I'm only doing this because the Men's Book Club at Crossroads is doing this. However, I immediately found some theological problems, fundamental reasoning flaws (I wonder what kind of lawyer career he actually has) after reading the first few pages. Particularly page 14. Nadia bought the book online from some thrift store for no more than $3. And I scanned all the pages to a PDF. I put lots of red pen markings on page 14 on Nadia's book. This is more of a self-help/methodological book on making friends for the general public by I guess a Christian author, rather than a book for Christian spiritual development on friendship.
On Page 14, the author claimed that he recognize how blasphemous it sounds, but his justification didn't do much good for him when he claimed "You can be lonely with God" as he solely based his comments on "God himself said, it is not good" on Adam's creation, Gen 2:18. This flawed theology cannot help saints in solitude before the Lord, because for those especially imprisoned, God was sufficient. Human beings find their ultimate fulfillment, rest, and joy in God alone. It's likely Earley's theology is more anthropocentric than theocentric. The author seems to be making an absolute case that we must never be alone, nevertheless there are times God wants us to be alone with Him, in order to teach us something, seek clarity, etc: Jeremiah, Jesus, etc.
Page 16-17, his whole point was built on the fact that you are most vulnerable if you are alone. This is relative at best, not an absolute principle.
Page 24, "...Enter Jesus. Though he was the beloved son of God the Father, he left community and became lonely for us..." A wrong reading of Philippians 2:5-8. I cannot comment more as I don't know how he make that connection. Jesus didn't became lonely for us, He became sin/forsaken for us. And it wasn't because he "left community", it's because He took on humanity. I sense the author in his book is trying very hard to make friendship the rule of all things.
Page 25, Seems to be presenting Jesus as someone who just loves you anyway despite your shame and inadequacy. This can be fixed with replacing "loves" with "forgives". One must learn one's own sinful nature first to speak of the love of God. "A friend knows your bad jokes and likes you anyway" - the author here confuses grace with admiration.
Reading just the introduction does bring lots of questions:
- Christian friends vs. non-Christian friends? (some claimed answers given in table of pg. 94)
- Where is the true Christ/God in this book? Almost no distinguishing foundation from other religions.
- Are all his coining of habits to his 10 art chapters a bit legalistic? He did say his way is not our way, not a full picture, just his own window, in pages 33-34, when he already attempts to defend himself against his critics before he began the first chapter. He seems to worship his methods a lot, his other book, The Common Rule, might reveal this, I haven't read it, not intending to.
Chapter 1: Vulnerability
It's good that Earley recognizes the need to be vulnerable. I remember Nadia spoke of Tim Keller's preaching on being vulnerable, a topic that Pastor Chris of GCC did not get when she brought it up during one of his Thursday Bible study. His response was somewhat like "we are all vulnerable before God", which aggravated Nadia.
However, Earley failed to go into depth of who should we vulnerable to, rather than just saying "just not to everyone". He only began to talk about trust in Chapter 3. The order of these: Vulnerable, honesty, trust/covenant, though some find debatable, from if grounded in Christ, is non-negotiable. I would start with trust in God, then trust in His providence (trust those who does the will of God first, then objects of evangelism, then family). Then you have vulnerability. But honesty is always in the background.
Earley tried to make a distinction between sharing and vulnerability. I can appreciate that. Until I find better words, I’ll give him that for using euphemism: Sharing (reporting/broadcasting?) is what we do to update people on our lives; Vulnerability (fellowship?) is what we do to let people into our lives. But because of his euphemism usage of terms, I think it makes him vague with examples between sharing and vulnerability (pg. 51).
This chapter can however serve as a good reminder for James 5:16.
Earley seems to frame vulnerability as the ultimate doorway to true friendship and personal happiness, this risks of sliding into a modern, therapeutic gospel where vulnerability is treated as a utilitarian tool for self-actualization or community building.
I don't sense a call for Christian fellowship here. Just some secular way of being vulnerable in a messy relationship. His "habit" for this chapter is the example of scripted peer-to-peer (found through sheer "luck"?) weekly confession habits to ensure zero secrets. Get the Gospel first, make friends with Christ first, then you will know who to be vulnerable to.
