The Lost Soul of American Protestantism

by D.G. Hart, R. Laurence Moore (Contributor)

In The Lost Soul of American Protestantism, D. G. Hart examines the historical origins of the idea that faith must be socially useful in order to be valuable. Through specific episodes in Presbyterian, Lutheran, and Reformed history, Hart presents a neglected form of Protestantism--confessionalism--as an alternative to prevailing religious theory. He explains that, unlike evangelical and mainline Protestants who emphasize faith's role in solving social and personal problems, confessional Protestants locate Christianity's significance in the creeds, ministry, and rituals of the church. Although critics have accused confessionalism of encouraging social apathy, Hart deftly argues that this form of Protestantism has much to contribute to current discussions on the role of religion in American public life, since confessionalism refuses to confuse the well-being of the nation with that of the church. The history of confessional Protestantism suggests that contrary to the legacy of revivalism, faith may be most vital and influential when less directly relevant to everyday problems, whether personal or social. Clear and engaging, D. G. Hart's groundbreaking study is essential reading for everyone exploring the intersection of religion and daily life.

Genres: History, Theology, Church History, Christian, Philosophy, Christianity, Nonfiction

238 pages, Kindle Edition

First published September 4, 2002

About the author

Darryl G. Hart (Ph.D., Johns Hopkins University) directs the honors programs and faculty development at the Intercollegiate Studies Institute and serves Westminster Seminary California as adjunct professor of church history. He has written or edited more than fifteen books, including Defending the Faith, a biography of J. Gresham Machen. He is coeditor of the American Reformed Biographies series.

Reviews

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 5 out of 5]

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 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.

Concerning Machen’s career, Hart echoes a very interesting, if sometimes uncomfortable argument: voluntary institutions have the right to be intolerant; involuntary institutions must be tolerant. This argument let Machen dodge the accusation that confessional churches were against the spirit of liberty that secular governments protect. Not so, Machen argued.

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.

This may not be the most pressing question, though. While it’s not popular today, Confessionalism confesses the two-fold kingdom distinction. There is the category of the church and there is the category of the common. Contending for public morality is noble and a case can be made for it, but it is not the church’s mission to lobby for Republicans. Let the common be common.

There is a healthy piety embedded in this. One of the old Reformed Scholastic categories was that of viator, a pilgrim between the times. This protects us from naive triumphalism (e.g., when a Republican wins office) and utter despair (e.g., November 5, 2008).

Why not?

Hart’s appeal is counter-intuitive. We see not only Christian morality, but quite likely the vestiges of “decent Civilization” being eroded by Washington D.C. Is this time to retreat into the private sector? I’ll counter with a question I often asks Christian Reconstructionists: which is more important: taking the Lord’s Supper next Lord’s Day or ‘winning back City Hall?” If we marginalize the former, who cares what happens elsewhere?

But “being politically active” ends up meaning supporting the Republican Party. How has that worked for us? The RINOs have been pimping the evangelical vote for years (and I realize ‘pimping’ might be vulgar, but if you consider the Washington sex scandals, it might be the most literal description).

What would happen if the world saw a “Churchly Protestant Piety?” Before we knock the idea, let’s give it a shot.

Wonderful quotes

“The model saint in pietist devotion is the activist” (162).

[Kelly · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hart presents an interesting argument that American Christianity is actually a divide between confessionalism and pietism instead of between evangelicalism and liberalism. Unfortunately, that argument is mostly lost in Hart's needlessly tedious and overly complicated writing style.

I particularly enjoyed the final chapter on Lutheranism and the related comments on church and state issues - Christian education, Two Kingdoms/spirituality of the church, the Church Growth Movement/megachurches, and the charismatic movement are all interests of mine due to my upbringing and life experiences and that chapter dealt with all so was quite interesting to me.

The Conclusion chapter also has some interesting thoughts on how confessionalism might work in a melting pot country that encourages tolerance and assimilation of diverse groups into one people. Conclusion also brought out the crusader/activist nature of pietism versus the pilgrim/spirituality of the church nature of confessionalism.

Content was probably 5 stars, but writing clarity and style were a 1. This was my third time reading Hart, and unfortunately it's 3 Strikes He's Out for me in regards to his style and communication inabilities, so I probably won't volunteer to read him again.

[Ezekiel Kingsbury · Rating 4 out of 5]

It really picks up in the last third. I had an issue because I am scouring it for identification-oriented stuff, but if you are more into history you will find the middle cool, I expect.

[Pete Williamson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a really important book for not only understanding the history of Protestantism in the US, but also the place and importance of confessional Protestantism in that story. For me personally, this was a very affirming book - I have thought for some time now that the revivalism of the 18th and 19th centuries has left a huge mark on evangelical Christianity today...some good, much not so good - but I had missed the role of pietism in that.

[Kameron · Rating 2 out of 5]

Hart is right to steer the typical narrative of American Protestantism away from the two-category discussion of evangelicalism vs liberalism. He broadens the scope by accounting for confessional Protestants as a group that transcends the typical categories. My primary quibble is his "two-kingdom" agenda. He lumps all confessional protestants into his schizophrenic perspective.

[Todd · Rating 5 out of 5]

GREAT BOOK! Handles the Calvinist/Arminian distinction very well, and also has a nice little section on the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod.

[Dwayne Hicks · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book contains a clarifying argument that the real division in American in not liberal-evangelical but pietist-confessionalist. Hart sees evangelicals and liberals as two sides of the same pietist coin. Evangelicals and liberals differ in their emphasis, in that the former focus on faith as informing personal morality and family life while the latter focus on faith as a pathway to a more just and generous society. But they both emphasize individual experience, seek a zealous and activist response to faith, and see true faith as being "useful", that is, it helps one live better and makes the world a better place to live.

With striking similarities established between the evangelical and liberal camps, Hart then demonstrates how real opposition to this pietist outlook in American history is the confessionalist one. He uses examples from Presbyterian & Reformed denominations as well as Lutheran (LCMS). Confessionalists have more of a pilgrim outlook, identify the dominion of the church in a spiritual sphere distinct from the secular shared sphere of the general nation/society, focus on sin as the central concern of religion, emphasize the institutional church and the service of the ministry in the daily lives of believers, and look at faith as something mostly transmitted generation to generation rather than discovered individually in a dramatic and punctuated conversion experience.

Hart defends confessionalism against a charge of balkanization. He shows how confessional trademarks - theological intolerance, irrelevant liturgy, and a sectarian attitude - actually help limit the operative scope of religion and preserve a common sphere of operation outside religion for people of other faiths. Ultimately it is pietism (both evangelical and liberal), because is sees faith informing every aspect of life, that causes division by aspiring to social control and the Christian-izing of the nation.

A helpful book for understanding the drawbacks of the evangelical movement and the distinctions between a confessionalist view of Christianity and a merely "conservative-evangelical" one.

[Joel Wentz · Rating 5 out of 5]

The core argument of this book resonated at such a deep level with me, and the approach to the extremely-tired historical presentation of "fundamentalist-modernist" or "conservative-liberal" American Protestantism was refreshing. If Hart is correct, namely, that "pietistic" and "revivalistic" modes of Christianity have overtaken pretty much all Christian practice in America, then it explains a ton of my frustration and discomfort with the way ministry is done in the country. A return to a more "confessional" approach seems apt, and the implications of this approach are manifold for so many issues that plague our time (politicization, polarization, church unity, church growth, leadership scandals, etc.).

There is still a tension here that I haven't worked out - between the public expressions of Christian faithfulness and adherence to the clarity of confessionalism. But Hart's argument certainly "moved the needle" for me, and I will be referring to this book much more in the future. Highly recommended for anyone interested in the history of American religion.

[Dwain Minor · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was impressive to me for a variety of reasons. I like a book that helps explain the way things are well and this does exactly that. Why is it that churches are, for the most part, so similar today? What happened to the confessionalism that so dominated American Christianity in the early day? Why is American Christianity so concerned with politics...and should we be? What does it look like to be a pilgrim in this world?

I greatly enjoyed this book and thought it was incredibly beneficial.

[Lindsay · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book truly filled a gap in my knowledge and I would probably do well to read it a second or third time. It not only surveys American Protestantism, but also argues that it cannot be simply divided between conservative evangelicals vs. liberal progressives. It provides such a compelling argument about how American Christianity has descended into the state it is in. I'm not sure I've ever highlighted so many parts of a book before.

[Tessa · Rating 3 out of 5]

There were a few interesting ideas presented in this book that I haven't read elsewhere. Other passages, honestly, went over my head. It is fairly academic. But I'm glad I read it, and will seek further sources exploring this point of view.

[Alan Giles · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good primer on the differences between modern American christianity (especially with its current political connections) and historic protestantism.

[Aidan Moon · Rating 4 out of 5]

An important book for anyone seeking to understand the landscape of American Christianity.

[Luke Abendroth · Rating 5 out of 5]

Preach the gospel, forget pietists like Count Zinzendorf, die, and be forgotten.

[Jesse · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a really important read. Hart shows how American Protestantism has been dominated by, what he calls, Pietism (personal spiritual experiences that are often emotional, individualistic, and low church). Hart says that there is another tradition, Confessionalism (high church, emphasizes the creeds and sacraments of the church) which goes back a ways in American history but it is not as influential in American culture as Pietism has been and is. Hart argues that Pietism is what is wrong with American Protestantism because Pietism is trying too hard to be relevant in the culture which warps the practices and theology of the church. Pietism has lost its soul: creeds, sacraments, high church, etc. Hart also shows how Pietism shapes questions about church practices in ways that we are not often aware. For example, should a church shift from singing hymns to contemporary worship songs? The broader Protestant culture says contemporary music, but if a church decides to keep with their hymns they are swimming against the stream, a stream that is everywhere we look. So it's not easy.

Hart's introduction is well worth the price of admission because he asks all the right questions: How does the church stay relevant without losing its traditions and practices? How do we reach the masses with the gospel without dumbing it down? How do we reach the intellectuals without losing the masses?

The one downside is that Hart makes a really sharp divide between church and culture to the point where he says the church should not be relevant in the culture because if we try to be relevant then that will pull us away from important church practices which in turn will weaken the church. He ends with the thought that if we had stayed true to our tradition then the American culture might have degraded faster but at least the Protestant church would have remained faithful to its tradition. He seems to have a really hopeless vision of the church's influence in the world: at best we can only save the frozen chosen. And in that way he seems to diminish the power of the gospel in all the world. His answer then is pretty weak and not really as satisfying as it could be. But his questions hit the bull’s-eye, for what it's worth.

[Denver · Rating 4 out of 5]

Made the strongest case against revivalism of any written argument. Hart accounts for a number of trends and makes a valid case. However, the arguments were not entirely convincing and the book could present a better alternative picture or illustration. It most notably suffers when addressing evangelism/outreach because it almost seems to surrender that such efforts would not be as strong without revivalism, even if the results of revivalism can be circumspect. Worth the read to understand and learn from the critiques even if there is not full agreement with the text.

[Mark Seeley · Rating 5 out of 5]

I refer back to this book again and again. It is very insightful regarding the influence peitism and revivalism have had on the religious and evangelical culture in America. Proposes a third way of a robust confessionalism and a high ecclessiology.

[Ben · Rating 3 out of 5]

I thought this was great window into the history and development of American Protestantism. It is specifically aimed at explaining how we got to where we are, and is not without bias. I like it.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must-read for those who walk the lonely way of confessional Christianity.