America's God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln [Hardcover]

What we have here is a remarkably comprehensive examination of the role formal religion played in the United States from the Colonial period through the Civil War. For various reasons, those who formulated the Constitution insisted on a separation of church and state as well as certain checks and balances within the federal government. What I found most interesting in Noll's book is his analysis of the transition from European Puritanism (after almost 200 years) to what could be called American Evangelism (emerging in the late-1790s) which not only allowed but indeed celebrated freedom of religion. Noll's primary subject is the evolution of American theology. He necessarily examines the historical context within which that process occurred. My only quarrel with him, probably more an honest difference of opinion than a complaint, is that he suggests -- or at least assumes -- a homogeneity in America's religious life which seems to be contradicted by what the separation of church and state made possible: religious heterogeneity protected by the Constitution and sustained by the checks and balances. Nonetheless, Noll succeeds brilliantly in explaining how and why religion was central to early-American history.

I came to the book at a result of reading _Jonathan Edwards: A life_ by Marsden. M.Noll like G.Marsden has made my short list of i-must-read-them authors. This is perhaps my 5th book by him i've run across and looked at during my year's study of the issues in the creation-evolution-design(CED) debate. It is, to me, a rather important book for it puts together several issues i have been thinking about but had not related, in particular slavery and evolution being, in the conservative Christian community, similiar issues revolving around the interpretation of Scripture, i intend to follow up this idea. Furthermore, the very systematic way he goes about building a case for the influences of republican ideals on Reformed theology interests me as a very concrete example of the way the cultural matrix determines religious thought. Noll doesn't use the term "American captivity of the Christian Church" but the critical ideas are presented to make such a case.

It's a rather long (450pages) book, with a complex structure and at times detailed arguments, so i find myself wondering to whom to recommend it. Because of it's historical nature and subject material, simply reading the chapters that most interest you is not as good an option as it would be in reading a collection of essays. So if you simply want to get a taste of the book i would read the first 20 or so pages which are the introduction to both the book, how Noll approaches his subject and what he intends to show with this scholarly research. I found chapters 18 and 19 the most interesting: chapter 18 "The 'Bible Alone' and a Reformed, Literal Hermeneutic", and
chapter 19 "The Bible and Slavery", i have several long quotes from these chapters on my extended review at: www.livejournal.com/users/rmwilliamsjr/84610.html
. I think if someone is adequately motivated that the book is accessible to anyone with an interest in history but if your knowledge of the time period or of the theologies discussed is inadequate you will wonder what the fuss is all about, perhaps many secular people will wonder that in any case.

The theme of the book is not hard to summarize. It is that forces of the political life of the US, in particular, republicanism, Whiggery, the demand for equality, had a very important influence on the evolution of each American Christian theology. So too did several cultural influences in the philosophic sphere: common sense moral reasoning via the Scottish enlightenment, an anti-authoritarianism that reached out to all authorities-kings, priests, intellectuals, elites, these too influenced the evolving theology. But the influence was not just a one-way street, but rather in the search for converts the churches became a dominant influence in the culture, not just themselves but the myriad voluntary organizations they gave rise to. So by the Civil War we have a voluntary church, disestablished where those in Europe were not, filled with republicans, certain that their common sense will rightly interpret the Bible, and their morality derived thusly will support a glorious city-on-the-hill that they envisioned for the US. But the devil is in the details, and this is where the book gets really interesting. How do these forces relate? How does theology evolve, why and who is doing what thinking and writing? All done with a scholarly professor's mind, tying together the years of research with a joy and exuberance that is catching. Thanks M. Noll for another most excellent read.......

Noll argues that American Protestantism developed a unique religious perspective due to the combining of three historical idea forces: 1) the theology of the Protestant Reformation, 2) the philosophy of republicanism that arose from and was animated by the American revolution, and 3) the thought of the Scottish common-sense Enlightenment.

Protestantism's ability or willingness to speak the language of these three strands of thought made it the religion of choice and influence in the early republic, as its apologetic and evangelistic discourse echoed contemporary political assumptions and commitments.

But, Noll argues, there was a down-side to this success. The theology of Protestantism was itself changed by the use of this republican and common-sense language. These changes led to a literalistic, individualistic Biblical hermeneutic that made American Protestantism unable to speak definitively on the issue of slavery. North and South used the American Protestant hermeneutic to come to radically different conclusions on the morality of slavery.

This intractability ended in the civil war, which was not just a political crisis, but a theological one as well. The failure of the American Protestant synthesis to resolve the great moral issue of slavery, Noll argues, caused it to lose its social force, and opened the way for the modern era.

Noll's argument is almost overwhelming. He lays an exhaustive groundwork of 18th century religious/philosophical/political thought, moves into early 19th century theological evolution of Calvinism and Methodism, and then builds to a civil-war-era climax of heated, yet impotent, theological dispute. Each section is so rich and deep that challenging Noll on his intermediate conclusions is a daunting task. Yet, Noll's ultimate conclusion is so breathtaking in its implications for non-Calvinist theologies, that a closer look is warranted. A few key observations can be made.

Noll has a tendency to so broadly define his key terms that their essential meaning becomes vague, obscure and highly malleable. The most obvious example of this is his use of the word "republicanism," which Noll uses to cover concepts such as virtu (common good), anti-aristocracy, rule of law, proper use of power, separation of powers, representative government, and most largely, the belief in the reciprocity of personal morality and social-well being. (55-57).

He later adds to this mélange of meaning by distinguishing between civic-humanism republicanism, which was concerned with the public good and order, and liberal republicanism, which emphasized individual self-determination and, according to Noll, economic rights. (210-211). Noll himself acknowledges that "republicanism" was a "multivalent, plastic and often extraordinarily imprecise term." (447) Yet he frequently cites historical writers and speakers in support of his "republicanism" thesis, without attempting to determine which particular meaning of republicanism the historical thinker had in mind.

Noll is also guilty of this in dealing with the "common-sense" Enlightenment. Every reference to human reason, intuition, insight or other source of knowledge other than scripture becomes an example of common sense philosophy, whether the reference is before or after Hutcheson and Reid. The great flexibility of terms is significant, as it gives Noll enormous latitude in his argument to sweep in or out thinkers, ideas and theologies, depending on how they relate to his main thesis.

Perhaps the single most important argument against Noll's larger thesis is Methodism. Pre-revolutionary Methodism had the literalistic, individualistic hermeneutic, along with the "reasonable" view of God, sinners and salvation that Calvinism only moved towards as it was tempered by post-revolution republicanism and common-sense philosophy. (333-334).

To his credit, Noll himself acknowledges the "sting" of the Methodist argument, agreeing that Methodism contained the elements of "American Protestantism" before it actually came to America. (334, 340-41).

But acknowledging the sting is one thing; removing it is another. Noll does not do this, nor really try to. Methodism does seem to raise an unanswered challenge to the charge that it was the "corruptions" of republicanism and common-sense thought that caused Protestant America to turn literalistic, individualistic, and arminian, and to be unable to cope with slavery. Methodism was all these things without republican and common-sense reasoning, and it was, at least initially, forcefully anti-slavery.

Thus, an alternate interpretation to Noll's is that: Biblical protestant Christianity contained the seeds of individuality, freedom and common-sense echoed in republicanism and common-sense thinking, that the intractable nature of the slavery dispute had to do with flawed constitutional rather than theological compromises, and that Southern religious' views were shaped more by the commercial impulses of their founding than by faithfulness to a Biblically-derived hermeneutic. This view is supported, at least in part, by Noll's tracing of the process of theological development: the insights of general revelation (general human experience) interact with, clarify, and even modify, understandings of special revelation (Biblical interpretation), and vice versa.

But further discussion of this would lengthen an already over-long review. Suffice it to say that the majority of American Christian's today would claim allegiance not to Edward's God, or Lincoln's God, or Noll's God-but to the Bible's God, as they read about and understand Him in the Bible for themselves. Which is not a bad legacy for a "permanently damaged" theology. (445).

Noll's comprehensive, even magisterial work, is clearly going to be required reading for everyone on both sides of almost any discussion of religion in the early republic.