Best christian fundamentalism books according to redditors
We found 85 Reddit comments discussing the best christian fundamentalism books. We ranked the 35 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
We found 85 Reddit comments discussing the best christian fundamentalism books. We ranked the 35 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
Having discussed this issue earlier in another submission, I'd like to repeat my primary concern with the rising power of right-wing religious views:
> Personally what I find disturbing is the reaction to this from the majority of those who do not hold such views is generally an intellectual attempt to explain the phenomena and nothing more, which in turn empowers far-right religious views with no effective opposition. In other words, in my opinion the majority of those who do not hold far-right religious views are merely playing the glass bead game.
Additional reading material on the subject:
Hi, I'd love to give you some sources on that!
Mark Noll is always going to be a good resource. He's a theologian / historian working for Notre Dame, and he writes on the history of the evangelical movement in the United States. Some of his books that I'd recommend are:
Apart from Noll, Salvation in the Slums talks about what evangelicals got up to prior to the religious right takeover: namely, they rallied behind progressive social movements.
That all changed in the 1960s, with the widespread disillusionment with social changes. That's all documented in From Bible Belt to Sun Belt, which discusses how evangelicals became conservative in the first place.
And for an anthropological discussion of where the evangelical movement is at today, check out Apostles of Reason.
For a dissenting view, arguing that there's far more diversity than unity in the evangelical movement, check out The Anointed. For a theological listing of such diversity, check out Across the Spectrum.
Edit: words
Check out The Armageddon Factor: The Rise of Christian Nationalism in Canada by Marci McDonald. It's nearly a decade old now, but it does a great job of showing how after the fall of the Reform Party and the rise of the CPC, the architects of Canada's political right used the exact same strategists and religious leaders as the American Republican Party to cement themselves as the party of religious and moral authority. From there, any other connections to the Republican Party (anti-intellectualism, climate denialism, dire fear of liberal policies, etc.) just slid right into place.
Living in Saskatchewan, it's pretty obvious that there is a significant rural population in Canada who really likes what they see coming out of the American South, especially when it comes to "religious values".
Here is a well-researched book that looks at the church adoption culture.
https://www.amazon.com/Child-Catchers-Rescue-Trafficking-Adoption/dp/1586489429/
https://www.cnn.com/2015/01/14/china/china-child-trafficking-bust/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/12/health/uganda-adoptions-investigation-ac360/index.html
tldr; The Evangelical adoption subculture unknowingly contributes to babies being stolen from poor villagers. The children being adopted are not orphans but have parents and other family members still alive that love them and want them. Foreign child adoption is expensive which means all of the middle men make a lot of money and are incentivized to find more kids and trick poor people into "sending their kids to boarding school."
there was an amazing book written about this a few years back that basically outlines this child-stealing strategy among the especially crazy rind of evangelicals known as the "Quiverfull" movement:
The Child Catchers: Rescue, Trafficking, and the New Gospel of Adoption
NPR interview with author Kathyn Joyce: How Evangelical Christians Are Preaching The New Gospel Of Adoption
it's an offshoot of dominionism, the theology that tells Christians they have the right to take anything (or anyone) they want, because God
That said--I'm really glad that the release of the Netflix documentary has given some new and badly-needed attention to Jeff Sharlet's research. (Sharlet was a former member of the Family, as you likely know, until he walked away--and was still able to get unprecedented access to the archives and history of the group until this was eventually shut down, with even the publically available archives being yeeted off the Internet after Sharlet's first article on The Family came out in 2003.) I will say that the documentary is, very much, the Cliff's Notes version of Sharlet's research; those interested should seriously check out the original book on which the documentary was based (written almost ten years ago to the day!) and the followup C Street: The Fundamentalist Threat To American Democracy. He's been trying to warn about the threat even longer than I have, and it's good to go to the source material (or even some of his interviews re the book).
Seriously, I just wish people were paying this kind of attention some thirteen years ago...
