In the historian's world, perhaps the flagship journal is the American Historical Review. The organ of the American Historical Association , the largest professional organization for academic historian, the AHR covers just about every conceivable nook and cranny of History. As an author, it is gratifying to have your book reviewed by the AHR, because not every book is (or can be) afforded the space in the journal's precious pages. And so, I was honored, particularly because I did not have that honor for my first book, to see that The Mainline was reviewed in the June 2013 issue of the AHR (pages 881-882).
The review was written by D. G. Hart, one of the foremost historians of American evangelicalism working today. Professor Hart offers a nice summary of the book, and even says "To his credit, in a brief and episodic way, Lantzer is trying to remedy this [lack of focus on the Mainline of the Seven Sisters after the 1980s] historical oversight." I agree with him that there could have been more discussion of the Great Awakenings (something I have attempted to remedy in a previous post -- with perhaps more in the future). If I have a disagreement with his critique, however, it is that just because I talk about a new coalition constituting a new Mainline that in anyway detracts from the importance of the older Mainline. One of my goals was to save the very term "mainline" because I believe there is power in that name, and in order to save it, we have to be ready to address the fact that we cannot continue to talk about "mainline decline" forever -- because the old order of things having passed away (the Seven Sisters) has been replaced by a new group of evangelicals, Roman Catholics, and Pentecostals. And that this new Mainline is in need of study because it is both more reflective and (in many ways) more complex than the old Mainline of the Seven Sisters.
That being said, one issue that Prof. Hart did raise was a new one for me to think about and ponder, and that is the nature of denominationalism as a very American expression of Christianity and faith experience. As I reflected on it (and I hope to return to the subject in the future), though I have talked about it a bit on the blog, I was struck by the fact that I had never really stopped to think about who Christianity (and the Mainline itself) has been, and will most assuredly be, influenced by how American Christians organize themselves. Of course, my goal in the book was not to talk about denominations (and their inner workings) per se; but rather what those denominations have done. That being said, the denominations offer a wealth of information and insight in their own right that historians have hardly scratched the surface of -- not to mention opening the discussion further on what the trend towards non-denominationalism means for American Christianity. It also offers up the opportunity to really start pondering how the Christian faith is (and is not) different in the United States versus other places around the globe (something I wrote about last week when it comes to State Churches).
So, like all good reviews that offer a critique, this one got me thinking. Not only about what I have written but also about things that need more study and attention. As a professional historian then, the review in the AHR has become not just an honor, but a call for more work.
No comments:
Post a Comment