One of the biggest oxymorons that I've run across are Christian racists. The two terms don't really go together. Yet, many people in the pre-Civil War South claimed Christianity while simultaneously having few qualms about owning other people. The quarterly journal of the Baptist History and Heritage Society, conveniently named Baptist History & Heritage, recently arrived at my house. Since I had not yet begun my studies for the semester, I had a chance to read through the articles.
The article in the Fall 2011 issue of the journal that most caught my attention was "Pastor Elias Lyman Magoon, the Education of Blacks, and his 1846 Departure from Second Baptist Church, Richmond, Virginia," by Craig A Sherouse, who is currently the pastor of Second Baptist Church in Richmond. Sherouse's article deals with on of the biggest concepts that historians study: change over time. The change that he recounts in this article deals with racial attitudes in nineteenth century Richmond. While Virginians were nowhere near the most progressive of people when it came to race, in 1813, they were much more tolerant than they would become by 1846.
In 1813, William H. Crane and Elder David Roper formed a school for free and slave black students in Richmond. From this school came the missionary team of Lott Carey and Collin Teage, who became Baptist missionaries to the new African nation of Liberia. Crane was at the meeting that formed the Southern Baptist Convention (formed because the some in the Baptist Triennial Convention rightly refused to commission slaveholding missionaries), and his son William Carey Crane became president of Baylor University. A finding about another sons, Adoniram Judson Crane, surprised Sherouse, however. A. J. Crane was a memeber of a committee that brought a report against Second Baptist's pastor, Elias Lyman Magoon, and recommended Magoon's "separation" from the church.
Why did Magoon incur the wrath of this congregation? He had been quite popular before took leave to travel to Europe for study. Sherouse writes: "What was the dismissible charge brought against Pastor Magoon? Advocating in the pulpit and in print the education of blacks, both slave and free--the same ministry that A. J. Crane's father had done thirty years earlier, that which had eventuated in Cary and Teage constituting a church in William Crane's parlor. How ironic to make that discovery while seated under the painting of that historic event."
What changed over the course of thirty years? Sherouse points out that the laws of Virginia changed. The education of African Americans became illegal after the Nat Turner Rebellion of 1831, led somewhat ironically by a Baptist minister. Other laws prohibited the meeting of blacks at night and the meeting of blacks without white supervision. Baptists in Richmond felt that Magoon's advocation for blacks too much to bear, and they asked him to leave. Other articles in this edition of the journal were David Stratton's "James Madison, Persecuted Baptists, and Religious Liberty," Gary P. Burton's "Armistead Thomson Mason Handey: The Unusual Life and Times of a Nineteenth-Century Church Planter and Pastor in Central Alabama," T. Laine Scales and Craig R. Clarkson's "Preparing College Graduates for Mission: The Role of the Student Volunteer Movement in the Calling and Formation of a 'Baylor Girl,' 1903-1907," and Aaron Douglas Weaver's "'Not in My Backyard' to 'Not in Anyone's Backyard': Black Baptists, the Black Church, and the Environmental Justice Movement."
This was one of the most interesting issues of the journal that I've read. I mention the Sherouse article at length because of the major issue that race continues to be, even among people who claim to be Christian. While much has changed, underlying attitudes often remain the same. Sherouse's article shows how easy it is for Christians to conform to the culture around them. This problem is definitely one to be avoided.
12 January 2012
09 January 2012
Study on American Religion and the Community
To hear many anti-religious folks hear it, those who belong the religious organizations are a major drain on society. The religious (especially Christians) are destroying society by spewing their religious dogmas. Communities would be better without the religious. An interesting recent study by Pew Research tends to bring this idea into question. The link above goes to a CNN story with some interesting comments. Here is a link to the actual survey titled "The Civic and Community Engagement of Religiously Active Americans."
Highlights of the study included the following statistics:
Those people who are not involved in religious groups are involved in an average of 2.11 community groups, while those who belong to a religious group are involved in 5.61 community organizations.
