Stealing Jesus: How Fundamentalism Betrays Christianity

by Bruce Bawer

In 300-odd pages, Bruce Bawer has opened a floodgate of incisive religious criticism that will reverberate across the American political scene. He has put into eloquent and decisive language what many mainline Christians and non-Christians have quietly suspected but been unable to verbalize--namely that Fundamentalist Christianity is barely Christian at all. A Baptist theologian says he is "not interested in who Jesus was." Pat Robertson argues the Golden Rule as Jesus's justification that "individual self-interest is being a very real part of the human makeup, and something not necessarily bad or sinful." In page after page, Bawer reveals a so-called Fundamentalist movement that readily displays a blatant disregard for the most salient message of the Gospels: selfless love and service to all. As for the significance of this revelation in the face of the ballooning presence of Fundamentalist Christians in American politics, readers will have to decide for themselves.

Genres: Religion, Christianity, Nonfiction, Spirituality, History, Theology, Fundamentalism

340 pages, Paperback

First published October 15, 1997

About the author

Theodore Bruce Bawer, who writes under the name Bruce Bawer, is an American writer who has been a resident of Norway since 1999. He is a literary, film, and cultural critic and novelist and poet who has also written about gay rights, Christianity and Islam.

Bawer's writings on literature, gay issues and Islam have all been highly controversial. While championing such authors as William Keepers Maxwell Jr., Flannery O'Connor, and Guy Davenport, he has criticized such authors as Norman Mailer and E. L. Doctorow. A member of the New Formalists, a group of poets who promoted the use of traditional forms, he has assailed such poets as Allen Ginsberg for what he views as their lack of polish and technique.

Bawer was one of the first gay activists to seriously propose same-sex marriage, notably in his 1993 book A Place at the Table, and his 2006 book While Europe Slept was one of the first to skeptically examine the rise of Islam in the Western world. Bawer's work is cited positively by Anders Behring Breivik in his manifesto.

Although he has frequently been described as a conservative, Bawer has often protested that such labels are misleading or meaningless. He has explained his views as follows: "Read A Place at the Table and Stealing Jesus and While Europe Slept and Surrender one after the other and you will see that all four books are motivated by a dedication to individual identity and individual freedom and an opposition to groupthink, oppression, tyranny."

Reviews

[Skylar Burris · Rating 1 out of 5]

I've spent many years worshipping in both mainline and evangelical churches. I've known both "types" of Christians well. I'm familiar with the stereotypes each has of the other, as well as with the reality, which is considerably more complex. My own theological understanding lies somewhere between the two. So I nodded at some of the things Bawer had to say and bristled at others. Unfortunately, the bristling won out, and I abandoned the book before I had quite completed it. Of evangelicals, Bawer says:

* They don't believe in reading the Bible intelligently.
* They think God loves ONLY the saved.
* They don't believe the mind is a gift from God.
* Oh, yes, and they, "in effect…worship evil."

I have never heard one of my evangelical friends or family members suggest that Lutherans and Episcopalians "worship evil," yet Bawer doesn't seem to have much trouble making such a statement while simultaneously lambasting evangelicals for (1) their intolerance and (2) their belief that they're right about what it means to be a Christian.

Bawer is a kind of restorationist. Like all Christians claiming to be the true Christians who have interpreted Christianity rightly where others have interpreted it wrongly, he goes back to Christ and the "first Christians" for his support. Christ, he argues, would have been more like a mainliner (he uses the term "nonlegalist") than an evangelical ("legalist"). Christ would not insist people not practice homosexual sex any more than he would insist they not combine fabrics. In Bawer's view, though, apparently the first TRUE Christians didn't necessarily include Paul, Peter, Mark, Luke, John, or Matthew. Christ was not born of a virgin (an idea "cooked up by ancient men who idolized virginity") and he did not literally rise from the dead (a dishonest dogma a Christian must "struggle" to believe). Basically, as far as the Bible goes, if Jesus didn't say it Himself, it doesn't count, and even if Jesus DID say it, it still doesn't necessarily count, because, if you don't like it, you can always assume it's a "later extrapolation."

If anyone thinks the current rift brewing in the mainline denominations between conservatives and liberals is, for conservatives, primarily about hatred of homosexuality, all they need to do is read Bawer to see what it is REALLY about. And what it is really about is whether we, as Christians have done for nearly 2,000 years, continue to teach the actual divinity and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, or instead come to regard him as some kind of an inspiring metaphor for God. Bawer knows the divide isn't about the politics of homosexuality or any other kind of politics. It's about these two groups' "essential understanding of the nature of God, the role of the church, and the meaning of human life." Of course, he thinks the liberals have the right understanding and the conservatives have the wrong one. And even though he knows what the divide is essentially about, he doesn't seem to get why, beyond intolerance and self-righteousness, conservatives would care about such things.

The real issue for me, and I would venture to say a great many evangelicals, is not, "Should we, as Christians, move beyond the previous 2,000 years of Christian moral teaching about sex," but, rather, "Is there any significant difference between being a Christian and being a secular person who does community service? And if there is no essential difference, what is the point of worshipping Christ at all?" That is, I don't think Bawer understands the average Evangelical Christian's concern about reducing Jesus to a nice guy who came to say and do some nice things and then, inexplicably, died a not-so-nice death, after which he may have been raised again – or not – because it doesn't matter if he was. After all, nice guys die all the time.

Apparently my belief in a literal resurrection, unlike Bawer's belief in the idea that "salvation…is a matter of finding one's way to a psychological…place in which one can triumphantly…put one's own individual existence into the 'Resurrection perspective'" (whatever that means), is NOT "an honest struggle, a struggle to embrace something worthy and true." He seems to suspect that all other Christians are just faking belief in the literal Resurrection. Well, believe it or not, but believing in the Resurrection has never been a "struggle" for me. Believing in a literal group of wise men following a literal star to a house and depositing gold and myrrh? Maybe. But the Resurrection? No. This event is the whole reason I'm a Christian. As Paul says, "And if Christ be not raised, your faith is in vain." For me, Bawer completely misses the point when he says, "the Resurrection makes Jesus' life and teaching ultimately irrelevant…it is as if Jesus, during his ministry, had just been killing time until the main event." No, the Resurrection is the thing that makes Jesus' life and teachings highly relevant.

What's wrong with asking: If you can't accept the Resurrection, why are you worshipping Christ? It seems to me a reasonable question. For myself, if I didn't believe in the Resurrection, if I didn't believe Jesus was God incarnate, I'd likely convert to some form of Judaism. It's not as if Christ, when it comes to PRACTICAL teaching, said anything that hasn't been said, more or less, by some other rabbi at some other point either before or after him. Why worship a rabbi? Why worship a prophet? Why worship a man, even if you think that man was closer to God than any other man? Why bow down to him and sing hymns to him and build churches to him and pray in his name? If you want to say you admire Christ and that he gave you unique insight into God and that his teachings about loving God and your neighbor are vital and true, fine, but why WORSHIP him? Why stay in the Church and try to get other Christians to abandon their insistence that centuries old doctrines about the divinity and Resurrection of Christ matter if you are actually going to worship him? I don't think asking this question of liberal Christians is particularly intolerant. It's just rational.

