Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Evangelical
History and Religion
Evangelicalism and Interstices: A 19th Century Intervention

Evangelicalism and Interstices: A 19th Century Intervention

Last updated on: March 10, 2026 at 11:35 pm by Wyatt Reynolds

0 Comments

Evangelicalism and Interstices: A 19th Century Intervention 2026-03-10T23:35:39-04:00 Wyatt Reynolds

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Before jumping into this piece, I want to make an acknowledgement. First, Professor Sutton has a new and well-regarded book expanding his argument from the article I discuss here. It just came out, and I have begun reading it. I’m quite excited to engage further. He is an emminently readable and remarkable cogent scholar. Putting an entire history of American/Christian history in a mere 600 pages is a feat worth praising, all its own. I plan to finish the book and write a review, probably in my next post here, but maybe somewhere else. Obviously, reading the book may change my view on what I present here. I promise to notify you if it does.

The interior of the Federal Street Church approximately 20 years after the evening I describe here.

On the evening of February 29, 1832, four speakers addressed a packed audience in Boston’s Federal Street Church: Lyman Beecher and Edward Everett, Elias Boudinot, editor of the Cherokee Phoenix; and William Apess, a Pequot Methodist minister. The gathering was improbable. Beecher had shut down the Cornwall School after Boudinot’s interracial marriage. Apess belonged to a breakaway Methodist sect widely regarded as lower-class and ecstatic. He appears only fleetingly in newspapers before 1832. The church itself was embroiled in a controversy over admitting African American members. The audience, surviving reports tell us, was racially mixed. Lydia Maria Child, William Lloyd Garrison, and Louisa Park were all present. David Walker had died in 1830, but it is likely Maria Stewart attended.[1]

That Apess appeared at all—largely unknown to the press, theologically out of place, yet invited to address one of Boston’s most prominent audiences—is itself evidence of informal networks operating beyond the archival record. Someone knew him. Someone brought him in. And the reason he fit on that stage alongside Boudinot, despite their denominational and tribal differences, was that they shared a common theological and political vision: that all human beings belong to one divine family, and that the settler republic’s project of removal was an offense against the God who made them. That vision was a shared inheritance, carried through what I call the capillary networks of the early republic: cross-racial intellectual relationships built under conditions of enslavement, dispossession, and racial terror. It also connects Apess and Boudinot backward through figures the formal record has often worked to obscure: David Walker, Prince Saunders, and a tradition of subaltern Christian thought that has been left out entirely from one of the most consequential debates in American religious historiography.

Matthew Sutton‘s incredibly popular and hotly debated 2024 article in the Journal of the American Academy of Religion “Redefining the History and Historiography on American Evangelicalism in the Era of the Religious Right” argues that those he calls “consensus evangelical historians”—George Marsden, Mark Noll, Nathan Hatch, and others—constructed a transhistorical category of “evangelicalism” defined theologically, then applied it retroactively from Jonathan Edwards to Rick Warren.[2] This produced an “exceedingly positive” narrative: abolitionists, reformers, missionaries, all marching under a single evangelical banner. The term, Sutton argues, obscured how post-World War II evangelicalism was at its heart a white nationalist, right-wing political movement, and made it impossible for many scholars to anticipate or explain evangelical support for Donald Trump. His proposed solution: restrict “evangelical” to the post-1942 period, define it culturo-politically, and before that date use denominational labels or the term “revivalist.”[3]

To say the article has generated significant debate would be an understatement. Those sympathetic to Sutton have emphasized what the evangelical (or consensus) historians’ approach often obscured—the Lost Cause, white supremacy, the southern pro-slavery theological tradition—and called for the Bebbington quadrilateral to be retired. Those defending the consensus position have insisted that evangelicalism is fundamentally about theology, and that a politico-racial redefinition loses the ability to track genuine intellectual and spiritual continuities across time.[4]

Before proceeding, it is worth addressing a fundamental question about how scholarly categories function. Jonathan Z. Smith’s influential essay “Religion, Religions, Religious” contains one of the most cited passages in religious studies: “‘Religion’ is not a native term; it is a term created by scholars for their intellectual purposes and is therefore theirs to define.” This principle applies directly to the evangelicalism debate—and cuts against Sutton’s critique in a way he does not seem to recognize.