45% of those who belong to a religious organization view their community as an excellent place to live, while only 34% of those who are not religious do.
Those in religious groups spend 7.5 hours a week in group activities, compared to about 5.4 hours for those not so affiliated. Whether or not attendance at religious services count in this number was not discussed, and would be interesting to know.
College graduates are more likely to belong to religious organizations (which brings the question of the ignorant, superstitious church member into question).
One of the more interesting statistics involves the other types of organizations to which the religious belong. Religious Americans are more likely to belong to organizations related to art and culture, as well as labor unions and environmental groups, than are the non-religious.
Politically, the religious Americans trended conservative, but the conservatives vs moderate/liberal divide was about even--around 50% conservative vs. 50% moderate/liberal.
While there are notable philanthropists among the atheist/agnostic crowd (i.e. Bill Gates), the numbers are nonetheless telling. The link above from CNN does not go into causation, but it does indicate a strong correlation between being religious and activity in the community. It seems to suggest that people who belong to religious organizations just like to belong to groups. However, I would suggest that perhaps the command to love other people as yourself leads people to have concern for the well-being of their communities.
Another important point that the study made was that those belonging to religious organizations tend to have a better outlook on their communities and on their ability to enact positive change. This would probably relate to a general hope for the future. Religious people (especially Christians) tend to believe that it's ultimately going to get better based upon their religious beliefs. Those who are atheist/agnostic claim to think people will get better as humanity evolves (which brings into question the reasons for their apparent pessimism), but they apparently don't want to help that process along. Regardless, this study would suggest that a religiously active community would be a better community.
Highlights of the study included the following statistics:
Those people who are not involved in religious groups are involved in an average of 2.11 community groups, while those who belong to a religious group are involved in 5.61 community organizations.
45% of those who belong to a religious organization view their community as an excellent place to live, while only 34% of those who are not religious do.
Those in religious groups spend 7.5 hours a week in group activities, compared to about 5.4 hours for those not so affiliated. Whether or not attendance at religious services count in this number was not discussed, and would be interesting to know.
College graduates are more likely to belong to religious organizations (which brings the question of the ignorant, superstitious church member into question).
One of the more interesting statistics involves the other types of organizations to which the religious belong. Religious Americans are more likely to belong to organizations related to art and culture, as well as labor unions and environmental groups, than are the non-religious.
Politically, the religious Americans trended conservative, but the conservatives vs moderate/liberal divide was about even--around 50% conservative vs. 50% moderate/liberal.
While there are notable philanthropists among the atheist/agnostic crowd (i.e. Bill Gates), the numbers are nonetheless telling. The link above from CNN does not go into causation, but it does indicate a strong correlation between being religious and activity in the community. It seems to suggest that people who belong to religious organizations just like to belong to groups. However, I would suggest that perhaps the command to love other people as yourself leads people to have concern for the well-being of their communities.
Another important point that the study made was that those belonging to religious organizations tend to have a better outlook on their communities and on their ability to enact positive change. This would probably relate to a general hope for the future. Religious people (especially Christians) tend to believe that it's ultimately going to get better based upon their religious beliefs. Those who are atheist/agnostic claim to think people will get better as humanity evolves (which brings into question the reasons for their apparent pessimism), but they apparently don't want to help that process along. Regardless, this study would suggest that a religiously active community would be a better community.
05 January 2012
What I'm Reading--Historians and Fallacies
The Christmas Break for this graduate student is about to come to an end. Over the break, I had the chance to indulge in some relaxation, albeit away from home. While I enjoy my grad studies, it's good to take a break and smell the roses every once in a while. My cross-country drives give the opportunity for relaxation, unless it involves the whiteout that I drove through around Cleveland on I-80 on Tuesday. While there were no crashes, traffic sped along at a whopping 15 miles per hour for a bit. I'm glad to be back in Grand Forks and in my own bed for a change.
One of the indulgences that I take while on break is reading. I know what you're probably thinking, "Doesn't a grad student's life involve lots of reading?" It does, but it's generally on topics that relate to work, not enjoyment. For Christmas, I got a copy of Carl Trueman's Histories and Fallacies. I read through it very quickly, as it is an enjoyable read. I generally don't enjoy books on historiography, but this one was quite readable and practical (probably because it's not written more for laymen). I would not have asked for the book if it had not been recommended by one of Trueman's former students, himself not a historian, at Westminster Theological Seminary. After reading this book, I'm glad I got the recommendation and chose to ignore my general avoidance of all things related to historiography (at least in the theoretical sense). Trueman, like me, has little love for those who only write about the writing of history, rather than actually writing history themselves.
One of the things that Trueman clearly points out is the fact that historical writing is based upon interpretation. He discusses the difference between objectivity and neutrality, arguing that the first is possible, while the second is not. There are facts. For example, WWII happened. This is not disputed. The impact of various actions during World War II are debated, and differing interpretations can shed light on the subject. While Trueman has no patience for relativism, he understands that there is no one absolute right interpretation of most historical events. For an example, he uses the Holocaust. There are two schools of thought on the Holocaust, the functionalists and the intentionalists--who basically argue whether the Holocaust was planned from the beginning or thought up along the way. Both are able to find evidence that backs up their claims and both are able to shed light on the German activity in this horrific event. Neither is necessarily absolutely correct.
The group that troubles Trueman are the Holocaust Deniers who say that either the event never happened or that the death tolls were nowhere in the millions. These are folks who misuse historical evidence and make their websites look slick to spread their propaganda. Trueman walks his readers through the bad historical method of the deniers. Both functionalists and intentionalists use the accepted methods of historical inquiry. For the most part the deniers do not. The moral quandry of the Holocaust allows Trueman to criticize an extreme relativism that embraces the validity of all texts. To radical postmodernists, Holocaust deniers should not be a problem. While multiple perspectives can be accurate, there are perspectives that are completely inaccurate or immoral. I think that Trueman handled this concept quite well.
Much of the rest of the book goes into discussing certain fallacies that historians are prone to fall into. Entire chapters are devoted to the idea of metanarratives that explain everything and anachronism, while the final chapter discusses a few. While Histories and Fallacies includes some of the same ideas as David Hackett Fischer's scathing review (Historians' Fallacies) of the logical fallacies that even the most accomplished historians commit, it did not go into nearly the depth of Fischer's book, nor did it give specific examples with names included.
I rather enjoyed the chapter on overarching interpretations of history. Trueman chose Marxism, and one of its ablest historians, to take apart. While I would definitely not describe myself as a Marxist historian, I do recognize (as does Trueman) that this school of historians brought the importance of economic considerations in history to the forefront. Trueman uses the example of a letter from Pliny the Younger to the Roman emperor Trajan that talks about the Christians and their persecution. Pliny talks about the return of many to the old gods and the joy of some merchants. Most readers would ignore the last part, which is almost tacked onto the end of the letter, but it actually indicates that merchants who dealt in idols complained about the Christians cutting their business. Trueman also uses Christopher Hill's discussion of Bunyan's The Pilgrim's Progress as an example. All of the merchants and gentlemen in Vanity Fair are described negatively in Bunyan. Hill ascribes it to economics. Trueman agrees that this could have been an underlying, and perhaps even unconscious, theme in Bunyan's thought. Trueman is generally quite complimentary of Hill's work. I've read some of it, and it is very readable and much of it is convincing. However, I agree with Trueman that economic factors are not the only factors in history. Ideas are important, and they are not always related to class as the Marxists would generally argue. In an interesting note, Trueman pointed out that Marxist historians can sometimes deny problems based upon ideology (I've seen right-leaning people do this as well, so the left does not have a monopoly). He pointed out an interview in which Hill said that there were no famines under Stalin, in spite of the overwhelming evidence that there were. Frameworks are good, but they cannot be used as absolutes that cannot be falsified. Marxist history often falls into this trap.
