This book is an excellent resource for understanding the origins of all slavery, not just the slavery of the black people. It explains the root causes of the Civil war due to differing views of the meaning of the Bible and the workings of providence prior to the Civil War. I would recommend this book very highly.

Noll has done a splendid job identifying the theological considerations that neutralized the ability of Christians to help the nation avoid the recourse to arms to settle the slavery question. His examination of how various Christian leaders, north and south, viewed divine providence is enough to make anyone uncomfortable with a self-assured approach to understanding the ways of God. His inclusion of European theological perspectives on slavery and the American scene are an added treat. This is a fine book.

This is the book that every Protestant evangelical who invokes "the sole authority of Scripture," and who insists upon the "simplicity," "plain meaning," and "clarity" of its message, should read. I wish a similar monograph had existed when I was in seminary, and that my professors had made me read it as a case study in hermeneutics (the study of the interpretation of Scripture). Why instead of unanimity was there an "interpretive standoff" regarding slavery among Protestant believers, an "unbridgeable chasm of opinion" that tore the nation in two? Why was the evil of slavery eradicated not by the theological arguments of Christians but by the military might of armies? How can you argue against slavery when both the Old Testament and New Testament condone it?

Mark Noll, for over twenty-five years a professor at Wheaton College and now at Notre Dame, examines a broad diversity of religious viewpoints-- mainly American Protestant, but also foreign Protestant, Jewish, and Catholic (both American and foreign) -- about the theological crisis provoked by slavery. This was a question partly about what the Bible said (how to interpret the Bible), and partly about what God was doing in history (providence). Disagreements about what the Bible said about slavery, Noll demonstrates, were deeply influenced by American assumptions about common sense rationalism, economic individualism, race, gender, and political democracy (which is why his two chapters on Protestant and Catholic opinions abroad are so helpful). Even worse, the far deeper issue of racism was barely broached; people separated "the slavery question" and "the negro question." No one in their wildest imagination considered the enslavement of whites (as in OT and NT times), even if they thought it acceptable to enslave blacks, and so even though the war abolished slavery, horrific racism and its evil twin economic disenfranchisement continued unabated. Finally, interpreting the ancient text and applying it to our contemporary context was further complicated by the Protestant insistence that there's no authority above the Bible itself, which was another way of saying that everyone and no one had the ultimate authority to say definitively "what the Bible means" about slavery.

It's a short step from Noll's theological case study about slavery to virtually every other important issue that Christians face--women's ordination, homosexuality, abortion, politics, economics, and race. The Scriptures, said the Westminster divines, are "most necessary" for Christian faith and life, and every believer ought to study them often and well. But as Noll shows, earnest appeals to the authority of Scripture, however necessary and well-intentioned, are the beginning and not the end of the serious work of studying the Bible and then living according to the letter and spirit of its message.

Great stuff, I don't have the time to review this, because I'm writting for a Phd and using several of Noll's books. This one (for me) is valuable because it sets the scene for American Evangelicalism up to the period/person I'm working on...as do other's of Noll's works.

This book shows how the beliefs and assumptions held by American Christians in 1860 precluded any kind of critical reflection on the Civil War. If you've read Nathan Hatch's Democratization of American Christianity, this serves as an excellent second installment in the saga. Many of the ideals whose development Hatch chronicles played important roles in paving the way for the Civil War ethos. This book is also a nice supplement to Harry S. Stout's Upon the Altar of the Nation. Stout beautifully chronicles Americans' moral ambivalence, but doesn't really go into the root causes to the extent that Noll does. Nor does Stout explore foreign commentary on the war. Noll's exploration of foreign commentary, in fact, was one of the most fascinating aspects of the book. Foreigners seem to have seen fairly clearly what nobody in America could see.

If you're looking for a rousing or moving narrative, this isn't the book for you. But if you'd like to understand why American theology was paralyzed in the face of the slavery crisis, this little book is ideal.

That it's a "little" book is also nice. Noll says a whole lot in only about 160 pages.

M. Noll simply is one of the best writers i am currently enamored with, both for his research ability, his writing clarity but most importantly the topics and ideas he writes about. I really could do no better than to return the mountain of partially read library books on my desk, just buy everything he wrote and read it in chronological order. He is that good, important and significant.



I've had an interest, inherited from my mom, concerning the American Civil War. Not so much the battles but the meaning of it all. Not the generals but the theologians of the war, why do men fight? why do they kill brothers? why is there such passion about this most UnCivil War? Since i spent a year working on and delivering a Sunday School class on the History of American Presbyterianism i have been aware of the overarching significance of the Civil War in the history of ideas. It marks the end of one world and the birth of another, the one we live in now. And M. Noll and this short book go a long ways towards filling in some of the blank spots and questions i have about it.



in several important ways it is a continuation of:

chapter 18 "The 'Bible Alone' and a Reformed, Literal Hermeneutic", and

chapter 19 "The Bible and Slavery"

from his _America's God_



there is more both historical and theological work to be done on the issues. as a reviewer wrote earlier the issue at heart is the perspicuity of Scripture.

M. Noll simply is one of the best writers i am currently enamored with, both for his research ability, his writing clarity but most importantly the topics and ideas he writes about. I really could do no better than to return the mountain of partially read library books on my desk, just buy everything he wrote and read it in chronological order. He is that good, important and significant.

I've had an interest, inherited from my mom, concerning the American Civil War. Not so much the battles but the meaning of it all. Not the generals but the theologians of the war, why do men fight? why do they kill brothers? why is there such passion about this most UnCivil War? Since i spent a year working on and delivering a Sunday School class on the History of American Presbyterianism i have been aware of the overarching significance of the Civil War in the history of ideas. It marks the end of one world and the birth of another, the one we live in now. And M. Noll and this short book go a long ways towards filling in some of the blank spots and questions i have about it.

in several important ways it is a continuation of:
chapter 18 "The 'Bible Alone' and a Reformed, Literal Hermeneutic", and
chapter 19 "The Bible and Slavery"
from his _America's God_

there is more both historical and theological work to be done on the issues. as a reviewer wrote earlier the issue at heart is the perspicuity of Scripture.

Noll makes an important and accessible contribution to studies on the religious dimensions of the Civil War. Noll demonstrates how views of Biblical interpretation fueled the intensity with which both sides engaged each other over the slavery question. Especially helpful is Noll's analysis on Roman Catholics' views of the War. All around, the book was a great read.

This is an outflow of a predominent theme of Noll's work: the invention of an American religion. This is a off shoot of Harold Bloom's book The American religion: The Emergence of the Post-Christian Nation. Since reading his "Is the Reformation Over?" I have found his ideas more in tune with a liberal philosophy as underpinning. The primary thought expressed intially is the rejection of perspicuity of the Bible. It is a hypothesis that the problem of interpretation could not be solved by the Bible alone is not a Protestant idea, but a Catholic one.
The views of the Civil War from abroad as being included and their highlighted relevance seems irrelevant for lots of reasons. I think some of those reasons apply to the current controversy of whether the Supreme Court should reference court decisions and law international in their rulings.
That somehow a mix or confusion of the doctrine of Providence was a problem in being able to sort out the question of slavery is dubious. Providence that God is working in all things has been and will be cited into infinity. Why may not one look at the use of Providence as sited generally by Jefferson and many leaders of our history until the present for undertakings? Or who can leave out the current rage in evangelical circles seeing God's hand divining current trends as forecast in the Tim LaHaye series?
If this was a theological crisis, whose theology? The author does not define these terms or take a stand for a particular theological view. If there is a declension of "theology", what points. Surely, it is not the dumb contention of Providence being misused by both sides. It is the resurgence of a works religion unfolding.
The author does indicate that enlightenment priniciples, their acceptance in hermeneutics and interpretation of scripture, had a affect in confusing orthodox beliefs in strict propagation of the gospel with that of a socialized political gospel. To this day the two are still emeshed with each other to Christianity's detriment. We are still doing God's work in Iraq etc, etc. and whatever else may come down the pike.

A review states the Mark Noll "loves God and loves academics". In spite of his very impressive collection of books on religion, I feel he loves academics more. This book is lifeless and seems to lack respect for 19th century religion and religious thought. The prose is for academicians. At no time will the author use a ten-letter word when he can find a twenty-letter one.

This is a book about religious intellectuals, saying very little about how the people felt or what they were hearing at services. We move from one essays or debate or article to another, with little development or effort to access the impact of the item. A problem could be that these items did not make a real impact, being nothing more than talking points on the road to war. The author interjects his views and beliefs constantly, which seem very 21st century and totally out of place.

In an effort to "be inclusive" Catholics, Jews, Mormons and free Black churches are included. This is interesting but the majority of America belong to four or five major churches where the crisis takes place. Do we really care that the Mormons feel the failure to elect their leader President in 1856, brought on the Civil War? This information and justification of the idea consumes about 1% of the book's text.

A good point is the discussion of the Biblical justification of slavery and the response of the abolitionists. This helps understand how in an anti-slavery society, the abolitionists were still not accepted. Their response was seen by the majority of Christians to reject the Bible's teachings. This very important point if completely developed would have been a major contribution to the value of the book.

A real missed opportunity was to have a frank discussion of race in the years leading up to the war. "The negro question" chapter never takes the "gloves off". While suggested, the pervasive racial discrimination of 19th century America gets glossed over. Little is said about the idea of colonization or the laws preventing Negros from living where they wished. The author deals with slavery but refuses to detail the racism that is its' foundation. Doing so, would have required a frank discussion of the plight of the Irish and Germans during this time.

Having just read Woodworth's excellent book on religion may color my view about this one. The difference in approach, historical information and readability is remarkable.