It is impossible to find out what this “biggest lie” is without reading at least a third of the way into the book. The book’s thesis is not contained in the description or introduction and, if I had known it, I would have recognized it as a strawman and stopped. Since I was already a third of the way into the book, however, I decided to stick it out to be able to write a review. I am a sucker.
The biggest lie, according to Matthew Kelly, is that “holiness is not possible for me.” The extension of that lie is that “Christians cannot remake society.” Who is propagating this lie that holiness is not possible for me? First it is amorphous and omnipresent “them”. Later it becomes the unspecified “us”. I recognize that there could be a bit of hyperbole here. Perhaps the better way to phase it is that many people “do not realize that holiness is possible for me.” Kelly does need to sell books in order to spread the message, and I’m not one to judge too harshly for marketing choices.
Except he expounds at length about how the lies about Christianity are everywhere, he hates being lied to, and about how he hates being deceived. I’ll take him at his word. Then he generalizes about how everyone hates being lied to, in fact how “we” hate being lied to (and the “we” is ubiquitous; who is this “we”?). I have not observed that people generally prefer the truth to lies, certainly not enough to posit this as a central axiom of a book length argument. Think about the last five times someone corrected you when you were wrong. Did you prefer the truth then? Were you happy to engage in an argument to find the truth when contentious issues were at stake? Most honest people would say no because most of us are more interested in preserving our pride, worldview, or perception of “the good”. A commitment to truth is about cultivating a discipline of mind and temperament; a willingness to subject your view to honest but harsh critique; the recognition that you contribute to the understanding of the truth even if you are proven wrong. Most people, as a rule, are not interested in this.
I am not being flippant here. This book could have benefited from more criticism and a demonstrated commitment to truth. Matthew Kelly is a motivational speaker who has written (by my count) 29 books in the last 23 years, mostly with very similar titles and summaries. Even momentarily circulating this book among non-sycophantic friends would have identified the most egregious errors. He identifies one of the lies that non-Christians tell about Christians is that “Jesus did not exist.” He then refutes it in 5 short paragraphs, essentially saying that “Yes Jesus did exist.” How do we know? “…Roman and Jewish sources, including Josephus.” Yeah, okay. It’s not so clear cut as that. These Jewish sources could be the gospels; I don’t know what the Roman sources are. Josephus needs to be read very carefully to draw a conclusion one way or the other. While reconstructing the historical Jesus is worthy aim, it should not be conducted in a single widely-spaced page. The next lie that non-Christians tell about Christianity is that “The Resurrection did not happen.” This challenge gets a page-and-a-half. His arguments are, first, that over five hundred people saw Jesus after the Resurrection (and we know this because four gospels tell us so), and second, that we would be able to find Jesus’s body if he weren’t Resurrected. I couldn’t imagine being so committed to a belief that I would accept these as valid arguments. Surely someone noticed this and pointed it out to him. It is painful to read.
The book is difficult to follow because it does not really have structure or organization. It meanders about, following Kelly’s stream of consciousness, constantly repeating basic ideas, finding profound meaning in trivial activities, and name-dropping inspiration figures like Mother Teresa, Winston Churchill, or Albert Einstein for some reason. If I were to extract the main idea from this soupy prose according to which idea gets the most words, it is that Christians must fight the idea that Christians cannot remake (or regain) the culture.
It is an interesting thesis, but I think the first question that must be asked is if Christians should remake the culture as an end in itself? I seem to recall that God’s elect should live “as aliens and strangers in the world” (Peter 2:11), that Christians should “[b]e not conformed to this world” (Romans 12:2), and that “our citizenship is in heaven” (Philippians 3:20). It is a debatable point with strong scriptural arguments both sides. The consensus position is usually that Christians should live as Christians and let the world do as it will. This is not the approach that Kelly takes, and he moves directly into the Social Gospel.
He argues that the statement “no child should go hungry in the United States” is a something that 100% of Americans can agree upon. (This is basically true.) Therefore, it is possible to restore the reputation of Christianity if Christian Americans strive to feed all children in the United States. (Agreed.) Therefore, Christians should PRESSURE POLITICIANS to adopt policies to feed children. (And here is where I wanted to slam my head into the desk.) Kelly mentions that the early Christians lived communally and would help families affected by illness, death, or calamity. Therefore, he argues, the reputation of Christianity would be improved if they pressure politicians to establish similar institutions in society. Ugh.
He notes that Christians have many advantages to remake the culture that their second century forerunners did not, and this includes the present state of communication technology. I want so much to give Kelly a history lesson here. This is not a novel idea that the internet could be used to spread the superior Christian ideas and ideals to the doubting public. In fact, “Christians” and “Skeptics” battled in out on YouTube from 2008-2014. The result was an unmitigated defeat of the YouTube Christians. The reason, in my opinion, is that the YouTube Christians failed to take any more time or care with their arguments than Matthew Kelly did with this book. Christian apologists have spent far too long preaching to people who are seeking inspiration rather than objectively true facts about the world. The internet isn’t stupid, and they have a longer attention span than they get credit for. Trim the fat; make a good argument; see what happens. If Kelly subjected these ideas to the meat grinder of the YouTube commentariat today, he would be humiliated off the platform in an afternoon.
The book is 120 pages. The margins are wide, and the print is nearly double spaced. Random, supposedly important, paragraphs are blown up to size 30 font, sometimes filling the entire page. The prose is poorly organized and repetitive. Kelly’s arguments are the worst sort of lazy. Despite being an ostensibly Catholic book, it had never been submitted to the censor and does not contain the “nihil obstat” of any doctrinal authority. I get the impression that Kelly wrote it over a long weekend. I want my three hours back.