Despite all his talk of evangelical intolerance, Bawer repeatedly looks down on other faith experiences if they don't happen to be like his. I wish liberal Christians such as Bawer would stop saying, "We're right because we're tolerant and you're narrow." The argument has never really been a question of tolerance or inclusivity, but of truth – and BOTH sides (certainly no less the liberal Christian than the conservative Christian) believe they have it. The liberal Christian would be more honest if he said, "I'm no less intolerant than conservative Christians, I just happen to be right." Both sides will welcome anyone who shows up to worship, it's just that who shows up differs. So the evangelicals word their invitation differently, and they attract more Indians and Hispanics and Arabs and Koreans and Africans and poor people than the mainliners; the mainliners attract more gays and rich white liberals. Does that make the mainline more inclusive? The real test of liberal Christian tolerance is not--can you embrace a gay man, but--can you embrace a fundamentalist (or even an evangelical)? As Christ says, "If you love them that love you, what thank have ye?" What tolerance preachers don't seem to realize is that you can really only "tolerate" that which you disapporve of. To say you think there is nothing wrong with homosexual sex, and then to claim you "tolerate" homosexuals, is absurd. What effort does your "tolerance" require of you? If the measure of conservative tolerance is to never disapprove of homosexual sex or liberal theology, to never say anyone might be wrong in his religious beliefs, then shouldn't the measure of liberal tolerance be to never disapprove of conservative Christians, and never say conservative Christians are wrong in their beliefs or that they are "worshipping evil"? But of course "never disagreeing" is a poor definition of tolerance to begin with. Tolerance is not believing someone is right, it's being kind to him EVEN WHEN you believe he is wrong. And Bawer is not kind to evangelicals.

This is not to say Bawer doesn't make some good points. Quite a bit of what he says are things, if you took them out of the surrounding anti-evangelical context, even many evangelicals would nod at. And I can agree that there's plenty to criticize in evangelicalism. Bawer also plays a special role in trying to reach out to those liberals who eschew religion rather than recognizing its essential character. He also does a great job of emphasizing the importance of allowing Americans, who are woefully ignorant on this topic, to have an education in religious history: "In a diverse country where most children attend public schools, it's not easy to find an objective way to teach religion. Yet to omit it, for this reason, almost entirely from history education is to distort history beyond recognition. And it isn't just history. Pre-Romantic European literature, art, and music were to a large extent about Christianity."

[Jim · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bruce Bawer sets out the way that fundamentalist churches have laid exclusive claim to the label "Christian" and have twisted Jesus's teaching of love and redemption to one of punishment and exclusivity. Bawer argues that "fundametalist" Christianity is more accurately termed legalist Christianity. This religious approach is marked by an obsessive insistence on absolute obedience to moralistic rules and theological correctness, at the expense of Jesus's commandment to love. Bawer lays out the history of legalistic Christianity, showing how it is rooted in a reaction against modernism, both in the churches and in the broader culture.

Rather than being a return to tradition, Bawer shows that fundamentalism is a form of religious radicalism. This radicalization has sped up in the late 20th century, a process well-illustrated by developments in the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest of fundamentalist denominations. The SBC was taken over by extremists who forced a shift away from the stress on individual conscience and equality of members to an insistence on doctrinal obedience and the submission of wives to husbands, parishioners to pastors.

Religious radicalization was applied to politics in the form of the so-called Religious Right. Bawer argues that they have infused politics with "unchristian rancor, disinformation, and scare tactics". Rather than practicing a politics informed by their beliefs, the Religious Right seeks to restrict other people's civil rights in the name of religion. He shows that, from its very beginning, political fundamentalism has been based in a politics of exclusion. He quotes Ralph Reed, former director of the Christian Coalition, as saying that the Religious Right did not grow out of the anti-abortion movement, as is commonly thought. Instead, the Religious Right began its life as an organized political movement when the Carter administration required Christian schools in the South, as a condition of their tax-free status, to show that the schools had not been formed to maintain a segregated school environment.

Many fundamentalists are convinced that they are the only true Christians and that only their beliefs are valid. Through misreadings and distortions of history, they think that America was founded with their system of belief as its basis. They believe that it is their mission to use the power of the state to compel modern American society must conform to fundamentalist Christian morality. Pat Robertson has characterized the constitutional provision against state-imposed religion as "a lie of the left".

In an example of the truism that politics makes for strange bedfellows, fundamentalist Christians have made common cause with neo-conservatives in an effort to dominate the conservative movement and the Republican party. This alliance is ironic, given that many neo-cons are northeastern, Jewish, and intellectual. One might wonder what they make of Bailey Smith, former president of the SBC, who said, "God Almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew."

As a gay man, Bawer focuses much of his book on fundamentalist attitudes toward homosexuality, which are generally hostile(to say the least). Bawer sees this as part of the fundamentalists' narrow take on morality and a hostility toward difference. Some critics have written that Bawer spends too much time on gay issues, but given the centrality of homosexuality in current fundamentalist thinking, I think Bawer is justified. Since he wrote this book in the mid-1990s, fundamentalists have focused a lot of effort on opposing gay marriage. (Sometimes, the fundamentalist obsession with homosexuality attains the level of self-parody, as it did when Jerry Falwell warned us of the gay Teletubby or when James Dobson, notorious for burning Harry Potter books, outed Spongebob and Patrick.)

Bawer criticizes secularists - journalists, liberals, and academics - for being ignorant of the nature of religion in America. He characterizes liberal elites as assuming that American society is mainly secular (reflective of themselves) and for buying into the idea that religious conservatives are representative of all Christians. It is rare in popular culture for religious life to be taken seriously. Bawer sees this attitude as creating a spiritual vacuum in American culture that has been filled by fundamentalism.

This book resonated with me a lot, because it reflected a lot of what I had to deal with, growing up.

When I was seven, my family moved to an area with a strong Southern Baptist presence, an island of Bible-belt Southerners in the Upper Midwest. My elementary school was a battleground between Team Jesus and the forces of Satan. By the time I was in 3rd grade, I was convinced I was going to hell. I was afraid that the Episcopal and Methodist churches where we sporadically attended holiday services, what with their talk of compassion and love, weren't going to save me.

Since my parents weren't going to take me to a tent revival, I decided that my hope was in daily Bible reading. I discovered that my classmates' understanding of the Gospels was on the level of the Weekly World News and that their theology was akin to second-rate scientology. Their conception of Jesus was mostly a celestial combination of Saddam Hussein and a professional wrestler.

