This is not a skeptic’s read. A lot of pronouncements made here are only hastily supported and readers may take it that these are the main (or only) arguments for those theologies—that would be deeply inaccurate. Furthermore, I think that the author’s tone will only appeal to readers already inclined towards his conclusions and exegetic style which will likely unnecessarily alienate more timid searchers or conservative skeptics.
There is, in fact, a great body of very careful, thoughtful, and excruciatingly thorough biblical scholarship that makes the cases for such things as affirming theology and Christian Universalism. If someone is truly looking for answers as to the scriptural defensibility of such teachings they would be better served to read one of those books.
Worst of all, the author makes no attempt to guard against antisemitism when discussing the law, Hebrew Scriptures, or first-century Judaism. Consequently, there is quite a bit of de facto antisemitism in his arguments. He attempts to highlight the supposed superiority of Jesus’s way over traditional Jewish practices and interpretation of the nature of God. And his heavy implication that the only way of dealing with Devine violence in the Hebrew Scriptures is by “solving” it with Jesus is…. really bad.
Lastly, I just don’t appreciate his style. The man could have gotten more substance in his book by cutting out a bunch of unnecessary conversational commentary. Too many instances of “So, what is going on here? Well, we have to figure out…” I’m not a fan of this slightly patronizing approach. Also, “We are going to unpack…” and “Our goal…” This inclusion of the reader works only if they want to be included. As a general rule authors should own their reasoning and avoid implying that their audience will be going on the journey with them. YOU are going to be unpacking things, we are going to watch you do it, and maybe participate, but that is the audience’s prerogative.
Are my objections to this book (excepting the antisemitism) mostly style over substance? Yes.
Do I care? No.
Style is deeply important if you’re at all interested in favorably presenting new information or winning someone to you’re point of view. These seem to be the primary purposes of this book, therefore style is very relevant, and I thought that it was bad.