This book was disappointing. I am a fan both of the punk band Bad Religion and of studies in history and religion, so I expected this to be a good read.
Quick capsule review: no new ideas here, no particular insights, same old arguments rehashed in debate form.
The book is essentially a compilation of email correspondence between Bad Religion's singer/lyricist Greg Graffin and a devout Christian/professor of history Preston Jones, who also edited and compiled everything. Jones reported that he has long been a Bad Religion fan, and initiated contact by fan mail. I assume good faith on both parties and I think they were both more or less satisfied with the end product which went to print. I respect their attempt to open up this topic to discussion and to publish their uncensored (I assume) emails. The book set up in a typical college textbook format, with text boxes containing excerpts from Bad Religion songs and the Bible, quotations form notable people or sources, and questions for the reader to consider. That's fine. Also, the cover itself pays homage to Bad Religion (with the eyes covered).
My real issue is that they don't much discuss the issue. Better yet, they never seem to decide exactly what the issues are or where they agree or disagree. The conversations go around in circles, without shedding much more light on a given topic than the first time it comes up. The topics usually follow this basic format: Preston criticizes hypocritical Christians and abuses of authority; Graffin responds with degrading remarks about Christianity and organized religion as a whole; Preston agrees that wrongs have been done in the name of God, and asks for thoughts on an event or writing; Graffin responds with more disparaging comments about religion, and how he cannot make specific arguments about the Bible because he has never read it, but holds it responsible for atrocities committed throughout history in the name of God (what?!); Preston meets halfway, but says that all Christians cannot be judged by fanatics, and furthermore that non-religious people have committed atrocities throughout history as well; Graffin responds with more comments about why religion is especially problematic; etc. etc. That is, of course, not a full account of the book or an entirely fair summation, but I think it captures the feeling. As I said above, there are no new ideas expressed here. If you are totally new to this ancient debate, then maybe you'll get something out of this, but this is more of the same speculation/accusation/misrepresentation that you see in clearance shelf books on this topic.
Furthermore, the tone of the conversation really got to me after about 20 pages. Graffin is often rather aggressive to the point of being hostile to Jones, who seems to try to "meet halfway" or give the benefit of the doubt to Graffin's ideas. Jones continually tries to build an amicable rapport, asking Graffin about the tour and his health, etc.; Graffin lightens up after the first few emails, but from time to time comes back with an aggressive tone, and seems to intentionally distance himself. They keeping awkwardly feeling each other out throughout the book, as though trying to decide where they fall on some professional-fan-friend spectrum. Finally at the end Preston seems to have had enough, or something provokes him to go on this diatribe rehashing all his previous points and making what feels like patiently withheld rebuttals to several of the points that Graffin made throughout the book. I remember reading thinking, "Yeah, I wondered why he didn't say all of this beforehand, and I wonder why he's letting this all out now." It was a departure from his previous tone and style.
Overall, the book is a two-star. Not bad, but not good. At the end I was less impressed in Graffin than I used to be; I got the feeling that all these years he's been on a mission to debase and degrade Christianity and all religion, rather than criticize it in the name of truth and justice. I was also rather interested in Preston, who described his own struggles with fair, and his experiences around the world that let his to wrestle with beliefs, dogmas, and institutions, notably seeing extreme poverty in around the world while in the navy and how his fellow sailors took advantage of it when they could. I respect the amount of self-disclosure they both allowed by publishing their unedited correspondence. I realize it's not their best work, and they might have done better with sit-down meetings and an entirely different format.