Luther was not a fundamentalist; he was the founder of Protestantism. Fundamentalism arose later from Protestantism and Catholicism, in the 1900s. There's an excellent history of the movement if you'd like to take the time to read it: https://www.amazon.com/Battle-God-History-Fundamentalism-Ballantine-ebook/dp/B005DB6NCA The first Fundamentalist was Sister Aimee Semple who had a storefront church in LA in the early twentieth century.
Fundamentalists look down on both mainstream Protestants and Catholics alike, as well as Jews, Muslims, Bahais, etc.., etc.. They believe that they communicate directly with God and that God acts in their lives and they have "the gifts of the Spirit" and can create miracles in their every day life. God talks to them directly (and I mean this quite literally for many of them; some of them, including my father, will tell you that God speaks out loud to them).
IBLP is a special, weird little sect/cult based on one man, Bill Gothard, but a lot of their beliefs (woman submits to man, women must dress ultra modestly, remove yourself from the world and only concern yourself with Godly things, etc.) are common in fundamentalism.
Read the book. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060560053/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i0
It's much easier to believe. The author stumbled on this connection as a reporter in the late 80s and the experience changed his entire worldview.
Here's another book he wrote at the time. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0316091065/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i2
You can probably find these in your local library. They are absolutely worth reading.
I may not have been clear enough. I certainly wasn't trying to claim it's all hunky-dory here. The chosen example was to highlight the absurdity of something like that.
Having said that, your example of Mrs. Reagan is not quite relevant since she was certainly not an elected official and (at least from what I know and what your wiki link says), the astrologer was used by her in a personal capacity, for personal reasons. So, yeah, not the same thing at all. Of course, I will freely grant that such nonsense is not that uncommon even in the US. Just saying that the Reagan thing doesn't seem like a valid example. The thing with India is that astrology is so widely accepted there, that using an astrologer for high-level economic policy decisions doesn't raise much ire there. Fuck astrology and its prevalence there - it's holding India back in so many ways that it's heart-breaking. Its penetration in all areas of life, from the personal (marriage decisions) to the political is disgusting and tragic.
For a detailed look at actual examples in the US, I would recommend C Street: The Fundamentalist Threat to American Democracy, or this wiki for much of the same info.
I don't really "get" Radical Orthodoxy, but it sounds nice enough. If you want a good Reformed overview, check out Jamie Smith's book Introducing Radical Orthodoxy: Mapping a Post-secular Theology.
There's tons of these stories, like when our great "conservative" Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn was negotiating serial philanderer Senator Ensign's monetary exit from a cheating scandal with his staff (his "best friend's" wife).
https://youtu.be/KVIDCSswc6E?t=548
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/coburn-i-acted-as-ensign-hampton-go-between
https://www.politico.com/story/2009/07/c-st-where-scandal-meets-spirituality-025139
https://www.amazon.com/Street-Fundamentalist-American-Democracy-Readers/dp/0316091065/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
Tom Coburn is about as "Christian" as Osama Bin Laden. But the illiterate electorate of Oklahoma will buy it if you're selling it. Just like Epic Schools' LIES (which KWTV9 and other Oklahoma based TV media are keeping hush hush right now, because all their friends and political allies are neck deep in it) and on and on and on. Then dumb Okies sit around wondering why politicians lie to them all the time. Gee, it's a "real mystery", isn't it...... ???
Well the metaphor of Water fails to correctly describe the holy spirit because it falls into a mistake called "Modalism"
In which God is one person, but wears three masks, thus denying the individuality, and uniqueness of the triune members. Water is water. But it has three states of exsisting (or modes). Where as God, exists separately but in three persons.
The other two common mistakes are subordinatism and tritheism.
Subordinatism is where one or more members are thought of as only semi divine or less powerful as the other part(s)
Tritheism says that there are three gods.
The best (orthodox) explaination i've herad is the Nicene Creed. which christians have been using for centuries.
I'm no expert, and there are whole books dedicated to this subject. I recomend Across the Spectrum it's an easy read and it covers a whole bunch of issues in Christian theology. it's pretty even handed with respect for different perspectives :)
And helps fuel the child adoption trafficking industry under the guise of "save the brown kids and bring them to white Christian homes"...
