What do you think?
Rate this book
A Stone of Hope: Prophetic Religion and the Death of Jim Crow
The civil rights movement was arguably the most successful social movement in American history. In a provocative new assessment of its success, David Chappell argues that the story of civil rights is not a story of the ultimate triumph of liberal ideas after decades of gradual progress. Rather, it is a story of the power of religious tradition.
Chappell reconsiders the intellectual roots of civil rights reform, showing how northern liberals' faith in the power of human reason to overcome prejudice was at odds with the movement's goal of immediate change. Even when liberals sincerely wanted change, they recognized that they could not necessarily inspire others to unite and fight for it. But the prophetic tradition of the Old Testament--sometimes translated into secular language--drove African American activists to unprecedented solidarity and self-sacrifice. Martin Luther King Jr., Fannie Lou Hamer, James Lawson, Modjeska Simkins, and other black leaders believed, as the Hebrew prophets believed, that they had to stand apart from society and instigate dramatic changes to force an unwilling world to abandon its sinful ways. Their impassioned campaign to stamp out "the sin of segregation" brought the vitality of a religious revival to their cause. Meanwhile, segregationists found little support within their white southern religious denominations. Although segregationists outvoted and outgunned black integrationists, the segregationists lost, Chappell concludes, largely because they did not have a religious commitment to their cause.
<!--copy for pb
In a provocative assessment of the success of the civil rights movement, David Chappell reconsiders the intellectual roots of civil rights reform, showing how the prophetic tradition of the Old Testament--sometimes translated into secular language--drove African American activists to unprecedented solidarity and self-sacrifice. Martin Luther King Jr., Fannie Lou Hamer, James Lawson, Modjeska Simkins, and other black leaders believed, as the Hebrew prophets believed, that they had to stand apart from society and instigate dramatic changes to force an unwilling world to abandon its sinful ways. Although segregationists outvoted and outgunned black integrationists, the segregationists lost, Chappell concludes, largely because they did not have a religious commitment to their cause.
-->
Chappell reconsiders the intellectual roots of civil rights reform, showing how northern liberals' faith in the power of human reason to overcome prejudice was at odds with the movement's goal of immediate change. Even when liberals sincerely wanted change, they recognized that they could not necessarily inspire others to unite and fight for it. But the prophetic tradition of the Old Testament--sometimes translated into secular language--drove African American activists to unprecedented solidarity and self-sacrifice. Martin Luther King Jr., Fannie Lou Hamer, James Lawson, Modjeska Simkins, and other black leaders believed, as the Hebrew prophets believed, that they had to stand apart from society and instigate dramatic changes to force an unwilling world to abandon its sinful ways. Their impassioned campaign to stamp out "the sin of segregation" brought the vitality of a religious revival to their cause. Meanwhile, segregationists found little support within their white southern religious denominations. Although segregationists outvoted and outgunned black integrationists, the segregationists lost, Chappell concludes, largely because they did not have a religious commitment to their cause.
<!--copy for pb
In a provocative assessment of the success of the civil rights movement, David Chappell reconsiders the intellectual roots of civil rights reform, showing how the prophetic tradition of the Old Testament--sometimes translated into secular language--drove African American activists to unprecedented solidarity and self-sacrifice. Martin Luther King Jr., Fannie Lou Hamer, James Lawson, Modjeska Simkins, and other black leaders believed, as the Hebrew prophets believed, that they had to stand apart from society and instigate dramatic changes to force an unwilling world to abandon its sinful ways. Although segregationists outvoted and outgunned black integrationists, the segregationists lost, Chappell concludes, largely because they did not have a religious commitment to their cause.
-->
272 pages, Hardcover
First published January 26, 2003
21 people are currently reading
398 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
July 28, 2018
Chappell's work is one of the seminal explorations of the role of religion in the civil rights movement – specifically, how religion motivated the marchers and activists of the movement when traditional secular liberalism failed to effect the change liberals of all stripes knew needed to occur.
As with many scholarly works of this sort, Chappell combines several independent articles and original chapters into a single book, and the result is typically uneven. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, in that Chappell's contribution to the historiography of the civil rights movement is important even as some of the specifics within the book prove over-argued or unnecessarily dense.
