Takeaway: A perfect example of why we need historians to help us work through modern problems.
This is a whim book. I borrowed it on Lendle because it was by Mark Noll, not because I knew anything about it. What a wonderful surprise! I have been working through a project over the last year to understand what scripture is and how we should be using it as Christians. Had I known about this book I would have read it earlier.
Noll does a masterful job walking the reader through the theological issues of the Civil War. I grew up hearing about the brave Christians that called for an end of slavery. In recent years there was a decent movie and book about William Wilberforce and his explicitly Christian work to abolish slavery in England. I went to Wheaton College, which was a stop on the underground railroad and started by Jonathan Blanchard an outspoken Abolitionist. (Noll taught at Wheaton for 15 years, including while I was there.)
But the story is not so simple. Many people are aware that people on both sides of the Civil War thought that God was on their side. Abraham Lincoln has a famous quote, “The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be, wrong.”
Noll contends that the Civil War was a theological crisis not only because of slavery, or the problems of war, but because it called into question the way the United States understood scripture, religion in public life, America as a chosen nation and the connection between scripture and American democracy.
What most struck me about this book is that it was the theological conservatives that defended not only slavery, but a plain reading and literal interpretation of scripture. Defenders of the institution of slavery (whether they thought it was appropriate in the US or not) could point to a number of scriptures where slavery was either explicitly authorized or implicitly understood as the normal way of things. On the other hand, those that opposed slavery could not point to a scripture that said, “slavery is evil” or “do not have slaves”.
In fact, many abolitionist rejected the authority of scripture precisely because there was not an easy way to illustrate from scripture the evil of slavery. This meant that defending scripture and defending slavery became combined in many people’s minds, both in the North and in the South.
Another significant theme of the book is that cultural issues impact the understanding of scripture. This comes out in a number of ways. One, for virtually all of US White Christians, from the North or the South, there was an unquestioned assumption that Whites were better or more favored by God than Blacks. So the implicit racism of the US at the time (and for a long time since) has influenced the way that the scriptures were read. Slavery was defended because there was slavery in Israel. But Israel slavery was not based on race, nor was the Roman slavery at the time of Christ. A few radical voices agreed that slavery was not immoral according to scripture, if and only if it was operated on a racially neutral basis. But White slavery was anathema, not on the basis of theology, but on the basis of culture.
Another cultural blind spot was the economic system that encouraged slavery. A few Southern theologians spoke against consumption or currency as a God, but they were blinded to the problems of slavery. Very few Northern theologians saw any problems with either the Northern or Southern economic system and read their scripture as a confirmation of God’s blessing on the United States, in spite of the decimation of Native Americans, the slavery of Blacks and the urban poverty created under the new economic models.
One of the best parts of Noll’s book is the time he spends looking at how Christians outside the US looked at US slavery and the Civil War. It is interesting that virtually all countries outside the US had made slavery illegal prior to the Civil War. The problems of orthodox scriptural interpretation and slavery just did not exist in Europe or Canada. And what is more, there were strong voices outside of the US that identified the problems of race and economics as the blind spots that did not allow US Christians to see that neither slavery nor biblical interpretation were the primary problems. Catholics, both inside and outside the US, were a particularly interesting case. The US’s republican values (free speech, universal human rights and universal voting) were at the time condemned by the Catholic church as a rejection of God’s authority. But at the same time the Catholic church was also rejecting slavery and the inherent racism within the US. Catholic policy was for a single racially mixed Mass. So the democratic North and the slavery supporting south were both against the Catholic church.
There are a number if implications for current theological and social concerns. One is that there are other issues that are currently defended by the ‘plain reading’ of scripture on one side and the ‘whole view of scripture’ on the other. The death penalty is a prime example. The US is one of the few countries that still authorizes the death penalty and Evangelical Christian are some of the staunchest supporters. I have had people tell me that until I can point to a scripture that says that the death penalty is wrong, they will support it because the Old Testament says ‘an eye for an eye’. Christianity Today has an article last week about spanking and addressed this very issue because there are scriptures that say ‘spare the rod’ (Proverb 13:24), while others like William Webb paint a broad picture of scripture that would seem to indicate that there is a type of progressive interpretation that leads us away from spanking as a discipline method. Other issues would include women in ministry, environmentalism, use of alcohol, divorce, etc.
There are also evangelism implications. In the 19th century, Native Americans rejected Christianity in part because there was a fear (both rationally and with historical examples) that if they became Christians and lived peaceful lives, that they would become enslaved or be pushed off their land that had been agreed to by treaty. European visitors to the US rejected the evangelicalism of the 19th century in part because those evangelicals supported slavery and economic models that were considered barbaric to cultured Europeans. I have had people tell me that they reject a God that supports the death penalty or one that does not allow women to speak in church.
In many ways this is a very good book to read in conjunction with Christian Smith’s The Bible Made Impossible. Some of the issues are different, but many of the issues that Smith brings up were very real problems 150 years ago. This is a history book, Noll spends very little time in his conclusion thinking about modern ramifications. But Christian Smith’s solution of submitting to a community (and converting to Catholicism) seems like one that has historical support from Noll. (Although Catholicism has had its own blind spots.)
This book is not cheap. Expect to pay nearly $15 for the Kindle and around $20 for the paperback (even used). If you are thinking about hermeneutical issues, this is a great historical resource. (It is lendable on kindle, but neither Lendle or Booklending currently have any copies to borrow when I checked.)
Purchase Links: Hardcover, Kindle Edition, Audible.com Audiobook
Related Bookwi.se Reviews
- Protestantism: A Very Short Introduction by Mark Noll (bookwi.se)
- The Bible Made Impossible by Christian Smith (bookwi.se)
- Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine by Gregg Allison (bookwi.se)
