What do you think?
Rate this book
A Nearly Infallible History of Christianity
From Abelard to Zwingli, via a multitude of saints and sinners, Nick Page guides us through the creeds, the councils, the buildings and the background of the Christian church in an illuminating, and perhaps ever so slightly irreverent way. Well-known as a writer, speaker, unlicensed historian and general information-monger, Nick Page combines in-depth research, historical analysis and cutting-edge guesswork to explore how on earth the Christian church has survived all that 2,000 years of heroes, villains and misfits could throw at it (mostly from the inside) to remain one of the most influential forces in the world today.
'I was predestined to read this.' - John Calvin.
'I felt my heart strangely warmed. Or it could have been indigestion.' - John Wesley.
'I was predestined to read this.' - John Calvin.
'I felt my heart strangely warmed. Or it could have been indigestion.' - John Wesley.
456 pages, Hardcover
First published October 10, 2013
60 people are currently reading
243 people want to read
About the author
Nick Page
200 books47 followersNick Page lives in Oxfordshire, UK, with his wife Claire, their three daughters and a dog called Bill.
As well as writing books, he works with a number of campaign groups and NGOs. He is also a popular speaker for churches, church weekends and other events. events, etc.
His main focus is on church history – particularly the early church. Recent work includes A Nearly Infallible History of Christianity, and the Longest Week trilogy.
As well as writing many books for adults (or at least those who think they are adult) he has also written many books for children.
As well as writing books, he works with a number of campaign groups and NGOs. He is also a popular speaker for churches, church weekends and other events. events, etc.
His main focus is on church history – particularly the early church. Recent work includes A Nearly Infallible History of Christianity, and the Longest Week trilogy.
As well as writing many books for adults (or at least those who think they are adult) he has also written many books for children.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 42 reviews
January 24, 2024
An entertaining romp through the history of the church - probably quite fallible at times and can be a little irreverent, but helps you differentiate your Augustinians from your Arminians, and your Monophysites from your Mormons: 3.75 stars.
May 10, 2020
Good, funny, but every bit I read out to my theology student husband was criticised for being simplifications, slightly cynical, unfair or not wholly accurate. I stopped reading parts out loud to my pedantic whiner. I enjoyed it more after that. So good to learn lots of stuff about Church history, it's a great introduction, but it's only 430 pages to cover about 2000 years of complicated messiness, so what would you expect. Also I would like to mention that he forced me to read it in the first place, so... Glad I finished I guess.
August 27, 2024
If you want your church history textbook to be filled with sassy footnotes and condescending remarks about church organs, this is the book for you.
He’s not very nice to dispensationalists, but then again who is 🤷🏽♀️
It’s a good textbook, but a textbook nonetheless, and I’m glad to have it off my Currently Reading.
He’s not very nice to dispensationalists, but then again who is 🤷🏽♀️
It’s a good textbook, but a textbook nonetheless, and I’m glad to have it off my Currently Reading.
September 24, 2018
Ok so this is listed as 'Nearly infallible' so I can excuse it the odd mistake however it is still a little disappointing. I gave allowances for the few I found in the History of the Reformation as I had an advance reading copy (although it was sad to see the mistakes in all the finished copies I had looked in too). This book has been out for a while now though and when it makes mistakes that I know to be mistakes it makes me question all the other stuff that I don't know for sure. Annoying, as before I started spotting errors I was really enjoying this. :(
I am done and overall despite the errors I spotted I would definitely recommend this one. It is a very interesting look at Christian history and manages the whole thing to maintain a light touch.
I am done and overall despite the errors I spotted I would definitely recommend this one. It is a very interesting look at Christian history and manages the whole thing to maintain a light touch.
