Rating: 
Summary: Testimony of a Former Fundamentalist
Review: Speaking as a former fundamentalist, and a "born again" Christian for 25 years, I believe Mr. Bawer if right on. I am no longer a member of a fundamentalist church, or any mainstream church for that matter, because I refuse to put God in the box that the fundamentalists do, and I refuse to accept all their dogma. I must say that human beings in general tend to see the world through whatever system of thought they have been taught,and it takes a courageous and creative person to see through it to the truth outside the box. One does not have to understand or accept everything Mr. Bawer says to agree that fundamentalism is not the "religion" of Jesus, it is not healthy or kind, it does not even make sense. This is coming from someone who spent 25 years studying it from the inside, and in the end saw the futility of believing that way. I recommend the book. Even though you might not agree with everything, there is something valuable here for everyone to consider.
Rating: 
Summary: Thank You For Giving Me Back My Voice!
Review: As someone who lived through the SBC Takeover and saw just how terrible it was to have the church you attend go in just a few short years from saying God is too big to be defined by mortal man to burning books in the church parking lot because we disagreed with their view of God, I have lived through the very things Mr. Bawer is talking about. He is completely correct. For years I was forced into silence about the things I had seen go down because the SBC has done such a thorough job of covering up its own liberal heritage no one could believe me when I told what the church used to be like when I was growing up. Now I can quote from _Stealing Jesus_ and they can see that I'm not telling crazy stories or making something up, this is what REALLY happened. Now that after 21 years I can finally speak about my experiences and be believed I can start to heal from the terrible wounds fundamentalists have left on my soul.As for the "Church of Love"/"Church of Law" debate, the terms are entirely accurate. Fundamentalism creates a nice safe box for people who are willing to accept its strictures to live in, but it comes with a price. In order to stay there, you have to defend the box from anyone who points out its flaws, which is what Mr. Bawer has done in this book. Its no surprise that the guardians of the box, who must defend it as part of the price they pay for living in it, have come out to attack Mr. Bawer for his candid assessment of the state of their spriritual home. However, those like myself who can't stand living in a spiritual box no matter how cozy it is find this book a thorough, welcome and long overdue look at what the "Christian" Right really amounts too. _Between Jesus and the Marketplace_ is a good supplement to _Stealing Jesus_ which looks at the reasons why otherwise good people are willing to act the way they do when they attend fundamentalist churches.
Rating:
Summary: Long needed critical analysis
Review: Bawer provides thought provoking prose regarding the true length and depth of today's so-called "Christian" right. With perhaps hundreds of thousands of disillusioned fundamentalist leaning religionists searching for 'truth', Bawer forces the reader to use the old 'gray matter' and helps us to reason on why things have reached the political state that they have. One can only hope that a sufficient number of persons will wake up and realize that numbers of people alone do not argue for the truth of a matter. I truly appreciated his refreshing approach.
