Your review of Prior's book is quite interesting. I wonder to what extent elite (for lack of a better word) Evangelical alienation from core Evangelical institutions is an inevitable result of a movement largely driven by populist sentiment and whose ideological concerns seem to be unduly shaped by market forces. From the outside, it seems like there is little institutional stability, so even people who dedicate their lives to the movement might find themselves out of favor if circumstances shift enough. (A similar dynamic probably holds even in strict or hierarchical institutions, but I am wondering aloud if American Evangelicalism is uniquely susceptible to it.)
Had to go read your review of The Evangelical Imagination, as I also reviewed it and clearly liked it far more. I agree with you that the book assumes the reader already agrees with the author about many of the current problems in evangelicalism, or at least that they are generally open to being convinced. The natural response to your review, I think, is to ask, “Would what you are suggesting be beyond the book’s brief and the author’s primary expertise?” I say this both in terms of what publishers are willing to publish (an extra 200 pages would have sunk it), but also in terms of audience targeting. I think Prior’s books works because it is coming on the heels of several other books that have already addressed many of the things you highlight, and it is simply trying to provide more context. It is not a good standalone argument, but it wasn’t really meant to be. I wonder, if someone in the year 2023 does not see the kind of problems she sees, would any book convince them? It’s a matter of clashing social imaginaries, and those are only changed through great sacrifice. I think Prior makes a decent case that parts of the driving social imaginary in evangelicalism, both in the Victorian period and now, was not properly informed by Scripture. But at that point we’re getting into theology and biblical studies, which are not actually Prior’s main area of expertise. What say you?
I'm not at all convinced she even starts to make the argument that "parts of the driving social imaginary in evangelicalism, both in the Victorian period and now, was not properly informed by Scripture." To do that, she'd have to actually engage Scripture and their reading of Scripture. The assumption throughout is that "Victorian" = sub-biblical. But why accept that?
First of all, apologies for the lack of subject/verb agreement. I failed to sufficiently proofread. Second, I think again the main point was to trace the history of certain ideas, particularly as they occurred in popular literature, and to do so with relative brevity. Whether the remit of such a project is beneficial is certainly a matter for debate. This book, like so many, is essentially preaching to those who are already converted. That’s not necessarily wrong, but it is certainly a limited goal. I felt the book fulfilled its limited brief reasonably well.
Yes, "preaching to the already converted" is precisely what it does. But it's just that which I found both uninteresting and disappointing. If you want to turn the Victorians into a foil for our own politics, go ahead. But the book misses ways in which we might *learn* from them, I think, and does so because of the author's own political blind spots.
In case it isn’t clear, this is meant to be an entirely friendly engagement, and I have no problem with you stating your view. But how could I let myself live not forcing you to rehash some old issue on a holiday weekend?
“The Right to Have Children” is outstanding. I’m glad you included it again in this list. Thank you for sharing your wisdom and writing with the world.
Your review of Prior's book is quite interesting. I wonder to what extent elite (for lack of a better word) Evangelical alienation from core Evangelical institutions is an inevitable result of a movement largely driven by populist sentiment and whose ideological concerns seem to be unduly shaped by market forces. From the outside, it seems like there is little institutional stability, so even people who dedicate their lives to the movement might find themselves out of favor if circumstances shift enough. (A similar dynamic probably holds even in strict or hierarchical institutions, but I am wondering aloud if American Evangelicalism is uniquely susceptible to it.)
Got my copy! Excited to dig into and for your writing in 2024! I look at your writing as a guide to my writing :)
Johnny
I look forward to hearing your critiques!
Had to go read your review of The Evangelical Imagination, as I also reviewed it and clearly liked it far more. I agree with you that the book assumes the reader already agrees with the author about many of the current problems in evangelicalism, or at least that they are generally open to being convinced. The natural response to your review, I think, is to ask, “Would what you are suggesting be beyond the book’s brief and the author’s primary expertise?” I say this both in terms of what publishers are willing to publish (an extra 200 pages would have sunk it), but also in terms of audience targeting. I think Prior’s books works because it is coming on the heels of several other books that have already addressed many of the things you highlight, and it is simply trying to provide more context. It is not a good standalone argument, but it wasn’t really meant to be. I wonder, if someone in the year 2023 does not see the kind of problems she sees, would any book convince them? It’s a matter of clashing social imaginaries, and those are only changed through great sacrifice. I think Prior makes a decent case that parts of the driving social imaginary in evangelicalism, both in the Victorian period and now, was not properly informed by Scripture. But at that point we’re getting into theology and biblical studies, which are not actually Prior’s main area of expertise. What say you?
I'm not at all convinced she even starts to make the argument that "parts of the driving social imaginary in evangelicalism, both in the Victorian period and now, was not properly informed by Scripture." To do that, she'd have to actually engage Scripture and their reading of Scripture. The assumption throughout is that "Victorian" = sub-biblical. But why accept that?
First of all, apologies for the lack of subject/verb agreement. I failed to sufficiently proofread. Second, I think again the main point was to trace the history of certain ideas, particularly as they occurred in popular literature, and to do so with relative brevity. Whether the remit of such a project is beneficial is certainly a matter for debate. This book, like so many, is essentially preaching to those who are already converted. That’s not necessarily wrong, but it is certainly a limited goal. I felt the book fulfilled its limited brief reasonably well.
Yes, "preaching to the already converted" is precisely what it does. But it's just that which I found both uninteresting and disappointing. If you want to turn the Victorians into a foil for our own politics, go ahead. But the book misses ways in which we might *learn* from them, I think, and does so because of the author's own political blind spots.
So what you’re saying is I’m more woke than you? Very Victorian of me.
In case it isn’t clear, this is meant to be an entirely friendly engagement, and I have no problem with you stating your view. But how could I let myself live not forcing you to rehash some old issue on a holiday weekend?
It's what I live for.
“The Right to Have Children” is outstanding. I’m glad you included it again in this list. Thank you for sharing your wisdom and writing with the world.
Hah! Thank you. It was self-indulgent of me, but I regret....nothing.