April 15, 2023
I had mixed feelings about this book - it was incredibly easy to read, and I blitzed it in a week which is unheard of for my recent reading speeds. It gave me a decent overview of church history (although you definitely have to take large parts of it with a pinch of salt) but I wasn’t a fan of the often cynical and veering on irreverent tone. 3.5 stars
November 11, 2015
Today's post is on A Nearly Infallible History of Christianity: Being a history of 2000 years of Saints, Sinners, Idiots, and Divinely0inspired Troublemakers by Nick Page. It is 456 pages long with notes and it published by Hodder & Stoughton. The cover is like a very fancy church bill. The intended reader is someone who is interested in church history, humor, and good writing. There is no sex, no language, and lots of violence in this book. There Be Spoilers Ahead.
From the back of the book- Combing in-depth research, searing historical analysis, and cutting-edge guesswork, this is the complete and utter history of the Christian church- as you've never heard it before.
Was Jesus really related to half his disciples? Who invented excommunication? Where do the seven deadly sins really come from? How did the invention of trousers lead to the fall of Rome? And- how come so many Christians across the cneturies seem to have entirely miss the point?
From Abelard to Zwingli, Nick Page leaves no stone unturned to get to the (mostly) truth about the saints and sinners, holiness and heresy that pepper Christian history- not to mention several donkeys, one elephant and a prophetic goose.
Review- This was a very funny book about a very serious subject. Page goes from the beginnings of the Christian church all the way to present. He pulls no punches about all the things that the church did but with his sense of humor helps to deal with the horrors that happened. The research is solid with good notes if you want to do more yourself. The footnotes are the best and how Page tracks the organ from creation to modern day was hilarious. He gives famous people little boxes where he talks briefly about them but again his humor is all over the descriptions. The chapters are long but he does give good break in them so that it is manageable. I would like to read more by Page.
I give this book a Five out of Five stars. I get nothing for my review and I borrowed this book from my local library.
October 31, 2015
It wasn't bad and had some moments I truly enjoyed but unfortunately they were few and far between. The funniest bit for me was the back cover, though it was admittedly very funny. I sometimes found it hard to tell when he was joking and when he was serious. Unfortunately I knew much of the history already which made reading it again rather dull. Nick Page did as well as you can in making the history of the church funny, but was hampered by the fact so much of it just isn't. Anyway, I would recommend it if you want an overview of church history and hate organs, but it lacks the depth of a good history book and the laugh out loud humour of a comedy book.
January 27, 2016
By far the best book on christian history that i have read. Plus its super super funny. I might have laughed out loud on a train reading this. My only criticism was that once he got to about 19th Century, the book rapidly sped up and I think there could have been so much more said about the last two centuries in particular. Highly recommend for anyone- but not for those easily offended because he basically makes fun of every christian denomination/reform/movement there is. - A sense of humour required.
June 11, 2017
What a hoot! This book was simply hilarious. I laughed out loud several times, not something you usually say during a church history read. Thorough, complete, a little sideways, and all together wonderful. Great read.
November 23, 2020
The humor takes the dryness out - and the sweeping history truly sets the current times in perspective. A rollicking read!
March 29, 2024
I read this book previously and wanted to review it again and have done so with rapid skim reading. As someone who is reading a lot of Christian history books, this version of church history attempts to be a funny and lighthearted take on Christian history. Nothing wrong in trying to achieve that. So why the low mark?
The book has been researched. I say it has been researched because whilst it is clear that lots of information on church history is in the book, there are no references. There isn't a bibliography and the closest thing to it are italic words to represent other books. Now, if a piece of research like this was at university, you would get zero marks for it. How this book passed the editors without references is beyond me, given the legal implications of this for potentially plagiarising other people's work which could cost thousands.
The fact that there are no references might be nitpicking, given how people regularly quote on Goodreads about how someone referencing X undermines their argument. But a history work would have research and if there are no references, it implies poor academic skills. An example of this is the evidence that in 1650, 80 percent of men in some cities were literate. This is some interesting information but without any book or source to reference, the only reference is citation: trust me bro. Poor scholarism indeed.
In parts of the book, there are inaccurate statements. For example, the map on pages 334-335 which is a sort of weather map, has points which are inaccurate or only half accurate. For example, Netherlands is depicted as being Catholic, with Arminians but Protestantism grew rapidly in the Netherlands and was the reason why Belgium was created; that is the Spanish part of the Netherlands that remained Catholic. He mentions later on in the book about Catholics supporting the prohibition movement in the US, but neglected to mention that the prohibition was a Culture War against immigrants including German protestants and Irish Catholics.
