Southern Evangelicals and the Social Order 1800-1860. By Anne C. Loveland. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1980.

            Anne Loveland’s Southern Evangelicals and the Social Order examines the influence of Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian clergy in the Old South. She evaluates them both as individuals and as a group, referring to these three branches as the “Southern evangelicals.” These ministers and their congregations felt it was their duty to guard the South’s religious and moral purity, so they involved themselves in a number of public issues and debates relating to the social order. Loveland finds that the Southern evangelicals did not represent a “culture religion,” which is shaped entirely by the ideology of larger society. Instead, Southern evangelicals, while not challenging the fundamental structure of the Old South, attempted to shape society to their beliefs.

            In general, the three dominations appeared to have more in common than previous research believed. Four main duties occupied Southern ministers: teaching, pastoral work, discipline, and preaching. Teaching included leading Sunday schools as well as Bible classes for adults. These appeared difficult to maintain due to sparse population in the South. Visitation proved the most important part of pastoral work, though many ministers resented the amount of time it occupied. Discipline included instructing and chastising children and adults; most ministers found this the least enjoyable part of their duties. Preaching remained the most important part of their duties, and most ministers spent a large amount of time on their sermons. Through the clergy’s interaction with their congregations, Southern evangelicals developed a moralistic approach to confronting society’s problems.

            Evangelicals worked to reform society in several ways. They supported secular organizations, such as the Sons of Temperance. Though these organizations developed outside of the church, evangelicals filled their ranks. By staffing and supporting secular reform societies, southern evangelicals influenced their agendas and tactics. Southern evangelicals also became active in legislation and political action; they wrote petitions, formed their own societies, and printed religious newspapers. In the instance of prohibition, their goal ran counter to the majority of society, proving that they did not represent a culture religion.

            In the issue of slavery, Southern evangelicals found themselves very much influenced by their society. Many of them owned slaves and most “saw nothing fundamentally wrong with slavery” (217). Ministers “discovered” scriptures that supported slavery as an institution, thus it could not be a sin. They recognized that slavery produced a social problem, namely the debated between the South and abolitionists. In general, they felt God would solve the slavery problem in due time by divine will. Southern evangelicals felt the North should acknowledge the that the South did not initiate slavery, blacks had benefited from transplantation from Africa to America, slaves appeared better off than laboring classes in Europe, and, most important, slaves received religious blessings by working in the South. As slavery offered the opportunity at conversion, slaves ultimately benefited from their condition.

            The slavery issue transformed the Southern evangelicals’ position on the sectional controversy. In the 1850s, few evangelicals supported disunion, but their loyalties began to shift as perceptions of abolitionists shifted. By the 1850s, Southern evangelicals contended that abolitionists repudiated the Bible and saw them as political radicals. By the Civil War, most Southern evangelicals supported secession to separate themselves from Northern society and its disregard for religious instruction. To Southern ministers, the secession crisis became a conflict of religious and moral principals rather than a political quarrel. As with the question of slavery, the clergy declared that God would finally settle the dispute.

            Loveland’s work highlights many of the political and social problems Southern evangelicals involved themselves in before the Civil War. Her assertion that the evangelicals did not represent a “culture religion” is tenuous at best. While evangelicals went against society occasionally, such as with temperance reforms, much of their ideology stems from their unique geo-political orientation. The fact that Methodists and Baptists found themselves regulated almost entirely to the South should indicate that Southern culture supported these doctrines, while the North did not. If the region had not greatly influenced Southern evangelical ideology, one would expect similar Protestant denominations in both halves of the country. In the instances of slavery and secession, Southern culture dictated ideology. Loveland concludes that “the belief in the sovereignty and omnipotence of God and the dependence of man” influenced their ideology “more than any other single element” (265) is incorrect. Southern culture and society asserted more influence than Loveland wishes to concede.

Misty Wilson

Texas Christian University

Southern Evangelicals and the Social Order 1800-1860. By Anne C. Loveland. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1980.

            Southern Evangelicals and the Social Order is a study of clergymen in the Baptist, Methodist and Presbyterian denominations in the Old South. To an extent the author points out the doctrinal differences where they were important, but primarily focuses on the similarities between the three. They all shared similar views on evangelical theology, but also in assumptions and values that the ministries held in common. Loveland maintains that Southern evangelicals saw themselves as guardians of the virtue and religious purity of the Southern people and saw their duty as also encompassing a role in the public realm, with issues relating to the social order. Even though Southern clergymen didn’t challenge the established social order, in some cases, such as temperance, observance of the Sabbath and dueling, they set themselves against “public men.” They also never went so far as to endorse slavery as a “positive good,” and in some cases sharply criticized the South’s peculiar institution.

In Southern evangelical circles conversion to Christianity preceded seminary training and eventually ordination as a minister. Conversion often involved an emotional experience followed by a period of guilt before eventually succumbing to Grace and accepting Christ as their Savior. For some, conversion meant a calling to the ministry and ministerial training, usually in a seminary. After graduation from seminary, these potential ministers could also expect a probationary period before becoming a fully ordained minister. Among Presbyterians, the probationary period following seminary culminated with an examination before a Presbytery and if found acceptable, the ministers were licensed to preach. The Methodists had a much longer probationary period that involved the better part of a decade and promotion from deacon to elder and eventually to minister. Among the Baptists it was the congregation who accepted the minister by a vote after a trial sermon.

Once ministers assumed their clerical duties, they found their first mission the salvation of all sinners. In addition to their primary duties, the more successful ministers found it necessary to stay involved with the everyday lives of their parishioners and take an active part in community affairs. Southern evangelicals also viewed revivalism with some skepticism. Loveland notes that typical Southern evangelicals viewed revivalism as somewhere between “outright hostility and unqualified approval.” (pp. 90) The political and social commentary of Southern evangelicals reveals that they were actually alienated from the society in which they lived and rejected the dominant American ideologies of self-reliance, Democracy and progress. Evangelicals were concerned that people were more driven by self-interest and political excitements than by religious precepts and these concerns formed their major objections to American political life. Southern evangelicals also focused on the collective sins of the nation to warn Americans that if they did not follow God’s ways, they could expect retribution. Some even pointed to natural and political calamities as proof of God’s punishment.  

A fervor for temperance swept through Southern evangelical circles in the 1850s. The failure of purely secular temperance movements such as the Sons of Temperance convinced Southern evangelicals that more than earthly means were needed. Thus, a strong movement toward temperance blossomed in the late antebellum South.

Southern clergymen’s attitudes toward slavery proved a more complicated issue. Although most saw the peculiar institution as somehow inherently wrong, as the antebellum period wore on, and especially after 1820, clergymen “rediscovered” Biblical justifications for slavery and stopped seeing anything morally objectionable about slavery. “Thus, many evangelicals placed the ultimate solution of the slavery question in God’s hands.” They neither sanctioned the institution as a positive good nor condemned it as a sin, partially out of the pressure of Southern public opinion on the issue. Furthermore, many evangelical ministers went to great lengths in attempting to provide religious instruction to slaves. This policy was very unpopular with Southerners in general, and thus these efforts often fell on deaf ears, though ministers often did their best to save the soul of the slave.

Southern evangelicals also accepted Divine Providence as an explanation for secession. They came to see the withdrawal of their states from the Union as a part of God’s plan for America, and left it in God’s hands to sort out. According to Loveland “The belief in the sovereignty and omnipotence of God and the dependence of man informed the whole of their thinking, and more than any other single element contributed to the distinctiveness of southern evangelical thought in the nineteenth century.” (pp. 265)

John R. Lundberg

Texas Christian University

Southern Evangelicals and the Social Order, 1800-1860.  By Anne C. Loveland.  (Baton Rouge:  Louisiana State University Press, 1980.  Pp. 293).

In Southern Evangelicals, Anne Loveland aims to provide her readers with an interesting and telling view of evangelicalism in the Old South and its relation to social issues. She focuses particularly on the pivotal years from the turn of the century to the outbreak of the Civil War. The picture that slowly emerges is a striking one characterized by a subtle, but notable, period of change in virtually every area of evangelical life. The culture at large slowly secularized religion, eventually making it impotent to oppose the powers that held slavery in esteem.

The first section of the book deals with the religious experience of the clergy of the denominations with which she examines. She starts by looking at their conversion experience, and finds a remarkable similarity between them, stopping short of blaming it wholly on psychology. Next, she examines how they were initially called into the ministry. Earlier in the century, a preacher's calling seemed to be based more on what they took to be a specific urge from God to enter the profession. They felt they should pursue it whether or not it meant a step down in socioeconomic status, which it usually did. Particularly, they looked on their calling as an ambassadorship from God, and it was to Him that they were accountable. It also mattered little if they felt ill prepared. By the end of her period, prospective ministers considered their calling much like any other. They weighed their options and abilities regardless of an internal calling. They then subjected themselves to the will of their congregation as opposed to God Himself.

Revivals also changed during this time. Early in the period, they tended to be well organized, with ministers going to great lengths to not only bring in people, but put as much pressure on them to convert as possible. Much of this work was undertaken by traveling evangelists who would breeze through a town with potent preaching and emotional services. Over time, these services came under increasing attack from southern churches. The efforts of human agencies in general and traveling evangelists in particular came to be seen as useless. Only God could effect real revivals; mankind's work toward them profited the world nothing.

Increasingly, southern evangelicals turned to a more esoteric brand of Christianity based on the Calvinist tradition. They placed amazing amounts of stress on both the total depravity of humans and the complete sovereignty of God. Humans were absolutely powerless to do anything to improve themselves of prevent evil. The only agency capable of provoking a transformation of any sort was God Himself. Also, southerners recognized their own finitude, and claimed that God would work in His own time and manner when dealing with sin. As such they could conceivably brook the presence of and even commit many outright evils, all the while claiming they were helpless to prevent it all. God alone could do so and they simply must trust Him to do it at the right time. They also drew a stark line of demarcation between the world and the spirit. It was difficult for one to affect the other.

Before diving into the subject of slavery, Loveland takes a moment to look into the Temperance movement to see how these precepts play out when applied to a social issue. Not surprisingly, she discovers that their philosophic presuppositions provide them with an out, allowing them to skirt uncomfortable responsibilities. Again, it boils down to their general suspicion of human effort.

As such, on the question of slavery southern evangelicals simply slid back down into the same tack they had followed for at least the last thirty years. Aside from manufacturing supposedly biblical arguments for not only the existence of slavery but also its positive good, they were suspicious of any human agency that claimed to be able to reform or abolish it. It remained an easy out. If slavery was evil, which few would even admit as a possibility, then only God could end it. In the southerner's view, the Man Upstairs seemed to be in no hurry, but would get around to it when He knew it to be right.

The title of this book is somewhat misleading. Though Loveland seems to be aiming to provide her readers with a comprehensive examination of a broad sweep of southern society, she focuses on only three denominations. It should be remembered, though, that these groups did indeed make up a large portion of southern culture. Somewhat more problematic, though, is her decision to focus almost exclusively on pastors and preachers. No doubt this simplified her research, but those who have spent time in southern churches know that the pastor is many times not representative of his congregation. As church members actually made up the bulk of every denomination, it would have been very useful and revealing to dwell more on them.

Probably the most interesting aspect of this book is the way Loveland documents the progressive change, or more appropriately, domestication, of the southern evangelical church. Traveling evangelists were difficult to control, and much more likely to speak out against slavery. Therefore, their influence was minimized. The muting of the idea of divine calling also worked this way, reducing the number of pastors who felt accountable to God as ambassadors instead of the congregation's servant. Most importantly, the strict brand of Calvinism adopted absolved southerners from any serious consideration of the evils of slavery. They certainly could maintain that they were impotent to change matters themselves, even if they admitted their peculiar institution as a positive sin.

Overall, Loveland provides her readers with an interesting and revealing read.  It is certainly worthy of any student's attentions.
 
 

Brian Melton

Texas Christian University