In his new book, My Struggle with Faith, Joseph Girzone writes about a lifetime journey in God. Girzone, a retired Catholic Priest, is best known for his Joshua series of books depicting Jesus living in a contemporary world. It is because of the large following dedicated to the Joshua series that Girzone felt compelled to write this book chronicling his own journey of faith. Much more than being just an autobiography, this book is an analysis of the relevance of Catholic doctrines in the 21st century. Having lived and served within the Catholic Church for decades (Girzone first entered seminary as a middle teen) Girzone is an excellent witness to the strength, and sometimes weakness, of the message of the Catholic Church.

When this book arrived via mail I must admit I was eager to read it. Not because I was a fan of Girzone's Joshua books. In fact, I haven't read even one of those novels. But rather because I have always enjoyed an enduring fascination with the "original expressions" of the Christian Church. I am speaking of Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. In terms of the former expression, I've enjoyed, and still enjoy, the friendship and fellowship of several Eastern Orthodox followers. Catholicism on the other hand, while always an interest to me, has been more an interest from a far. My introduction and intrigue (and of course at times- concern) about Catholicism has been formed via famous figures such as Teresa of Avila, Augustine, Francis of Assisi, Thomas à Kempis and more recently figures such as Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II.

Interestingly enough, Girzone opens My Struggle with Faith with an admission that, even as he was going through seminary on his way to becoming ordained as a priest, he was plagued by a series of doubts. These doubts didn't revolve so much around the basic questions of origin. It seems that early on, Girzone settled the large "why" issues of life and the universe. Interestingly, for Girzone, the struggle was not so much with the existence, or lack there of, of God- but rather with the tangible nearness of God- or the lack thereof. He admits that even as he was going through seminary, he often lacked a sense of God's nearness. And that this was a distinct shift from his boyhood experience of the Divine.

For me the book really begins to shine in the second half of the book as Girzone moves into the sphere of doctrinal analysis. The chapters roll out as follows: The Bible: History or Myth, Jesus, Emmanu'el (discussing the incarnation), Organizing the New Kingdom (discussing the forming of the Church under Peter), the Raising of Lazarus (discussing the miraculous nature of Jesus ministry), and the Resurrection of Jesus (discussing the implications for eternal life). In these latter chapters Girzone remains a faithful Catholic, but one who feels it is his responsibility to point out what he sees as error or perhaps better stated as- misplaced emphasis. Some of the issues that Girzone takes exception to are: the demand that priests be celibate, the hard-line separation of the Catholic Church from other Christian expressions, and the refusal to discuss the merits of birth control-especially in the developing world.

This stance of simultaneous faithfulness and constructive criticism of the Catholic Church is perhaps a mystery to many Protestants. While Luther certainly didn't mean for his constructive criticism of the Catholic Church to lead to the era of a thousand fractures, that certainly was the end result. History suggests that this initial move by Luther unwittingly authorized many a tribe of Christians in latter decades and centuries, to split with a host Church, whenever a difference of opinion arose (no matter how small the difference in understanding). To a Catholic such as Girzone, this is not only a mistaken course, but also an irreconcilable one.

During this part of the book I was reminded of something an Orthodox friend once said to me. I asked him what the Orthodox do about the possibility of living under the rule of a corrupt and/or faithless bishop. His response was simply, "well, one day he'll die". In other words, heretics and fools may rise up, even within the ranks of the Church hierarchy, but in time they're erroneous ways will be no more- and yet the Church will move ever on. This idea that one might just have to spend a lifetime waiting out the appointment of a "bad apple bishop" would still come as quite a non-sensical shock to many a Protestant.

While there is much I read in this book that I can wholeheartedly concur with, there are of course, points of divergence. But being a Christian of the Emerging variety, I see this as bringing color to the canvas, rather than as a reason to revolt or reject. One of these points of divergence is around the issue of the Kingdom. And not so much about what the Kingdom was/is about, but more so about what the Kingdom was and is. For Girzone, the Kingdom is the Church. From my perspective, it seems clear that the Church is an agent of the Kingdom, but not the Kingdom itself.

Of course from Girzone's perspective as a Catholic, it's completely understandable that he would see the Church and the Kingdom as synonymous expressions. Can we really see the Church as "the pearl of Great Price?" Personally, I don't. But clearly for Girzone, who sees the Church (formed under Peter) as not only the chosen, but also the only way that Jesus chooses to express the values of the Kingdom, this idea is common-sensical. This seems a prime example of how one's perspective can so greatly shift one's perception of the landscape.

Perhaps one of the most compelling chapters in the book is the one that deals with the authority of the Bible. And again, it's very interesting to see how Girzone's place of reference (the Catholic Church), leads him to a very different understanding of what the Bible is and how it is to be used. In this chapter, Girzone retraces the historical process behind the Protestant idea that the Bible alone should be seen as the bottom-line reference point for Christian faith. He remembers finding (while reading the writings of Luther) that it wasn't until the 14th or 15th centuries that this idea first emerged. For a Catholic committed to the early teachings of the Fathers, this relatively late teaching lacks credibility.

To be honest, I have for many years now concurred with Girzone's assertion that it seems contradictory for Protestants to claim that the Bible is the authoritative word of God, while simultaneously rejecting the Church as the authoritative vessel for the transmission of that understanding. Put simply, from a Catholic perspective, the only reason why the Bible (and specifically the New Testament) is considered the inspired, authoritative Word of God is because the inspired, authoritative Church deemed it to be so. Lose the authority of the Church and you lose the authority of the Scriptures. Of course I would differ with Girzone when it comes to defining what the Church is, but I do not deny that Tradition has, does, and must continue to help determine the way that we understand the Bible and how it should be applied.

This issue of determining the historical context in which the NT canon was formed is a complicated one; too complicated to be dealt with in any kind of breadth and depth in this particular article. But it certainly is an issue worth considering in further depth. For many a modernist, the complexity of the situation might prove defeating. But for those of us with a postmodernly-sensitized perspective, I think we can find ground to stand upon- provided that we leave plenty of room for mysterious burning bushes and the like on this new theological platform!

The final point that Girzone really drives home is perhaps the most compelling of all. He speaks about that fact that both Catholics and Protestants alike have missed the boat when it comes to the centrality of Jesus the person; as opposed to Jesus the repository and expression of theological concepts. Clearly Girzone is touched by the way his simple, yet compelling portrayals of a modern day Jesus (in his Joshua books), have stricken such a strong chord with such a broad range of people. One of the book's most poignant moments comes when Girzone remembers the day an elderly woman approached him at a book signing to say: "Father, the way I size up Christianity is like this: The Catholics worship the Church, the Protestants worship the Bible, and there are darn few who ever get to know Jesus Christ."

In My Struggle with Faith it is clear that Girzone's hope is that this focus on the personality of Jesus would be more central in the teachings of the Catholic Church. Girzone's point that very, very few seminaries even try and form courses around this topic (because it is not considered academic enough) is well taken. How can future priests pass on this intimate knowledge of Jesus the person if they lack the opportunity to hear about him in their formative years?

The bottom line is that this book is a compelling one. Catholic or Protestant alike would do well to read this excellent discussion of one man's faith journey and of one man's incarnational transformation. Speaking of theological education, much of what is missing in our contemporary society is a kind of generational mentoring. Reading Girzone's book provides an opportunity to sit down with someone who has formed a deep understanding of life in God over six decades. That in itself is a very valuable thing. Girzone's humble, compassionate approach to people suggests that his own mentoring has come from the great teacher himself- the Jesus whom is a living, breathing personality in the life of billions of people currently resident on the planet. Lastly, one point My Struggle with Faith really communicates is the idea that faith is a journey, not an early-arrived-at destination. And still speaking of theological education, that point alone might be one of the most important of all for readers and fellow sojourners to take home.