When I went to college as a young Bible major, I arrived spoonfed on a steady diet of fundamentalism. I was not born into Churches of Christ. In fact, I was already training for ministry before I realized what a rough crowd I had gotten mixed up with. On a positive note, I also did not know there was any such thing as a church controversy. I can honestly say that from the ages of about 14-19 I had a faith completely focused on cultivating a relationship with God and his people. Some people would call that naive; I think Jesus said something, though, about children inheriting the kingdom first... or something like that. One of the negative byproducts of such a worldview, however, was a rather dichotomous approach to Christianity, one where "the right way" always trumped "the wrong way." And just like the Pharisees of old (and new for that matter), "the right way" is shorthand for "my way," and "the wrong way" is shorthand for "anything you think that runs contrary to what I think."
So there I was as a young Bible major reading Curious George Goes to Seminary and other beginner theological books when lo and behold, I read something that did not match my beliefs. I found myself at a philosophical impasse. I did not know what to do. I talked to a trusted professor. It helped. He taught me how to read beyond agree/disagree. He said, "Jeff, if you only read the stuff you already agree with you're never going to learn anything." He also taught me the approach to reading where you "spit out the bones."
Which brings me back to Philip Gulley's book, If the Church Were Christian.
After having read through it some more, I'm not as impressed as I thought I would be. This is a classic case of "Don't judge a book by it's cover." In fact, most of the book is just him reacting to his Roman Catholic upbringing, as well as his Quaker present. He also seems to have a need to show how much more sophisticated his thinking has become now that he has learned to dismiss doctrines he has come to see as archaic myths. So on that point, (for me) the book unravels. Plus, on some levels, it just feels self-aggrandizing.
But the title of the book itself still intrigues me, as well as some of the chapter titles. Not all of them, mind you. But some of them. It at least furthers the conversation. And at this point, that's good enough for me.
If the church were Christian, affirming our potential would be more important than condemning our brokenness.
If the church were Christian, reconciliation would be valued over judgment.
If the church were Christian, meeting needs would be more important than maintaining institutions.
If the church were Christian, peace would be more important than power.
On many other fronts, I think Gulley overstates his case. He makes either/or cliff dives when I think he should have gone down both/and paths. But that's okay. It was worth the price of admission just to be reminded that following Jesus should always come before... well... everything.
