latter half of The Naked Gospel he seems to then swing to a near Universalist perspective. How else can we take this?

Jesus’ blood sacrifice on the cross was the once and for all blood sacrifice. He speaks of the priests of the Old Testament having to stand, (signifying that their job of attempting to repent and cleanse sin is never done), vs. the singular Priest (Jesus) of the New Testament sitting at the right hand of God because that job is now and forever finished.

Then he would seem to turn on the traditional Conservative Evangelical position when he states,

”… they delicately dance around the reality of once-for-all forgiveness and push the idea of a two-tiered forgiveness system in which eternally God is satisfied, but right new we somehow maintain our own daily cleansing…”, pg. 150

and

”… we rest by ceasing from the dead works we thought would gain us favor with God. Rather than performing religious acrobatics to rid ourselves of sins, we can sit down with Jesus. We can simply agree, “Yes, it’s finished”.”, pg. 66

I, personally, can wholeheartedly agree, whether this is the author’s deliberate point or not. This is the end of religion. This is the death of religiosity.
The Law of condemnation has been decimated by Grace… and Grace is unconditional. Conditional Grace is no Grace at all.

Half of the endeavor is getting to this point – which I believe is this book’s agenda. But this is only half-way. Where do we go from here and what does this liberty look like is a necessary follow-up. To continue with religion and church as is, is the empty practice of repackaging and remarketing an old and defunct religion. Putting new wine in old wineskins.

… and I’m afraid this book fails to deliver this second stage in the equation. Maybe it was never meant to. I’m concerned this is a new fangled way of revitalizing stagnant church members while pitching what, on the surface, appears to be something New, appealing to and drawing in the masses of spiritually mindful people done with church; but all for the intent of renewing membership and increasing revenue. I sincerely hope it isn’t just a repackaged religiosity. I hope it will give its readers food for thought, challenge them to revisit presumed theological positions, and hopefully and legitimately ask the question,
Now where do we go from here?

If you want to read a book revolving around a grace-centric teaching, then this book is for you. It’s all there: Christians have no need to ask for forgiveness anymore; Old Testament law (meaning the moral laws, not the cultic or purity laws) is not a good source of morality for Christians (in fact, it seems as though morality is not so important anymore); We are not on a spiritual journey, but have arrived; etc.

It is interesting to note that I would probably not be able to go toe-to-toe with the author to disprove his exegesis (though this book has inspired my to start looking more seriously at my Bible…not just for personal devotion). But I know from past experience and from present intuition that this teaching is off the rails.

I appreciate people who provide me with different angles to look at the same thing, for they help to sharpen me. In that sense, I am appreciative of this book.

Not much more to say at this point.

Original post: http://important-topics-ahub.blogspot.com/2010/07/review-naked-gospel.html

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.

It has taken an age for the physical book to make it to the UK, but despite the amount of football I am watching during the World Cup (with accompanying beer of course), I have managed to squeeze in reading this during my 4 week deadline.

One section I did appreciate was the review of the Romans material on ‘reckoning’ yourself to be dead to sin because it is a reality, not in order to believe it. I remember reading Watchman Nee’s classic, “The Normal Christian Life”, many years ago and how this difference struck me forcefully then. Whatever my thinking about some of the material in this book, I do like the challenge it presents to take seriously the claims Paul makes in all his writings as to the present reality of us being already dead to sin, fully forgiven and having Christ present within us.

Later the sections on the compatibility of the Holy Spirit’s attitude toward us with that we see as the relational position of Father & Son who died for us are also a welcome emphasis. It is easy to slip into the Christian cultural myths of ‘angels that leave the car when you go over the speed limit’ and other nonsense.

However, for all the scriptures cited and expounded in this book (and there are plenty), it left me uneasy and I don’t think that is just because it challenged some sacred beliefs held in Christian circles (I tend to welcome that). Rather it is the strident and certain tone of the work. Don’t get me wrong I do think Andrew is on to something, despite the somewhat Calvinist emphasis – but I just wish he wasn’t so damn sure of himself. Despite the appeals to reality throughout the book (which is a transparent and good emphasis), this level of certainty itself strikes me as at odds with my normal Christian experience.

For full review visit:
http://web.mac.com/paul.laughlin/Loffers_Lair/Book_Reviews/Book_Reviews.html

http://thelogo.blogspot.com/2010/06/naked-gospel.html

http://kevinstewart.wordpress.com/2010/06/22/the-naked-gospel/

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

Naked Gospel: sounds edgy but it wasn’t.

Maybe I’m not the target audience. Actually, I know I’m not. This is for a reader squarely planted in the middle of Christendom who takes in a conservative brand of Christianity weekly. To that person this book is certainly to geared to offend, (as most conservatives are quite easily offended it doesn’t take much to receive such a response).

Farley began the book with great promise, the questions he posed caught my attention in his mini introductory exam.

In true or false style he poses the following:

Christians should ask God to forgive and cleanse them when they sin.

Christians struggle with sin because of their old self within.

We should wait on God even before making everyday decisions.

When we sin against God, we’re out of fellowship until we repent.

Old Testament law is written on Christian hearts so we want to obey it.

The Bible tells us that Christians can obtain many rewards in heaven.

Christians will give an account for their sins at the great white throne.

Christians should tithe at least 10 percent of their income.

God gets angry with us when we repeatedly sin against him.

God looks at us as though we’re righteous, even though we’re really not.

It would have been much easier if he had answered the questions directly in the 10 points he presents them, but Farley doesn’t–albeit all were in some form answered. (It would have helped me for clarity sake.)

The first quarter of the book seemed to be an endless tirade against Old Testament Law. I got the point, and I suppose I can understand why someone, who treats the OT laws as somehow relevant today, might require the explanation, but it seemed to drag on and on.

I also don’t agree with the premise of casting away the entire of the OT law. It’s not to say that OT Law should be followed, but I DO believe God had a plan in place with the law that wasn’t achieved. I don’t agree, which I believe is incompatible with Farley’s premise, that God somehow changed the game and made salvation easier through the person of Jesus Christ.

However, I did pick up the essential piece: as Christians we need to be adamant to accept people over rules and propositions. I see how this could be a startling revelation for Christian types who prefer rules; these types are also routinely unwilling to test the statements of their faith treating opinions as canon. Farley does well to highlight some important themes that may sound right, but are not adequately supported in scripture.

Back to the thought on OT Law being the ‘Old Law’ and necessary to be cast away. I think the Law held a purpose in that it was through the law that the ancient Israelites were to usher in God’s dream of new Kingdom. God’s dream didn’t change, but instead of law the incarnate Christ takes its place (or more specifically Christ replaces Israel as supreme example of God’s Kingdom on earth and a glimpse of God’s redemption plan to come in the future). To casually toss away the OT law, which I doubt Farley advocates but readers may certainly ascertain a flippant attitude about it, is careless and perhaps dangerous when it comes to understanding the grand narrative of scripture.

I also couldn’t comprehend the idea of atonement and forgiveness. Farley spends the entire book condemning OT Law, however, when it comes back to forgiveness he goes back to the very RULES in the law to explain why forgiveness requires blood. Either the OT Law is dead or it’s not. It doesn’t make sense to suggest that Jesus has to fulfill OT Law if we’re to cast it away. I couldn’t figure out why it seemed the first half of the book condemned the law and the latter half spoke about fulfilling components of it….

Furthermore on that subject, I wouldn’t suggest God is even subject to the law — which was presented for the people. There is no indication that God much follow rules set out for people, after all, he is God (although I’m certain the theological implications of what I just said are complex).