Other points he makes are totally misleading. For example, Nick Page calls apartheid South Africa "Nazism in the sun". Now I am not an apartheid apologist under any stretch of the imagination, but that is misleading . Yes, South African apartheid was an unmitigatedly evil regime but it wasn't Nazi; it was ideologically closer to the Southern USA in its practices with elections, multiparty system and racial segregation. By calling the South African regime Nazism in the sun, it kind of lets Nazi Germany off the hook by saying they only wanted a separation of peoples. Was this intentional to link all forms of White Supremacy as a sort of antifa book? Or was this just a throwaway remark. There are a few jokes but I don't think this is funny at all. Fascists and the far-right operate through moral equivalency so down playing it validates their practices .
It is possible to make a genuine argument about how Apartheid South Africa is a parallel to Nazi Germany. However, this book cannot make such a claim because history is supposed to be a joke to be laughed at. Now this can work but when making important points, it undermines the entire point of making the important points. Particularly modern history of the last 100 years.
Is the book funny? You might read it once and laugh at bits of it, but it grows old fast. I could define it this way: it is a history book with poorly referenced history and a comedy book which isn't that funny.
The other criticism I have is the arrival of Christianity focuses on Jesus himself dying and resurrecting rather than looking at the contexts like Greek civilization and Judaism. This is probably because Nick Page is a Christian and wants to emphasise the resurrection but other histories of Christianity such as by Philip Schaff reference Greek and Hebrew origins of Christianity.
How would I see this book then? A series of historical dates, followed with a joke and then some kind of information that isn't referenced. There are good books on Christian history. But this isn't one of them.
The book has been researched. I say it has been researched because whilst it is clear that lots of information on church history is in the book, there are no references. There isn't a bibliography and the closest thing to it are italic words to represent other books. Now, if a piece of research like this was at university, you would get zero marks for it. How this book passed the editors without references is beyond me, given the legal implications of this for potentially plagiarising other people's work which could cost thousands.
The fact that there are no references might be nitpicking, given how people regularly quote on Goodreads about how someone referencing X undermines their argument. But a history work would have research and if there are no references, it implies poor academic skills. An example of this is the evidence that in 1650, 80 percent of men in some cities were literate. This is some interesting information but without any book or source to reference, the only reference is citation: trust me bro. Poor scholarism indeed.
In parts of the book, there are inaccurate statements. For example, the map on pages 334-335 which is a sort of weather map, has points which are inaccurate or only half accurate. For example, Netherlands is depicted as being Catholic, with Arminians but Protestantism grew rapidly in the Netherlands and was the reason why Belgium was created; that is the Spanish part of the Netherlands that remained Catholic. He mentions later on in the book about Catholics supporting the prohibition movement in the US, but neglected to mention that the prohibition was a Culture War against immigrants including German protestants and Irish Catholics.
Other points he makes are totally misleading. For example, Nick Page calls apartheid South Africa "Nazism in the sun". Now I am not an apartheid apologist under any stretch of the imagination, but that is misleading . Yes, South African apartheid was an unmitigatedly evil regime but it wasn't Nazi; it was ideologically closer to the Southern USA in its practices with elections, multiparty system and racial segregation. By calling the South African regime Nazism in the sun, it kind of lets Nazi Germany off the hook by saying they only wanted a separation of peoples. Was this intentional to link all forms of White Supremacy as a sort of antifa book? Or was this just a throwaway remark. There are a few jokes but I don't think this is funny at all. Fascists and the far-right operate through moral equivalency so down playing it validates their practices .
It is possible to make a genuine argument about how Apartheid South Africa is a parallel to Nazi Germany. However, this book cannot make such a claim because history is supposed to be a joke to be laughed at. Now this can work but when making important points, it undermines the entire point of making the important points. Particularly modern history of the last 100 years.
