Thursday, May 6, 2010

Review of The Gospel You’ve Never Heard: Who Really Goes to Hell? by David Rudel

As I've noted on another post here, I signed up for a website where you can get books so long as you blog/review(revog?) them after the fact. By doing this, they are getting publicity in all sorts of places that may not otherwise get, etc. I really appreciate this and enjoy reading books I otherwise may not read. This book is through a program called viralbloggers.com. This does not seem to be limited to a specific publisher but rather gets books from different ones.

The first book I received was The Gospel You’ve Never Heard: Who Really Goes to Hell? by David Rudel.

A brief synopsis given to me that engaged me enough to choose this over others:

Do you ever struggle with how limited our contemporary understandings of the gospel seem? How Jesus and Paul sometimes seem to be saying different – indeed, opposite – things about the ‘good news’? About why there seems to be the good news of Jesus and good news about Jesus? If so, then The Gospel You’ve Never Heard by David Rudel is for you. The Gospel You’ve Never Heard makes a lateral move away from conventional descriptions of the Bible’s teachings in a way that allows the reader to view modern dogmas of the Left and Right alike through a fresh lens. The book’s first two chapters raise questions evangelical Christianity has considerable trouble answering. Rather than attempt incredible rhetorical acrobatics to explain away these very real issues, the author asks the reader to entertain, at least provisionally, that there might be genuine Biblical problems with the gospel portrayed by the modern church.

How poignant! I figured this would be great as much of these questions and issues are essentially a major part of where I find myself right now. Additionally, I looked forward to this because it appeared to be much less weighty than other books I have read recently(with portions going over my head) which have brought me to my current state. After reading this, however, I found it was not weighty enough. While the main thrust of his points I found solace in(namely there are too many doctrines read into the text rather than text truly forming cohesive doctrines), I found his approach to be extremely frustrating and lacking in scholarly grounding.

His approach was very critical of groups of people and he tended to make broad brush strokes in his critiques. Throughout the book he said how "evangelicals," "conservatives," "liberals," and "commentators" were incorrect for various reasons. I put these in quotes because I can only assume what he means by these different words are found mostly in the COUSA(church of United States of America) and we are to blindly follow his assumptions that different viewpoints fit the whole group. I wish we would have been more direct in truly wrestling with a specific person or doctrinal statement. He spends more time saying what he doesn't agree with and less on what he actually means and this is very unfortunate.

In addition, while I don't need an endless bibliography or footnotes taking over pages, it would have been helpful for him to note the study he did in preparation for the book. Instead by mostly citing Scripture only and not having much outside help we are left with a book that is trying to make many points written by someone who has not established themselves in the world of biblical scholars.

This was just too difficult a pill to swallow and combined with his unfair critiques, typos(citing James Dunn as "James G. D. Dunn" was the kicker ), and eyesore of Scripture quotes all bolder made this a frustrating read. It was especially frustrating because I wanted to like this. I wanted this to be a book that would appeal to a larger audience so that necessary questions will be asked. I still think some of this will happen, but if done at the "evangelicals" expense, the tradeoff for perpetuated disunity is unfortunate and discouraging.