Thomas Paine and Christianity

I frequently choose Thomas Paine's Common Sense as a reading assignment in my US to 1877 classes. Well, actually, I've used it both times I've taught US History to 1877, so that would make it an always proposition. Isn't this an American Church History blog? What does Thomas Paine have to do with American church history? Wasn't Thomas Paine a Deist. Yes, he was. He was a leading infidel in the day, but that does not take away from his importance in American history.

The text of Common Sense also tells some important information regarding the world Paine lived in. Paine was a recent immigrant to America when he wrote the pamphlet read in thousands of taverns across the land. His work contributed heavily to the sentiment for Revolution and independence from England.

Title Page from Paine's The Age of Reason, via Wikimedia Commons

In writing Common Sense, Paine understood that he had to connect with his readers. This is one of the first tips that English teachers give: know your audience. The people in eighteenth-century British North America were very much a biblically literate group. They understood allusions to the Bible that most Americans today would have to look up via a Google or Yahoo search.

Paine used the story of Saul (the king, not the one that is AKA Paul) to illustrate the evil of kings. If the Americans were to revolt against the constituted authority of the king, they had to have a good reason. Paine pointed out that the Israelites were not to have a king, at least in the beginning. He then pointed out the bad track record that kings, including biblical kings, had had up to that point. The reason a king was bad was because it was sinful and tied to the heathen nations. Many people read this section of Paine's pamphlet and come out with the idea that he was a devout Christian. His other writings, such as The Age of Reason, make it clear that he was not in any way orthodox in his beliefs. However, he understood the importance of speaking the language of the people in Common Sense. That language was overwhelmingly biblical.

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.

What I'm Reading--Christian Humanism and the Puritan Social Order

As I prepare to write my historiography on Puritans this semester, I've had to write four book reviews.  I've already posted a preliminary review of Perry Miller's influential work Errand into the Wilderness.  Here is a review of my reading of Margo Todd's Christian Humanism and the Puritan Social Order (1987).  I must say that I found the book quite interesting, and the thesis quite intriguing.  While I had a couple of small questions, I think the author did a good job of proving a tie between thinkers like Erasmus and the Puritans.  Here is the review:

Todd, Margo. Christian Humanism and the Puritan Social Order. Cambridge and New York:

Cambridge University Press, 1987. x and 293 pages. Bibliography and Index.

            Margo Todd, currently Walter H. Annenberg Professor of History at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote Christian Humanism and the Puritan Social Order in 1987 while at Vanderbilt University.  One of Todd’s specialties is the culture of Reformed Protestantism in Britain and early America.  In addition to this book, she has also authored Reformation to Revolution: Politics and Religion in Early Modern England and The Culture of Protestantism in Early Modern Scotland.  She is a previous winner of the Longman History-Today Prize and the Scottish History Book of the Year award, in addition to holding fellowships with the Guggenheim Memorial Foundation, the NEH, and the Royal Historical Society, among others.[1]

            When Todd wrote Christian Humanism and the Puritan Social Order, the historiographical debate centered on what impact the puritans had on the English Revolution, if they existed at all, as Michael Finlayson argued. (1)  Todd did not question the existence of Puritans, but questioned the assertion by Max Weber, R. H. Tawney, Christopher Hill, and Michael Walzer that “attributed to protestant religious zealots a degree of originality of thought rarely assigned to and almost never deserved by any intellectual movement.” (4) She believed that a move to place Puritans in the religious mainstream was a “step forward” in the historiography. (2)  In looking at the origins of Puritan thought, Todd looked back to the writings of Christian humanists, such as Desiderius Erasmus and Juan Luis Vives.

            Todd did not assert a conservative nature to Christian humanism.  She rightly pointed out that Erasmian ideas were largely a reaction against Thomist theology and philosophy.  The humanists, of whom Erasmus was the leading example, believed that much could be learned from the classical civilizations of the Greeks and Romans and emphasized such writings on civic virtue.  They encouraged the learning of classical languages and a critical approach to learning. 

This humanist social ethic which puritans would find so attractive was biblical in its apologetic, eclectic in its sources, mundane in its concerns but religious in its goals, practical in its methodology, and activist in its approach…The moral reconstruction of the social order was its ultimate objective—and its supreme attraction for protestant reformers. (22)

These Christian humanists, while Catholic themselves, questioned much of the medieval Catholic social order.

            Todd utilized many of the writings of Christian humanists and Protestant reformers.  She also relied on commonplace books from students at leading English universities to understand both the ideas being taught and the reactions of the students toward these ideas.  Christian humanist ideas passed to English Puritans largely through the universities, as these commonplace books and other notebooks show through their frequent citations of writers such as Erasmus and Vives and their use of Scholastic thinkers largely as punching bags. 

            After discussing a definition of Christian humanism and then pointing out how humanist ideas were transferred, Todd moved to the major areas of life that these new ideas impacted.  Contrary to medieval teaching on gender relations that viewed sex as a sort of necessary evil only meant to propagate the race, humanists and puritans both idealized the home as a miniature of the perfect society.  The ideal of celibacy came into question as a perfectly ordered home with children became the new goal. 

In addition to this questioning of domestic arrangements, humanists and Puritans started to question medieval ideas about economic issues.  Indiscriminate almsgiving came under scrutiny in this new environment.  Humanists encouraged state contributions and public employment (they believed most men willing to work) to alleviate the suffering of the poor so that alms would go to those who needed them, rather than to those who asked the loudest.  For a time, England actually attempted this system with some degree of success.  Many humanists also came to question the monastic system.  Those who were supposed to be poor through begging actually had access to great wealth through church property.  This did not sit well with Christian humanists.

One final major area of dispute that the humanists had with medieval thought related to the hierarchical “Great Chain of Being,” which held to a pyramidal view of power with God at the top, followed by the monarch (or pope), then nobility, then the masses.  This order was closely tied to heredity.  The Christian humanists decried heredity as a requirement for leadership.  They argued, to a degree, for a meritocracy as a better system, as the offspring of nobles were often lazy and at times incompetent. 

Todd’s final chapter, “The Conservative Reaction,” is not terribly surprising.  When those with power have their authority questioned, they often behave in a very reactionary manner.  The author argued that the Council of Trent and the Lambeth Conference embodied this reaction.  One result of Trent was the creation of the Index of Prohibited Books.  At first, only those books of Erasmus that questioned the established order found their way to the Index.  After giving the concept a second thought, however, all writings from such a subversive author received this treatment.  The new ideas for ameliorating the plight of the poor lost ground, and Trent argued that discriminate almsgiving threatened the souls of those who had lost the opportunity to give through indiscriminate charity, although this did not specifically affect Anglicans as much as it did continental Catholics. 

Christian Humanism and the Puritan Social Order did a good job of tying ideas about society from the Christian humanists to the English Puritans.  The use of commonplace books in the English universities provided an excellent opportunity to see exactly what ideas impacted the leading students of the age.  While this tie between humanists and Puritans was largely ignored prior to Todd’s work, there were some items that did not get as much weight as they possibly deserved.  Humanism in many ways had a much more tolerant view of the world, which does not agree with the actions of many of the stronger Puritans, especially the ones who migrated to North America in the 1630s.  Also, there was a major divergence between an Erasmian view of the world with an emphasis on the freedom of the will against a Calvinist understanding of affairs that was even more emphatic than Martin Luther’s view in On the Bondage of the Will, itself a critique of Erasmus.  Todd argued that “the Calvinist view of the elect as God’s instruments to implement his will in the world necessitates an activist stance on the part of the believer.” (17)  However, this still does not reconcile the generally positive view of man’s ability among humanists with the very negative belief held by Calvinists.  In spite of these questions, there is little doubt that the Christian humanists informed the ideas of the early Puritans.  In this, Todd succeeded in her efforts.