Karen Armstrong did an excellent book on this called "The Battle for God":
http://www.amazon.com/Battle-God-Karen-Armstrong/dp/0345391691
Essentially, fundamentalism becomes predominant in very specific conditions, which are also guaranteed to cause anxiety and uncertainty.
There is no such thing as Dark Ages, you know. That terms is been used to describe an era after fall of Western Rome Empire where there is so little written recorded history of Europe, hence "Dark Ages".
And to show you how completely wrong you are, just read [this] (http://www.amazon.com/Battle-God-Karen-Armstrong/dp/0345391691) book. It is not as simply as you think. I've read two Karen Armstrong book to reach this conclusion. Go on. Read the book.
I think what we are seeing is increasing polarization. Whether we're talking about abortion, same-sex marriage or end of life choice, the arguments tend to come from the same base of religious fundamentalism.
Yet in Vermont, the successful governor campaigned on the promise of introducing death with dignity legislation.
The rise of Christian Nationalism is also becoming an increasing problem in Canada. Marci McDonald's outstanding book on the subject is I think a must read for all Canadians who are concerned about freedom from religious coercion.
http://www.amazon.ca/The-Armageddon-Factor-Christian-Nationalism/dp/0307356469
One very interesting fact though, is that at least in Canada, there is support for legalizing physician assisted dying legislation across all political parties. In the run up to the last Federal election, there was a Vote Compass Poll which asked people their views on a variety of subjects. The one and only statement which people from every political party agreed with was that physician assisted dying should be legalized.
Juan Cole is a good place to start.
An old one, but VERY useful is Sir John Bagot Glubb's A Short History of the Arab Peoples. He lived among the bedouin of the Arabian Peninsula and became fluent in Arabic. Plus he is a good writer. https://www.amazon.com/Short-History-Arab-Peoples/dp/0880292261/ref=sr_1_4?crid=14EK2682K6QSK&keywords=john+glubb&qid=1558423559&s=books&sprefix=john+glubb%2Caps%2C309&sr=1-4
​
I would also recommend Karen Armstrong - anything by her. But The Battle for God: A History of Fundamentalism is fascinating. https://www.amazon.com/Battle-God-History-Fundamentalism-Ballantine-ebook/dp/B005DB6NCA/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=battle+for+god&qid=1558423715&s=books&sr=1-1
​
Best of luck! Hope this helps.
It's a Thing among certain fundy Christian groups to adopt from foreign countries in order to save the child's soul for Jesus. It has also turned into a horrible industry rife with fraud and abuse (a great book about it: http://www.amazon.com/Child-Catchers-Rescue-Trafficking-Adoption-ebook/dp/B00BKRW582/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1415899943&sr=1-7&keywords=The+baby+catchers Highly recommend it.)
have you read armageddon factor by marci mcdonald? might be worth looking at as well before the election.
No - wait until the next time a Democratic president appoints the judge that will swing the court back to 5-4 liberal. THEN you'll see weeping and gnashing of teeth. Of course, that can't happen for 20-30 years now, bc Roberts (63), Alito (68), Gorsuch (50), and Kavanaugh (53) are relatively young. Only Thomas is over 80 on the conservative wing of the bench. We are royally screwed. Bunch of guys/gals at my work are talking about how they're all goning to vote this time - don't have the heart to tell them that ship already sailed. We are well on the way to driving the USA into a debt-ridden, science-denying, oligarchic, theocratic ditch.
Reading this doleful, prophetic book now. Written by a Republican strategist, tolling the warning bell. And now I think it's too late. Kind of the political tipping point, ala CO2. /edit: rolling to tolling.
https://www.amazon.com/American-Theocracy-Politics-Religion-Borrowed-ebook/dp/B000PDYVQQ
Across the Spectrum by Boyd and Eddy covers this topic in great detail. I scanned chapter 11 "The Destiny of the Unevangelized Debate" for you so you could read it (if you wish). its only 17 pages so its not a humongous read. I put it up for download on my dropbox here. Hope this helps!
I haven't read it but this book by James K.A. Smith seems just what you're looking for.
Buy this book: Welcome to Jesusland
It's fucking hilarious. It reads like an extremely long pamphlet from Landover Baptist.