Most interesting to me was Chappell's analysis of white secular liberalism and its failures in the New Deal era, contrasted against the eventual success of the black prophetic religion that motivated King and others. Also helpful is his argument that segregationism was weaker than it appeared, split among several factions and largely unsupported by the churches to the degree required to withstand the public pressure caused by the civil rights movement.
The overall argument leaves the impression that Christianity, instead of being a smothering force that benefited the status quo, as it often can be, in fact provided key resources that both weakened segregationist arguments and strengthened integrationist action – resources that were unavailable to those relying purely on secular ideals. That's a valuable insight, especially one coming from an atheist with presumably no overarching motive to reach such a conclusion.
As with many scholarly works of this sort, Chappell combines several independent articles and original chapters into a single book, and the result is typically uneven. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, in that Chappell's contribution to the historiography of the civil rights movement is important even as some of the specifics within the book prove over-argued or unnecessarily dense.
Most interesting to me was Chappell's analysis of white secular liberalism and its failures in the New Deal era, contrasted against the eventual success of the black prophetic religion that motivated King and others. Also helpful is his argument that segregationism was weaker than it appeared, split among several factions and largely unsupported by the churches to the degree required to withstand the public pressure caused by the civil rights movement.
The overall argument leaves the impression that Christianity, instead of being a smothering force that benefited the status quo, as it often can be, in fact provided key resources that both weakened segregationist arguments and strengthened integrationist action – resources that were unavailable to those relying purely on secular ideals. That's a valuable insight, especially one coming from an atheist with presumably no overarching motive to reach such a conclusion.
January 27, 2018
This is an extended review of this important contribution to the scholarship of the Civil Rights movement in the United States.
David Chappell’s book A Stone of Hope examines the philosophy of the civil rights movement from its foundation of prophetic religion. One of the core issues it considers is the liberal belief in social progress over time. Chappell begins his narrative by describing how the New Deal, at its height in the 1930s, achieved very little in terms of civil rights. The New Dealers recognized that even in democratic America they were constantly at a disadvantage against irrational conservative appeals to tradition, authority, and religious sanction, especially when the New Dealers needed the votes of conservative Southern Democrats to carry out the New Deal programs they cared about most.
The inability of New Deal leaders to make much progress against racism and Jim Crow was one reason why many of the major figures in the civil rights movement, such as Martin Luther King, Bayard Rustin, and James Lawson, embraced a different conception, based on morality and prophetic religion, of how to change society. These leaders looked to the essentially pessimistic view of human nature as corrupt and sinful, originally preached by the Old Testament prophets and more recently articulated by Reinhold Niebuhr, for the intellectual foundation of their movement: “They were conspicuous for their unwillingness to let social processes work themselves out and for their lack of faith in the power of education and economic development to cure society of oppressive evils.” (45)
Their approach is interesting if for no other reason than the fact it contrasted with the legal strategy pursued by the premier civil rights organization of the first half of the 20th century, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). In its gradual efforts to reverse the “separate but equal” doctrine codified by the 1896 Supreme Court decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, the NAACP put its faith in the belief that direct action was secondary in importance when legal redress was available. The Montgomery bus boycott of 1955-56 seemed to provide ample justification for its stance. While King helped organize the boycott, the NAACP took the matter to court. After the Supreme Court’s decision in Gayle v. Browder (1956) put an end to segregation in public transportation, NAACP lawyer Thurgood Marshall remarked, “All that walking for nothing. They might as well have waited for the court decision.”
The Warren Court’s 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka placed ultimate faith in progress through education. Warren’s written decision was a brief eleven pages because he wanted newspapers to reprint it for all to read. Part of his reasoning was that education was an imperative part of training citizens to participate in a democracy; therefore, it must be equal to all. The opinion attempted to convince southern “moderates” who were open to persuasion of the righteousness of integrating public education. Warren allowed a delay in implementation to give these “moderates” a reasonable time to come to terms with the decision and then put it into effect, avoiding more forceful remedies in the process. Interestingly, Warren cited Gunnar Myrdal’s 1944 study on race in America, An American Dilemma, as support for this tactic. Myrdal claimed American institutions, such as the government, were growing more sympathetic towards blacks over time. Chappell contrasts all of this with the writings of Niebuhr and the civil rights leaders who put his views into action. Niebuhr claimed that institutions were by nature immoral, acting only in their own self-interest.
