In Praise of Nuance
The debates surrounding the American Civil War hold lessons for us today
A new year means new reading goals. If you could see the stack of books I have purchased of late, you would declare me the most overambitious person since that Greek idiot launched a mission to the sun. But thanks to the wonder that is the audiobook, I am managing to fit one in among the business of life: The Civil War as a Theological Crisis by Mark Noll.
I have wanted to dive into Noll’s body of work for quite some time. He is the author of The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, in which he made the rather obvious argument that evangelical Christians tend to eschew high intellectualism. It was, nevertheless, groundbreaking and influential. Rather than starting with his most famous work, I chose one that seemed especially relevant to our historical moment.
Many political and theological debates in the United States are really debates about the American Civil War. Just this month, Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley had a viral moment when someone asked her about the causes of the Civil War. She gave a typical politician’s answer that included a lot of vaguely important-sounding things…but not slavery. This was taken as proof that the Republican Party has become so dependent upon the votes of white supremacists and Lost Cause promoters that Haley was afraid to mention the ‘s’ word. (I’ll let you judge the matter.) We are now far more than “four score and seven years” from the official end of the Civil War, but it is arguably still being fought.
It is therefore refreshing to read an account like Noll’s, for rather than simply polemicizing, he quotes the arguments of nineteenth century American theologians at length, drawing on all sectors of American religious life. The Old School Presbyterians of the South are quoted along with the Unitarians of New England. Traveling evangelists, a Brooklyn rabbi, a professor at Princeton Seminary, a Mormon friend of Joseph Smith, Jesuits, and even African-Americans themselves are quoted. No one is cancelled or censored. Everyone has their say.
From this tremendous variety, Noll draws out some general trends, identifying three ideological camps within American Christianity. First, a group of white conservative Christians mostly (but not solely) in the southern states who argued that the Bible condoned slave holding, particularly of Africans subject to the curse of Ham. Second, a group of white liberal Christians mostly (but not solely) in the northern states who argued that slavery was unethical based on plain common sense. This group did not see the Christian Scriptures as wholly authoritative or inerrant. Third, a group of white and black Christians from various sectors who held the Bible to be the authoritative Word of God, but made nuanced arguments based upon the totality of Scripture to demonstrate that slavery, especially as practiced in America, was anti-biblical.
Noll observes that this third group struggled to gain adherents. Nuanced arguments emphasizing the totality of Scripture over a few quotable verses did not connect with the American public. Instead, defenders of slavery came to see all abolitionists as atheists who wanted to throw Scripture in the waste bin. Opposition to slavery was linked with a denial of scriptural inerrancy.
The nineteenth century was full of debates over Scripture’s authority due to the advent of higher criticism at European universities. Americans heavily influenced by the Second Great Awakening believed not only that the Christian Scriptures were the authoritative Word of God, but that their meaning was so plain, even a relatively uneducated person could read a Bible and understand it.
The nuanced arguments were drowned out. The two remaining groups become entrenched and increasingly radicalized. War was inevitable.
As I am fond of saying, circumstances change, but people do not. The world has experienced dizzying technological progress since the nineteenth century. It has seen two world wars and vast shifts in how we view government, sexuality, and the status of the individual. But the basic operation of the human brain is the same, and our dearest desires are still dear.
Americans today are no more likely to gravitate toward thoughtful, nuanced arguments than their ancestors were in the antebellum period. We tend to blame this on the advent of social media, but the human attention span has always been limited. Talking points are easier to spout than complex reasoning, and we are a prideful people utterly biased in favor of ourselves. These factors lead us to favor pithy statements that we can assert at any point in a conversation to shut things down.
“Abortion is healthcare!” “Abortion is murder!”
If you are daring enough to start a discussion online about the issue of pregnancy termination, you are almost certain to have one of these lines thrown at you with the force of a Nolan Ryan fastball. They are talking points often acquired from political pundits. Each reveals something about the person’s views, but neither amounts to a proper argument. Is abortion still healthcare if the woman’s physical health is not in jeopardy? Is abortion murder if it is an ectopic pregnancy?
“I forbid a woman to teach.”
I have had this biblical quotation thrown at me more times than I care to mention, always in response to something I wrote that seemed to the commenter to be too liberal. I know this, because there are many women on social media who post all the time about “trad wife” values, and they are not forbidden from teaching. So, rather than engaging with me, a person replies with that single biblical line, shutting down the conversation.
It is admittedly difficult to read a long analysis of any issue, whether political or religious. Researching relevant opinions in different sectors of society is tedious, and no one can be an expert in every subject. A peer-reviewed journal has probably never appeared on a hat, as far as I am aware, but “Make America Great Again” fits very well. If you were to stop a person wearing such a hat and ask them the following questions, you might find them struggling to answer: When was America great? When did it stop being great? How will it be made great again? How will those policies be funded? Do other people with expertise in the field think those policy goals are achievable? What are the potential negative consequences of those policies? (I could perform this exercise just as easily with the phrase “Change We Can Believe In.”)
It does not matter which politician or religious personality is talking—whether they are on the Right or Left of American society. Modern life does not allow for nuance any more than Renaissance life or medieval life or the forum of ancient Rome. “Caeasar is an evil tyrant!” is easier to accept than, “Caesar did x, y, and z that were good things, and x, y, and z that were bad things, and letting him live could result in x, y, or z, while assassinating him could result in x, y, or z.” No one wants to hear that! Just take out the dagger and kill him already!
But while few people are willing to read nuanced arguments, fewer still are willing to be convinced by them. To acknowledge a truth that conflict’s with one’s personal narrative is a kind of death. Your identity must change. The way you understand the world must change. These are not things that occur without cost, and for many, the price is too high. Changing one’s opinion on a major issue can result in broken relationships, lost income, and denied opportunities. The older a person is, the truer this seems to be: easier to admit you were wrong for five years than fifty.
There are a few people who love the truth so purely that they are willing to put their presuppositions aside and engage in the dangerous business of learning rather than simply having their own views fed back to them. These are the ones who say in the words of T.S. Eliot, “We will not cease from exploration.” (See “Little Gidding,” the last of his Four Quartets.) A hard fate, but a rewarding one. It is worth speaking the truth, because those few people exist.
Nuance alone does not ensure truth, but it begins a conversation rather than shutting it down. It takes a position while remaining open to engagement. Nuance therefore increases understanding between persons and even allows for compromise, that most necessary thing that is far too often demonized.
However, it would be worth speaking the truth even if no one were there to hear it, for the truth is its own reward. That which is true is also good and beautiful. We must value the truth about relationships, institutions, and personal power—above any form of earthly comfort. The one who lives most in line with the truth lives most fully.
Can’t get enough of me here? Why not follow me on Facebook, Twitter, Threads, or Instagram?
I think one of the healthiest things a person can do is to have friends who hold different opinions than you do. God has provided me with this through my children. They are well read and careful thinkers and discussions about religion and politics can often become intense, but are usually polite and thought-provoking. I am learning the art of asking good questions and listening carefully to what other people have to say. If you know what you believe and why you believe it, you are secure enough to hear, really hear, a different point of view.