Rating: 
Summary: Style is Strong, Substance is Weak
Review: Bruce Bawer is a great writer, and when it comes to crafting fine prose, he is up to his usual standards in "Stealing Jesus." Unfortunately, that is about as much praise as I can extend to his work. Bawer sets up two groups of Christians, belonging to the "Church of Law" and the "Church of Love." What are these two Churches? From what I can tell, the "Church of Law" comprises what Bawer terms to be "fundamentalists." But what does Bawer mean by "fundamentalists?" From what I can tell, to Bawer a "fundamentalist" is someone who holds a traditionalist view of the authority of Scripture, as well as sexual ethics (i.e., that the only God-ordained sexual activity is that between a married man and woman.). The "Church of Love," on the other hand, consists of those Christians, who, well, agree with Bruce Bawer about the Bible and sexual ethics. I've mentioned sexual ethics because, for Bawer, that seems to be central to him. Bawer is a gay activist and observant Episcopalian. His faith is obviously important to him. So is his sexual preference. He would like society to honor both. Hence, this book is an attempt to "square the circle" and "show" that "fundamentalists" have "betrayed Christianity." I have placed a lot of words in quotation marks because, frankly, I find them all unpersuasive. To me, this book boils down to "The Church of Love" = Bruce Bawer's opinions = good and righteous. But "the Church of Law" = the opinions of people who disagree with Bruce Bawer = bad and wicked. This is essentially how Bawer's book plays out. Every good thing ever accomplished by Christians, like the social reforms of the 19th and 20th centuries, Bawer ascribes to theological liberals. On the other hand, in Bawer's universe, theolgical conservatives are invariably fearful, narrow-minded, bigoted, hypocritical, kind of stupid, and even prone to violence. This kind of broad-brush attack (helped with a large bucket of tar) on Christians who disagree with Bruce Bawer is a distortion of history, ignoring, for example, the efforts of evangelical Christians to oppose slavery, as well as the support given by some theological liberals (such as Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes) to inhuman measures like eugenics. This is not the only major problem with Bruce Bawer's arguments. He makes no effort to differentiate between flavors of theological conservative, preferring to label them as "fundamentalists." Given that conservative Protestants comprise at least 25% of America's population (tens of millions of adults), who represent a wide breadth of political and confessional attitudes, Bawer's simplistic attacks are as astonishing as they are, frankly, nasty. Bawer generally writes in a judicious, even-tempered way, but the anger behind his words is quite obvious. I believe he is enraged that much of the Church in America (almost certainly a strong majority) continues to place more trust in Scripture than in Bawer's demands that they accept his sexual and lifestyle preferences as being completely equal and moral to the heterosexual norm. This is unlikely to happen as long as Christians believe that God speaks to them primarily through Scripture. Bawer can count on tolerance and even respect from most Christians, but it is a pipe dream to accept complete moral affirmation. His angry book, with its transparent lack of respect for those who differ with him, is not going to change very many minds.
Rating:
Summary: Bawer Pulls No Punches
Review: This is an important book that should be read by all Americans--whether of a religious persuasion or not. The agenda of American Fundamentalists (and their close cousins, conservative Evangelcals) is a true threat, not only to freedom of religion in particular, but to freedom of thought in general. It is not surprising that so many Fundamentalists are offended by this book--the truth sometimes hurts. But as many of the reviews on this post indicate, it doesn't always open eyes. I do agree with some of the criticisms aimed at this book--I disliked Bawer's choice of a general bibliography rather than more specific documentation; and he does, at times, sound a bit bitter. As to the former, I was raised in the Southern Baptist Church and graduated from a conservative evangelical college. I have followed the careers of many of the people Bawer discusses in this book and the activities of many of the organizations he mentions. Allow me to be a witness: he is right on the money. As to the latter, Bawer's experiences as a homosexual in a bigoted "church" have certainly earned him the right to a little bitterness. Comments made by admitted fundamentalists on this post only underscore Bawer's point. Consider such comments as "What you are not free to do is claim to be OF US WHILE DENYING WHAT WE BELIEVE" and "...why continue the pretense of naming oneself Christian?" These are people who claim the authority to define what Christianity is. The rest of us either fit their definition or we are out of the picture. How sad and how devisive. This cannot be the church that Jesus intended. It has taken me a lifetime to free myself from the indoctrination I received as a child and young adult and to discover the true essence of Christianity--an inclusive Christianity that has room for those who take the Bible literally and those who do not. (I always have to wonder about those people who cannot conceive of finding value in the Bible without a literalist interpretation--people who seem to live in an either/or universe.) I didn't learn much new by reading Bawer's book, but it did my heart good to know that someone at last is getting the message out there.
