Scan barcode
persistent_reader's review against another edition
4.0
What happens when professing Christians who also profess to hold the authority in the Bible in high esteem have diametrically opposing views of slavery based on those very Scriptures? Does God speak from both sides of his mouth? Who is right and by what authority and hermeneutic? According to historian, Mark Noll, what you have is a national theological crisis. This book examines those opposing arguments and also includes the critiques (even support) of slavery and the Civil War from outside the US, protestant and Roman Catholic. The examination of outsider views was very interesting. Unfortunately Noll believes that once the war was over, the theological crisis regarding scriptural interpretation and public ethics, i.e. the prevalent racism, was left unaddressed.
In the last chapter "Retrospect and Prospect," Noll writes, "In addition, the United States has been spared, at least to the present, further shooting wars caused by the kind of strong but religiously divided self-assurance that fueled the Civil War. The republican traditions of liberty and the strong commitments to procedural democracy that have continued in this more secular America have also done a great deal of good at home and abroad."I couldn't help but contrast this statement with the events of January 6, 2021 and the attempted insurrection at the Capitol. One side, in particular, was invoking the "sanction" of God to overthrow procedural democracy.
Noll's observations are worth considering because we may very well be in the midst of our own theological crisis. Was it caused by not addressing the crisis of biblical authority during and after the Civil War? I don't know, but history does have a way of repeating itself.
In the last chapter "Retrospect and Prospect," Noll writes, "In addition, the United States has been spared, at least to the present, further shooting wars caused by the kind of strong but religiously divided self-assurance that fueled the Civil War. The republican traditions of liberty and the strong commitments to procedural democracy that have continued in this more secular America have also done a great deal of good at home and abroad."I couldn't help but contrast this statement with the events of January 6, 2021 and the attempted insurrection at the Capitol. One side, in particular, was invoking the "sanction" of God to overthrow procedural democracy.
Noll's observations are worth considering because we may very well be in the midst of our own theological crisis. Was it caused by not addressing the crisis of biblical authority during and after the Civil War? I don't know, but history does have a way of repeating itself.
violinknitter's review against another edition
4.0
I was fascinated by most of this book, especially since many of the questions of biblical interpretation that surfaced around the issue of slavery are surfacing again (or similar issues are surfacing) around questions of LGBTQ participation in church & women in leadership. Noll doesn't discuss that at all... he's purely focused on the theological debates surrounding American slavery. Nevertheless, one of the main reasons I appreciated this book was b/c of his elucidation of the ways various proponents of and opponents to slavery used the Bible to defend their position.
adamrshields's review against another edition
5.0
Short Review: The Civil War brought up theological problems, not just slavery or violence and death. The most interesting to me was the problems of hermeneutics (understanding scripture). People on both sides defended slavery in part because they viewed rejection of slavery as a concept (not necessarily as it was in the US south) required that you reject the plain reading of scripture. Noll also does a great job looking at how the culture of the US impacted its reading of scripture by also looking at how those outside the US viewed the problems of slavery, economics, race and war.
This is a perfect example of why we need historians to help us work through modern problems.
My full review (about 1200 words) is on my blog at http://bookwi.se/crisis/
This is a perfect example of why we need historians to help us work through modern problems.
My full review (about 1200 words) is on my blog at http://bookwi.se/crisis/
gjones19's review against another edition
5.0
This a fantastic read for those interested in history and theology. Noll argues that the Civil War was a theological crisis of biblical interpretation, divine providence, and spiritual authority in a democratic republic.
davehershey's review against another edition
5.0
I've gotten into debates with people about whether the Bible allows for slavery. Everyone I have ever argued with has argued that the Bible condemns slavery. We are unified as Christians in seeing slavery as a horrific sin.
Yet go back to the era of the Civil War and the mainstream opinion was that the Bible approved of slavery. Mark Noll's fantastic book documents this in great detail. He shows that the very ideologies that made America what it was, such as individualism and democracy, led to a way of reading the bible "literally" that affirmed slavery. Southern theologians argued that the Bible supported slavery. They went further to argue that abolitionists went down a path that denied the Bible. To deny the straightforward and literal reading of the text was to move away from orthodoxy. Surprisingly, many in the North agreed! Northern theologians often came at the Bible with the same presuppositions and thus said the Bible allows slavery. The usual tact then was to argue that the form of slavery practiced in the south was far from the slavery allowed for in scripture. Thus they allowed for slavery as an institution, but attacked the specifics of southern slavery.
Overall it is a fantastic book. But it is more fantastic for making us think about how we read the Bible today then it is for shedding light on how it was read then. That is because many who are so quick to say the Bible does not allow slavery are the theological descendants of those who said the Bible did allow slavery. And many today read the Bible in the exact same way as those in the 1860s did!
The hot-button issue of today is gay marriage and I could not help but think of that often. The argument for slavery relied on a simple reading, picking out the clear proof-texts from all over scripture. Today the argument against gay marriage also rests on a few proof-texts. Further, back then those who argued the Bible does not allow slavery focused on the spiritual interpretation or the grand narrative of scripture. In other words, they moved past the words of a few texts to emphasize the principle beneath. For this they were accused of straying from orthodoxy. Those who defend gay marriage today use the same sort of argument.
How many who argue against gay marriage today shudder to realize how their theological arguments used the same arguments for slavery? At the very least this ought to humble us. It ought to make Christians very cautious when entering debate on these sorts of issues.
I listed this book as church history, but perhaps it ought to be required reading for those who interpret the Bible. As we interpret the Bible we need to keep in mind lessons from those who interpreted it before us, to help us steer clear of their same mistakes.
Yet go back to the era of the Civil War and the mainstream opinion was that the Bible approved of slavery. Mark Noll's fantastic book documents this in great detail. He shows that the very ideologies that made America what it was, such as individualism and democracy, led to a way of reading the bible "literally" that affirmed slavery. Southern theologians argued that the Bible supported slavery. They went further to argue that abolitionists went down a path that denied the Bible. To deny the straightforward and literal reading of the text was to move away from orthodoxy. Surprisingly, many in the North agreed! Northern theologians often came at the Bible with the same presuppositions and thus said the Bible allows slavery. The usual tact then was to argue that the form of slavery practiced in the south was far from the slavery allowed for in scripture. Thus they allowed for slavery as an institution, but attacked the specifics of southern slavery.
Overall it is a fantastic book. But it is more fantastic for making us think about how we read the Bible today then it is for shedding light on how it was read then. That is because many who are so quick to say the Bible does not allow slavery are the theological descendants of those who said the Bible did allow slavery. And many today read the Bible in the exact same way as those in the 1860s did!
The hot-button issue of today is gay marriage and I could not help but think of that often. The argument for slavery relied on a simple reading, picking out the clear proof-texts from all over scripture. Today the argument against gay marriage also rests on a few proof-texts. Further, back then those who argued the Bible does not allow slavery focused on the spiritual interpretation or the grand narrative of scripture. In other words, they moved past the words of a few texts to emphasize the principle beneath. For this they were accused of straying from orthodoxy. Those who defend gay marriage today use the same sort of argument.
How many who argue against gay marriage today shudder to realize how their theological arguments used the same arguments for slavery? At the very least this ought to humble us. It ought to make Christians very cautious when entering debate on these sorts of issues.
I listed this book as church history, but perhaps it ought to be required reading for those who interpret the Bible. As we interpret the Bible we need to keep in mind lessons from those who interpreted it before us, to help us steer clear of their same mistakes.
benjleslantz's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
informative
reflective
tense
slow-paced
4.5