---

[1] “Margo Todd,” http://www.history.upenn.edu/faculty/todd.shtml (accessed November 1, 2011).

494 Years Ago

One of the biggest turning points in Western, if not world, history occurred on October 31, 1517.  Today, many churches from a reformed or semi-reformed tradition celebrated Reformation Sunday to commemorate Martin Luther's dispute with the Pope Leo X.  While there is dispute over whether Luther actually nailed them to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenburg, there is little doubt that Luther had Ninety-five Theses or disputations against Leo.

Some may wonder what this has to do with American history.  Just a quarter-century prior to Luther, a Genoese sailor by the name of Christopher Columbus claimed the New World for Spain (except for Brazil, which went to Portugal according to the Treaty of Tordesillas).  While Columbus did not exactly discover America, since his voyages began continuous interaction and the famed "Columbian Exchange" his trip is worth remembering. Spain and Portugal were both intensely Catholic nations, and after the breakup of Catholic hegemony in Europe, controversy was bound to erupt as other nations attempted to rival these early explorers.

While England was still within the fold of Rome when Giovanni Caboto claimed parts of North America in 1497, it was after Henry VIII's break with Catholicism that the Reformation became important for current Americans.  Although Henry just wanted Catholicism without the pope, a more Protestant England emerged permanently under his daughter Elizabeth I.  It was under Elizabeth and her successor James I that England began attempting permanent settlements in the New World, partially as a part of this rivalry with Spain and other Catholic powers.  The more radical Protestants in England, the Puritans established Massachusetts, and the traditional Puritan lifestyle of early New England began around 1630 (partially due to persecution from James' son Charles I and his archbishop William Laud). 

Had Luther not complained about the selling of indulgences in Wittenburg back in 1517, the American religious landscape would be radically different than it is today.  Therefore, whatever one's religious belief, it cannot be argued that October 31 has little significance for the history of Christianity.

My Book Review Featured in Academic Journal

I'm finishing up a fairly busy week here in the Northern Plains.  The weather was great this week, but some cooler weather is on the way. 

Today, I got word that the latest edition of American Theological Inquiry has published.  This particular journal is readily available online, as well as in print.  As such, it is what scholars refer to as an open-access journal.  It is still peer-reviewed, however.  American Theological Inquiry includes articles and book reviews of a theological, cultural, and historical nature from Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox Christian traditions.  It does not publish material from those who fall outside the realm of general orthodoxy.

I have not gotten a chance to read the articles included in this edition of the journal, but it does include a book review that I submitted on Douglas Sweeney's Jonathan Edwards and the Ministry of the Word.  The link above should allow access to this site, which includes all of the articles and book reviews. 

Immigrant Churches

I'm enjoying what is very likely the last hurrah of summer.  Here in Grand Forks, the temperature today reached the low 80s.  There is hardly a cloud in the sky.  However, I'm sure this weather will change in very short order.

My current research on a church in town is still on-going.  I've found that immigrants originally had the building built for their services.  This Hague Synod Lutheran congregation merged with two other Lutheran congregations, and sold the building to a Church of God (Anderson) that had been in operation in Grand Forks for several years at the time.

The Church of God left the building, as the city bought the building shortly after the Grand Forks flood of 1997.  For several years, there were nine churches within three blocks in any direction--quite literally averaging a church per block.  Immigrants tended to build or purchase small wood-framed structures, and the build larger churches in a few years.

I'm reading a bit on late 19th- and early 20th-century immigration to get a feel for this field.  I just finished reading a book titled Magnificent Churches on the Prairie (co-authored by James Coomber and Sheldon Green) that looked at several Catholic congregations that built very large buildings.  Most of them started in the same way.  The congregations mentioned in this book tended to have small wood-framed structures and then moved into larger buildings as the funds became available.  These buildings, as it appears some of those in early Grand Forks did, served to tie the community together in this new land thousands of miles from home.  The Lutheran congregations in Grand Forks spoke Norwegian for a generation, while these Catholic churches in rural areas used German (except, of course for the mass, which was in Latin). 

This work is serving to fill out some of my understanding of the religious make-up of the early days of Red River Valley towns, especially that of Grand Forks.  I will share more as I get further into the process.

Puritans and Religious Liberty

Tomorrow, I have the opportunity to give a guest lecture for a colleague at UND.  This mini-lecture (about 20-30 minutes) is going to discuss the Puritans.  The Puritans are a fairly misunderstood group.  Many people look at them as guys in funny hats and dark clothes that were against drinking and sex, while simultaneously going after witches with a vengeance.  These caricatures are not altogether accurate.  Puritans often had very big families...wonder how that happened?  They did oppose sex outside of marriage--the origin of the term puritanical.  Puritans were also in charge of giving out brewing licenses in Massachusetts Bay during the seventeenth century.  So much for being tee-totallers.  The Puritans, while they were not prohibitionists, did oppose drunkenness, however.  The Salem witch trials were an anomaly for which many later Puritans apologized.

Marxist historians have tended to look at Puritans as a proto-bourgeoisie that only concerned themselves with making money.  Marxists have tended to sneer at the deeply-held religious beliefs of the Puritans.  However, the religious beliefs of Puritans are not so much in question in recent years, which makes them even more interesting.

One of the big misconceptions about the Puritans that some like to point out, is the idea that the Puritans came to America for religious liberty.  This is both a correct statement and an incorrect statement at the same time.  You may think that I'm sounding a bit postmodern with an argument like that.  However, it's true.  When looking for religious liberty for themselves, the Puritans were all for it.  Religious liberty was one of the major reasons that the Puritans came to America (as well as attempting to show England/Europe what a true Christian Commonwealth looked like).  However, when it came to religious liberty for others, the Puritans didn't really go for that, hence the banishment of religious libertarians like Roger Williams who believed in freedom of conscience (as well as the idea that Indians should be compensated for their land). 

The Puritans were very important in the founding of America, and there are few groups who are more misunderstood.  They had a noble, although unachievable goal.  Their attempt at a theocracy failed, and their beliefs seem a bit narrow-minded in a nation that allows religious liberty for all.  Nonetheless, they are an interesting group to study.

Return to School

Today, August 23, 2011, I returned to school.  School officially started yesterday at 4 p.m., but I did not have any evening classes and did not have to worry about it.  This semester promises to be quite busy, even though I only have to be on campus on Tuesdays and Thursdays.  While this may seem easy to most people, its not the amount of time in class that is a bear, its the amount of time spent outside of class working on class that is the problem.  Tuesday promises to be a bear of a day, with classes and office hours from 9:30 am to 7 pm straight.

I am currently taking a class on the British Empire.  I'm pretty excited about this class, because I like studying Britain.  It may have to do with my WASP ethnicity.  With the exception of some American Indian ancestry, I'm pretty much white, Anglo-Saxon, and Protestant.  This class should also coordinate quite well with reading seminars that I took in Tudor and Stuart England during my MA at Marshall University.  There is a historiographical paper that should also help with my reading for one of my comprehensive fields.

I'm also taking an independent readings course on World History, which I must admit is a weak spot in my historical knowledge.  This is going to be another field on my comps, so I'm hoping to become conversant on the literature of this field, as well.  In both of these classes, I'm hoping to read up a bit on the role of religion in history, since the history of Christianity is one of my major interests.

My final course is a course on assessment in higher education.  The DA program at UND requires students to take some courses in higher ed, and this one is on the list.  I must confess that I felt a bit lost with some of the jargon in the first class, but I'm sure that I'll catch on through the readings and discussions this semester.

I'm looking at all sorts of reading and writing, both of which I find enjoyable (although the topic can help determine the level of enjoyability).  I'm hoping that the reading I'm able to accomplish will prepare me for my comps that I plan to take in four fields in the spring.

My final duty this semester is as a TA in a section of a course on the US to 1877.  I'm looking forward to this assignment, because it's a class that I'll be teaching in the spring semester.  I've taught US history to high school students, but I've not actually taught it at the college level yet, and I've not had it as a lecture class since the Fall of 1993 as a college freshman (I'm dating myself a bit there).  This class is being taught by an award-winning teacher, who's actually won the award for teaching.  This particular job should help immensely toward my class next semester.

Ah, the life of a grad student.  The work is never done.  Of course, it won't be done when I finish my degree, either.  I'm just hoping it slows down a bit after a few years.

Top Six Reasons to Read and Study Church History

6. Gives a good understanding of what Christians have traditionally believed, thus (hopefully) avoiding heresy.

5. It can help provide strength in the face of adversity (note many of the stories of martyrs passed down).

4. It is difficult to understand where you are or where you are going without understanding where you've been.

3. It shows that some of the issues and struggles that churches deal with today are not really all that new.

2. It hopefully shows the right and wrong ways that people have dealt with said problems.

1. It's just really entertaining sometimes.  Take, for example, the Cadaver Synod of the year 897. (I actually read the link and, even though it's from Wikipedia the facts are straight).

Any readers who feel the need can point out other reasons they can think of.  If I get enough (any) submissions, I'll post a revised list with credit to the outstanding thinker(s).

Posts on Origins and Machen, as Well as One of Mine

The latest edition of the Christian Blog Carnival II has posted.  This blog carnival is a (generally) weekly online publication in which various Christian bloggers submit one of their better posts for interaction with a wider audience.  I don't vouch for the quality of all of the posts every week.  However, I find some of interest.

This week's edition includes two separate posts on the question of origins, i.e., creationism/ID/evolution, that are quite interesting.  There are also a couple of posts on church history.  One of my recent posts appears in the carnival, as well as a post on J. Gresham Machen's Christianity and Liberalism that discusses a topic that I recently discussed in a post on George Marsden's Fundamentalism and American Culture. 

Church History in Four Minutes

An interesting take on church history in four minutes.  I didn't make this video, but thought I'd share it:

Whigs--One Philosophic Approach to History

A few days ago, I posted on my experience in a course on historiography and some of the questions that arose in this context.  One of the philosophies that held quite a bit of importance in historical circles in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries is now referred to as Whig history.  One of the most famous writers on this topic was Herbert Butterfield, who interestingly enough wrote a book titled The Whig Interpretation of History that tended to critique this particular view of the past. 

I actually gutted sizable chunks of this book in writing a historiographical overview of the English Reformation for a class last fall.  Most of the articles I read on the historiography of the period tended to refer to the Whig and the Revisionist historians.  I had long been skeptical of the term "revisionist" historians because of the connotation that they were out to change the past for their own sinister purposes.  However, I had not really explored the idea of Whig History in much depth.  What I discovered was that those holding to this idea view the backward past as progressing toward the triumphant present.  Whigs view basically anything in the past that tends toward democracy and liberty as a great sign of progress, while anything that smacks of autocracy as a remnant from a horrible past.

Butterfield, a devout Christian, argued that there were problems with this view, however.  This view of the past makes no real attempt to understand the past on its own terms, but rather in terms of the glorious present to which that past contributed.  Whig history also tends to view people in terms of black and white or right and wrong in their relation to the past's contribution to the wonderful present, not in terms of the laws and customs of the world in which they lived.  In failing to see past actors on their own terms, the past gets skewed terribly, according to the critique.

This error led to revisionism in the study of the English Reformation.  In Whiggish terms, the Reformers were great proponents of religious liberty that led the masses out of superstition.  The general Whig understanding included the idea that the people knew that they had been hoodwinked by the bishops and the pope, and that they willingly followed on this great leap toward religious liberty.  However, after reading the revisionists (generally Catholics) like Christopher Haigh and Eamon Duffy, the evidence definitely pointed toward a view of the masses that conflicted with the traditional Whiggish view of the English Reformation as a pretty much welcomed change.  The revisionist works tended to look at records related to the lower classes who actually worshiped and found that they tended to be fairly committed to their Catholicism.

While I am not a Catholic, this little study made it quite apparent to me (even more so that it already was) that people's presuppositions and their understanding of the past (and present) can definitely affect the way that they interpret events.  It also illustrated that at times revisionist history is actually better than the more "traditional" account, although this one example does not necessarily mean that all revisionist history is better.  Each study deserves to be judged its own merits in light of the evidence.

New England Execution Sermons

Imagine yourself as a convicted fellon about to go to the gallows.  What would be the last thing you would want to hear?  In New England, the condemned man or woman got to listen to an execution sermon.  One of the more interesting books (possibly a sign of my own morbidity) that I read during my first semester as a doctoral student was Scott D. Seay's Hanging between Heaven and Earth: Capital Crime, Execution Preaching, and Theology in Early New England (Northern Illinois University Press, 2009). 

In his book, Seay divided New England history into three periods: the Puritan (1623-1700), the provincial (1700-1774), and the early national (1775-1835).  One of the major threads that tied these eras together was the preaching of the execution sermon before the condemned went to the gallows.  However, these sermons evolved with the theology of New England.  The early Puritans held to a strict Calvinist theology, while the latter New Englanders moderated or even repudiated this Calvinism.  Accordingly, the themes of the sermons tended to change.

The early Calvinist ministers held out little hope for the condemned.  Their very crime and conviction were nearly a certain sign of their reprobation.  Of course,  there was the slight chance of conversion because of the mysterious ways of God's grace.  The main goal of the sermon and subsequent execution was warning, causing the hearers/audience to think about their federal connection to the condemned in Adam, i.e., but for the grace of God, there go I.  The audienced needed to watch these graphic examples before their base and depraved natures took over and made them candidates for similar atrocities.

During the provincial period, ministers began to hope for the salvation of the offender--a sort of "death bed" confession.  The grace of God worked over and above the evil of the convict in these instances and provided a great example for the hearers.  The view of execution became based more upon a social contract than a punishment that rid the land of evildoers.  By the early national period, with its emphasis on the ideas of the Enlightenment, public executions became less common, as did the public execution sermon.

These execution sermons in one way provide a good example of capitalist enterprise.  The publishing of these sermons became commonplace, and they were among the top sellers of the day.  As the sermons became less common, however, so did the profits from their sale.  Seay relied upon these published sermons for his work, and a very interesting work it was.

Church Music part II

I recently wrote a post on a historical topic that I find of quite a bit of interest, church music.  In that post, I pointed out that some considered Jonathan Edwards a bit radical for his use of hymns in church in an eighteenth-century society that emphasized only the singing of psalms from the biblical book of Psalms.  This topic brought to mind an article I recently read in Baptist History & Heritage on the topic of Baptist hymnody and revivalism.

Baylor University professor of Music (somewhat ironically named) David W. Music wrote on "The Baptist Influence on Revival Music/The Revival Influence n Baptist Music" in Baptist History & Heritage's Summer/Fall 2010 edition.  In this article, Music argued that the wave of revival music from the Second Great Awakening failed to move most Baptists, who as staunch Calvinists tended to view the revival with a bit of suspicion.  However, as this strict Calvinism waned, so did Baptist opposition to revivalism.  During the era of Dwight L. Moody, many of the new "gospel songs" found their way into the Baptist repertoire.

One of the interesting passages in this article on Baptists and revival music, was the definition of the gospel song: "The gospel song became the 'typical' revival music of the late nineteenth century because it contained a simple text that avoided theological sophistication in favor of direct appeal for salvation or renewed commitment, linked with a popular musical style that appealed to the masses." (40)  Some of the songs cited by Music include such "traditional" standards such as "Nothing But the Blood," "Shall We Gather at the River," and several songs by Methodist Fanny Crosby that had music supplied by Baptist William Howard Doane (among the titles mentioned were "To God Be the Glory" and "Rescue the Perishing").  Other popular gospel songs written by Baptists were "Bringing in the Sheaves" and Throw out the Lifeline." (40-41)

What makes this article so interesting is the similarity in the argument against many "contemporary" songs: i.e. simple lyrics put to popular music.  Few would argue that the songs listed above should be removed from the hymnal, but it raises the question of whether newer songs, such as "Shout to the Lord" and others of its style and provenance will make the hymnbooks of the future.  If they do, there is also the question of whether the more traditional element in churches will protest.  Music also pointed out that Baptists have tended to be more open to gospel songs and contemporary songs (although they have kept such old hymns as "All Hail the Power of Jesus' Name" and "When I Survey the Wondrous Cross," while more liturgical denominations have tended toward traditional hymns.  This was definitely an interesting article on a very interesting topic.

I Get to Go to Mankato!

I get to go to Mankato!! I know it sounds too exciting to be true.  Mankato, for those of you who may not be familiar is a city in southern Minnesota.  Back in March, I sent in a paper proposal for the upcoming 2011 edition of the Northern Great Plains History Conference.  I presented at the same conference when it was held in Grand Forks last October.  Last year's presentation was my first ever presentation at a professional history conference.  Some conferences seem to be open only to established historians that already have earned doctorates. The NGPHC, however, is a generalist conference that opens its doors to students.  My paper last year discussed women in the West and the type of work that they did.  The paper was reasonably well-received, which was a major concern, considering it was the first time that I had presented at such a conference (I had so much as sat in on only one conference previous to my presentation, so I was a bit nervous).

These presentations at academic conferences and colloquia are some of the basic expectations for obtaining faculty positions in the field of higher eduction, in addition to actual publications.  Therefore, I sent in my proposal in an attempt to get another line on my CV (a fancy acronym for "curriculum vitae--the hopefully very long academic resume).  In April, I received my official acceptance to the program, which will be held from September 21-24 of this year.  My paper will discuss North Dakota Baptists and their nativist (a fancy word for anti-foreign and anti-Catholic) sentiments, and is tied to the paper that I already posted on this site related to North Dakota Baptists and World War I. 

My presentation is tentatively scheduled for a session on "Religion"--imagine that.  There appears to be only one other paper in this session, which will be on nuns in Southern Black communities during the mid-twentieth century.  These conferences are a great opportunity to get positive feedback on work in progress.  I am hoping to do some more work during the summer to expand this research beyond a single church to see if the conclusions that I reached previously are more widely applicable.  I will post the completed paper on this site after its presentation in September.

Philosophic Considerations--Do They Matter

This past semester, I had the privilege/punishment? of taking a class that discussed the topic of philosophy of history fairly extensively.  I must confess that I actually dreaded having to take the class based upon my slim introduction to the topic of historiography at Marshall University several years ago.  I found that it made my head hurt and wondered what the purpose of the whole topic was.  Who cares how we know what we know?  Who cares how this specific school of thought sees the world? What does it matter to the study of history.  All we need are the facts, right?

Well, this course in historiography, while some of the concepts actually did in a way make my head hurt, was, in fact, definitely worth the time (most weeks anyway).  I must confess that some of the books not only made my head hurt, but they also left me terribly confused.  My reading of Michel Foucault's The Archaeology of Knowledge especially left quite a bit to be desired.  I found his work quite obscure and difficult, and that probably skewed my opinion of the book.  This was not the only book that I had a problem getting through from a strict reading standpoint (gender and postcolonial studies were outside my comfort zone, as well), but I must confess that most of the in-class discussions definitely raised some interesting questions as to the philosophy of history.

I am not terribly concerned with questions of historical epistemology (i.e. how we know what we know about the past).  A somewhat existentialist standpoint can explain that.  For example, I know that I have a past.  Therefore, I can assume from my experience, that my father remembers his past (which he can talk about at length).  If his father were still around, he may be able to remember his past.  People in the past wrote down or left other sorts of traces (i.e. archaeological evidence) that represent fragments of past occurrences.  Therefore, I don't question my existence, nor do I question the existence of the past.  Frankly, I don't really have much patience for those who seriously engage in such speculations for long.

