I assume, given his academic background, Michael is up to speed with the basics in biblical studies. Who would even consider writing a book on biblical laws - and which ones Christians should (or shouldn't) observe - without knowing something about underlying questions of authorship, for example, or the development of the canon?
So what do we do with statements like this?
The infallible Scriptures contain commands that are obsolete.Well, obviously there are obsolete injunctions in the Bible. Morrison accurately identifies not a few. But what's this business about "infallible Scriptures"? Infallible in what sense? The author doesn't explain.
Then there's a section that delves into Ephesians 2. "Paul begins by telling his readers...", "Paul is talking about...", "Paul then summarises..."
No he doesn't. Ephesians is, in scholarly parlance, deutero-Pauline, along with Colossians, 2 Thessalonians and the Pastoral epistles (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus.) A good place to review the evidence might be in The Deutero-Pauline Letters (Gerhard Krodel, ed.) in the Proclamation Commentaries series. In fact, I'm surprised Michael doesn't have a copy on his bookshelf. If not, he can always click across to the handy guide provided by the nice United Methodist folk.
And Michael makes the same clanger with the other non-Pauline letters: "Paul uses the word Sabbath only in Colossians 2:16..."; "Paul cited the oxen and wages scriptures again in 1 Timothy 5..."
Sorry, whatever the qualities of these text, Paul almost certainly didn't write them. Even if you were desperate enough to pretend that Paul just might have written Ephesians or Colossians, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, there is even less wiggle room with the Pastorals. Does Michael know this stuff, or is he just hoping that his readers are completely ignorant?
Either way, it doesn't exactly make the reader brim full of confidence that their guide knows a great deal about his subject. I suppose we might speculate that the author is trying to convince his readers by manipulating their fundamentalist assumptions against them. If so, he wouldn't be the first. But, honestly, how honest, how ethical is that?
But sadly, it gets worse...