What do you think?
Rate this book
Broken Words: The Abuse of Science and Faith in American Politics
Abortion. Homosexuality. Environmentalism. Evolution. Conservative positions on these topics are the current boundaries of mainstream Evangelical Christianity. But what if the theological arguments given by popular leaders on these “big four” were not quite as clear cut as they claim? Growing up as an evangelical Christian, Jonathan Dudley was taught that faith was defined by the total rejection of abortion, homosexuality, evolution, and environmentalism. But once he had begun studying biology and ethics, his views began to change and he soon realized that what he had been told about the Bible – and those four big issues – may have been misconstrued. Broken The Abuse of Science and Faith in American Politics assesses the scientific and cultural factors leading evangelicals to certain stances on each issue, shows where they went wrong, and critically challenges the scriptural, ethical, and biological arguments issued by those leaders today. In Broken Words, Dudley applies the Bible and biology to challenge the fixed political dogmas of the religious right. Evangelicals are confronted for the first time from within their ranks on the extent to which faith has been corrupted by conservative politics, cultural prejudice and naive anti-intellectualism. A re-ordering of American Christianity is underway – and this book is an essential part of the conversation.From the Hardcover edition.
203 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2011
20 people are currently reading
373 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews
October 15, 2020
Intentional Ignorance and Its Purpose
Where do these neo-Evangelicals come from? Seriously. Are they spawned from some isolated gene pool? Have they been secretly indoctrinated in an arcane philosophy invented by a lost order of medieval clerics? Do they not have access to modern forms of communication like radios, newspapers, and... well novels, which allow them to see just how silly they are? Didn’t they all disappear after the Scopes Monkey Trial and the demise of William Jennings Bryan?
Nothing about these people is familiar, not to say understandable. Could it be that this is their attraction to each other, their internal gravity, their centripetal force of association? They're just so incomprehensible: This being different; this defensive rejection of even the most obvious propositions about the world; this being so bloody awkward. They must cling together for warmth.
There are other people who are also mysteries to me: violent animal rights activists, fluoride opponents, con-trail conspiracy theorists, and religious terrorists. These all have stories to tell, most often ridiculous stories, but nonetheless narratives which can be understood, parsed, and refuted or accepted. But not so with the Evangelicals. The Evangelical, Mark Noll, summed up the uniqueness of evangelicalism when he said about his co-religionists: “The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind*.… American evangelicals are not exemplary for their thinking, and they have not been so for several generations.”
Other strange groups have some sort of rationale for why they act the way they do. They give arguments; they engage in public debates using facts and logic, even when these are openly tendentious. But Evangelicals have neither facts nor logic. Instead they have a sort of anti-rationale: a belief in entirely arbitrary interpretations of Scripture which arise from... well, from nowhere they can point to with any confidence. For them this constitutes what they call ‘faith,’ the groundless commitment to a precise interpretation of a somewhat limited ancient literature. That and each other is all they need.
Evangelicals constitute about one third of the American population. Their political power is therefore exceeded only by their apparent religious as well as political irrationality. Their ‘Big Four’ issues of abortion, homosexuality, anti-environmentalism, and creationism require some extreme manipulation of biblical texts to make them priorities in their lives. But their insistence that the rest of the population share these priorities is what seems to define the group more than anything else. Their refusal to compromise means that they inhibit the essential function of democracy itself. This is often their stated intent, namely political interruption. In other words, it is politics not belief which is central to evangelical existence.
Dudley, himself an evangelical, makes this priority of politics clear when he says, “The problem is not so much that evangelicals are generally Republican as that valid perspectives are squelched, while perspectives that are substantially weaker (as I will argue) are held up as defining “orthodoxy” for evangelicals.” Belief literally has to fit the party-line. The obvious tolerance of Evangelicals for Donald Trump’s mendacity, immorality, and criminality is the more public aspect of this primarily political culture. Evangelicals are not merely the Republican Party at prayer, they have become the Republican Party tout court, and consequently a visible paradox of the country that prides itself on the separation of church and state.
The centrality of politics rather than religious beliefs in evangelicalism goes some way in explaining the very odd behaviour of those involved. It conforms for example with the roots of evangelicalism in the Baptist movement and in Pentecostalism within which formal doctrine has traditionally been minimised to the point of irrelevance. The fact that the Big Four issues have nothing at all to do with theology means that they have a potential appeal across all of Christian culture from Catholicism to Mormonism, sects which otherwise have little theologically in common.
Agreement that all four issues are crucial may be necessary for ‘orthodoxy’ but adherence to any one is enough to establish political affiliation. The fact that there are only these four issues that constitute the political platform ensures the simplicity of political recruitment. Purely spiritual issues of Christian love, mercy, justice and submission to the interests of one’s neighbour may be safely neglected as private matters.
Dudley quotes the Notre Dame sociologist Christian Smith who observes in his book American Evangelicalism: “American evangelicals believe not only that an unchanging and universal Truth exists, but—more audaciously, perhaps—that they are the ones who know it.” Such a stance is not justified by even a sympathetic reading of the Bible. But this attitude creates both political impasse and personal frustration among one’s political opponents. It claims the ground of discussion (what there is of it) as its own. This is a highly effective political not religious strategy. It doesn’t ‘spread the Word’ but it certainly confounds the opposition who have no effective way to counter a Know Nothing political gambit.
As a political party, Evangelicals want to achieve something. And this is not the salvation of their own souls, much less of mine. For most of them, salvation is an already determined outcome which has nothing to do with their behaviour much less their political success. Dudley’s conclusion is important:
What, therefore, is it that constitutes evangelical success? What are they really after if not the metanoia, the conversion, of the hearts of their fellows? On the face of it, it seems they want a return to the legal condition of the United States in the 1950’s, that is, before the Supreme Court ruling on abortion, legalisation of same-sex marriage and gay sex, concern about global warming, and the more or less universal teaching of evolutionary theory in public schools. But such a legal reversal, quite apart from its unlikelihood, would not restore either the prevailing middle class mores of the period, or the global dominance of the United States which allowed their casual maintenance. So, while ostensibly about ‘culture,’ some other agenda, perhaps only implicit and possibly unconscious, seems to be in play.
