The Democratization of American Christianity -- Nathan O. Hatch

Status
Not open for further replies.

Casey

Puritan Board Junior
I've seen this book referenced in the footnotes of a number of books I've read in the past year so I figured I'd check it out:

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Democratization-American-Christianity-Nathan-Hatch/dp/0300050607/]Amazon.com: The Democratization of American Christianity: Nathan O. Hatch: Books[/ame]


Anyone else read it? :book2:
 
Oh, don't tempt me to read it so . . :drool: . . I won't be able to get to it right away! :p
 
While I hate democracy with all my heart, this book was a major conversation partner in my American Religious Studies in college. For the most part, Hatch is accurate in his assessments, I think.
 
I read it a long time ago and thought it was very good. I think a lot of the historical data would overlap what you could find in Iain Murray's Revival and Revivalism (which, incidentally, refers to this book), but I think the book is very well worth reading in its own right.
 
I just began reading this today. It is quite good.

Philip, can you elaborate on what you mean by the "presuppositions" comment? Religious or Political?

Thanks!

Ah, that's the trick ;) I'm referring to political and social presuppositions that spill over into our religious thinking. This usually affects ecclesiology, but also has an impact on how we think about issues of biblical interpretation, and in general makes us susceptible to bad theological arguments that appeal to commonly held social and political values.

Or the short answer, read it and see....
 
While I hate democracy with all my heart, this book was a major conversation partner in my American Religious Studies in college. For the most part, Hatch is accurate in his assessments, I think.

Jacob,

Can you elaborate on why you hate Democracy? I may agree with you.
 
Democracy is mob rule. A representative republic is better ... but we see how that's worked out. :um:

Actually, a THEOCRATIC representative republic is best, and that is what every true Christian should be working toward.

"The kingdoms is of this world are now the kingdom of our Lord and Christ" - Revelation 11:15.

"Jesus Christ, the ruler of of the kings of the earth" - Rev. 1:5

"Now therefore, O kings, be wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth.
Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way,
for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.
- Psalm 2:10-12

Of course, I am quite confident that Hatch, Noll, or Marsden would never dream of considering such a thing as the Lordship of Christ in THAT regard.
 
Well, I suppose what I'm getting at is this: I detest how "democracy" has pervaded the church. However, I -at least at this point in time- would champion personal liberty in the political sense (i.e. not putting up with tyranny, so long as its guided by another civil magistrate). I would identify (politically speaking, not ecclesiastically) with Jeffersonian ideals and principles for the most part; however, I don't see where it must spill into our ecclesiology. Note: I see how it has, but I don't see that it must. Anyway, at this point I'm rambling.

You don't mean to suggest that there could be TWO kingdoms, do you? :eek:
 
Well, I suppose what I'm getting at is this: I detest how "democracy" has pervaded the church. However, I -at least at this point in time- would champion personal liberty in the political sense (i.e. not putting up with tyranny, so long as its guided by another civil magistrate). I would identify (politically speaking, not ecclesiastically) with Jeffersonian ideals and principles for the most part; however, I don't see where it must spill into our ecclesiology. Note: I see how it has, but I don't see that it must. Anyway, at this point I'm rambling.

You don't mean to suggest that there could be TWO kingdoms, do you? :eek:

You mean Two Kingdoms like Turretin or like WSCAL?
:cool:

CT
 
Let's just say this: From the 100+ pages I've read thus far, it seems that Hatch may be implying that a commitment to political republicanism will inevitably work itself out in one's ecclesiology; but I don't know if that follows.

That wasn't the impression I got from the book; as I read it, he didn't seem to be making any point at all regarding political commitments, only what happens when political ideas are assumed to apply within the church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top