Chapter 2: Honesty
I like this chapter of his here. He critics the culture of being nice. Calling out the idolatry of nice. Earley challenges the cultural taboo against "judgment". He wants this art of Honesty to be balanced by two pillars of habits: Encouragement and Rebuke. I don't see honesty being balanced by such pillars, as much as encouragement and rebuke are somewhat related, they are more fluid than that. Earley seems to commit a lot of categorical mix-ups. Nonetheless, it's a good reminder for Ephesians 4:15.
Earley attempts to rescue the concept of "judgment" from its negative cultural connotations by reframing it as an act of love. However, if we are to deal with Matthew 7:1-5's "Judge Not", I think Earley would agree with me against today's cultural interpretation of it, but he went too far to the other direction. Jesus was forbidding hypocritical judgment. But sometimes judging is done to those whom we are not leaving room for a worldly kind of friendship: i.e. rebuking the Pharisees or those who perverse the chief doctrines of God. It's a different category from love. This judging is a catholic, even ecclesiological kind. Love is but evangelically gospel centered kind.
The author tried to make a distinction between Rebuke and Encouragement here: Rebuke is being honest enough to call someone’s attention to a dangerous reality that should be avoided; Encouragement is being honest enough to call someone’s attention to a good reality that should be cultivated. I never see rebuke and encouragement as a dichotomy as he did, nor his way of defining these two terms, so I’m not going to say more about this. I find his practical habits/examples for honest conversation a bit too fake/manipulative (pg. 73): Loving rebukes i.e. I have noticed you keep saying… vs. encouragement i.e. I see the Lord working in you…I would just call these examples general comments, if done with genuine intention.
Chapter 3: Covenant [Friendship]
Earley defines this dynamic as "the art of making promises". Fear of such is a path towards individualism. He drew inspiration from friendship between David and Jonathan. However, friends, as sinners, will harm you, so be ready to face it, don't avoid it (the "habit" of staying). This resonates with the Reformed understanding of the "simul justus et peccator" reality (simultaneously justified yet still sinners). Forgiveness Grounded in Christ: Earley correctly anchors this.
However, one might think Earley uses the word covenant too losely, confusing covenant and promise: While human promises in friendships are noble and biblical, they are fundamentally voluntary compacts rather than divine covenants. Conflating the two can accidentally place an crushing, almost messianic weight onto peer friendships, expecting them to deliver the absolute security that only God's covenant can provide.
His idea of naming relationships, his group is named “the Cast”, is just like any clubs, or hardy boys, sounds cool, like I used to have imaginary friends of 5 including myself, or even formed a 4-eye club once in my early teens, but unnecessary, even at the risk of being tribal, if you have God. But it was fun reading his eccentric “letter” for his “covenant” clubhouse on pg. 86. His failed attempt of distinguishing Acquaintance/companion vs. covenant friendship vs. marriage is due to a secular or pagan worldview of these terms. I simple would not use these terms the way he (or the world) defines them on page 89. I would look more into terms of “fellowship with Christians” and “friendship with non-Christians”. But at least the author tackled on the overlooking of same-sex friendships which American culture tends to mistaken them to must have sexual nature. But you don’t need “covenant” friendship to recover this, just learn of history, of other cultures. This is a common grace of God.
Scripture explicitly outlines only two horizontal, covenantal structures for human life: Marriage (Malachi 2:14) and the Local Church/New Covenant community (Hebrews 10:24-25). Earley's "Covenant Friendships" risk creating an amorphous third category of solemn vows. A Reformed perspective would insist that friendship commitments must always remain subordinate to, and supportive of, a person's primary covenantal obligations to their spouse and their local church body. ~Gemini
So I would just call this chapter "Making Promises" rather than Covenant, and yes, I realize that would basically destroy the entire thesis of his book. But the book's built on sandy ground anyway. Friendship vows are valuable as a reflection of God's faithfulness, but I wouldn't call them a covenant.