It seems to me that the real evangelical intention is to be found on the inside pages not in the bold headlines. The evangelical rejection of exegetical scholarship, of science, and rational thought in general as reliable sources of knowledge is well known and considered mainly as a sign of ignorance by non-evangelicals. But this anti-intellectualism is logically prior to the evangelical position on the Big Four issues. These ethical conclusions depend upon this anti- rational stance in order to establish their absolute and undebatable status. Suppose, therefore, that this is the transcendent objective, the aim implied by all their actions, namely the elimination of their own educational disadvantage, including their self-acknowledged weakness in intellectual argument.
Faith for the evangelical can be then seen for what it is: the great equaliser. It becomes the practical means for achieving what John dos Passos recognised as a central tenet of much of the American middle class - that one’s neighbour has absolutely no right to know more than oneself. Evangelical political activity can then be seen to be aimed objectively at the elimination of what can be called tribal, and therefore collectively personal, differential social advantage. Both the educational and social objectives suggest a shared sentiment of inferiority among evangelicals which is their aim to cure. Jeffersonian democracy by other means in an urbanised and technological society.
In other words, what they want is a very different social contract than that of liberal capitalism which presumes and rewards achievement, particularly intellectual achievement. This new social contract is not socialist certainly; but neither is it based on competitive and comparative achievement. In short, Evangelicals want a new Constitution in which the errors made by the mis-guided Deists who wrote the original can be corrected. Enlightenment skepticism has no place in their America. America is a tribal home, the ‘house on the hill’ of Puritan lore. There is 0nly one legitimate political party - God’s. And there is only one historically approved method by which democracy can be exercised - the Congregational consensus of 17th century New England. This, not a vulgar secular free-for-all, is what the American ideal was built on. It is faith which will elect, judge and, if necessary, discipline politicians. We owe it to our country to vote through and with our churches.
Paradoxically, despite their annoying clannishness, Evangelicals appear to recognise the adverse effects of the growing mal-distribution of income and wealth. Progress for them is a group phenomenon - the (local) tribe is the unit of prosperity. We, not the state, take care of our own. For the faithful, the elite are defined by the intensity of their public proclamations of rigid belief, not by the academic degrees held or the social or business positions achieved. Evangelicalism is then not an ambition to return to the 1950’s. It is effectively a far more profound Luddite rebellion that would like to reweave most of the social fabric of America manufactured after the Second Great Awakening of the 1790’s.
I have no idea if this political theory of evangelicalism can account for a broader set of facts of which I am ignorant. But it makes more sense to me than any other theological or sociological explanation I have encountered. Of course, such a statement would undoubtedly offend many Evangelicals simply because it purports to find rationality in their otherwise odd behaviour. Perhaps they are just mad after all. It is Dudley’s evangelically-informed opinion that “Christianity has done more harm than good in the political sphere, that it has rallied behind beliefs that are untrue and supported policies that hurt others.” Who am I to argue?
*I can’t find my first edition of Noll’s book, but from uncertain memory i think it read slightly differently: “The problem with the evangelical mind is that there isn’t one.”
Postscript 19Jan19: for more on the political hypothesisnof American evangelicism see: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Where do these neo-Evangelicals come from? Seriously. Are they spawned from some isolated gene pool? Have they been secretly indoctrinated in an arcane philosophy invented by a lost order of medieval clerics? Do they not have access to modern forms of communication like radios, newspapers, and... well novels, which allow them to see just how silly they are? Didn’t they all disappear after the Scopes Monkey Trial and the demise of William Jennings Bryan?
Nothing about these people is familiar, not to say understandable. Could it be that this is their attraction to each other, their internal gravity, their centripetal force of association? They're just so incomprehensible: This being different; this defensive rejection of even the most obvious propositions about the world; this being so bloody awkward. They must cling together for warmth.
There are other people who are also mysteries to me: violent animal rights activists, fluoride opponents, con-trail conspiracy theorists, and religious terrorists. These all have stories to tell, most often ridiculous stories, but nonetheless narratives which can be understood, parsed, and refuted or accepted. But not so with the Evangelicals. The Evangelical, Mark Noll, summed up the uniqueness of evangelicalism when he said about his co-religionists: “The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind*.… American evangelicals are not exemplary for their thinking, and they have not been so for several generations.”
Other strange groups have some sort of rationale for why they act the way they do. They give arguments; they engage in public debates using facts and logic, even when these are openly tendentious. But Evangelicals have neither facts nor logic. Instead they have a sort of anti-rationale: a belief in entirely arbitrary interpretations of Scripture which arise from... well, from nowhere they can point to with any confidence. For them this constitutes what they call ‘faith,’ the groundless commitment to a precise interpretation of a somewhat limited ancient literature. That and each other is all they need.
Evangelicals constitute about one third of the American population. Their political power is therefore exceeded only by their apparent religious as well as political irrationality. Their ‘Big Four’ issues of abortion, homosexuality, anti-environmentalism, and creationism require some extreme manipulation of biblical texts to make them priorities in their lives. But their insistence that the rest of the population share these priorities is what seems to define the group more than anything else. Their refusal to compromise means that they inhibit the essential function of democracy itself. This is often their stated intent, namely political interruption. In other words, it is politics not belief which is central to evangelical existence.
Dudley, himself an evangelical, makes this priority of politics clear when he says, “The problem is not so much that evangelicals are generally Republican as that valid perspectives are squelched, while perspectives that are substantially weaker (as I will argue) are held up as defining “orthodoxy” for evangelicals.” Belief literally has to fit the party-line. The obvious tolerance of Evangelicals for Donald Trump’s mendacity, immorality, and criminality is the more public aspect of this primarily political culture. Evangelicals are not merely the Republican Party at prayer, they have become the Republican Party tout court, and consequently a visible paradox of the country that prides itself on the separation of church and state.
The centrality of politics rather than religious beliefs in evangelicalism goes some way in explaining the very odd behaviour of those involved. It conforms for example with the roots of evangelicalism in the Baptist movement and in Pentecostalism within which formal doctrine has traditionally been minimised to the point of irrelevance. The fact that the Big Four issues have nothing at all to do with theology means that they have a potential appeal across all of Christian culture from Catholicism to Mormonism, sects which otherwise have little theologically in common.
Agreement that all four issues are crucial may be necessary for ‘orthodoxy’ but adherence to any one is enough to establish political affiliation. The fact that there are only these four issues that constitute the political platform ensures the simplicity of political recruitment. Purely spiritual issues of Christian love, mercy, justice and submission to the interests of one’s neighbour may be safely neglected as private matters.
