Biblical scholars have produced numerous books that enrich our understanding of the Jesus who lived in first-century Palestine. Few, however, have pursued the question raised in this book: “How does one take the historical Jesus to church? Can it be done?” (10). Informed by participation in a church community exploring new options in Christianity in light of the changing religiosity in Canada and the Western world, David Galston believes that Jesus needs to be given back his humanity. Hence, the book's title and its aim: to articulate Christianity on the platform of the historical Jesus in the hope that other communities might seek to “take the historical Jesus to church” (6).

The Jesus that this book would have Christians “take to church” is simply human, like anyone else, not the lordly and divine Savior modeled on Roman imperial language. He is rather a wisdom teacher whose “voiceprint,” if not his exact words, is here reconstructed out of the “authentic” Jesus tradition found in Q, the Gospel of Thomas, and the Synoptics. By means of an analysis of the aphorisms and parables characteristic of that tradition, Galston identifies the five gospels of the historical Jesus: the anonymous self, the equilibrium of the world, the comedy of existence, the commitment to nonviolence, the joy of life. In this wisdom material, familiar titles such as Christ, Son of God, and Son of Man are absent, along with the Crucifixion, which is no longer conceived as salvific because of Jesus’ demotion from divine status. Embrace of this more “credible” Jesus results in a shift from the traditional apocalyptic Christianity, with its emphasis on sin, judgment, sacrifice, and confession of belief, to a wisdom-centered church emphasizing humanity, education, compassion, and honesty. This linguistic and conceptual shift requires an equally radical change in liturgical practice, “from a focus upward on the divine gods, to immanent care for the earth and the human family” (245). A sample “liturgy in the key of Q,” provided in appendix 3, illumines what liturgical practice in a historical Jesus community would entail.

In the last two chapters Galston turns to the matters that invite critical engagement by those doing theology. Proceeding on the assumption that both God and Jesus need a demotion, Galston makes his case for “a Christless Jesus,” and so, a Christless Christianity (chapter 8, “Theological Challenges after the Historical Jesus”). This begs the question addressed in his final chapter: is it still Christianity? There he affirms, “Despite the way in which traditional Christian beliefs have become increasingly unsustainable in our time, there are things that can be retrieved from Christian history to help think theology anew with the historical Jesus” (208), including the Trinity, which affords “a double edge of insight,” namely, “human beings hold a great potential for grace, but . . . this potential is never realized outside communal accountability” (209). Moreover, since it is unlikely that Jesus referred to himself as the Christ, it is no longer necessary to work out his relationship to the Trinity. Thus, his conclusion: “A historical Jesus community is still a Christian community. It is Christian in that it seeks the critical engagement of the self and reality with the parabolic vision of a differently reasoned world. It is possible . . . to live differently, and this is the challenge of being the Christ you are” (214).

Because of the radical revision of Christianity that Galston presents (Jesus as only human, not divine; a wisdom teacher, not a Savior; a Trinity minus the traditional metaphysics; liturgy without sin and sacrifice), some will be wary of using this book in the theology classroom. Those appreciative of the critical questions that historical Jesus research raises, however, and confident of Christianity as a living tradition, might well incorporate this book into their classes. It would make an engaging contribution to an undergraduate or graduate course on the historical Jesus. There students familiar with the diverse conclusions of historical Jesus researchers would be equipped to engage its arguments critically and reflect on the relationship between history and Christian faith. Alternatively, the book would afford an opportunity for students to bring their theological studies to bear on Galston's conclusions and to revisit crucial theological matters, such as the relationship between reason and faith, or the linkage between Christology, ecclesiology, and liturgy, and to address the question with which Galston's book leaves the reader: is the divinity of Jesus really not credible for thinking believers today?