The southern reaction to Brown demonstrated that the liberal faith in the power of law and education to produce eventual progress was at least partially mistaken. While a few southern school districts complied with Brown in short order, most dug in their heels, with Mississippi and South Carolina going so far as to eliminate public schools to evade desegregation. Southern politicians and newspapers made the by-now familiar denunciations of outside agitators and communists, some even claiming the NAACP was a Jewish- or Communist-led organization. Meanwhile, Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi conjured up the ghost of John C. Calhoun with their stated intentions to interpose themselves between their citizens and the national government, thereby nullifying the Brown decision. Only the force of the federal government integrated many educational institutions in the South, including Little Rock’s Central High School in Arkansas and the universities of Mississippi and Alabama. Brown and subsequent civil rights legislation such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act may have ended legal segregation, but no court decision or legislation could end prejudice.
Why did the liberal faith in progress fail to convert southerners to a belief in equality? Chappell attempts to provide answers when discussing the fundamental influence of religion in the South and how many southerners believed in a Biblical sanction for segregation: “The South was the Bible Belt: inerrantist and literalist views ran high. . . . It was not simply propaganda.” (115) Nor was this faith in segregation “the cause of semiliterate rednecks and demagogues.” (155) Instead, “the educated class of the white South was, with rare exceptions, united with the trash on the goal of preserving white supremacy.” (155) Yet, he notes that during the critical years of the 1950s and 1960s, southern church leaders largely failed to back the segregationists with the moral authority of their churches. Lawyers’ efforts to find legal justification were similarly wanting in enthusiasm. This leads to one of his key insights into the success of the civil rights movement: “Perhaps the most important reason for their confidence that they could win—not in Heaven or in the eternal sight of God, but here and now, on this earth—was their recognition that their enemies were weak.” (154)
Not that the fight against segregation was easy. Many of the prophetic leaders realized that they faced not just the intransigence of racist southerners, but also the moral apathy of their erstwhile supporters, black and white, whose faith in gradual progress lulled them into complacency. Fanny Lou Hamer claimed that 10 o’clock Sunday morning was the most segregated hour in America. On the other hand, the young idealists who traveled to Mississippi to work for civil rights there showed Hamer “more Christianity there than I’ve ever seen in the church.” (72) Bob Moses said the same thing at a training session for Freedom Summer in 1964: “The country isn’t willing yet to admit it has the plague, but it pervades the whole society.” (82)
The value of the book is that Chappell does not claim to have the whole story, only that he adds a new perspective to the traditional political and legal story. Another of his key contributions is that direct action is most effective when combined with behind-the-scenes legal work like of the NAACP, but direct action is the more difficult of the two approaches because of the moral courage it requires. That is what black leaders like King brought to the movement in the 1950s and 1960s—moral courage based on prophetic religion. It took the 1965 Voting Rights Act to create significant progress in voter registration from the perspective of sheer numbers, yet who knows how much longer African Americans would have had to wait for a Voting Rights Act if not for the individual courage and rejection of gradualism of the leaders and their followers described by Chappell?
This is a quality book that will help educate anyone who wants to understand the full range of attitudes and beliefs informing the Civil Rights Movement. Those interested in religion especially will probably enjoy Chappell’s book.
David Chappell’s book A Stone of Hope examines the philosophy of the civil rights movement from its foundation of prophetic religion. One of the core issues it considers is the liberal belief in social progress over time. Chappell begins his narrative by describing how the New Deal, at its height in the 1930s, achieved very little in terms of civil rights. The New Dealers recognized that even in democratic America they were constantly at a disadvantage against irrational conservative appeals to tradition, authority, and religious sanction, especially when the New Dealers needed the votes of conservative Southern Democrats to carry out the New Deal programs they cared about most.
The inability of New Deal leaders to make much progress against racism and Jim Crow was one reason why many of the major figures in the civil rights movement, such as Martin Luther King, Bayard Rustin, and James Lawson, embraced a different conception, based on morality and prophetic religion, of how to change society. These leaders looked to the essentially pessimistic view of human nature as corrupt and sinful, originally preached by the Old Testament prophets and more recently articulated by Reinhold Niebuhr, for the intellectual foundation of their movement: “They were conspicuous for their unwillingness to let social processes work themselves out and for their lack of faith in the power of education and economic development to cure society of oppressive evils.” (45)
Their approach is interesting if for no other reason than the fact it contrasted with the legal strategy pursued by the premier civil rights organization of the first half of the 20th century, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). In its gradual efforts to reverse the “separate but equal” doctrine codified by the 1896 Supreme Court decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, the NAACP put its faith in the belief that direct action was secondary in importance when legal redress was available. The Montgomery bus boycott of 1955-56 seemed to provide ample justification for its stance. While King helped organize the boycott, the NAACP took the matter to court. After the Supreme Court’s decision in Gayle v. Browder (1956) put an end to segregation in public transportation, NAACP lawyer Thurgood Marshall remarked, “All that walking for nothing. They might as well have waited for the court decision.”
