Scan barcode
A review by jgn
Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism by Michelle Goldberg
4.0
This is a brief history of the proponents of Christian "dominionism" -- the wing of the evangelical community that would seek to enforce a specific understanding of Scripture on everyday behavior in the United States, via changes in institutions: healthcare, education, and the judiciary. (The most extreme version of this story is to label the movement as a sort of pre-Fascism, and Goldberg almost goes there.) If you don't know who RJ Rushdoony was (and you should) this book is for you. The book ably demonstrates the uneven basis for claims about the Constitution (and other matters) made by people like David Barton, Howard Phillips, and others. Along the way there are little revelations (so to speak) such as the fact that Tim LaHaye was a trainer for the John Birch Society (p. 161), and that Phillips was raised Jewish (pp. 165-166). There are a lot of twisted paths among the protagonists.
Goldberg is a reporter, not an historian, but there is some interesting analysis. I thought the most provocative was her answer to the question: When Federal monies are given to faith-based programs, why is there no evaluation of effectiveness? (pp. 109-127) Reason: Because this community has rejected many empirical observations from science (for example, that spiritual counseling for drug abuse is not as effective as other means), thus "evidence" simply doesn't have much value (esp. p. 127). The key quote is provided by Gerard Bradley, a law professor, who suggests that there should be a different kind of measurement for these programs -- that people "who welcome Jesus into their hearts" simply outweighs what empiricism can measure. I am tempted to expand this to explain a lot of extreme conservative behavior: Even though the facts tell us that expelling illegal immigrants will have unintended consequences for the economy, it doesn't matter, because ejecting even one "bad hombre" has transcendental value in and of itself.
A detriment of the book is Goldberg's contempt for people who live in the suburbs. She writes of the locales of Christian megachurches:
You see, their views are not only unacceptable, but they are tacky as well. Later on, it seems to almost pain Goldberg to note that a particular counselor "really was helping many of the suffering people who came to her" in a "diverse crowd" (p. 125). The book would be better if it dropped the attitude. There's plenty here to tell without mocking.
Goldberg is a reporter, not an historian, but there is some interesting analysis. I thought the most provocative was her answer to the question: When Federal monies are given to faith-based programs, why is there no evaluation of effectiveness? (pp. 109-127) Reason: Because this community has rejected many empirical observations from science (for example, that spiritual counseling for drug abuse is not as effective as other means), thus "evidence" simply doesn't have much value (esp. p. 127). The key quote is provided by Gerard Bradley, a law professor, who suggests that there should be a different kind of measurement for these programs -- that people "who welcome Jesus into their hearts" simply outweighs what empiricism can measure. I am tempted to expand this to explain a lot of extreme conservative behavior: Even though the facts tell us that expelling illegal immigrants will have unintended consequences for the economy, it doesn't matter, because ejecting even one "bad hombre" has transcendental value in and of itself.
A detriment of the book is Goldberg's contempt for people who live in the suburbs. She writes of the locales of Christian megachurches:
These church are usually located on the sprawling edges of cities, in new exurban developments that almost totally lack for public space -- squares, parks, promenades, or even, is some places, sidewalks [GASP!]. With their profusion of primary-colored logos, the exurbs are the purest of ecosystems for consumer capitalism. Yet the brutal, impersonal utilitarianism of the strip mall and office park architecture -- its perversely ascetic refusal to make a single concession to aesthetics -- recalls the Stalinist monstrosities imposed on Communist countries. The banality is aggressive and disorienting. (p. 58).
You see, their views are not only unacceptable, but they are tacky as well. Later on, it seems to almost pain Goldberg to note that a particular counselor "really was helping many of the suffering people who came to her" in a "diverse crowd" (p. 125). The book would be better if it dropped the attitude. There's plenty here to tell without mocking.