An “Unapologetic Liberal Theological Viewpoint”

Celebrate with me the arrival of my new book this week! I just got copies.

John’s Gospel: The Way It Happened is the sequel to my book about Revelation. Click here if you would like an autographed copy, weeks before it’s official release! (It won’t hit stores until March 1, though it’s available for pre-order at Amazon). And guys, it’s gorgeous! If you need a cover designer, I know the one you want.

To give you a flavor for the content, here is a portion of a review from Dave Hershey’s blog. It’s from his review that I learned I’m an “unapologetic liberal.” Guilty as charged!


About 2/3 of the way through his book John’s Gospel: The Way it Happened, Lee Harmon writes, “John promotes the idea that literalists and non-literalists may coexist” (202).  This statement shows the hopefulness behind Lee’s writing, a hopefulness that Christians of different theological persuasions could lay aside, or maybe even embrace, their differences and work together for Jesus’ vision of the kingdom.  Such a hopeful attitude is one reason I appreciate this book, even though I am not of the same theological persuasion as Lee.

This book is a commentary on the gospel of John in the form of a historical-fiction account of John himself dictating the gospel.  Lee comes at John’s gospel from an unapologetic liberal theological viewpoint.  This attitude and the interpretation that goes with may certainly anger some people.  When he writes of the miracle of Jesus feeding the five thousand with a few loaves and fishes, it becomes a “miracle” that everyone was willing to share the food they had already brought!  In other words, not the sort of miracle those of a more conservative theological bent will appreciate.

Had I read this book a few years ago I may have become quite angry with such things.  But over the years I have learned to appreciate, and learn from, those of different views then my own.  I would go so far as to say I enjoy books like this one more than reading book after book that props up what I already believe.  Maybe literalists and non-literalists just need to read each other’s books with a bit more grace then usual and once that happens we can get to the co-existing part.

Read the full review here: