Today, after a three week trip home and abroad for the inter-semester break, I received my latest edition of the journal Baptist History and Heritage. I've been getting this journal for about five years or so, but this edition was a bit different than the others I've gotten. I was looking forward to this issue because I have an article that they decided to publish.
My latest article looks at a conservative Southern Baptist theologian who was a part of the denominational establishment during the post-WWII era in American history. The article, titled "Social Justice and American Exceptionalism in the Writings of Southern Baptist Statesman H. Cornell Goerner" is very close (basically the same paper) to a paper I read at the Red River Valley History Conference last April. This article shows how Goerner was a conservative evangelical who called for Christianizing the masses and the importance of America in the world, but it also shows how the economic attitudes of many have shifted over the past fifty years or so based upon the writings that Goerner had published through the denominational presses.
This Thursday, I sent over my syllabus for printing. My latest class is a class that I am creating titled "Religion in American Politics and Culture." It will be a hybrid class that incorporates aspects of a lecture-based course and a seminar format. I am hoping to engage students with the important place that religion has had and continues to have on American cultural and political traditions. The course will not be a continuous narrative that attempts to be exhaustive, but will rather choose a few chronological topics to emphasize the importance of religion in American history.
Showing posts with label Baptist History and Heritage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Baptist History and Heritage. Show all posts
07 January 2013
15 January 2012
Catholics, Evangelical Protestants, and a Shift in Presidential Politics
Yesterday, as I read some of the news headlines on the interweb, I came across one that dealt with the endorsement that some evangelical voters gave to Rick Santorum. It's not terribly surprising that evangelicals rejected Mitt Romney because of his Mormonism and his supposed liberal tendencies. Of course, Romney may not know whether he's a conservative, liberal, or something totally different. The evangelical voters considered Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Perry. The very fact that they chose Santorum shows a significant shift in American Protestant politics over the past few decades.
A major party has nominated a Roman Catholic for president three times. Each time, it's been the Democrats that have done so. The first Catholic to run for president was Al Smith of New York in 1928. He lost to Herbert Hoover, and those who lived through the Depression blame Hoover for that debacle to this day, but that's another story. Hoover won a landslide largely because a Republican was in office and the economy seemed to be booming. However, there was also the frequent assertion that the Democrats were the party of "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion." The 1920s was a period that saw the growth of the second Ku Klux Klan, and Catholics were one of the major groups that these nativists saw as damaging Americanism with their taking orders from Rome. There was concern that a Smith presidency would subordinate itself to the pope, not the Constitution.
Fast-forward just over thirty years. In 1960, another Catholic ran for president. The concern over a president having more allegiance to the Vatican than the US was a big concern for many Protestants. The candidate for president this time was John F. Kennedy. A 2007 article in Baptist History & Heritage by Ricky Floyd Dobbs examined the concern that conservative Baptists had regarding a Catholic running for president, using the Texas Baptist Standard as a case study. Kennedy won, and he is to date the only Catholic to become president. While some Americans would view him as a liberal, and his presidency was shortened by an assassins' bullet, most people would not argue that Kennedy put the concerns of the Vatican above those of America.
In 2004, John Kerry ran for president against the incumbent George W. Bush. His Catholicism was not the major issue, as the fear of terrorism seemed to be the overarching topic in this election. That was a general election, however, and evangelicals have tended to web themselves to the Republican Party in the last few decades. Most of the Republican candidates over time have been WASPs, with few women, minorities, and non-Protestants attempting a run. This year, evangelicals chose between Santorum, Gingrich, and Perry. Of the three, Perry would be the closest candidate to an evangelical. However, he's come across as less-than-presidential in debates and other public appearances. That leaves Santorum and Gingrich, both Catholics, as the best hope for pro-life, anti-Mormon evangelicals. While Romney's stand on abortion can be questioned, John Huntsman, another Mormon, seems to be solidly pro-life.
All of this goes to show the major change in Protestant attitudes toward Catholicism. Catholics are now considered more mainstream to evangelical voters. Mormons are not. Could this shift signal the election of a President Santorum? Not likely, but the change over time is nonetheless interesting.
A major party has nominated a Roman Catholic for president three times. Each time, it's been the Democrats that have done so. The first Catholic to run for president was Al Smith of New York in 1928. He lost to Herbert Hoover, and those who lived through the Depression blame Hoover for that debacle to this day, but that's another story. Hoover won a landslide largely because a Republican was in office and the economy seemed to be booming. However, there was also the frequent assertion that the Democrats were the party of "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion." The 1920s was a period that saw the growth of the second Ku Klux Klan, and Catholics were one of the major groups that these nativists saw as damaging Americanism with their taking orders from Rome. There was concern that a Smith presidency would subordinate itself to the pope, not the Constitution.