In The Battle for God the author points out that the virgin birth was one of the five fundamental beliefs described by the Evangelical preachers to say what a person must believe in order to be a Christian.
Must read- the REAL reason the religious right demonizes young women: MONEY.
"Adoption And The Role of the Religious Right" by Mirah Riben
http://works.bepress.com/mirah_riben/7/
http://www.amazon.com/The-Child-Catchers-Trafficking-Adoption/dp/1586489429
http://www.care2.com/causes/abortion-is-killing-adoption-says-the-religious-right.html
Why adoption is so easy in America - Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3354960/Why-adoption-is-so-easy-in-America.html
If you’re interested in learning more about Radical Orthodoxy, I’d recommend Jamie Smith’s book Introducing Radical Orthodoxy. Smith is Reformed, and is not part of the RO movement but Milbank wrote the foreword.
I like a lot of the stuff the RO folks say, as well as the postliberals at Yale and Duke more broadly. Evangelicals would benefit greatly from reading them more.
>They are calling them the family even though I have been deep in this shit for years and never heard that stupid name
Thats funny, because it has been known about for years. Jeff Sharlet even wrote a couple of books about them C Street: The Fundamentalist Threat to American Democracy was published in 2010, and The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power was published in 2009. He wrote a famous piece in Salon about this issue in 2009 as well.
https://www.salon.com/2009/07/21/c_street/
The nexus of right wing Christianity and fascism in American politics has been a running theme for decades.
Wow, pretty scathing article. I once read in The Armageddon Factor that Manning gets his political morality from William Wilberforce(the British parliamentarian who finally curbed slavery in the British Empire). Basically, Wilberforce tricked the House of Lords into passing a law that would in effect make transporting slaves illegal thus slavery was greatly diminished. So Manning sees it as okay to trick people or parliament as long as one is pursuing a higher moral goal. Which for him is a free market and a Christian state. This is how we can explain his and Harper's incremental approach to the transformation of Canada. Because they know that if they came out and told people they wanted to privatize health care and criminalize abortion most people wouldn't vote for them.
Child trafficking is big business, especially among religious types. This book about the subject made me sick to my stomach:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Child-Catchers-Trafficking-Adoption/dp/1586489429
Many countries are implementing international adoption bans because of this and rightly so.
The End of Days: Fundamentalism and the Struggle for the Temple Mount
By Gershom Gorenberg
https://www.amazon.com/End-Days-Fundamentalism-Struggle-Temple/dp/0195152050
I would recommend Karen Armstrong's The Battle for God.
I'm pessimistic about how likely you are to read this, but I would highly recommend The Battle For God, by Karen Armstrong. She very skillfully traces the origins of modern day fundamentalist (and aggressive and violent) movements in Islam, Judaism and Christianity.
Her argument is, obviously, complex and nuanced. But one of the themes she mentions is that the fundamentalism we see today is a very modern approach to religion, and is a direct reaction to modernity. Ideas such as bringing about the end times rather than waiting for it, participating in earthly politics rather than separation and new interpretations of old ideas are all modern ideas, and came from modern sources.
Even if you disagree with her argument (tough to do, since that book is sourced like crazy), her book provides a valuable and informative look at the history of all those movements. In the end, she would probably say that the the vast majority of Islam is not what you are talking about, but the fundamentalist minority. And that fundamentalist minority IS the reform in the face of the modern world.
Stephen Harper belongs to a school of though/church that posits that the end times are here and that environmentalism is the enemy of the nation's souls.
I am all for moderate, right-of-centre conservatives, but these guys are something else entirely.
Based off of your response to /u/2Cor517, it sounds like you're struggling with trusting the Bible. Here's some books about Biblical Inerrancy/trusting the Bible.
​
Taking God at His Word by Kevin DeYoung - This book is short and sweet.
​
Fundamentalism and the Word of God by J.I. Packer - Written back in the 50s, but still incredibly relevant. Also not very long.
​
Inspiration and the Authority of the Bible by B.B. Warfield - Also an older book, and quite a bit longer than the last two. I haven't read this one, but I'd like to.
