That Old-Time Religion in Modern America: Evangelical Protestantism in the Twentieth Century is by D. G. Hart, a historian and member of an evangelical church, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.
The book is ok. It's a highly readable narrative of the move of born-again Christians from the shame of the Scopes trial to the prominence of the Christian Coalition. Hart's argument that evangelical pietism has led to many conundrums for modern-day evangelicals (who piously refuse to keep their faith separate from other areas of "secular" life) is a reasonable explanation for their tense relationship with modernity.
He also argues that fundamentalists and evangelicals preserve the basic character of Christianity from the American past while Liberals and other non-evangelical Christian groups have been the ones who have deviated from the historical norm. This argument, besides being pretty incredible, is not supported with evidence in this book. To my mind, all Christians in America had to change to deal with science, modern historical methods, and biblical criticism. Even retrenchment is a kind of change. Hart's failure to see how the "old-time religion" is also a construction of modernity keeps the book from being truly a worthwhile read.
3 comments:
We need to come up with a better word. For most of the political left, including devout Christians, "Evangelical" has become a dirty word. This is unfortunate. Aren't, or at least shouldn't, all Christians be evangelical? Is that pretty much the job description? At the very minimum it is for us clergy types. We are called to evangelize. Just as the Pro-Life movement has claimed the linguistic high ground, (Is it possible to be anti-life?)the 'old-time religion' types have taken a very important word and used it in a very narrow way, thus giving it a connotation that excludes many of the people it should include. Can we redeem Evangelicalism? should we come up with a better word? Delwin Brown has a great book called "What does a Progressive Christian Believe" that discusses this. I'm not certain I like the word Progressive. Thoughts?
I'm not sure that much is at stake for us non-evangelicals (in the normal connotation of the word) in re-capturing "evangelical" for ourselves. At least, I'm ok with not calling myself an evangelical without expecting some need to explain what I mean.
I'm not really a "liberal" or "progressive" Christian either. I may be politically left (or liberal, or progressive, or blue-state, etc.), but this doesn't translate automatically or seamlessly into some sort of set of theological principles.
If definitions or definition-type labels are requested, I prefer to think of myself as an "ethnic Christian." By this, I mean that I am rooted in a tradition less by choice than by culture. I also mean that I am ok with that specific birthright; I have embraced it and "chosen" it as an adult identity of self. I think this also sufficiently indicates that I am not particularly "born-again" but still maintains that I am indeed a Christian, almost in my DNA.
I wrote about this on Facebook, I would love for you to comment there as well, sorry about dragging this conversation into 3 different places, but I wanted my FB friends to read it as well.
I disagree with you in that I think how we 'evangelize' political liberals who have been pushed away from the church because of the religious right is affected by the language we use to describe ourselves.
I do like your 'ethnic Christian' designation however.
Post a Comment