Fast-forward just over thirty years. In 1960, another Catholic ran for president. The concern over a president having more allegiance to the Vatican than the US was a big concern for many Protestants. The candidate for president this time was John F. Kennedy. A 2007 article in Baptist History & Heritage by Ricky Floyd Dobbs examined the concern that conservative Baptists had regarding a Catholic running for president, using the Texas Baptist Standard as a case study. Kennedy won, and he is to date the only Catholic to become president. While some Americans would view him as a liberal, and his presidency was shortened by an assassins' bullet, most people would not argue that Kennedy put the concerns of the Vatican above those of America.
In 2004, John Kerry ran for president against the incumbent George W. Bush. His Catholicism was not the major issue, as the fear of terrorism seemed to be the overarching topic in this election. That was a general election, however, and evangelicals have tended to web themselves to the Republican Party in the last few decades. Most of the Republican candidates over time have been WASPs, with few women, minorities, and non-Protestants attempting a run. This year, evangelicals chose between Santorum, Gingrich, and Perry. Of the three, Perry would be the closest candidate to an evangelical. However, he's come across as less-than-presidential in debates and other public appearances. That leaves Santorum and Gingrich, both Catholics, as the best hope for pro-life, anti-Mormon evangelicals. While Romney's stand on abortion can be questioned, John Huntsman, another Mormon, seems to be solidly pro-life.
All of this goes to show the major change in Protestant attitudes toward Catholicism. Catholics are now considered more mainstream to evangelical voters. Mormons are not. Could this shift signal the election of a President Santorum? Not likely, but the change over time is nonetheless interesting.
12 January 2012
Racists, Christianity, and the Antebellum South
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.
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.
05 September 2011
Progressive Baptists
Saturday was a pretty good day in my estimation. The weather wasn't the best, with temps around 65 and steady North winds, there was a reminder that a wonderful North Dakota winter is nearing. So, it wasn't the weather that was great. I did, however, get a couple of historical publications, one of which was Baptist History and Heritage.
This edition of Baptist History and Heritage focuses on the 50th anniversary of the Progressive National Baptist Convention, an African American denomination. While the fact that this is one of the 276 (probably a bit of an exaggeration, but not by much) Baptist denominations in America is not surprising or unique. What is unique is the origin of this organization. Frustration with one of the leading black Baptist groups, the National Baptist Convention, over issues of Civil Rights led those who were more committed to complete equality (including Martin Luther King, Jr.) to split off from the parent organization in 1961.
While I've not read the entire journal yet, I've found the first couple of articles pretty interesting. One question that always comes to my mind when looking at churches and racial issues is why there are churches and racial issues. Some of the most segregated groups in America today are churches. There are "white churches" and "black churches." I can understand ethnic churches or specific ethnic ministries for immigrants because of the language barrier. However, even though cultures can be very different between ethnic groups, it seems that the whole "no Jew or Greek, male or female, etc." from Paul would preclude divisions based upon differences in culture when language is not an issue. However, I guess it should not be surprising from a glance at some of Paul's letters (especially the one to the Galatians) that show problems between racial groups. While it isn't surprising, it should not be thought of as ideal in any way. Differing core theology would be a good reason for division, while ethnicity should not be a reason for division.
With the word "Progressive" in the title, perhaps a definition is in order. Today, political discourse at times seems to equate progressive with radical communists intent on overthrowing the established order. In much of American history, this was not necessarily the case. Theodore Roosevelt (a "progressive" president) was not interested in overthrowing capitalism or America, but rather in righting some serious problems that actually threatened to destroy "the system." The idea of progress has generally been considered a positive, as it generally indicates an attempt at improvement. While social activism is not exactly the main purpose of the church (in a general sense) in the world, in the area of race relations, a group that pushed the envelope for equality and integration deserves applause for their push in that direction.
This edition of Baptist History and Heritage focuses on the 50th anniversary of the Progressive National Baptist Convention, an African American denomination. While the fact that this is one of the 276 (probably a bit of an exaggeration, but not by much) Baptist denominations in America is not surprising or unique. What is unique is the origin of this organization. Frustration with one of the leading black Baptist groups, the National Baptist Convention, over issues of Civil Rights led those who were more committed to complete equality (including Martin Luther King, Jr.) to split off from the parent organization in 1961.
While I've not read the entire journal yet, I've found the first couple of articles pretty interesting. One question that always comes to my mind when looking at churches and racial issues is why there are churches and racial issues. Some of the most segregated groups in America today are churches. There are "white churches" and "black churches." I can understand ethnic churches or specific ethnic ministries for immigrants because of the language barrier. However, even though cultures can be very different between ethnic groups, it seems that the whole "no Jew or Greek, male or female, etc." from Paul would preclude divisions based upon differences in culture when language is not an issue. However, I guess it should not be surprising from a glance at some of Paul's letters (especially the one to the Galatians) that show problems between racial groups. While it isn't surprising, it should not be thought of as ideal in any way. Differing core theology would be a good reason for division, while ethnicity should not be a reason for division.
With the word "Progressive" in the title, perhaps a definition is in order. Today, political discourse at times seems to equate progressive with radical communists intent on overthrowing the established order. In much of American history, this was not necessarily the case. Theodore Roosevelt (a "progressive" president) was not interested in overthrowing capitalism or America, but rather in righting some serious problems that actually threatened to destroy "the system." The idea of progress has generally been considered a positive, as it generally indicates an attempt at improvement. While social activism is not exactly the main purpose of the church (in a general sense) in the world, in the area of race relations, a group that pushed the envelope for equality and integration deserves applause for their push in that direction.
11 July 2011
The Civil War and Baptists
I'm sure that among those who have an interest in American church history, there are many who are also interested in the American Civil War. Special collections exist that are dedicated entirely to this conflict. There are several accounts of a revival that broke out on both sides of the conflict. A minister, J. William Jones, penned a well-known account of this revival in his work titled Christ in the Camp. Jones tells of baptizing hundreds of new converts. The Civil War saw foxhole religion at its finest.
Upon perusing the web a couple of days ago, I found a website that is dedicated to Baptist activity during the Civil War. Baptists and the American Civil War is a site that includes documentary evidence that corresponds to each day of the war, beginning with a commemoration of the 150th anniversary of the firing on Fort Sumter. Baptists and the American Civil War is a digital project conceived by Bruce Gourley of the Baptist History and Heritage Society, although it appears that the site has multiple contributors. A new entry appears each day, so those with an interest in the Civil War will find much to occupy their time. In addition to those with a general interest in Civil War history, those with curiosity geared toward Baptist history may find even more of interest.
Upon perusing the web a couple of days ago, I found a website that is dedicated to Baptist activity during the Civil War. Baptists and the American Civil War is a site that includes documentary evidence that corresponds to each day of the war, beginning with a commemoration of the 150th anniversary of the firing on Fort Sumter. Baptists and the American Civil War is a digital project conceived by Bruce Gourley of the Baptist History and Heritage Society, although it appears that the site has multiple contributors. A new entry appears each day, so those with an interest in the Civil War will find much to occupy their time. In addition to those with a general interest in Civil War history, those with curiosity geared toward Baptist history may find even more of interest.
11 May 2011
Book Review from 2009
As an aspiring scholar who's just getting started, the list of my publications and scholarly presentations is quite small. Most of my work previous to my studies at UND focused upon West Virginia working class/labor history. One of my other areas of interest is Baptist history. My current research focuses upon North Dakota Baptists in the Progressive/WWI era. However, I have no current publications in this area.
My only publication in the field of Baptist history, or Church history in general, thus far, is a book review I did for the journal Baptist History & Heritage in 2009. Here is the link: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NXG/is_2_44/ai_n48711387/?tag=mantle_skin;content. The site does not mention me as the reviewer until the very bottom of the review, so don't be confused with the book review editor's name at the top of the website.
One of my goals with this site is to provide an avenue for comments and feedback on my work. While I have nothing other than a couple of encyclopedia articles going at the moment, I hope to get back to my research on North Dakota Baptists at some point this summer. If not, I will definitely be on it at some point during my program of study. I will plan to post working papers on my findings from time to time.
My only publication in the field of Baptist history, or Church history in general, thus far, is a book review I did for the journal Baptist History & Heritage in 2009. Here is the link: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NXG/is_2_44/ai_n48711387/?tag=mantle_skin;content. The site does not mention me as the reviewer until the very bottom of the review, so don't be confused with the book review editor's name at the top of the website.
One of my goals with this site is to provide an avenue for comments and feedback on my work. While I have nothing other than a couple of encyclopedia articles going at the moment, I hope to get back to my research on North Dakota Baptists at some point this summer. If not, I will definitely be on it at some point during my program of study. I will plan to post working papers on my findings from time to time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)