I don’t know his categorization of covenant friendship with non-Christians (pg. 94) was his strongest point in his book of distinguishing friendships between Christians vs. non-Christians, but if so, it’s the shallowest (L'amitié ringarde). He still doesn’t really make a distinction, he doesn’t know how to handle non-Christians who can remain close to you yet would be the most stubborn for Christianity, because up to this point of his book, he’s really just dealing with Christians or lapsed Christians. He has no apologetics for the unbelievers, as his only approach is to tell the non-believers “how they have been like Christ to you”, in such a way, he has no real relationship with non-believers should they remain stubbornly distance from Christianity because he’s already distancing himself from them in denial by failing to connect their very different worldviews. I wouldn’t use tricks like this in evangelism.
The right way: In wisdom, give the Gospel to them straight, make clear distinction between what they idolize in you and who you want them to return to. I said “idolize” because these are true non-believing friends who feel incredibly close to you, finding you a reliable (I won’t use the word covenantal) friend.
Chapter 4: Forgiveness
Earley defines this discipline as "the art of failure and the habit of forgiving." That's a very bad definition...art of failure. And forgiveness should be more heart felt, not a habit or out of the desire to keep the friendship, which may drive to fakeness. Earley’s framework occasionally leans heavily into horizontal forgiveness as an act of personal relational maintenance. But without repentance from the offending party, the friendship is forced to a different turn and we are back to the question of the need to distinguish Christian vs. non-Christian friends, Matthew 18:15-17.
Not sure if it's Earley's intent, but forgiveness should not be motivated by prevention of building defensive walls or quietly discarding people, but only from imitating God's forgiveness, the Gospel says it all!!!
Earley makes a sharp distinction between merely "excusing" bad behavior and truly "forgiving" it. I don't think it's a good choice of words here. Instead of excusing vs. forgiving, I will change it to let it go vs. forgiving. But I think Earley would agree that true forgiveness absorbs the cost of the hurt. He drew the concept of forgiving others from Ephesians 4:32, grounding on the fact that Christ has forgiven us, rather than grounding on it someone saying "sorry" first.
I would change his slogan: "If you are not willing to get hurt, you are not willing to have relationship." to "...not willing to have REAL relationship."
Earley's "Habit" of Regular Clearance: Ensuring that offenses are dealt with promptly before they harden into long-standing resentment. Textbook standard: Practicing quick, continuous clearance of small hurts to prevent resentment. However, I would like to furnish this simply as: Be strict with self, be generously forgiving to others.
Chapter 5: Invitation
Earley defines it: "the art of open circles and the habit of inclusion". It's fine. He calls out tribalism here basically. I would say that to keep a closed circle is essentially turning back to individualism or anti/destroying-friendship by using friendship. It essentially rejects "fellowship of the Saints of the Holy catholic church".
However, when he uses this "invitation" as Organic Evangelism through Community, it seems that Earley loves extrinsic motivations: When you do a task not because you enjoy it, but for the external outcome, reward it brings. As if we are showing non-Christians our "niceties" so that they will be persuaded to come join us, to become Christians. What you win them with is what you win them to. In this case, not the Gospel, but friendship instead. The gospel just seems like a mere side bonus. This is easily confused with but necessarily distinct from John 13:35, because the lesson was already learned by Jesus' disciples before the fact. Jesus was not prescribing the outcome, but revealing the glory of God.
However, he's got a point about the church being the city on a hill, rather than an insular monastic order. Opening one's home to others is a good start of hospitality.
Earley's habits of regular hospitality - in my experience, can be seen in non-Christian's habit to Christians or vice versa alike. So it's basically general revelation and common grace. But a good reminder is how we treat our neighbors living in our neighborhood. We are blessed to be a blessing to the nations (Genesis 12:1-3).
Here's Earley's problem in this chapter:
The Strict Distinction Between Fellowship and Evangelism: While the Reformed tradition strongly advocates for radical hospitality toward the outsider, it maintains a careful theological distinction between evangelistic hospitality and covenantal fellowship. True Christian koinonia requires a shared union with Christ through faith. A Reformed critique would caution that if an "open circle" softens its theological or moral boundaries to make outsiders comfortable, it risks diluting the very gospel distinctives that make the community transformative in the first place. Inclusion into our lives must not lead to a compromise of the truth.