Dudley quotes the Notre Dame sociologist Christian Smith who observes in his book American Evangelicalism: “American evangelicals believe not only that an unchanging and universal Truth exists, but—more audaciously, perhaps—that they are the ones who know it.” Such a stance is not justified by even a sympathetic reading of the Bible. But this attitude creates both political impasse and personal frustration among one’s political opponents. It claims the ground of discussion (what there is of it) as its own. This is a highly effective political not religious strategy. It doesn’t ‘spread the Word’ but it certainly confounds the opposition who have no effective way to counter a Know Nothing political gambit.
As a political party, Evangelicals want to achieve something. And this is not the salvation of their own souls, much less of mine. For most of them, salvation is an already determined outcome which has nothing to do with their behaviour much less their political success. Dudley’s conclusion is important:
“On the ethical front, neo-evangelicals have failed to confront social injustice in America, ignoring the civil rights movement, opposing the feminist movement, and dragging its feet for far too long in the face of environmental destruction. It has evinced prejudice and disgust toward gays and lesbians and shown no willingness to engage in dialogue with those who disagree on the matter. On the scientific front, the neo-evangelical movement has been in the forefront of crusades against evolution, supported untenable and destructive ideas about the nature of homosexuality, and demonstrated unwarranted skepticism about global warming and other environmental matters. It has exuded both ignorance and arrogance in the broader culture. In the process, it has made itself despised among the very people it seeks to convert to faith. It has also triggered a movement against itself—the new atheists—which argues, in effect, that if this is what Christianity looks like, we will all be better off when it goes extinct.”
What, therefore, is it that constitutes evangelical success? What are they really after if not the metanoia, the conversion, of the hearts of their fellows? On the face of it, it seems they want a return to the legal condition of the United States in the 1950’s, that is, before the Supreme Court ruling on abortion, legalisation of same-sex marriage and gay sex, concern about global warming, and the more or less universal teaching of evolutionary theory in public schools. But such a legal reversal, quite apart from its unlikelihood, would not restore either the prevailing middle class mores of the period, or the global dominance of the United States which allowed their casual maintenance. So, while ostensibly about ‘culture,’ some other agenda, perhaps only implicit and possibly unconscious, seems to be in play.
It seems to me that the real evangelical intention is to be found on the inside pages not in the bold headlines. The evangelical rejection of exegetical scholarship, of science, and rational thought in general as reliable sources of knowledge is well known and considered mainly as a sign of ignorance by non-evangelicals. But this anti-intellectualism is logically prior to the evangelical position on the Big Four issues. These ethical conclusions depend upon this anti- rational stance in order to establish their absolute and undebatable status. Suppose, therefore, that this is the transcendent objective, the aim implied by all their actions, namely the elimination of their own educational disadvantage, including their self-acknowledged weakness in intellectual argument.
Faith for the evangelical can be then seen for what it is: the great equaliser. It becomes the practical means for achieving what John dos Passos recognised as a central tenet of much of the American middle class - that one’s neighbour has absolutely no right to know more than oneself. Evangelical political activity can then be seen to be aimed objectively at the elimination of what can be called tribal, and therefore collectively personal, differential social advantage. Both the educational and social objectives suggest a shared sentiment of inferiority among evangelicals which is their aim to cure. Jeffersonian democracy by other means in an urbanised and technological society.
In other words, what they want is a very different social contract than that of liberal capitalism which presumes and rewards achievement, particularly intellectual achievement. This new social contract is not socialist certainly; but neither is it based on competitive and comparative achievement. In short, Evangelicals want a new Constitution in which the errors made by the mis-guided Deists who wrote the original can be corrected. Enlightenment skepticism has no place in their America. America is a tribal home, the ‘house on the hill’ of Puritan lore. There is 0nly one legitimate political party - God’s. And there is only one historically approved method by which democracy can be exercised - the Congregational consensus of 17th century New England. This, not a vulgar secular free-for-all, is what the American ideal was built on. It is faith which will elect, judge and, if necessary, discipline politicians. We owe it to our country to vote through and with our churches.
Paradoxically, despite their annoying clannishness, Evangelicals appear to recognise the adverse effects of the growing mal-distribution of income and wealth. Progress for them is a group phenomenon - the (local) tribe is the unit of prosperity. We, not the state, take care of our own. For the faithful, the elite are defined by the intensity of their public proclamations of rigid belief, not by the academic degrees held or the social or business positions achieved. Evangelicalism is then not an ambition to return to the 1950’s. It is effectively a far more profound Luddite rebellion that would like to reweave most of the social fabric of America manufactured after the Second Great Awakening of the 1790’s.
I have no idea if this political theory of evangelicalism can account for a broader set of facts of which I am ignorant. But it makes more sense to me than any other theological or sociological explanation I have encountered. Of course, such a statement would undoubtedly offend many Evangelicals simply because it purports to find rationality in their otherwise odd behaviour. Perhaps they are just mad after all. It is Dudley’s evangelically-informed opinion that “Christianity has done more harm than good in the political sphere, that it has rallied behind beliefs that are untrue and supported policies that hurt others.” Who am I to argue?
*I can’t find my first edition of Noll’s book, but from uncertain memory i think it read slightly differently: “The problem with the evangelical mind is that there isn’t one.”
Postscript 19Jan19: for more on the political hypothesisnof American evangelicism see: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
April 18, 2019
This critique of Evangelical Christianity's rightward shift succeeds because it is reasonable and balanced, and it is both reasonable and balanced because its author is not only a man of science but also a man of faith. Dudley grew up in an evangelical household, majored in biology at an Evangelical college, earned an MA at the Yale divinity school, and is at present pursuing a degree in Medicine from Johns Hopkins. This resume reflects his attitude: he has sympathy with the Evangelical point of view, and yet this sympathy is tempered by his great respect for the objective truths of science.
Dudley treats the four major controversies of conservative Christianity in relation to science: reproductive issues, homosexuality, the environment, and—the grand daddy of them all—evolution. He makes the case that, not only does the Christian right possess no solid empirical evidence, no cogent deductive arguments and no demonstrable biblical support for their extreme positions on these issues, but that the positions themselves have only been in effect since the 1980's. Before that, Evangelicals took more liberal stances on all of these issues-- except for homosexuality. They held various positions on the morality of abortion (particularly during the first trimester), saw environmentalism as a necessary part of Christian stewardship, and even found room for a belief in theistic evolution.
