This book is a sad and uninformed diatribe to the extent that I am not sure I will be able to finish it. For example, the author says "Despite his “frosty” home life, Frankie is absolutely correct that Orthodoxy is a different religion from either Roman Catholicism or Protestantism. It should not be viewed as another Christian denomination." This fails to recognize that Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism were the same religion until 1054 or later and that Eastern rite Catholics are nearly indistinguishable from their Eastern Orthodox counterparts. He speaks of icon being central centuries before there is historical evidence of such importance. He bemoans the conflation of Hellenism with Semitic Christianity ignore how tightly tied Western Christianity, especially Protestant Churches, are to Greek philosophy. He ties Eastern Orthodox with Egypt ... which as the Coptic Church shows, it more firmly tied to Oriental Orthodox. He produces long rails against Orthodox without every providing any evidence supporting his claims. In short, his books is a waste of screen space. There are other apologists again Eastern Orthodox who make much better arguments complete with documentation. The book is so bad that even Gemini is dismissive.

This book is a major disappointment. The author fails to read history with empathy. Rather he reads the worst possible motives into the methods of sincere men, doing their best to understand God's Word in their historical context. For example, regarding Talmudic interpretation: "their Rabbis developed a hermeneutic that would make them feel good about disobeying God’s written Word." (pg. 22). His treatment of the Catholic-Orthodox hermeneutics of the early church is not only factually inaccurate but relies on authors such as Schaff who are noted for their anti-Catholic screeds. I am used to thinking of members of the Stone-Campbell movement as very well researched, considered, and argued. He misses the most obvious correlations between the interpretation of the PaRDeS Jewish method and the 4 senses of Scripture of the early church. He also overstates relationships e.g. Calvin was influenced by one aspect of Augustine's theology but Calvin's theology did not come from Augustine. " For example, it was from Augustine that Calvin developed his unique theology, including his famous TULIP." (pg. 38). This equation does a disservice to both Calvin and Augustine. Logos needs to carry books of interest to a broad range of Christians. It is unfortunate that there is a market for books this biased.

The authors appear to know their material and cover all the highlights. However, to support their own beliefs they often compare apples to persimmons e.g. the number of times communion is offered (4 times a years) vs. the number of times it is mandatory (once a year) ignoring the availability of daily and the regional differences. Or, in the development of the church calendar, ignoring the influence of the Jewish feasts on the early Christian church. There is a consistent acceptance of the position described by Luther and Calvin as if the problems they saw with the services in Germany and Switzerland, represented problems universal in the entire church ... without recognition that they are not even describing the practices of the entire Western Catholic church. One cannot provide a history of worship that ignores two out of three of the three branches of Christian worship - the branches rooted in Latin, Greek, and Syriac. While it covers a narrower time period González, Justo L., and Catherine Gunsalus González. Worship in the Early Church. Louisville,KY: Westminster John Knox, 2022. is a better introduction to the history of Christian worship.