A review by the_jesus_fandom
A Nearly Infallible History of Christianity by Nick Page

3.75

 So. The book is funny and genuinely informative. It’s a very accessible intro to Christian history and I think many people who would otherwise not learn about it will get the chance to actually enjoy the subject. 

However, there is a big issue for me, and that is his lack of objectivity. The author himself states: 

“I know at times it might appear as though this book has lost all objectivity. But that’s wrong. Because it never had any objectivity in the first place, and you can’t lose what you never had. The fact is, I care about this. It matters to me how my faith is represented. Grown-up historians are supposed to have ‘detachment’: the best I can manage is semi-detachment.” 

Now, this is all fine and dandy, and I don’t actually mind that he gives his opinion or is clearly emotionally affected by tragedies. In fact, whenever he discusses a topic indepth, he clearly tries to present both sides equally well (or mock both of them equally, it depends). 

The main problem comes with his throw-away comments. See, you can have an opinion (and it can be apparant through your style and humour what that opinion is) and still be fair, honest and logical. You still have to present a balanced view in your history book. And he does this in the longer pieces, but when he quickly mentions something, he also gives his opinion without adding anything extra. He, for example, leans clearly toward a more “socialist” view (being against wealth altogether and emphasis on class warfare). If he had included a section on the merits and demerits of the view, it’d have been fine. Instead, he sprinkles in snide comments that make you chuckle along with him. (“In your face, equal rights.”) This feels unfair. Things mentioned in passing lack nuance because of this, which can cause misconceptions among readers. You can’t just throw jabs and not expect to have to throw up a defense too. The other side never gets a chance to defend themselves, and he just makes them look silly. 

Of course, his depiction of the crusades, the Inquisition and Galileo are the same-old, same-old we’re used to (the church was a monster and there were no redemptive qualities). I think Christians in general are sometimes to eager to self-censure. Not when it comes to their personal lives, but I mean the church as a whole. It’s a scary topic, the Crusades, so we take the easy way out and just condemn them. On the other hand, he is refreshingly balanced on the topic of the Spanish conquest of America, and on evolution. 

This isn’t his fault, but I think there’s a printing error: the character sheets for Paul and Wycliffe share the same “appearance” section.