I found the book very enjoyable and thought provoking.
But why was I surprised to find it enjoyable, perhaps because it was hopeful, non confrontational and open.

I think he has two big messages he wants to promote:
First the thought that evangelism is a process, and that people are moving toward or away from faith, and we should try to promote that process. This links with his enthusiasm for thinking of faith, or the church as a centred organisation rather than a bounded structure. I have at times felt uncomfortable about reciting the Creed in church and wonder about saying that people might like to miss bits out or need not say it if they are not ready.

The other thing is that he thinks of faith as a relationship, with Christ, hence his use of N T Wright’s narrative explanation of the use of scripture. He promotes the idea of the Christian Faith as being a story and we are inviting people to get involved with it themselves. I note that in the later chapter this is one of the ways he likes to describe the Christian faith to people. He comments that this is something of an alternative to the way we were told about Christianity in the 60s, which was a legal transaction involving forgiveness for sin and concentrating on one interpretation of the cross. He is open to the idea that there is more than one way of understanding the cross. I also notice that entering into the life of a believing church is part of the story and one way of approaching the relationship with Christ. However he does not say that making changes on earth is what the faith is all about, something which I think N T Wright is getting towards saying.

I thought he was good on Paul’s Athenian speech, and the way Paul could link in with pagan thought and how he himself had been impressed with Michael Green’s grasp of popular culture.

I suppose you could say he was weak on sin and the devil, in fact saying that we could hope to find God active in people we meet and should try to find out where they are itching. That’s an interesting contrast to an approach which sees people as essentially hostile but reckons its worth looking for the elect who are going to respond. With the latter approach you don’t much alter how you present the gospel and don’t worry much about their questions, but offer answers to the issues you know they ought to have!

He faced Hell, sensitive to both that issue and other religions without being unorthodox.

Funnily enough I thought his introductory comments about Christians flashing was perhaps a bit over the top, but I dare say the Americans are still more sensitive to Christianity; I suspect the average Brit would not be offended, but would just think the evangelist was weird. ( )