Is the book funny? You might read it once and laugh at bits of it, but it grows old fast. I could define it this way: it is a history book with poorly referenced history and a comedy book which isn't that funny.
The other criticism I have is the arrival of Christianity focuses on Jesus himself dying and resurrecting rather than looking at the contexts like Greek civilization and Judaism. This is probably because Nick Page is a Christian and wants to emphasise the resurrection but other histories of Christianity such as by Philip Schaff reference Greek and Hebrew origins of Christianity.
How would I see this book then? A series of historical dates, followed with a joke and then some kind of information that isn't referenced. There are good books on Christian history. But this isn't one of them.
September 7, 2019
This is certainly not infallible - but it is good. The earlier parts of the history are a little strange, because it assumes certain things that many people question; but then it sort of has to in order to get the whole tale of the ground, so a certain suspension of disbelief is needed. Although there are some parts that I don't necessarily trust the accuracy of (or at least, don't trust the certainty of - some things are treated as sure when there is not a lot of reliable historical evidence), it makes enough sense in context that it can be taken with a pinch of salt without ruining the book. Nick Page's writing is funny and he makes what could be a very dry history fun to read. Towards the end, however, a certain degree of bias starts to show. Every bad thing done by Christians, he phrases as if their choices are nothing to do with their faith, or he says something along the lines of 'they're not a real Christian', or 'it wasn't what Jesus would have done/wanted' - which is arguably true, but that's just it: arguably. Conversely, when other parties do something immoral, their ideologies are not excused in the same way - things that are done in the name of Darwinism or by the Nazi's claiming to follow Nietzsche's teaching are not given the same treatment. The defence of racism that uses a greatly misunderstood aspect of Darwinism is described as the 'logical end' of Darwinism, when the logic used to arrive at such a conclusion is stretched at best. This becomes more and more obvious as we come to more modern history; the book becomes a little more defensive. Also, there is a particular paragraph that is badly in need of editing and rephrasing, if it is meant in the spirit I think & hope it is meant in. There's a description of a massacre committed against the inhabitants of an Islamic-ruled city by Crusaders (Christians), where it says something along the lines of'...and the worst thing was, most of the inhabitants were Christians.' I am assuming this is a poorly chosen phrase, and all the author was trying to point out was the irony of Christian forces massing under the guise if a holy war and attacking people of the same faith. I sincerely hope this is the case, because in a paragraph that describes mass rape, torture and murder the fact that the victims were mostly Christian is certainly not the worst thing about it.
I have often been curious about the history of Christianity, and wanted to (and still want to) know more about this massive aspect of our culture. I'm not completely ignorant about it, but there are massive gaps in my knowledge. What has always put me off studying more is that almost everything written about Christianity is either by devout Christians or militant atheists, because they're the only two groups passionate enough about it to produce that kind of work. As a result, I'm often put of because I am so conscious of the deep-seated biases that are behind the work. This book is not free of that, as I have noted, but it handles it better than most things I've tried to read before. The fact that it's funny and admits its own fallibility makes it infinitely more readable than a lot of religious history.
I also have a soft spot for etymology, and this book has a lot of that in various asides which pleased me no end.
I have often been curious about the history of Christianity, and wanted to (and still want to) know more about this massive aspect of our culture. I'm not completely ignorant about it, but there are massive gaps in my knowledge. What has always put me off studying more is that almost everything written about Christianity is either by devout Christians or militant atheists, because they're the only two groups passionate enough about it to produce that kind of work. As a result, I'm often put of because I am so conscious of the deep-seated biases that are behind the work. This book is not free of that, as I have noted, but it handles it better than most things I've tried to read before. The fact that it's funny and admits its own fallibility makes it infinitely more readable than a lot of religious history.
I also have a soft spot for etymology, and this book has a lot of that in various asides which pleased me no end.
January 16, 2025
So. The book is funny and genuinely informative. It’s a very accessible intro to Christian history and I think many people who would otherwise not learn about it will get the chance to actually enjoy the subject.
However, there is a big issue for me, and that is his lack of objectivity. The author himself states:
“I know at times it might appear as though this book has lost all objectivity. But that’s wrong. Because it never had any objectivity in the first place, and you can’t lose what you never had. The fact is, I care about this. It matters to me how my faith is represented. Grown-up historians are supposed to have ‘detachment’: the best I can manage is semi-detachment.”
Now, this is all fine and dandy, and I don’t actually mind that he gives his opinion or is clearly emotionally affected by tragedies. In fact, whenever he discusses a topic in-depth, he clearly tries to present both sides equally well (or mock both of them equally, it depends).
The main problem comes with his throw-away comments. See, you can have an opinion (and it can be apparrant through your style and humour what that opinion is) and still be fair, honest and logical. You still have to present a balanced view in your history book. And he does this in the longer pieces, but when he quickly mentions something, he also gives his opinion without adding anything extra. He, for example, leans clearly toward a more “socialist” view (being against wealth altogether and emphasis on class warfare). If he had included a section on the merits and demerits of the view, it’d have been fine. Instead, he sprinkles in snide comments that make you chuckle along with him. (“In your face, equal rights.”) This feels unfair. Things mentioned in passing lack nuance because of this, which can cause misconceptions among readers. You can’t just throw jabs and not expect to have to throw up a defense too. The other side never gets a chance to defend themselves, and he just makes them look silly.
Of course, his depiction of the crusades, the Inquisition and Galileo are the same-old, same-old we’re used to (the church was a monster and there were no redemptive qualities). I think Christians in general are sometimes to eager to self-censure. Not when it comes to their personal lives, but I mean the church as a whole. It’s a scary topic, the Crusades, so we take the easy way out and just condemn them. On the other hand, he is refreshingly balanced on the topic of the Spanish conquest of America, and on evolution.
This isn’t his fault, but I think there’s a printing error: the character sheets for Paul and Wycliffe share the same “appearance” section.
However, there is a big issue for me, and that is his lack of objectivity. The author himself states:
“I know at times it might appear as though this book has lost all objectivity. But that’s wrong. Because it never had any objectivity in the first place, and you can’t lose what you never had. The fact is, I care about this. It matters to me how my faith is represented. Grown-up historians are supposed to have ‘detachment’: the best I can manage is semi-detachment.”
Now, this is all fine and dandy, and I don’t actually mind that he gives his opinion or is clearly emotionally affected by tragedies. In fact, whenever he discusses a topic in-depth, he clearly tries to present both sides equally well (or mock both of them equally, it depends).
The main problem comes with his throw-away comments. See, you can have an opinion (and it can be apparrant through your style and humour what that opinion is) and still be fair, honest and logical. You still have to present a balanced view in your history book. And he does this in the longer pieces, but when he quickly mentions something, he also gives his opinion without adding anything extra. He, for example, leans clearly toward a more “socialist” view (being against wealth altogether and emphasis on class warfare). If he had included a section on the merits and demerits of the view, it’d have been fine. Instead, he sprinkles in snide comments that make you chuckle along with him. (“In your face, equal rights.”) This feels unfair. Things mentioned in passing lack nuance because of this, which can cause misconceptions among readers. You can’t just throw jabs and not expect to have to throw up a defense too. The other side never gets a chance to defend themselves, and he just makes them look silly.
Of course, his depiction of the crusades, the Inquisition and Galileo are the same-old, same-old we’re used to (the church was a monster and there were no redemptive qualities). I think Christians in general are sometimes to eager to self-censure. Not when it comes to their personal lives, but I mean the church as a whole. It’s a scary topic, the Crusades, so we take the easy way out and just condemn them. On the other hand, he is refreshingly balanced on the topic of the Spanish conquest of America, and on evolution.
This isn’t his fault, but I think there’s a printing error: the character sheets for Paul and Wycliffe share the same “appearance” section.
May 26, 2018
The title alone makes it worth reading.
For those with a linguistic bent, the title A Nearly Infallible History of Christianity (Being a history of 2000 years of saints, sinners, idiots and divinely-inspired troublemakers) can be translated from the original English to read, "Church History for Dummies."
I had not perused two pages of the intro before I decided that this was the book that I was looking for: a church history book that laid out the earlier timeline and personalities in a rather straightforward fashion without much rabbit-trailing into the theological minutiae just yet. That the book is hilarious turned out to be a bonus.
Page makes the characters memorable, the context of their lives accessible, and creates an idea of the contemporary cultural equivalent of the personalities, dynamics, and thought processes that have led us to the church as we see it today. He does a brilliant job of connecting the dots of two thousand years which assists us in avoiding the recreation of errors that some contemporary schools of thought believe are original with them. Those who fail to learn from history and all.
Simply. can't. wait. to read A Nearly Infallible History of the Reformation (Commemorating 500 years of Popes, Protestants, Reformers, Radicals, and Other Assorted Irritants).
As a word of caution, though....put your cuppa down before you start reading. #SpewAlert
For those with a linguistic bent, the title A Nearly Infallible History of Christianity (Being a history of 2000 years of saints, sinners, idiots and divinely-inspired troublemakers) can be translated from the original English to read, "Church History for Dummies."
I had not perused two pages of the intro before I decided that this was the book that I was looking for: a church history book that laid out the earlier timeline and personalities in a rather straightforward fashion without much rabbit-trailing into the theological minutiae just yet. That the book is hilarious turned out to be a bonus.
Page makes the characters memorable, the context of their lives accessible, and creates an idea of the contemporary cultural equivalent of the personalities, dynamics, and thought processes that have led us to the church as we see it today. He does a brilliant job of connecting the dots of two thousand years which assists us in avoiding the recreation of errors that some contemporary schools of thought believe are original with them. Those who fail to learn from history and all.
Simply. can't. wait. to read A Nearly Infallible History of the Reformation (Commemorating 500 years of Popes, Protestants, Reformers, Radicals, and Other Assorted Irritants).
As a word of caution, though....put your cuppa down before you start reading. #SpewAlert
July 19, 2023
If you have never read church history (first of all, shame on you!) this is a great place to start. Page covers an impressive amount of history, in impressive speed, whilst maintaining an impressive level of depth and humour. What could very easily turn into a dry, boring tale, becomes a fun story to read.
That being said, I would proceed with caution. Page acts in absolutes where other historians tread with gentle care; Page acts with frustration where other theologians act with grace; And throughout the book a heavy bias is on display. The downfalls of Christians (or those who at least claim the title) are written with scathing condemnation, while the downfalls of modernity are treated with light-hearted humour. His bias against certain reformers is particularly clear, with Page painting a black and white presentation of a very colourful tale.
Lastly, often the story felt less like a general history of Christianity, and more of a general history of important people within history who had a loose relationship to the faith. Even the areas which were more focused on the church read more like a collection of case-studies on the saints, rather than an overview of the grand picture of the church.
Despite these flaws, the book is well worth your time, and functions as an entertaining (if slightly fallible) recounting of the history of Christianity.
That being said, I would proceed with caution. Page acts in absolutes where other historians tread with gentle care; Page acts with frustration where other theologians act with grace; And throughout the book a heavy bias is on display. The downfalls of Christians (or those who at least claim the title) are written with scathing condemnation, while the downfalls of modernity are treated with light-hearted humour. His bias against certain reformers is particularly clear, with Page painting a black and white presentation of a very colourful tale.
Lastly, often the story felt less like a general history of Christianity, and more of a general history of important people within history who had a loose relationship to the faith. Even the areas which were more focused on the church read more like a collection of case-studies on the saints, rather than an overview of the grand picture of the church.
Despite these flaws, the book is well worth your time, and functions as an entertaining (if slightly fallible) recounting of the history of Christianity.
December 16, 2019
This is a very enjoyable read and fairly comprehensive (yet concise) telling of Christian history. The author uses humor effectively, though at times it is misplaced or inappropriate, but such is the risk of relying heavily on humor to keep the reading of history entertaining. It is disappointing that he gets his first major date wrong (almost no one believes that Jesus was crucified and the church started in 33 ad anymore, more likely it was 29). I assume the rest of his facts are in order. Some of he biases are evident, and sometimes it seems he doesn’t get why some of the big theological debates/controversies were such a big deal. It may appear to some readers that he is anti-Catholic, but he tells plenty on any groups who oppressed others in the name of holding their own power. I would probably never use this book for a college level class, but it was an entertaining and informative read, which I believe the author was shooting for.
February 22, 2021
I enjoyed this book a lot. I found it to be very fun and informative, but I wouldn’t rely on it to be completely historically accurate. There were multiple instances where the author would talk about a group of people or events, but when you do basic research, you find information that proves the author wrong (the big example I can think of off the top of my head is when he mentions the Bulgars by calling them savages and how they “drank from the skulls of their enemies”. There’s no real proof of this particular rumor, by the way). Basically, the author very obviously has his own biases and it’s advisable to do some research if you’re interested in any of the events he talks about.
It’s a bit like Wikipedia in that regard. It’s a fun read, and it’s got the bare bones of truth in it, but use it as a jumping off point rather than a lone resource.
It’s a bit like Wikipedia in that regard. It’s a fun read, and it’s got the bare bones of truth in it, but use it as a jumping off point rather than a lone resource.
January 25, 2021
The question which was in my mind before I started reading this was 'At what point in the history of the church did people think that it was OK to kill those who didn't agree with them?' Reading this answered my question beautifully. It is written in a style which at time is like Monty Python, and uses cartoons and pictures with speech bubbles to illustrate points - it switches from serious to funny very quickly and you have to be alert to work out which is which. I found this style helpful but I can imagine it wouldn't be to everyone's taste.
March 25, 2021
I wasn’t sure what to expect when I started reading this book. I have read a few other books on Church History and found it hard work but this one I found very informative, interesting and unexpectedly funny. There’s lots of footnotes, some with explanations and additional information and others just showing the authors sense of humour. I particularly liked the section where the King of Spain set up the Spanish Inquisition ( no one expected that). For a history book it was very easy to read and I thoroughly recommend it.
August 26, 2020
Easy to read that is for sure. But it straddles between trying to be funny and being succinct. At times for a lay-reader, it was difficult to distinguish the truths from the myriad of jokes the author tried to force into every paragraph. The author is clearly knowledgable about the subject, but at times, strayed too far into the simplicity of the topics that made it a difficult and often times cringy read.
March 16, 2022
Amusing overview of The history of the Christian church. The guy definitely has opinions on what happened. Not particularly kind to Catholicism.
Definitely skims through 2000 years, so naturally not a ton of detail on any one period.
Some of his statements struck me as a bit of a misread on his part.
Definitely skims through 2000 years, so naturally not a ton of detail on any one period.
Some of his statements struck me as a bit of a misread on his part.
December 29, 2020
Easier to digest history of the Church
Certainly written tongue in cheek this author provides a history that doesn't leave out the dark parts story of how the Church has evolved over the last 2,000 years. If you are looking for the glamorized version of how we got here this is not the book for you.
Certainly written tongue in cheek this author provides a history that doesn't leave out the dark parts story of how the Church has evolved over the last 2,000 years. If you are looking for the glamorized version of how we got here this is not the book for you.
June 29, 2021
Quite interesting so I don’t know why it took me so long to read. Interesting to be able to follow the different phases of church history, and see movements within their wider contexts. Mostly good banter injected into the footnotes.
July 24, 2017
Seriously, so informative...........so funny :)
June 21, 2020
Funniest book I’ve ever read
April 29, 2022
I enjoy history, and the sense of humour. The combination was great, on the whole.
August 2, 2022
A superb book. Very funny but the humour doesn't mean that it's not jam packed with knowledge.
February 7, 2023
Very informative read, occasionally difficult to distinguish whether a comment was a joke or actually true.
October 29, 2024
Outstanding. Have read over and over.
August 18, 2025
Hands down one of my favourite books of all time. The funniest book you will ever read. Proves that religion can be great and all, but people are really just stupid.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 42 reviews