The Lost Soul of American Protestantism (??)

[Puritanhead]

Has anyone read this book by any chance? And if so, what are your thoughts?

Official Description from Publisher
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.

Book Review - from the American Historical Review

[Edited on 6-25-2006 by Puritanhead]

 

[jaybird0827]

Ryan,

This sounds like a good book to check out. Who is the publisher?

I attempted to look at the review and it seems the link's busted. This is what the page looked like.

Whoops.

Form info:
amp;amp;url is http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/109.1/br_73.html
act is justtop

Not a full URL--please use "http://blablabla" grammar.

A blessed Lord's Day to you,
J. Sulzmann

 

[Puritanhead]

Originally posted by jaybird0827
Ryan,

This sounds like a good book to check out. Who is the publisher?

I patched the URLs, but since the publisher's link won't load properly on the Puritanboard because it has brackets within the URL, I simply linked to Amazon.com.

However, the publisher is Rowman and Littlefield
http://www.rowmanlittlefield.com/

You can search for it on their official web site as well, though it doesn't tell much more than I provided above...

[Edited on 6-25-2006 by Puritanhead]

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Jeff Bartel has read this book. It looks interesting to me.

 

[Puritanhead]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Jeff Bartel has read this book. It looks interesting to me.

I tuned out, and never caught Jeff's recommendation. J.J. Forrest first told me about it. I am thinking about getting a review copy from the publisher and writing an article about it.

True historic baptists are hard to find in my neck of the woods anymore. Revivalism and the imprint of northern missionaries to the south after the War between the States did a lot to kill off confessional Protestantism. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are the leading voices of Christianity where I come from.

I think Presbyterians too, would be well advised to look at their southern Presbyterian tradition instead of up north-- the bastion of all things liberal-- theological and political. We all saw what happened to great Presbyterian schools like Princeton. Anyway, southern Presbyterians have been stalwarts of conservative confessional Protestantism and have a lot unsung luminaries and theologians to revere.

[Edited on 6-26-2006 by Puritanhead]

 

[Arch2k]

I thought the book was helpful in many ways. Essentially, Hart argues that the traditional division between conservative and liberal christianity is not the difference between orthodox and non-orthodox. Rather, the difference that divides christianity is "confessionalism" vs. "non-confessionalism". I think that this is a helpful distinction, but maybe not all-encompassing.

I have read Hart's book Recovering Mother Kirk which I would probably recommend before reading The Lost Soul of American Protestantism. He briefly mentions the same issue of confessionalism in RCK, but his focus is somewhat different. He examines the nature of worship, and it's role in the church. He argues for more of a "high" church structure, showing the devistating effects of pop-culture's additions to traditional worship (such as a "fill in the blank" ministry, or praise teams etc.). He argues for Psalmody, and even harps on Watts et. al. for their intrusion into reformed worship. I really liked this book.

 

[Puritanhead]

Jeff you are right about that falsely-presented either-or dichotomy between evangelicals and liberals. I used to readily embrace the appellation "evangelical" but now I think I will drop it, particularly given that Jerry Falwell and Rick Warren are considered the leading evangelical exemplars. Besides, I learned how shallow evangelicalism and revivalism really was after doing hard-time at Liberty University and a short stint at Regent University Law.

 

[JJF]

This book is probably among one of my favorites. In addition to what Jeff said, he demonstrates how anticonfessionalism degenerates into unorthodox doctrines and a contempt for the church and its practices.

Before I read this book, I was quasi-confessional. Now I don't see any other way for orthodoxy to take form.

Here is a lecture series by Dr. Hart on Recovering Mother Kirk. I'm sure you'll find it enlightening and edifying. Just scroll all the way to the bottom and you'll find it.

 

[Puritanhead]

Well, another reason one should be confessional is because of the confusion wrought out by being non-confessional as churches without a standard bearer of doctrinal proclamation (i.e. a confession of faith) have innumerable problems. And I do not think simple statements of faith revolving around Christology and the Trinity suffice either. Absent a confession of faith, it may lead to a dramatic drift or upheaval in a congregation's doctrines over time: especially following an interregum in which a pastor is deceased or departs; when feeling the influence of the doctrinal tides as they ebb and flow among outside churches; or when new congregants from other sects join a congregation. Such events may lead to drastic wavering in the church's historic teachings over time, and are tantamount to a church's doctrine simply blowing in the wind. A church needs an anchor, and the confession of faith is that anchor.

Moreover, words mean different things too different people... so just because I hear a church say, "we preach sovereign grace," "we preach the whole counsel of God," and "we are Reformed," doesn't mean they are what I expect. I'm really tired of treating such solemn things so lightly, and reducing everything to abstractions when confession and further elucidation are requisite.

I've heard well-meaning people think that affirmation of Ladd and Spurgeon's "historical premillennialism" is tantamount to Left Behind dispensationalism. A confession would clear that up in an instant.

Anyway, being confessional helps us stir clear of heresy, and it is also straightforward, prudent and honest to be confessional as a practical and ethical matter. The simple statements of faiths by churches do not suffice in my humble opinion. And I am tired of those who simply say my confession is the Word of God-- given the plethora of private interpretations foisted upon the Word. I believe in the Word too, but the confession gives clarity in saying this is our interpretation of God's Word.

[Edited on 7-16-2006 by Puritanhead]

 

[JJF]

Based on your last post, I think that you'll really enjoy this book. When you're finished reading it, please send me your review. I would like that.

 

[Puritanhead]

Conversely, while this is not as big as a problem as the ills wrought by non-confessionalism, I put this in perspective, and affirm that we need to be weary of legalism regarding the confessional creeds. To be colloqiual, some people from time to time are so reverential of the confessions, you would think the creeds themselves are God-breathed. There is a much more prudent means of respecting their normative authority for ascertaining sound doctrine without being legalistic about them.

 

[Puritanhead]

Dr. Carl Trueman in a talk about Mark Noll's new book Is The Reformation Over? at Reformation 21 wrote:

Confessional Protestantism has a historic, creedal integrity; it takes history seriously; it refuses to assume that the latest pulp evangelical primer on postmodernism is an adequate basis for ditching the whole of its tradition; and it wants to take seriously what the church has said about the Bible over the centuries. As the work of scholars such as Richard Muller has indicated, confessional Reformed Orthodoxy, for example, has theological moorings in an intelligent interaction with, and appropriation of, the best theological and exegetical work of the patristic and medieval authors, as well as the correctives of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.... In fact, as I repeatedly tell my students, if you hold to Reformed Orthodoxy, you can quite legitimately interact with and appropriate the best theology, West and East, from the Apostolic Fathers down to the present day, in your articulation of a truly catholic orthodoxy.

In other words, we still need to be Reformed and Reforming. While we Protestants weigh our tradition on Sola Scriptura, it is imperative that we still lay hold of confessional Protestantism, which is the only sound church structure to erect on the of foundation of God's Word. Thereby, we stay Reformed and keep Reforming.

The embrace of confessional Protestantism gives the church body an anchor with which to stand, and not be carried about by the tempest winds of revivalism, evangelicalism, fundamentalism, charismatic chaos, heart-centered religion, purpose-driven religion, mainline liberalism, postmodernism, and whatever other fads come and go.

 

[JJF]

No argument here--your point is a good one; the divines included it in the WCF.

 

[JasonGoodwin]

Wow! Sounds like both books are really good reads. I'll take Jeff Bartel's recommendation to read Recovering Mother Kirk before going on to The Lost Soul of American Protestantism.

I also get the impression that the latter book could possibly showcase the visible post-modern evangelical church as big in numbers but dead in spirit. Am I right in this assumption?

 

[R. Scott Clark]

This is a great book. It's on my list of books sem students must read.

It's one of the best and most important books I've read in the last 10 years.

rsc

 

[Scott]

I have been wanting to read Lost Soul and plan to. RMK is excellent.