The premise of this book is what grabbed me. I am an Evangelical who received virtually no teaching about ancient Christian traditions or church history as a child. It was as if "poof" the Reformation happened and our church traditions began. I didn't expect it to be so exhaustive in its explanation that evangelicals and reformers were there within the church walls all along. It makes a strong argument for teaching church history in our churches, all of them.

It would seem like a book exploring the Christian past and the Evangelical identity crisis.

The book is actually a member of the Reformed camp engaged in apologetics for the Protestant Reformation and its current standing.

Throughout the book the greatest concession is that study in early Christianity was too neglected for about a century until recently. Otherwise the author is attempting to burnish the bonafides of historic Protestantism in an attempt to warn people away from Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

He also would not think much of the Restoration Movement and its impulse, of which I am quite convicted, so there's my bias showing. It's not as if I disagree with him much in substance about concerns regarding any move toward Rome or Constantinople; nevertheless, it's evident throughout that the author's main purpose is to attempt to make much out of a little. He does show the interest maintained in Protestantism regarding early Christianity throughout the years and shows how many attempted to argue the historicity of justification by faith only. But the arguments are quite narrow and not altogether convincing: in terms of justification by faith only, his main beef is that the Catholics overstated their argument. But overstating the argument doesn't justify the opposing argument, and the evidence remains quite little regarding any major emphasis on justification by faith only before Luther. The author has a whole chapter devoted to what seems to be a strong interest of his, John Henry Newman; it tends to be more of a chronicle of all the interpretations on Newman more than anything else.

Yes, the answer is not to run to Rome or Constantinople. But running to Geneva or Wittenberg is just as specious. I would encourage everyone to run to Jerusalem.

Currently on a cruise ship with very expesive internet. Will write long review when I get home in January.

As an Evangelical who has felt the pull of Roman Catholicism, particular the spiritual disciplines and monastic tradition, I found this book a fascinating read. It is the first time I have come across an argument from the Evangelical side, exploring our deep connection to the ancient church tradition. I found it refreshing. While I don’t agree with everything Kenneth Stewart contends, he addresses a broad range of interconnecting issues in a thorough and challenging way. I particularly enjoyed the chapters exploring Monasticism, the Apocrypha and Baptism.

A second book in a discussion / debate format between Kenneth Stewart and a Catholic or Orthodox believer would make for interesting reading.

It is not often that I feel a shift in my views after reading a book, but this book is one which has altered my perception of Evangelicalism and given me a new confidence in my own tradition. In saying this, I would hope that eventually we can stop asking who is right and who is wrong, and that all Christian traditions can move closer towards celebrating a shared history.