Customer Reviews

If the Church Were Christian: Rediscovering the Values of Jesus

5 star:		(27)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

I stumbled upon the author and this book when a Quaker acquaintance recently mentioned the author was coming to our area to speak about his latest work. Intrigued, I attended one session by the author, acquired this book and then set about selecting several chapters to devour prior to hearing him a second time the next evening.

Here are the chapter headings in this work:

If the Church were Christian...

1) Jesus would be a model for living rather than an object of worship
2) Affirming our potential would be more important than condemning our brokenness
3) Reconciliation would be valued over judgment
4) Gracious behavior would be more important than right belief
5) Inviting questions would be valued more than supplying answers
6) Encouraging personal exploration would be more important than communal uniformity
7) Meeting needs would be more important than maintaining institutions
8) Peace would be more important than power
9) It would care more about love and less about sex
10) This life would be more important than the afterlife

Following the conclusion is an outline of three discussion questions for each chapter and an invitation to the reader to suggest other aspects of the church that may need to change in recovering the ethic of Jesus.

I was stunned and surprised by Gulley's honesty and forthrightness in presenting his material as he carefully laid bare certain of the church's pervasive shortcomings. In the sixth chapter, for instance, Gulley alluded to the tendency of some churches to replicate their theological DNA, thereby promoting and securing a type of spiritual inbreeding that can lock out a given congregation from healthy growth in faith (page 108).

Gulley refers to his Roman Catholic upbringing and Quaker background as enlightening his thinking on this matter. At the second lecture I attended, I asked him what informed the selection of his ten themes. The Quaker pastor revealed hearing many expressions within these aspects from congregants throughout his ministry.

If you are evangelical/fundamentalist Christian in your persuasion you read at your own peril and possible healing. Gulley quickly comes clean that he no longer interprets certain traditional views like heaven and hell, for instance, as he once did. However, he is no cynic and expresses neither bitterness nor rancor in his measured prose.

My personal spiritual journey has taken me through three different denominations. I have attended seminary and have been a minister. I find that Pastor Gulley is spot on in his insights, assessments and solutions. This is one of the most profound works I have read in recent years that evaluates the church at large in the light of the life and experience of Jesus--a rarity in the genre. I plan on adapting this book's contents for use in discussion groups in the church I attend.

In his first two theology books, If Grace is True and If God is Love (both co-authored with Jim Mullholland), Philip Gulley looked outward, to the theological questions that define the divine. Now, in his latest work, he looks inward, to the institutions and practices that define the religious life.

If the church were truly Christian, it would focus on this life more than the afterlife; on following the example of Jesus more than believing creedal statements about Jesus; on loving whole human beings without reserve or judgment. Gulley covers these and many other points in a conversational, easy prose that communicates some profound thoughts without seeming heavy.

To me, Gulley seems to be describing a church that would fall somewhere between the liberal end of Christianity and the Unitarian Universalist world. Having spent time in both, I think his thinking would be welcome in either, but much less so in the more conservative strands of Christianity.

Gulley, along with John Shelby Spong, Scotty McLennan, Marcus Borg and a few others is pioneering what I think may eventually become a new shape of religion. For those of us who have a strong religious impulse but can't fit well into the traditional church, it's an exciting time to be paying attention.

In collaborative efforts with Jim Mulholland ("If Grace is True" and "If God is Love"), the two writers managed together to open a window in an otherwise stuffy edifice. So I've been looking forward to the release of this solo treatise by Philip Gulley for a number of months. And while I approached "If the Church Were Christian" with high expectations, I must say that Gulley has greatly exceeded those expectations! He's managed to "open that window" a little more. This book is a breath of fresh air! Be prepared to put aside any preconceived notions based on the impression the title may give, put on your thinking cap, and pay close attention. You may not agree with every conclusion Gulley draws, but it would be a shame to miss the message of this book. It echoes the call of the rabbi from Nazareth . . .