The Warren Court’s 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka placed ultimate faith in progress through education. Warren’s written decision was a brief eleven pages because he wanted newspapers to reprint it for all to read. Part of his reasoning was that education was an imperative part of training citizens to participate in a democracy; therefore, it must be equal to all. The opinion attempted to convince southern “moderates” who were open to persuasion of the righteousness of integrating public education. Warren allowed a delay in implementation to give these “moderates” a reasonable time to come to terms with the decision and then put it into effect, avoiding more forceful remedies in the process. Interestingly, Warren cited Gunnar Myrdal’s 1944 study on race in America, An American Dilemma, as support for this tactic. Myrdal claimed American institutions, such as the government, were growing more sympathetic towards blacks over time. Chappell contrasts all of this with the writings of Niebuhr and the civil rights leaders who put his views into action. Niebuhr claimed that institutions were by nature immoral, acting only in their own self-interest.
The southern reaction to Brown demonstrated that the liberal faith in the power of law and education to produce eventual progress was at least partially mistaken. While a few southern school districts complied with Brown in short order, most dug in their heels, with Mississippi and South Carolina going so far as to eliminate public schools to evade desegregation. Southern politicians and newspapers made the by-now familiar denunciations of outside agitators and communists, some even claiming the NAACP was a Jewish- or Communist-led organization. Meanwhile, Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi conjured up the ghost of John C. Calhoun with their stated intentions to interpose themselves between their citizens and the national government, thereby nullifying the Brown decision. Only the force of the federal government integrated many educational institutions in the South, including Little Rock’s Central High School in Arkansas and the universities of Mississippi and Alabama. Brown and subsequent civil rights legislation such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act may have ended legal segregation, but no court decision or legislation could end prejudice.
Why did the liberal faith in progress fail to convert southerners to a belief in equality? Chappell attempts to provide answers when discussing the fundamental influence of religion in the South and how many southerners believed in a Biblical sanction for segregation: “The South was the Bible Belt: inerrantist and literalist views ran high. . . . It was not simply propaganda.” (115) Nor was this faith in segregation “the cause of semiliterate rednecks and demagogues.” (155) Instead, “the educated class of the white South was, with rare exceptions, united with the trash on the goal of preserving white supremacy.” (155) Yet, he notes that during the critical years of the 1950s and 1960s, southern church leaders largely failed to back the segregationists with the moral authority of their churches. Lawyers’ efforts to find legal justification were similarly wanting in enthusiasm. This leads to one of his key insights into the success of the civil rights movement: “Perhaps the most important reason for their confidence that they could win—not in Heaven or in the eternal sight of God, but here and now, on this earth—was their recognition that their enemies were weak.” (154)
Not that the fight against segregation was easy. Many of the prophetic leaders realized that they faced not just the intransigence of racist southerners, but also the moral apathy of their erstwhile supporters, black and white, whose faith in gradual progress lulled them into complacency. Fanny Lou Hamer claimed that 10 o’clock Sunday morning was the most segregated hour in America. On the other hand, the young idealists who traveled to Mississippi to work for civil rights there showed Hamer “more Christianity there than I’ve ever seen in the church.” (72) Bob Moses said the same thing at a training session for Freedom Summer in 1964: “The country isn’t willing yet to admit it has the plague, but it pervades the whole society.” (82)
The value of the book is that Chappell does not claim to have the whole story, only that he adds a new perspective to the traditional political and legal story. Another of his key contributions is that direct action is most effective when combined with behind-the-scenes legal work like of the NAACP, but direct action is the more difficult of the two approaches because of the moral courage it requires. That is what black leaders like King brought to the movement in the 1950s and 1960s—moral courage based on prophetic religion. It took the 1965 Voting Rights Act to create significant progress in voter registration from the perspective of sheer numbers, yet who knows how much longer African Americans would have had to wait for a Voting Rights Act if not for the individual courage and rejection of gradualism of the leaders and their followers described by Chappell?
