Three problem areas I want to address: Hummel's prejudicial tenor, Hummel's utter incoherence, and finally a little housecleaning of Hummel's attribution problem. Firstly, Hummel's book shows a tremendous amount of exposure to documentation laced with ranting-styled prejudicial expressions toward Christian movements. Nearly every Christian disagreement Hummel consistently maligns as "infighting" (11x), "heated" (13x), '"tensions" (20x), "sectarian" (7x), and their synonyms. So Christians dialoguing theology, in Hummel's estimation, cannot be cordial, productive, or positive. By the end of nearly 500 pages, this broken-record modal choice becomes the equivalent of an 80s one-hit wonder you've heard too many times. Secondly, Hummel uses this book as a historical trash compactor into which he tosses every form of discredited, accusatory, or remotely negative association at his disposal. Everything from oil money (p 36), racism (p 35), pyramidology (p 126), ancient aliens (p 340), and finally Y2K (p 462). The incoherence of whatever thesis Hummel thinks he's expounding shows through his exasperation to define his object of discussion. One minute "dispensationalism" is a theory about the "end of the world" (p 28), then it's a "theory of time" (p 30), then it's a theory of the church (p 30), and finally, it's a "theory of salvation" (p 32). While confessing he is studying a movement that is "no fixed community" (p 37), somehow it's "always a dissenter movement" (p 33), then it's "white evangelicals" who privileged white reconciliation after the Civil War (p 35), then its a movement designed for "institutional renewal of the church" (p 51), and eventually he names nearly every evangelical community in the history of 20th century United States. While pointing out that the dispensational teachings "retreated from New England" (p 36), his map exposes 4 different NE centers for Darby's conferences (p 155). Though submitting a good definition of a literal hermeneutic (p 30), Hummel's journey failed to reveal to him that dispensationalism was simply a set of teachings, rather than a distinct social group. It is precisely this insight that Hummel's book shows profound confusion: equivocating doctrinal positions with social groups. Finally, we move on to the attribution housecleaning. Hummel follows very closely N.T. Wright's terminology and viewpoints (mostly from Surprised By Hope; compare Wright's views on the rapture and dualism). Yet, Wright's work goes utterly without attribution throughout the book until Hummel confesses his reliance in a paragraph at the end of the book (p 486). Hummel shows a struggle to track down sources as well, see his attribution error on p 188 (see p 191, nt 19) where he takes G. Campbell Morgan's quote, but lists J. J. Morgan's title.