{"id":1987,"date":"2009-04-01T13:30:46","date_gmt":"2009-04-01T17:30:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/practicalmattersjournal.ecdsdev.org\/?p=1987"},"modified":"2016-03-31T16:43:24","modified_gmt":"2016-03-31T20:43:24","slug":"new-measures","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/2009\/04\/01\/new-measures\/","title":{"rendered":"The New Measures: A Theological History of Democratic Practice"},"content":{"rendered":"
Download PDF:\u00a0RV Jones, The New Measures<\/a><\/h5>\n
\n

By Ted A. Smith
\nNew York: \u00a0Oxford University Press, 2012. 358 pages. $59.99.<\/h3>\n
\n

Although numerous scholars have considered the relationship between Christianity and de\u00admocracy in the United States, few have turned to Charles Finney (1792-1875) to stimulate dis\u00adcussion. Yet this proponent of revival, famous for his advocacy of the \u201cnew measures\u201d \u2014 novel homiletic practices, often at odds with Puritan convention, esteemed according to their effective\u00adness in winning souls \u2014 stands at the center of Ted Smith\u2019s important book.<\/p>\n

Smith offers a vivid account of Finney\u2019s activities in the 1820s and 1830s, considering topics as diverse as the \u201canxious seat,\u201d the enactment of sincerity, and the rise of middle class respect\u00adability. The principal purpose of this account is not to present Finney\u2019s brand of revivalism to a scholarly audience, nor to expound a thesis about a distinctive moment of Protestant history. Smith\u2019s foremost interest is Finney\u2019s legacy. His argument is that the practices, assumptions, and cultural standards that Finney valorized had a hand in shaping the \u201clived stuff of democracy in America\u201d (2). A bold claim, for sure, but one forwarded with admirable care. Smith knows that Finney deployed the new measures in a complex economic, social, and cultural context, itself productive of democratic institutions and practice. Finney, moreover, was no Thomas Jefferson; he did not intend to promote democratic values. Nevertheless, Finney\u2019s new measures were tre\u00ad mendously influential, as is evidenced by the fact that his opponents embraced the practices they claimed to decry, thereby establishing as normative distinctive habits of thought and modes of ac\u00adtion. Finney\u2019s understanding of choice, his gestures towards egalitarianism, even his negotiation of a nascent celebrity culture: all this, and more, exercised an influence beyond Finney\u2019s wildest imagining, contributing to the formation of nineteenth and twentieth-century political mores.<\/p>\n

Accompanying Smith\u2019s careful cultural-historical work is an intriguing theological proposal \u2014 a first step towards a \u201cmaterialist political theology\u201d (10) that avoids the dead end of ideology critique (which struggles to look beyond the circulation of power) and the current vogue for idealized, ecclesial utopias (which ignores sinfulness in the church or lapses into gemeinschaftlich modes of analysis). Smith coordinates insights from critical theorists such as Walter Benjamin with a creative application of that cherished Protestant maxim,\u00a0simul iustus et peccator<\/em>\u00a0<\/em>(at once justified and a sinner). He seeks an affirmation of the positive value of various homiletic practices, paired with a frank acknowledgment of their \u201cmortification,\u201d overarched by the hope that, from an eschatological perspective, God ensures that human efforts play some role in the establishment of God\u2019s redemptive reign. So, for example, while an inhibitive concern for middle-class respect\u00adability tarnished the revivalists\u2019 commitment to equality, articulated during services at the Cha\u00adtham Street Chapel and institutionalized in the foundation of Oberlin College, one needn\u2019t view this as yet another instance of good intentions gone awry. God\u2019s gracious action overcomes the mortification of initially promising endeavors; God\u2019s redemptive working grants our failures some kind of role in God\u2019s providential design. Just as God lifts up the awkward mumbling of a tired, incompetent, deadbeat minister, turning his or her words into a vehicle of the Word, so too does God make good the most pitiable of new measures, past and present. The American project of de\u00admocracy, more generally, may appear to be a disappointing affair, its worthiness compromised by broken promises and the monotony of oppressive structures. And it is a disappointing affair \u2014 we do not do the good we ought. An eschatological reading of history, however, allows one to catch sight of something better. It inspires a mature hope that discerns God repairing, and finding value in, the most mediocre political ventures.<\/p>\n

This is a wonderful piece of work: rhetorically powerful, ably researched, and tremendously creative. To coordinate insights from critical theory, cultural studies, and Christian theology is a notable feat; to do so atop a powerful statement about the formation of democracy in the United States is something close to remarkable. Perhaps the highest compliment one can offer Smith is to say that, rather than simply demonstrating an interdisciplinary sensibility, his book applies such a sensibility rigorously, pertinently, and effectively. Smith is right to bring cultural history into discussions about Christianity, democracy, and the United States. He shows nicely how \u201clocal knowledges\u201d circulate and ramify in surprising ways, thereby complicating any easy separation of the realms of church, civil society, and state. Smith is also right to commend a theological reading of history. Although a more detailed elaboration of his theological perspective would have been useful (comments on figures such as G. W. F. Hegel, Wolfhart Pannenberg, and Johann Baptist-Metz would have complemented usefully the brief treatment of Delores Williams and Stanley Hauerwas), his remarks about \u201ceschatological memory\u201d strike me as terrifically important. Christian theologians must of course show due caution when relating the doctrine of providence to modern events, lest they offer a theological accreditation of worrisome forms of exceptionalism. But refusing any connection between divine activity and political life creates a problematic\u00a0<\/em>aporia<\/em>\u00a0in thought. Smith offers us a theological posture that has the confidence to identify and repent for the interminable political sinfulness of the United States, while also holding out hope for redemp\u00adtive transformation. This posture need not breed arrogance; rather, it can engender humility and, as Smith suggests, enable a \u201clighthearted\u201d appreciation of old and new measures.<\/p>\n

None of this means, of course, that the text stands beyond reproach. A book this ambitious in\u00ad vites multiple lines of critique; I would identify two points of concern. The first pertains to Smith\u2019s handling of the historical material. My worry is that the interpretative sequence used to organize the material in chapters one through six \u2014 an initial anecdote, followed by an identification of a homiletic quandary and a description of the new measures remedially employed, followed by an account of opposition, leading up to a conclusion that identifies both the \u201cmortification\u201d and the possible eschatological redemption of said measures \u2014 sometimes proves cumbersome. It is not that Smith distorts the evidence to fit his analytical scheme; he is too good a historian for that. Rather, his fondness for an ordered \u201cmethodological drill\u201d (15-42) imposes a restrictive tempo on his otherwise lively analysis. Put a bit differently, and with a switch of metaphors: I fear that Smith paints a too-tidy portrait of the past, even as he insists that the history of democratic practice in the United States is irreducibly messy.<\/p>\n

My second concern is theological. While I appreciate Smith\u2019s eschatological derring-do and understand that his brand of hopefulness is no head-in-the-sand optimism, does not a Christian reading of history require that\u00a0tragedy<\/em>\u00a0be acknowledged? Are not some instances of sin irredeem\u00adable? One of Smith\u2019s subsections tells of an infamous \u201clynching at Oberlin;\u201d it discusses an in\u00adcident in which a seventeen-year-old boy, accused of sending bawdy notes to female classmates, was subjected to a farcical trial and then physically abused by faculty members and students. Smith associates this \u201clynching\u201d with the mortification of certain new measures: despite Oberlin\u2019s laudable promotion of equality, operative still were assumptions about respectable gender rela\u00adtions, conduct befitting a gentleman\u2019s class, and the need for vigilante justice. And, of course, he holds out hope for something better: \u201can Oberlin with room for both full equality and the desire that flourishes in the presence of difference\u201d (179). Yet all this diverts attention from a more obvi\u00adous point of reference for lynching \u2014\u00a0viz<\/em>., murderous mob actions, \u201cnovelly\u201d deployed by white Americans, in service of a vicious form of racism. And it spurs one to ask whether Smith success\u00adfully differentiates a complicated kind of hope, which wrestles with the reality of human sin, from a blithe optimism, which moves too quickly past events that, no matter one\u2019s confidence in God\u2019s providential design, disrupt theological analysis. Does Smith\u2019s perspective give adequate voice to the victims of brutal, terroristic crimes against humanity? Does his \u201crefusal to imagine any cor\u00adner of creation, any moment in time, as Godforsaken\u201d (260) bespeak an unwillingness to wonder whether some moments of American history\u00a0cannot<\/em>\u00a0be redeemed, given their almost unthinkable atrociousness?<\/p>\n

Paul Dafydd Jones
\nUniversity of Virginia<\/p>\n

<\/h3>\n
<\/h5>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Download PDF:\u00a0RV Jones, The New Measures By Ted A. Smith New York: \u00a0Oxford University Press, 2012. 358 pages. $59.99. Although numerous scholars have considered the relationship between Christianity and de\u00admocracy in the United States, few have turned to Charles Finney<\/p>\n

Continue Reading<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":2411,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mi_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[71,16],"tags":[494,503,504],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/the-new-measures-cover-image.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1987"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1987"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1987\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1988,"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1987\/revisions\/1988"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2411"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1987"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1987"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1987"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}