This is a quality book that will help educate anyone who wants to understand the full range of attitudes and beliefs informing the Civil Rights Movement. Those interested in religion especially will probably enjoy Chappell’s book.
January 17, 2022
Chappell's (an atheist) main assertion is the ardent religious devotion of the people who propelled the Civil Rights Movement to success was the primary catalyst that allowed it to succeed. With compelling and copious evidence Chappell takes a deep dive into the writings, speeches, and and correspondence of civil rights leaders on all levels to prove his case. Not only that, he shows why secular liberalism hindered the movement as led by liberal, white elites in the North. Another fascinating side to this book is his examination of the motivations of their segregationist opponents which were also not fueled by religious zeal. In fact, just as civil rights leaders like MLK were frustrated by Southern religious leaders lack of zeal for his cause most segregationist leaders were equally frustrated by their religious leaders lack of zeal for the segregationist cause. Prophetic religious thinking and acting were the heartbeat of the civil rights movement.
I definitely recommend this book for anyone looking for a fresh perspective on the Civil Rights movement of the mid-twentieth century. The prose can be a little dry at times, though it is quite good in other sections. The story is captivating enough to keep you going.
I definitely recommend this book for anyone looking for a fresh perspective on the Civil Rights movement of the mid-twentieth century. The prose can be a little dry at times, though it is quite good in other sections. The story is captivating enough to keep you going.
April 28, 2019
This is a very challenging, scholarly book. 100 pages of endnotes easy and another 30 of appendixes.
I found it very compelling and important for questions we have right now. There is more in the book, but let me share two insights/questions:
1. He argues effectively that as much as the civil rights movement could be called the third revolution (1776 is the first, civil war is the second) it could also be called another Great Awakening because it was so infused by religion. This point will be even more interesting after I share the other question/insight.
2. He argues that liberalism was at its height during the New Deal days and yet they did not affect anything on race beyond their report by Gunner Myrdal. He argues that liberalism has, through its naive belief in progress, an optimism that justifies inaction.
So the action came not from liberalism, but from religion, but of a certain kind ... not institutional top down religion, but from the prophetic tradition (and this could include other types of beliefs--Malcom X and nonreligious like Bob Moses and Bayard Rustin).
He also spent a couple of sections using John Dewey as a stand-in for the height of Liberal Thought showing how liberalism had at least two big problems--1) Since it believed in progress through education it was by nature elitist and Dewey, especially at the end, struggled greatly with how to bring in the populous because they were needed to effect political change; 2) "Faith drove people to great sacrifice and effort ... [this] was something liberals hungered for. Dewey wanted conviction, but all he could honestly believe was uncertainty ... [But] the source of conviction could not be knowledge. For knowledge meant awareness of the inconclusiveness of human theories and plans. The source had to lie in faith."
This is Chappel's framing and I can imagine other ways of framing. But it did provoke me greatly ... I do find that more reading moves me into more and more layers of thought, into complexity. It doesn't make me a relativist like so many in the Evangelical movement worry about, but it does change and sometimes defeats my convictions. I would say where i still have convictions they are NOT founded on rational thought and reading although the reading continues to inform my life.
For example, I have a strong conviction that all human beings are valuable (ie in the image of God). I honestly do not care if scientists were to prove this wrong. I will continue to hold this conviction. Interestingly my reading only helps me to see where I have inconsistencies in my conviction and the way I see the world around me. I might, naively, believe we live in a meritocracy where hard work is rewarded no matter who you are ... this is the American Dream right? Try reading Warmth of Other Sons, Souls of Black Folks, Baldwin, Ellison, Coates, etc and continue to believe this is our world. No, you will see, that this myth happens for some and not for others.
This book was excellent and one I will return too.
I found it very compelling and important for questions we have right now. There is more in the book, but let me share two insights/questions:
1. He argues effectively that as much as the civil rights movement could be called the third revolution (1776 is the first, civil war is the second) it could also be called another Great Awakening because it was so infused by religion. This point will be even more interesting after I share the other question/insight.
2. He argues that liberalism was at its height during the New Deal days and yet they did not affect anything on race beyond their report by Gunner Myrdal. He argues that liberalism has, through its naive belief in progress, an optimism that justifies inaction.
