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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