This decisive move to the right began with the influence of author and popular theologian Francis Shaeffer in the late '70's. He saw Roe vs. Wade and the growing push of an Equal Rights Amendment as symptomatic of the “secular humanist” influence on American culture, and he believed that a strong opposition to abortion from the very moment of conception was the best way to strike a killing blow against this creeping philosophical error. His great influence soon led to a narrowing of the range of evangelical opinion in all these areas until they became virtually identical to those of the conservative wing of the Republican party.
Dudley ends his book with a plea to thoughtful Evangelicals to once again embrace scientific thought, particularly in the area of theistic evolution, for he sees the rejection of this doctrine as the root cause of a growing rigidity and anti-intellectualism. He realizes this may require a breaking away from the body of Evangelical Christianity itself, but Dudley thinks that would be okay. After all, the first Evangelicals broke away from traditional Protestantism to form a new vigorous and vibrant movement. There is no good reason why they couldn't do it again today.
January 29, 2013
I first wrote about Jonathan Dudley in early November of last year, noting a piece he wrote on CNN's religion blog about the evolution of the Evangelical position on abortion. Dudley contacted me and sent me a copy of his book to review, and here, at long last, is my first, but definitely not last comment on this amazing book.
I am a Humanist and an atheist. I know a lot about religion, but I am no scholar of Evangelical history and theology. Dudley is, and he writes a very clear history of the ways in which modern Evangelicalism has moved away from science, which has a big impact on Evangelical's ability to grapple with evolution and climate change. He also writes about a time when Evangelicals were in favor of abortion rights, setting the limit at about six months, just as Roe v. Wade decided.
The right turn the Evangelical movement took, argues Dudley, was not historically necessary. Had a less conservative wing of the Evangelical movement taken power, Evangelicals today might be known as pro-gay rights and pro-reproductive rights. They might be pro-science and pro-environment.
The ins and outs of his arguments, including the influence of theologian Francis Schaeffer on such early Evangelical powerhouses like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson and Randall Terry are best covered by actually reading the book.
I cannot comment on the theology of the book so much. To me all theology comes down to the "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" kind of nonsense. But the tale Dudley tells is one of a movement that could have been more life affirming, more human, and perhaps even more christian than the picture most of us have of present day Evangelicalism.
I am a Humanist and an atheist. I know a lot about religion, but I am no scholar of Evangelical history and theology. Dudley is, and he writes a very clear history of the ways in which modern Evangelicalism has moved away from science, which has a big impact on Evangelical's ability to grapple with evolution and climate change. He also writes about a time when Evangelicals were in favor of abortion rights, setting the limit at about six months, just as Roe v. Wade decided.
The right turn the Evangelical movement took, argues Dudley, was not historically necessary. Had a less conservative wing of the Evangelical movement taken power, Evangelicals today might be known as pro-gay rights and pro-reproductive rights. They might be pro-science and pro-environment.
The ins and outs of his arguments, including the influence of theologian Francis Schaeffer on such early Evangelical powerhouses like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson and Randall Terry are best covered by actually reading the book.
I cannot comment on the theology of the book so much. To me all theology comes down to the "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" kind of nonsense. But the tale Dudley tells is one of a movement that could have been more life affirming, more human, and perhaps even more christian than the picture most of us have of present day Evangelicalism.
November 4, 2015
A solid work exposing the way in which evangelicals routinely employ and fall for pseudo-scientific and historical claims. Discussion of cultural issues is impractical as well as impossible when one side of the conversation refuses to acknowledge and deal with reality. Dudley explores how evangelicals misuse science with regards to abortion, homosexuality, and evolution, among other things, and does so with verve and compassion, though he is not afraid to be firm when he must be.
March 12, 2013
My husband encountered this book somewhere along the way and purchased it for our Kindle. He will be teaching a class on Christianity and science this summer and thought it might be useful. He found Dudley's book well written, clear and fascinating. So he recommended it to me.
I am so glad that I read this. I have always accepted the evangelical, fundamentalist churches as monoliths. They are the way they are; they have always been the way they are and they will never change. Dudley corrects my error from the beginning of his book and does it in a clear, concise manner that I could not put down. His reasoning seems so sound to me and he is trying to be rationale rather than emotional.
Dudley tackles the four big areas where liberal and conservative Christians differ: abortion, homosexuality, evolution and the environment. As he works his way through these topics, he is not strident, but carefully building his case. Although I am fairly sure that Dudley and I would still disagree on many areas of Christianity, he does give our sisters and brothers a place where we could have a reasonable discussion rather than continue to yell at one another.
I wish I could get some of my relatives to consider reading this book. I recommend this to all readers who are concerned about our country's divide on these four topics. Also I suggest those who think they know Christianity through the media's image, look at what Dudley has to say. Personally, I can't wait to see what Dudley writes about next.
I am so glad that I read this. I have always accepted the evangelical, fundamentalist churches as monoliths. They are the way they are; they have always been the way they are and they will never change. Dudley corrects my error from the beginning of his book and does it in a clear, concise manner that I could not put down. His reasoning seems so sound to me and he is trying to be rationale rather than emotional.
Dudley tackles the four big areas where liberal and conservative Christians differ: abortion, homosexuality, evolution and the environment. As he works his way through these topics, he is not strident, but carefully building his case. Although I am fairly sure that Dudley and I would still disagree on many areas of Christianity, he does give our sisters and brothers a place where we could have a reasonable discussion rather than continue to yell at one another.
I wish I could get some of my relatives to consider reading this book. I recommend this to all readers who are concerned about our country's divide on these four topics. Also I suggest those who think they know Christianity through the media's image, look at what Dudley has to say. Personally, I can't wait to see what Dudley writes about next.
October 14, 2011
Dudley has done an amazing job of showing the errors in religious conservative views on abortion, evolution, global warming, and homosexuality. Among other nuggets in this book are his demonstration of how the evangelical conservatives have reversed not only mainstream Christian tradition in their attitudes towards science, but also the views of their own historical antecedents. Another is his demonstration of the double-think with regard to approaches to scripture and approaches to science. For anyone who is concerned about contemporary political religion and the science-religion nexus, this book is a must.
August 29, 2011
I really appreciate this book. The author grew up evangelical, studied biology at an evangelical college, then completed divinity school at Yale. He's now attending med school in the field of bioethics. So he's got an insider's view on the evangelical perspective, a fair exposure to non-evangelical Christianity via Yale, and the scientific and bioethics perspective to really handle these issues (abortion, gay marriage, environmentalism, and evolution)well.
