Rediscovering an Evangelical Heritage: A Tradition And Trajectory Of Integrating Piety And Justice

by Donald W. Dayton, Douglas M. Strong

This book, widely regarded as groundbreaking since its publication over thirty-five years ago, sheds light on the more radical and prophetic roots of American evangelicalism and has challenged countless readers to rethink their evangelical heritage. It argues that nineteenth-century American evangelicals held a more mature vision of the faith, for they engaged demanding justice, peace, and social issues--a vision that was betrayed and distorted by twentieth-century neo-evangelicals. The book helps readers understand that the broader origins of American evangelicalism include the social justice concerns of today's church.

Featuring new historic photos and illustrations, this edition includes new introductory and concluding chapters and incorporates relevant updates. The previous edition was published as Discovering an Evangelical Heritage.

Genres: Nonfiction, Theology, Religion

208 pages, Paperback

First published July 15, 2014

About the author

Donald W. Dayton (PhD, University of Chicago), now retired, taught theology and ethics at North Park Seminary, Northern Baptist Seminary, Drew University, and Azusa Pacific University. He lives in California.

Reviews

[Joshua Pearsall · Rating 3 out of 5]

Below you will find my notes on the book, which will function as it's own review. I think the book does a fine job of noting historical information, but if it were not for the commentary by Douglas M. Strong I don't know if I could recommend this book in good conscious as it's original printing.

Rediscovering an Evangelical Heritage by Donald Dayton

Introduction
This introduction could have been considerably shorter.
I am definitely concerned it is full of liberalism, especially as the author was noted for speaking very highly of Charles Finney, and did not recant this in his 2nd edition. I will however have to read his own words.
Chapter 2
This book thus far feels like overemphasising the present world. Making the kingdom of God on Earth, though of course a goal we should all strive for, so focused on as that which the state brings about, and not that which the Church brings about within itself. Is this how the Church in it’s earliest days advocated? Or did it do so in another way? Is this not simply the opposite of what we now call Christian Nationalism? Simply on a more “reform” bent vision than the modern “fundamentalist/conservative” values attached? Especially as seen on Pg 67-8, 70. Especially as it is repeatedly tied to, such as on P. 69, the Spirit of God “forsaking us” or the land being covered “with darkness and the shadow of death (p. 70).” Not that we should in any way diminish the impact and ruin of sin, but to make social reform this highly raised, given this language, I fear perhaps an idol is and has been crafted for many because of its language. We should absolutely use our votes to push for what is right, our theology and politics cannot be separated, but surely it is unwise to raise up the methods of worldly politics and movements to this level?
Chapter 3
Why are we reading a book so praising Finney? At best, someone with far too many leanings towards Semi Pelagianism, who wasn’t even a Methodist.
P. 84. Wald, an already questionably liberal individual, became a Unitarion…
The last part of 84 as well, is exactly the defense I myself have heard to justify movements like the White Boy Summer group as a reason to not excommunicate men for their actions, or the stone quire cult (which thankfully many have finally renounced).
Chapter 4
My one thought working through this is though radicalism is not the same as liberalism, there is certainly overlap and I fear one seeped into the other during this time unseen. Which has led to many of the problems we have today.
87-8 and following, feels very much like Anabaptism in several ways. Not quite so far, but a few strands that are at least similar in appearance if not thought. Such as is later noted that “almost all sweets were outlawed (93).”
Of course I agree with the sentiment at the top of 90, but I fear these groups in their search for what is right, let what is wrong fuse into their cause and the theology in ways that are still being felt today. Especially in the way they conducted revivals, almost like it was something they could produce. Such as the extremism at the end of 90, “Oberlin would have nothing to do with Christian faith unrelated to reform…” In his pursuit to correct abused and bring conformity to the laws of our existence, a blind eye was turned to the corruption spreading from within.
How would these men have talked to Paul for telling a slave to return to his master, would they say the same thing to him?
Chapter 5
I do struggle to balance the right fight against slavery, via methods like rebelling against the laws and the abolitionist movement. I’m not sure how that can be considered fully right under Romans 13, Philemon, Peter’s writings, etc. The same with the American Revolution.
Chapter 6
Again, seems like too extreme of ends are being included in these things pushing towards positive change. Too ascetic, too pietistic in some facets (though the Puritans certainly enjoyed the meriments of God’s good things in creation at times as well). This included pushing out things like the traditional and proper use of wine in communion in their extremism. This has been the constant flavor of the history this author has written, and is the exact thing that happened with the fall of the UMC. They did exactly what Finney, even in his great errors, didn’t go to and warned against even as the seeds of this were being sown in his own movement. The UMC left the gospel for “the social gospel.”
Such as on 111. How can Finney go critiqued harshly in this book, when he abandons his flock over such a matter. Did Paul abandon the Corinthians and leave them when they were living as heathens, or when they refused to let their repentant back in? Did Clement after him? Did Chryosostom abandon his flock for theirs? One can note the good work he did, but to overlook the errors is dangerous and foolish, and to not warn others about them is nothing short of failure of duty. We are called to flocks, they aren’t a store. Paul went to the Corinthians, Finney went out from them
Chapter 7
As Kevin Watson points out, though again I raise the question of Paul, even amidst Methodism at this time we see the clear early roots that set down the precedent of “selling out” for things against our historic teachings and beliefs (120). But we should also not downplay the seriousness of schism, a plague on the churches in modern Western culture. Though I agree with the battle they fought, I can’t help but feel this was an early form of the errors that the UMC has built itself upon. Especially the fervent defense of the Liberty Party as representing, “an individual’s ‘though conversion.’ Just as evangelicals consecrated their lives to Jesus Christ, in like manner, evangelist abolitionist were urged to ‘consecrate your votes’ to Christ’s cause of universal liberty (131).” Why is their ballot, “proof of a person’s unqualified allegiance to God (132)”?
Look into Lee
luther lee the evangelical pulpit 1854-1864
5 sermons 1 tract
Again with lee’s appeal, how would he speak to Paul after reading Philemon?
Chapter 8
I wish he had defined “feminist theology.”
I find it interesting to note Wesley’s limited approval of some women preachers, who he noted as exceptional, but not to note his reasoning. That there were women prophets and evangelist who acted like preachers in the scriptures, but never a woman in the role of the priesthood. The closest one can argue to in this manner, is eve. Of course women still played roles in music such as the tabernacle, march of the ark, the temple, etc. But these, are not the same things as priesthood.
I am concerned at the repeated involvement of Weld being put in a positive light. The defense, already refuted in the earlier notes, doesn’t excuse the radical influence of a man whose theology seemed to be very off on core issues well before he became a Unitarian, may the Lord have mercy on his soul.
And how do we handle statements from Catherin such as, “I have tried to grind it into my boys that their sisters were just as intelligent and capable as themselves. Jesus Christ’s principles were to put woman on the same platform as men, although I am sorry to say his apostles did not always act upon it (145).” The Apostles were not Egalitarians, and to use that as an insult against them and a degrading remark and not critique Catherine for it, how are we ok with that? If someone thinks they were wrong, surely there is a more respectful way to disagree than to insult and degenerate figures such as the apostles? Again, I understand wanting to report history, but we the Church are not impartial observers of history, and contrary to popular thought I find it rather unfortunate so many Church historians have thought it our role to strive to be an impartial observer. The same with “God our mother” language.
And to note Phoebe Palmer without any critique of how many centric some of her thoughts were, especially around Entire Sanctification. I have big problems here. I am all for noting history, and all that happened, but not to point out errors in people who are being raised up in a positive light, seems careless and dangerous.
Chapter 9
I do appreciate how he notes the fight that happened within what was once the “fundamentalist” split.
Again, I am surprised and disappointed that even in the temperance movement the errors of the group are not being critiqued. They are lifted up as good things, without pushing back and trying to warn against following in the errors that sprouted up.
Especially as it’s arguable the presentation on 162 of Methodist [properly] lamenting the desecration of Sabbath, and critiquing “consumer oriented culture” which “led to moral compromise.” The author’s own bias is clear, and I think that should’ve been noted by either the editor or even in the syllabus. It should be noted, why are we reading this book, and what should we be cautious of?
Chapter 10
Such as giving no solid critique of the modern idea of a pre tribulation rapture, and failing to note the historical premill view over this modern innovation. The authors focus is purely on how it impacted reform movements, which frankly shouldn’t be the primary concern of the Church. It’s putting too much focus on the wrong thing.
It isn’t until p. 174 we get a note in the main body of text of objections to Finney’s theology specifically, not simply his actions and social views. And that’s all that’s noted, there was objection. There isn’t note on what the objection was, what the controversy was, an evaluation of the theology in light of historic Christian teaching, nothing. When it discusses the differences, the text again focuses on the differences in the social actions including critiquing encouragement towards civil disobedience, not the theological underpinnings.
When he does talk about theology it’s talking about how the princeton theology, “was more closely tied to the aristocracy and higher social classes,” as opposed to Finney whose, “revivalism and his social commitments drew him more to identification with the poor, the slave, and the masses-at least to some extent. Both Hodge and Finney, therefore, represented to a certain extent in their thought the interests of those with whom they had aligned themselves sociologically (176).”
And what theological position does it note? Finney & Hodge on determinism, which Finney under his own traditions confessional standards should’ve yielded to. Regardless of how correct in some ways and wrong in many ways Finney was on that particular matter, not noting this is something massive to not point out.
And when discussing the theological differences on p. 177 the authors bias is clearly in favor of Finney, where he doesn’t note how Finney went too far in some areas. And the author, again, focuses not on the immense importance of that theological debate and Finney’s failures in it with how far he goes, but I’d say even shows clear favor to the focus of what Finney worked on at the cost of skipping over his errors and not warning his readers to avoid them in pursuing noble goals. I’d argue in his critique of a focus on orthodoxy at the costs of orthopraxy, whether he is correct or not, he swings to other extreme focusing on orthopraxy over orthodoxy when we should be striving to balance the two.

This is all the more noticeable in his epilogue, focusing on the decline of the “evangelical social witness” instead of the battles over orthodoxy. He even notes himself how the two groups that battled focusing on one end over the other, noting how Wesley points to the problems of either and how the contrast can be overdrawn, while doing so himself in failing to engage in the orthodoxy debates of these focusing more on the orthopraxy himself and the outcomes and “loss” of “social evangelical witness” in his writings. As he describes it, the differences between revivalism and fundamentalism. I don’t want to dismiss the important historical topics he discusses here, but I think his own bias and failures to properly note certain theological and practical dangers should be noted. If the entire purpose of this book is simply to note history and the change in the evangelical world, then it’s done its job, but I fear at the cost of proper warnings. I think Douglas’s commentary is good in addition ot the original author’s words for setting the purpose of this book and the question it poses out, but there should be more noting the failures in both action and theology of the various groups as warnings ot those trying to engage this question and learn how to move forward in the modern age. Such as finally happens, on P. 198 by Douglas’s commentary and is lacking in the original book.

[Jonathan · Rating 5 out of 5]

An inspiring and very timely book that shows that evangelicalism need not be afraid to unite typical evangelical emphases (born again conversion, personal repentance and discipleship, etc.) with radical societal reform inspired by the gospel. I found it to be very encouraging and very educational! It turns out that all of the major Wesleyan-Holiness denominations (Salvation Army, Wesleyan, Church of the Nazarene and Free Methodist) were founded because of social issues (abolition, ministry catered towards the marginalized, etc.). Also pretty cool that women were being ordained in the 1850's. Wild that a lot of these details have been covered up and that this societal reforming emphases has been largely lost in mainstream North American evangelicalism.

[Zach Waldis · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an interesting book, a work of "advocacy" and "usable history", which the author admits is his aim, more or less. Dayton chronicles antebellum evangelicalism, highlighting its championing of abolition, women's rights, pacifism, and generally progressive social causes. As he and other contributors to this more recent edition make clear, "progressive evangelicalism" is not an oxymoron, and "old school" Calvinism and fundamentalism are not the only streams of American Christianity. I appreciate this "minority report" but it ultimately seems like special pleading, as American Christianity seems to be dominated by stories of slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, and the religious right.

[Aaron de neui · Rating 5 out of 5]

Such a good book that documents how piety AND justice worked together in the 19th century and can today and what has happened since and how some Christians, especially millennial, hunger for this today.

[George P. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Donald W. Dayton with Douglas M. Strong, Rediscovering an Evangelical Heritage: A Tradition and Trajectory of Integrating Piety and Justice, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2014). Paperback / Kindle

In 1973, some North American church leaders asked Billy Graham to use his influence with President Richard Nixon to try to stop the U.S. bombing of North Vietnam. Graham replied in the pages of Christianity Today by saying, in part, “I am convinced that God has called me to be a New Testament evangelist, not an Old Testament prophet! An evangelist is a proclaimer of the message of God’s love and grace in Jesus Christ and of the necessity of repentance and faith.” The distinction between evangelism and social concern, with the prioritization of the former over the latter, was typical of mid- to late-twentieth-century evangelicalism.

As Donald W. Dayton shows in Rediscovering an Evangelical Heritage, however, it was not typical of nineteenth-century evangelicals. “[W]hile Billy Graham sometimes uses the language of repentance and faith to avoid questions of social responsibility,” he writes, “earlier generations of evangelicals understood that repentance involved turning from apathy into the heart of struggles for social reform. While Billy Graham contrasts the ‘New Testament evangelist’ and the ‘Old Testament prophet,’ earlier evangelicals combined these roles.” Dayton shows this by profiling a number of nineteenth-century evangelicals, as well as the institutions they led. The profiles make for fascinating reading.

Take, for example, the chapter on Jonathan Blanchard, the first president of Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois—sometimes referred to as “the evangelical Harvard.” “I came to Wheaton in 1860,” Blanchard wrote, “still seeking a perfect state of society’ and a college ‘for Christ and his Kingdom.’” The latter phrase is well known, since it is Wheaton’s motto. The former phrase—“a perfect state of society”—is less well known, though it perfectly encapsulates Blanchard’s philosophy of social reform. It is the title of a commencement address Blanchard delivered at Oberlin College in 1839. In that address, Blanchard said, “Society is Perfect where what is right in theory exists in fact; where Practice coincides with Principle, and the Law of God is the Law of the Land.” The perfect state of society is nothing less than the kingdom of God. Just as Jesus preached the perfect state of society, so must every Christian minister: “every true minister of Christ is a universal reformer, whose business it is, so far as possible, to reform all the evils which press on human concerns.”

The particular evil that Blanchard is best known for working to reform is slavery, though it was not the only one. Indeed, when the founders of Wheaton College advertised for a president, they looked for someone to uphold “the testimony of God’s word against slave-holding, secret societies and their spurious worships, against intemperance, human inventions in church government, war, and whatever else shall clearly appear to contravene the kingdom and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Blanchard fit the bill and then some. He seems to have had feminist leanings as well, at one point arguing that “the first alteration which Christianity made in the polity of Judaism was to abrogate this oppressive distinction of sexes,” which taught “women had almost no rights; they were menials to their husbands and parents.”

Today, few would use the word evangelical inclusively with words like civil rights advocate, feminist, and peace advocate. For many nineteenth-century evangelicals, however, the words fit together perfectly. I have highlighted Jonathan Blanchard because he was the first president of my alma mater, but his profile bears striking resemblance to others Dayton profiles, such as Charles G. Finney (evangelist and president of Oberlin College), Theodore Weld (author of Slaver As It Is, which Harriet Beecher Stowe reportedly kept under her pillow as she wrote Uncle Tom’s Cabin), Arthur and Lewis Tappan (Manhattan businessmen who funded abolitionist causes), and Orange Scott and Luther Lee (founders of the Wesleyan Methodist Church, which was founded on abolitionist principles). The words also fit together perfectly at Oberlin College, which was a central hub of reformed-minded—even radical—evangelicalism.

By the middle of the twentieth century, the term evangelicalism no longer described American Christians who worked toward “integrating piety and justice,” as the words of the book’s subtitle puts it. Instead, evangelicals—or neo-evangelicals—were conservative supporters of the American status quo. They opposed the Civil Rights Movement. They taught that the complementarity of the sexes required distinct gender roles that disallowed women preaching. They supported the Cold War generally and the Vietnam war specifically. “In the fundamentalist/modernist controversy [of the early twentieth century], and in succeeding decades,” Dayton writes, “the sociological, theological, and historical currents produced a movement that in many ways stood for the opposite of what an earlier generation of evangelicals had affirmed.”

Why had this happened? Part of the answer was sociological. Sustaining a high degree of commitment to piety and justice is not easy. The tendency of institutions is to move from sectarian radicalism to the respectable status quo, which was true of some of the institutions mentioned here, such as Wheaton College and the Wesleyan Church. Part of the answer was theological. In the late nineteenth century, evangelicals increasingly turned from postmillennialism to premillennialism. Whereas mid-nineteenth-century evangelicals worked to reform society in order to set the stage for Christ’s return, late-nineteenth-century evangelicals desired Christ’s return as the necessary precursor for “the perfect state of society” or kingdom of God. And another part of the answer was historiographical. Whereas mid- nineteenth-century evangelicals were theological Arminians and practitioners of Finney’s “New Measures” in evangelism, mid-twentieth-century neo-evangelicals were heirs of “Old Princeton” Calvinists such as Charles Hodge and B. B. Warfield, who were leading critics in their time of Finney’s “New Measures.” The neo-evangelicals simply didn’t see the previous century’s evangelicals as their kind of people.

Rediscovering an Evangelical Heritage is an important book, nearly forty years after its first publication, because it delivers on the title. Evangelicals with left-leaning politics will find in its pages a “usable history” to underwrite their efforts. Though my political predilections lean rightward, I still found Dayton’s argument an engrossing read. Part of this is because my own tradition of Pentecostalism itself is a late outgrowth of mid-nineteenth-century evangelicalism. (See Dayton’s Theological Roots of Pentecostalism , for example.) I share its egalitarian tendencies, for example, as well as its revivalism and Arminian theology. But another part is my empathy with their social location. They stood outside of social systems they deemed immoral and unjust and worked to reform them. I feel similarly today about my own social location.

Empathy for nineteenth-century radical evangelicals doesn’t mean we can’t learn from their mistakes. We can see in some a movement from social radicalism to theological heterodoxy. (I’m thinking here of Theodore Weld in particular, who moved form evangelicalism to Unitarianism.) We can see in others a move toward theological rationales for violence. The Oberlin community’s abolitionism, for example, traced a trajectory from “moral suasion” (persuading slaveholders voluntarily to release their slaves) to “moral government” (electing legislatures and passing laws that banned slavery) to civil disobedience (especially with regard to the federal Fugitive Slave Act) to insurrection (when John Brown was executed for his leadership of the attack on the arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Oberlin’s chapel bell tolled for an hour in sympathy). Others too closely connected Christianity with a specific political platform (first the Liberty Party’s, then the Republican’s). And, finally, some evangelicals assumed the right to tell others how to live on a host of issues that others felt was none of their business (temperance, most obviously, and Sabbath laws). America has become a far more diverse society than it was in the nineteenth century. Those who claim to be heirs to that century’s evangelicals need to remember that we do not have the common Protestant culture that they did, and adjust our arguments and attitudes accordingly.

Nevertheless, an evangelicalism that integrates piety and justice is the great need of contemporary American Christianity. Not either/or, but both/and. This is the heritage we need to rediscover and practice anew.

P.S. If you found my review helpful, please vote “Yes” on my Amazon.com review page.

[Bob · Rating 4 out of 5]

Summary: An updated edition of a study of the pre-Civil War nineteenth century roots of evangelicalism in the United States and the combination of piety, preaching, and social reform characteristic of this movement in this period.

In the mid 1970's, Donald Dayton, a church historian wrote a series of articles for The Post-American (now Sojourners) that was collected into the first edition of this work. In it, Dayton traced for a rising generation of socially-conscious boomer evangelicals (of whom I was a part) the reform, social justice tradition within American evangelicalism, going back to its nineteenth century pre-Civil War roots. That edition, called Discovering an Evangelical Heritage gave a generation of us the basis for contending that it was possible to care both about the eternal destiny of people and about social injustices within our society and in our international relations, that both were part of Christian faithfulness for people who took their Bibles and the kingdom that Jesus announced seriously. In 1988, the first edition was re-printed with new preface by Dayton. This new, second edition includes updated supplemental material by Douglas M. Strong as well as a new introduction and conclusion written by Strong. What we have is not only Dayton's original work, but a sense of the trajectory of evangelicalism in the forty years since, including the rise of the Religious Right, and more recent Millennial efforts to recover this heritage.

Dayton began this work with a profile of Jonathan Blanchard, first president of Wheaton College. He came to Wheaton from pastoring a black Presbyterian church in Cincinnati, continued his anti-slavery work as president of Knox College in Illinois before going to Wheaton, founded by abolitionist Wesleyan Methodists, with a commitment to carrying on this reform tradition. Another, whose career trajectory was similar was Charles Grandison Finney, known not only for his revivalist preaching but also for his fervent abolitionism and his commitment to permit women to pray and speak. He carried these commitments into his presidency of Oberlin College, which Dayton traces in a subsequent chapter, particularly as the abolitionist wing of Lane Theological Seminary departed Cincinnati for Oberlin, forming a college that admitted blacks and women, preparing both for ministry and other professions. Later, Dayton recounts the resistance and civil disobedience to Fugitive Slave laws, culminating in the Wellington case, where fugitive slave John Price is rescued from custody in nearby Wellington.

Dayton also profiles Theodore Weld, converted under Finney and serving as an assistant to him. Instead of joining him at Oberlin, he heads up the American Anti-Slavery Society, using techniques he learned in Finney's revivals to mobilize commitment to abolition. Eventually he marries fellow abolitionist Angelina Grimke, in what was clearly an egalitarian marriage, in which Weld renounced his "right" to her person and property. Dayton profiles the Tappan Brothers, wealthy New York businessmen who used their resource to fund anti-slavery efforts, including the work of Finney and Weld. At one point, Arthur Tappan pledged nearly all his annual income of $100,000 to Oberlin College (there was a Tappan Hall, eventually torn down to be replaced by Tappan Square, across the street from Finney Chapel).

The remainder of the book explores the evangelical roots of feminism, the development of ministries among the poor, including the work of the Salvation Army, and what happened to evangelicalism over the next century. One of the most fascinating trends is the tension between the tradition represented by Finney and the tradition represented by the Princeton Theologians. One emphasized experience and practice, the other theological orthodoxy. It seems these two have been in a kind of "tug of war" throughout our nation's history. In the post-Civil War period, the focus turned more to matters of personal morality, and the resistance to theological liberalism and Darwinist science, leading to a retreat into fundamentalism, from which the movement began to emerge only in the post-World War Two period, the Civil Rights movement and the Vietnam war era, as a rising evangelicalism sought resources to address these issues of the day.

Strong traces the movement from 1976 and the election of Jimmy Carter, an avowed evangelical, down to the present. The rise of the Religious Right, and the strategy of Republicans to regain the white South led to political re-alignments and a re-focused agenda for many evangelicals that has continued to this day, along with the rise of a complementarian neo-Calvinism bent on defining orthodoxy for all evangelical scholarship. Strong traces the rise of Millennials, disenchanted with the polarized politics, and concerned with a new set of social justice issues and racial reconciliation as a counter-movement to these trends.

I had a lot of mixed feelings reading this book. There is a certain amount of pride that much of this evangelical history runs through my home state, from Cincinnati to Oberlin. Yet I feel a great sadness that by and large, we are not cognizant in the evangelical community in my state of that history or how we might carry it on. One striking exception has been a continuing effort to fight human trafficking, which harks back to the Underground Railroad, a prominent part of Ohio history.

I would like to be as sanguine as Strong about the rising generation. I can't help but think about how the movement of the 1970's by and large was co-opted by affluence and became part of a reactionary establishment. For most, there was neither a grounding theological vision, nor an orthopraxy of pursuing both piety and justice embedded in our lives and church communities. We grew intellectually lazy and comfortable. I hope the rising generation can indeed recover this great tradition of both vigorous piety and reform. My own hunch is that if it is to happen (and Strong alludes to this), it will arise not out of white evangelicalism, which I think is too far gone in its cultural and political captivity, but out of minority and immigrant communities, and multi-cultural church communities where whites may be in the minority. That may be a good thing, both for the American church, and the country that is its earthly home.

______________________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher via Netgalley. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own.

[Mason Tabor · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was an excellent book, and very thought-provoking. It challenged a common narrative I had learned about the history of evangelicalism and connected with some other topics I had been studying. It’s an excellent read and shines a light on a portion of Christian history that is often overlooked or told differently. That said, this book shouldn’t be read uncritically; there are definitely points made the book on which scholars disagree, and as someone ignorant to this portion of history I’m choosing not to accept whole-sale everything I’ve read. Nevertheless, I look forward to learning more about the topics this book touches on, and seeing how what I’ve learned/will learn shall influence my own practice of the Christian faith.

[Taylor Diehl · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was such an encouraging and inspiring picture of the evangelical heritage. I was excited reading the brave movements of the church in American history and wishing I could be a part of them, while also infuriated by how much evangelicals leaders have deceptively rewritten their own narrative. While often feeling disconnected from the evangelical church of today, this book has deeply connected me to evangelicals of the past who I can proudly call my brothers and sisters in Christ, and that is a great gift!

[Christopher Chandler · Rating 5 out of 5]

A book that helps historically situate evangelism and clarifies its modern position.

One of the most helpful and necessary books I've read in both undergraduate and graduate studies. A few of the issues I had in the book were address in the conclusion to the 2012 edition--a chapter that by itself is worth the price of the book. This books is needed in the political swap Evangelicals find themselves in today.

[Christoffer · Rating 4 out of 5]

A short and well written book about the roots of evangelicalism in America. The book is divided into chapters where each chapter focuses on a particularly important person or aspect of the evangelical movement. A major point of the book is to showcase the difference in approach and perspective between today's evangelicals and the 19th century revival version lead by Finney, Oberlin college and others. It is well worth a read to get a historical perspective of the roots of evangelicalism

[Don Watkins · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very interesting book to read for a person from a primarily Roman Catholic experience. I was amazed to learn that evangelicalism of the 19th century was involved in so many social movements like abolition of slavery and women's rights. I read this book as part of the requirements of a course of study in rethinking evangelicalism.

[Jenai Auman · Rating 4 out of 5]

An incredible book filled with evangelical church history and its roots in abolition and social change for marginalized folks, and how the descendants of these movements have erased their history.

Covers some 18th century, but mostly 19th century into the 20th.

[David Blanchard · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was so fun to read! I learned so much about my Weslyean heritage. I felt very encouraged and challenged after reading this book.

[Caitlin Grammel · Rating 5 out of 5]

An inspiring read on how evangelicals of the 19th century were devoted to social change and God’s Kingdom on Earth including abolition, women’s rights, etc.