Top critical review
4 people found this helpful
Stay away from this. Not at all biblical. The Gospel is non existent here. Completely man centred.
on 15 February 2014
To quote Greg Gilbert "Yancey makes the grandiose and hackneyed claim in The Jesus I Never Knew that he is doing something new and daring. He is, he claims, attempting to go straight to the source, to see Jesus as He was before being dirtied up by all the traditions of the church (though one is puzzled by his inordinate reliance on fifteen movies about the life of Jesus to make his case)".
And again "Yancey is, as it were, our guide, leading us into a secret knowledge that has been previously known only to God. What strikes me as ironic, though, as I read this book is that there is nothing new here at all. Yancey’s Jesus is not novel or shocking. He is not revolutionary or scandalous. He is just, well, sort of cosmopolitan. Sophisticated. Cultured. Well-groomed for the twenty-first century. This Jesus is tailor-made for our chic, well-pressed society. He embraces all the right causes, from women’s rights (p.154) to sensitivity training for men (p.158) to improved handicapped access (p.174). This Jesus is even savvy enough to know that He must turn away in blushed but knowing disgust from the Christian Right (chapter thirteen). What is so novel or scandalous about that? Yancey has created a Jesus that could slide slick as caviar into any cocktail party in all of polite society".
And one last time "God’s goodness, to Yancey it seems, is defined by His willingness to give up that awkward omnipotence, that transcendence and “father-love” of the Old Testament and trade it in for the more sophisticated weakness, vulnerability, and “mother-love” of the New. And the cross? As far as one can tell from Yancey’s books, it had nothing to do with sin or judgment or atonement. Instead, the great value of the cross, to Yancey, is that “God himself had chosen the way of weakness. The cross redefines God as One who was willing to relinquish power for the sake of love. . . . Power, no matter how well intentioned, tends to cause suffering. Love, being vulnerable, absorbs it. In a point of convergence on a hill called Calvary, God renounced the one for the sake of the other,” (p.205). No other statement in the book uncovers so clearly Yancey’s mindset. I must protest, though, that Yancey’s description is not at all what we see the New Testament saying about the cross. The cross is not a picture of God relinquishing either power or love. Both are a part of His very nature. The cross was the place where that divine nature in all its complexity irrevocably effected the salvation of God’s people, where righteous power and merciful love were finally and eternally reconciled with one another".
The above quotes are from Greg Gilbert's detailed review on Philip Yancey's book here taken from 9marks.org. For me it seems that Yancey is offended by scripture. Offended by the gospel and what he is promoting here is just like every other religion in the world. No gospel at all here. His view on the cross is heresey.