Rating: 
Summary: You'll either love it or hate it.
Review: If you are fundamentalist, you will hate this well constructed essay because this book brillantly dissects fundamentalism and criticizes it's appropriate flaws on it's claim to represent Christianity (see the judgemental fundamentalist reviews below).If you are a non-fundamentalist or just plain old Joe who perhaps had a nagging thought in the back of his/her mind that fundamentalism does NOT represent Christianity, you will love this book as it articulates and organizes what you always already thought anyway. Definitely worth the read. I did not give it 5 stars because of the constant attention to one social issue, homosexuality. It was slightly biased.
Rating: 
Summary: This book led me to invent a new book rating system.
Review: What an irritating book. Between the whining and the contortionist-rationalising, the author has made three points, but it's only from sheer masochistic delight that I managed to keep reading it. I think I've written objections on all but 2 of the book's pages. I've also read about 7 other books between chapters of Stealing Jesus. I may also have discovered a new book-avoidance-rating based on the number of bite-marks I left on the outside cover.
Rating:
Summary: fundamentalism's fundamental weaknesses exposed
Review: While it is true, as some reviewers here have noted, that Bawer tends to regard "legalistic" fundamentalists with an ill-concealed mix of fear and revulsion, his basic point is still apropos: Jesus fought legalistic religion, and modern-day fundamentalism is -- by any criterion you choose to apply -- "legalistic". It skirts Christianity, rarely engaging Jesus's underlying message. It is obsessed with "sin" (offenses against God) but offers redemption only on its own narrow and exclusivist terms. And while some of Bawer's critics deplore his unflattering depiction of fundamentalists ("demonizing" seems to be a favorite word), this should hardly surprise anyone familiar with the way fundamentalists regularly "demonize" secular humanism or any religion without Christ as the centerpiece -- out of the same kind of ignorance, one supposes, of which fundamentalists accuse their own critics. And the gay issue is (or should be) completely beside the point, yet the same combination of fear and revulsion one sees in Bawer is merely complementary to the fear and revulsion fundamentalists display toward gay people. Fundamentalists want the 10 commandments displayed everywhere (because it's legalistic), but I'm with Bawer, who interprets Jesus' message much more openly and generously: "Live and let live". Fundamentalists can't handle Bawer's "church of love" as opposed to a "church of law" because a church of love is essentially one based on something akin to "situation ethics", which used to be a catch-phrase for humanistic approaches to the problem of human behavior. It, too, used to give fundamentalists conniptions because it was relativistic, but has faded from notice since the '60s. In any case, there is more Christianity in Bawer's book than in a truckload of books by Hal Lindsey or Pat Robertson, both of whom Bawer rightly skewers.
Rating: 
Summary: Should Have Stuck With The Fundamentalism History
Review: The purpose of this book (as I thought I knew it) was to reveal the history of Fundamentalism. The book delivers in many respects. The history is fascinating. What you will soon realize is that the editor should have urged the author to stick to the history and leave his bitterness and subjective thoughts out of the book. At times the author just gets into a downright 'rage' mostly about the unjust way that homosexuality has been addressed in legalistic Christian churches. Not that I think he is wrong mind you (just ask a Baptist church that was recently expelled by the SBC because it accepts gay members). It is always tragic when the church judges instead of extending compassion. The author's real purpose seemed to be to make a statement about the treatment of gays in the church rather than to reveal an objective history of Fundamentalism. The injustice he has experienced is tragic, but to get on a soapbox and judge all Fundamentalists as he does seems just as tragic as his being judged. If you would like an intersting perspective on what is important, try Harold Kushner's 'When All You've Ever Wanted Isn't Enough'. This may help you see spirituality in a light that has not been presented to you before.
