Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by watcher_b
The Civil War as a Theological Crisis by Mark A. Noll
5.0
This book just blew me away and really challenged my thinking about religion, god, politics, and how my own opinions are formed. Broken into three parts (four if you include the Noll’s own opinion in the last chapter), this book really examined the theological ideas floating around and how people justified their own opinions on owning people and going to war.
The first part really dove into the theological crisis itself. The author makes the case that the American Revolution, and subsequently the Civil War, are the direct result of the Protestant Reformation (this is probably a gross over simplification on my part, but for the sake of conversation I’m going with it). With Protestantism encouraging a rejection of authority and the American Revolution doing likewise. This was reflected in the culture as well with a very individualistic view of practicing religion. That is, there was no one who could tell you what God wants or who He is or what His scripture says. That is all you.
So when the question of slavery really came to a head in the 1800s, there was a lot of chasing our tails. There was no authority to appeal to outside of oneself. We had one group saying that scripture clearly endorses slavery and another group pointing out that slavery clearly contradicts scripture. There were all kinds of subtle nuances in these arguments, too, that I had never heard before. On the anti-slavery side there was a Very wide range of opinions. I am kind of curious of the views on abolitionists that were expressed in this book. They were generally reviled on both sides and I never really got a good impression as to why the anti-slavery side didn’t like abolitionists either. Other opinions ranged from abolitionists to being ok with slavery but not wishing to participate. There was a real debate in the north about fugitive slave laws. The consensus seemed to be that one should not practice slavery, but many felt the bible clearly didn’t condemn it and had rules in it that encouraged returning slaves to their owners. It wasn’t this black and white (no pun intended) issue for them.
The second part of the book moved on to when the debates started to get more “scholarly”, with the anti-slavery side pointing out the historical and scriptural contexts of Old Testament slavery with condemnation on many sides about how racially motivated America’s version of slavery really was. But what struck me was the divide this direction of debating created. If you had to look at scholars to discover the historical and linguistic contexts of scripture that meant you had to submit to some authority that wasn’t God to tell you what scripture meant. To look at the historical context implies that the authors were human beings that we need to understand THEIR human culture in order to understand what they wrote. If it was written by God Himself that should transcend time and culture and we only need to go to God to get clarity on what His Scripture means (especially if you claim a “personal relationship” with Him). This divide, of course, could easily be represented geographically: the north and south.
The third part of the book really dealt with outside group’s responses with a chapter dedicated to Europe and another dedicated to Roman Catholicism. These were Super interesting chapters that I am not sure my summary here will be able to do any justice. It is interesting to get a totally outsider’s perspective because there are some things that are SUPER clear to them that are totally lost on the warring parties. It is very clear to them that both sides of the conflict are just twisting scripture to make it support their own side. It is also very clear to them how big of a problem racism is on both sides.
My own challenge was in the way I think about religion. The people in the south truly believed their scripture endorsed owning another human being (regardless of what others believe scripture does or does not endorse, these people believed it did). And instead of looking at that in revulsion they said, “that sounds like a great idea!”. Let’s imagine a totally different universe that is run by a malevolent god who requires cruelty and human blood sacrifices. This god is real and what he wants is true. I would not follow this god. Bringing that back home, I know a lot of people do not believe the bible Really endorses slavery, regardless let’s pretend it does. Let’s pretend it is true, there is a God who gave us this scripture which endorses the kind of slavery practiced in America before the Civil War. I would argue that people should not worship or serve such a God! Maybe that is a losing fight, I don’t know (me against a god?). I don’t know why, in this kind of universe, this god would give me the mental capacity to reason my way to find what it does so revolting.
This changes the conversation. If someone is trying to convince me that their religion, which endorses the owning of human beings, is true….. I don’t care. I do not care if it is true or not. Because if it is not, then it is not worth following. If it is true…. then it is not worth following.
I see a lot of people doing what happened in during the theological discussions of the Civil War. They have this image of a God that they want. A God that does or does not endorse slavery (or homosexuality or abortion or whatever your favorite theological concept is) as they want and then they work their damndest to twist whatever their favored religion is to fit their own ideas. Which makes sense, because WHAT IF this God disagrees with them? What if God does endorse slavery? What are you going to do? I’ve heard people (and have been that person) who say that He is the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong, so if He says it is right then it is. I would imagine that this is the reasoning of every religiously motivated atrocity ever committed. Because what happens when two people disagree as to what this “final arbiter” wants? How do we resolve that conflict? Are those the only two options, making God in your own image or conflicting over what God Really wants?