​
What else are you struggling with? Do you have any questions I can try to answer?
​
​
Stephen Harper's Canada
That is unfortunate. I think there are lessons to be learned from that comparison.
Karen Armstrong wrote a great book about fundamentalist movements in all three Abrahamic religions that is very helpful in understanding the similarities and causes. The title is "The Battle for God".
Why not come from the other angle?
Try "Christianity Without God" by Llloyd Geering. A seminal work that willlay the foundation for future atheist reading.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_2_64/ai_114049672/ <-- review
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0944344925/ref=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&amp;n=283155&amp;s=books <-- buy it
It's satire
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0446697583/landoverbaptist
There is kind of an adoption industrial complex associated with the Evangelicals and the "Pro-Life" movement. It has it's own set of problems. Kathryn Joyce wrote a book about it.
I came back. Read my edit above. The founder of Zionism was fine taking Argentina for a homeland.
The "God said it was theirs" argument is used by the hardcore religious settlers in the West Bank. It's also used by the Christian Zionists who want want Jewish dominion so Christ can return and send all the Jews to hell. Read End of Days by Gershom Gorenberg for more about the religious arguments.
The people who think this way are on the fringes of Israeli society. Bibi doesn't continue the occupation because of religious reasons, he continues it because he's got a housing crisis in Israel (and land in the territories can be had cheaply), he's got a water problem (and water in the territories can be had cheaply), and he has to cobble together a coalition. He gives up the territories, and then what?
>You have a study funded by the saudi royal family (King Faisal Center for Research And Islamic Studies) and an article by Medhi Hasan. Neither one is ever going to blame islam for anything bad, facts be damned. Sorry if I don't find that convincing.
This article I shared ( What motivates people to join a terrorist organisation?) (which started our conversation - so presumably you read it) was not written by Mehdi Hasan. Did you just make that up? Perhaps you thought dishonestly throwing his name in there would discredit my argument?
You've also got Dr. Simon Cottee (Criminologist / sociologist) who writes:
>This reflects a broader consensus in the social sciences about violence: namely, that it is “socially determined,” a product of deeper historical, economic, or cultural forces over and above the individual. It is perhaps best summarized by the renowned social psychologist Albert Bandura. Drawing on studies of violence from across the human sciences, Bandura concluded that “it requires conducive social conditions rather than monstrous people to produce atrocious deeds. Given appropriate social conditions, decent, ordinary people can be led to do extraordinarily cruel things.” Social scientists argue about the nature and impact of the “social conditions” in question, but few would question the essential point that violence, however personalized or idiosyncratic its expression, is primarily rooted in historical structures or social relationships, not individuals, still less their “pathological” mindsets.
>
>This consensus is also reflected in much liberal-left commentary about terrorism, especially of the jihadist variant. For example, in some quarters of the “radical” left it is asserted that the roots of jihadist terrorism lie not in Islam but in the myriad historical crimes and injustices of Western, and specifically U.S.-driven, imperialism—most notably, in the post-9/11 era, the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Jihadist violence, from this perspective, is an inevitable reaction fueled by Muslim anger and vengeance; and Westernized jihadists, far from rejectingthe civilized norms and ideals proclaimed by the West, are in fact alienatedfrom a West that excludes, demeans, and harasses Muslims.
>
>The scholarly consensus on violence has a lot going for it. It humanizes the perpetrators of violence by insisting on their ordinariness and contextualizing their actions. It obliges people to reflect on their own possible shortcomings and vulnerabilities, and how, in different circumstances, they too could do monstrous deeds. And it compels people to recognize that they do not act in a social vacuum, and that what they think, feel, and do is powerfully shaped by the broader historical circumstances in which they are compelled to live and act. Moreover, Westernized jihadists, as a recent report cogently suggested, assuredly are alienated and feel that they do not belong in a secular world that often mocks and challenges their religion and identity as Muslims.
and Dr. John Horgan (psychologist who wrote The Psychology of Terrorism (Political Violence)) who writes:
>The most valuable interviews I’ve conducted [with former terrorists] have been ones in which the interviewees conceded, ‘To be honest, I don’t really know,’” he writes. “Motivation is a very complicated issue. To explain why any of us does anything is a challenge.