Earley seems to not be getting paradox of exclusivity and inclusivity of the church, for example, the table of the Lord is fenced to protect the purity of the body; while all are invited to the hospitality of the church.
Last but not least, in this Chapter, on pg. 136, I appreciate Earle’s observation between Western and Eastern cultures. Former practices inductive philosophy; the latter, dialectic philosophy. The West cares about the mood; the East (China) is more interested in the argument. According to him, the solution to the West, is to be PRESENT, that’s how you disrupt the mood (the Western focus), by being there alongside others, not by argument (the Eastern focus), not by apologetic conversation. I think this is interesting because frame it through Hegel’s dialectic, and you can see a striking historical inversion—where Eastern and Western mindsets have almost swapped their structural modes of operation.
The Historical Thesis: Ideational East vs. Rational West
Historically, Eastern thought (Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism) leaned toward Idealism and holism, viewing reality as deeply interconnected, spiritual, and experiential rather than purely mechanical. Truth was understood through living, presence, and relational harmony. Now, its materialistic pursuit draws itself to institutional rationalism.
Conversely, Western thought—heavily shaped by Aristotle, scholasticism, and the Enlightenment—built its foundations on analytical rationalism, natural sciences, and explicit proposition. Truth was something to be parsed, categorized, and proven through logical discourse. Now, its post-rational vibe focuses on secular mood.
I don’t think Earley sees this inversion, but it’s still an interesting observation made by him.
Chapter 6: Geography
Digital (basically gnostic leaning - physical/tangible bad, spiritual/intangible good) proximity vs. physical proximity matters. I can agree with Earley here (i.e. Christ became flesh to physically be among us). But his art of rooting (stay put together over time) and habit of proximity (treats friends as family) are just not objectively true (you can “root” with new friends anywhere, maybe go out explore more) or not clear on the family friendship between Christians and non-Christians, yet again.
However, elevating local proximity above divine calling (Abraham, Paul, etc.) risks making relational comfort the ultimate decision-making driver.
Over-emphasizing geographic immobility can inadvertently create a subculture that resists the missionary mandate to go into all the world (Matthew 28:19). Local rooting is not necessarily bad, but believers are "sojourners and exiles" (1 Peter 2:11).
Earley raised a good point on pg. 149, where he said that many use the excuse of “family first” as a cover for “job move, house upgrade”. But his solution is to make friends the family, which begs the question: Do we need to discern Christians and non-Christians in this friendship again? The author just assumed that this would be a Christian one, conflating with his previous arguments about treating non-Christians as Christ-like. Perhaps he doesn’t really care about such distinction, which would make his theology highly questionable. I would agree that there can be a sort of “family friendship” with non-believers, but it needs to be seriously distinguished from a Christian family friendship. Why? Because of the need for Gospel evangelism, not EQ evangelism.
Chapter 7: Time
This really is just about a disciplined scheduling. Prioritizing matters in life. But apparently, the author is prioritizing a scheduled time table with friends. Order instead of falling into chaos and despair. The Shackleton Analogy (that the author used): Earley highlights polar explorer Ernest Shackleton, who kept his stranded Antarctic crew sane and united through enforced, rigid daily routines—mandatory shared meals, scheduled games, and structured socialization. Routine saved them from despair.
I think the habit of this chapter is more methodological: i.e. Weekly coffee gathering, etc. than universally for everyone. I would caution doing it out of just doing it (because it’s in the schedule), then this leads to shallowness.
Chapter 8: Communication
I like how the author puts it on pg. 178: The internet and smartphones [social media] are fantastic for connections, communication, and knowledge. But connections are not friends, communication is not intimacy, and knowledge is not wisdom.
Chapter 9: Memory
This is basically be courageous to make and find memorable moments with friends: Debate hard things, having catch-up times, etc.
Chapter 10: Worship
Worshipping, group bible devotion time, praying with friends: The author’s goal: But basically, the idea of fellowships in churches.