So the action came not from liberalism, but from religion, but of a certain kind ... not institutional top down religion, but from the prophetic tradition (and this could include other types of beliefs--Malcom X and nonreligious like Bob Moses and Bayard Rustin).
He also spent a couple of sections using John Dewey as a stand-in for the height of Liberal Thought showing how liberalism had at least two big problems--1) Since it believed in progress through education it was by nature elitist and Dewey, especially at the end, struggled greatly with how to bring in the populous because they were needed to effect political change; 2) "Faith drove people to great sacrifice and effort ... [this] was something liberals hungered for. Dewey wanted conviction, but all he could honestly believe was uncertainty ... [But] the source of conviction could not be knowledge. For knowledge meant awareness of the inconclusiveness of human theories and plans. The source had to lie in faith."
This is Chappel's framing and I can imagine other ways of framing. But it did provoke me greatly ... I do find that more reading moves me into more and more layers of thought, into complexity. It doesn't make me a relativist like so many in the Evangelical movement worry about, but it does change and sometimes defeats my convictions. I would say where i still have convictions they are NOT founded on rational thought and reading although the reading continues to inform my life.
For example, I have a strong conviction that all human beings are valuable (ie in the image of God). I honestly do not care if scientists were to prove this wrong. I will continue to hold this conviction. Interestingly my reading only helps me to see where I have inconsistencies in my conviction and the way I see the world around me. I might, naively, believe we live in a meritocracy where hard work is rewarded no matter who you are ... this is the American Dream right? Try reading Warmth of Other Sons, Souls of Black Folks, Baldwin, Ellison, Coates, etc and continue to believe this is our world. No, you will see, that this myth happens for some and not for others.
This book was excellent and one I will return too.
March 9, 2024
This is an excellent historical study of, among other things, the religious motivations of the civil rights movement. Chappell clearly intends his work to supplement other scholarship by attending to an important, neglected aspect of the movement. He is often convincing. Consequently, this book is not an introduction or a narrative summary and requires readers to have some familiarity with the history.
Some chapters were more interesting than others. Chapters 6 and 7 were the pinnacle – riveting, insightful, and surprising on the relationship of white southern churches, particularly clergy, to the segregationist cause. Chapters 3 and 4 on civil rights leaders’ invocation of prophetic tradition were also significant.
Some chapters were more interesting than others. Chapters 6 and 7 were the pinnacle – riveting, insightful, and surprising on the relationship of white southern churches, particularly clergy, to the segregationist cause. Chapters 3 and 4 on civil rights leaders’ invocation of prophetic tradition were also significant.
November 6, 2020
Although I didn't get to completely finish this book I really enjoyed Chappell's perspective on the civil rights movement and how it has to go beyond rhetoric or great speeches but that inspiration to continue to fight racism and other ills in society is a long haul fight.
December 14, 2023
Very clear on the role of prophetic rhetoric in the CRM, but I would want expansion upon the role of religion in replacing racism in justifying segregation.
May 10, 2020
Excellent! The power of the black church and the inaction (or at most tepid support of integration) by the white southern church were instrumental in the civil rights movement successfully getting the Civil Rights Act 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 passed.
If the white Southern church had supported the segregationist (as the church supported slavery), the author thinks that the Civil Rights movement might have failed.
If the white Southern church had supported the segregationist (as the church supported slavery), the author thinks that the Civil Rights movement might have failed.
November 16, 2013
Historian David Chappell explores the Civil Rights Movement, trying to understand its success. He begins by discussing secular liberalism and its failures to deal adequately with civil rights, even at the height of its power in the mid-20th century. He concludes that this is because it lacked a religious impulse.
Chappell, an atheist, is intrigued to discover that religion was the secret of the movement's success.
In three brilliant chapters he discusses the religious motivations and activities of the movement and its key leaders. He identifies a particular form of revivalistic, prophetic religion that typified the movement. There was even a belief in miracles among some in the movement. Chappell believes the civil rights movement was a third great awakening.
Religion kept the protestors motivated and enthusiastic and gave them the fortitude to withstand the opposition. The church was also a great source of organization.
What the opposition segregationists lacked was also religion. The Southern white denominations did not provide leadership in the segregationist cause, in fact many of them supported desegregation, including the Southern Baptists. Just as the civil rights leaders criticized the white churches for their moderation, the segregationists did as well.