Trueman's book succeeds in bringing the practice of history to a level that laymen can enjoy and understand. I've studied history for many years, and I must confess that there are books PhD's struggle with. This is not one of them, and I can wholeheartedly recommend it.
One of the indulgences that I take while on break is reading. I know what you're probably thinking, "Doesn't a grad student's life involve lots of reading?" It does, but it's generally on topics that relate to work, not enjoyment. For Christmas, I got a copy of Carl Trueman's Histories and Fallacies. I read through it very quickly, as it is an enjoyable read. I generally don't enjoy books on historiography, but this one was quite readable and practical (probably because it's not written more for laymen). I would not have asked for the book if it had not been recommended by one of Trueman's former students, himself not a historian, at Westminster Theological Seminary. After reading this book, I'm glad I got the recommendation and chose to ignore my general avoidance of all things related to historiography (at least in the theoretical sense). Trueman, like me, has little love for those who only write about the writing of history, rather than actually writing history themselves.
One of the things that Trueman clearly points out is the fact that historical writing is based upon interpretation. He discusses the difference between objectivity and neutrality, arguing that the first is possible, while the second is not. There are facts. For example, WWII happened. This is not disputed. The impact of various actions during World War II are debated, and differing interpretations can shed light on the subject. While Trueman has no patience for relativism, he understands that there is no one absolute right interpretation of most historical events. For an example, he uses the Holocaust. There are two schools of thought on the Holocaust, the functionalists and the intentionalists--who basically argue whether the Holocaust was planned from the beginning or thought up along the way. Both are able to find evidence that backs up their claims and both are able to shed light on the German activity in this horrific event. Neither is necessarily absolutely correct.
The group that troubles Trueman are the Holocaust Deniers who say that either the event never happened or that the death tolls were nowhere in the millions. These are folks who misuse historical evidence and make their websites look slick to spread their propaganda. Trueman walks his readers through the bad historical method of the deniers. Both functionalists and intentionalists use the accepted methods of historical inquiry. For the most part the deniers do not. The moral quandry of the Holocaust allows Trueman to criticize an extreme relativism that embraces the validity of all texts. To radical postmodernists, Holocaust deniers should not be a problem. While multiple perspectives can be accurate, there are perspectives that are completely inaccurate or immoral. I think that Trueman handled this concept quite well.
Much of the rest of the book goes into discussing certain fallacies that historians are prone to fall into. Entire chapters are devoted to the idea of metanarratives that explain everything and anachronism, while the final chapter discusses a few. While Histories and Fallacies includes some of the same ideas as David Hackett Fischer's scathing review (Historians' Fallacies) of the logical fallacies that even the most accomplished historians commit, it did not go into nearly the depth of Fischer's book, nor did it give specific examples with names included.
I rather enjoyed the chapter on overarching interpretations of history. Trueman chose Marxism, and one of its ablest historians, to take apart. While I would definitely not describe myself as a Marxist historian, I do recognize (as does Trueman) that this school of historians brought the importance of economic considerations in history to the forefront. Trueman uses the example of a letter from Pliny the Younger to the Roman emperor Trajan that talks about the Christians and their persecution. Pliny talks about the return of many to the old gods and the joy of some merchants. Most readers would ignore the last part, which is almost tacked onto the end of the letter, but it actually indicates that merchants who dealt in idols complained about the Christians cutting their business. Trueman also uses Christopher Hill's discussion of Bunyan's The Pilgrim's Progress as an example. All of the merchants and gentlemen in Vanity Fair are described negatively in Bunyan. Hill ascribes it to economics. Trueman agrees that this could have been an underlying, and perhaps even unconscious, theme in Bunyan's thought. Trueman is generally quite complimentary of Hill's work. I've read some of it, and it is very readable and much of it is convincing. However, I agree with Trueman that economic factors are not the only factors in history. Ideas are important, and they are not always related to class as the Marxists would generally argue. In an interesting note, Trueman pointed out that Marxist historians can sometimes deny problems based upon ideology (I've seen right-leaning people do this as well, so the left does not have a monopoly). He pointed out an interview in which Hill said that there were no famines under Stalin, in spite of the overwhelming evidence that there were. Frameworks are good, but they cannot be used as absolutes that cannot be falsified. Marxist history often falls into this trap.