Rating:
Summary: Fascinating and disturbing examination of fundamentalism
Review: It is remarkable how little most Americans know about the phenomenon known as "the religious right" or Christian fundamentalism, given the enormous impact of that movement, including its takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention and the Republican Party (in many parts of the country). This book provides a readable and coherent review of the history of fundamentalism by a knowledgeable cultural critic. His chapters on Hal Lindsay, the fundamentalis/modernist battles of the 1920s and the recent development of fundamentalist dogma were especially enlightening. They were also disturbing, as one realizes the extent to which fundamentalists have been successful in redefining Christianity in the minds of millions of non-fundamentalists. It was a powerful reading experience--to see how fundamentalists have shoved the life and teachings of Jesus aside, to be replaced with a series of doctrines *about* Jesus (and those of relatively recent vintage) is to realize why millions find what "Christianity" has become so abhorrent, while millions of others find it a convenient vehicle for pursuit of their prejudices and hatreds. To read through these online reviews (at least a substantial minority of them) is to experience precisely the closed-mindedness, the obsessions, the bigotry that Bawer examines so skillfully in this book. It is also to be reminded of the long-term battles ahead. At least with the knowledge that this book imparts, one can join those battles with an appreciation of the character and strength of the unholy opposition.
Rating:
Summary: Informative and heartfelt
Review: I was most fascinated by Bawer's treatment of historical aspects of Christianity in America. Unlike some religions, the essence of Christianity lies in certain historical claims: events which were alleged to have occurred at specific places and times. But the historicity of a given event has no meaning if one closes one's eyes to the history lying between that event and one's own moment. Only such a blinkering can suggest a claim to the authenticity and ancient warrant of doctrines (e.g. biblical inerrancy and seven-day creation) touted as "that old-time religion" by millions of wide-eyed American get-ready men, but which are demonstrably novel and provincial. Bawer's discussion of the Baptist faith is particularly interesting. Contrary to an earlier commentator in this Amazon thread, he does describe it (in an entire chapter) as a part of the Church of Love in its original form, characterized by the doctrine of soul competency. However, the Southern Baptist Convention has, only in the past generation, so distorted its own received tradition as to stand it on its head. No negative review of the book is credible unless it can refute his claim to the novelty of what this group now requires of its members as a simple historical observation. Whereas I found that Bawer's conservatism made his critiques of some aspects of the American status quo all the more compelling in his earlier writing, other readers vilified and ridiculed Bawer for it. Regrettably, it is my impression that he has been stung by these darts, because he seems to bend over backwards in this book to make various gratuitous politically correct obeisances. That's okay in itself, assuming that he is sincere: as John Henry Newman said, "to live is to change, and to be perfect is to have changed often." However, it does make him responsible for addressing what has happened over the same period of time on behalf of such views in what he characterizes as the church of love-- some of which is hardly more loving than what has occurred in the church of law. E.g., promises earlier made to respect the consciences of those unable to accept women's ordination in the Episcopal Church have recently been betrayed, and a radical revision of the Book of Common Prayer was imposed (and the revocation of all its predecessors mandated) with a ruthlessness unprecedented in Anglican history-- with a further overhaul soon to come. Bawer's analysis would be more insightful if he identified the same weeds in whatever garden they may grow.
Rating:
Summary: Clearly the author is filled with hate and bitterness.
Review: The author is very bitter over the fundamentalist stance on homosexuality. He is the one filled with hate not the christians he obviously despises. He wants to take the parts of the bible he agrees with, and discredits the parts that condemn his life style. A bunch of manure is what I call this book. Don't waste time or money reading it.
Rating:
Summary: A critique of Christianity by a Non-Christian
Review: Only someone who has never seen the inside of a Bible could buy into this hogwash. The Bible claims, in no uncertain terms, to be the Revealed Word of God. Either believe that truth or don't. If the Bible is corrupted with lies, we should throw it out. (It isn't) If it IS the Word of God (It is) we should humble ourselves and read it with reverance. This book is part and parcel of today's pathetic attempts by liberals to define God down to their level.
Rating: 
Summary: Spectacular
Review: Finally, someone to point out that the "Christian" moniker has been hijacked by an overpoliticized bunch of theological extremists.
Rating:
Summary: An amazing book!
Review: I read this book to help me find answers to my questions about strict Church guidelines. My questions were answered with this book. This book is wonderful in showing how the inerrancy of the Bible is ridiculous and how "traditional" practices of the Church are not traditional at all. Jesus would actually be considered a heretic to these Churches. The Southern Baptists and other "Christians" have used the name of Jesus to preach hate. Jesus was a teacher of unity and love, whereas the fundamentalist Churches of today teach separation, hate, and fear. These cannot be farther from the truth of what Jesus wanted to teach. The differences between the "Church of Love" and the "Church of Law" are striking. Hopefully, more people will read this book and come away with the same message as I did.
| 
