Paul Williams doesnt attempt to understand Christianity, but he does attempt to explain Dylans conversion to it. The book consists of the semi-random speculations of a Dylan fan, and it is filled with tentative conclusions drawn largely from Dylans song lyrics and public-record information about his life. It offers no new startling insights. Williams, like many Dylan fans, was none too thrilled about Dylans conversion or the condemnatory arrogance that accompanied his new music. (The arrogance and condemnation were nothing new, only the target had shifted.) However, Williams does at least appreciate the quality of the music Dylan produced during this period. He appropriately attacks the critics who refuse to acknowledge Dylans post-60s genius. It seems, writes Williams, there are a whole lot of people out there who are so hopelessly mired in their own long-gone adolescence that they have no interest in living art at all: they want their performers to be time machines for them. Much of the book seems to be only slightly relevant to the topic. As far as the title question is concerned, the author basically argues that because Dylan could not find salvation in women, he sought it in Christ. The musicians conversion does not concern Williams so much as the possibility that Dylan might try to force Christianity on the rest of us. Dylans conversion was horrifying to many of his fans. This is perhaps because these fans had related so closely with Dylans words for so long, that when the musician accepted Christ, they were forced to ask, as does Williams, where have we diverged? Is he wrong, or . . . does this mean one day Im going to wake up in love with Jesus too? A scary thought to a lot of people.Williams is afraid Dylans been influenced by these Christians who are ultraconservative simply because theyve never been exposed to anything else. (Born-again Christians apparently never watch television shows, or see the news, or read books, or go to movies, or set foot in a public school, or do anything else that might expose them to the enlightened liberal thinking that dominates virtually every aspect of pop culture and the academy. Dylans willingness to adopt the attitudes of these people surprises Williams because he figures Dylan is as smart as he is. Generous concession.) This is not the only line to appall Williams. Hes mystified by Dylans zealous mention of pornography in the schools, and asks what the songwriter could possibly be talking about. (I guess Williams hadnt been to a public college in awhile, because I was certainly exposed to theoretical analysis of pornography during my University education, and I never even sought out such a curriculum; it just found its way surreptitiously into one of my English classes.) He is equally offended by Dylans finger pointing when he sings about adulterers in the churches. Is Dylan, Williams asks indignantly, going to have them shot by the Ayatollah Khomeini? He seems entirely oblivious to the main (and very obvious) point Dylan is making about religious hypocrisy. Williams did surprise me with one very insightful remark, however. He pointed out that Dylan has got the golden rule wrong on his song Do Right to Me, Baby. The golden rule is not conditional, it does not say, as does Dylan, IF you do right unto me, baby, Ill do right to you too. And, despite the authors vaguely self-righteous criticism of evangelicals, he does seem to have a somewhat open mind about Christianity, at least, he has no beef with Dylans personal choice, just with his musical evangelism. Consequently, he prefers the quieter, humbler, more personal songs such as What Can I Do For You? to the bible-thumping ones like When You Gonna Wake Up?