Trueman's book succeeds in bringing the practice of history to a level that laymen can enjoy and understand. I've studied history for many years, and I must confess that there are books PhD's struggle with. This is not one of them, and I can wholeheartedly recommend it.
31 December 2011
Goodbye 2011--The Best of the American Church History Blog
In case you've not heard, the New Year comes in tonight. December 31 marks the end of the first calendar year of this blog, although the first post didn't show up until May 4. The average daily visitors has grown by about 400% since that first month. That's not what's the most interesting point, however. One of the things that I find interesting is the pages that have been viewed the most...
Here are the top 5 pages for this blog for all of 2011:
1. My Paper from the Northern Great Plains History Conference
2. Jan Hus--Pics from Bethlehem Chapel in Prague
3. Perry, Romney, and Mormonism
4. New England Execution Sermons
5. Olomouc, Czech Republic--Pics Included
From this quick perusal of the most popular posts, it appears that people like pictures of cool things from a foreign country. That's no big surprise. A couple of other topics that surprised me as to their popularity (as shown from search results) were Mormons and execution sermons. The Mormons may be getting a bit more press this year because two of their number are running for president. New England execution sermons, or some variation of this topic received quite a bit in the way of search traffic, which was very surprising. Perhaps, people enjoy reading about morbid stuff. I enjoyed the book Between Heaven and Earth, the subject of my post on the subject of Puritan execution sermons.
What topics did you find most interesting? What topics would you like to see covered in the future? I'm interested to know going forward.
Oh, yeah, and have a great 2012--even if the Mayans were right.
Here are the top 5 pages for this blog for all of 2011:
1. My Paper from the Northern Great Plains History Conference
2. Jan Hus--Pics from Bethlehem Chapel in Prague
3. Perry, Romney, and Mormonism
4. New England Execution Sermons
5. Olomouc, Czech Republic--Pics Included
From this quick perusal of the most popular posts, it appears that people like pictures of cool things from a foreign country. That's no big surprise. A couple of other topics that surprised me as to their popularity (as shown from search results) were Mormons and execution sermons. The Mormons may be getting a bit more press this year because two of their number are running for president. New England execution sermons, or some variation of this topic received quite a bit in the way of search traffic, which was very surprising. Perhaps, people enjoy reading about morbid stuff. I enjoyed the book Between Heaven and Earth, the subject of my post on the subject of Puritan execution sermons.
What topics did you find most interesting? What topics would you like to see covered in the future? I'm interested to know going forward.
Oh, yeah, and have a great 2012--even if the Mayans were right.
27 December 2011
Tim Tebow and Bill Maher
Tim Tebow sure is a lightning rod for many haters out there. He also has many fans that follow his every move. Tebow seems to be one of those sports figures that people either love or hate. I recently submitted a post that discussed the uproar about the Tebowing controversy. After that post, Tebow ran off quite a little winning streak. The last two weeks have not been quite so kind.
Which brings us to the latest controversy related to Mr. Tebow--some comments by commedian Bill Maher. Some comments that Maher made after Tebow's latest (less-than-stellar) game have produced quite the outrage. Maher is an atheist and seems to rather enjoy bashing the religious. What about Tebow does Maher find so offensive, other than his professed faith in Jesus Christ? To anyone's knowledge, Tebow's not out carousing with loose women (a la Tiger Woods). He's not out there getting in trouble for PEDs like the reigning NL MVP (Ryan Braun). He's not been in trouble with the law like an number of sports stars. He visits sick kids. He's building a children's hospital in the Philippines. He's the kind of guy that I'd like my daugthers to bring home to dad. Why the hate?
