“Like many religious believers, Presbyterians have long been characterized by a constant tension at the heart of their faith” (247), write Michael Cassity and Danney Goble, in their impressive analysis of a denomination's journey through the history of Oklahoma from the early nineteenth to the early twenty-first centuries. The tension persists between this world and the next, between theology and practice, between righteous values and secular reality, between inclusion and exclusion, between faith and science, and between modernity and tradition. The book's major contribution is to demonstrate the complex, anguished, sometimes divisive, and not always successful struggles of Oklahoma Presbyterians to resolve the tension.

Chronological in approach, the book first focuses on missionary campaigns to convert and “civilize” Native Americans, both before and after their removal to the Indian Territory, later Oklahoma. The authors examine Presbyterian responses to black slavery (including versions practiced by some Indians), to Removal itself, to the roles of African Americans and of women in the churches, and to massive social change. Used to proselytizing at remote mission stations, by the later nineteenth century, Presbyterians (Indians too, of course) faced the influx of white people into Oklahoma, with the subsequent arrival of railroads, urbanization, and all the temptations and perils of modernization. Church members faced the dilemma of whether to engage in the outreach of the Social Gospel, or to focus more on individual salvation. And, of central importance, how would Presbyterians deal with each other? Would the denomination remain split into sometimes antagonistic churches such as the northern Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (PCUSA), the southern PCUS, and Cumberland Presbyterian Church; or would members, or some of them, unite into larger units? And even within these churches, would the faithful agree, divide, or compromise on the many changes rushing in upon America and Oklahoma over the last two centuries?

Responding to such long-term developments, church members in 2001 formed the Oklahoma Presbyterian History Project Task Force and sought authors for a study that would not be “an in-house, highly celebratory account of our past” (xii). Neither Cassity, a former history professor and author, nor Goble, Professor of Letters at the University of Oklahoma (who died before the project was completed) were Presbyterians (nor is the present reviewer). The resultant study is not hagiography, rather a clear-eyed presentation of Presbyterian encounters with the world. There is no closure: new challenges, from the Vietnam War to ecumenism, have presented and still present the members with difficult, heart-dividing choices.

The writers do not ignore what they see as less-admirable sides of American Presbyterianism, such as the ethnocentrism of some missionaries, and the racial prejudice toward slaves and later black church members. Until the mid-twentieth century, the churches denied equality to women—“the unsung heroes” (240)—yet exploited them in many capacities, including fundraising. The authors are also alive to the sometimes ironic results of even well-meaning actions: the 1950s attempt to bridge the racial divide by integrating the Choctaw Presbytery into the Church provoked resistance to white paternalism from identity-conscious Indians.

Influential individuals emerge. Missionaries such as Gideon Blackburn, Cyrus Kingsbury, and Cyrus Byington receive judicious treatment. Some such Presbyterians actually learned and used Indian languages in their mission, to the disapproval not only of the United States government but also—irony again—of acculturating tribal members. Particularly memorable is Tulsa minister Charles W. Kerr. Although in 1921 he risked his life to preach against the impending lynching of a black man (it did not occur), a decade later Kerr could still appear to support racial segregation.

Unfortunately, few women receive such attention, perhaps because of their exclusion from institutional roles. Nor do we hear the voices of many Indians or black Presbyterians. (Might there be autobiographies out there, or other “bottom up” sources?) The study is generally well-grounded in published and unpublished primary sources (the 14,000-letter American Indian Correspondence, held at the Presbyterian Historical Society, Philadelphia—also microfilmed—could have been drawn on). Few of the secondary sources were published since 2000. There are voluminous endnotes, but no bibliography or list of major archival sources consulted.

To reach beyond the Presbyterian fold, the authors might have given a little more space to essential theological beliefs shared by (or disputed by) the churches. Also, a brief presentation of their organizational nature might help—something on the roles of elders, ministers, and others. Contextualization of Presbyterian missionary fervour within early nineteenth-century evangelical awakenings is needed. In presenting Presbyterian views on the forced breakup of Indian lands (allotment in severalty) the writers did not find as much bitter opposition as I did: individual missionaries presciently feared that such a policy would lead to massive tribal land loss (Michael C. Coleman, “Problematic Panacea: Presbyterian Missionaries and the Allotment of Indian Lands in the Late Nineteenth Century,” Pacific Historical Review 54, no. 2 [May 1985]: 143–59).

These are not major problems. Divided Hearts is a logically organized, well-documented, clearly written historical study. The focus on one (divided) denomination in one state works well. The History Project Task Force wanted “an honest, objective study that would help us to understand our own history in Oklahoma better . . . in the light of the larger context of Oklahoma's culture, society, politics, and economics” (xiii). The present reviewer doubts that historians can ever achieve “an objective” account. Cassity and Goble have, nevertheless, produced an honest study, critically examining issues from many perspectives. In addition they have convincingly shown the multiple influences by and on Presbyterians in broader state developments. Not only Oklahoma Presbyterians can learn from Divided Heart. Many outside that denomination live with similar tensions. And, as the authors hoped (xvi), we too may learn from the struggles, successes, failures, and compromises of these Presbyterians.