The Lost Soul of American Protestantism (American Intellectual Culture)

This book is an insightful commentary on the history of Protestantism in the U.S.A. If the reader is interested in why American Protestantism is different from the historic expressions of Christianity, then he/she should read this book.

I recommend this book if you're new or growing in the Reformed faith and want to understand the differences between confessional and non-confessional churches. I do believe the book implicitly makes a case that all non-confessional churches are products of revivalism in some way or another. In addition, the book provides much history that I believe explains the mess in which "American Christianity" currently finds itself. IMO, excellently book.

i like it

Hart argues that American Protestantism lost its “liturgical” and churchly soul by its close contact with and sometimes imitation of the American “market” mentality. He sees the beginning with George Whitefield, whose friendship with Benjamin Franklin provides a “link between Evangelicalism and the emerging markets” (16). By market it is not meant an economic structure, but a system of choosing one thing over another. From Whitefield (and we will evaluate Hart’s interpretation later) we see a crasser revivalism. What is interesting for the American narrative is that this “revivalism” was itself something very close to a state religion. The most important consequence, however, was that revivalism really didn’t require anything like the sacraments or historic Christian reflection. As Hart notes, “It did not need the formal structures of religion” (17). Hart counters this rather dismal chapter with an exposition of his hero, Nevin. I am glad that Hart (or Hart’s Nevin) conceded that the Protestant past could not be recovered completely (29). It is interesting to see Nevin contrast Old Calvinism with the New England Puritan faith (31). Do we have here an early reading of Barth’s Calvin vs. the Calvinists? As a background to Nevin, Hart overviews the Old Side debate. The Old Side could not tolerate the new revivalism because the latter had a deficient understanding of what constitutes faith. The church itself was a means of grace established by Christ to edify the flock, none of which included revivalist measures. What went wrong? Revivalism, especially its anti-institutional/liturgical stance, made it harder for the average American to distinguish between historic Christian practices and Romanism (47). We see this today with remarks like, “We shouldn’t eat with Jesus that often because it might not be ‘special’ (pronounced ‘spay-shul’) no more,” or, “Isn’t that what Rome does?” In terms of a larger social movement, revivalism tapped into the ‘sentiments of discontent.’ With a few exceptions it never really led people away from the church, but it also reinforced the idea that the church isn’t all that important. Hence, America today. Hart makes the interesting argument that both Evangelicals and Liberals had the same goal: Christianization of society; they just differed on the means. Further, both agreed, if only implicitly and subconsciously, on the marginalization of the church to the believer’s piety. The neo-Evangelicals sought a divine society that transcended national lines. Older Protestant thinkers called this “the Church.” Neo-evangelicals sought no such connection (75). We can sum up in one sentence: “Public morality and civic righteousness pushed aside word and sacrament” (123). What should we do? We should recover a churchly piety, one that sees baptism as God’s holy act for us and a church centered around “the catechesis:” sermons, teaching, and the catechism. Hart does end with some probing questions, particularly, “Isn’t Confessionalism kind of like ethnic enclaves, both of which are hostile to American assimilation?” My answer is no, but it’s not an easy answer. There are some similarities and dissimilarities, neither of which can be adequately explored at the end of a book.

Hart being Hart. The Whitefield/Edwards/Wesley revivals and subsequent Great Awakening resulted in keeping America from descending into establishment religion via the Anglican and the Church of England influences. Without the Whitefield/Edwards Awakening, we might very well all be speaking the Kings English. Plus, remember, the new school Presbyterianism was old Princeton and Machen, et al. The old school that Hart defends was the dead, sacerdotal and sometimes rather legalistic religion. Also, Edwards especially was motivated by standing against an encroaching Arminianism. Hart argues that : “Public morality and civic righteousness pushed aside word and sacrament” (123) but completely misses the fact that complete disengagement and a sacraments-only approach to piety has far more in common with Roman Catholism and later mainline denominations that emerge. I mean the PCUSA still calls itself confessional and practice they sacraments rather religiously. The could use a huge dose of Whitfield and Edwards again. As always, Hart makes good points, but overall, the bias against piety and the new school (Old School Princetonians), along with the riding of worn out hobby horses, both hamper the value of the book.

When we think of Protestantism in the 20th century, we usually think of the dichotomy between liberals and evangelicals. In this book, Dr. D. G. Hart has carefully focused our attention on an overlooked group of Protestants: confessional Protestants such as those in Presbyterian, Reformed, Anglical, and Lutheran congregations. The value and richness of this book is in the fact that Dr. Hart reminds us that confessional Protestants are the true heritage of the Reformation of the Church in the 16th century. Both liberals and evangelicals come from the Pietism and Revivalism of the 18th century that was opposed to confessional Protestants. This will be a welcome edition to your library. It stimulates thought as a history, but additionally it will encourage those American Protestants who long to see the church return to the preaching of the Word, administration of the sacraments, and an appreciation for the visible church of Christ. I will quote from pg. xxx1. Dr. Hart writes: ...Confessionalism cannot produce immediate results the way pietism promises, through either the imminent inauguration of God's kingdom on earth (the liberal Protestant preference)or the speedy end of human history in divine judgment (the evangelical hope). But confessionalim's longer perspective on the flow of human history, thanks to its understanding of the institutional church, often yields as much wisdom as pietism produces results." Well said!