What do you think?
Rate this book
Robert Lewis Dabney: A Southern Presbyterian Life
Robert Lewis Dabney (1820-1898) was a Presbyterian theological and educator who served on the faculties of Union Theological Seminary in Virginia, the University of Texas, and Austin Theological Seminary. Those who knew him--both friends and foes--viewed him as larger than life, "closer to a biblical prophet than a theological professor," writes Sean Lucas.
As this biography explains, "Dabney was far more complex than either historians or admirers concede." He was "in many ways a representative man, one who embodied the passions and contradictions of nineteenth-century Southerners." As such he "provides a window into the postbellum Southern Presbyterian mind" and a reminder of how important nineteenth-century theology is for contemporary issues and debates. Because the past is parent of the present, recognizing Dabney's flaws can help us implement the biblical motto on his "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
Before the Civil War, Dabney was a sectional moderate, but he soon became a Confederate sectionalist, serving as chaplain in the Confederate Army and then as an officer under General Stonewall Jackson. Dabney's systematic theology text was used at Union for more than forty years after his death. In the 1980s, publishers began to reprint this and other works.
Dabney has been described as an "apostle of the Old South," a perception that may explain why this biography is the first of this key nineteenth-century leader in more than one hundred years. It is also the inaugural volume in the American Reformed Biography series.
As this biography explains, "Dabney was far more complex than either historians or admirers concede." He was "in many ways a representative man, one who embodied the passions and contradictions of nineteenth-century Southerners." As such he "provides a window into the postbellum Southern Presbyterian mind" and a reminder of how important nineteenth-century theology is for contemporary issues and debates. Because the past is parent of the present, recognizing Dabney's flaws can help us implement the biblical motto on his "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
Before the Civil War, Dabney was a sectional moderate, but he soon became a Confederate sectionalist, serving as chaplain in the Confederate Army and then as an officer under General Stonewall Jackson. Dabney's systematic theology text was used at Union for more than forty years after his death. In the 1980s, publishers began to reprint this and other works.
Dabney has been described as an "apostle of the Old South," a perception that may explain why this biography is the first of this key nineteenth-century leader in more than one hundred years. It is also the inaugural volume in the American Reformed Biography series.
- GenresBiographyChurch History
296 pages, Hardcover
First published April 30, 2005
4 people are currently reading
71 people want to read
About the author
Sean Michael Lucas
19 books12 followersSean Michael Lucas is the Senior Minister of First Presbyterian Church, Hattiesburg, Mississippi. Prior to this, he served as Chief Academic Officer and associate professor of church history at Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri. He received BA and MA degrees from Bob Jones University and his PhD degree from Westminster Theological Seminary.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
January 18, 2008
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 alot of significance for me as a pastor. As I've observed from his systematic theology text, Dabney really has nothing distinctive to offer that can't be found in better form elsewhere (Hodge, Warfield, John Frame, etc.)
All that is left to get from him 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 go through the misery 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.
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 alot of significance for me as a pastor. As I've observed from his systematic theology text, Dabney really has nothing distinctive to offer that can't be found in better form elsewhere (Hodge, Warfield, John Frame, etc.)
All that is left to get from him 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 go through the misery 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.
August 5, 2014
This is a superbly written but sad biography. Dabney is a tragic figure. He had a first-rate intellect that rightly saw dangers in modernism and critiqued them cogently. He defended orthodox theology. But he was deeply racist, defending slavery as biblical and opposing the ordination of black men after the war. Indeed, he opposed anything that would uplift black people. Lucas presents Dabney's views fairly while also providing a biblical critique. The concluding chapter reflects on Dabney's contribution both positive and negative. He notes the influence of Dabney's racial views in past years on Lucas's own denomination, the PCA, and his alma mater, Bob Jones University. He also includes a helpful comparison and contrast between Dabney and Abraham Kuyper. He notes that while both held problematic racial views, both defended Christianity from modernism, and both offered a public theology, Kuyper has received greater appreciation than Dabney. While noting ways in which Kuyper's theology is a richer resource than Dabney's (the antithesis, common grace, sphere sovereignty), Lucas still holds that Dabney has much to teach us. In the end, Lucas seems to prefer Dabney's spirituality of the church position to Kuyper's (which he thinks in danger of falling into theonomy). Indeed, the final critique of Dabney was his failure in that he created a public theology more Southern than Christian.