The first part really dove into the theological crisis itself. The author makes the case that the American Revolution, and subsequently the Civil War, are the direct result of the Protestant Reformation (this is probably a gross over simplification on my part, but for the sake of conversation I’m going with it). With Protestantism encouraging a rejection of authority and the American Revolution doing likewise. This was reflected in the culture as well with a very individualistic view of practicing religion. That is, there was no one who could tell you what God wants or who He is or what His scripture says. That is all you.
So when the question of slavery really came to a head in the 1800s, there was a lot of chasing our tails. There was no authority to appeal to outside of oneself. We had one group saying that scripture clearly endorses slavery and another group pointing out that slavery clearly contradicts scripture. There were all kinds of subtle nuances in these arguments, too, that I had never heard before. On the anti-slavery side there was a Very wide range of opinions. I am kind of curious of the views on abolitionists that were expressed in this book. They were generally reviled on both sides and I never really got a good impression as to why the anti-slavery side didn’t like abolitionists either. Other opinions ranged from abolitionists to being ok with slavery but not wishing to participate. There was a real debate in the north about fugitive slave laws. The consensus seemed to be that one should not practice slavery, but many felt the bible clearly didn’t condemn it and had rules in it that encouraged returning slaves to their owners. It wasn’t this black and white (no pun intended) issue for them.
The second part of the book moved on to when the debates started to get more “scholarly”, with the anti-slavery side pointing out the historical and scriptural contexts of Old Testament slavery with condemnation on many sides about how racially motivated America’s version of slavery really was. But what struck me was the divide this direction of debating created. If you had to look at scholars to discover the historical and linguistic contexts of scripture that meant you had to submit to some authority that wasn’t God to tell you what scripture meant. To look at the historical context implies that the authors were human beings that we need to understand THEIR human culture in order to understand what they wrote. If it was written by God Himself that should transcend time and culture and we only need to go to God to get clarity on what His Scripture means (especially if you claim a “personal relationship” with Him). This divide, of course, could easily be represented geographically: the north and south.
The third part of the book really dealt with outside group’s responses with a chapter dedicated to Europe and another dedicated to Roman Catholicism. These were Super interesting chapters that I am not sure my summary here will be able to do any justice. It is interesting to get a totally outsider’s perspective because there are some things that are SUPER clear to them that are totally lost on the warring parties. It is very clear to them that both sides of the conflict are just twisting scripture to make it support their own side. It is also very clear to them how big of a problem racism is on both sides.
My own challenge was in the way I think about religion. The people in the south truly believed their scripture endorsed owning another human being (regardless of what others believe scripture does or does not endorse, these people believed it did). And instead of looking at that in revulsion they said, “that sounds like a great idea!”. Let’s imagine a totally different universe that is run by a malevolent god who requires cruelty and human blood sacrifices. This god is real and what he wants is true. I would not follow this god. Bringing that back home, I know a lot of people do not believe the bible Really endorses slavery, regardless let’s pretend it does. Let’s pretend it is true, there is a God who gave us this scripture which endorses the kind of slavery practiced in America before the Civil War. I would argue that people should not worship or serve such a God! Maybe that is a losing fight, I don’t know (me against a god?). I don’t know why, in this kind of universe, this god would give me the mental capacity to reason my way to find what it does so revolting.
This changes the conversation. If someone is trying to convince me that their religion, which endorses the owning of human beings, is true….. I don’t care. I do not care if it is true or not. Because if it is not, then it is not worth following. If it is true…. then it is not worth following.
I see a lot of people doing what happened in during the theological discussions of the Civil War. They have this image of a God that they want. A God that does or does not endorse slavery (or homosexuality or abortion or whatever your favorite theological concept is) as they want and then they work their damndest to twist whatever their favored religion is to fit their own ideas. Which makes sense, because WHAT IF this God disagrees with them? What if God does endorse slavery? What are you going to do? I’ve heard people (and have been that person) who say that He is the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong, so if He says it is right then it is. I would imagine that this is the reasoning of every religiously motivated atrocity ever committed. Because what happens when two people disagree as to what this “final arbiter” wants? How do we resolve that conflict? Are those the only two options, making God in your own image or conflicting over what God Really wants?