Wednesday, February 5, 2025

BOOK REVIEW: Hell Shall Not Prevail - Essays on Ecclesiocentric Postliberalism

 

Ecclesiocentric Postliberalism:
Will It Play in Peoria (or Portland, or in Protestantism)?
 
Hell Shall Not Prevail:
Essays on Ecclesiocentric Postliberalism
James R. Rogers and Peter J. Leithart, eds.
Athanasius Press. 176 pages $16.95

 

In July 2024 I was listening to a FIRST THINGS podcast where Mark Bauerlein interviewed James R. Rogers about his recently released book Hell Shall Not Prevail: Essays on Ecclesiocentric Postliberalism. I purchased Rogers’s book and began to explore its content.

 James R. Rogers and Peter J. Leithart are the co-editors of, as well as contributors to, a collection of essays about the little understood or little appreciated centrality of the church in the current American context.  The seven essays are written by six scholars of several disciplines. Rogers contributed two essays and an introduction, Leithart the foreword and an essay. The offerings in this volume assert the centrality and social nature of the church “in an age and culture that dismiss or trivialize, or are even hostile to, the church and church life,” according to Rogers.

 The essays in this book present and examine a spectrum of philosophical, historical, moral, economic, social, political, and theological issues affecting some Christian enclaves whose developments have ignored, abandoned, or misunderstood the church’s uniqueness. In other words, the event at Pentecost was not a one-time gathering of disciples of Christ in baptism by the Holy Spirit. It was the beginning of something new, but in continuity with all of God’s historical work of salvation prior.

 The genesis for this book follows from the formation of the Civitas group, a symposium sponsored by Peter Leithart and the Theopolis Institute. Two years before the publication of this volume several members of the group met frequently (and secretly according to the first episode of the Civitas podcast) to discuss the current political and religious situation in the United States. The approaches taken by its six authors to the centrality of the church and its apparent cultural insignificance vary.

 Rogers’s introduction presents the theme of the book, identifies the authors of the essays and expresses his own view that “The Church Is My Polis, the Church Is My Ethos, the Church Is My Oikos.” The common individualistic notion of “it’s just God and me” is challenged by citing social, political and corporate understandings of the church as the body of salvation, perhaps difficult to digest or accept by many American evangelicals: that is one problem. Another is that although each author is Protestant, he is “Roman Catholic sounding” in his ecclesiocentrism. Rogers writes that some Protestants possess a level of indifference toward the centrality of the visible church as contrasted with that of their Roman and Eastern ecclesial siblings. Leithart suggests that “Catholic integralists are ecclesiocentric, but the ecclesia they hope will dominate public life excludes the majority of Christians.”

 American evangelicals, it is asserted, are more American than Christian, more individualistic than social. If there is an order to civil living for Protestants it would be that the culture overrides religion except on Sundays. Tocqueville’s prescient observation in his Democracy in America has come to fruition and is now lived out in American culture and not without a persistent restlessness.

 The articles therein submit selective evidence for the development of the current American religious temperament. This project of the Civitas group will be a hard sell to many Protestant bodies, at least in an indeterminant short run.

 Peter J. Leithart in his essay writes how the church has been trivialized or undercut historically. Citing works of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, both, though taking different approaches to the “problem of the church” in their day, result in the same: the domestication of the church.

 Gary L. Young offers (“The Church Builds the World”), Andrew K. Bobo cites Tocqueville in (“Liberalism and the Restlessness of the American Soul”), and Ben Peterson argues that ecclesiocentric political theory provides a robust basis for religious tolerance and liberty in (“Beyond Liberalisms and Illiberalisms of Fear: Ecclesiocentrism, Tolerance, and Liberty”).

 Philosophy professor David Reiter, in his article “Can Liberalism Provide an Adequate Secular Justification for Respect for Persons?” analyzes Kantian ethics and its principle of respect for persons (RFP); John Stuart Mills’s liberty principle (MLP); and John Rawls’s theory of justice (TOJ). Each attempts to provide secular justifications for freedom and liberty. With argument and summary syllogisms Reiter draws attention to the inadequacies of those theories and offers the biblical imago Dei as the only foundation respecting and guaranteeing the freedom and dignity of persons.

 James R. Rogers writes the concluding chapter (“The Common Good in Ecclesiocentric Economic and Social Thought”).

 What has all the above to do with postliberalism? Rogers limited himself to identifying six concepts of a plausible range of 22 to 57 forms of liberalism, one of which is “ontological individualism,” the denial of the existence of any truly corporate person or body. In the prolonged death of liberalism several competing definitions of postliberalism float in the ephemera, none of which has yet to capture the zeitgeist. Leithart suggests that any definition of postliberalism containing principles of [non-classical] liberalism is heretical ecclesiology.

 Ecclesiocentric Postliberalism’s aim is the “reformation” of the American cultural church, a reorientation to the church’s social and political centrality. Though Protestant evangelicals might chill at the thought of “social salvation,” the “true character of the church as a political society” is taught by Anglican theologian Oliver O’Donovan. How many denominations (or individuals) would accept Henri de Lubac’s assertion that individual salvation is contingent upon the social salvation of a people? Even though Rogers writes that there is nothing extra-biblical in this book, this effort will be a “hard sell.”

Given the pervasive historical and secular attacks on the church, one can understand why many American Christians tune out when religious and political discussions ensue. But where will this call for renewal of the understanding of the uniqueness of Christ’s church play out? Preaching and teaching in local congregations is a beginning. Perhaps such an approach might be a “Peoria.”

 Worth E. “Woody” Norman, Jr. is a priest at the Anglican Church of the Good Shepherd in Pelham, Alabama in the Jurisdiction of the Armed Forces and Chaplaincy (JAFC) of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA).

 

Wednesday, January 29, 2025

JAMES THE JUST - The Former Slave James Solomon Russell

 

Preface to

My Biography of James Solomon Russell

 

On June 14, 1962, a Thursday night, I graduated from Norview High School in Norfolk, Virginia. It was, of course, a happy event. But it was also an historical event. When I was about to enter my high school freshman class in 1958 the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia closed all of the State’s schools that were ordered by the Federal Government to be racially integrated. That was the period of Virginia’s “Massive Resistance.” With our public school doors chained – not just Norview but Granby and Maury high schools – the white community set up schools around the city. In my neighborhood three churches allowed the use of their buildings for temporary schools. In the Five Points section of the Norview community there were three large churches: Norview Presbyterian Church; Norview Baptist Church; and Norview Methodist Church. All of these churches became temporary schools in the fall of 1958. Not all of the students attended these church schools. Some moved away to live with family members in the western part of Virginia which was not affected by the closures. Many went out of State. But I settled into my new high school, Norview Methodist Church.  Many of our regular high school teachers taught in those temporary church schools as if the high school had opened. So we didn’t miss a beat, academically. The Norview High School Band still rehearsed in the afternoons for football games, and the football team practiced each week for their upcoming games. And despite the interruptions, the Norview HS football team became the best team in the State of Virginia over the four years until graduation in 1962.

 

My class studies in the church school were the same as if I had entered the official high school. The “colored” students who were selected by the School Board to attend the previously all-white schools were tutored at the First Baptist Church on Bute Street in downtown Norfolk. We all waited on the outcome of the huge political battle between the Governor of Virginia and the United States Department of Justice. Eventually Virginia complied with the Federal court order and the city’s schools opened in January, 1959. That first day – that first day of integration – presented itself as a mass of humanity converging on almost every square foot of Norview’s campus. Of the seventeen colored students selected, seven were assigned to Norview.

 

I lived on Sewells Point Road directly across from the high school. Never did I have to ride buses to schools during my twelve years of public schooling – I walked. But the colored students near our neighborhood, who, ironically, lived behind the high school in a section named Oakwood, had to ride school system-chartered commercial buses across town to attend Booker T. Washington High School or Ruffner Junior High. Those buses passed by my house every school morning and afternoon. But on the day of reckoning – in January 1959 – seven African American students entered Norview High School, and so did I. One of the new students was most memorable to me, Andrew Heidelberg. My personal history with colored people was not all that new to me, but attending school with them was simply expected to be different, and I didn’t know what to make of it. I remember Andrew fairly well because the two of us were in many classes together and in our senior year we were in the same homeroom. He was athletic, but that is not the attribute I remember most. He had personality and was not shy. Or so it seemed. He was certainly assertive in spirit but allowed himself no aggressiveness, which, according to our expectations, would have been natural for a Negro in a strange place, or so I thought at the time. It was only later in life that I learned that Andrew was mortified at attending the previously all-white school; he was scared to death. From my point of view, he was successful in his high school career despite the many obstacles placed before him. He and the other African American students had to have been brave. I know, because I recall hearing ferocious verbal attacks thrown at them. But Andrew appeared to brush them off. Such was the image I have held for all these years in the back of my mind. Why do I write about this experience now in 2012?

 

In the spring of 1965 or 1966, I cannot remember precisely, while stationed at Marine Corps Schools in Quantico, Virginia, I thought I saw Andrew. A regional college sporting event was taking place at the base. I was a military musician returning, in formation, to my barracks from the opening ceremonies at the football field. Out of the corner of my eye I thought I saw Andrew, so I cocked my head slightly to the left and looked directly. It was Andrew. So I yelled “Heidelberg” as loud as I could. He looked up to find who bellowed his name, but with seventy military musicians in uniform marching past him it would have been difficult to pick out a single voice. And after the band was dismissed I walked to the athletic field to find him. I never did. For more than forty years afterward I forgot about Massive Resistance and all that went on during my high school days. As I began studying James Solomon Russell, and through the rigors of that process of research and learning, my youthful and adult experiences with matters racial returned to my mind. One day last year I connected with friends (from high school days) on one of the Internet-based social media websites, some of whom were connected with Andrew Heidelberg. Well, you know what I had to do. I made the connection with Andrew and we exchanged several Internet-based chats. Although he recalled that particular Quantico sporting event, he did not remember my yell. This, however, was sufficient verification for me.

 

Andrew told me that he had written a book[1] about his experiences from1958 to1962. Naturally, his experiences were totally different from mine. There was so much that I did not know; so much that escaped my attention; so much activity that I thought would never have happened. It was an awakening for me. For those days in the late 50s and early 60s were dark  for many. Hopefully Andrew and I will meet again before our times come to an end. In the meantime, I struggle with my own thoughts. My high school experience was one factor in my research on James Solomon Russell.

 

Although mostly unknown, James Solomon Russell was a key person in the post-Reconstruction educational movement with former slaves in Virginia. Russell was a double-sided entrepreneur: his educational venture produced what is now St. Paul’s College in Lawrenceville, Virginia; and in his spiritual and religious life he was at the center of developing the largest convocation of African American churches in the Episcopal Church. Why study Russell?

 

Russell’s life was, seemingly, lived mostly “under the radar” as we would say in the twenty-first century. Although he wrote his Autobiography,[2] other people wrote three academic theses (one Ph.D. dissertation and two masters’ theses) about either Russell himself or the St. Paul School. Several articles have been written about the man and his work. Russell is remembered mostly in a small quarter of the African American community, the Episcopal Church, and the Southside, Virginia region. Why was Russell important to me, important enough to write about?

 

In the year 2000 I began my serious investigation of Russell. There were two reasons motivating my research. The initial reason, and at the time the only reason, that I began my study was due to my mother. During my childhood she would talk about Dr. Russell, off and on. But her talk was frequent enough and consistent in its content over the years that it must have made an indelible impression in the back of my mind. My mother was born and reared in Lawrenceville, Virginia and to her Lawrenceville was idyllic and the perfect place to grow up. She did not stay there for long after her high school graduation and eventually moved to Norfolk where I was born in 1944. For eighteen years of my life mother would talk of Lawrenceville and Russell and, of course, we traveled the short ninety miles to visit family over the years. So, when I began my investigation of Russell it was a project taken up in my own old age. My initial output was a Master of Sacred Theology from the School of Theology at Sewanee, the University of the South. I was awarded that degree at age sixty-six, and I knew that I could not stop with just the thesis; I had to study more because something happened to me during the project.

As I wrote above, my mother provided the initial motivation for my study of Dr. Russell. But it was my engagement with that study that brought to light my second motivation – my high school experience and its attending race problem. Why do we have race problems in the United States? In 2011, 150 years following the start of the American Civil War, our nation is recalling those years when we were divided. Did the North and the South really reconcile? Have we as a nation learned anything over these years? Am I learning anything which might shed light on our continuing national predicament? It came to me that if I could attempt to fix James Solomon Russell within the context of his circumstances, his history, then perhaps I could identify the parameters of my own experience. Little things that my mother told me about Lawrenceville and Russell have stayed with me. For example, Russell was really white in complexion, but he lived as a black man. He was the nicest man in town. My mother and one of her sisters were telephone operators. In those days there were no push-button or rotary-dial telephones. The caller had to speak with a telephone company operator in order to place a call. On more than one occasion, my mother and her sister Willie would tell stories about directing calls to the “Archdeacon.” (Many if not most of the Lawrenceville locals referred to Russell as the Archdeacon.) Almost without fail the Archdeacon, after finishing his telephone conversation, would reconnect with the dispatching operator (my mother or one of my aunts) to thank them for placing the earlier, usually long-distance, connection. My grandfather, Fredrick Lewis Jones, owned and operated the grocery store in Lawrenceville. He conducted business with the St. Paul School and Dr. Russell. My grandfather died in 1952 and whenever we visited him he always had a nice story to tell about the Archdeacon.

 

Russell’s Autobiography is just one resource that I have studied to understand his life. His addresses, sermons, and work logs also provide clues to his approach to living. He cites in his four situations where he is mistaken for a white man, yet he pleads no interest in nor has available time for ancestor worship or genealogy search. He was a man about tasks and projects, both secular and ecclesiastical. He was often presented with many vexing situations during his lifetime, many situations filled with manifestations of racism. He successfully dealt with black and white alike. He argued with and challenged both. Of concern in this book is Russell’s statement that the mass exodus for former slaves from the Episcopal Church was a mistake. Though understandable, why did Russell deem it a mistake? He exhibited the patience of Job in some of his judgments which may have led some to call him an “accomodationist,” a term some would link with “compromised” as it was applied to Booker T. Washington. But how Russell handled his situations is instructive.

 

James Solomon Russell certainly was a pioneer in post-Reconstruction education for former slaves and their families, and he was a principled leader in the reconstruction or reordering of ecclesiastical attitudes of racism played out in canonical manipulations and justifications. The simple fact that Russell was born and reared in Virginia is also significant. Virginia, the colony and then the state that produced Washington, Jefferson, and Madison, generated the new American republic and its ideas of freedom. Virginia also produced Booker T. Washington, Robert Russa Moton, and James Solomon Russell. How Virginia as a State worked through its racial situations, and how the Episcopal Church in Virginia did the same, formed Russell. He lived his entire life as a Christian evangelical. In this book I attempt to situate Russell in the history he inherited and in the milieu he experienced. How I present the Archdeacon to the reader necessarily filters through my own life experience. I remain faithful to the facts found in Russell’s writings and in third party documentation, but in no way can I avoid interpreting his life. He was a man who understood who he was, accepted what life gave him, and made something of it.

 

Worth E. Norman, Jr.

January 31, 2012

Birmingham, AL

 

Link to my biography of James Solomon Russell

 



[1] Heidelberg, Andrew I. The Norfolk 17: A Personal Narrative on Desegregation in Norfolk, Virginia in 1958 – 1962. Pittsburgh: Rose Dog Press, 2006.

[2] The single word Autobiography, in italics, is used in this book as a substitute label for the book Adventure in Faith: An Autobiographic Story of St. Paul Normal and Industrial School, Lawrenceville, Virginia. New York: Morehouse Publishing, 1936.