May 22, 2013
All I can say after reading this biography is "meh". I don't know what it was about it, but it read in large parts like a really long wikipedia article. If more of the book was like the one chapter which discussed Scottish Common-Sense Realism and the very short parts of the other chapters that actually dealt with Dabney's theology than this work would have garnered a much better rating. I was genuinely surprised there was no mention at all of Dabney's writings against the innovations in worship that plagued the PCUS in the mid-late 19th-Century, something he fought against until his dying days.
I guess I need to add that I thought prior to reading this book that Dabney was a pretty loathsome fellow and this biography of course confirmed that. He really missed an opportunity to do something beneficial for the Southern church and he failed miserably at that, primarily because of the animus, created in part by Reconstruction, that blinded his heart.
R.L. Dabney fits in a long line of brilliant minds ruined by the evil of war, especially sectional war.
I knew a decent amount about Dabney before reading this and the section that tried to label Dabney as a "coward" during the war was almost unreadable and seemed like an unnecessary low blow.
I guess I need to add that I thought prior to reading this book that Dabney was a pretty loathsome fellow and this biography of course confirmed that. He really missed an opportunity to do something beneficial for the Southern church and he failed miserably at that, primarily because of the animus, created in part by Reconstruction, that blinded his heart.
R.L. Dabney fits in a long line of brilliant minds ruined by the evil of war, especially sectional war.
I knew a decent amount about Dabney before reading this and the section that tried to label Dabney as a "coward" during the war was almost unreadable and seemed like an unnecessary low blow.
January 25, 2014
A very fascinating, critical look at a contentious figure in Church history. Perhaps one of the best biographies I've read showing the complexities and intersections of a variety of thoughts in a complicated mind.
I especially enjoyed the final chapter showing the similarities between Kuyper & Dabney.
I especially enjoyed the final chapter showing the similarities between Kuyper & Dabney.
April 1, 2025
If Dabney was correct in the most important thing-- ie the redemption of sinners by the gratuitous act of God-- he has long since learned his error as regards more or less the rest of his public career. But of course this line of thinking is uncomfortable. This is a biography of a guy who was on the wrong side of the Civil War and was a leading theological voice in the Lost Cause mythology; he held to the end that black people were created by God as inferior. During Reconstruction, "In one essay, Dabney defended Southern intransigence by holding that 'the times demand "good haters."'"-- which is uncomfortably close to much of what we've been hearing recently politically and ecclesiastically.
He was apparently a kindly guy in his personal relations, and pretty obviously brilliant, yet his geography appears to have so twisted his hermeneutics that he had to get close to merely lying about what the Bible says in order to defend American slavery. And he is one of the guys whose memory, until pretty recently, was lionized in my denomination. These things should teach us humility, I guess.
On another note, my nine year old daughter stared at this book's title for a while and said, "Robert Lewis Dab-nay? Daddy, the man's name is Stevenson." And this is perhaps the correct response.
He was apparently a kindly guy in his personal relations, and pretty obviously brilliant, yet his geography appears to have so twisted his hermeneutics that he had to get close to merely lying about what the Bible says in order to defend American slavery. And he is one of the guys whose memory, until pretty recently, was lionized in my denomination. These things should teach us humility, I guess.
On another note, my nine year old daughter stared at this book's title for a while and said, "Robert Lewis Dab-nay? Daddy, the man's name is Stevenson." And this is perhaps the correct response.
June 5, 2020
A good honest look at a theologian who allowed his culture to dictate his worldview instead of the theology he espoused. I have always wondered how southern theologians could have a robust theology yet fall so short of applying that theology to life. How could a minister hold to a racist view of his fellow man? Because culture and not Scripture dominated his worldview. A testament to all of us on how easily culture can be more powerful that Scripture no matter how learned we are or how we can get things “right” on paper. Unless properly applied our knowledge is useless.
February 24, 2023
Instructive.
May 18, 2025
Very well written about an ultimately tragic figure. The South’s loss in the Civil War led Dabney to increasingly bitter and disconnected theological takes. The result was that any influence he may have had was squandered.
November 16, 2012
This was a good but not great biography. Author Sean Michael Lucas has done the church a service in providing a thoughtful and sufficiently thorough biography of this once influential but largely forgotten man. His views on social hierarchy and race are drastically different than those held by most Christians today (and his views on race are repugnant), but his thought as a whole should not be disregarded on those grounds. His stand against public education (apparently before there was such a thing in his home state of Virginia) is noteworthy and the comparison between Dabney and Kuyper in the closing chapter is particularly interesting. Those intersted in how Christians who continued to side with the South even after the Civil War thought will perhaps find the answer in Dabney. He never changed, even after the South lost, which probably accounts for how little attention he receives today.
February 12, 2025
A very well-researched, balanced approach to Dabney’s life. Lucas’s work is a critical biography. As such, it will not lionize Dabney and put Dabney in unapproachable light to degree others might. Dabney was an imperfect man, as we all are. His imperfection is clear in his inability to forgive the North, and Northern Presbyterians. Dabney’s inability to forgive is found in his own words from the floor of the General Assembly. Dabney had strong paternalistic and patriarchal attitudes toward those he deemed inferior to himself. These attitudes leaves much to be desired in a Gospel minister and seminary professor. None of this is to include his abhorrent views on slaves/freedmen. Dabney is well known for gross racial views, many of which were controversial even in his own PCUS.
Nonetheless, Dabney was a clear thinker and an erudite theologian. No doubt that Dabney’s spiritual, theological, and pedagogical qualities were representative of the PCUS, which Lucas more than adequately addresses. Lucas equally highlights Dabney’s achievements as a church building designer, growing Tinkling Springs Church and raising Union Seminary’s endowment and, by extension, its profile as a Presbyterian institution by and for the South. Dabney’s influence dominated Union Seminary not just in his 30 years of teaching, but for nearly 40 after until Union stopped using Dabney’s theology text in the 1940s. No one can deny Dabney’s influence as a pastor, theologian, historian, and writer. He provides much to the church both in his successes as well as his obvious failures.
The tone of the work posits Dabney as one motivated by honor and prestige. This qualities may or may not be true. Lucas provides evidence that the reader can use to discern whether Dabney was motivated to pursue greatness as a theologian by honor and prestige. The evidence is suggestive but not necessarily conclusive. After all, Dabney ought to have been motivated to do what he did purely out of honor for Christ. Certainly, Dabney would have thought of himself as so motivated.
In sum, this a great biography. It is well-researched and balanced that does not lionize Dabney unduly. This book will continue to have its critics because it doesn’t so vindicate Dabney. But, it is a critical biography, and no one should expect such a biography to be entirely flattering of its subject.
Nonetheless, Dabney was a clear thinker and an erudite theologian. No doubt that Dabney’s spiritual, theological, and pedagogical qualities were representative of the PCUS, which Lucas more than adequately addresses. Lucas equally highlights Dabney’s achievements as a church building designer, growing Tinkling Springs Church and raising Union Seminary’s endowment and, by extension, its profile as a Presbyterian institution by and for the South. Dabney’s influence dominated Union Seminary not just in his 30 years of teaching, but for nearly 40 after until Union stopped using Dabney’s theology text in the 1940s. No one can deny Dabney’s influence as a pastor, theologian, historian, and writer. He provides much to the church both in his successes as well as his obvious failures.
The tone of the work posits Dabney as one motivated by honor and prestige. This qualities may or may not be true. Lucas provides evidence that the reader can use to discern whether Dabney was motivated to pursue greatness as a theologian by honor and prestige. The evidence is suggestive but not necessarily conclusive. After all, Dabney ought to have been motivated to do what he did purely out of honor for Christ. Certainly, Dabney would have thought of himself as so motivated.
In sum, this a great biography. It is well-researched and balanced that does not lionize Dabney unduly. This book will continue to have its critics because it doesn’t so vindicate Dabney. But, it is a critical biography, and no one should expect such a biography to be entirely flattering of its subject.
August 4, 2011
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.
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.
November 24, 2024
Overall well researched and clearly written. I was disappointed in Lucas’s portrayal of Dabney as striving after professional advancement in a way unbecoming of a gospel minister. Lucas seemed to be reading into Dabney’s actions more than justified by the evidence presented. The final admonition for Christians to refrain from public theology was also disappointing. But as a source book for the life of Dabney, I doubt one will find a better one.
May 8, 2022
I found this book to contain some interesting facts, but I feel what the author found exciting, I found to be boring so that a majority of this book I found uninteresting. I also did not find him to be that exciting of a person nor did I agree with him on a lot of things.
October 30, 2021
A somewhat harsh and negative critique of this important man and his achievements. Nevertheless, there is a lot of good information here that isn't easily available elsewhere.