His perspective is clear and well-expressed. I highly recommend the book.
His perspective is clear and well-expressed. I highly recommend the book.
April 25, 2011
A well-reasoned, well-written look at the four cornerstones of the Religious Right's political and social agenda: Evolution, Climate Change, Homosexuality, and Abortion.
Jonathan Dudley examines and explains (and mostly refutes) the Biblical justification for these positions.
Jonathan Dudley examines and explains (and mostly refutes) the Biblical justification for these positions.
July 13, 2011
Very interesting and enlightening book on the Evangelical movement's interpretation of the bible. It should be required reading for everyone.
September 20, 2012
Can't recommend this highly enough, especially to anyone who gives a hoot about current affairs.
August 2, 2018
As someone who grew up in an evangelical environment and eventually grew out of the fundamentalist part, I highly recommend this book. In fact, I am sharing this to recommend it to all ICS people, alumni, teachers, etc. Also highly recommended for people who want to understand why evangelicals are where they are today on certain positions.
This book is a thorough exploration of 4 topics or litmus tests (1. Abortion 2. Homosexuality 3. Environmentalism and 4. Evolution and Science.) that have come to define modern day evangelicalism. Dudley covers it exhaustively from a historical and theological point of view (he cites theologians from Augustine to the present day).
From this perspective, it is extremely surprising to see how relatively recently these fundamentalist views started appearing in the evangelical movement. It is surprising to see that 19th and early 20th century evangelicals had such staggeringly different views from today. I think the knowledge alone that the views of fundamentalism is NOT normal and NOT historical is refreshing and can provide much support to those who have begun to doubt and may decide to reject Christianity altogether, because these are clearly not the central tenets of Christianity. While this book is exhaustive in tracing historical views and theological arguments, to better explore alternatives to fundamentalist evangelicalism, further reading from the notes and references is recommended.
Dudley also meticulously lays out the inconsistencies of a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. He points out the multitude of biblical interpretations from giants of Christian scholarship in the past that would surprise. This particularly struck me when he discusses the field of science and evolution, areas that are clearly his field of expertise (and one that I try to make my own, too). This was one of my own greatest personal crisis of belief, being presented with irrefutable evidence of the veracity and beauty of evolutionary theory, natural selection, and genetics. In my own journey, knowing that many a Christian and a scientist (like the geneticist Francis Collins) have reconciled their orthodox, conservative Christian faith with was one source of succor as I explored what that meant, along with learning about various interpretations of Genesis that even Augustine made. (It also helps to know that the Catholic church is fully in support of evolution, but first you have to concede that the Pope is not the anti-Christ.) Dudley's book makes it even easier to critically reject young earth creationism/intelligent design without rejecting a Creator (or rejecting biblical inerrancy or rejecting orthodox theology).
Christianity comes in many flavors, many of which are still orthodox and faithful, but differ on things that the Apostle Paul would say are "disputable matters" that we each "see in part...know in part...and prophesy in part." This book does Christ's church a great service by expanding our view and hopefully keeping us focused on the central tenets of the gospel again.
tl;dr - great book. Christianity is more than fundamentalism.
This book is a thorough exploration of 4 topics or litmus tests (1. Abortion 2. Homosexuality 3. Environmentalism and 4. Evolution and Science.) that have come to define modern day evangelicalism. Dudley covers it exhaustively from a historical and theological point of view (he cites theologians from Augustine to the present day).
From this perspective, it is extremely surprising to see how relatively recently these fundamentalist views started appearing in the evangelical movement. It is surprising to see that 19th and early 20th century evangelicals had such staggeringly different views from today. I think the knowledge alone that the views of fundamentalism is NOT normal and NOT historical is refreshing and can provide much support to those who have begun to doubt and may decide to reject Christianity altogether, because these are clearly not the central tenets of Christianity. While this book is exhaustive in tracing historical views and theological arguments, to better explore alternatives to fundamentalist evangelicalism, further reading from the notes and references is recommended.
Dudley also meticulously lays out the inconsistencies of a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. He points out the multitude of biblical interpretations from giants of Christian scholarship in the past that would surprise. This particularly struck me when he discusses the field of science and evolution, areas that are clearly his field of expertise (and one that I try to make my own, too). This was one of my own greatest personal crisis of belief, being presented with irrefutable evidence of the veracity and beauty of evolutionary theory, natural selection, and genetics. In my own journey, knowing that many a Christian and a scientist (like the geneticist Francis Collins) have reconciled their orthodox, conservative Christian faith with was one source of succor as I explored what that meant, along with learning about various interpretations of Genesis that even Augustine made. (It also helps to know that the Catholic church is fully in support of evolution, but first you have to concede that the Pope is not the anti-Christ.) Dudley's book makes it even easier to critically reject young earth creationism/intelligent design without rejecting a Creator (or rejecting biblical inerrancy or rejecting orthodox theology).
Christianity comes in many flavors, many of which are still orthodox and faithful, but differ on things that the Apostle Paul would say are "disputable matters" that we each "see in part...know in part...and prophesy in part." This book does Christ's church a great service by expanding our view and hopefully keeping us focused on the central tenets of the gospel again.
tl;dr - great book. Christianity is more than fundamentalism.
February 27, 2015
When Americans are polled about their religious beliefs, the fastest growing group since the 1990s has been the “nones” who say they do not identify with any particular faith. Young adults are the most likely to reject organized religion, though most say they believe in God. This group tells pollsters they are turned off by conservative Christians whom they find judgmental, particularly when it comes to homosexuality and abortion. Evangelicals also lose credibility by denying evolution and climate change.
Jonathan Dudley grew up in an evangelical family; both parents and two grandparents went to Moody Bible College. Dudley got his MA in religion from Yale’s Divinity School.
He explores the “four hot-button issues involving science and scripture (that) have assumed a central importance in defining the evangelical community.” Those four social issues are abortion, homosexuality, evolution and climate change. Dudley analyzes each issue, and finds lacking the purported Scriptural bases for Christian litmus tests on the issues. This reviewer, who has belonged to an evangelical megachurch for a quarter century, finds Dudley’s analysis persuasive.
Jonathan Dudley grew up in an evangelical family; both parents and two grandparents went to Moody Bible College. Dudley got his MA in religion from Yale’s Divinity School.
