The Christian Middle Way talks about “the practical principle of avoiding both positive and negative absolutes, so as to develop provisional beliefs accessible to experience.” I first found it on Netgalley and the concept sounded interesting, but I’ll be honest, my initial thoughts prior to reading this was “There’s no way the synopsis means what I’m reading.” Do, I signed up to review it, and began reading with every intention of enjoying the book and keeping an open mind. I have to be honest, but while the author does have talent and I can tell that he put a lot of work into this, it’s just not for me. I spent much of my time reading this, thinking, “surely I read that wrong,” only to read it another time or three and find that I had, indeed, read it right. I’m not saying that I disagree with everything the author has to say. I did agree with him on some points. For instance, yes, I think there’s a lot that even nonbelievers can gain by studying the teachings of Jesus, even if they view Him as merely a good man, or a teacher. But, I wholeheartedly disagree that you can be a Christian without believing in the existence of God and faith in Jesus, as the only begotten Son of God. I’m sorry but those, among other things are basic tenets of the Christian faith. I think I’m going to stop here, as I don’t like being negative. The author really is a good writer, but this is just not my kind of book. I don’t usually post negative reviews, but usually just send my feedback directly to the author. But, Netgalley wouldn’t let me submit my review there without having posted on another site. I wish the author all the best.

I waded through this Middle Way with an open mind, aiming to appreciate the author's approach to belief and meaning. The academic tone calls for attention and study. I found myself reading but frustrated, receptive but annoyed. While I disagree with the author on many points, I did find value in the call to bring out the best in Christianity.

An excerpt:
At its best, Christianity heals. “Make me an instrument of your peace,” prays St Francis, “Where there is hatred, let me sow love.” If Christians are serious about this, it is imperative for them to address the conditions that prevent peace and love. These are conditions found primarily in the human brain, in the dominance of one part of the frontal left hemisphere that too often believes it knows the whole story. You can remain stuck in that story and continue to rationalise the beliefs of the past, or you can begin to examine alternatives. The kind of love of which Jesus spoke cannot occur without opening our minds to these alternatives, and for that reason it is crucial that Christianity stops undermining its own objectives.

Book was well written but I couldn’t get into it. It was just not something that interested me. I’m sure others would appreciate it.

This book would be laughed out of 3rd grade. Nearly every assertion the author makes is either uninformed with the current situation or simply wrong.

There are many things to critique but these are sufficient.

1. The author asserts that we create meaning and therefore truth or falsoity doesn't matter, as long as it's meaningful to us. Well, hes trying pretty hard to take his worldview as meaningful, so he contradicts himself.
2. This book seems more like a desperate attempt by the author to convince himself that his worldview is compatible with Christianity. I don't think he does a good job convincing himself, so we won't even mention how unconvincing it is for the rest of us.
3. He misrepresents current scientific discoveries, he misrepresents christianity, and he doesn't back up his claims.

You know there’s a problem when chapter 7’s title is “Christian Agnosticism.” This must be the most liberal book I was given to read, but I wanted to give its logic a chance. Also, it’s apparent from my conversations with many supposed “Christians,” that this is more relevant to the real experience and lifestyle of many people than I would like to admit.

He shows what this book is about in the introduction. He states that it is possible to enjoy the benefits of Christianity without being “Christian” in true belief. He also proposes that strong Christian beliefs (deity of Christ, gospel, etc) actually have “no positive effects on the lives of Christians.” A belief in God may in fact have detrimental results. Yet there is meaning in the Christian experience even, or especially, without them.

The author is an agnostic who believes in the possibility of absolute beliefs. He believes that God is real, but we as humans are unable to make an “absolute presupposition that God exists” or that he has sent special revelation in the form of the Bible.

Let me get to the point. He writes, “The importance of Jesus in our lives does not depend on…whether he was actually the son of God.” What matters is how we “interpret his advice” and how his story affects our lives. This belief is in stark opposition to traditional Christianity and the revelation of the gospel.

Although logical gymnastics is used to redefine words like “faith” and “belief,” the author’s presupposition boils down to this common thinking – The story/beliefs of religion is unimportant insofar as it helps you on your path to enjoyment and self-discovery. That’s what matters, not the actual beliefs.

This book highlights the subjective experience. In contrast, absolute beliefs undermine human responsibility. Not only that, he writes that to believe in divine revelation is to disrespect God. Say what? Wow, his version of God (or the God archetype) must be entirely different from yours and mine, because I’d be offended if someone didn’t believe my words.

I’ll concede that absolute beliefs have been the cause of many religious wars (e.g. Crusades, Ireland) and splits in the church (e.g. Reformation), and many of these disputes have been ugly. Yes, there’s a problem. However, it does not mediate a pragmatist effort of anti-absolutist, veiled subjectivism.

The author’s premise most obviously falls apart when he talks about science, not as a discovery of truths. He maintains that science cannot give us real knowledge of “supposedly true facts.” Rather, science is more of a social construct, much like religion. More than theologians, I think scientists would be more in disagreement by that remark.

It’s ironic that he criticizes the results of the liberal Jesus Seminar for “applying criteria…to ensure results that fit the preferred liberal picture…and confirmation bias.” Yet he does the same thing to Jesus by elevating human experience above absolute claims of divinity (the Bible). By that criterium, the conclusions are already mapped out, and Jesus is just a character in a story, relevant only to our subjective experience and journey. By the end of the book, as predicted, the teachings of Jesus are more important than the person of Jesus. What’s worse is that he insinuates that Jesus was thinking in the same construct.

I think it’s fine to disagree with the Gospel. But what is offensive about this book is that he tries to redefine the Gospel. He redefines “atonement, grace, and salvation.” He ridicules the very essence of what it means to be Christian and denigrates it to a mere culture of faith (not belief). He says that Jesus has been misinterpreted by history, that Jesus never meant to take anyone’s place of sin responsibility, and sin “cannot be removed by magic.” He draws from mostly anti-Christian philosophers like Sartre, Nieche, or Kierkegaard. It’s no wonder he ends up with mostly anti-Christian implications.

In terms of writing style, like most academics, he takes a long time to get to his point. He feels the need to define every subject word ad infinitum and explain every tangential detail. It’s not necessary; people could easily follow your train of thought. In addition, the dual categorization of the left hemisphere God (i.e. of the brain) and the right hemisphere God was simply ridiculous.

You could actually start reading this book with chapter 7 without missing too much; everything is summarized in the first few paragraphs. Interestingly enough, his writing becomes more focused hereon.

It’s unfortunate that a book that purports fresh new ideas is riddled with spots of failed logic and rational thinking. But the author reveals why he started with negatives bias against Christianity. He writes, “My overwhelming experience of church…left a negative impression so deep that I struggle to engage more positive emotions with Christian worship even today. I think this was because it was primarily about power: the power of a social institution imposed upon participants by appeal to the authority of a supernatural entity.”

This actually explains a lot. I could understand fully why he cannot examine this subject with objectivity. In short, this book isn’t worth the read, Christian or not.