Rating: 
Summary: "Stealing Jesus" is right...
Review: Well. At least the title (minus its subtext) is accurate - though not in the way Bawer states.First, I want to note that as an examination of "fundamentalist" history, this is not an accurate book simply because it works from very few texts and ignores the deeper roots of fundamentalism. While Darby and Scofield are certainly important in understanding fundamentalist biblical interpretation - they are in no way exhaustive. They also aren't in any way the "genesis" of pre-millenialism, historically or otherwise. Pre-milleniasts (also called "chiliasts") were around from the foundation of the church in Acts and the writings of the church fathers make that clear. Augustine himself was a chiliast until he converted his theology to amillenianism later in his life. Dispensationalism as a stated doctrine has been around (exterior to the Bible text itself) since at least Isaac Watts in terms of detailed theological propositions. In fact, Bawer himself is a "dispensationalist" in the broadest sense of the term. Dispensationalism means simply that God propogated differing rules of behavior and worship at different times. Any one who accepts the Bible as authoritative in any manner must believe that to be true since the nation of Israel was given a detailed law to follow in its worship which the New Testament explicitly sets aside (as ALL Christian churches recognize and always have). The real argument is not whether dispensationalism (as a theory of God's unfolding revelation to man) is real, but which way it cuts in terms of differing time periods. Bawer also misses the point by focusing on the prophetic aspects of dispensational doctrine - rather than its teaching for how we are to live today in obediance to God's revealed will. To him, it is offensive that anyone believe that Jesus will actually return and rule and reign though the Bible itself explicitly says He will. Whether right or wrong, why does that particular aspect bother Bawer? If we are wrong, it shouldn't matter in the least to him since it has no relationship to how we are to live in this age - now. It is a prophecy (as used in its for-telling definition) of end-times, not something we can carry out ourselves, today, here. In fact, it is Bawer's misreading of prophecy that makes him the danger to the consitutional relationship of church and state (full disclosure - I am both a lawyer, Harvard Law School, 1997 - and a dispensational fundamentalist). What I mean is this - we are instructed in this age to be good, sober, upright citizens: to pay our taxes and obey the laws of man for God's sake. The church in the Bible bears no relationship to worldly governmental authority and we are to be focused on the work of the Church (leading others to a saving knowledge of Jesus, helping the poor) - not government - while fulfilling our God-ordained roles as good citizens. That's what dispensational fundamentalism teaches about Christians and government. Because the Kingdom of Christ will be ushered in by Him, NOT the Church, we are not to try and seize government authority to "establish the kingdom" since we can't - only Jesus can. But Bawer believes the Kingdom of God mentioned in scripture is to be fulfilled through him and his church - WHOM is proposing action to control "religion" in the name of "christianity"? Dispensational fundamentalists are NOT charismatic and should not be so linked. Dispensational biblical interpretation makes clear that the sign gifts that charismatics claim to have were for the period fo the early church until the canon of the scriptures was completed and served two purposes - to aid in the order of the church until instructions in scripture were completed and to be a sign to the Jews in accordance with Old Testament prophecies (not the Gentiles, to whom no prophecies were given). Mixing and matching us as he does is incorrect. Bawer also represents an interesting type of "christianity" in that he chooses WHAT to believe and THEN explains away any scripture that impacts on his pre-conceived idea, while claiming the support of scripture for his ideas by wrenching them out of their context. Dispensationalists accept the Bible's plain meaning. He uses the term "literally" to describe our biblical interpretation but that is usually misunderstood. We accept what the Bible meant, when it was written, as its meaning. That means historical context is critical to how we interpret scripture. It also means that we accept much of the Bible's language as symbolic - when the context so requires. We feel no warrant to MAKE symbolic a passage where the context does not require it to be so. Since the "prophecies" of Jesus' advent were fulfilled "literally", we see no reason to believe that the prophecies of His second coming won't also be fulfilled literally. Finally, Bawer didn't lay bare the history of his particular brand of christianity known as liberalism or unitarianism. He merely claims it was the historical faith. That is not hard to say but it is completely incorrect. He is correct that amillenialism has been the historical understanding of most of the church as to the prophecies of the end times - which is why Protestants like the Puritans used the power of the state to enforce church rules (dispensationalists explicitly refuse to use such power since it is NOT Biblical). Baptists (who by the way are NOT Protestants) have never done so - anywhere. Baptists have always emphasized "freedom of conscience" in matters of faith. We still do. You, and Bawer, are free to believe as you wish without the state exerting power to demand your conformity with anything else - regardless how illogical or unscriptural such belief is. What you are not free to do is claim to be OF US WHILE DENYING WHAT WE BELIEVE. Baptists have never held that freedom of conscience (which is a church-state relationship doctrine - not an internal church governance doctrine) meant that church members could profess whatever they believe and remain members in good standing. Bawer gets himself all confused about the doctrine of conscience by applying it to church governance - rather than church-state relationships. I think the reason Bawer ignores the history of liberalism is because that is exactly what Unitarian "ministers" did in the 1800's and the result was they seized control of the YMCA, the Congregational Church, the American Baptist Church, the United Methodist Church and most seminaries. In other words, they lied (claiming they believed the Bible when they did not) to get into positions of authority within the organization and then they exploited their positions of authority and trust to betray the very beliefs they had claimed as their own. There is a very good book called "The Leaven of the Sadducees" that explains this history which Mr. Bawer has chosen to ignore. Fundamentalists do not hide what we believe. We are quite open about it. It was, historically, liberals (who have no need to hide now since they control most institutions) who hid behind lies. Basically, Bawer insists on doing his own thing and still calling himself a christian. He is free to do so, but that doesn't make him one. The Bible lays out what a Christian is and how he is to act (as Jesus Himself said, "Ye must be born again" - I don't know why that terms bothers people - it's right there in the Bible in black and white, right out of Jesus' own mouth). To lay claim to the title without submitting to the authority of the text that CREATES the title is simply to make up your own religion and call it christianity - it doesn't make you a christian. In this vein, J. Greschem Machen's book, "Christianity v. Liberalism" does the heavy-lifting of explaining why liberalism is NOT christianity. I expected something a little better from Mr. Bawer than the same old objections that Tom Paine made to scripture and the same old arguments that the Sadducees and Socinius made to explain away scriptural authority. I would also point out that he is so uninstructed in Biblical interpretation as to claim that Jesus' geneologies in Luke and Matthew are both referring to Joseph when the one in Luke refers to Mary. yes, it says Joseph since Joseph was the son-in-law (the Greek word used in the passage means both son and son-in-law) of Heli - Mary's father. Lightfoot's Hebraica commentaries on the New Testament point out that Mary was known as the mother of the arch-deceiver, the daughter of Heli, in rabbinical writings. This has been known for centuries - even before Paine made the claim. If anyone wants further examples of egregious misunderstanding of biblical texts by Bawer, I can provide them, but they would extend this review way
Rating: 
Summary: Well-written, abominable bias
Review: The only reason Mr. Bawer has even managed to earn two stars from me is his copious vocabulary and writing talent. I will give him that -- he is smart. However, his book is far more contradictory than he accuses the Bible of being. For instance, on p. 11, he complains that modern "legalistic Protestants" (that is, those who truly believe the teachings of the Bible). Yet (on a page that I can't find right now), he also accuses them of departing too much from traditional beliefs. As far as I know (going on the writings of Calvin, Augustine, Luther, etc.), acknowledgement of the Resurrection, virgin birth, and atoning sacrifice has always been crucial to the faith. Yet he denies those concepts and then asserts that faith in such ideas is a new phenomenon. Really, Mr. Bawer? On page 7, he claims that "nonlegalistic Protestantism sees it [the Crucifixion] as a powerful and mysterious symbol of God's infinite love for suffering mankind, and as the natural culmination of Jesus' ministry of love and selflessness." I find it fascinating just how mysterious this concept is, as I fail to comprehend how dying in an excruciating fashion proves you love someone unless you are suffering for their sake (as "legalistic" Protestants do). Jesus' death was meaningless unless He was Messiah. He was a cruel man indeed if He deliberately let Himself die without hope of the Resurrection (a doctrine Mr. Bawer also expressly denies, see below), shattering His followers' Messianic dreams. There is no way you can justify Jesus' crucifixion without the assumption that He was the final atoning sacrifice demanded by the Law of Moses. Also, if He made no Messianic or exclusive claims, why the devil was He executed? This is a fact that, as far as I am in STEALING JESUS (up to p. 182), neglects to be accounted for. The fact that Jesus repeatedly affirmed that the Old Testament laws were good should be observed to Mr. Bawer. He errs greatly in presuming that only laws that seem loving to us should be followed. Jesus said that the basis for the Law was love of God and love of neighbor -- not that laws should be denied if they seem inconsistent with that doctrine. After all, when the men were about to stone the adulteress, did Jesus deny the righteousness of the punishment? No. In fact, His last words to the woman were "go and sin no more". The Resurrection is most significant because it is the establishing credential of Christ's identity. If He was Resurrected, He was Messiah. He was the Son of God. If He was raised, then He had conquered sin (for death was the prescribed punishment for sin). Mr. Bawer's offhand denial of the Resurrection irks me greatly. He claims that he earnestly tried to believe, just couldn't, and liked the way certain books made it easier for him to excuse his lack of faith. He claims to follow reason -- if he does, then I would invite him to examine the books I shall list at the end of this review. Two of Mr. Bawer's greatest fallacies are that 1.) while denying key doctrines of the Christian faith, he 2.) neglects to give a single reason why they should not be believed. It seems to be his basic assumption that we are to take HIS words as Gospel when he states that certain doctrines are myths. Mr. Bawer also makes the allegation that the Epistle of James flatly contradicts the doctrine of grace-by-faith. Since grace is a central concept of the Bible (particularly the NT), it would seem reasonable to assume that James is a false book. In fact, many of the early church fathers doubted it for precisely this reason. However, Paul Copan offers a new interpretation: James was not trying to convey the idea that faith by itself saved you, but he was saying, "What kind of faith do you have that you do nothing for your fellow man? The Holy Spirit, if He is in you, should move you to help others. If you do not help others, you have no faith." John Calvin says it well (quote taken from Hank Hanegraaff's book RESURRECTION): "It is...faith alone that justifies, but the faith that justifies is not alone." A ridiculous amount of page-space is spent laughing at fundamentalists and their Scofield Reference Bibles (never mind that I don't even own one), and their interpretation of Revelation, Daniel, and the other apocalyptic literature. Mr. Bawer greatly criticizes the idea that there will be a Tribulation, instead claiming that the books are metaphorical. However, this man neglects to leave us with another viable interpretation. Additionally, he attacks the idea of taking Biblical prophecy literally -- but isn't that what prophecy is for? There are obvious metaphors; I do not doubt that. Yet, prophecy is supposed to tell the future -- what alternative do we have? One last thing: he alleges that the Gospel of John is plainly less accurate, yet he fails to account for the fact that John was Jesus' closest disciple -- and as such, privileged to hear some of the more private exclusive claims Jesus made. He forgets that Jesus couldn't proclaim to everyone that He was Messiah; that would provoke an uprising. Off the top of my head, those are the primary objections that I could think of. I defer to some of my fellow reviewers to attack some of his other propositions. In short, Mr. Bawer's book is a childish attempt at name-calling and finger-pointing. It is well-written but as "intolerant" of other beliefs as he claims we are. Some books Mr. Bawer would find interesting: WHO MOVED THE STONE? -- Frank Morrison THE NEW EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT -- Josh McDowell WHEN SKEPTICS ASK -- Ron Brooks and Norman Geisler DARWIN'S BLACK BOX -- Michael J. Behe "TRUE FOR YOU, BUT NOT FOR ME" -- Paul Copan
Rating:
Summary: This is to edit Display info in line 4
Review: Please simply edit my review submitted previously today with the proper email address below. I believe I used an hyphen rather than an underline. Many thanks
Rating:
Summary: FENCING FALLACIES
Review: The foundation of Mr. Bawer's book depends upon a notion that law and love are diametrically opposed Christian principles. Jesus emphatically affirms the goodness of all God's laws (Lk 16.17) while condemning the Pharisees with a passion and zeal far in excess of the subway fundamentalist Bower found so disturbing. Merriam-Webster and Bawer may see legalism as "excessive conformity to law" but this is not the case with the clear simple teaching of our biblical Jesus. Christian legalism involves conformity to man made precepts in addition to, or beyond those of God. In fact, the 'love' Bawer cites as the noble anthesis to law is in fact a commandment itself. In his own words (take a really big breath if you read out loud): "Conservative Christianity understands a Christian to be someone who subscribes to a specific set of theological propositions about God and the afterlife, and who professes to believe that by subscribing to those propositions, accepting Jesus Christ as savior, and (except in the case of the most extreme separatist fundamentalists) evangelizing, 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 neighbor." (page 5). Is this the view of the Head of the Christian Church? Hardly, Jesus clearly teaches that abiding in His love was conditional to keeping his commandments (Jn 15.10), in as simple words as these: "If ye love me, keep my commandments" (Jn 14.15) Being the express image of God, the commands of Jesus include all the commandments of God. Moreover, Bawer presents God's salvation as a prize we can win by the virtue of our profession and our obedience to laws. Knocking down this straw-man presentation of Conservative Christianity becomes the foundation of his gospel of a love liberated from the constraints of any laws outside our heart. Mans laws without God's love is indeed legalism, but the notion of God's love apart from His law is beyond queer.
Rating: 
Summary: Very Good writing; Lack of citations
Review: The value of the book's content is expounded on numerous times in other posts; however, my biggest problem with the book is there are absolutely no endnotes or footnotes. While I recognize this book is popularly written, it contains numerous quotations and interesting facts but NONE of them are cited. The back of the book contains a "Bibliography" that says "here follows a highly selective list of resources that are available for general readership..." The utter lacking of citation really hurt my impression of a very well written book. In the end, good book, but don't count on double-checking anything very easily.
Rating: 
Summary: An excellent history of American fundamentalism
Review: Bawer gives one of the best descriptions of the roots and development of American Christian fundamentalism that I have ever seen. His history is accurate, concise, and erudite. He has some thoughtful comments on his own faith and presents himself--like all of us who are Christians--as struggling to know and love God and to do what God wants. He does wander off the path more than once and does engage now and then in the same kind of bashing for which he criticizes legalistic Christians. I am as fascinated with the many comments on this book as I am with the book itself. What an interesting collection of opinions--many of which I'm sure the author could have predicted. I think he would be pleased that so many have taken the time to read his work. I recommend it.
Rating:
Summary: The Bible - As You Like It
Review: As a member of a "fundamentalist" congregation, I tried to approach this book with an open mind. I must admit I got about 60 pages into it, and had to stop and write. Yes, the church needs to be reformed and that's an ongoing process (some 400 years old now), but the call of reformation is BACK to the scriptures. Quite frankly, I found a lot in the first 60 pages that just blew me away with it's inconsistency and illogic. The author seems to have a unique approach and insight into scripture, namely, some of it is to be believed and some of it isn't. For example, apparently most of the gospel of John is suspect. But he does his readers a disservice by not sharing his hermeneutical method. How did he arrive at this conclusion, what methods did he use? If we are to follow along and reach the same conclusions he has, we must be shown HOW we are to know what is true in the bible and what isn't. Many of the author's examples and statements can be countered with biblical sources to the contrary. But I suspect the author would respond that the verses cited in support of a viewpoint which is contrary to his are not to be trusted. And Mr. Bawer is sure his viewpoint is the more openminded?
Rating: 
Summary: A history of Christianity in America
Review: Well researched and well written. The history of religion in general and Christianity in particular in our country is not a subject permitted in our public schools, and the history presented in the private church schools is brobably biased. This book has stirred emotions pro and con, but at least draws attention to the subject. In terms of theology, some will not agree with this work, but others whose thoughts have diverged from the religious teachings with which they grew up may find a common view with Bawer.
Rating:
Summary: Stealing Jesus
Review: After a wonderful start Mr Bawer began to paint with too broad a brush and wound up making many of the same mistakes he resents in others. I hope his subsequent work will give us some insight into issues he brought up, but addressed only superficially in his closing chapter. For example, what about the real impact of real evil in the real world? What answer can the Churches of Love give? I believe they have THE answer but Bawer does not develop it. On balance, though, I have to say that this book is an essential read for anyone who cares about the manifestation of Faith in America today.
Rating:
Summary: A Must Read on Your Spiritual Journey!
Review: This is a very well researched book on the evolution of "love" versus "law" based religions in the United States. More than an expose of fundamentalism in the USA, this book is a true affirmation of the importance of a universal love for God and for mankind (Christ based or otherwise) over any particular theology or doctrinal law. Nonetheless, it also affirms the importance of tradition in helping us to find a special time/place for experiencing the mystery and holiness of God. Mr. Bawer has given all of us who choose to listen a wake up call on the impact of fundamentalist beliefs on today's society and political climate while effectively conveying a message of unconditional love and a healthy respect for all religious beliefs.
| 
