And so the book ranges over home-grown American Christian off-shoots, inoffensive communities like Unitarians, and representatives of bona fide world religions such as Zen (a well-established tradition within Buddhism) and the Baha'i (note the correct spelling, please) faith. All are put in the same basket. This is done "In Defense of the Faith" - a faith which is clearly to be defended not on its own merits but by attacking others.

Here in the United Kingdom the government, which has an interest in inter-faith relations and their implications for the cohesion of a multi-cultural society, has officially noted the existence in the country of communities from nine significant world religions, including Buddhism and Baha'i. An enlightened approach, and I prefer it to the one of putting lumping together everyone you don't agree with under the "cult / new religion"


Disappointing   March 8, 2002
 20 out of 24 found this review helpful

I found this book far below the standard set in Ankerberg/Weldon's previous book, Encyclopedia of New Age Beliefs, which I also own. My disappoint is based on two points:

First, as noted by other reviewers, the authors give extremely short shrift to many if not most of the cults, beliefs, groups and sects listed. It is not helpful for those seeking to learn what these various groups are "about," that is, what their particular beliefs are. I find the term "encyclopedia" inaccurate as a description of the book's contents, as the only entries that could be considered truly encyclopedic are those on which the authors have written other voluminous works (Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians, and other "almost but not quite" orthodox Christian groups - which, perhaps not coincidentally, seem to irk the authors far more than out-there groups such as Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh and the Children of God). Also, they fail to address a number of groups problematic for Christians, such as the "word-faith" movement, Toronto Blessing, Benny Hinn, etc.

Secondly, the authors' work is far less balanced than that presented in their previous work. It rapidly becomes obvious that Ankerberg and Weldon are going to condemn any self-defined religious group that does not conform to their orthodox definition of conservative (not to say fundamentalist), evangelical, Biblical-inerrancy based Christianity. As a seminarian whose dissertation concerns why people turn to cults, New Age beliefs, alternative faiths, and new religious movements, I was very disappointed that Ankerberg and Weldon could not provide more information about these groups and why people might turn to them - and away from orthodox beliefs - in an attempt to settle their own personal "unpaid bills" of faith. In areas, Ankerberg/Weldon come dangerously close to personifying what many people dislike about orthodox Christians - the dogmatic, doctrinaire, intolerant, narrow-minded, even bigoted insistence that their, and only their, view is correct. There is a difference between toleration - respecting differences - and relativism - accepting all beliefs as equally valid, so that none are valid. (Thanks to Michael Shermer for that definition!)

The book makes one wonder whether their faith, their beliefs, are so fragile and vulnerable that they must fear and condemn everything that does not fit their narrow standards. it doesn't say much either for their God or their faith that they are so easily threatened, so constantly under attack. This may also a way of making themselves feel important - "we must be important and powerful or Satan/demons/spirits/heretics/etc wouldn't attack us so." It's also intellectually and theologically lazy - The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it. If it doesn't agreee 100%, it can be discarded without further thought or investigation. And someone needs to explain to them: "Never attribute to evil that which can be explained by stupidity." Perhaps we should not, as they are, so quick to attribute "wrong" beliefs to Satan when human stupidity, ignorance, laziness, arrogance and evil are more likely to be at fault.

Also disturbing, to an academic, is the repeated assertion of general "facts" without any support or proof, such as the repeated recitation of "thousands of lives destroyed..." by cultic involvement. All too often, the authors are either disingenuous or fall back on petitio principi argument, and there is little to no attempt to place any of the groups in context - i.e., the currents of history and social thought had much influence on the founding of Freemasonry and its documented beliefs, but Ankerberg discusses none of this. Many of the refutations of those groups that are discussed at length are like going after a mosquito with a howitzer - are elaborate apologetics necessary when prima facie silliness presents itself? Ankerberg/Weldon give the impression that they are writing for an audience that is incapable of understanding, without their help, that the listed groups are incompatible with Christianity.

I will say that I found the book useful in a bibliographic sense. Apart from that, the only nice thing I have to say is that Ankerberg/Weldon and I at least agree on one thing, which is that the Jesus Seminar is nonsense.