Like Bawer, I came to believe that the teachings of Jesus are the crux of Christianity; everything else is extra.

[Emiko · Rating 2 out of 5]

Like Bawer, I am a self-professed gay believer who’s looking to find a voice for unity and acceptance in the “Church”. Unfortunately, I found his book disappointing. I could simply leave it by saying it’s out of date and divisive, but I feel it needs addressing.

If his intent is to persuade anyone from the conservative “other side” to consider parting from their fold, he or she wouldn't be able to get past the first chapter. His blatant bias is summarized in his attempt to classify conservative vs. liberal Christians as “The Church of Law” vs. “The Church of Love,” the later referring to the liberal groups represented in his Episcopalian association, but also the Anglican Church, United Methodist Church, United Church of Christ, some Presbyterians, Lutherans and Quakers. He does permit (albeit scantily) some conservatives under “The Church of Law” are capable of love. This alone tempted me to close the book, but I continued to read the first three chapters.

Sadly, Bawer does what I think our society largely does, including many conservative Christians—mistakenly incorporate conservative Christianity as fundamentalism. As Dean G. Pruitt and Sung Hee Kim keenly point out, Islamists are not the same as Islamic people. Likewise, Christian fundamentalists are not the same as conservative Christians who, in general, hold to traditional views. As well, a charismatic Christian is not the same as a Pentecostal, and the Baptist church is too wide-ranging to stereotype easily. I am not dismissing the overlap in the spectrum; however, the oversimplification only continues the presumptions and intolerance that offends many Christians. That said, even Bawer points out most evangelical Christians desire unity in Christ. Distinction matters little upon first meetings, unless further association is needed. Even then, it is often enough to say we are brothers and sisters in Christ. And yet Bawer, as a proponent of his “Church of Love”, seems to miss this as he lumps all conservatives together as unthinking and unconcerned, at best.

Unfortunately, Bawer and many conservative Christians dismiss how the epitome of religiosity is represented in the extreme ideology of any religion as an "-ist" or an “-ism”. However, I can see where Bawer is coming from since I've witnessed Christians mistakenly claim their title as fundamentalists and not see the tie. In other words, while some are opposed to fundamentalism, they will still consider themselves as a fundamentalist. Consequently, this only perpetuates society's cynical view of them. Too often I've witnessed conservative Christians holding to certain fundamentals as tenets or creeds (such as the Apostle’s Creed (also sung by the late, great Rich Mullins)), believing it makes them a fundamentalist. The misunderstanding is not surprising considering the difficulty in untangling the variety of beliefs within theological interpretations. Still, it’s as though fundamentalists are forgotten as holding doctrines as “the rules” or “law”, placing the words and letters over the intent and resulting in extremist views. Simply put, conservative Christians need to recall what the fundamentals are and recognize honoring them in union with the intent (heart) of the law does not make one a fundamentalist. It is not as though they need to be a part of a fundamentalism movement, like an Islamist in Islamism. I digress…

Despite Bawer’s judgments to distinguish “the Church of Law” from “the Church of Love” while holding an outwardly narrow understanding of the other side, I may continue reading. Why? One reason is to practice engaging with others who do not share similar understanding or views. With that, I don’t want narrowly to read my favored authors with whom I agree with as a reliable source to gain "insight" about others from. While I was raised as a non-denominational evangelical, experiencing the spectrum between fundamental conservative views and more liberal ones, as well as charismatics, conservative Baptists, Arminialists and 5 pt. Calvinists (all within the same community), I have little understanding about Protestants on the “other side”, such as Bawer’s Episcopalian affiliation, beyond a partisan political label of “liberal” Christianity.

In closing, I will match Bawer in his outwardly limited view and suggest his book seems appropriate for only two types of readers who can overlook his condescension: those who are drawn towards having their preconceived ideas about conservative Christians solidified; and those interested in learning about the history of the Episcopalian church.

[Michelle Margaret · Rating 4 out of 5]

Admittedly, it has much to do with my close encounter with a Fundamentalist Christian boyfriend several years ago, but from start to finish I could barely put this book down. Though the contents are a bit stilted (the author is a homosexual liberal Episcopal), it is an incredibly well-researched volume, cohesively detailing the history of the Protestant movement in America from the Puritans and Founding Fathers to the megachurches and televangelists of the late 20th century.

Bower clearly contrasts the Church of Law (orthodox) and the Church of Love (liberal), outlining their fundamentally different beliefs and divergent views on Jesus Christ. He draws from the work of Harry Emerson Fosdick, a 1920s Baptist minister and staunch modernist.

Chapter three, "Darby's Kingdom," unveils the bizarre apocalyptic theology popularized by John Nelson Darby and others who lived in the early 1800s. Taken from the enigmatic Book of Revelation, the curious theory of "dispensational premillennialism," holds that Jesus will personally return to Earth and reign from Jerusalem for 1,000 years. Then, during the Rapture, he will lift all the "saved" disciples up in heaven and send the rest of the human race to eternal damnation. These archaic beliefs are still held by many sects of orthodox Christianity, including Mormons and Seventh-Day Adventists. Now, we liberals tend to disagree with this theory due to some time-tested scientific concepts like biology and physics. (But I guess if they are right, we are in big time trouble.)

Chapter nine, "God's Generalissimo," contains Bawer’s facsinating analysis of Pat Robertson and his formation of the Christian Coalition. He rips to shreds any notion that the Coalition is good-natured by showing how it hypocritically relates to its members, though, among other things, propaganda-filled voter pamphlets distributed the Sunday before election day -- versus how it relates to the public, via CNN and other news media.

In chapter eleven, "No More Gray," Bower attends a service at a conservative church in Georgia. It's a humorous yet chilling anecdote of a minister who speaks to his congregation like kindergardeners and even equates Jesus to a rich relative who has left them a huge financial inheritance. Bower notes, "A successful church service gives worshippers the feeling of having come closer to God, to one another, and to all Creation; of having shed at least some degree of self-concern and anxiety about death; and of having been filled, at least to some extent, with gratitude, love for all humankind and a desire to serve." He illustrates how black-and-white legalistic churches tend to do just the opposite and explains why they are growing at such an alarming rate.

Chapter twelve, "A Lie Straight from the Devil," relays the story from a pamphlet designed to drop in children's candy bags on Halloween which the author discovered at a Christian bookstore. It contains a comic strip with two boys trick-or-treating. One gets hit by a car, dies and is pictured in Hell with Satan. When the other boy asserts that his friend really is in heaven because he was a good kid, the Sunday school teacher tells him, "That's a lie straight from the devil," because the dead boy had not been saved. Further, we are all sinners and can only get to heaven because of Jesus's sacrifice on the cross.

Clearly, conservative Christians will hate this book (but they'll never read it anyway), and liberal Christians will probably ignore it in apathy. On the contrary! Stealing Jesus is required reading for any breathing being who believes that "the real Jesus was not about asserting power, judging or destroying; he was about love."

[Sue · Rating 2 out of 5]

Early on in this book, I had hope that the whole thing would be summed up from this quote on p. 59: "Theology is valuable to the extent that it represents the effort of an individual to capture his or her experience of God. . . .Theology is bad to the extent that it is prescriptive and official; theology that forces Christians to deny their own experience of God and to declare their allegiance to a set of propositions that may run contrary to that experience is destructive of true spirituality."

Unfortunately, the more he goes on, the less control Bawer seems to have over his objectivity. He continuously posits his opinion as correct and the opinion of the fundamentalists as necessarily incorrect and it all seems very hypocritical. He never once entertains the thought that maybe, for some people, fundamentalism IS their experience of God. I agree with Bawer's views that religion should be about love and helping our fellow man, and the book contains many wonderful insights, but I'm a little concerned that he is committing the same sin for which he's condemned the fundamentalists: the "I'm right and you are oh-so-wrong" attitude.

Take this quote from p. 210, when Bawer is leaving a legalistic Christian service in Georgia: ". . .the whole tone of the proceedings was so strikingly different from what a Christian service can and should be." Really? He goes on to describe what a Christian service SHOULD be like if the worshippers really want to be Christian and Christ-like. In the next paragraph, he basically says we should not blame the congregation of fundamentalist churches for attending such services - they are, after all, so hopelessly dumb.

It was downhill from there, and turned into a gay man's rant against all the wrongs done to him by the church. Which I'm sure are true and valid, but not the apparent subject matter for this particular book. I guess I thought if he was going to preach "love thy neighbor" he would have started by loving the fundamentalists.

Another great book that sheds light onto religious phenomena and the rise and fall of religious beliefs is Discovering God by Rodney Stark. This book was enlightening, worth two or three re-reads but leaves you without much hope of peace between the major world religions.

[Rachel · Rating 3 out of 5]

So I abandoned the beleif in Christianity a long time ago. And I'm not really sure where I got this book. I probably bought it on one of my trips to B&N back when I lived in CA and had money to burn on tons of books I would never get around to reading. Anyway it was on the shelf and I'm really running out of interesting things to read. COME ON PEOPLE! THink of something good for me to read! I'm thinking of trying to dig Choke out of my garage. It was Cindy's book and I think I still have it. She liked it. I have no idea what it's about though. Anyway, Back to Stealing Jesus (SJ) - it was written by a Gay man who left his church/beliefs partly because of his sexual orientation, then reconverted to Christianity 8 or so years later: Bruce Bawer
Growing up in a church of law (as the author calls them) I could definitely identify with his assertions about the ideas/interpretations about the life and purpose of Christ, for different groups. There are of course many classifications for organized religion to fall into. But the distinction the author made was between churches (mainly dividing protestants into the two groups, but he also briefly mentions catholics, mormons, etc) difference in focus: Jesus' life, teachings, works etc, vs those churches that focus on his death and the doctrine that rose from it ie: virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, literal ressurection, premillenial dispensationalism (some will rise up to meet Christ in the 2nd coming and everyone else will suffer for 1000 years I think? don't quote me on that) etc. Anyway, it was an extremely interesting book. And I have to say I didn't even know, growing up with the literalist view of Christianity, that there are churches that claim the name of Christianity and follow his teachings without asking you to profess your belief that every word of the Bible is inspired truth, or that you believe Mary was a virgin or that God reqquires some kind of bloody atonement for us to come home. One negative - I didn't like how the author assumed that to buy into these doctinal ideas you had to be part of the extremely uneducated southern underclass (he hounded a lot on the Southern Baptists and their dogmatic ideas - I didn't like that very much). I know there is a huge undereducated population in our country. But I also know a LOT of very intelligent, educated people who buy into all the modern science we know of today, and still eblieve in some of those doctines that seem to defy our knowledge. They're not stupid. I understand it because I was raised with it.
But a lot of the book is great. And the last chapter so beautifully sums up a lot of what I feel about Christianity currently. It made me cry.
The author quotes Reinhold Niebuhr in an essay he wrote decades ago: Some people are atheists "because of a higher implicit theism than that professed by believers. They reject God because His name has been taken in vain, and they are unable to distinguish between His holiness and its profanation." then the author says "in other words, they rebel, both intellectually and morally, against what legalistic faiths have made of God."
I guess this is exactly the problem I've always had. If Jesus came and ate dinner with prostitutes, was kind in his teachings to lawyers and all kinds of slimy bastards as well as the "good" people - he in fact made this the number one LAW: Love God and love your neighbor (and in theparable of the Good Samaritan, the neighbor to love was the despised foreigner, not the fellow believer who attends weekly worship with you). So if this was the Jesus on earth, then WHY would he come back and allow millions to suffer and die and burn in hell, be separate from our father etc, all because of some luck of heritage? Who cares who the good people are. If they don't subscribe to my same set of end-times dogma, they're going to burn in hell while I sit at the right hand of God. What kind of god is THAT? I don't think it's the kind Jesus showed us. I really don't. The book was eye-opening. It made me think about God and faith in a new light. And in fact, I think I"m going to read the synoptic gospels. Just Matthew Mark and Luke. Not John.

Just a thought: I guess I think that in a time when there was no science, these men, thes followers of Jesus, experienced something so different and so amazing to them that the only way they could express the difference of Jesus and his ideas, was to say he was divine. I don't think he was really conceived in spirit to a virgin. And if he was, then why does Josephs lineage to David mean a damn thing in the bible? LOL

[Geoff · Rating 4 out of 5]

I disagree with Bruce Bawers need to cling to the christian faith. However, he is able to make a strong case against a christianity hi-jacked by right wing nuts who are bent on taking America and faith "back for Jesus." This was also one of the many books that I read leading to my exit from the christian faith.

[James · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bruce Bawer does a thorough and persuasive job of showing how today's fundamentalist movement betrays the principles Jesus taught and is working to hijack Christianity for its own selfish and worldly purposes. Must reading for anyone concerned about where American culture is going.

[Melanie Moore · Rating 4 out of 5]

Certainly an interesting book that gives me some interesting verses and theological/historical tidbits to bring up in debate. The writing can be tedious, and the whole book reads a bit like a long academic rant than something with a deliberate structure, but I still really enjoyed it.

[Jason · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was an excellent critique of the last hundred years as Christian Fundamentalism has developed and contorted the eteachings of Jesus from that of love for all to a dogma of exclusion and hate.

