I don't routinely review books but this one is part of Pomotheo's theOoze commitment so I though I'd give it a go. "The Naked Gospel. The truth you may never hear in church." Sounds edgy but it wasn't.

Maybe I'm not the target audience. Actually, I know I'm not. This is for a reader squarely planted in the middle of Christendom who takes in a conservative brand of Christianity weekly. To that person this book is certainly to geared to offend, (as most conservatives are quite easily offended it doesn't take much to receive such a response).

Farley began the book with great promise, the questions he posed caught my attention in his mini introductory exam.

In true or false style he poses the following:

Christians should ask God to forgive and cleanse them when they sin.

Christians struggle with sin because of their old self within.

We should wait on God even before making everyday decisions.

When we sin against God, we're out of fellowship until we repent.

Old Testament law is written on Christian hearts so we want to obey it.

The Bible tells us that Christians can obtain many rewards in heaven.

Christians will give an account for their sins at the great white throne.

Christians should tithe at least 10 percent of their income.

God gets angry with us when we repeatedly sin against him.

God looks at us as though we're righteous, even though we're really not.

It would have been much easier if he had answered the questions directly in the 10 points he presents them, but Farley doesn't--albeit all were in some form answered. (It would have helped me for clarity sake.)

The first quarter of the book seemed to be an endless tirade against Old Testament Law. I got the point, and I suppose I can understand why someone, who treats the OT laws as somehow relevant today, might require the explanation, but it seemed to drag on and on.

I also don't agree with the premise of casting away the entire of the OT law. It's not to say that OT Law should be followed, but I DO believe God had a plan in place with the law that wasn't achieved. I don't agree, which I believe is incompatible with Farley's premise, that God somehow changed the game and made salvation easier through the person of Jesus Christ.

However, I did pick up the essential piece: as Christians we need to be adamant to accept people over rules and propositions. I see how this could be a startling revelation for Christian types who prefer rules; these types are also routinely unwilling to test the statements of their faith treating opinions as canon. Farley does well to highlight some important themes that may sound right, but are not adequately supported in scripture.

Back to the thought on OT Law being the 'Old Law' and necessary to be cast away. I think the Law held a purpose in that it was through the law that the ancient Israelites were to usher in God's dream of new Kingdom. God's dream didn't change, but instead of law the incarnate Christ takes its place (or more specifically Christ replaces Israel as supreme example of God's Kingdom on earth and a glimpse of God's redemption plan to come in the future). To casually toss away the OT law, which I doubt Farley advocates but readers may certainly ascertain a flippant attitude about it, is careless and perhaps dangerous when it comes to understanding the grand narrative of scripture.

I also couldn't comprehend the idea of atonement and forgiveness. Farley spends the entire book condemning OT Law, however, when it comes back to forgiveness he goes back to the very RULES in the law to explain why forgiveness requires blood. Either the OT Law is dead or it's not. It doesn't make sense to suggest that Jesus has to fulfill OT Law if we're to cast it away right after. I'm fine with the Jesus and being a fulfillment of the law, I can work with that, but he could have made a better explanation on how Christ fulfills the very thing he argues against....

Furthermore on that subject, I wouldn't suggest God is even subject to the law -- which was presented for the people. There is no indication that God much follow rules set out for people, after all, he is God (although I'm certain the theological implications of what I just said are complex).

Farley's take on how Christians need to spend less time thinking about building rewards in heaven and feeling guilty about their sins and how it ruins fellowship with God is important (for the very same target audience I labeled earlier). I felt his explanations in the very least were enough to force readers to re-assess how they approach conservative Christian norms for seemingly foundational items (or at least items taken for granted).

Also, the latter chapters dealing with the Holy Spirit as advocate and not invisible guilt tripper was another gem to help set the reader free from potential 'rules and regulation' bondage and hopefully into engagement into a life centered around the person of Christ and his ministry to engage and redeem the world.

Too much time on the 'Old Law' with confusing returns to the very same thing he was trying to outlaw. But enough important elements to make it an average read. Wasn't for me, but for someone in the right space as he's likely shooting for it would be far more relevant.

2.5 starts out of 5.