The more respectable segregationist leaders were afraid of the extreme, supremacist elements of the movement, and often worked to distance themselves from them. This meant that there were deep divisions in the segregationists, which the civil rights movement exploited.
Chappell's basic theses are interesting. His chapters on the religion of the movement were quite engaging. I was less engaged by the chapters on secular liberalism and the segregationists, and less engaged by his more philosophical analyses.
But overall, a very strong book that taught me much which I did not already know.
Chappell, an atheist, is intrigued to discover that religion was the secret of the movement's success.
In three brilliant chapters he discusses the religious motivations and activities of the movement and its key leaders. He identifies a particular form of revivalistic, prophetic religion that typified the movement. There was even a belief in miracles among some in the movement. Chappell believes the civil rights movement was a third great awakening.
Religion kept the protestors motivated and enthusiastic and gave them the fortitude to withstand the opposition. The church was also a great source of organization.
What the opposition segregationists lacked was also religion. The Southern white denominations did not provide leadership in the segregationist cause, in fact many of them supported desegregation, including the Southern Baptists. Just as the civil rights leaders criticized the white churches for their moderation, the segregationists did as well.
The more respectable segregationist leaders were afraid of the extreme, supremacist elements of the movement, and often worked to distance themselves from them. This meant that there were deep divisions in the segregationists, which the civil rights movement exploited.
Chappell's basic theses are interesting. His chapters on the religion of the movement were quite engaging. I was less engaged by the chapters on secular liberalism and the segregationists, and less engaged by his more philosophical analyses.
But overall, a very strong book that taught me much which I did not already know.
October 4, 2012
Chappell describes white southern segregationists as “garnering very little support within their Christian denominations, rendering their values for racial apartheid religiously illegitimate” while the familiar prophets of the Civil Rights Movement, Martin Luther King, Jr., Baynard Rustin, and Billy Graham (who’s crusades were desegregated as early as 1957) used their religious backgrounds and the black southern churches as a foundation for their work. Lesser known prophets such as Modjeske Simkins and Fannie Lou Hamer (I need to read more about her!!) thought that normal religion, black and white, was part of the problem, not part of the solution. Surprising to me was the author’s claim that the Civil Right’s Movement received less support from liberals than I had previously imagined. “John Dewey believed that solidarity and sacrifice were necessary to achieve freedom and equality but liberals’ devotion to reason left them incapable of inspiring such solidarity and sacrifice.”
There is an assumption of knowledge by the author which made it less accessible to the novice. I believe the book would be more digestible if divided chronologically.
There is an assumption of knowledge by the author which made it less accessible to the novice. I believe the book would be more digestible if divided chronologically.
July 21, 2008
This is an intriguing book on an important topic, but I didn't find it very persuasive. Chappell seems most interested in attacking secular liberalism for inadequate fervor in the civil rights movement. Some of the critique is justified but it doesn't demonstrate that prophetic religion motivated the core of the movement. His definition of prophetic religion, however, is rather slippery. Sometimes it's the neo-orthodoxy of Reinhold Niebuhr but at others it's an emotional religiosity without a clear theological doctrine. The book also almost completely ignores the radical left (both black and white)and its important role in fighting for African American equality.
In an excellent book on the origins of the New Left in Austin, Texas, The Politics of Authenticity, Doug Rossinow showed that young activists there often emerged from religious communities and were influenced by Christian existentialist thought. Chappell is trying to do something similar on a broader canvas, but he overshoots his goal in order to score debater's points against secular liberalism.
In an excellent book on the origins of the New Left in Austin, Texas, The Politics of Authenticity, Doug Rossinow showed that young activists there often emerged from religious communities and were influenced by Christian existentialist thought. Chappell is trying to do something similar on a broader canvas, but he overshoots his goal in order to score debater's points against secular liberalism.
January 23, 2010
David Chappell has written an important, well-researched, and dare I say it, hopeful book about the role of religion in the end of legalized segregation. Chappell traces a narrative of concern over the issue of segregation beginning with a presentation of the (white) left wing in American politics from the 30s and 40s and their failure to succeed until the movement began to incorporate southern (and religious) blacks from the south. He argues that the blacks who involved themselves in the movement had many reasons for their success, but that the one thing they brought to the table that the liberal movement in American politics did not was a commitment to religion informed by the biblical prophets. Their faith (or for the nonbelievers among them, their ability to draw upon that faith tradition) stood as a driving factor in the eventual success of the movement. Chappel's book makes an important contribution not only to a discussion about the civil rights movement in general, but also to the history of religion in America. I can't recommend this highly enough.