He explores the “four hot-button issues involving science and scripture (that) have assumed a central importance in defining the evangelical community.” Those four social issues are abortion, homosexuality, evolution and climate change. Dudley analyzes each issue, and finds lacking the purported Scriptural bases for Christian litmus tests on the issues. This reviewer, who has belonged to an evangelical megachurch for a quarter century, finds Dudley’s analysis persuasive.
January 23, 2013
This book was reviewed on a website I visit. It sounded like an interesting look into the Evangelical culture and how it has changed so remarkably in the last 50 or so years. The author is/was himself an Evangelical and he maintains a rather balanced view as a result.
I'm glad I read it, I gained a bit of insight. I was raised as a more mainstream Protestant, so I didn't get all this growing up. However, as a teenager in the 80's, I remember the rise of the "Religious" right. Even as teen, their positions made no sense to me based on even a casual read of the Bible and I certainly couldn't see how these views were supposed to be the ONLY logical interpretation of the Bible. I feel that the book gave me a little deeper understanding of where these evangelical views came from, how they evolved from a populist standpoint versus an intellectual standpoint, and the revelation that there even exists intellectual evangelicals. (Yeah, not much evidence in the popular stance, for sure.)
I'm glad I read it, I gained a bit of insight. I was raised as a more mainstream Protestant, so I didn't get all this growing up. However, as a teenager in the 80's, I remember the rise of the "Religious" right. Even as teen, their positions made no sense to me based on even a casual read of the Bible and I certainly couldn't see how these views were supposed to be the ONLY logical interpretation of the Bible. I feel that the book gave me a little deeper understanding of where these evangelical views came from, how they evolved from a populist standpoint versus an intellectual standpoint, and the revelation that there even exists intellectual evangelicals. (Yeah, not much evidence in the popular stance, for sure.)
November 13, 2011
Who would have a better idea about the views of certain religious sectors than someone who has experienced them? This author has a good balance of what applies as a religious aspect and what is more cultural or should be addressed with science in mind. This author heavily promotes science and logical thought, the reader will likely find his arguments engaging and interesting. The reader will likely admit his arguments contain merit.
Can political forces manipulate religion in their favor? Of course! The author explains his views on this clearly and expertly to the reader. His opinions are kept at that-opinions. He does not push the reader too much to accept his opinions, though he does use scientific theories-ones that the reader would be hard pressed to deny. Overall, this book was very informative and analytical-this book is not meant to be an easy or light read. The book is best for adult readers.
Can political forces manipulate religion in their favor? Of course! The author explains his views on this clearly and expertly to the reader. His opinions are kept at that-opinions. He does not push the reader too much to accept his opinions, though he does use scientific theories-ones that the reader would be hard pressed to deny. Overall, this book was very informative and analytical-this book is not meant to be an easy or light read. The book is best for adult readers.
January 6, 2019
What I really enjoyed about this book was how the author was able to discuss how Christians on both sides of the political aisle are guilty of picking and choosing verses that confirm their worldview without coming across like a smarmy jerk. He plainly and matter-of-factly details how the conservative side justifies their bigotry by cherry-picking Bible verses but also how liberal Christians cry "we're not all like that" and make claims such as God being pro-green. It probably doesn't hurt that the author used to fall far right of center himself, so he speaks from experience. I enjoyed this book very much. It made me question a LOT of things about my ever-lapsing faith and I definitely recommend it for wayward Christians and for non-Christians who wish to look into the Christian mind to understand why it is so very hard to change the minds of most Christians with reason.
May 1, 2011
A growing number of Christian evangelicals are working alongside religious liberals on progressive initiatives, such as immigration reform, antipoverty work, and environmental justice. Some are even beginning to “think outside the box” about the four most highly-charged political issues for evangelicals: abortion, gay marriage, environmentalism, and evolutionary science. Jonathan Dudley's new book Broken Words gives some much-needed biblical and historical context to these questions. Read more
April 30, 2014
A very interesting look at the decline of the Evangelical mind, and an explanation of the Fundamentalist world view. He breaks down the flaws of "creation science" and also pushes back, lightly, against those who insist that modern science and faith are irreconcilable. Mostly, it stands as an attempt to correct many of the misconceptions in the larger culture about Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism. My one quibble is that Dudley doesn't do more to draw a distinction between Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism.
July 14, 2015
Still in the process of reviewing and digesting the information in this book. When I get it all sluiced into a coherent thought I'll write a more complex review.
I do however wish a bit more examination on the topic of homosexuality would have happened. Brief touch on the points and counterpoints without much depth.
I do however wish a bit more examination on the topic of homosexuality would have happened. Brief touch on the points and counterpoints without much depth.
January 8, 2014
Jonathan Dudley's book is a defense of his rejection of the majority evangelical position on four heated social issues: abortion, homosexuality, environmentalism, and evolution. The arguments are placed in an autobiographical framework which takes him through the evangelical Calvin College to the mainline Yale Divinity School and into Johns Hopkins Medical School.
I came to this book quite skeptical, given Dudley's relative youth and lack of scholarly credentials. I was also dubious that he would be able to pull off tackling four huge issues in one book. Overall, I was impressed with his treatment. Dudley understands the religious landscape well. He makes important distinctions that outsiders often overlook, distinctions between fundamentalists and (neo)evangelicals, between different types of creationists and intelligence design proponents, between Protestants and Catholics. (His only big gaffe is referring to the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America as the ECLA.) Dudley also made a wise choice to write in a journalistic style that fits his educational accomplishments but also allows him to deliver solid content. He also focuses on broad reasoning strategies rather than slugging out details. He focuses particularly on undermining evangelicals' claims to teach simply what the Bible says.
The first chapter on abortion was the strongest in my opinion. Dudley has a solid grasp of both overall church history and the recent American scene. His biblical exegesis is incisive. He makes a strong point that if evangelicals are not pacifists and also believe that abortion is literal genocide, they should not have a problem with violence against abortion clinics and doctors. After all, they celebrate Dietrich Bonhoeffer for undertaking violent action against Hitler. He makes a compelling case that neither the Bible nor most of church tradition supports the identification of human life (or ensoulment) with the moment of conception. There are weaknesses surrounding this claim, though. First, many of the figures he cites to prove that Christians have not always associated ensoulment with conception nevertheless prohibited all abortion. Second, many abortions in fact take place after the time of ensoulment (most often 40 days after conception) preferred by many of these figures.
The second chapter on homosexuality was the weakest, probably because Dudley was not able to draw heavily from church history on this one. The church has been pretty consistent on this issue. However, he does make some salient points about interpretive paradigms and shifting evangelical views. The chapter offers some set up for arguments but not the arguments themselves. It feels hollow.
The third chapter on environmentalism was better but still a bit weak. Dudley gives a historical summary of how God's command to have "dominion" over the earth has been interpreted throughout church history. Here he draws heavily from Peter Harrison's works. Again, this chapter felt a bit empty.
The fourth chapter, on evolution, was significantly better. Dudley has a good grasp of the spectrum of opinion within Christianity. His arguments were compact and on point. His history was helpful. Some of the set up work done in previous chapters blossomed here.
I finished the book a bit sad. Dudley, though in some ways still attached to evangelical Christianity, is also alienated from it. The discomfort of that alienation is evident throughout the book. He wants to reshape evangelicalism into a better informed, more nuanced, and more morally sophisticated group, but now that he is marked as an outsider, the intellectual blinders that pervade evangelicalism will prevent his intended audience from hearing his message. We both know that, and I think that is what left us both sad.
I came to this book quite skeptical, given Dudley's relative youth and lack of scholarly credentials. I was also dubious that he would be able to pull off tackling four huge issues in one book. Overall, I was impressed with his treatment. Dudley understands the religious landscape well. He makes important distinctions that outsiders often overlook, distinctions between fundamentalists and (neo)evangelicals, between different types of creationists and intelligence design proponents, between Protestants and Catholics. (His only big gaffe is referring to the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America as the ECLA.) Dudley also made a wise choice to write in a journalistic style that fits his educational accomplishments but also allows him to deliver solid content. He also focuses on broad reasoning strategies rather than slugging out details. He focuses particularly on undermining evangelicals' claims to teach simply what the Bible says.
The first chapter on abortion was the strongest in my opinion. Dudley has a solid grasp of both overall church history and the recent American scene. His biblical exegesis is incisive. He makes a strong point that if evangelicals are not pacifists and also believe that abortion is literal genocide, they should not have a problem with violence against abortion clinics and doctors. After all, they celebrate Dietrich Bonhoeffer for undertaking violent action against Hitler. He makes a compelling case that neither the Bible nor most of church tradition supports the identification of human life (or ensoulment) with the moment of conception. There are weaknesses surrounding this claim, though. First, many of the figures he cites to prove that Christians have not always associated ensoulment with conception nevertheless prohibited all abortion. Second, many abortions in fact take place after the time of ensoulment (most often 40 days after conception) preferred by many of these figures.
The second chapter on homosexuality was the weakest, probably because Dudley was not able to draw heavily from church history on this one. The church has been pretty consistent on this issue. However, he does make some salient points about interpretive paradigms and shifting evangelical views. The chapter offers some set up for arguments but not the arguments themselves. It feels hollow.
The third chapter on environmentalism was better but still a bit weak. Dudley gives a historical summary of how God's command to have "dominion" over the earth has been interpreted throughout church history. Here he draws heavily from Peter Harrison's works. Again, this chapter felt a bit empty.
The fourth chapter, on evolution, was significantly better. Dudley has a good grasp of the spectrum of opinion within Christianity. His arguments were compact and on point. His history was helpful. Some of the set up work done in previous chapters blossomed here.
I finished the book a bit sad. Dudley, though in some ways still attached to evangelical Christianity, is also alienated from it. The discomfort of that alienation is evident throughout the book. He wants to reshape evangelicalism into a better informed, more nuanced, and more morally sophisticated group, but now that he is marked as an outsider, the intellectual blinders that pervade evangelicalism will prevent his intended audience from hearing his message. We both know that, and I think that is what left us both sad.
April 22, 2012
Description:
Science. Faith. Politics. Three universal concepts with a compendium of diverse denominational meanings - but that does not mean that viewpoints within these topics do not overlap. Why do some Christians believe abortion, homosexuality and evolution are against God's commandments and teachings, while others are taught to accept these practices and ideas? Why does there have to be a right or wrong? Author Jonathan Dudley exposes and explains the misinterpretations and misuses of these concepts throughout history, and in today's ever-changing world.
Review:
Broken Words is an in-depth, insightful, honest and equal-sided look into abortion, homosexuality, environmentalism and evolution throughout evangelical/Christian history. Given my educational and religious background, I was very interested to hear someone else's thoughts on these matters, especially since most books on the subject seem so "one-sided". I was surprised to learn that the author was so young, yet so mature and experienced in his writing and convictions. His to-the-point analysis of the bible and evangelical history were engaging and unbiased. I have often wondered why the meanings of certain passages in the Bible were so skewed, and his well researched explanations helped me to gain a better understanding. I consider myself a Christian - nondenominational - and Jonathan Dudley's arguments against the religious taboos of abortion, homosexuality, and evolution closely resemble my own. I definitely recommend this book to anyone who has ever wondered why science, faith and politics are so defiant in their attempts of agreement. I am excited by the prospect of another book by this author, and wish him much luck with his MD at JHU-SM!
Rating: On the Run (4.5/5)
*** I received this book from the author (Crown Publishers) in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.
Science. Faith. Politics. Three universal concepts with a compendium of diverse denominational meanings - but that does not mean that viewpoints within these topics do not overlap. Why do some Christians believe abortion, homosexuality and evolution are against God's commandments and teachings, while others are taught to accept these practices and ideas? Why does there have to be a right or wrong? Author Jonathan Dudley exposes and explains the misinterpretations and misuses of these concepts throughout history, and in today's ever-changing world.
Review:
Broken Words is an in-depth, insightful, honest and equal-sided look into abortion, homosexuality, environmentalism and evolution throughout evangelical/Christian history. Given my educational and religious background, I was very interested to hear someone else's thoughts on these matters, especially since most books on the subject seem so "one-sided". I was surprised to learn that the author was so young, yet so mature and experienced in his writing and convictions. His to-the-point analysis of the bible and evangelical history were engaging and unbiased. I have often wondered why the meanings of certain passages in the Bible were so skewed, and his well researched explanations helped me to gain a better understanding. I consider myself a Christian - nondenominational - and Jonathan Dudley's arguments against the religious taboos of abortion, homosexuality, and evolution closely resemble my own. I definitely recommend this book to anyone who has ever wondered why science, faith and politics are so defiant in their attempts of agreement. I am excited by the prospect of another book by this author, and wish him much luck with his MD at JHU-SM!
