Religion and the New Republic: Faith in the Founding of America. (Book Reviews).

Religion and the New Republic: Faith in the Founding of America. Edited by James H. Hutson. (Lanham, Md., and other cities: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, lnc., c. 2000. Pp. viii, 212. Paper, $22.95, ISBN 0-8476-9434-8; cloth, $70.00, ISBN 0-8476-9433-X.)

This book is a collection of seven essays of uneven quality. The Library of Congress, which sponsored the 1998 symposium at which six of these essays were presented, was obliged, according to James H. Hutson, to ensure: first, that a variety of views was represented; and second, that all contributors adhered to the "most rigorous canons of scholarship" (p. vii). With regard to each of these perceived obligations, the book is a mixed success.

Are diverse views represented in Religion and the New Republic? To be sure, two opposing positions pertaining to public support of religion are suggested throughout the volume, but the issue is dealt with directly by only four of the contributors, and all from the same point of view. John Witte Jr. contends that "too much religious freedom is an invitation to depravity and license" (p. 30) and that a policy of "complete disestablishment" is ill-suited for America because it cannot "serve a people so widely devoted to a public religion and a religious public" (p. 31). Thomas E. Buckley, S.J., believes that "most Americans today ... would agree" with the assertion that the "welfare of the commonwealth" is dependent "upon religion; so the government should recognize it and support it" (p. 55). And Michael Novak criticizes the work of "important elites in American life" (p. 163) and the "intellectual world of modern secular scholarship" (p. 168) for failing to recognize that "virtue" is "not practicable ... without religion" (p. 165). Daniel L. Dreisbach's fine essay on the context of Jefferson's "wall of separation" metaphor exhibits none of these presentist failings, but his conclusion that the "wall" was a restriction on the powers of the federal government alone (leaving the states free to support religion as they saw fit) does not constitute a divergent viewpoint.

Two essays in this collection make significant contributions to the literature on religion in the early republic, adhere rigorously to the canons of historical scholarship, and deserve to be read before any of the others. Mark A. Noll begins with a thoughtful definition of "evangelicalism" before arguing that it "at best played a negligible role in the founding era" (p. 146); that "a form of evangelical conservative Protestantism reasonably similar to what is known ... today did not emerge in the United States until a generation or more after the founding period" (p. 149); and therefore that present-day "[e]vangelicals are mistaken in thinking of the founding period as strongly influenced by the kind of religion that they hold dear" (p. 153). Jon Butler's contribution, "Why Revolutionary America Wasn't a `Christian Nation,'" expertly summarizes the findings of the best studies of religion in the eighteenth century in order to draw attention to two vital characteristics of religion in America on the eve of independence: "public indifference to Christian practice" (p. 191) and a "vigorous pluralism" (p. 193) among those who made up the churchgoing public. For the sake of public peace in this "multifarious society," the idea that "government should refrain from activity in religion" (p. 196) gained widespread acceptance. Thus, during the debates on the First Amendment in 1789, Congress specifically rejected as too narrow wording that would have limited its scope only to preferential treatment of one church or religious sect. The concept of America as a "Christian nation" may be "politically useful," Butler concludes, but it "does not resonate well with the facts of eighteenth-century colonial and American history" (p. 197).

Catherine A. Brekus's piece on women's religious activism after the Revolution must be treated as an afterthought because it stands alone in this collection. Undoubtedly, the sponsors of the 1998 conference included a discussion of women as an overture to diversity. But then why not include papers on the "innumerable versions of Christianity plus Judaism, traditional African religious expression, native American religions, even notions of magic and occultism" (p. 198) that Butler says formed important parts of the American religious scene in the founding era?