Farley’s take on how Christians need to spend less time thinking about building rewards in heaven and feeling guilty about their sins and how it ruins fellowship with God is important (for the very same target audience I labeled earlier). I felt his explanations in the very least were enough to force readers to re-assess how they approach conservative Christian norms for seemingly foundational items (or at least items taken for granted).

Also, the latter chapters dealing with the Holy Spirit as advocate and not invisible guilt tripper was another gem to help set the reader free from potential ‘rules and regulation’ bondage and hopefully into engagement into a life centered around the person of Christ and his ministry to engage and redeem the world.

Too much time on the ‘Old Law’ with confusing returns to the very same thing he was trying to outlaw. But enough important elements to make it an average read. Wasn’t for me, but for someone in the right space as he’s likely shooting for it would be far more relevant.

2.5 starts 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.

The simple premise of The Naked Gospel is “Jesus plus nothing”. This also happens to be the overarching theme of the statement of faith at Ecclesia. This premise was very intriguing to me as I have been trying to discover how to have the childlike faith in Jesus Christ that he wants us to have. My blog that I have had for the last four years is called puerile dogma…another way of saying childlike faith. So I have to admit I was pretty excited to find a new book that opened up and explored this topic in depth. What stunned me was how simple it really is and how far off base I had been all these years. The Naked Gospel strips away all of the religiosity that has been added to the gospel over the last 2000 years and brings a fresh and simple perspective to the Christian faith.

If you are tired of battling sin and temptation every day and wondering how you can truly call yourself a Christian when you are struggling so much…read this book.

If you keep running around in circles trying to figure out God’s will and you have become a victim of analysis paralysis while trying to make decisions…read this book.

If you are confused by all of the different teachings you hear about prosperity, storing up treasures in heaven, obeying the Ten Commandments, being in God’s will or dozens of other topics…read this book.

If you are hurting because you feel your sins have made you unacceptable before God and you are ashamed of things you have done…read this book.

The Naked Gospel is not a substitute for the Bible; far from it. What it is, is a very easy to read book that opened my eyes to truths I had overlooked. Jesus plus nothing. It doesn’t get any easier than that.

Kevin Deisher
Fresno, CA

http://pueriledogma.blogspot.com/

I don’t often but books down until I’ve finished reading them. Even the bad ones; I struggle through every page, sometimes in excruciating agony, but I generally end up at the end. This is especially true of books I get for free. This month I somehow received four books from Viral Bloggers so I feel obligated to read each one to the end.
I may not make it with The Naked Gospel, which is sad because I enjoy being naked.
It seems to me that Farley’s Naked Gospel is one that he’s made up. Made up, that is, with a great deal of help from the apostle Paul. Farley’s basic premise is that in Christ we have “freedom.” Freedom to do, freedom to be. Things like the Law or Guidelines for Christian Living and such are all part of the Old covenant. In the New Covenant we are simply free.
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.
Are we then, in Farley’s new gospel free to sin? Of course not. The Holy Spirit will replace out selfish desires and replace them with holy desires (or something close to that). I forgot to mention that the reason we are all free is because our sin is no longer ours. Farley is a true substitution-ist. Jesus paid the price for our sins by dying on the cross. So when God looks at us he sees not us but the holy image of Christ. We adopt, through a re-birth, Christ’s sinlessness. But Farley goes one step further. According to him our reborn self is no longer sinful and no longer desires to sin, even though Paul has a lot to say about his own sin. The source of our sins, subsequence to salvation, is an entity, an actual being, named Sin. Sin influences us, temps us, and may cause us to do things but our re-born self remains sinless. Freedom to the nth. Farley adds a rather weak qualifier that we are to try to attempt to control Sin and limit his/her influence on our lives. Freedom replaces personal responsibility.
That’s about where I stopped. Maybe I’ll pick up Naked again and finish it. Maybe, but I’m free not to.
Rev. Scott Ziegler
http://tattooedpriest.blogspot.com
http://www.abeachwedding.com

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