I came to this book expecting a thesis on charisma (/charismatic figures) and its (/their) impact on history, eventually culminating in Trump. However, most of this book is just a historical survey of American history, moving from one figure that Worthen considers charismatic to another, with only a little analysis at the end of each chapter. Though there is some hint of her thesis in the Introduction, I think the Afterword was a lot clearer and would have preferred it if some of its contents were moved to the front of the book. I am also not convinced of her fivefold division of figures into Prophets, Conquerors, Agitators, Experts, and Gurus. I do not see a substantive difference between, for example, the anti-institutional "Agitator" and "Guru" (Worthen places Trump in the latter; but I would think he fits perfectly well in the former category as well) – I think a more accurate division of figures would simply be between institutionalists and anti-institutionalists. Granted, to her credit, she recognises in the Afterword that history is a "call-and-response" between a "messenger [that] represents hope, grace, and the call to build something new" and "terrifying power" and "apocalyptic destroyers" (Worthen uses a dove and fire [referencing El Greco's Pentecost] to represent each group of figures respectively), with Prophets, Agitators, and Gurus belonging to the latter and the Conquerors and Experts belonging to the former group.
Worthen's thesis consists of three parts (she calls these "paradoxes"): First, "The history of charisma in America has unfolded as a call-and-response between the fire and the dove. Each age of apocalyptic destroyers—the Prophets, the Agitators, and the Gurus—alternated with an age of institution-builders, the Conquerors and the Experts." As stated above, I think this is true, and Worthen has demonstrated this quite clearly with her historical survey.
Second, "humans want a sense of control and the security of submission at the same time." This manifests itself in the human desire for assurance – that is, the confidence that one can control things along with a guarantee that that choice is good. Beginning with the Puritans and their followers searching for assurance of salvation, to Joseph Smith "summoning displays of the Holy Spirit", to Trump's assurance that he will save the country – history does appear to bear this out.
Third, "as America has become a more secular society and modern scientific expertise has risen in cultural status, the human impulse to prefer a meaningful and comforting story over inconvenient facts has persisted. Moreover, displays of religious enthusiasm have only become weirder." Worthen points to a number of "revivals" in American history, involving "trances, healings, barking, shouting, and other varieties of bedlam". Given that most (if not all) of these "revivals" claim the Christian label, writing as a Christian myself, I think this should prompt the church (both American and parts of the global church that has been heavily influenced by American [Pentecostal] Christianity) to reflect and wonder: are these "impulses" of the Spirit truly an outpouring of God, or is it simply a way to deal with inconvenient facts, such as increasing secularisation, that has been exported around the world (through media, missionaries, etc.)?*
Linked to this third part/paradox is also the proposition that "what scholars call “secularization” has been, primarily, a story about traditional institutions losing influence over individuals, not the collapse of Westerners’ spiritual needs." (Introduction) "Humans are fundamentally religious" (Afterword). This, I think, is accurate, and also links to the first two parts of Worthen's thesis – as traditional institutions lose influence, the public look to mavericks and/or their movements (often political and/or spiritual) for their spiritual needs. Worthen ends the book by opining that we are in such a moment today. For example, in the 1950s most Americans would not choose a spouse outside their religious group but party affiliation did not matter as much, while recent Gallup polls show that an increasing percentage of Americans have married spouses from a different religious background, and only "a scant 3.6% of Americans are in a "mixed marriage" between Republican and Democrat." Given the way the historical survey ends (with Trump), I am inclined to agree.
Overall, I am convinced of Worthen's thesis. I just think the book can be better organised and it could even have been an article (or at least, a shorter book).
*For example, Worthen's historical survey covered the Azusa Street "Revival", which many Pentecostals today claim as their heritage. The background of the "revival" entailed tongues becoming a popular sign of the Spirit (cf. the need for "assurance") among Pentecostals because it "posed fewer risks" compared to healings, "which often left the sick and lame uncured". At Azusa, contemporaries report a "high carnival" of "people barking like dogs and shrieking", "women lay on their backs[,] screaming and hoisting their rears ends higher and higher". To the many Pentecostals who today claim the Azusa Street "revival" as their heritage – is this truly how the Spirit of life and peace moves? With people calling on God to heal, and in response to Him not doing so (and thus lacking a visible sign/assurance from God), resorting to "barking" and "shrieking"?