The book, I understand, is substantial. The programme is a broad sweep, and can only be so. It is falling between stools and, for examle, to tackle Pentecostalism he came forward to Korea and backwards in mentioning something of its origins - but he didn't. Now I have a particular understanding of English Presbyterianism, and on this he didn't make a mistake, because in looking at revival he mentioned in passing Scottish and Irish Presbyterianism (some Irish). But he didn't include it, and as for Jonathan Edwards: he may have had a disagreement with fellow Calvinist Whitfield, but his real argument was with other congregationalist parishes that were going down the Arminian route, and then some taking on Priestley and the like and the Unitarian influence - many congregations divided, with the 'orthodox' walking out. Of course he is not going to get into that detail. But then he spent too much time on the irrelevance of the Boston Tea Party, probably because there were re-enactors to film. But then that's the problem with television.

The main theme seems to be centres of gravity - Baghdad never quite made it (but there was the sift to the East that eventually ended - Orthodoxy too would have shrunk away had it not been for Russia and the European east), Constantinople did make it, Rome did, other Protestants grew with the princes, Rome countering Protestantism and then shifts West and south so that a mid-point becomes Timbuktu.

But I thought it strange that he should question the authenticity of Korean prosperity religion (a view which he back-tracked from - he didn't mention it as part of satellite TV, though perhaps that is coming) and yet not the frankly pagan and superstitious intepretations of Christianity found in Africa. You either take a position that the religion is diverse, or you don't. The question is whether he regards European indifference and the move to naturalistic and secular interpretations from within the religion as part of that diversity or not. He mentioned Unitarians as part of the Protestant number of denominations in the USA, many of whom would not want to identify as Christians or be identified as Christians by others - but if you take a grand Hindu-like expanse view of the religion with origins and developments then you do include elements that the various doctrinal people would not.

This program gave a positive picture of evangelicalism. Evangelicalism was shown as bringing change in the heart of the believer and expressed in emotional worship. The central figure was John Wesley, preceded by the Moldavians and Whitfield giving a link to Edwards. Success in Korea and the religion of Negro slaves were also shown.  Again an emphasis on the ability of Christianity to change.

David 

I saw the book on sale yesterday, it is some tome and work. What I saw of the TV series was very well presented as well and very interesting. Sadly, the history of Christianity is often contradictory to Jesus teaching and the word of God and detracts the focus from God to human's failings. I have a couple of books on the history of Christianity, not sure I am going to purchse this yet and disapointed I didnt see all the TV series.

Diarmaid MacCulloch's "A History of Christianity" reached the evangelical movement last night. That, and the other programmes in the series can be viewed in the UK on iPlayer at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00ntrqh

where there is also a link to a survey about what it means to be a Christian today.

The accompanying book, described by Rowan Williams in a review as "a landmark... it will have few, if any, rivals in the English language" - is currently half price at Amazon (and doubtless available at good bookshops everywhere, etc.).