Throughout most of the eighteenth century and particularly during the religious revivals of the Great Awakening; evangelical women in colonial New England participated vigorously in major church decisions; from electing pastors to disciplining backsliding members. After the Revolutionary War; however; women were excluded from political life; not only in their churches but in the new republic as well. Reconstructing the history of this change; Susan Juster shows how a common view of masculinity and femininity shaped both radical religion and revolutionary politics in America. Juster compares contemporary accounts of Baptist women and men who voice their conversion experiences; theological opinions; and preoccupation with personal conflicts and pastoral controversies. At times; the ardent revivalist message of spiritual individualism appeared to sanction sexual anarchy. According to one contemporary; the revival attempted "to make all things common; wives as well as goods." The place of women at the center of evangelical life in the mid-eighteenth century; Juster finds; reflected the extent to which evangelical religion itself was perceived as "feminine" - emotional; sensual; and ultimately marginal.
#1044452 in Books Cornell University Press 2009-01-22Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 9.26 x .76 x 6.50l; 1.03 #File Name: 0801474795320 pages
Review
30 of 31 people found the following review helpful. The Bridge Between Heaven and EarthBy JacobIntroduction to the MaterialJudith Kornblatt gives an introduction and annotated commentary on Vladimir Solovyov's Sophianic writings. She begins with a brief and skillful introduction to 19th century Russian and European philosophical movements. She notes; like CS Lewis; that European man by this time was both an extreme rationalist and an extreme irrationalist. Denying the Christian God; and yet placing unreasonable demands upon Science; the skeptic had turned into a "materialist magician" (29). This is not as paradoxical as it seems; for Solovyov would attempt to recapture what Plato and Aristotle meant by form; substance; and essence. Much European philosophy and science; however; had denied the concept of essence for a stricter materialist position (science moreso than philosophy). The reason for this materialism was tied to the role of alchemy. They wanted to bend; shape; and transform matter (and since humans were simply matter; they could remake them; too). This is the scene on which Solovyov wrote: men were highly skeptical and highly superstitious.Solovyov's Philosophy:Solovyov was one of the early proponents of "Sophiology." Sophia; loosely constructed at this point; was the bridge between 1) heaven and earth; 2) the members of the Trinity (e.g.; how the Trinity relates to one another); and 3) the relation between the two natures of Christ. (Of course; I am offering a Bulgakovian reading of Solovyov).Analysis of Solovyov:While I am definitely sympathetic to Sophiology and consider it a breathtaking move in Trinitarian and theotic discussions; it is hard to consider the early Solovyov orthodox. It would take the later Sergei Bulgakov to give a better reading. Solovyov; in his earlier days; made overtures to paganism and at times appeared to engage in witchcraft and devil-worship. Indeed; it is hard to put a positive spin on his early Kabbalism. However; despite the gnostic-sounding references; Solovyov's "Sophia;" whatever else she may be; was certainly no gnostic. She appeared to Solovyov as a very sexual Russian maiden.Analysis of the book's structure and editorials:I bought this book thinking that it was a collection of Solovyov's writings that Kornblatt edited. It was that; but it was more of Kornblatt's analysis of Solovyov's writings. There is nothing wrong with that; and Kornblatt did a masterful job; but that wasn't exactly how the book was advertised. Kornblatt; again it must be noted; did a fine job. One quibble: she kept referencing St Maximus the Confessor and St Gregory of Nyssa as "closet gnostics." This simply won't do. Their quasi-divine writings stand in savage contradiction to gnosticism.Conclusion:This is definitely a good introduction to Sophiology and Solovyov. However; it needs to be immediately supplemented by Sergei Bulgakov.