Some people will no doubt argue that it's part of the left-wing conspiracy to remove all references to any deity (and especially Jesus) from any aspect of life. I don't quite buy it. I have several friends that lean to the left politically, yet are committed in their religious beliefs (in spite of the seeming equation of conservative politics with Christian orthodoxy). I can talk religion with these folks, and while we may have disagreements, neither side is hateful with the other. I can talk politics with these folks, and we may have disagreements there.
Maher seems quite angry. He's what I would consider an evangelical atheist. These are the folks that get mad when evangelical Christians or other people of other religions try to spread their message. Yet these atheists have no problem spreading their disdain for all things religions or telling the religious that they need to grow a brain and cast of such medieval superstitions. Richard Dawkins comes to mind when discussing the evangelical atheist. I would argue that this is simply a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Many professed evangelical Christians deserve the criticism they get--certain televangelists who get caught up in various and sundry scandals come to mind. However, it seems that Tebow is one of those guys who actually get persecuted for righteousness' sake (in the context of Matthew 5), rather than for their hypocritical attitude. If/when Tebow falls, he'll deserve criticism. Until then, people, including Bill Maher, should just leave him alone. Maher's tweet insulted about 2 billion of the world's 7 billion directly, and those who hold religious faiths other than Christianity are also the butt of his jokes. Jokes about religious beliefs tend not to go over terribly well. Maher's market should suffer accordingly.
Which brings us to the latest controversy related to Mr. Tebow--some comments by commedian Bill Maher. Some comments that Maher made after Tebow's latest (less-than-stellar) game have produced quite the outrage. Maher is an atheist and seems to rather enjoy bashing the religious. What about Tebow does Maher find so offensive, other than his professed faith in Jesus Christ? To anyone's knowledge, Tebow's not out carousing with loose women (a la Tiger Woods). He's not out there getting in trouble for PEDs like the reigning NL MVP (Ryan Braun). He's not been in trouble with the law like an number of sports stars. He visits sick kids. He's building a children's hospital in the Philippines. He's the kind of guy that I'd like my daugthers to bring home to dad. Why the hate?
Some people will no doubt argue that it's part of the left-wing conspiracy to remove all references to any deity (and especially Jesus) from any aspect of life. I don't quite buy it. I have several friends that lean to the left politically, yet are committed in their religious beliefs (in spite of the seeming equation of conservative politics with Christian orthodoxy). I can talk religion with these folks, and while we may have disagreements, neither side is hateful with the other. I can talk politics with these folks, and we may have disagreements there.
Maher seems quite angry. He's what I would consider an evangelical atheist. These are the folks that get mad when evangelical Christians or other people of other religions try to spread their message. Yet these atheists have no problem spreading their disdain for all things religions or telling the religious that they need to grow a brain and cast of such medieval superstitions. Richard Dawkins comes to mind when discussing the evangelical atheist. I would argue that this is simply a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Many professed evangelical Christians deserve the criticism they get--certain televangelists who get caught up in various and sundry scandals come to mind. However, it seems that Tebow is one of those guys who actually get persecuted for righteousness' sake (in the context of Matthew 5), rather than for their hypocritical attitude. If/when Tebow falls, he'll deserve criticism. Until then, people, including Bill Maher, should just leave him alone. Maher's tweet insulted about 2 billion of the world's 7 billion directly, and those who hold religious faiths other than Christianity are also the butt of his jokes. Jokes about religious beliefs tend not to go over terribly well. Maher's market should suffer accordingly.
25 December 2011
Christmas and the Franks
You may wonder why I've titled this post "Christmas and the Franks." You may also wonder...who exactly are the Franks? They have only a slight tie to American church history, but the Franks are important to church history as a whole. The Franks were a Germanic tribe that in the early Middle Ages controlled much of western and central Europe.
