I really hate his writing style, but I think he has some good things to say. ( )

I really hate his writing style, but I think he has some good things to say. ( )

I really hate his writing style, but I think he has some good things to say. ( )

This book is provocative and well-written (and likeable for those reasons). You can't help but enjoy Bell with his edgy, self-consciously authentic, loose-cannon style. He raises some good questions about lots of things and makes you think outside the box, which is always good for me.

But he's also a bit careless. Some of his questions leave you with big questions about what he really thinks about some pretty important core doctrines. He's also unfair - in using analogies that misrepresent what a lot of good, solid theologians of a more traditional ilk really say or think. (If you've read it, the brick wall vs. trampoline analogy is a case in point.)

Finally, he sends confusing signals. It boggles my mind that he gives an unqualified recommendation of books by John Piper on one hand and makes positve, unqualified references to J. Dominic Crossan, on the other. That just seems careless to me. I can't imagine giving an unqualififed recommendation of something written by a member of the Jesus Seminar. ( )

Reviewed by Greg Gunn (Science)
It is a book about what the author thinks Christianity should look like - about how Christ taught people to interpret and live out scripture. He attempts to give the reader some historical and cultural perspective on some scripture and some thoughts about the difference between following religious doctrine and following Christ's teachings. I read it twice and I didn't have time to read it the first time. ( )