Review - Apostate: The Men Who Destroyed the Christian West

I'm neither a philosophy major nor a theology major.  That said, I know how to reason and think logically through conclusions.  My personal conclusion of Apostate: The Men Who Destroyed the Christian West is that this book makes bold and dangerous conclusions.

This book could have been great, but, instead, Kevin Swanson ruins it with his own personal political and economic viewpoints. In many cases, I actually agree with his personal views, but I would never argue that my views are "biblical," as I could easily argue the opposite view from the Bible as effectively.

First, let me start with what I believe Kevin Swanson does well. Swanson's summaries of the various individuals he profiles is short, succinct and effectively summarizes each person's ideas. He can summarize the teachings in a very short space.

And that leads me to several challenges and issues I have with this book.  My strongest frustration is his misapplied alliances. Far too often he masks his democratic hyper-capitalistic through the cloak of the Bible. Repeatedly he argues that Matthew 20:1-15 is a defense of privately-negotiated labor contracts.  He also uses other passages out of context or a complete different conclusion from the accepted point - the very error he says individuals like Thomas Aquinas make.

Second, which is like the first, he argues often for a "Godly" form of government by arguing the Hebrew laws from Exodus - Deuteronomy....even those that were specifically applied to the Hebrew people, not just those which God commanded to multiple people. To make such an assertion is dangerous and a misuse of Scripture.

Third, Swanson repeatedly oversells his arguments. He could allow the philosopher's words convict; instead, he makes wild accusations, often without strong proof.  Rather than merely stating the viewpoint, and maybe add a small commentary, he greatly oversells his critique.  

To keep this short, I'll conclude with my personal frustration.  Early, he makes this statement, "If professing Christians disagree with me on this point,I wonder if they have joined the other side, or if perhaps they are too fearful to recognize the true magnitude of the social and cultural problems that confront the modern world."  This is a bully's technique, employed by other philosophers like Richard Dawkins; to disagree is to be unintelligent, or in his case, not a "good Christian."

Bottom line: I feel this book is very dangerous, but at least those who would be most swayed by his misused assertions won't likely be drawn to this book. His summaries of the philosophers could be helpful, but his personal commentaries are very dangerous. Take my advice: skip this book.


Note: I received a review copy of the book from the publisher.  I was required to provide an honest, not necessarily favorable, review, and the opinions expressed are mine.