November 18, 2015
I believe that this book made it onto my TBR from the LBJ biography that I read last year or the year before. I found out when I got to the acknowledgements that it is a post-doc work. This explains much. This is a VERY dense book. I had put it on my TBR to learn more about the civil rights movement. And, I have put several more on my TBR from the extensive resource list of this book. I will say that this is a tough read, but I am glad that I stuck with it. It is extremely well researched, and the author himself was surprised by where his research led him and provides a new perspective on the civil rights movement from both sides. To say I enjoyed it would be a stretch, but I believe that I am better for having read it. While the book itself is only 190 pages, there are 100 pages of footnotes, some of which are a page and a half in length. And, there is a 30 page Bibliographical Essay. I have to say I have never encountered that before. So, meticulously researched, and thorough. I learned much from reading this.
December 22, 2013
This is a fascinating book about the often neglected role that prophetic religion played in ending the Jim Crow era of the south. By prophetic religion he's referring to a religion that emphasizes the Old Testament prophets where you see the greatest concentration of commands to defend the defenseless and fight for the oppressed. Martin Luther King, Jr. and numerous other civil rights leaders used this prophetic religion to organize and inspire people and eventually overthrow Jim Crow. It's what was lacking in northern liberals who believed southerners would eventually change all on their own. Chappell also points out how segregationists were not able to use religion to mobilize their side despite using religion very effectively to keep the institution of slavery going. The book is a lot more academic than the popular non-fiction I'm used to. But, it's a great book for helping to understand the civil rights movement in all it's complexity.
July 17, 2007
Chappell's central thesis is that religion was a major factor in the civil rights movement. He illustrates how prophetic religion - the social justice advocacy of Hebrew prophets translated into modern idioms by liberal theologians like Reinhold Niebuhr - galvanized African Americans in the South. By contrast, Southern whites lacked a religious support for their positions and, therefore, failed to uphold segregation. Chappell also contrasts the prophetic religion of the South with Northern liberals, many of whom failed to make significant contributions to the civil rights debate because of their insistence on human progress and virtue. In the end, religion was the only force powerful enough to inspire the masses of protesters. I especially enjoyed the biographical information on MLK and Billy Graham.
April 9, 2009
This book is notable for discussing how secular liberals--led by John Dewey--noticed the transforming power of religion, and sought to duplicate that power and harness it for secular liberalism. Their inability to do so affected their presence in the civil rights movement, and affected their relationship with its religious leaders (Dr. King and his Southern Christian Leadership Conference). The author is definitely not Christian, if you don't like reading books with a Christian worldview; near the end of the book, he reveals himself to be an atheist.
This was one of the five or six assigned readings in my fall 2005 Post-WWII America course, and I found it arguably the most interesting of them.
This was one of the five or six assigned readings in my fall 2005 Post-WWII America course, and I found it arguably the most interesting of them.
May 13, 2013
This is a good introduction to philosophers and historical figures. It isn't the easiest book to read, but the effort is worth it if you want to get an alternate view of liberal thought and action in regards to the civil rights movement in the last half of the previous century. It isn't a light read.
I was surprised at the focus on liberal thought, but enjoyed the introduction. The author name checks a variety of interesting figures you could choose to go read more about.
I was surprised at the focus on liberal thought, but enjoyed the introduction. The author name checks a variety of interesting figures you could choose to go read more about.
November 24, 2013
A very interesting angle to look at the Civil Rights movement, Chappell really goes deep into the philosophical and religious ideologies of some of the leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr. and Bob Moses, and many others. Also has an interesting part where he discusses how the lack of support from white religious institutions hurt segregationists efforts in the south.
March 1, 2014
Just reread this book for my religion in American history class. Put simply, the book is brilliant. Might be the best book on the role of religion in the civil rights movement. Possibly even the best book on civil rights in general.
April 12, 2011
Moderately convincing, depressingly boring. Sometimes felt like more of an attack of liberals and segregationists than an exploration of the role of religion in the civil rights movement.
February 22, 2016
Great look at civil rights struggle and how its combatants employed Christianity and the Bible to support their sides. A little dry at times.
February 20, 2018
Great nonfiction on the role of religion in the Civil Rights Movement.
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews