In the interest of full disclosure I read this book as a devout Christian and as such, knowing I would find a lot of the material offensive based on the blurb, was not disappointed. I kept reading because the protagonist, according to the blurb, loses his faith though this aspect is not displayed.
While I no illusions that religion can be--and often has been--a cruel and oppressive bludgeon, it also can be--and often has been--a liberating and rehabilitating force.
In The Acolyte, we only get religion as a tool of tyrants and thugs used to keep true believers in check through fear of the religious machine and manufactured fear of God.
I kept reading hoping in vain for some olive branch--maybe one believer who isn't a murderous thug or complete imbecile--or in the case of the protagonist, both at the same time. But even one sympathetic person of religious conviction was one too many for Cutter. Before I had half finished the book, I had given up any hope that there would be even a reluctant approving nod that religion can be--sometimes, if rarely--a good thing.
But even if it were not so egregiously offensive (and it is egregiously offensive), as an interview with Cutter makes crystal clear, a diatribe born when the electorate had the unmitigated gall to re-elect Dubya to a second term, and the author's inexplicable horror that Rumsfeld would deign to pray before taking military action.
Even when you understand what it is, the book is full of so many plot contrivances that it fails on any literary ground. Take for instance the reemergence of animal sacrifices in a Christian setting. From its birth Christianity has regarded Christ's atoning sacrifice as fulfilling animal sacrifices. No Christian sect, ancient or modern has revived the practice. Given that animal sacrifices are closely related to Old Testament Judaism, and the powers that be in the book are rabidly antisemitic then why would they resurrect such a custom? But its on full display in gory detail in the book. Yet not a whisper as to how this practice came into being.
Another contrivance is when the protagonist goes to investigate one of the bombings by interrogating the only survivor, a man on his death bed. The investigator brings along devil horns to impersonate the devil. But this impersonation can only provide information that only the questionee would have. Our protagonist has none, but how very fortunate for him the man has no short term memory and goes in and out of consciousness frequently.
In another scene the tyrant in chief, an ex-tent revivalist known as The Prophet--gives the protagonist a lot of very useful information for no apparent reason, other than that it will be very useful to jump start the plot when it gets sluggish.
Then there is the habit--three separate occasions--when the protagonist is captured and could easily be killed, but is let go with little apparent reason for doing so. A work that is so openly hostile to religion, maybe ought not rely so heavily on the machine of the Gods to keep the plot plugging away.
Then there is a small matter of the author making blunders with actual facts. In one scene, at someone's funeral, the hymn "Near my Lord to Thee" is played. It is perhaps too much for a ranter in mid screed to pay attention to little details such as these, but perhaps an editor might have wanted to get the title correct. The correct title is, in fact, "Nearer my God to Thee."
Another plot contrivance is the author fails to accurate ground the piece in a specific time. It's in the nefarious near future. However the protagonist has spoken to someone who remembers HG Well's "War of the Worlds" broadcast. We learn elsewhere that the Passion of the Christ has been playing non stop in a church/state run theater every day since before he was born. Assuming the religious right's takeover of the government happened the date of publication April, 2015, and assuming the man who remembers the broadcast was at least 6 years old and the protagonist was also at least 6 years old to recall the conversation, he would be speaking to someone nearing 100 years old. That's not impossible, but highly improbable.
Though not a contrivance, but the mark of a mediocre author, is the excessive use of needless and gratuitous violence--including a very disturbing scene of the aftermath of wholesale animal torture.
Then there is the whole matter with the protagonist himself. I suppose he is supposed to be somewhat sympathetic. But the protagonist is a man who repeatedly lies to children, telling them to inform the police if their parents aren't towing the church/state line, promising they will be fixed and returned good as new--better in fact. The truth is that they receive frontal lobotomies and come back as mental children or drooling vegetables. This fact is even more disturbing knowing from chapter one that the protagonist's own mother was subjugated to such treatment.
Another glaring moral defect happens in another scene where he describes taking part in a terror campaign to fulfill the Prophet's prophesy correct as "fun" knowing the mayhem and death it will occur and knowing that others taking part in the deception, and who are much more innocent of it them he and his gang will shortly be exterminated to keep their lips shut.