Rating: On the Run (4.5/5)
*** I received this book from the author (Crown Publishers) in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.
November 12, 2012
Johnathan Dudley grew up heavily immersed in the neo-Evangelical movement. This book is about his subsequent disenchantment with it and a prescription for revival. With the changes in the social landscape, most recently shown by the just completed election, Dudley outlines his case that the the four pillars of the neo-Evangelical movement, anti-abortion, anti-homosexual, anti-environmental, and anti-evolution are built on shaky foundations (and are new to the evangelical movement in the latter half of the 20th century, hence the neo classification) and that there needs to be a neo-neo evangelical movement that takes more enlightened positions on these issues. He takes each pillar and dissects the current position, how it relates to the original Evangelical position, when it changed, how it was arrived at, the problems with their base argument, and the dangers this position presents to the Evangelical movement overall. The discussion and argument are well laid out; but he is preaching to the choir, for me anyway. The one disconcerting thing was that there were no footnotes or sources given through the book; however, there is a huge appendix of sources that link back to the points of references in the body of the book. I don't know if this was because of the format of the ebook I was reading or not but I would have much rather been able to see or go to the references from the point in the book where they were relevant than go in the opposite direction. If I had properly pre-read I would have realized this and not gone through much of the book wondering why sources weren't provided.
If you are interested in the neo-Evangelical movement and you should be, as it currently drives the Republican party and politics in this country, this will be an enlightening read.
If you are interested in the neo-Evangelical movement and you should be, as it currently drives the Republican party and politics in this country, this will be an enlightening read.
February 22, 2012
An uneven read...
First 1/3 of the book was spectacular.
Middle section on the history of evangelical evolution/creation beliefs was too involved. I got the point and did not care much about the details.
Final section of book was again strong.
Also, -1/2 star because I hate young people who are way smarter than me.
First 1/3 of the book was spectacular.
Middle section on the history of evangelical evolution/creation beliefs was too involved. I got the point and did not care much about the details.
Final section of book was again strong.
Also, -1/2 star because I hate young people who are way smarter than me.
July 19, 2011
I enjoyed the first part about the church's history of its abortion stance. The rest of the book just got too heavy for me. I'm not a huge fan of apologetics. I think the author maybe tried to cover too much material in one book.
April 25, 2011
Amazingly well-researched and well-argued indictment of evangelical Christian political activism. The best book I've ever read at the intersection of science, faith, and politics.
April 23, 2011
Trenchant, well-researched indictment of evangelical Christian political activism.
November 8, 2011
I would like to know why my copy of this book has a different title, and its copyright page makes no mention of the title as listed in Goodreads.
June 6, 2012
I really enjoyed this book. It went into details I did not know about. My only wish was that it touched on more issues, but these are the biggest issues affecting American Christian churches.
October 22, 2012
Just bought (downloaded) today. looking forward to reading.
October 26, 2016
Broken Words: The Abuse of Science and Faith in American Politics by Jonathan Dudley is a careful critique of evangelicalism by someone who grew up in that world. It reads as a succinct summary of my own changes in thinking on these topics. Dudley’s book can be summarized well with two quotes. First, his thesis: “Evangelicalism has defined itself by weakly supported boundary markers, which are justified by a flawed understanding of biblical interpretation and maintained by suppressing those who disagree” (24). The four boundary markers dealt with in the book are abortion, homosexuality, environmentalism, and evolution. Basically the hot button topics in the culture wars. If one takes the wrong view on any of these issues, one cannot be in the evangelical club anymore. The second quote concerns the justification from the Bible part of the thesis: “Biases and prior beliefs are not something that get in the way of interpretation, something that must be brushed aside; rather, biases and prior beliefs are behind every interpretation” (108-9). Everyone approaches the Bible with prior beliefs and biases. Even the straightforward plain interpretation that we think is objective is certainly a matter of the lens we use when we read. An easy example from the book is that Christians were not all that concerned when Darwin published his theory of evolution. It wasn’t until decades later that fundamentalists and evangelicals felt that they had to reject evolution and believe in a young earth. Christians approached the same text with different prior beliefs at different points in time and came to different conclusions. Besides this major point about interpretation, Dudley also wants to make a point about the Christian use of science. He notes how Christian pro-lifers claim that science shows that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception (an argument Dudley doesn’t accept). But when it comes to other matters of science, such as the widespread scientific evidence for evolution or global warming, evangelical Christians often find themselves dismissing science. Evangelicals seem to only like science when it agrees with their political beliefs. Dudley grew up in Grand Rapids, Michigan, home to several evangelical colleges and publishing houses. He attended Calvin College, then studied religion at seminary, and then began medical school, while finishing this book. I don’t have the same educational path, but I can relate to his journey and some of his conclusions. I would definitely recommend this book.
November 24, 2018
Abortion, homosexuality, creationism, environmentalism are the four cornerstones of right wing Christian politics. Tackling the history of these issues, Dudley shows that the wedding of the Evangelical movement to the Republican party has had a more profound effect on our religion than it has on our politics.
For someone interested in the subject, this is a good starting point primarily because it shows that Evangelical Christians have undergone a sizable change since determining that Christians *had* to be Republican back in the 80s. The history of each issue shows how genuine conversation about faith was quashed for politically expediency and points to the effect that has had both in how the faith is practiced and in the intellectual level of how arguments regarding theology take place. Fact has given way to fiction and truth to populism as the more nuanced and studied approach once taken by biblical scholars has now been replaced by the often erroneous doctrines of radio hosts and others with an agenda.
Each subject looked at here is worth deeper study but for those interested in what has shaped the Evangelical movement for the last several decades, this is a good place to begin.
For someone interested in the subject, this is a good starting point primarily because it shows that Evangelical Christians have undergone a sizable change since determining that Christians *had* to be Republican back in the 80s. The history of each issue shows how genuine conversation about faith was quashed for politically expediency and points to the effect that has had both in how the faith is practiced and in the intellectual level of how arguments regarding theology take place. Fact has given way to fiction and truth to populism as the more nuanced and studied approach once taken by biblical scholars has now been replaced by the often erroneous doctrines of radio hosts and others with an agenda.
Each subject looked at here is worth deeper study but for those interested in what has shaped the Evangelical movement for the last several decades, this is a good place to begin.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews