An acquaintance asked me if I’d read The Naked Gospel: the Truth You May Never Hear in Church by Andrew Farley. Read it, I hadn’t even heard of it. He provided me with a copy so he could get my impressions of the book. The packaging was a bit different, and fairly cool.
In the first few pages I knew that danger was ahead. Sometimes I think pastors should not write books. They assert things without demonstrating how they are true. This book suffers from this problem in spades. Sorry I’ve already shown you my cards.
It starts provocatively with a quote from Arthur Bury, whose 1691 book entitled The Naked Gospel was burned by the church of his day. This sort of sets up a martyr complex of sorts if he too is rejected.
“The naked gospel [is] discovering what was the gospel which our Lord and his apostles preached; what additions and alterations latter ages have made in it; what advantages and damages have thereupon ensued.”
That is a noble and desirable task. I have never heard of Arthur Bury, but other influences of note are Hannah Whitall Smith (author the The Christians’ Secret to a Happy Life which I read decades ago) and Andrew Murray (a devotional writer). They are advocates of Christian passivism often portrayed as “let go and let God”. Pastor Farley is very excited about discovering this view. Sadly he bases his theology on the work of devotional writers. There is no evidence of research into the work of any respected pastor-theologians or respected theologians past or present. This lack of exegetical depth beneath the popular treatment is sad.
In some ways I don’t blame him for his excitement. His description of his life before this discovery of “the naked gospel” was one of intense legalism and frustration. He was laboring under a serious misunderstanding of the gospel. He believed he must do certain good things to maintain God’s acceptance. Sadly, I fear he went to the opposite extreme though he denies being an antinomian. But he uses his own unsatisfactory definitions of both legalism and antinomianism rather than the usual theological definitions. This is proof positive of why studying the Marrow Controversy is so important to us today- it addresses the very issues at play here.
Many Christians still walk in Old Covenant bondage. Regarding the law as a Divine ordinance for our direction, they consider themselves prepared and fitted by conversion to take up the fulfillment of the law as a natural duty. – Andrew Murray
So, any use of the law as a guide is legalism in Farley’s mind. This is far different from relying on the Law for your initial or continuing acceptance from God. Farley defines antinomianism is as being against the law, not a theological, exegetical or practical view that the law has no place in the Christian’s life. But we get ahead of ourselves.
Here is a quiz he offers, answer whether or not each statement is true.
- 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 Christians’ 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 to the church.
- 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.
He says the answer to each one is false. His book then sets out to show why. And we’ll examine that in posts to come.
Cavman Considers 
Cavman,
Brother… Thank You.
What an amazing effort you extended in this review and there is no doubt our Father has done a work in and through you here.
I am praying all who are tempted (and I mean tempted) to read the Naked Gospel, get a chance to read the truth and imparted wisdom encapsulated within your articles, first. FOr those that read it, I’m pleading He will point them here.
Thank you again for your amazing effort and please don’t stop!
Blessings.
-Jack
I would suggest you look at and respond to his biblical interpretation. It is easy to dismiss someone because he alludes or quotes someone you judge as heretical. But what does Farley himself say and is it biblical. I know his book will ruffle the feathers of all of my dear covenantal brothers but I think you need to take a closer look at the Scriptures he quotes and tell us why they do not mean and/or imply what he says they do. The book is not perfect but it is a breath of fresh air that many believers need to hear. I think his response to the claim that we are not under the ceremonial law but we are under “the moral Law” [e.g. 10 commandments] is clear and correct. He is not an antinomian or a mystic. Read him carefully and completely and then interact with what he says the Bible is saying. Don’t just tell us how dangerous his teaching is. I’m sure you do not embrace the theology of everyone you quote from time to time. You are quoting them to make a specific point not to embrace their theology. There are clear weaknesses in the book but the main argument of the book is right on if we are to believe the clear testimony of Scripture. When I read it I knew that Andrew, like the apostle Paul would end up being accused of promoting sin in the life of the believer. I think it is dangerous not believing the biblical view of the role of the Law in the life of the believer. I grew up in a group that put me under law. It did not produce holiness, it produced either pride or deception. Farley is on the right path even though he has not arrived at faultlessness.
I did read the book, and looked at the Scripture texts. His methodology is off. He uses texts concerning justification to discuss sanctification. That takes them out of their context to make them mean something different than Paul intended. Since Paul used the Law in discussing sanctification, the Scriptures would argue against Farley. He does not use clear Scripture to clarify unclear Scripture, but picks texts that seem to make his case w/out handling the MANY texts that reveal his case is erroneous. It is not just about “covenantal” thinking, but biblical thinking. He can’t even pass the test of 2 Tim. 3.
That he must resort to straw men shows, in part, that he’s not writing from a thought out, biblical position but rather reacting against his experience of legalism. He argues against extreme positions that are found primarily (but not exclusively) in Arminianism. He’d do well to invest some time understanding Reformed, covenantal theology.
I suggest you read the rest of the posts I’ve written on this book. You’ll see that his definition of antinomianism is not the standard definition of antinomianism. He is, according to the accepted definition, an antinomian no matter how much he protests.
[…] (Craig Stephans) 2) https://cavman.wordpress.com/2009/11/28/considering-the-naked-gospel-part-1/ и https://cavman.wordpress.com/2009/12/21/considering-the-naked-gospel-summary/ (Steve Cavallaro) […]
[…] Andrew Farley’s The Naked Gospel which I had read and reviewed earlier this year ( Part 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 with increasing frustration). He has what I consider to be extreme views based on […]
thank you so much for your detailed review. It has been helping me these days.
Excellent Book👍👍👍❤
“10. God looks at us as though we’re righteous, even though we’re really not.” How can Andrew Farley say this statement is false ? This is exactly what God does when we are in Christ, he looks at the righteousness of Christ which is ours and sees us as righteous, even though we are not. Luther called it “simul justus et peculator” or simultaneously just and sinner. If you deny this, you deny the gospel. I am starting to wonder what kind of gospel Andrew Farley teaches? Because clearly it is not the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is also a gospel where there is no repentance and faith, how can you embrace a Saviour when you don’t need one if you are righteous already, it is interesting to see how legalism and antinomianism lead to the same destination of apostasy. Even though Farley condemns legalism and lack keeping, his beliefs are essentially the same as the legalist that has not embraced a Saviour, since he does not see himself as an unrighteous sinner and does not cry “God have mercy on me a sinner” as the tax collector did. I have noticed this error with many today, that think the gospel is Jesus loves you, sees you as perfect, and teach all you need to do to be saved is embraced the love of God, believe in a God that loves you unconditionally, they tell this false gospel to unbelievers who then embrace a God that does not care about sin and loves them unconditionally. What is missing in this false gospel ? the cross of Christ.
“10. God looks at us as though we’re righteous, even though we’re really not.” How can Andrew Farley say this statement is false ? This is exactly what God does when we are in Christ, he looks at the righteousness of Christ which is ours and sees us as righteous, even though we are not. Luther called it “simul justus et peculator” or simultaneously just and sinner. If you deny this, you deny the gospel. I am starting to wonder what kind of gospel Andrew Farley teaches? Because clearly it is not the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is also a gospel where there is no repentance and faith, how can you embrace a Saviour when you don’t need one if you are righteous already, it is interesting to see how legalism and antinomianism lead to the same destination of apostasy. Even though Farley condemns legalism and law keeping, his beliefs are essentially the same as the legalist that has not embraced a Saviour, since he does not see himself as an unrighteous sinner and does not cry “God have mercy on me a sinner” as the tax collector did. I have noticed this error with many today, that think the gospel is Jesus loves you, sees you as perfect, and teach all you need to do to be saved is embrace the love of God, believe in a God that loves you unconditionally, they tell this false gospel to unbelievers who then embrace a God that does not care about sin and loves them unconditionally. What is missing in this false gospel ? The cross of Christ is missing, God loves us in Christ, and if we do not understand this and believe that God loves us as we are then there is no need for repentance and turning to Christ for mercy.