repeated in the modern effort to bringnreligious reasoning to bear on publicnproblems. Neuhaus, while acknowledgingnthe problems Marsden describes,nis more concerned to drivenhome his twofold thesis: Holders ofntraditional Judeo-Christian beliefsnhave every right to a civil expression ofntheir views in public; modern secularistsnhave no right to make the publicnsquare off limits for religiously inspiredncontributions.nIn nearly 50 pages of discussion,ncommentators like Peter Berger, StevennTipton (coauthor of Habits of thenHeart), Edward Dobson of Jerry Falwell’snLiberty University, and TheodorenCaplow (a sociologist from thenUniversity of Virginia who has beennheading up the Middletown III studynof religion in Muncie, Indiana) enrichnand expand the concerns of the papers.nAlthough the discussion covers a multitudenof topics, it keeps returning tonthe need for moral and religious undergirdingnfor the public philosophy ofna successful democracy. The participantsndisagree, and disagree in veryninteresting ways, on many of thensubissues involved. Yet each of thenpapers, and almost every paragraph ofnthe published commentary, contributesnsignificantly to a better understandingnof the perils that attend thenapplication of religion to public life,nthe restraints that ,must be exercisednwhen making such an application, butnalso the desperate need in the currentnsituation for making such an effort.nAs thoroughly as the participants atnthe Neuhaus conference on “unsecularnAmerica” explore and refine Reformednapproaches to American life,nthere is also an occasional “Lutheran”nnote as well. George Marsden at onenpoint in the discussion, for example,nventured the opinion that “Sometimesnthe way that secularization advances isnby the advance of religion. That isn. . . there is a baptizing of worldlynpractice. From the perspective of traditionalnChristianity, the advance of religionnmight be a dangerous thing, andnthat would include civil religion.”nSuch comments remained unexplorednat the conference, but they do raise theninteresting question as to what a thoroughlynLutheran approach to religionnin public life would look like. This, asnit happens, is exactly what DouglasnFrank has attempted in Less ThannConquerors.nEerdmans is marketing this volumenas a history book, but it could just asneasily be sold as a biblical expositionnor, if the category still existed, as anjeremiad. Frank too is interested innreligion and the public square. Butnunlike most American commentatorsnon the subject, past and present, hisnchief concern is religion. He is askingnLuther’s sort of question: What happensnto religion precisely at that pointnwhere the best, noblest, and mostnheroic attempts are made to shape anculture with Christian precepts?nFrank’s narrative thread is the storynof American Protestant evangelicalsnfrom the mid-19th century to the present.nEvangelicals dominated Americannlife from the time of the CivilnWar until a host of forces —nindustrialization, urbanization, andnthe creation of a mass marketingneconomy—and ideas—from Darwin,nFreud, and other post-Christiansn—created confusion in a once predictablensociety and “stole” American culturenfrom the evangelicals. In response,nevangelicals developed a seriesnof compensating strategies to regainncontrol of inner and outer worlds.nTheologically, evangelicals turned tondispensationalism, a way of readingnthe Bible that emphasized neat, rationalistic,ntightly organized interpretationsnof prophecy and its fulfillment.nIn Frank’s view, this was a system thatnallowed evangelicals “to bring historynback under their control.” Spiritually,nevangelicals nourished several varietiesnof perfectionist “Victorious Living.”nThe forces of evil might control thenpublic realm, but through strenuousneffort and self-discipline evangelicalsncould approach spiritual perfection inn”the inner man.” Publicly, evangelicalsnturned to the revival as the surestnmeans to win back America for Christnand, coincidentally, for the evangelicals.nBy the mid-1920’s it became clearneven to evangelical leaders that revivalismnhad not recaptured America.nYet conservative evangelicals, nowncalled fundamentalists, did not abandonndispensadonal theology. VictoriousnLiving, or revivalism. Rather thesenbecame the foundations for an alternativenculture-in-exile, biding time asnsecret servants of the Lord until thenEnd would come or, perhaps, untilnnnthe times would change and the goodnguys might reemerge on top oncenagain. And so, it seems, it has come tonpass. Beginning in the mid-1970’s, thencoinage of late-19th-century evangelicalismnis circulating with renewednvigor in the American political economy.nThere is a new receptivity to thenold faith. And again it seemsn—academic obituaries on the demisenof religion in the modern worldnnotwithstanding—that evangelicalsnmight actually regain partial control ofnAmerica.nFrank, who grew up in a fundamentalistnparsonage, has a firm grasp onnthe relevant historical literature, bothnon narrow religious matters and morengeneral American developments. Thenremarkable, even stunning power ofnthis book, however, lies not in thenstory it tells, but in Frank’s interpretation.nAt every point he stands thenconventional evangelical discourse onnits head. Cultural domination, “callingnthe shots,” is not a good thing but anspiritual disaster. Power leads to idolatrynand the absence of God. Culturalndisorientation and weakness opens thenway to the holy. The standard aspirationsnof American evangelicals tonpower and influence signal the end ofnthe Christian gospel. The fatal turn, asnFrank sees it, came early in the historynof the United States when evangelicalsncompromised the gospel by using thenChristian message as a means to promotenthemselves. In so doing, theynperpetrated “the serious confusion ofnJesus Christ and American culture.”nIn making these charges, Frankntakes great pains to define what henmeans by the gospel. Passages fromnOld Testament prophets, Jesus, andnthe Apostle Paul drive home his pointnthat the biblical God asks for brokennessninstead of power, weakness insteadnof self-sufficiency, despair insteadnof confidence. This biblicalnexposition is at its best on the book ofnJob, which Frank uses to indict theneffort to predicate godliness uponnwealth and influence.nThe end of the 19th century emergesnas the great lost moment in thenhistory of the evangelicals. The theologicalnconservatives had become disorientednfrom their failure to control thenpublic square. Now, perhaps of allntimes, they were in the best position tonhear the good news of the gospelnSEPTEMBER 1987 I 41n