It's an interesting and fine theological debate, but the problem is that Douthat laughably misstates its importance. He credits the boom times of post-WWII America to the overflowing pews of Mainstream churches steeped in orthodoxy, fashioning a moral people, rather than to the unique positioning of America at that time in an economically advantageous situation within the world system, able to grow a dominant commercial empire in a way that saw most classes of American society benefit. Similarly he blames recent American decline on falling and failing Mainstream churches wandering off into unorthodox heresies, rather than to the problems of later American capitalism - the increasing insecurity and eroding of the middle classes due to unrestrained capital, decimated labor unions, the shift of workers into service sectors, trimming of a social safety net, tax codes rewritten to benefit the wealthy and capital, etc.

Thus Douthat becomes your traditional conservative American scold, with no explanation for why countries far more secular and non-religiously orthodox than America (one of them just the other side of our northern border!) nevertheless have healthier societies.

It would be a different book if Douthat made his case for orthodoxy on theological grounds, arguing that this debate mattered for the purpose of saving human souls or creating the Kingdom of God or accurately telling homosexuals that God wants them to be celibate (well, that's his view). But he doesn't make those arguments. He makes his case on the grounds that orthodoxy was responsible for a healthy and prosperous American society, and its decline responsible for an unhealthy American society, thus making a restored religious orthodoxy equally important to atheists as to Christian believers. This, my friends, is ridiculous.

Douthat also, in his section bemoaning the "accommodation" of mainstream churches to modern heresy, gives a disapproving shout-out to Little Rock's own Peggy Bosmyer, the first female Episcopal priest in the South. Alas he misspells her name "Boysmer". That's disappointing. ( )

Sick of endless talking heads calling down damnation on anyone who believes people in a rich country should have more-or-less free access to more-or-less quality health care? Aghast at how so much religion is little more than a spray-tanned set of pearly-whites selling, selling, selling, selling redemption? Are you an atheist who struggles (even if only relatively lately) with the narrow ideology, dismissiveness, and ignorance of popular/New Atheism? Then "Bad Religion" is for you.

While I can't imagine a universe where I'd personally be religious, I realize that for many people faith is a deep (and deep-rooted) calling. Douthat makes a compelling case that the hijacking of the answers to that calling, and the abandonment of 'principled' (my word) or 'complete' (my word) or 'orthodox' (his word) faith systems, has created a raft of social and political (and religious) ills. I find his analysis compelling, even if I found a couple of points weak (I'm not sure e.g. that Obama was 'deified' quite to the extent he tries to claim, or that what messianism there was was as damaging as the more 'conservative' forms under e.g. Bush Jr. and Reagan... but that is an argument that, at a high level, doesn't refute Douthat's overall point.)

Because I am an atheist and the last several decades have left me with a deep, deep distrust of religion in both society and politics, it is a bit hard for me to hear his call for a return to more orthodox forms of Christianity without... my toes curling, my jaw setting. But. I understand his argument, and I've got to say, it might be right. That might lead to a more 'responsible' religion in the public sphere, which might be more 'rational' and more open to political engagement... and prevent the colonization of the political sphere by more 'unorthodox' religious movements.

Thought-provoking, in any case. ( )

Fascinating critique of modern interpretations or adaptations of modern Christianity. Douthat makes solid arguments against what he considers revisionist interpretations of Christ-based religion, including overt politicization by modern day pundits and ministers who seem to chase dollars more than Christian truth. These are, collectively, the heretics to which he refers in the subtitle of his book: "How we became a nation of heretics." The author is clearly conservative in his views and is passionately opposed to what he sees are those who choose to interpret and subvert Christian beliefs to make them more palatable to progressive audiences. While Douthat credibly criticizes modern Christian sects, he fails to prove or support the validity of what he considers orthodox beliefs. ( )

Abandoned very early on. The author's premise seems to be that there is a "good religion" from which greedy people have strayed. I'm not interested in such an idea. Religion is religion, some greedier and crazier than others, but all equally fictitious. If people subscribe to more humanist religions it's probably better, but I'm not interested in reading about which myth you should make your own.

An exploration into the current state of Christianity in America by exploring its recent history suggesting the downfall of Christian institutions and the prevalence of heresies are responsible for many of the challenges being experienced by Christianity today.

Douthat begins with the last moment of full strength of Christianity in America immediately after WWII. He then chronicles the two types of responses to the events of the past 60 years: accommodation and resistance. He does well at showing how liberal Protestantism has become what it is on account of the accommodationist impulse, and chronicles how Evangelicals and conservative Catholics have found themselves surprising allies in a movement of resistance against certain cultural trends.

He then goes on to discuss a broad range of the particular heresies he has in mind. He begins with the scholarly affection of All Things Gnostic and the Quest for the Historical Jesus and shows well that most of the results end up looking a lot like the liberal Protestant accommodationism of the past 40 years. He exposes the Prosperity Gospel for what it is, idolatrous and heretical Christianity. He turns to the God Within a la Oprah, Chopra, and others, perhaps the more culturally acceptable form of the prosperity gospel, and shows how it cannot reflect historic Christianity. He then does well at showing how American nationalism has become its own sort of religion: both sides of the debate expect the government to be the solution above all solutions, and both parties have their share of both messianic and apocalyptic expectations of accomplishment. It's no longer "God and Church" but "God and America" in the USA, for quite a lot more effort is being expended in promoting a certain political ideology or cause than the Gospel of Christ. Douthat concludes with his hopes for a sort of resurgence of historic Christianity, political without being partisan, with healthy institutions.

Douthat is Roman Catholic and that particular frame of reference is evident throughout the work; I would not be as sunny about the value of institutions as he would be, and would also question whether the trends he notes are only 50 or so years old. It would seem that as long as there has been an America there has been a tendency toward some heresy or another; for that matter, in whatever "good ol' days" one would like to explore, odds are that most had more heretical views than would be imagined.

But the book is a good meditation on how we got here and what it means that we're here now. Christianity will survive; it always does; but how it must look in order to maintain faithfulness before God is quite the open question. ( )