Customer Reviews

Robert Lewis Dabney: A Southern Presbyterian Life (American Reformed Biographies)

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

P&R is to be commended for introducing the American Reformed Biographies series. These works should be of great interest to the Reformed Community, particularly in those denominations that have a high view of Scripture. The series is being edited by D.G. Hart and Sean Michael Lucas - who is the author of this volumn.

Lucas, who did Doctoral work on Dabney, has a clear and confident grasp of both the primary and secondary sources surrounding the life of Robert Lewis Dabney. Nevertheless, this work is geared toward pastors, seminary students and informed lay people and not primarily toward professional historians. Anyone interested in the Reformed faith in America would benefit from reading this book.

Lucas covers Dabney's life in eight chapters which span successive periods in his remarkable life. Through these chapters we gain an understanding not only of the man, but of a generation's struggles to cling to a way of life that was being torn from their grasp. While Dabney was a pastor and theologian, the Civil war was central to his life's work and central to Lucas' narrative as well.

As Lucas unfold's Dabney's fascinating life, we are reminded that many of his struggles in terms of the nature of confessional subscription, the relationship between theology and science, and the spiritual nature of the church are still with us today. Understanding Dabney's struggles in these areas can help us be more effective churmen in our own era.

While I hope this book finds a wide reading audience, I do have two suggestions that I think would have made this an even better biography:

1. Lucas provides a very helpful chapter of evaluations at the end of the book entitled "Perspective". I would have preferred that he limited his evaluative comments more to this section. Earlier in the book, particularly in dealing with Dabney's views on slavery, the author's perspectives and comments intrude a bit too much (for my taste) into the narrative. I suspect that this is due to Lucas being a relatively new author who is carrying over the academic desire to show the "prof" how thoroughly he has wrestled with the material. Future books from his pen, and we can hope that they are many, would be even better if Lucas learned to trust the narrative more.
2. Lucas does not bring out how horrendous some of the war crimes committed by the North were during the civil war. This background would have made Dabney's reluctance to embrace the North after the war seem far less idosyncratic than he might appear to those unfamiliar with these atrocities. It is always difficult to know what to include and what to exclude in such a work. I simply fear that many readers in the book's target audience will not already have this background understanding.

You should note that I offer these more as suggestions than criticisms, because to a large degree they are a matter of taste and literary judgment.

This work is well worth reading and I commend it to all who stand in the Reformed tradition.

I began this biography on Robert Lewis Dabney with mixed emotions. On one hand I was glad a new biography was written on Dabney. I view Dabney as one of the more heroic Christian leaders of the American church. There should be a plethora of material on him. For this reason, Lucas is to be praised. On the other hand, sadly, if one is not a Southron--and I mean one who is in sympathy with the Confederacy's cause, it is hard to understand Dabney. This proved to be true in Lucas' case. Lucas' thesis--with which I agree--is that Dabney is far from unusual or aberrant, but rather represents the 19th century Southern Presbyterian Church and Southern Conservative Tradition (217). By understanding Dabney's mind, we have a window in which to see the minds of an entire sociological group--the modern-day Southern conservative.

Lucas develops his thesis in 8 chapters, all alliterated: Preparation, Pastor, Professor, Patriot, Presbyterian Partisan, Passing, and Perspective. The last two chapters were top-notch. The chapters on Presbyterian Partisan and Patriot were not very well-done. I will take particular issue with Lucas on those two chapters. I will briefly note some of Dabney's distinctives in the other six chapters. Dabney held to a conservative, doctrinal Presbyterianism that found strict adherence to the Westminster Standards. His epistemology, Common-Sense realism, allowed him a unique plank to attack unbiblical thought, namely "The Sensualist Philosophy."

Patriot
Was Dabney a hero or coward concerning his military performance? Lucas sets the stage with a scene from Ivanhoe. This book helped define the Southern ideal as one of true courage and the desire (and demand!) of the Christian knight to seek glory (especially) in the face of death. Continuing this line of thought Lucas says that Dabney struggled to embrace the Southern manhood concerning the war because he, by virtue of his position as a chaplain, could not participate in the fighting. At this point Lucas engages in intense pyschologizing of Dabney. Objectively, Lucas is right. Dabney, being a minister, didn't do much fighting (although he was a key player in a few battles). Subjectively, I don't think this bothered Dabney like Lucas said it bothered Dabney. In fact, I don't recollect Dabney saying this bothered Dabney.

And then there is the strong counter-evidence from General Stonewall Jackson himself. Jackson said Dabney was one of the finest officers he knew. (This is the type of evidence that wins the discussion). Lucas recognizes this strong statement by Jackson and tries to dismiss it by quoting other historians and officers of the war who criticize Dabney as not being a professional soldier and not staying long enough in the campaigns (Dabney was forced to the home-front because of extreme illness). Even granting their points (and I don't), this doesn't prove that Dabney was indecisive as a soldier. I, with General Jackson, believe that Dabney was a competent man in the military who did what he was called to do.

Lucas then tries to point out inconsistencies in Dabney's ethic: How could Dabney support war as a minister of the gospel? The argument is that Dabney should have seen the inconsistency in being a chaplain on one hand (the saving of souls) and fighting as an officer on the other hand (the killing of men). I maintain, to the contrary, that Dabney exercised the "Two Kingdoms" ethic in the most consistent manner. Dabney, like all of us who are aliens in this commonwealth, are called to seek the prosperity of "the City (Jeremiah 29)." Therefore, Dabney, prophetically seeing the destruction of a Christian civilization that a Northern victory would bring, urged men to defend "the City." This was his "civic" or secular duty. This in no way contradicted his "sacred" duty. If it does, then the Two Kingdoms ethic falls (which few in Reformed circles would be willing to grant).

Presbyterian Partisan
I admit that Dabney warranted much criticism in this chapter. But we should be cautious in these criticisms. Dabney was wrong to forbid the ordination of African-Americans. Also, much of Dabney's opposition to the Northern church was wrong-headed (although his overall perspective and position is correct). While Dabney was correct to point out that the Bible, either Old Testament or New Testament, does not forbid slavery and the Bible cannot be used as an argument against slavery, he should have seen that the Bible has provisions for the long-term freeing of slaves.

But let's get to the heart of the issue. Dabney's rhetoric and refusal to forgive can only be understood in the context of Reconstruction. If one does not understand the nightmare of Reconstruction (drive through downtown Natchez, MS today), then one cannot understand Dabney's fight. Dabney saw that Reconstruction was the overturning of constitutionalism and the rule of law in the land. Dabney could not just "forgive and forget" a people who raped his homeland, destroyed the finest of a civilization, and in many cases, attacked the Christian faith. Perhaps he should have forgiven some (not all!) of the Northern crimes.

Evaluation
In all honesty I think Lucas damned Dabney with feigned praise. He overplayed Dabney's faults and did not do justice to Dabney's ideal of "Christian heroism." I do not believe we should whitewall Dabney. Dabney made some statements that cannot be justified biblically. He could have fought (and won) the same battles had he fought them on biblical and doctrinal lines. The last chapter, Perspective, was quite good. Lucas did some good, hard thinking on this part. He makes a very good comparison to Abraham Kuyper and notes that both Kuyper and Dabney developed, more fully than anyone else, the idea of a "Public Theology." Lucas hints that both Kuyper and Dabney have "theonomic" tendencies (241). I agree.

Is the Book worth getting? Yes. It incorporates new material and employs good, technical scholarship. I do wish that Lucas had been more sympathetic to Dabney. I understand why he kept his distance in this book. This book is written in the context of professional scholarship and "the academy." Dabney's ideas, obviously, are not that popular. We hope one day they will be.

Sean Michael Lucas is to be commended for his research and the amount of material he has used for this biography. Nevertheless, throughout the reading this work I more and more gained the impression that the author approached his work with a negative mindset towards Dabney. It was clear pretty early on that Lucas was "a man on a mission." There is too much opinion and too little trust in the facts in this work. What stunned me was the contradiction when Lucas first says that Dabney and the Southern church used the doctrine of the spirituality of the church to avoid the argument about slavery and then concludes the book with a plea for exactly this doctrine. Why he suddenly brings up an analysis of Abraham Kuyper is beyond me and the parallels used between him and Dabney seem artificial and only directed towards the author's case. I put the book down after reading it and thought, "Lucas basically (ab)used Dabney (and surprisingly Kuyper) to make his personal case against a comprehensive biblical world- and live-view." It was an interesting read but not really a sound biography.

I read this book twice, just to give it fair chance. It is garbage. Period. Filled with palpable seminarian smugness, Lucas's aim seems to be to prove how much more enlightened he is than Dabney, and he handles the great man as though he were a quaint and insignificant curiosity, an ecclesiastical oddity. But more than anything, Lucas wants to make Dabney out to be a racist - something that simply isn't true.

Avoid this book. Read Thomas Cary Johnson's The Life and Letters of Robert Lewis Dabney. And by all means, read Dabney's works, especially his Discussions (from Sprinkle, NOT Banner of Truth).

I have to admit I was thoroughly disappointed by this biography. Dabney (as a theologian) has become something of a 'mentor' to me, and I was looking forward to learning more about this godly man. Unfortunately, Lucas has written a book that ignores the most important features of this man's life. A great deal of stress is laid on Dabney's southern sense of honour and culture. Indeed, Dabney comes across more a southern man than a Christian. Moreover, much of the book is given to analyzing his 'inability' to adjust to the post-bellum south and his bitterness toward those with whom he disagreed. As the author seeks to distance himself (and fellow Presbyterians) from Dabney's shortcomings he becomes unncessarily critical and even unfair.

[An aside: I found the author's narrative irritating at times. At one point in the story Charles Hodge responds to something said by Dabney or someone else. Rather than telling us that Hodge responded a certain way, he says he "sniffed" back. I suppose we're to understand he felt defeated. I cerainly wouldn't speak this way about my own father, and I find it hard to understand why a Christian biographer would use this language when speaking of one as godly as Hodge was. This kind of language is off-putting. It is not honoring and certainly doesn't create a sense of respect or admiration in the mind of the reader. For more careful biography see Iain Murray.]

I wanted to learn about Dabney's relationship with God. I wanted to learn about his relationship with family members and his careful observance of the Sabbath. I wanted to learn about Dabney as a Christian. Both Iain Murray and Morton Smith have given talks on this man's life and in both instances I was edified, challenged, and motivated for service. Sadly, I came away from Lucas' biography with a bad taste in my mouth. I haven't read Johnson's biography, but I can only assume it is a more useful book.

This is a carefully researched and written book about a controversial figure in American church history. The text is fully documented and was a pleasure to read. Some of Dabney's outdated ideas on race were disturbing to read. His service before, during, and after the Civil War as a leading academic in the U.S. was interesting and insightful.

The review above is very helpful.

I became a fan of Lucas from his excellent pieces in the Westminster Theological Journal. He has really mastered his material, understands the broader context and writes in a very clear and concise style.

This is a critical engagement with Dabney, that tries very hard not to judge him unfairly by 21st century standards. Still it had the effect of diminishing my appreciation for Dabney.

While I share alot of his basic theological values (commitment to Reformed orthodoxy, Westminster-style, etc.), I concluded that Dabney does not have a ton of abiding significance for me as a pastor. As I've observed from his systematic theology text, Dabney really has little distinctive to offer that can't be found in stronger form elsewhere (Hodge, Warfield, John Frame, etc.)

What Dabney does offer is a window into an era of Southern conservative Presbyterianism. Even on that score you can find smarter proponents (Thornwell) and more sensible ones (Moses Hoge; Walter Moore; Adgar), so why bother with Dabney?

Some things I learned: 1. He was intensely provincial. Only left the South (if you include TX) 3 times in his whole life -- twice to go to NY for Presbyterian business before the War and once for a short visit to Europe in his dottage. Compare that to a guy like Hodge -- 20 years older but spent 2 years of study in Europe, traveled around the country, had good friends all over the world.
2. Dabney's racism was not just typical of the South, it was worse than average. When his own PCUS denomination, at the peak of their pain in 1866, decided to move forward with ordaining black men, Dabney published a heated jeremiad against it. See pp. 145-6. He says that he finds it horrible that his collegues would extend love to blacks, as "I, for one, make no professions of special love for those who are, even now, attempting against me and mine the most loathsome outrages.......... to teach and rule over white ppeople, and make (a black man) a co-equal member with myself in West Hanover Presbytery, to sit in judgment on the affairs of white churches..I oppose........(blacks are) a subservient race..made to follow and not to lead..."
3. He argued in writing that a major reason the South was poorer than the North was because they spent all their money on taking care of their slaves!
4. His angry campaign against Union Sem.'s move is comical and sad.

I won't be reading any more Dabney. I will read more Sean Lucas.

While the book certainly did tell me more than I knew about R.L. Dabney the manner in which it was written can best be described as dry and academic which made reading it all the more laborious.