Rating:
Summary: A must read if you take God seriously
Review: Yes, I will admit, this is not the perfect book. Like others, I was a little frustrated with the lack of specific source citation. Bawer does give us a bibliography at the end, but I would have liked to have had specific references to specific works he quotes, which he does not always do. And, a minor but important point: Bawer points out that legalistic Protestant churches are very segregated; you'll seldom see a black face in a white church. True, but unfortunately, the same can be said for mainline Protestant churches, too. That said, I still say this book is a must read. Bawer does an excellent job of explaining how the fundamentalists (or "legalistic Protestants," as he prefers to call them) became the power they are today, and why they are so dangerous as they worm their narrow-minded, God-as-wrathful-avenger views into mainstream society. This book has inspired me to renew my own commitment to God, not the fundamentalist "god," but the God of Love, the God who gave us his Son, not as currency with which we buy our ticket to Heaven, but as a perfect example of His love, which we in turn, having accepted that love, try our best to emulate. To underscore Bawer's point, I got email while I was reading the book from a friend who goes to a fundamentalist church. She wondered if she should feel guilty for hanging up on a solicitor who represented some charity, when she had just given, not only money, but her considerable artistic talent, to no less than four other charities! This is a classic example of how legalistic thinking has made her feel guilty for what she hasn't done, rather than feeling good and thankful for what she has done. I think she's getting a copy of this book!
Rating:
Summary: The historical case against the religious right
Review: This book raised many interesting spiritual issues for me. While it contains some ideas and arguments that I do not accept, it affords a context within which I can examine my own spiritual journey, and it has helped me articulate the discomfort that I felt with the churches that my family attended while I was in high school. It distinguishes between "law" and "love" as the bases for different strands in contemporary Christian movements. (Guess which one it prefers.) The tone is a little strident (especially in the chapters that amount to personal attacks on certain leaders of the religious right), and I have run into one or two passages that make assertions with which I am predisposed to agree but which I cannot accept uncritically and which the text does not document, but it is well written and makes several interesting points. The most informative part was perhaps the history that traces contemporary fundamentalism to social movements in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
Rating:
Summary: The historical case against the religious right
Review: This book distinguishes between "law" and "love" as the bases for different strands in contemporary Christian movements. (Guess which one it prefers.) The tone is a little strident (especially in the chapters that amount to personal attacks on certain leaders of the religious right), and I have run into one or two passages that make assertions with which I am predisposed to agree but which I cannot accept uncritically and which the text does not document, but it is well written and makes several interesting points. The most informative part was perhaps the history that traces contemporary fundamentalism to social movements in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
Rating:
Summary: Lots of Speculation, Not much Support
Review: I come from the same "theo-political" stance as Bawer (liberal and liberal) and I **really** wanted to like this book. I have to confess, however, that I don't even really understand what the key message of this book is. I *think* that Bawer is trying to explore the anthropological, social and political roots of fundamentalism. However, the message that comes across is garbled. He makes one assertion that is just plain wrong -- that Christian fundamentalism is almost exclusively a US phenemenon and that there are few fundamentalists in Western Europe. As a US citizen and resident of the UK, I know this to be incorrect. This makes me suspicious of his other sociological assertions. Oddly, Bawer provides bibliographic references at the end of the book but rarely supplies any factual or statistical support for particular assertions. As a non-sociologist myself, the scholarship seems sloppy and I'm astounded at the positive reviews this book has received. To top it off, the tone of the book is bitter and depressing.
Rating:
Summary: One
Review: Bawer combines his tremendous scholarship with his own personal faith journey making what might have been a "dry" or "overwrought" read into a passionate, well-researched one. Some readers may take him to task for his division of the Church into the Church of Law and the Church of Love, but they miss his point that this was an artificial division, but one necessary to contrast the differences. His history of Fundamentalism (and really of the Church of the 19th and 20th centuries) is well researched and the number of quotes from source materials is laudable. My only criticism is that sometimes he uses the experiences of gays as the only example, when it would have been insightful to see more often how fundamentalism has affected women in general, racial minorities, the poor, etc. Of course, in this he is writing about what he knows and his passion on the subject is understandable. The thing I appreciated the most was that Bawer has caused me to rethink my own spiritual journey. I had pretty much had it with the Church - the infighting, the pettiness, the absurdly illogical "rules", and the lack of scholarship when approaching the bible and seeming pride regarding such ignorance - and this seminary graduate was wondering if he'd ever go back. Bawer was so heartfelt and honest about his own faith journey that made me feel more energized as a Christian than I have felt in years. For that reason alone, I highly recommend this book. Anyone who wishes to think about their faith will want buy this book (and those who don't, should buy it)!
|
