You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.69 AVERAGE
3.69 AVERAGE
The book's premise is very interesting and much of the information is alarming and fascinating. But as a whole it's very disjointed and doesn't actually tell a complete story. It left me still wondering exactly what "The Family" does. And it also got bogged down in the formative years of the organization and its founders, when I was far more interested in what it's doing today. 2.5 stars.
dark
3.5. Good information and story telling, but a little hard to follow at times. Definitely a little dense to read as an audiobook. Still it left me wanting to hear about the connections being made today.
After reading I understand it a little better how the Christian Right has come to accept Trump as a means to an end.
After reading I understand it a little better how the Christian Right has come to accept Trump as a means to an end.
I was scared by about 40 pages in. This is not an easy beach read. It's got tons of notes in the back and flipping back and forth added to the time it took to read this nearly-400-page book. He gives a lot of history of the fundamentalist Christian movement in America, how fundamentalists have influenced men in power in the past and today and also talks a bit about the more street-level effect of fundamentalism on American culture (i.e. virginity pledges, homeschooling, etc.). I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian family, so some of the things he finds odd about the culture aren't that odd to me, but a lot of the secret history was a revelation, like the links between fundamentalism, anti-communism and union-bashing. An important read, if not an easy one.
challenging
informative
tense
medium-paced
I am waffling over how to rate this book - am super-glad I read it, but didn't really *enjoy* reading it. Like a difficult film - you think about it later, but you're glad when it's over. Anyway, this took me *forever* to read. Sometimes that's because the book is just boring, but this time was because I was so annoyed by the subject matter that I had to take breaks. (And unlike [b:I'll Sleep When I'm Dead: The Dirty Life and Times of Warren Zevon|573106|I'll Sleep When I'm Dead The Dirty Life and Times of Warren Zevon|Crystal Zevon|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1175904355s/573106.jpg|560123], this one was on hold at the library, so my keeping it longer than I had it checked out will cost me. But, ok.
So, yeah. This book talks about the pervasive creepy version of Christianity that has apparently taken over most of the US government and foreign policy, and frankly I kind of want to go make myself a tinfoil hat and hide under the covers. I mean, I grew up mainline Protestant and rural, so the options for activities were pretty much sports or church. I was bad at sports so was heavily involved in church activities (even at *other people's churches*, yes really), mostly because they involved memorizing things, which I was good at. So, I am more than a little familiar with Xtian scripture....and this "personal relationship with Jesus" stuff appears to ignore the Bible (someone quoted in there - and I didn't write this down - calls the Sermon on the Mount "kooky") and reimagines some sort of Chicago-School-the-free-market-will-save-us-all-women-are-second-class-citizens-screw-the-poor-rich-and-powerful-people-are-chosen-by-God thing that is more or less the direct opposite of my churchly upbringing. I was horrified.
I'm not sure what the counter to all of this is - they're writing textbooks and shaping their version of history...and they seem to be growing and taking over. Eep.
So, yeah. This book talks about the pervasive creepy version of Christianity that has apparently taken over most of the US government and foreign policy, and frankly I kind of want to go make myself a tinfoil hat and hide under the covers. I mean, I grew up mainline Protestant and rural, so the options for activities were pretty much sports or church. I was bad at sports so was heavily involved in church activities (even at *other people's churches*, yes really), mostly because they involved memorizing things, which I was good at. So, I am more than a little familiar with Xtian scripture....and this "personal relationship with Jesus" stuff appears to ignore the Bible (someone quoted in there - and I didn't write this down - calls the Sermon on the Mount "kooky") and reimagines some sort of Chicago-School-the-free-market-will-save-us-all-women-are-second-class-citizens-screw-the-poor-rich-and-powerful-people-are-chosen-by-God thing that is more or less the direct opposite of my churchly upbringing. I was horrified.
I'm not sure what the counter to all of this is - they're writing textbooks and shaping their version of history...and they seem to be growing and taking over. Eep.
Couldn't finish. Bored. The person who loaned it to me said, "Well, it is non-fiction," as if it might be hard for me to wrap my head around. Nothing was making me feel passionate about reading this, especially the way the paragraphs just seemed to extend down the entire page.
I would have given the book 2.5/5 if possible. I learned some things I didn't know, but the weaknesses of the book detracted from the more important points about the mix of religion and politics that Sharlet made.
My comments:
1. Sharlet doesn't understand the difference between Christian fundamentalism and evangelicalism. Fundamentalism is John R. Rice, the Bob Joneses, Jack Schaap, etc. It isn't Ted Haggard, James Dobson, or Jerry Falwell. There is some crossover appeal and gray area, but Sharlet doesn't demonstrate that he knows the difference.
2. While he tries to hide his derision of evangelical Christianity, it comes through and affects his interpretation of his evidence. He tends to offer snide descriptions of the Chrisitians with whom he comes into contact, depicting them as either naive buffoons, hypocrites, or malevolent manipulators. If there's any doubt about their motivations, then you can count on Sharlet attributing the worst to them.
3. The background on The Fellowship (now The Family) is quite interesting. I would like to have seen Sharlet finish that story. Instead, he gets lost in critiquing modern evangelicalism, somehow connecting the Christian abstinence and home schooling movements with The Family. At least, I think that's what he tried to do; it's hard to tell.
4. Sharlet is disingenuous at times. For example, he claims that Ralph Reed's focus on "shorter commutes, more time with family, and lower mortgages" were coded allusions to suburbs, patriarchy, and geographic space between neighbors (310-11). That's a stretch that lacks evidence.
5. Sharlet is spot on with some of his criticisms. His take on evangelical Christian masculinity (think John Eldgredge) is, I think, accurate, as are some (but not all) of his criticisms of evangelical views on sexuality.
In sum, I think it's a book that Christians and non-Christians should read, but with a cynical eye. Sharlet accurately explains some of the problems and contradictions of modern evangelical Christianity, but don't buy the idea that its adherents are fascists.
My comments:
1. Sharlet doesn't understand the difference between Christian fundamentalism and evangelicalism. Fundamentalism is John R. Rice, the Bob Joneses, Jack Schaap, etc. It isn't Ted Haggard, James Dobson, or Jerry Falwell. There is some crossover appeal and gray area, but Sharlet doesn't demonstrate that he knows the difference.
2. While he tries to hide his derision of evangelical Christianity, it comes through and affects his interpretation of his evidence. He tends to offer snide descriptions of the Chrisitians with whom he comes into contact, depicting them as either naive buffoons, hypocrites, or malevolent manipulators. If there's any doubt about their motivations, then you can count on Sharlet attributing the worst to them.
3. The background on The Fellowship (now The Family) is quite interesting. I would like to have seen Sharlet finish that story. Instead, he gets lost in critiquing modern evangelicalism, somehow connecting the Christian abstinence and home schooling movements with The Family. At least, I think that's what he tried to do; it's hard to tell.
4. Sharlet is disingenuous at times. For example, he claims that Ralph Reed's focus on "shorter commutes, more time with family, and lower mortgages" were coded allusions to suburbs, patriarchy, and geographic space between neighbors (310-11). That's a stretch that lacks evidence.
5. Sharlet is spot on with some of his criticisms. His take on evangelical Christian masculinity (think John Eldgredge) is, I think, accurate, as are some (but not all) of his criticisms of evangelical views on sexuality.
In sum, I think it's a book that Christians and non-Christians should read, but with a cynical eye. Sharlet accurately explains some of the problems and contradictions of modern evangelical Christianity, but don't buy the idea that its adherents are fascists.