I think you're spot on. I had some similar thoughts running through my mind as I read ReJesus, especially the section where, as you noted, they identified a list of "false Jesuses" and then offered there own "wild Messiah." Who's to say their version of Jesus is not just as culturally limited as another's?

For me, this is why we need tradition, not that we must follow it blindly, but so that we can test what we think the Spirit is saying to us through scripture against how other Christians, down through the centuries have heard the Spirit speaking through scripture. We need that historical consciousness, so that we are reminded of our own cultural limitations, and don't end up fashioning a mission after our own image.

Of course I'm giving away my own evangelical-catholic leanings here, but further to the point, we can't simply skip over 2000 years of history and get back to the "real Jesus," as the history of doctrine is simply a matter of cultural encrustations which need to be peeled back. The christological and trinitarian dogmas of classical Christianity, for example, were not mere speculations, but the response of the Church to distortions of the gospel. If we don't pay attention to the theological struggles of our predecessors, we are in danger of repeating their mistakes. Of course their views must be critiqued in light of our reading of scripture today, but I thought (in my reading), ReJesus was a bit flippant in dismissing theological development.

I'm getting off a bit onto doctrine vs. your focus on practices, but the general point is similar, I think.

I look forward to reading the book when it comes out.

Thanks for the review. I've not read this book but had similar thoughts in reading similar books like ReJesus.

A missiologist friend mentioned to me that he thinks missiologists and theologians need to be in conversation more, and I think he's right. Your point about different understandings of "ecclesiology" makes this clear. No theologian would reduce ecclesiology to "form and function," but in these missiological circles that is often the assumed meaning of the term. There are important insights from both disciplines that need to be brought together. Thanks for making a contribution towards this with your review.