A Catholic and an Atheist Examine “Revolutionary Strategies in Early Christianity”on May 21, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Major props to Mike Dewitt (of Spooky Action) and fl (of Primrose Road) for both examining my monograph, Revolutionary Strategies in Early Christianity: The 4GW Against Rome, and the COIN to Save it).
Mike and fl bring remarkably different perspectives to the book. I appreciate both of their time in reading the review, thinking about it, and distilling those thoughts into analysis & questioning. Mike writes:
What if I told you that Jesus and St. Paul were the architects of the greatest insurgent (fourth-generation warfare) campaign ever? What if I used Scripture and contemporary Roman records to show exactly how they did it (and how the Romans recognized the threat and responded, ultimately failing)? That’s exactly what [Dan tdaxp] does in “Revolutionary Strategies in Early Christianity: 4th Generation Warfare (4GW) Against the Roman Empire, and the Counterinsurgency (COIN) Campaign to Save It”. In an intellectual tour de force, Dan not only convincingly explains how precepts such as “If someone forces to you to go one mile, go with him two miles” and “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent” served as foundations for the Christian revolution; he then explains how Muhammed designed Islam to defeat Christianity. And to top things off Dan analogizes the two religions to Microsoft and IBM. At just over 40 pages Dan’s book is a short, clear, and profound read. It WILL change the way you look at history, current events, and the future, whether you’re an atheist, agnostic, or a practicing Catholic like me. I realize that last sentence defies credulity, but the ideas in this book ARE that powerful!
While fl pens:
I’ve also recently had the chance to read Revolutionary Strategies in Early Christianity, which I would review in depth were I qualified in any way to review a political science text. It’s actually a very clearly-written book (in the interest of full disclosure, the author is a friend of mine) and a useful primer for terms regularly encountered in the political science blogosphere, especially those related to military strategy. The book is an interesting read regardless of what side of the political spectrum one is on — though the analyses often skew right, this is more of a text intended to expound terminology, not ideology. My only [major] concern is that the history element of the book rests on the assumption (stated explicitly in the introduction) that the New Testament is for the most part an accurate historical record. I’d like to hear Dan’s explanation of what warrants this assumption (i.e. I challenge him to a duel).
Feedback like this is what blogging (and writing) is all about.