March 16, 2025
This book gives a view of the Southern Presbyterian Church. Racial issues and the civil war connection.
December 20, 2014
In the Christian life, there are certain men you come across and they have a profound effect on you. Recently, one of these men has been Robert Lewis Dabney. I had heard of Dabney for some time, but last year in systematics we were assigned his Systematic Theology as one of our text books. I had read possibly 7-8 ST books, so didn’t expect much from this one. I was wrong! Dabney’s ST was wonderful. It was easy to follow, deep, Biblical, and confessional. At times it was also devotional and comforted my soul (see his chapter on Providence). So when I went to the states in September 2014, I saw this biography and couldn’t resist.
Sean Michael Lucas has written an excellent biography of this complex man. The book is rather academic at points, but it is concise in stages so one is not lost. The greatest strength of Lucas’ bio is bringing out heart of Dabney as a man. The social and cultural setting of ante and postbellum America in the 1850’s and 60’s is fantastic. In explaining Dabney’s culture of the southern gentleman with its honour and shame attitudes to society, Lucas brings alive the setting for Dabney’s ministry. He was a prophet who preached powerfully and experienced a revival in his first charge. He was deeply confessional and his life goal was for a strict confessional southern Presbyterian church in the Confederacy. Lucas does a wonderful job in interacting with the controversial matters associated with Dabney, namely racism. There is no doubt that Dabney was a racist (also a social conservative that did not permit white working class reach above their ‘station’). Reading Dabney’s own words are at times shocking, but Lucas deals with them with his Biblical exegesis on racism. The last chapter is wonderful and needs further examination. Here Lucas compares the theology and influence of Dabney with Kuyper. Both spoke out against modernism and her new philosophy that was destroying age old traditions and doctrines. There answer, at times, was very different, so Lucas’ comparison is worth further study.
There were, however, a few weak points to this biography. The detail to Dabney’s preaching and theology is all too brief. And the use of citations was lacking. One of the things I loved about Iain H. Murray’s biography of Edwards was the excellent use of quotations to bring out the personality, theology, and piety of Edwards. This style of citations from Dabney would have enhanced the book. Overall, this is a wonderful book that was much needed. The southern men have received a bit of a publishing revival recently (Southern Zion, Thornwell etc) and this is much needed. The 19th century debates over what is confessional theology and subscription is sorely needed in American Presbyterianism. Too many churches are ‘liberal’ in their attitudes to the WCF, the outcome of such things will only ever cause division not unity despite the intention.
Finally an appeal. Throughout the chapter on preaching Lucas quotes from various sermons of Dabney. As I searched the end notes I discovered that a lot of them are un-transcribed and un-published manuscripts sitting in Union Theological Seminary. This is a reak shame, I would certainly think a book containing these sermons would be of great value to both the southern Presbyterian tradition and the souls of those potential readers.
Sean Michael Lucas has written an excellent biography of this complex man. The book is rather academic at points, but it is concise in stages so one is not lost. The greatest strength of Lucas’ bio is bringing out heart of Dabney as a man. The social and cultural setting of ante and postbellum America in the 1850’s and 60’s is fantastic. In explaining Dabney’s culture of the southern gentleman with its honour and shame attitudes to society, Lucas brings alive the setting for Dabney’s ministry. He was a prophet who preached powerfully and experienced a revival in his first charge. He was deeply confessional and his life goal was for a strict confessional southern Presbyterian church in the Confederacy. Lucas does a wonderful job in interacting with the controversial matters associated with Dabney, namely racism. There is no doubt that Dabney was a racist (also a social conservative that did not permit white working class reach above their ‘station’). Reading Dabney’s own words are at times shocking, but Lucas deals with them with his Biblical exegesis on racism. The last chapter is wonderful and needs further examination. Here Lucas compares the theology and influence of Dabney with Kuyper. Both spoke out against modernism and her new philosophy that was destroying age old traditions and doctrines. There answer, at times, was very different, so Lucas’ comparison is worth further study.
There were, however, a few weak points to this biography. The detail to Dabney’s preaching and theology is all too brief. And the use of citations was lacking. One of the things I loved about Iain H. Murray’s biography of Edwards was the excellent use of quotations to bring out the personality, theology, and piety of Edwards. This style of citations from Dabney would have enhanced the book. Overall, this is a wonderful book that was much needed. The southern men have received a bit of a publishing revival recently (Southern Zion, Thornwell etc) and this is much needed. The 19th century debates over what is confessional theology and subscription is sorely needed in American Presbyterianism. Too many churches are ‘liberal’ in their attitudes to the WCF, the outcome of such things will only ever cause division not unity despite the intention.