The consensus historians constructed their transhistorical category and traced it from Edwards through the Great Awakening to Billy Graham. Sutton objects that they “made it up,” that the category is a scholarly invention imposed retrospectively on historical actors who wouldn’t have recognized it. This is true. It is also irrelevant. Of course they made it up. That is what scholars do. Smith’s point is not that we should abandon second-order analytical categories in favor of native terms, but that we should be self-conscious about why we’re creating them and what intellectual work they’re meant to perform.

By Smith’s standard, the consensus historians were well within their rights to construct “evangelicalism” as they did. They had scholarly purposes: to track theological continuities across denominational lines, to explain the rise of activist Protestantism in the antebellum United States, to make sense of transatlantic networks of print and revival that transcended institutional boundaries. The question is not whether they invented the category—they did—but whether it does useful analytical work. And on that front, the answer is mixed to positive.

The consensus historians got something fundamentally right: theology matters. The continuities they traced between Edwards and Hopkins and Dwight and Finney were real. The shared commitments to scriptural authority, conversion experience, and activist faith did shape a recognizable tradition with intellectual coherence across time. Their work demonstrated that evangelicalism was not just a sociological phenomenon or a political coalition, but a theological inheritance with its own internal logic and generative capacity. Noll’s America’s God and Hatch’s The Democratization of American Christianity remain among the most sophisticated accounts we have of how theological ideas moved through early American culture.

William Apess

But the writings of the consensus school have been criticized—not always fairly—for telling a story that was too white, too northern, and too optimistic. This characterization flattens a more complicated reality. Noll, in particular, has spent much of the last quarter century layering race and diversity into his account of American Christianity, and the other consensus historians have similarly expanded the scope of their project as new scholarship and new networks of connection opened up to them. The nature of the enterprise continued to grow. Still, the works that defined the field—the books that shaped how a generation of scholars understood the category—did not fully account for figures like Lemuel Haynes, Phillis Wheatley, David Walker, William Apess, or Prince Saunders: people who were deploying the same scriptural arguments, operating within the same theological grammar, and arriving at political conclusions that followed at least as logically from the shared premises as anything their white contemporaries produced. This is to say nothing of the South, which was often neglected. The gap was not one of dishonesty but of scope.

The category worked, up to a point. It illuminated continuities but obscured conflicts. It explained evangelical theology but did not yet theorize what happened when that theology was applied by people with radically different relationships to power. And crucially, it tended to narrate evangelicalism as though it were fundamentally consensual—a tradition people agreed on—rather than fundamentally contested—a tradition people argued about.

Sutton’s response is to abandon the theological definition entirely and restrict “evangelical” to a post-1942 white nationalist political movement—trading a theological category for a political one. This solves the problem of white supremacy in the tradition by definitional fiat: if evangelicalism is intrinsically white and nationalist and post-war, then there’s no need to explain why twentieth-century evangelicals supported segregation—that’s just what the term means. But this creates a new problem: it makes Black and Indigenous (and other non-white) evangelical thinkers unintelligible. David Walker can’t be an evangelical under Sutton’s definition because he wasn’t a white nationalist. He wasn’t an evangelical under the consensus narrative because that narrative didn’t include him. But he was doing theology within the same tradition, reading the same texts, deploying the same scriptural arguments about divine sovereignty and human equality, and arriving at political conclusions that were internally consistent with those premises even if most white evangelicals were unwilling to entertain them.

What we need is not a new definition that excludes different people, but a better theoretical framework for understanding how traditions actually function. Both work in the anthropology of Christianity and a bit of theory can help us offer that.

In their 2008 article “Who is a Christian?”, William Garriott and Kevin Lewis O’Neill argue that anthropologists should adopt a “dialogic approach” to studying Christianity—one that shifts attention from the problems Christianity poses to anthropology, to the problems Christianity poses to Christians themselves.[5] Drawing on Mikhail Bakhtin’s concept of dialogue, they propose that Christian traditions are best understood not as fixed doctrinal systems but as ongoing arguments among practitioners about what their shared commitments require. The tradition is constituted not by agreement but by the nature and stakes of the disagreement.

