Unbinding the Gospel

I was asked by Presbytery to consider participating in a study of Martha Grace Reese's Unbinding the Gospel, published by Chalice (2007). The book is part of a series with the admirable aim of galvanizing the mainline church to engage in evangelism. So, I thought I'd better read it.

Presbytery's idea is that pastors and leaders from a number of churches would covenant together to read the book, and apply findings. It's quite a big undertaking, not unlike Stan Ott's Acts 16:5 Initiative that some of us went through a few years ago. We would examine our structure and practices, then hold one another accountable as we implemented change. Good idea, if we had a common theological understanding of the nature of the Gospel.

Here's my review.

I would like to address a couple of theological issues that make me hesitate to support the idea.
First, the book is obviously written for liberal churches. Reese can say as often as she likes that her findings cut across the theological spectrum, but that doesn't affect the fact that her audience does not really include me. How do I know this? For a start, her research specifically excluded the South, and churches that she considered to be Evangelical (p.28). (At least she maintains the distinction between Evangelical and evangelistic). On page 63, she has a telling summary of what she thinks an Evangelical is, when she comments that many mainline pastors aren't all that sure what they believe, except they know that they "aren't evangelical" (meaning "not biblical literalists"). That is, I'm afraid, a pathetically inadequate definition of an Evangelical. A better one can be found in the rationale of the Evangelical Alliance (see below). There are several places where Reese falls into the trap of patronising those who disagree with her, theologically. She assumes that mainline Christians are "clear, logical thinkers" (p.19), and quotes, approvingly, a person who equates intellectual Christians with those who are intelligent and liberal (p.82). On several occasions she talks about avoiding naivete in prayer (e.g. p.42), which I can only take to mean the childlike prayer of someone who actually regards the Bible to be true. She quotes a mainline pastor who had been raised in what she describes as a fundamentalist church, who hadn't believed or preached that people are going to hell for thirty years, who speaks condescendingly of looking where a seminarian interested in evangelism had parked his tractor (p.17). Whether or not you agree with her, it's impossible not to suspect that at least some people in our Presbytery will find such comments offensive. If, as she assumes, thinking Christians don't believe in hell (by the way, I do), surely someone is bound to ask why we say every week, in the Apostles' Creed, that Jesus went there. In brief, the book could end up opening a theological can of worms.
Secondly, I find that Reese has very little to say about the atonement. Right at the end of the book, she finally gets around to asking what it is that Jesus saves us from. She has three alternatives: sin, death, and distorted human community (p.144). Occasionally she mentions the possibility of heaven (eg. p.119) but I have no idea what she means by this. At the beginning of the book she points out that some pastors and churches avoid evangelism because they don't want to give the impression that there are not other, valid ways to God, beside the Christian way. ""I don't think we should do evangelism - it implies other religions are wrong." (p.11). Admittedly this is a quotation, but if she wants people like me to work with those who hold such opinions, then she will have to explain what we have in common. 'Precious little' would be my best guess. Reese even says that "Evangelism has no theological bounds" (p.6). But it must have some foundation. Without at least a minimal understanding of the cross, we will be sharing techniques, not faith.
Having said all this, I appreciate many of the other things she has to say. I like her emphasis on sharing the joy of the Christian life through relationships, and her insistence upon the importance of community; I have rarely seen a book on evangelism that takes prayer so seriously; she is helpful when she expalins the bandwidths of evangelism, encouraging us to grasp the opportunities that are close at hand; I also really appreciate her insistence that God is our North Star, our fixed point of reference, not the church (p.125). She makes a number of excellent, practical suggestions. But the fact is that she also comes out with comments like this: "You do not need to subscribe wholeheartedly to someone's theology to ask them to pray with you and for your ministry. If you get advice that seems strange, remember that learning about new areas of the faith is like eating fish. Eat what is good and spit out the bones." (p.53). I want to ask, "What are the bones that you want to spit out?" They may be everything that I hold most dear.
Of course, the real question is, what will we do about evangelism if we don't do this? That is a question that will keep me awake, if we decide not to participate in the programme. I just hope that churches and pastors will not find, in this book, yet another reason to avoid the E word.