Two or three times a month I receive requests to do book reviews on a blog that I manage. Depending on the author, publisher, and/or book title I sometimes say, "sure" and other times, "not really interested." A couple of weeks ago I said "sure" purely on the book title. The book was "If the Church Were Christian." However, it was the sub-title of the book that intrigued me, which was "Rediscovering the Values of Jesus." I wasn't familiar with the author, who was Philip Gulley, but I was in agreement that we need to "rediscover" the values of Jesus.

The overall premise of the book is that the church has lost its way. The author believes that the picture of American religious life is one of disillusionment. He contends that it is difficult to see many similarities between the church's life and the person of Jesus. He unpacks this thesis in 10 chapters, each beginning with the words; If the Church were Christian . . .

1. Jesus Would Be a Model for Living Rather Than an Object of Worship
2. Affirming Our Potential Would Be More Important Than Condemning Our Brokenness
3. Reconciliation Would Be Valued over Judgment
4. Gracious Behavior Would Be More Important Than Right Belief
5. Inviting Questions Would Be Valued More Than Supplying Answers
6. Encouraging Personal Exploration Would Be More Important Than Communal Uniformity
7. Meeting Needs Would Be More Important Than Maintaining Institutions
8. Peace Would Be More Important Than Power
9. It Would Care More About Love and Less About Sex
10. This Life Would Be More Important Than the Afterlife

So far so good. (Except that I would have tweaked a couple of the chapter titles.) I am pretty much in agreement with the author's assessment of the institutional church in America. There is much about the life of the church that has strayed from the teachings of Jesus.

However, I found most of the examples the author uses to highlight just how the church has strayed less than helpful. He seems to conjure up the most extreme examples of fundamentalism in the church to make his point. For me, the numerous stories illustrating the worst of evangelical Christianity became tiresome. Furthermore, I didn't find it to be a fair or balanced approach to criticism.

Most troubling, however, is the Jesus the author describes, particularly in the first two chapters, is really no different than any other "religious" leader in history. For example, in the introduction, the author expresses doubts about the divinity of Jesus, saying that Jesus was a Jew "who did not see himself as divine. He saw himself as a rabbi, probably a prophet." If this is the case, then the author could have just as easily sub-titled his book, "Rediscovering the Values of" Buddha, or Confucius, or Gandhi, or the Dali Lama, or maybe Yusuf Islam (a.k.a. Cat Stevens) ;-)

Bottom line: Does the author present legitimate problems in the current state of the church in America? Absolutely. Does he do so with a sense of fairness, or evenhandedness that is helpful? I for one, do not think so. Does he provide a way for the church to be empowered (biblically and/or theologically) to move in the right direction? Based upon the author's view of Scripture and Jesus Himself, I would say no.

While others have obviously found Gulley's writings to be helpful (as noted by the other reviews of this book), I believe a reader would be better served by reading a book like "Death by Church: Rescuing Jesus From His Followers" by Mike Err.

Wow! What a great book. Not for everyone: those who are rigidly into Christian dogma, creeds and beliefs will not like this book. It is for those who wish to follow the real message of Jesus. It is admittedly hard to pull out what Jesus taught and the example he provided from its hiding place beneath the christology. Gulley does a good job. His book joins other great books along these lines. I will list a few examples. "A New Christianity for a New World", John Shelby Spong; "The Scandalous gospel of Jesus: What's so Good about the Good News?", by Peter Gomes; "Jesus Was a Liberal: Reclaiming Christianity for All", by Scotty McLennan; "The Politics of Jesus: Rediscovering the True Revolutionary Nature of Jesus' Teachings and How They Have Been Corrupted", by Obery Hendricks, Jr.; and "Saving Jesus from the Church: How to Stop Worshiping Christ and Start Following Jesus", by Robin Meyers. It is a case of this choice: do you really want to follow the example of Jesus or worship the Christ figure?
I think that it is time to "resurrect Jesus", not in the Easter sense, but to reclaim what he preached and how he acted. This book, along with the others mentioned, is a step in that direction. All people who are tired of strict beliefs and rigid rules and really want to act on the teachings of Jesus should read this book.

God is not dead; we're just looking for God, as the old country song said, "in all the wrong places." For many of us, unfortunately, that place is the church.

Many will be turned off, even repulsed, by the title, "If the Church Were Christian..."

But the value, and there is great value in this book, comes in the subtitle: "Rediscovering the Values of Jesus."

This is a provocative book, pointing the way, perhaps, to the future of the faith and, if we are fortunate, the church itself.

Worshiping Jesus is a lot easier than emulating Jesus. And as Christians, that's what we should do: honor Him by living the life He said live, rather than worship him as we do in our churches today.

If there is hope for the church, it is in encouraging Christians to live that life rather than in worshiping the man and the message.

For readers of this review who thought Quakers were a staid, conservative lot who hung on to the traditional beliefs that have characterized the organized church for generations, hang on to your hat. Philip Gulley is none of these! He is a flaming liberal in something of the mold of retired bishop John Shelby Spong and Prof. Marcus Borg.

To get the flavor of the book one needs only to note some chapter headings. For example "Jesus Would Be a Model for Living Rather Than an Object of Worship". Gulley says that to be Christian is to live by the example of Jesus. Furthermore, Jesus, he says, would likely not be pleased with all the high praise and adulation that he receives in our Sunday morning services or in our hymns or praise songs. Gully describes in terse language why he does not believe in the virgin birth and how that belief contributed to the denigration of women.

Still another chapter, "Peace Would Be More Important Than Power" There are those who in every-day life take advantage of positions of power over others and abuse power in areas beyond their expertise. He is no longer surprised that "some of the most strident voices for military force emanate from Christian quarters." The church and the nation have become so closely allied that the prophetic voice of Christ's peace is no longer heard from many in the church.

One more: "This Life Would Be More Important Than the Afterlife." On this position Gulley echos Marcus Borg , who says that in a list of 10 of Christianity's worst contributions to religion would be the emphasis on the afterlife. Gulley insists that Christianity is about this life, the one we live on earth now! While Gulley does not wish to diminish the importance of hope, he realizes that for many people the importance of "getting to heaven" is an all consuming preoccupation, which focuses all efforts in working toward "saving our own skin" rather than caring for each other here on earth.

Philip Gulley, in writing "If the Church Were Christian", has uncovered the misdirected efforts of many of us and has pointed up how we might more accurately be called Christians by actually living out Christ's example rather than simply "believing". It's a great read, but do hang on to your hat!

Ernest G. Barr

All I can say about this wonderful book, "If the Church Were Christian: Rediscovering the Values of Jesus", is that it makes more sense to me than anything I've ever read in my entire life. Applause and appreciation to Philip Gulley and his honesty. Amen!

How did Christianity get into such a mess? That's the hottest question in American Christianity and it's the subject of two important new books by popular writers, both named Philip: Philip Gulley and Philip Jenkins. Gulley is the Quaker who is beloved by fans of his many Harmony novels over the years. Gulley also is famous as a preacher and teacher. Jenkins is a historian who is known for his books exploring the past--and the future--of global Christianity. His new book is called Jesus Wars: How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1,500 years.

Both of these books start in the heart of the mess of Christianity. Gulley writes about the mess we're facing at the moment. Jenkins writes about an even worse mess in the church well over 1,000 years ago.

The provocative title of Gulley's new book is ringing all kinds of urgent, contemporary bells. N.T. Wright's latest book, After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters, is also about rediscovering Christian values, for example. And, theologian Stanley Hauerwas has devoted a lot of effort to exploring Christianity's core values. If you're exploring this important theme this spring, Hauerwas' most important current book is Hannah's Child: A Theologian's Memoir.

Obviously, Gulley is not orthodox, per se. But I don't hold that against him. I think he is typical in trying to reconfigure a workable Christianity.

Here's what I like about Gully: his focus is on people. He cares about people more than he cares about the church. And, really, that's a good thing. The perpetual re-tooling of modern church approach is still focused on getting the right formula for church, not on getting people healthy and whole.

From the beginning, Gulley does two things I really liked. One, he used affirmative statements to create a portrait of the good things he would like to see happen to people. So the discussion isn't about what the church does poorly, the discussion becomes, "How can people be made better?" Two, he is creating observable outcomes. By reorienting the discussion to making better people, he helps create constructive resolutions that are intended to be actionable. "Affirming Our Potential Would Be More Important Than Condemning Our Brokenness" is something I can start doing today. I don't have to fix the church or re-interpret the bible before I can encourage the next person I meet.

And, on the whole, I think Gulley's list is resonates with what we want, and need, more of in a church community: affirmation, reconciliation, graciousness, questions, personal exploration, meeting needs, peace, and meaning in this life. The propensity of people is to bureauocrify, institutionalize, and calcify almost anything, and nothing more so than church. Recognizing this, Gulley's book is a legitimate call to free people from the abuse and misuse of religiosity.

Gulley raises some interesting questions along the way. In chapter five, "Inviting Questions Would Be More Important Than Providing Answers," he tells the story of a woman who, At Gulley's prompting, began to question the doctrine of the virgin birth. He told her the idea of a virgin birth was pre-Enlightened, sexist, and irrational. Using Gulley's method of proper questioning, the woman eventually left church altogether. Gulley defines this as a "blossoming" and a rare "spiritual maturation". He then adds,

"I remembered the many times people in my church had approached me with profound questions and I had offered shallow answers, evaded their questions altogether, made light of them, or changed the subject. I have seldom said, `I don't know that answer to your question, but I'm willing to reflect on it with you.'"

It turns out this is a reoccurring theme in Gulley's book. People should be encouraged to question, but the answers should typically resolve with the "bible isn't true" or "I don't know". Somehow this is the formula for spiritual growth.

Two of Gulley's values are "Encouraging Personal Exploration" and "Inviting Questions". Yet what if my "personal exploration" leads me to believe in the virgin birth? Would that be valid?

It's unfortunate that in the first chapter, the premise of the book starts with Gulley's assertion that the bible is not truth and that Jesus wasn't divine in any sense he was just some guy. Apparently Gulley fancies himself a bit of an iconoclast by providing his version of debunking. The problem isn't that Gulley is unorthodox, it hardly rises to that level, the greater problem is that it's silly and undercuts his legitimate points.

Everyone one of Gulley's main assertions focuses on how to treat people better, how to be more gracious and honest. And without exception, one could fulfill any one of his suggestions - and believe in the virgin birth at the same time. "Reconciliation Would Be Valued Over Judgment" is perfectly within reach even if one believes that Christ happened to be the Son of God.

It becomes apparent that he is using the church as a proxy to dismantle the bible, rather than using bible as a tool to reconstruct church. The reality that sometimes people in the church are stupid or mean does not therefore mean that God didn't create the universe or the bible is a self-contradictory mess. Gulley's overriding concern is to teach people that the bible isn't true. Then, magically, everyone can start being nice.

On a broader point, and one that should be more pertinent to his stated objective of making everyone nice, his description of church already exists. It's called American Evangelicalism or mainline liberalism. At either end of the religious spectrum you have groups people who only love, affirm, support, and question. They don't encourage or enforce doctrine, they don't force answers, they believe Jesus was a good guy and so are you. Yet the mainline liberal denominations border on extinction. All their niceness isn't attracting anyone. And despite the prominence of evangelical mega-churches, the evangelical church as a whole has actually declined in the past two decades.

But let's be more honest yet: Joel Osteen makes Gulley look like Senator McCarthy. If Gulley wants to find a church that is all-potential, all-affirming, non-dogmatic (even non-doctrine for that matter), Jesus-only-wants-you-to-be-happy, and "can't we all just get along"...well, look to the biggest, grandest church in America. If Gulley were honest, he would agree that his ideal church exists already, whether you want to be an Episcopal or an Osteen cheerleader.

But one gets the sense Gulley isn't being honest. His greater goal is to dissuade people from the veracity of the bible or the person of Christ. If he wants to truly help people it will have to be grounded in a more solid foundation that Gulley's wishful thinking. Real community and real restoration does not happen because we stop believing in Jesus as God. It happens when something transcendent and transformation acts on us from above.

It's only through the miraculous work of Christ in someone's life that the church can become full of grace and power, able to restore the poor, alienated, or disenfranchised. Ultimately, Gulley's vision has no power. His definition of church already exists and it isn't working. We do agree, however, that Christians should be doing church.