The book itself is an expansion of the document, which goes by the same name, the two posted online in June 2009.
Viola has an anti-institutional church bent that he's voiced before (see Pagan Christianity and ReImagining Church), while Sweet comes across as wishing he were a 15th century French philosopher.
The format of the book doesn't disclose who is writing which portion, but it comes obvious: chapters with anti-church sentiments are from Viola, while chapters with quotes from random monks are from Sweet.
Manifestos, typically, are written to be punchy, controversial, and specific. I sensed none of that in this book. Instead, I found this book to be cheesy, uncontroversial, and vague. They never named names but only went on ad nauseum with metaphors describing how high and lofty Jesus is. If you had never heard of Jesus, you would come away from this book without realizing that he was a real human being.
The problem I have with this book is not its call to follow and worship Jesus, but that they never really define which Jesus it is to whom we should ascribe worth. Is it the "homeboy Jesus" of the Hollywood-types, the "baby Jesus" of Ricky Bobby, or the Jesus who lived, was killed in a public execution, and was resurrected within the ongoing story of people who believed themselves to be called by God.
In the final analysis, it seems that Sweet and Viola want to challenge the people who are intent on praying and embodying the Lord's Prayer. It seems they want those people to give up that agenda and, instead, become modern-day, middle-class mystics who meet in suburban house churches, chanting to a disembodied Jesus while sipping coffee from Starbucks.
This may be harsh, and not everyone will agree with my assessment; but it's just the way I see it.
disclaimer: This book was provided to me by Thomas Nelson Publishers. All opinions expressed are my own.
0 comments:
Post a Comment