[Stephen · Rating 1 out of 5]

Stealing Jesus was a hugely wasted opportunity in my opinion. I bought the book because of (a) a recommendation, and (b) because it purports to show how fundamentalism is not the historical faith it claims to be. What I was hoping for was lots of discussion of the historical context that led to the distinctive American fundamentalist theology that we see today (and that is largely at odds with historical Christianity). To some extent this ground was covered in the chapters on Darby and the Scofield reference Bible. Even here though, this was not the best treatment I have seen on the subject. Martin Lloyd Jones, in the book "Prove all Things" [published 1985 but based on sermons he delivered in the 1950s], covers this same ground but also uncovers the development of the doctrine of the Secret Rapture from the Irvingite movement. Bawer's account suggests that the doctrine is Darby's invention entirely, which is wrong. Bawer's suggestion that evangelicals are unaware of this development is also belied by the fact that Lloyd Jones and others have been making these same points for decades.

But Bawer's ignorance of the evangelical tradition that opposes dispensational premillennialism also shows another major deficiency of this work. Bawer's work is a classic case of over-reach. The book title suggests he is speaking about fundamentalism, but his polemic is delivered against not just fundamentalism but also conservative evangelicalism, Catholicism, Mormonism and indeed any section of the church that seems to hold to any credal statement. For this reason I was mystefied as to what the book intends to do.

To be clear, the book argues that much modern doctrine in the non liberal wing of the church is not historical Christianity. Inasmuch as the example of dispensationalism is presented, the case is well made - but to what end? Because we are invited at the end of the book to abandon any belief that suffers the "legalism" of orthodoxy for a faith that revolves entirely around a love for God and for one another (as Christ commanded of course). This he argues is found only in the liberal churches. But inasmuch as the book points out a lack of historical orthodoxy in modern fundamentalism, it returns in spades to his brand of Christianity which, in the course of this book, denies the doctrine of the virgin birth, the resurrection of Christ, the miracles, much of Paul's thought, the place of the Old Testament, the authenticity of Ephesians and so much more. Without a doubt there is nothing historical about Bawer's conception of Christianity either.

Bawer succumbs to the common problem of harking back to a golden age. He writes approvingly of the historical Baptists who stressed tolerance, and of St Francis of Assissi as genuine examples of what Christianity ought to be. But he is wrong if he thinks either of these examples would recognise his brand of Christianity as the historical faith.

To what extent does that matter? Some will argue that if Bawer's Christianity is the better way then it is just a lamentable reflection on Church history that it took 2000 years to develop, when the Jesus of love is so clearly seen in the gospels. But what gospels? When Bawer discusses Matthew 23 he makes it clear that he feels that this is Matthew's later addition and not the authentic Jesus. He has already jetisoned the physical resurrection. How do we know that Bawer's conception of Jesus is the authentic one?

Marcion - the second century theological dualist - did something like what Bawer is doing. He started with a conception of God and then adjusted his Bible to match. The rejoinder was "Marcion reads scripture with a knife". Bawer does the same. We are fond of saying "what would Jesus do", but the problem is that the answer to that question is largely informed by our own preconceptions of Jesus. Bawer claims he is a Christian because he has fallen in love with Jesus and his teachings - but it really is not clear that what he considers to be Jesus and his teachings is the historical Jesus and his teachings. As such, this book is fundamentally flawed.

The book is fundamentally flawed also for its over-reach (as I said above). Bawer does something at the start of his book that is quite illegitimate. He writes:

*

`But it seems to me that the difference between conservative and liberal Christianity may be succinctly summed up by the difference between two key scriptural concepts: law and love. Simply stated , conservative Christianity focuses primarily on law, doctrine and authority; liberal Christianity focuses on love, spiritual experience, and what Baptists call the priesthood of the believer. If the conservative Christians emphasize the Great Commission - the resurrected Christ's injunction, at the end of the Gospe; according to Matthew, to "go to all nations and make them my disciples" - liberal Christians place more emphasis on the Great Commandment, which in Luke's Gospel reads as follows: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, with all your strength and with all your mind; and your neighbour as yourself."

`Am I suggesting that conservative Christians are without love or the liberal Christians are lawless? No. I merely make the distinction: Conservative Christianity understands a Christian to be someone who subscribes to a specific set of the theological propositions about God and the afterlife, and who professes to believe that by subscribing to those propositions, accepting Jesus Christ as saviour, and (except in the case of the extreme separatist fundamentalists) evangelising, he or she evades God's wrath and wins salvation (for Roman catholics, good works also count); liberal Christianity, meanwhile, tends to identify Christianity with the experience of God's abundant love and with the commandment to love God and one's neighbour. If, for conservative Christians, outreach generally means zealous proselytising of the "unsaved," for liberal Christians it tends to mean social programmes directed at those in need.'

This phrase: "conservative Christianity focuses primarily on law, doctrine and authority; liberal Christianity focuses on love" is wrong in the way that the phrase: "Librarians are old harridans with horn rimmed spectacles and two piece suits" is wrong. We know its wrong because we can find plenty of exceptions to the rule. Nevertheless we have a wry smile because we at least recognise the stereotype.

But having created a stereotype, and having then argued that he is "merely making a distinction" he goes and casts his net wide and suggests that the out-group that will be the focus of his polemic will be henceforth called the legalists, and that this shall include all non liberal forms of Christianity. He misunderstands conservative Christian thought in his generalisation above though when he suggests that for all conservative Christians, salvation is by adherence to a set of propositions about the afterlife, and through evangelism as a work (and for Catholics other good works too). This completely misunderstands the central Protestant tenet of justification by grace through faith. The Protestant position is summed up by Paul's words in Romans:

`That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved' (Romans 10:9)

Interestingly Bawer suggests the original formulation of the doctrine (the one that he approves of) was just the profession that Jesus is Lord. He handily forgets: "and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead". He does not explain why he omits the latter. In fact generally his work is lamentably short of footnotes that might serve to explain his many leaps of logic that leave one scratching one's head.

But in any case, insamuch as conservative protestants believe that we are justified by grace through faith alone, Bawer's argument that these people should be called legalists entirely misses its mark. He is wrong to say that the belief of protestants is that the doctrines of the afterlife must be subscribed to, because it is quite clear that adherents to the doctrine of justification by faith agree with Hooker that one need not know they are justified by faith to be justified by faith.

Bawer does not like Paul. He has a go at Paul "the lawyer" when he writes:

*

` Other propositions from the books traditionally ascribed to Paul, however, foreshadow the Church of Law. Indeed, some of the following passages are among the most quoted and preached upon by legalistic ministers:

` "Should anyone, even I myself or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel other than the gospel I preached to you, let them be banned! (Gal 1:8-9)'

*

My eyes went wide when I read this. Firstly because Bawer has changed his translation to suit here. I cannot find a translation that says "banned" (something the Christians must do). Rather the word here means something like "accursed", although is rendered as "judged by God", "eternally condemned" etc. in various translations. Bawer reads this through the eyes of a post Theodosius anaethema I think, but Paul is saying that it is God who condemns the other gospel of the Galatian error - not the church.

But what really made me sit up at this point is that the whole point of Paul writing to the Galatians is to argue that salvation is God's gift of grace and nothing to do with legalism. It is not works done in our own righteousness - it is God's gift. As such, this is the most antinomian book in the whole Bible. Galatians is the epistle of grace as opposed to law. This is not Paul the pharisee speaking. This is Paul the apostle telling us that we are under a covenant of grace. What Bawer does with that passage - suggesting it shows Paul as a pharisaical legalist - is nothing short of scandalous.

[Stephen · Rating 1 out of 5]

Stealing Jesus was a hugely wasted opportunity in my opinion. I bought the book because of (a) a recommendation, and (b) because it purports to show how fundamentalism is not the historical faith it claims to be. What I was hoping for was lots of discussion of the historical context that led to the distinctive American fundamentalist theology that we see today (and that is largely at odds with historical Christianity). To some extent this ground was covered in the chapters on Darby and the Scofield reference Bible. Even here though, this was not the best treatment I have seen on the subject. Martin Lloyd Jones, in the book "Prove all Things" [published 1985 but based on sermons he delivered in the 1950s], covers this same ground but also uncovers the development of the doctrine of the Secret Rapture from the Irvingite movement. Bawer's account suggests that the doctrine is Darby's invention entirely, which is wrong. Bawer's suggestion that evangelicals are unaware of this development is also belied by the fact that Lloyd Jones and others have been making these same points for decades.

But Bawer's ignorance of the evangelical tradition that opposes dispensational premillennialism also shows another major deficiency of this work. Bawer's work is a classic case of over-reach. The book title suggests he is speaking about fundamentalism, but his polemic is delivered against not just fundamentalism but also conservative evangelicalism, Catholicism, Mormonism and indeed any section of the church that seems to hold to any credal statement. For this reason I was mystefied as to what the book intends to do.

To be clear, the book argues that much modern doctrine in the non liberal wing of the church is not historical Christianity. Inasmuch as the example of dispensationalism is presented, the case is well made - but to what end? Because we are invited at the end of the book to abandon any belief that suffers the "legalism" of orthodoxy for a faith that revolves entirely around a love for God and for one another (as Christ commanded of course). This he argues is found only in the liberal churches. But inasmuch as the book points out a lack of historical orthodoxy in modern fundamentalism, it returns in spades to his brand of Christianity which, in the course of this book, denies the doctrine of the virgin birth, the resurrection of Christ, the miracles, much of Paul's thought, the place of the Old Testament, the authenticity of Ephesians and so much more. Without a doubt there is nothing historical about Bawer's conception of Christianity either.

Bawer succumbs to the common problem of harking back to a golden age. He writes approvingly of the historical Baptists who stressed tolerance, and of St Francis of Assissi as genuine examples of what Christianity ought to be. But he is wrong if he thinks either of these examples would recognise his brand of Christianity as the historical faith.

To what extent does that matter? Some will argue that if Bawer's Christianity is the better way then it is just a lamentable reflection on Church history that it took 2000 years to develop, when the Jesus of love is so clearly seen in the gospels. But what gospels? When Bawer discusses Matthew 23 he makes it clear that he feels that this is Matthew's later addition and not the authentic Jesus. He has already jetisoned the physical resurrection. How do we know that Bawer's conception of Jesus is the authentic one?

Marcion - the second century theological dualist - did something like what Bawer is doing. He started with a conception of God and then adjusted his Bible to match. The rejoinder was "Marcion reads scripture with a knife". Bawer does the same. We are fond of saying "what would Jesus do", but the problem is that the answer to that question is largely informed by our own preconceptions of Jesus. Bawer claims he is a Christian because he has fallen in love with Jesus and his teachings - but it really is not clear that what he considers to be Jesus and his teachings is the historical Jesus and his teachings. As such, this book is fundamentally flawed.

The book is fundamentally flawed also for its over-reach (as I said above). Bawer does something at the start of his book that is quite illegitimate. He writes:

*

`But it seems to me that the difference between conservative and liberal Christianity may be succinctly summed up by the difference between two key scriptural concepts: law and love. Simply stated , conservative Christianity focuses primarily on law, doctrine and authority; liberal Christianity focuses on love, spiritual experience, and what Baptists call the priesthood of the believer. If the conservative Christians emphasize the Great Commission - the resurrected Christ's injunction, at the end of the Gospe; according to Matthew, to "go to all nations and make them my disciples" - liberal Christians place more emphasis on the Great Commandment, which in Luke's Gospel reads as follows: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, with all your strength and with all your mind; and your neighbour as yourself."

`Am I suggesting that conservative Christians are without love or the liberal Christians are lawless? No. I merely make the distinction: Conservative Christianity understands a Christian to be someone who subscribes to a specific set of the theological propositions about God and the afterlife, and who professes to believe that by subscribing to those propositions, accepting Jesus Christ as saviour, and (except in the case of the extreme separatist fundamentalists) evangelising, he or she evades God's wrath and wins salvation (for Roman catholics, good works also count); liberal Christianity, meanwhile, tends to identify Christianity with the experience of God's abundant love and with the commandment to love God and one's neighbour. If, for conservative Christians, outreach generally means zealous proselytising of the "unsaved," for liberal Christians it tends to mean social programmes directed at those in need.'

This phrase: "conservative Christianity focuses primarily on law, doctrine and authority; liberal Christianity focuses on love" is wrong in the way that the phrase: "Librarians are old harridans with horn rimmed spectacles and two piece suits" is wrong. We know its wrong because we can find plenty of exceptions to the rule. Nevertheless we have a wry smile because we at least recognise the stereotype.

But having created a stereotype, and having then argued that he is "merely making a distinction" he goes and casts his net wide and suggests that the out-group that will be the focus of his polemic will be henceforth called the legalists, and that this shall include all non liberal forms of Christianity. He misunderstands conservative Christian thought in his generalisation above though when he suggests that for all conservative Christians, salvation is by adherence to a set of propositions about the afterlife, and through evangelism as a work (and for Catholics other good works too). This completely misunderstands the central Protestant tenet of justification by grace through faith. The Protestant position is summed up by Paul's words in Romans:

`That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved' (Romans 10:9)

Interestingly Bawer suggests the original formulation of the doctrine (the one that he approves of) was just the profession that Jesus is Lord. He handily forgets: "and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead". He does not explain why he omits the latter. In fact generally his work is lamentably short of footnotes that might serve to explain his many leaps of logic that leave one scratching one's head.

But in any case, insamuch as conservative protestants believe that we are justified by grace through faith alone, Bawer's argument that these people should be called legalists entirely misses its mark. He is wrong to say that the belief of protestants is that the doctrines of the afterlife must be subscribed to, because it is quite clear that adherents to the doctrine of justification by faith agree with Hooker that one need not know they are justified by faith to be justified by faith.

Bawer does not like Paul. He has a go at Paul "the lawyer" when he writes:

*

` Other propositions from the books traditionally ascribed to Paul, however, foreshadow the Church of Law. Indeed, some of the following passages are among the most quoted and preached upon by legalistic ministers:

` "Should anyone, even I myself or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel other than the gospel I preached to you, let them be banned! (Gal 1:8-9)'

*

My eyes went wide when I read this. Firstly because Bawer has changed his translation to suit here. I cannot find a translation that says "banned" (something the Christians must do). Rather the word here means something like "accursed", although is rendered as "judged by God", "eternally condemned" etc. in various translations. Bawer reads this through the eyes of a post Theodosius anaethema I think, but Paul is saying that it is God who condemns the other gospel of the Galatian error - not the church.

But what really made me sit up at this point is that the whole point of Paul writing to the Galatians is to argue that salvation is God's gift of grace and nothing to do with legalism. It is not works done in our own righteousness - it is God's gift. As such, this is the most antinomian book in the whole Bible. Galatians is the epistle of grace as opposed to law. This is not Paul the pharisee speaking. This is Paul the apostle telling us that we are under a covenant of grace. What Bawer does with that passage - suggesting it shows Paul as a pharisaical legalist - is nothing short of scandalous.

[Sarah · Rating 2 out of 5]

2/5 There is a lot to unpack here. I feel like I learned so much from this book about the history of modernism vs fundamentalism, Christianity in America, and where some of the key doctrines of modern American Christianity came from. I felt at times this book had truly great spiritual insights, especially when discussing how "legalist" churches often infantalize and dumb down things for their audience, as well as how the Pharisees could be easily compared to a lot of "legalist" Christians.

There was also a lot I did take issue with. While I agree with a lot of his criticisms of more conservative churches I completely disagree with pretty much all of his takes on theology and doctrine. He is an extreme modernist, and often presents Christian miracles and logic to be impossible to settle in one's mind. While I agree there are many Christians who do not study and rotely repeat what they are told, I know of many Christians personally, as well as know in media of many, who genuinely take time to study history, science, and linguistics, who still believe in miracles, the atonement, and the resurrection of Christ. He speaks as if these things were recent inventions or superstitions when nothing could be further from the truth. He often tries to act as if the modernist view is founded on the early church, but if one seriously studies church history, one will find that doctrine, creeds, and a firm faith in things such as the divinity of Christ and virgin birth ARE integral parts of Christianity. Yes, love, compassion, peace, and gentleness are as well, and yes we can get so stuck in theology that we are no longer able to communicate it to those who need it, but this does not mean that sound doctrine or theology are not necessary parts of the church. You can be an intellectually honest Christian and believe in miracles. The fact that he acts like you can't honestly has me at a loss of words.

While I appreciate all I learned from this book, I do think that there is a lot of doctrine lacking. Bawer, I believe, does not grasp the importance of doctrine and almost fulfills the stereotypes of the more modernist Mainline church by throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I found it quite ironic when he said through quantam mechanics, some miracles are possible, but (I believe I quote correctly, though I may not) "certainly not the virgin birth." .... ??? I do respect Mr. Bawer's right to believe as he wishes and wish no ill will towards him. I do though think that there is a serious lack of faith if one can not find even fathom God performing even the slightest miracle. Besides this, I had some trouble accepting his Bible interpretations. Paul's epistles are more reliable than the Gospels. Unless they say something he disagrees with. Only the first three Gospels really paint a picture of Jesus Christ. Church fathers are just painted over as making things up and not understanding anything as Christ would have them or they are just plain ignored all together. I can not take seriously this kind of scriptural criticism. It just feels too convenient that everything that he accepts happens to fall in line with his modernist worldview. While we all do this to an extent, there comes a point when I feel it is clear that we are shaping the Bible to our vision as opposed to letting it shape ours.

There also is somewhat a strawmanning of conservative Christians. Don't get me wrong. I grew up in a fundamentalist church and I KNOW how ugly it gets. I know the scandals, lies, and hate that goes on in those churches, I've lived through it. But again, he paints them all as if they are just stupid hicks that find genuine joy in God torturing people. While I will agree there is a major lack of intellectualism, no Christian I personally knew in any of those churches reveled in God saving them and torturing others. If anything, it saddened us the idea that God will one day condemn people to hell. To this day, I do not smirk at the idea of any human soul going to hell, but feel an utter loss and sadness. While some claiming Christ's name probably do feel such guile, I have never met them personally as far as I know.

Do I recommend this book? I will say it is the only book I have read that offered a decent history on fundamentalism, even if it was from the modernistic view, which I strongly disagree with. I suppose each person will have to decide for themselves if this is worth reading or not.

[Marcus Lewis · Rating 4 out of 5]

A wonderful examination of Christianity and evangelicalism in the United States. Bruce Bawer wonderfully traces a brief history of the American church from the early church to the present. I believe this book ends sometime in the early 2000s, yet it’s lessons remain ever important in the odd years since it’s publication.

[Marjorie Hakala]

I read this book when I was maybe fourteen and it was hugely influential for me. Bawer argues fiercely that fundamentalism--or legalism, as he calls it--is a betrayal of the Christian tradition. I was already sympathetic to begin with, but he won me over completely with all the chapters of history, with his takedown of the doctrine of atonement, with his willingness to jettison Paul when Paul didn't seem to be getting things right. This is a deeply Protestant book, in that Bawer takes his personal convictions more seriously than any doctrine that conflicts with them.

I probably would gain something from rereading this book now that I'm an adult, but I'm wary. For one thing, Bawer is hugely us-vs.-them about fundamentalism; he recognizes that it's a mindset rather than a denomination, but lays out what denominations do and don't have a history of legalism with a clear eye to steering clear of those that do. For another, based on his website, he seems to have turned his focus of late to taking down radical Islam--and with it, the whole migration of Muslims to western European countries. This line of thinking makes me very nervous, but I'm afraid it's of a piece with the mindset on display in Stealing Jesus: that some people have it wrong, and those people must be stopped. I'd like to reread it to remind myself what he makes of figures like Luther and Wesley, whose ideas led to both especially strict and remarkably progressive theologies. I rather hope he was able to recognize this sort of split between followers of the same revolutionary.

As a Marcus Borg/John Shelby Spong sort of Christian, I recognize the debt I owe this book and the philosophical kinship I have with its author, to a certain extent. I have a great respect for the personal journey he describes of finding a home in the Episcopal Church as a gay man whose mother insisted on letting him choose his religious affiliation. But I have to consider it these days as a rather ambiguous influence on the way I think.

[Alex · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really agree with Bawer's Christianity and his outlook in general.

A couple things about his writing bothered me however, one was the first chapter where he seems to be intending to look at the historical biblical times as a theologian, which he is not (as he emphasizes himself in the intro). He over simplifies some interpretations to the point where they're no longer valid points which is delegitimizing to his whole purpose.

The major thing however is that at parts he is very patronizing to middle and lower class Americans, the ones mainly attracted to fundamentalism and speaks about them and for them, not to them. He often leaves the reader feeling that these people have no agency in their lives and are just waiting for others to come make change happen.

This is hardly a surprise as many liberal intellectuals have the habit if dropping into this vaguely condescending tone.

I would definitely recommend this book to any American, or anyone interested in American politics.

[C · Rating 3 out of 5]

While I wholeheartedly agree with many of Bawer's basic arguments in this tome, it is not - at heart, - a well-argued discussion at all. He focuses on problems of the fundamentalist side, consistently maintaining that they ignore parts of the bible to make their points. And yet he turns around and ignores chunks of the bible to make his own points against them. The way it is presented comes across nearly as hypocritical as those he is attempting to argue against at many points in the book.

Despite this, I do believe it is worth a read.

I have many more thoughts about this one, but am having a hard time recently cementing those thoughts into words.

Perhaps I will revisit this one. I would like to actually say something worthwhile about it.

[Alicia Fox · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is essentially about how legalistic Christianity (e.g., what you see on 700 Club and from the likes of Mike Huckabee) developed over the course of the twentieth century. The author does a pretty good job of laying out the political history and changes in Christian philosophy that have resulted in religious doctrines which were once backwater beliefs developing and expanding into today's megachurches.

If Bawer had stopped there, I'd easily give this book four stars. Where he loses me is in his rose-tinted-glasses characterizations of the earliest Christians and his brushing over the Puritans.

All the same, if you're a Christian fundamentalist outsider or refugee looking to learn why issues like creationism are still popping up in 2015, this book should suit your needs.

[Travis · Rating 4 out of 5]

When I first realized how long ago this was written, I was kind of bummed out, but it turned out to be really not an issue at all. This gives a good look at the history of fundamentalism in the US from its beginnings to the late '90s when the book was written. Obviously things have only gotten worse since then, so I am interested in reading something more up to date that deals with the same subject. Although the author seems to believe that all religions are good, it did feel like he thinks everyone should be some sort of religious, which was annoying and is the main thing that kept me from giving it five stars. It's really engagingly written and although I was raised in a fundamentalist church myself, there was a lot I wasn't aware of outside of my own church, so I learned a lot.

[Andy Zell · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have mixed feelings about this book. On the one hand, I like Bawer's wrestling with Christian fundamentalism. As someone who grew up in conservative evangelicalism, I've been wrestling with my upbringing my whole adult life. Bawer's grasp of the history of fundamentalism and evangelicalism is decent, though it's been presented better and in more depth by others. But Bawer does shed light on some aspects that others have neglected, and those were the real highlights of the book for me. Bawer spends valuable time on dispensationalism, Frank Peretti's This Present Darkness, Willow Creek megachurch, Promise Keepers, and Focus on the Family, among other topics.

On the other hand, I find Bawer's dichotomy of the Church of Law and the Church of Love rather reductionistic.

[Denise · Rating 3 out of 5]

I found this to be a thought-provoking book. It goes right to the question of what defines Christianty. Certain Christians have a narrow definition of the term, and would argue that many who call themselves Christians are not. Bawer argues that certain popular Christian leaders such as Pat Robertson that are not taken seriously by those outside the faith are not harmless, but dangerous because they influence so many minds that will not think for themselves. I would have liked to read more about Bawer's own beliefs; for example, he is such a critic of Biblical literalism that it is not clear if he believes in the Resurrection, or considers it central to Christianity.

[E.d. · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm no theologian and I disagree with some of what Bawer says yet I was fascinated by his account of the war between liberal, mainline protestant churches and what he calls the church of law (conservative, fundamentalist, evangelical, mormon, pentecostal etc.) It was especially interesting to learn about the battle for hearts and minds waged in the first few decades of the 20th century by these two groups. Mainline protestantism seemed to have won until the church of law reared its ugly head in the 1970's.
Even as a reader that is very much to the left of Bawer I can appreciate his outrage that "christian" has come to refer almost exclusively to judgemental, hectoring jerks.

[Riley Cooper · Rating 5 out of 5]

Despite being written 17 years ago, the book still has a lot of relevance in today's world. The underlying theme is timeless anyway, so it didn't bother me to be reading about several legalistic figures who have faded from the public eye since the book was written. The last chapter of the book turned out to be my favorite because the author presented his views about what is most important for those professing to be Christians to be concerned with. It's an intriguing - and surprisingly realistic - concept. If you don't have time to read the whole book, just reading the last chapter will be thought-provoking enough.

[Ann · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this book for the second time trying to understand our political climate and how Christians can not be troubled by the separation of immigrant families at our Southern boarder, how some turn a blind eye to a president who paid for sex, how this administration lies, how the poor in our society are ignored and exploited. Bower writes about the CHURCH OF LOVE [liberals] and THE CHURCH OF LAW [conservatives]. In many ways this book explains how this country can be so divided although we are a mainly Christian country. I am glad that I reread this book. Now the big question is how do come together with such different views of what being a Christian means.

[Susan Carpenter · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow. We really are not taught about religions in America. I was never taught this in K-12 OR in college. Amazingly accurate book. Anyone with a real belief in the man we call Jesus Christ, with a real desire to actually attempt to follow this man's path, will benefit from the plethora of information and insight in this book. It is very current, very well researched, and a must read for anyone who has ever taken going to a christian/catholic church seriously. ("Christian" includes all varieties, all denominations.)

[Genna · Rating 3 out of 5]

Oh I don't know... it gave me interesting avenues of things to think about, which I'm still thinking about, but a lot of it seemed very knee-jerk: less meditative than I would like and more reactive, which I guess is the point. Mr. Bawer's knee jerks in the same general direction as mine, but I think I was hoping this book would be more research-heavy and less ranty. Still, though, I'm glad I read it.

[Astrid · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this book shortly after leaving a Christian group that came close to those the author is describing. This was over twenty years ago.

Even though this book isn't perfect and I don't necessarily agree with everything... it was such an important book to me at that time and is still on my shelf. It helped me to understand more about the kind of worldview I had been involved with and lived in/with for too long.

[Kelly Holmes · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's easy to assume that all Christians think and act like the most extreme of their faith when all we see in the news media and entertainment is the extreme. Yet this book reminded me that there are Christians out there who believe that love is what it's all about -- not rules, not doctrines, not literalism. Love.

[Cam · Rating 3 out of 5]

A passionate argument against the dangers of fundamentalism - especially in the Christian/evangelical world. Scathing and damning without quite crossing into the vindictive realm; this book made me think about some of the churches I've been in and just how far from the character of Jesus they had come. Sick of legalistic, judgmental Christianity? Give it a read.

[Will Holcomb · Rating 5 out of 5]

The book did a great job laying out the path that led to the current view of religion and the Bible by the fundamentalist branch of Christianity. The example/metaphor he had at the end of the book, to me, really hit home as to what Christianity should be. It is about doing out of love what you believe is right not because of the reward or punishment.