Why is Christmas important to the Franks? There are a couple of reasons. First, in 496, the Frankish king Clovis "converted" to Christianity with about 3,000 of his closest friends (i.e. soldiers). The conversion is quite iffy, but nonetheless a version of Christianity began to spread.
The second reason that Christmas was important to the Franks occurred in 800. On this date Charles I of France/Charles I of Germany/Charles I of the Holy Roman Empire received the imperial crown from Pope Leo III. This officially started the Holy Roman Empire, which Voltaire famously quipped was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. There is historical debate as to whether Charlemagne actually knew that this was going to happen when he went to church that day. This action was significant in European history, because it established the precedent of the pope offering the imperial crown as if it was the papacy's right to grant it. This precedent of the pope as over secular rulers lasted for much of the medieval period, and the Roman see continued to assert this prerogative in English affairs up until Henry VIII's break with Rome in the 1530s.
This last point was important in the Protestant Reformation, which was quite important in the quest for America due to the rivalry between Catholic nations and Protestant nations. England as a Protestant nation gained control of much of North America, and the rest, as they say, is history.
Why is Christmas important to the Franks? There are a couple of reasons. First, in 496, the Frankish king Clovis "converted" to Christianity with about 3,000 of his closest friends (i.e. soldiers). The conversion is quite iffy, but nonetheless a version of Christianity began to spread.
The second reason that Christmas was important to the Franks occurred in 800. On this date Charles I of France/Charles I of Germany/Charles I of the Holy Roman Empire received the imperial crown from Pope Leo III. This officially started the Holy Roman Empire, which Voltaire famously quipped was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. There is historical debate as to whether Charlemagne actually knew that this was going to happen when he went to church that day. This action was significant in European history, because it established the precedent of the pope offering the imperial crown as if it was the papacy's right to grant it. This precedent of the pope as over secular rulers lasted for much of the medieval period, and the Roman see continued to assert this prerogative in English affairs up until Henry VIII's break with Rome in the 1530s.
This last point was important in the Protestant Reformation, which was quite important in the quest for America due to the rivalry between Catholic nations and Protestant nations. England as a Protestant nation gained control of much of North America, and the rest, as they say, is history.
23 December 2011
Short Synopsis of R. H. Tawney's Religion and the Rise of Capitalism
Fairly recently, I posted a review of Max Weber's classic work The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. A very similar work that gets lumped with Weber in the historiography of the Protestant Ethic is R. H. Tawney's Religion and the Rise of Capitalism. Tawney came from a slightly different standpoint as a British Christian socialist, but here is a short overview of his major argument, taken from my recent historiography on the Puritans:
British historian R. H. Tawney proposed a similar argument to Weber in his 1926 work Religion and the Rise of Capitalism. However, he did not focus upon Calvinism in general, but rather the English Puritans as the progenitors of capitalism. As a Christian socialist, Tawney actually bemoaned the individualism and loss of concern for the common good that he saw arising out of the Puritan movement. Like Weber, he saw Luther tied more to the medieval understanding of business. Unlike Weber, Tawney still viewed Calvin as more of a medievalist, although he allowed that Calvin gave a few concessions to the business class regarding the charging of interest. He also distinguished between the Puritans who left for the New World and those who remained in England. The former attempted to imitate Calvin’s Geneva with their concern for the commonwealth, while the latter became enamored with business and became a fairly sizable proportion of the wealthy merchant class in the mother country. While he mentioned that the first Puritans who went to the New World were more communitarian in their dealings, he did not really discuss why they changed quite rapidly in their viewpoint toward business.[1]
Tawney and Weber both dwelt on the relationship between religion and capitalism. Many people still hold to this view today. However, people at that time of the Puritans did not view what they were doing as overly Christian, because the use of interest and profiteering were major areas of conflict between churches and businessmen. It is quite interesting how merchants came to be one of the more revered classes in the modern world, after spending the medieval era as a sort of necessary evil. I wonder what people writing about Christians and business in the twenty-first century will write when looking back at our time.
[1] R. H. Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism (London: John Murray, 1926).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)