He's Saved! Howl-elujah!
Welcome to the detailed (and spoiler-rich) review of Night of the Living Dead Christian. For a briefer review that doesn't give anything away, read the main review. If you're curious, here's a discussion of why I'm doing this.
This is a rather long bit of reaction, so I'm breaking it up into sections. Hopefully that will allow for more bite-sized discussions. So, now that you've all been fairly warned, we'll pick up the deconstruction after the jump:
Luther is a werewolf who wishes to be free of his curse. He has spent most of the book trying various things, none of which have worked. Following a fight with a werewolf hunter inside a burning church, Luther has spoken with Jesus and pledged himself to Him. Jesus then reaches down, grabs his wolfy jaws, and tears him apart.
Now we return to Narrator-Matt's viewpoint. Police and firefighters have arrived on the scene. They put out the fire and haul a wolf’s pelt from the wreckage. A few minutes later they pull Luther out also, miraculously undamaged save for a faint scar left from where Jesus removed his wolf-side.
Luther is cured at last. He’s also a Christian, now, though he won’t be formally baptized until the epilogue. He spends a little time getting checked out in the hospital, and then Narrator-Matt takes him home. Narrator-Matt then says his goodbyes to Dr. Culbetron and Hibbs, and... well, we’ll come back to that. I have some issues with this resolution that I want to look at, first.
I don’t have an issue with Luther’s redemption per se. I don’t have an issue with Luther becoming a Christian - that’s the kind of book we’re reading here, after all. In a Romance novel, the main characters will get together; in a Mystery, the murder (or other crime) will get solved; in Christian Fiction the lost soul will be saved. The pleasure of reading doesn’t depend on the nature of the ending, but on how we get there; if you don’t like that sort of ending, you’re reading the wrong genre.
No, what bothers me is this: Luther is reconciled with his father the minister, and with his Father The Deity, in the form of a burning Jesus... and at this point his monstrosity is torn out of him, and he is reborn. Lara, on the other hand, has also spoken with Reverend Martin, and presumably accepted Jesus... and at this point she gets to undertake an ongoing struggle to regain her humanity by exposing herself (repeatedly and painfully) to sunlight, and not drinking blood. Luther gets the full-on, dramatic, monster-removing redemption; while Lara gets a sort of half-assed redemption that doesn’t seem to have done much for her except show her how to fix herself - using a process that would probably work fine without involving Jesus at all.
In fairness, Luther clearly isn’t perfected by his redemption - nor are all his problems solved. His wife, Clarissa, has already filed for divorce, and despite the way he’s shaped himself up she intends to go through with it. (And, actually, I thought this was a nicely realistic touch.) Luther freaks out at least once after his redemption, too - Narrator-Matt finds him outside his house with his wolf pelt tied on with twine. (Which, again, struck me as eminently believable.)
Even so, Luther finds Jesus and has his humanity restored; Lara finds Jesus and remains a vampire, albeit with some hope of regaining her humanity after a great deal of hard work and personal sacrifice. This strikes me as unjust and inconsistent (though, arguably, realistic).
By itself, it wouldn’t strike me as necessarily sexist, but of course there’s the rest of the book to consider. The psychologist whose therapeutic advice is not just useless, but actively counterproductive? A woman. (Try to picture those scenes with a male in the role of psychologist, and see how it plays out.) Luther’s (ex-)wife, Clarissa, behaves in an eminently sensible and understandable fashion, but Narrator-Matt (and bear in mind, he seems to be intended to be Author-Matt also, in some sense) nevertheless insists on characterizing her actions as cruel and hostile towards his good buddy, Luther. And Lara, of course, gets a pretty raw deal compared to Luther when it comes to redemption.
So yeah, what with one thing and another I came away with a fairly strong impression that the man gets the big, dramatic, impressive redemption - because he’s a man - while the woman does a lot more work with a lot less help, and might maybe someday get some sort of, “Oh, you finally got your humanity back, good for you,” acknowledgement from Jesus for her efforts - because she’s a woman. Was that intentional? Almost certainly not. Was it sexist? ...Yeah, I think so, in that subtle-assumptions sort of way that’s so hard for us privileged folks to recognize in ourselves.
 I’ve been told on a great many occasions that “life isn’t fair,” and I suppose by extension it’s reasonable to assume that the Author Of Our Existence wouldn’t necessarily be fair, either. (Aziraphile: “It’s ineffable.” Crowley: “It’s lunatic.”)
 I’ve noted before that this is also the way the distribution of labor is set up in a depressingly high percentage of churches.