The Democratization of American Christianity

ContentNathan O. Hatch makes sure that every reader knows his purpose for this book after the first sentence. “This book is about the cultural and religious history of the early American Republic and the enduring structures of American Christianity. It argues both that the theme of democratization is central to understanding the development of American Christianity, and that the years of the early Republic are the most crucial in revealing that process.” Hatch’s entire argument hinges on the acceptance on one point. The point is that the American revolution provided not only independence from England, but also independence from a social hierarchy. By this he means that the abolishment of the control of the English throne also abolished the controlling forces in the church, such as the pope or church traditions as well. This lead to a mass movement of unorthodox denominations and churches rising from out of the ground. It was, in a sense, a new reformation not of theology of the church, but the structure of the church. What Hatch tries to prove in the first couple chapters is that the era in which this second great awakening happened was the perfect time for all these new denominations to be springing out. It was a time when people were more interested in experience rather than orthodoxy. They were moving towards a life of Christianity rather than the words of it. He points out that Barton Stone was more interested in actions than words. He also points out another note that could be considered tangential, but it is a fundamental key of this entire era. The country during this time period was splitting and fracturing as the country was trying to find it’s identity, and what this democratization of Christianity brought was a sense of unity and morality to an chaotic time. It was a combination of the American spirit with church. Because of this, it created a passion that united people, even if they were not of the same denomination.For his examples, Hatch looks at five distinct movements: the Christian movement, the Methodists, the Baptists, the black churches, and the Mormons. Throughout these different movements shows the spirit of America during the turn of the nineteenth century. A spirit where people scorned tradition and reveled novelty This ultimate effect on the church of this new desire was the replacement of orthodoxy with public opinion.All of this change coincided with a time when print was exploding and people were trying to read as much as possible for the purpose of elevating themselves. Even though classes had seemed to have been eradicated in terms of it’s power in society over others, there was still a sense that education was a more nobler form of existence. This belief created an explosion in print and music as well.Form and FunctionThe biggest strength of this book is it’s author. He understands what he is trying to do, and is explicit both in that intent as well as in what is not his intent. This provides clear guidelines not only for what he is trying to do, but what he can not be judged on for not doing. He carries this strength over into the organization of the book which is incredibly well organized and well presented. It’s basic formula is to tell what happened, then to give examples of how it happened, followed by who it happened to and how, and lastly how it had an impact on history.This book is filled with example after example of him trying to illustrate his point, and he does so exceedingly well. The only issue I can find with the book is that sometimes his narrowness of view misses larger overall pictures. I think that he misses some of the influences of expansion into the western frontier and it’s effect on this mindset. The American attitude of “I can do anything” is derived from the pioneers who were forced to be able to do anything or else die. While that is not explicitly talked about, I could see hints of it in his writings. Whether or not he was cognizant of these allusions I am not sure, it just seems like there is another side of this story that was ignored.Getting completely picky to find one negative, I would have to point out that Hatch also states that the greatest example of the Democratization of American Christianity was the ability for a African American to become a preacher. This is one of the few statements I find in this book that I find to be faulty. The truth of the matter is that African Americans were always the head of their own churches because they were the only ones in their churches. For true democratization to occur, the boundary lines of race would have had to have been crossed where an African American was preaching at a white congregation.This book overall is impeccably well written with very straightforward goals and ambitions. Hatch does a remarkable job of achieving the goals that he sets out to do and he does it in a manner that is clear and concise while project a lot of information at the same time.

At the beginning of his book The Democratization of American History, Nathan Hatch makes his subject and purpose absolutely clear:"This book is about the cultural and religious history of the early American republic and the enduring structures of American Christianity. It argues both that the theme of democratization is central to understanding the development of American Christianity, and that the years of the early republic are the most crucial in revealing that process" (3).He says that his work focuses on "five distinct traditions, or mass movements, that developed early in the nineteenth century: the Christian movement, the Methodists, the Baptists, the black churches, and the Mormons" (4). He concludes that the expansion of conservative Protestantism in America "did not proceed primarily from the nimble response of religious elites meeting the challenge before them. Rather, Christianity was effectively reshaped by common people who molded it in their own image and who threw themselves into expanding its influence" (9).How did the popular religious movements of the early republic express a deeply democratic spirit? Hatch says they did it in three distinct ways. First, they swept away a couple aspects of tradition. They rejected the distinction between clergy and laity, nullifying the authority of religious elites. And, like the Jeffersonian Republicans, they "rejected the past as a repository of wisdom" (9-10). Second, these movements "empowered ordinary people by taking their deepest spiritual impulses at face value rather than subjecting them to the scrutiny of orthodox doctrine and the frowns of respectable clergymen" (10). Third, they believed "that a new age of religious and social harmony would naturally spring up out of their efforts to overthrow coercive and authoritarian structures" (10-11). But something else came along that these reformers and their movements did not expect: "The quest for unity that drove people to discard formal theology for the Scriptures drove them further asunder" (16). Consequently, ever since the time of the early republic a huge segment of American Christianity has been thoroughly-democratic and diverse.As the back cover of my copy relates, The Democratization of American Christianity has won at least three impressive awards. Reading the book explains why. In an entertaining way, which includes many direct quotes from primary sources, Hatch helps the reader to see why American Christianity is not only vital but also incredibly diverse. He does a good job of making his case that the first forty years or so of the United States was such a critical time.I believe the weakest, most questionable part of the book is the "Epilogue," where Hatch moves forward in time. For example, his discussion of the rise and meaning of the Fundamentalist movement in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries leaves something to be desired. He writes:"Even when Fundamentalists set out to defend the truth, their temptation was to rally large constituencies to the cause rather than to prepare for scholarly exchange. . . . It seemed more important to the project's backers to distribute three hundred thousand copies of The Fundamentals free of charge than to meet the liberals on their own ground in theological debate" (215).There is an element of truth in what Hatch says here. At the same time, it is worth pointing out that The Fundamentals were merely part of a significant quantity of distinctly-conservative literature, both popular and more-academic, that appeared around this time. During the last thirty years or so of the nineteenth century, for instance, both Charles A. Hodge and A.H. Strong produced traditional systematic theologies. James Orr guided the production of the original International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, of which the first edition appeared in 1915. Of course, most significant of all, between 1910 and 1915 a definitive series of twelve booklets entitled The Fundamentals was published and mailed to as many Christian leaders as possible in the United States, Canada, and England. And in 1923, the conservative Princeton professor J. Gresham Machen published his book, Christianity and Liberalism, which declared that the liberalism of the day and historic Christianity were essentially two different religions.These publications represent a formidable constellation of conservative literature. Significantly, they were produced in decades following the American Civil War, which had had the effect of breaking America's theological certainty and opening the door to newer philosophical, political, and religious trends.Such quibbling aside, it's important to point out that The Democratization of American Christianity is one of several books that always shows up on PhD reading lists in the field of American Religious History. This book is that significant.

Good book, very fact filled and well researched. The author was very knowledgeable about the subject, however it was a little more detailed than I wanted. It was written at a higher level than I would have liked. I believe the author was aiming for a more academic crowed, and I'm just a dabbler in this subject. I knew nothing about the subject and now I know a whole lot more.However, since I knew nothing to start with, I was very fascinated by the whole idea of the spirit of democracy of the time being manifest in the church of the time. Whether it was good or bad I will not give an opinion and the author did a good job of sticking to the facts and leaving his opinion out of the copy as much as possible.If this area of study interests you, I would recommend the book. If it's only a passing fancy of a possible interesting read, you might want to think twice.

Hatch . one of the very few Americans who has grasped this important aspect of U.S.History