Finally an appeal. Throughout the chapter on preaching Lucas quotes from various sermons of Dabney. As I searched the end notes I discovered that a lot of them are un-transcribed and un-published manuscripts sitting in Union Theological Seminary. This is a reak shame, I would certainly think a book containing these sermons would be of great value to both the southern Presbyterian tradition and the souls of those potential readers.
July 16, 2013
I am not a scholar of Dabney, but I have familiarity with him through some of my other studies and reading. Lucas provides a sketch of Dabney that appreciates his complexities regarding his views on the topic of slavery, the church, and Southern ideals.
I agree with many of the other reviewers that you'll either probably be repulsed by Dabney, or, if able to put aside his defense of slavery, you will admire Dabney for his loyalty. He is one of the intellectual poster children for the Southern Confederacy and this book seemingly confirms that notion. Dabney was inflexible on his Southern feelings and thoughts, and it's what makes some admire Dabney and others hate him.
This book does a good job of making the point that Dabney is a proto-typical Southern Conservative from the period, and you can begin to trace some of the elements, putting aside slavery again, from which later Conservatives would take their cues. It also underscores the point that regionalism and politics can overshadow and even harm the work of the church if one is not careful. One gets the feeling that Dabney failed to let go at times we he perhaps could have, but then there is the other side that Dabney defended what he believed to be Biblical. Lucas allows for the necessary ambivalence in understanding Dabney and the Southern Conservative.
Dabney is a man passed by in history because he held some very wrong beliefs, and he forcibly defended the losing side of a tragic war, but Dabney did very much hold true to what he believes, as his tombstone says: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." This is an admirable trait, even though it created a remarkably stubborn man.
The most interesting areas of the book were discussions on his thoughts and writings before and during the war, his work against early public education and the comparison to Kuyper. I had not realized how much Dabney loved his home state and the South in general, but I don't necessarily view this as a total negative.
This is a biography that can be read as part of church history or as a biography of one of the intellectual and spiritual thought leaders of the Southern Confederacy. It is quite fair in defending Dabney where necessary yet rejecting his incorrect theology and treatment of Black men and women.
I would very much recommend this book for the church historian or Civil War historian.
I agree with many of the other reviewers that you'll either probably be repulsed by Dabney, or, if able to put aside his defense of slavery, you will admire Dabney for his loyalty. He is one of the intellectual poster children for the Southern Confederacy and this book seemingly confirms that notion. Dabney was inflexible on his Southern feelings and thoughts, and it's what makes some admire Dabney and others hate him.
This book does a good job of making the point that Dabney is a proto-typical Southern Conservative from the period, and you can begin to trace some of the elements, putting aside slavery again, from which later Conservatives would take their cues. It also underscores the point that regionalism and politics can overshadow and even harm the work of the church if one is not careful. One gets the feeling that Dabney failed to let go at times we he perhaps could have, but then there is the other side that Dabney defended what he believed to be Biblical. Lucas allows for the necessary ambivalence in understanding Dabney and the Southern Conservative.
Dabney is a man passed by in history because he held some very wrong beliefs, and he forcibly defended the losing side of a tragic war, but Dabney did very much hold true to what he believes, as his tombstone says: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." This is an admirable trait, even though it created a remarkably stubborn man.
The most interesting areas of the book were discussions on his thoughts and writings before and during the war, his work against early public education and the comparison to Kuyper. I had not realized how much Dabney loved his home state and the South in general, but I don't necessarily view this as a total negative.
This is a biography that can be read as part of church history or as a biography of one of the intellectual and spiritual thought leaders of the Southern Confederacy. It is quite fair in defending Dabney where necessary yet rejecting his incorrect theology and treatment of Black men and women.
I would very much recommend this book for the church historian or Civil War historian.
June 18, 2013
The author I believe tried to paint a full picture of Dabney. Though more often then not I felt like he was being a little too critical of the man who was both a man his time and normal in that he lived inconsistent with the values he had and the actions he took. This book was well written and helped me see into the mind of a man trying to be faithful to God and who may have confused that with faithfulness to his station in life and his homeland.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews