A Book Review from Books at a Glance
by Patrick Sawyer
According to Trammel, there are some scholars, such as George Marsden and Joel Carpenter, who believed the evangelical fundamentalists withdrew from public engagement following the 1925 Scope Trail (xiii). In Carl Henry’s 1947 book The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism, he calls for a renewal of Christians to engage in the public square, which would suggest this assumption is correct. When it comes to this narrative, Trammel believes there are two main weaknesses. First, it suggests a more public disengagement which can be seen in historical records. Second, it creates a subjective point of view for when this retreat started heavily tying it to the Tennessee Scopes Trial of 1925. The purpose of this book was to review these two weaknesses more thoroughly relying on evidence drawn from newspaper reporting.
The question Trammel sought to answer was did American interwar fundamentalist disengage from social concerns following the 1925 Scopes Trial or did they continue to influence the public square particularly in support of Prohibition and resistance to the teaching of evolution. To answer this question, Trammel utilizes good and solid resources, such as newspapers, magazine articles, books and public talks with a good dating range (1920 to 1933). Trammel also does a good job of helping his readers understand the greatest problem for the fundamentalist during this time, which was the teaching of evolution in academic settings and also Prohibition.
Trammel begins by defining some key words. He uses the definition of evangelicalism as embracing the Bible as inspired and God’s revelation to man; an emphasis on the cross; a conversion experience and the desire to evangelize (xviii). He also defines fundamentalism and cultural engagement. Fundamentalism defined by George Marsden is “militantly anti-modernist Protestant evangelicalism…the movement that for a time in the 1920s created a national sensation with its attempt to purge the churches of modernism and the schools of Darwinism” (xx). Cultural engagement is defined as social or public action to influence society to better align with Christian values (xxi). Trammel does a good job of establishing these definitions to give his readers some needed foundational information. One definition Trammel could have provided is a better understanding and description of the Scopes Trial of 1925.
Trammel then moves to giving a brief history of evangelicals in North America. Evangelicalism began in the early to mid-eighteen century during the first great awakening through the preaching of Wesley, Whitefield and Edwards. During the middle to late nineteenth century, evangelicals had a large influence in the United States, but this influence began to break down in the mid-twentieth century. It was during this breakdown that evangelicals began to be called fundamentalists. Trammel states, “This new name distinguished theological conservatives from religious modernist who attempted to adapt traditional Christian understandings of miracles, the Bible, Jesus and salvation to Enlightenment challenges and modern science” (xxiii). The spreading of evangelicalism did not just stay in the United States but began to spread globally during the nineteenth century. It was also during this time that evangelical thought began to be shaped by the Enlightenment as well as division between evangelicals over predestination and slavery.
In chapter 1, Trammel thoroughly journeys through a fundamentalist historiography to determine two different views of the Scopes Trial. He cites numerous research publishings from both sides of the argument. One view, led through the influence of George Marsden and others, believed the fundamentalists lost the public battle in the Scopes Trial and this caused them to retreat from the public square and focus on their own institutions and later neo-evangelicalism emerged and reengaged the public square. The opposing view, led by Bryan Hankins and Matthew Sutton, revealed there does not seem to show any evidence the Scopes Trial caused the fundamentalists to withdraw from public engagement.
In chapter 2, Trammell traces down newspaper reportings of the effects on the fundamentalists antievolution efforts before, during and after the trial. Leading up to the Scopes Trial there was a growing embracement of the teaching of evolution in academic settings. During the pretrial years (1920-1924) there were not many published articles regarding the topics of fundamentalism and/or evolution. Trammel revealed an even split between those favoring the fundamentalist, those against fundamentalist and those neutral. During the trial year of 1925, there were significantly more articles published on these topics, with at least 248 published articles. Trammel concluded that unfairly most articles revealed a public defeat for the fundamentalists. During the post-trial years (1926-1933), there was a decrease in the number of published articles on these topics, but still more than the pre-trial years. Trammell concludes these years, like 1925, revealed an unfair defeat for the fundamentalists. Trammel ultimately reveals these published articles were biased and he believes there was little evidence revealing a public defeat for fundamentalists against evolution. He even revealed an opposite reaction in that there was an increase in public resistance of the teaching of evolution by the fundamentalists following the Scopes Trial. Trammell goes on to say “Through the lens of hindsight we know the antievolution efforts in the US would ultimately be fruitless, at least in outlawing public teaching of the theory. Yet a creationist movement would emerge in the decades following this early interwar period, confirming that conservative Christians never accepted defeat on evolution” (57).
In chapter 3, Trammell traces down newspaper reportings of the effects on the fundamentalists and prohibition. The pathway to prohibition began around the time of the Great Awakening, where sermons were challenging the civil authorities lack of control on drunkenness. During the 1800s, prohibition began to spread from state to state banning the sale of alcohol. Some of the same fundamentalists who was fought against evolution were also fighting for prohibition. From 1920 to 1924, similar to evolution, there were not many articles published regarding fundamentalism and prohibition revealing not much of a conflict at this time. During the Scopes Trail (1925), like evolution, there was an increase in published articles surrounding the controversary. There was an even greater number of published articles in the post-trial years (1926-1933). Trammell concludes that between the years 1920-1933 there is great evidence revealing no decline in fundamentalist support for prohibition. Trammel stated, “No articles in this study revealed any kind of retrenchment. Instead, religious support for Prohibition overall appeared to become less newsworthy. Viewed through the lens of newspaper articles, Prohibition died with a whimper rather than a bang, despite continued support by conservative Christians” (94). Like evolution, Prohibition did not have lasting effects, but this was not due to a lack of engagement and resistance from fundamentalists. The death of some key leaders among the fundamentalists may have hindered or stalled some of their efforts, but the effort was always there.
In chapter 4, since fundamentalists were dispensationalists or were influenced by dispensationalism, the accusation was they allowed their dispensationalism to hinder their social action and to overlook public problems. Trammell examines this theory or accusation. He seeks to answer the questions: should adherence to pre-Tribulation premillennialism have discouraged them from seeking to align the culture with biblical values? Should dispensationalism have granted them an understanding of the church’s life and mission that excluded social action? To answer these questions, Trammel examines what key dispensational theologians wrote about the Bible, sin, salvation, anthropology, the church, and eschatology. Trammell concludes that the fundamentalists social action was partly in line with their theology and partly not in line with it. They were consistent with their beliefs about the Bible, sin and salvation, but inconsistent with their view on anthropology, the church and eschatology.
Even though the fundamentalists were shaped by the Bible’s teachings and even though they were frightened by social movements that were against the teachings of Scripture, they mostly argued and resisted through secular arguments such as through reason, social consequences and the common good. However, Trammell believes, overall, the fundamentalists social action was influenced and in line with their biblical convictions.
When it came to sin and salvation, the fundamentalists were aligned with their dispensational beliefs. Even though they fought in the public arena, they still believed the main problem was not systematic sin, but personal sin. They believed the real answer to the problem was not through legislature, but through the gospel. legislation might minimize sin, but the gospel will destroy it (124). Where fundamentalists were out of line the most was with anthropology, ecclesiology and eschatology. The fundamentalist’s desire to promote biblical truths and values through public action was not in line with dispensational anthropology since dispensational anthropology did not promote mankind’s role in cultural engagement in order to bring about creational and societal good. When it came to ecclesiology and eschatology, the fundamentalists did not align with their dispensational beliefs. First, dispensationalism does not see the church as having any role in world transformation nor does it promote any effort for political achievement or social goods, but these beliefs did not stop the fundamentalists effort for world transformation through political achievements and social goods. These actions went beyond their dispensational beliefs. Trammell states, “By engaging in social action that conflicted with aspects of their own doctrine, they in effect began to chart a new theology of cultural engagement, developed by themselves rather than by professional theologians. This theology was dispensational at its core and somewhat incoherent because it weakened core beams in dispensationalism’s theological structure. Yet it did promote a Christian responsibility to oppose sin and disbelief using political means. In sum, this working theology of cultural engagement looked to the gospel alone for transformation but argued pragmatically for social restrains on evil” (125).
In conclusion, the purpose of Trammell’s book was to examine early interwar fundamentalists for evidence of disengagement from social concerns following the 1925 Scopes Trial. He sought to answer the question, did the fundamentalists retreat from the public square or did they continue to engage it. Trammell concludes, after examining newspaper articles, he found no evidence to suggest the fundamentalists retreated from the public square. He even reveals not only did they not retreat, but they were energized to continue the fight. If there was anything that hindered the fundamentalists efforts, was not the outcome of the trial, but the passing of key leaders. He stated, “The Scopes Trail did nothing to dissuade fundamentalist from seeking to legislate against the social ills of evolutionism and alcohol. The trial was a significant event, but not a conclusive one, and was more energizing to both sides than disillusioning” (129).
Evangelicals have predominantly sought to engage the public square with the ethics of the gospel, but some scholars believe this public engagement was hindered and decreased following the 1925 Scopes Trial, but Trammell does a good job of examining the evidence through the lens of newspaper articles to see if there were any evidence of this retreat following the trial. Trammell also does a good job of revealing his research and evidence to show this accusation of a public disengagement, according to his research, proves to show no evidence of this and proves this accusation is not accurate. I would highly recommend this book to anyone who has a desire to learn more about fundamentalism and the 1925 Scopes Trial or any evangelical who is wanting to learn more of the history of evangelicals in the public square. I feel this is a highly debated topic among evangelicals and Trammell does a good job of helping us understand what evangelicals have done historically, especially when it came to the teachings of evolution and prohibition and I also believe this can help evangelicals navigate cultural engagement today.
Patrick Sawyer