Well, maybe you should get your head out of your ass and look around. Christian pop culture is at least a $7 billion industry, and growing. Source: Rapture Ready (a very good read. Exposes how un-christ-like many of these people are, while also humanizing them. Written by an atheist Jew trying to bridge the gap of misunderstanding)
So no, it doesn't look like it will collapse anytime soon.
And which is it? Is Reddit, with its millions of registered users, 'mostly underground'...or is it 'the ramparts' that atheists shout from?
Why, Southen Ontario. Not Alberta or some rural area, but a prominent city with multiple universities. I think people who are surprised by this should talk to their family, relatives and friends more often about religion and what they believe. You would be shocked.
This book might be an eye opener as well to see what is really going on in Canadian public life in recent years
http://www.amazon.ca/Armageddon-Factor-Christian-Nationalism-Canada/dp/0307356469
If you haven't heard of it you can easily click
https://watershedsentinel.ca/about/
Here's another one:
https://thewalrus.ca/stephen-harper-and-the-theo-cons/
Same author who wrote this book:
The Armageddon Factor: The Rise of Christian Nationalism in Canada https://www.amazon.ca/dp/0307356469/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_ekMDDb8J5BEK1
It doesn't really matter if you've heard of it or not. Either the contents are true or they're not.
You haven't addressed anything I wrote so I'm not going to waste my time beyond this.
The Clash of Fundamentalisms: Crusades, Jihads and Modernity
by Tariq Ali draws a different picture than Black's.
The problem is certainty fundamentalism, but it is not exclusive to brown people and Muslims.
.
There are some pretty good "sermons" out there. I get all spiritually overwhelmed when I listen to the pale blue dot.
Or his description of science as a candle in the dark, that ends "the candle flame gutters, it's little pool of light trembles, darkness gathers, and demons begin to stir".
But you can also hit a humanist-type spirituality from the other side. Starting with a religion, and chucking out the god.
Christianity without God, for instance.
Or you could look for your local secular humanist group, and see if they've got something for you.
But I think that the grim reality of the universe is that it is indifferent. You have to make your own meaning. Perhaps the a defining aspect of Homo Sap, compared to earlier homonids is that we derive social cohesion by telling stories and believing them. The curse of the skeptic, is that those stories also need to be true.
Good luck in your search.
idk_and_idc did a great job answering your questions. I'm no theologian, but I had many of the same questions before I started coming to church. I know that I am by no means qualified to answer all of your questions, but I may have some great places to direct you. I'm not sure if you're looking for resource recommendations, but I thought I'd suggest a few that seem relevant to your post.
"The authors carefully examine positions taken by evangelical scholars on seventeen seminal issues. They lay out the biblical, theological, and philosophical arguments for each position in point-counterpoint fashion and discuss possible objections. "
http://www.amazon.com/Across-Spectrum-Understanding-Evangelical-Theology/dp/080103793X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1344124761&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=across+the+spectrum
A blog post. The description is "Here's a short course on the relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament."
http://www.amazon.com/Mere-Christianity-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652888/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1344124813&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=mere+christianity
I joined reddit specifically to respond to your inquiry, so I hope I did it right! :) I find your questions to be very insightful & if I can try to be of any further assistance please be sure to let me know.
There's literally a whole book on the subject:
https://www.amazon.ca/Armageddon-Factor-Christian-Nationalism-Canada/product-reviews/0307356477/ref=dpx_acr_txt?showViewpoints=1
I haven't read it myself, I admit. But it seems disingenuous to dismiss his ties to the religious right in an offhand manner given that books like this (and a number of other expositions on the matter) exist.
I cannot recommend this book enough - check out The Lost World of Genesis One. This book will help you to understand that a literal interpretation of Genesis chapter one as if it were a scientific textbook completely misses the whole point this passage is trying to make.
Additionally, it seems to me that you don't have an understanding of the variety of theological viewpoints out there in the vast world of Christendom. Another book you might want to check out is Across the Spectrum.