This approach builds on but moves beyond Talal Asad’s influential definition of Islam as a “discursive tradition” in which practitioners relate themselves to founding texts through debate over correct practice.[6] Asad’s formulation is powerful, and the dynamics he describes—practitioners relating themselves to founding texts through debate over correct practice—are not unique to Islam. Christianity, too, is a discursive tradition in Asad’s sense. But Garriott and O’Neill’s “dialogic” framework pushes the analysis further in a direction especially useful for our purposes: it asks what problems Christians are arguing about and treats those arguments—not the quest for definitive answers or the answers themselves—as constitutive of the tradition.

Applied to evangelicalism, this means understanding the category not as a checklist of beliefs or a political coalition, but as a shared theological grammar that generates ongoing conflict about what that grammar demands of the individual and community. What gives evangelicalism continuity from Edwards to Graham is not agreement on politics or identical doctrinal formulations, but a set of theological commitments—scriptural authority, the centrality of conversion, activist faith, the doctrine of the image of God—which different inheritors have applied differently based on their social position, their historical moment, and their encounters with power.

Elias Boudinot, Cherokee

Evangelicalism was never one thing. It was a dialogue and a conflict as much as a movement. And the most important arguments were not between evangelicals and their critics, but among evangelicals themselves: What does it mean that all humans are made in God’s image? What does scriptural authority require when Scripture condemns oppression? What does conversion demand when it occurs across racial lines? These were not abstract theological puzzles. They were questions with immediate political consequences, and different inheritors of the tradition answered them differently. Indeed, the argument over this very definition is itself part of the ongoing contest that shapes what evangelicalism is. I believe Mark Noll, Matthew Sutton, and I have each grown up within particularized (and radically different) communities participating in this argument. We each bring those formations and our own stories to the conversation about what “evangelical” means.

The reason the evangelicalism debate feels stuck is that all sides have conceded too much to each other. Sutton accepts that the theology is basically just the Bebbington quadrilateral and then says it doesn’t matter. His opponents defend the quadrilateral but have been slow to reckon with how the tradition’s founding narratives centered whiteness, even as individual scholars have worked to broaden the picture. What’s missing is the recognition that theological traditions have always been broader, more diverse, and more internally contested than either side acknowledges. The contest itself—the ongoing argument about what shared commitments demand—is not a problem to be solved. It is the most important thing to understand about evangelicalism as a category. Drawing on Derrida, I have called this a logic of experience. Authentic inheritance doesn’t mean reproduction. Rather it requires respecting the logics of a tradition enough to turn it in potentially new directions—sometimes against those who claim to be its guardians. The most faithful inheritor of a tradition may be the one who reveals, in Derrida’s words, “what has never yet been seen in the inheritance”—who by “an unheard-of act of reflection,” presents an iteration of what the tradition always implied but never acknowledged.[7]

Jan Stievermann’s work on the Boston-Halle-Tranquebar network demonstrates that this is how the category of “evangelical” functioned from its very origins. The transconfessional Protestant identity that emerged in the early eighteenth century was constructed not through doctrinal councils but through networks of correspondence, shared mission work, and print culture—what Cotton Mather called a “syncretism of piety.”[8] For Mather and his Pietist correspondents, the Christian religion was “a Practical Thing rather than a meer Theory; the Intention whereof is, to animate a Real, Solid, Vital PIETY.” What held the network together was not creedal agreement but shared experiential commitments—conversion, scriptural devotion, activist engagement—that crossed the Lutheran-Calvinist divide precisely because they operated at the level of lived religion rather than systematic theology. This is also why Sutton’s proposed replacement term, “revivalist,” fails. As Douglas Winiarski’s work on the “people called New Lights” has shown, the men and women shaped by the eighteenth-century awakenings had complex theological commitments, denominational affiliations, and institutional entanglements that “revivalist” fails to capture.[9] Many of the most important figures in the networks I study were not revivalists at all. Walker was not leading camp meetings. Saunders was operating through Masonic lodges and transatlantic activism. Bouidnot was only white spaces as a fundraiser and activist. What they shared was a theological grammar, not a revival technique.

Prince Saunders

The Edwardsean inheritance didn’t just produce Timothy Dwight’s Federalist conservatism, Samuel Hopkins’s abolitionism, and Jedidiah Morse’s imperial missionary enthusiasm.[10] It also produced Black and Indigenous intellectual lineages that were and are just as theologically serious. Samson Occom annotated Edwards’s theological writings directly. Hendrick Aupuamut corresponded with Edwards’s son Timothy and requested copies of his father’s books. Elias Boudinot studied under New Divinity men at the Cornwall School, which shaped his translation of the New Testament into Cherokee. Apess read Edwards through Wesley’s edited Faithful Narrative. Lemuel Haynes deployed Edwardsean Calvinism to argue for racial equality. And Phillis Wheatley—writing from within the same Calvinist grammar that Edwards and his heirs inhabited—turned its logic against the racial order that sustained it.[11] As Tamika Nunley has argued, Wheatley (and I would argue these other figures) employed Christian theology in ways that politicized freedom for Africans in North America, deploying the tradition’s own premises as what Nunley calls an “evolving liberation poetics.” In “On Being Brought from Africa to America,” Wheatley addressed white Christians directly, insisting that those who viewed the “sable race with scornful eye” remember that “Negroes, black as Cain, / May be refin’d, and join th’ angelic train.” The theology of redemption, applied without racial exception, became a demand for the full spiritual equality of enslaved Africans—and, by implication, their political equality as well.[12] Walker insisted that “God Almighty is the sole proprietor or master of the WHOLE human family” and that “Man, in all ages and all nations of the earth, is the same. Man is a peculiar creature — he is the image of his God.”[13] Apess declared t

Rev. Samson Occom

hat Indigenous peoples “retain the original complexion of our common father Adam” and, via Bartolome de las Casas, that “all nations are equally free. One nation has no right to infringe on the freedom of another.”[14] Saunders appealed to “the mysterious operation of [God’s] providence” on behalf of “the best interests of the descendants of Africa,” framing Black sovereignty in Haiti as evidence of what divine justice demanded in practice.[15] These were not political slogans dressed in scriptural language. They were theological claims about creation and human unity that generated political conclusions about human equality, Indigenous sovereignty, and the illegitimacy of slavery. The ideas were not incidental to the activism. They were foundational.

All living traditions function this way. As one Indigenous Studies text describes the process among Native Americans, “tradition indeed brings the past into the future, not by being rigid but by providing a bundle of constraints within which a spectrum of practices and possible innovations can take place. In time and through countless reiterations of tradition, even the constraints that define it can change.”[16] No serious historian would abandon the term “Roman Catholic” because Vatican II looks different from Aquinas, or “Jewish” because rabbinic Judaism differs radically from Second Temple Judaism. To insist that evangelicalism must be either a fixed theological checklist or a post-war political formation is to apply a standard of definitional purity that no tradition could survive.

These thinkers were not isolated voices. They were connected through networks that the archives have passively and actively worked to obscure.

Prince Saunders taught Apess at a school for “colored youths” in Colchester, Connecticut, studied at Dartmouth and taught in Boston, before traveling to England to meet Wilberforce and to Haiti to serve Christophe’s court. Saunders then moved back to Boston, where he returned to the same Masonic networks and reform circles that Walker would later inhabit.[17] Computational stylometric analysis I have conducted as part of my dissertation reveals striking patterns of shared rare vocabulary and parallel argumentative structures between the writings of Walker and Apess—patterns that intensify over time and point toward direct or mediated intellectual transmission. Saunders sits at the origin point: the teacher, the Mason, the transatlantic diplomat who carried intellectual resources from Connecticut to Dartmouth to England to Haiti to Boston, connecting Indigenous and African American intellectual worlds before most white observers believed such worlds existed.[18]

The formal mechanisms of citation were unavailable to them. To openly acknowledge a cross-racial intellectual network was to invite exactly the kind of retaliation that Georgia’s ten-thousand-dollar bounty on Walker represented. But the traces of their shared formation survive in the texture of their prose.

With this evidence in view, the terms of the evangelicalism debate look different. Neither a purely theological definition nor a purely political one can account for what Walker, Apess, and Saunders were doing. They were not operating outside the evangelical tradition. They were applying its deepest premises—scriptural authority, the image of God, the universality of redemption—more consistently than most of their white contemporaries were willing to countenance. The ongoing argument about what those shared commitments demand is not a problem the category needs to solve. It is the category’s defining feature.

When you look at the interstices—at the forgotten, hidden spaces where a Pequot minister, a Black pamphleteer, and a young enslaved poet all deploy the same theological premises to dismantle the exclusionary foundations of the settler state—the definitional question looks completely different. The term “evangelical” can do useful analytical work across time, but only if we understand it as naming a tradition in permanent internal conflict over what its own commitments require.

Recovering these figures doesn’t fully rescue the consensus narrative—the tradition was never as benign as it was made to look. But it does rescue something Sutton’s redefinition would destroy: the recognition that theology can generate politics, that ideas are not necessarily epiphenomenal to power, and that the most radical applications of evangelical theology in antebellum America came from the people with the least institutional power and the most to lose. In 1774, Phillis Wheatley wrote to Samson Occom—a Black woman to a Native man, both working within the same Calvinist, Edwardsean, and evangelical tradition, both navigating a world that denied them the capacity for intellectual production—and declared: “For in every human Brest, God has implanted a Principle, which we call Love of Freedom; it is impatient of Oppression, and pants for Deliverance.”[19] The theology did the work. It generated the politics. And the tradition’s own logic—applied honestly and without exception—was more revolutionary than anything its white guardians were willing to admit. The true sign of life in a tradition is not agreement but conflict.[20] Evangelicalism isn’t an identity. It’s an argument.

[1] Maureen Konkle, Writing Indian Nations Native Intellectuals and the Politics of Historiography, 1827-1863 (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2004) p 97; The Liberator March 5, 1831

[2] Matthew Avery Sutton, Redefining the History and Historiography on American Evangelicalism in the Era of the Religious Right, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Volume 92, Issue 1, March 2024, Pages 37–60

[3] Ibid

[4] There was a fascinating panel on the article at the S-USIH in 2024 in Boston. I might bring this up more in my review of Sutton’s book.

[5] William Garriott and Kevin Lewis O’Neill, “Who Is a Christian?,” Anthropological Theory 8, no. 4 (December 2008): 381–98, https://doi.org/10.1177/1463499608096645. I’m incredibly grateful to Phil Davis at Northwestern for pointing me toward this article and the field of anthropology of religion in general as a fruitful and needed area of theory for my work. Just as with a lot of the figures I mention here, teamwork makes the dream work.

[6] Ibid.

[7] J. Derrida and M. Tlili, For Nelson Mandela (Henry Holt & Co, 1998) p 17

[8] Jan Stievermann, “A ‘Syncretism of Piety’: Imagining Global Protestantism in Early Eighteenth-Century Boston, Tranquebar, and Halle,” Church History 89, no. 4 (December 2020): 829–56

[9] Ibid.

[10] See Douglas L. Winiarski, Darkness Falls on the Land of Light: Experiencing Religious Awakenings in Eighteenth-Century New England (Williamsburg, VA: Omohundro Institute, 2019).

[11] For Occom see Ryan Carr, Samson Occom: Radical Hospitality in the Native Northeast. Religion, Culture, and Public Life (United States, NY: Columbia University Press, 2023). For Aupuamat see Rachel Wheeler, “Hendrick Aupaumut: Christian-Mahican Prophet,” Journal of the Early Republic 25, no. 2 (June 2005): 187–220. For Boudinot see Margaret Clelland Bender and Thomas N. Belt, The New Voice of God: Language, Worldview, and the Cherokee Bible (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 2025) and John Demos, The Heathen School: A Story of Hope and Betrayal in the Age of the Early Republic (New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 2014). For Apess see Philip F. Gura, The Life of William Apess, Pequot (Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 2015).

[12] Tamika Nunley, “The Intellectual World of Phillis Wheatley and the Politics of Genius,” Journal of Women’s History 36, no. 1 (March 2024): 105–28,

[13] David Walker, David Walker’s Appeal to the Coloured Citizens of the World (Bensenville, IL: Lushena Books, 2022).

[14] William Apess, On Our Own Ground: The Complete Writings of William Apess, a Pequot, ed. Barry O’Connell (Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press, 1992).

[15] Prince Saunders, Haytian Papers, 1818, ed. Maxwell Whiteman (Philadelphia, PA: Rhistoric, 1969).

[16] Rethinking Colonialism Indigenous Innovation and Colonial Inevitability STEPHEN A. MROZOWSKI, D. RAE GOULD, AND HEATHER LAW PEZZAROSSI p 129

[17] Philip F. Gura, The Life of William Apess, Pequot (Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 2015) p 7-10; “CHILDREN OF AFRICA, SHALL BE HAYTIANS”: Prince Saunders, Revolutionary Transnationalism, and the Foundations of Black Emigration (1815-1865) Westenley Alcenat, unpublished dissertation

[18] Ibid.

[19] Tamika Nunley, “The Intellectual World of Phillis Wheatley and the Politics of Genius,” Journal of Women’s History 36, no. 1 (March 2024) p 119. She continues, “These words did not appear as mere ruminations blindly accepted by Africans but as theological considerations of evil and good, right and wrong. These theological underpinnings were the makings of liberation thought and the divine impetus…”

[20] I borrow this sentiment from something I once heard Malcolm Foley say on a panel.

History and Religion

abolitionism

Activism

African American Religion

American History

American Religious History

Sunday Night Odds and Ends

Uncategorized

Previous Post

March 9, 2026

The Throne of Wisdom

Next Post

March 11, 2026 God is in the midst of her

Recent Comments

0 | Leave a Comment

"I love horror but would have to acclimate back to Lovecraft and especially Machen. Have ..."

Terry

Fairies, Witches, Folk Horror, and the ..."

"Very good point about MacDonald.I am certainly a Machen fan!"

philipjenkins

Fairies, Witches, Folk Horror, and the ..."

"The Scottish author George MacDonald integrated fairy world into his fiction in a way that ..."

Terry

Fairies, Witches, Folk Horror, and the ..."

"I like the idea that we can have different streams. The coffee analogy is genius."

Lisa Clark Diller

How Do You Take Your Evangelicalism?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category abolitionism Abortion Abraham Joshua Heschel Abraham Kuyper Abraham Lincoln Academia Activism Adam Renberg Advent Adventist africa African American Religion Agnes Howard Albert Camus American History American Religious History American Revolution American West Anabaptists Ancient History Andrea Turpin Andrei Tarkovsky Anglicanism Annales Ansley Lillian Quiros anti-Catholicism Antisemitism Anxious Bench apologetics Apparitions Arash Azizi Archaeology archives art Artificial Intelligence Asia Asian Americans Augustine Authors Bad Bunny Baptism Baptists Barack Obama Battle of Hastings Benjamin Franklin Bernard-Henri Levy Beth Allison Barr Beth Moore Bethany Mannon Bible Bill Cunningham Billy Graham Black Music Bob Dylan Body Boenhoffer Books Breastfeeding Bruce Springsteen C.S. Lewis Calvinism Cancel Culture Capitalism Carmelites Catholicism Cedric Robinson Cesar Chavez Charismaticism charity Charles Dickens Charles Lindbergh Che Guevara Chicago Children Chinese Christianity Chris Gehrz Christ Christian death Christian Higher Education Christian life Christian Nation Christian Nationalism Christianity Today Christmas Church life Church Practice cinema Civil Religion Civil Rights Movement Civil War civility Classics Climate Change Cold War Colonial Mexico colonialism Comer Communism community complementarianism Conference on Faith and History Congregationalism Conspiracies Conspiracy Conversion Narratives Coronavirus Costa Rica Council of Nicaea Covid-19 Creation Critical Race Theory Crusades Culture culture wars Daniel K. Williams David Barton David Swartz Death Ways death with dignity DEI democracy Democratic Party Devotion Digital Age Diplomacy discipleship diversity Donald Trump Drama Dua Lipa Early Church early modern Early modern Catholicism Easter Eastern Christianity economic exploitation Education elections Elie Wiesel Elizabeth II Elizabeth Taylor emotions Empire Engineering England enslavement Entertainment Episcopal Church Erica Ramirez eschatology Eurocentrism Evangelicalism Evangelicals Exegesis Family Feminism Film Flannery O'Connor folk music Food Foreign Policy founding fathers Franciscans Franciscus Junius fundamentalism Funerals G.K. Chesterton Gender Genocide genre geography George W. Bush George Washington George Whitefield Global Christianity Global church Grief Guadalupe Guest Post guest post gun control gun violence Gustavo Gutierrez Hamid Dabashi Harold John Ockenga Harvest Hate Hawaiian Christianity Healing health care Heather Cox Richardson Hell Heresy Hermeneutics Higher Education Hinduism Hippocratic oath Historical Fiction Historical Methodology Historical Profession Historical Profession Historical Theology Historical Thinking historiography Holidays Holocaust horror movies Human rights Humanitarian Work humanities Hummingbirds Hungary hymns Imago Dei Immigration Injustice Interviews Iran Islam Islamophobia Israel Ivan's Childhood Jacob Randolph James Bratt Janine Giordano Drake Japanese history Japanese Literature Jean Paul Sartre Jesse Miranda Jesus Jesus Christ Jimmy Carter Joan Baez Joan Didion Joanne Freeman João B. Chaves Joao Chaves Joey Cochran John Calvin John Fea John Tillotson John Turner Johnny Cash Jonathan Edwards Jonathan Tran Joseph Smith Josh Howerton Journalism Jr. Judaism Jürgen Moltmann Just War Justice Justin Brierley Karl Barth Katelyn Beaty koi ponds Kris Kristofferson Kristin Kobes Du Mez Latin American Religious History Latino Americans Lectio Divina Leisure Lent Leonard Cohen liberal arts liberalism Liberation Theology Linda Ronstadt Lisa Clark Diller Literature Lou Reed Lynchings Lynneth Miller Renberg Mainline Protestantism Malcolm Foley Marilyn Monroe Maritime history Mark Noll Marriage Martin Luther Martin Luther King Martyrdom Marxism Mary Masih Alinejad mass shootings material culture medieval Christianity Medieval Ethiopia Melissa Borja memory Mennonites Mental Health Mental Illness Methodism Mexican Americans Mexicans Mike Madrid Miles Mullin Min Jin Lee Miscarriage Missionaries Mister Rogers Mitt Romney modernity Monasticism Mormonism Motherhood Mothers of the Church Moving Music Musicals Nadya Williams Nahua Christianity Native Americans Natsume Sōseki New Contributor New England New Year New York Nico Non-Violent Protest Orthodoxy pacifism Paleo Evangelicals Palestinians Parenting Patti Smith Paul Kingsnorth Pedro Calderón de la Barca Pentecostalism Philip Jenkins Phillis Wheatley physician-assisted suicide pilgrimage Pilgrims pluralism Plutocracy Poetry Politics Pope Francis Pope Leo XIV post-modernism prayer preaching Presbyterians prosperity gospel Protest Public history Publishing Puritans purity culture Quakers race Race Massacres Racial Capitalism racial reconciliation racialization Racism Raha Bahloulipour Re-Enchantment reading Reformation Refugees religion and the university religion and war Religious Freedom Religious Nones Religious Pluralism Religious Symbols religious violence Republican Party Revival Rita Coolidge Ritual Roger Williams Roman Catholic church Royalty Russell Moore same-sex marriage Sarah Irving-Stonebraker Scandinavia Science Science and Technology Scopes trial Scriptural Interpretation secularism Selena Quintanilla seminary Seventh-Day Adventists sexual morality Sexuality Sikhs Silence slaveholders theology Slavery Slavoj Zizek social justice Social Media Southern Baptist Convention Southern Religion Spain Spiritual Autobiography Spiritual but not religious Spiritual Discipline Sports Stanley Hauerwas Suffering Summer Camps Sunday Night Odds and Ends Supernatural Supreme Court Syriac Christianity Tal Howard Taylor Swift Teaching Technology Television Thanksgiving The Beatles The Mission theater TheoBros Theology Thomas Dixon Thomas Jefferson Thomas Kidd Thomas Merton Tim Gloege Tim Walz Tom Holland Tourism tradition Tragedy Translation Transnationalism Travel Trump Ukraine Uncategorized Unitarians United Methodist Church US History Vanessa Chan Velvet Underground Verónica A. Gutiérrez Veronica Gutierrez Vikings Violence Virgin Mary Virtue Virtue ethics Visions Voting War WCTU Wendell Berry Westminster Assembly White Evangelicalism Wildfires Winnie the Pooh Witches women Women in Ministry Women's and Gender Studies Work Worship writing Yasunari Kawabata Zena Hitz

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does "Deuteronomy" mean in Greek?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Sacred Song Great Journey Many Stories Second Law