However, the idea of philosophy and history combined do bring up interesting questions.  Is there one unified history that humans can truly understand, or are our understandings necessarily limited by 1. our evidence and 2. our perspective?  I am not falling into the trap of moral relativism here.  I do believe that there are certain moral absolutes that are either right or wrong for all people in all places in all times.  For example, killing a human being on purpose for no good reason is always wrong (there is, of course, the argument for self-defense and/or just warfare).  However, there are certain "gray areas" in which our cultural and/or intellectual background can influence our interpretation.  The question is, how much do our backgrounds influence our understanding of history?  Also, can we get around our context and come to a better understanding of the past?  I believe that these questions are of importance even, possibly especially, when studying the topic of church history.  These will be considerations for future posts.  I would be interested in any input on the subject.

Website of Interest--Church History

From time to time, I check out what is out there on the web in relation to church history.  One such site is located on the Christianity Today website.  Christianity Today is an evangelical magazine that includes many differing articles on topics that may be of concern to evangelical Christians living in today's society.  Many of the articles focus upon current events and movements in the world of Christianity.  There are also links to articles and blogs on topics such as politics and entertainment, written from a Christian viewpoint.  There is even a book review section, that discusses numerous recent books.  After a brief perusal of the "Books and Culture" page, one of the more influential Christian historian's name, Mark Noll, appeared with a review.  Readers can glean much information from these pages on the Christianity Today site.

All of these topics are worth investigating, and they provide useful information from an evangelical viewpoint.  However, the blogs mentioned were not the specific reason for this post.  Christianity Today's website includes a page devoted entirely to church history, which includes such topics as "Today in Christian History" and a quote for each week.  These particular links can provide readers with an opportunity to scratch the itch for some random facts on church history.  At times, these seemingly random facts can encourage readers to be faithful in their journey of following Christ.  The website is available at this link: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/.  I would point out that the information on this website includes information on a wide variety of Christian traditions and that not all of the subjects of discussion are evangelical in nature.  Finally, while the website is not by any means focused entirely upon American church history, there is much that will interest those with an interest in that specific sub-field of inquiry.

Church Music in the Eighteenth Century

To many Christians today, one of the more controversial topics of discussion can be what type of music gets sung in church on Sunday.  Some act like this is a new controversy that just began in the last thirty to forty years with the advent of "Christian Rock".  However, this is definitely not the case.  The type of music sung in church has been a controversial subject for at least the last 300 years.  This may seem confusing to some readers because they think only hymns were in existence at this early date.  Actually, the controversy involved hymns.

In the last few years, I have read two scholarly biographies on Jonathan Edwards, who is far from being considered one of the most liberal theologians in American history.  In both of these biographies, one by George M. Marsden, titled Jonathan Edwards: A Life, and another that I recently reviewed on this page titled Jonathan Edwards and the Ministry of the Word, written by Douglas A. Sweeney (http://americanchurchhistory.blogspot.com/2011/05/what-im-reading-jonathan-edwards-and.html), a topic that both writers discussed was the relationship of music to the church.

Most Puritans in Edwards' day believed that parishioners should only sing Psalms in church.  These very conservative Puritans considered the singing of any music other than Psalms (yes, they would announce the 23rd Psalm as the day's selection) a very controversial and almost scandalous act.  Edwards received quite the reputation among many old-line ministers for singing Isaac Watts hymns in church.  For those who may be unfamiliar with the name of Isaac Watts, Watts was a hymn writer who wrote and published such hymns as "When I Survey the Wondrous Cross" and "Alas, and Did My Savior Bleed" (without the 'At the cross, At the cross, where I first saw the light...' refrain, which was added nearly 200 years later).  Few Christians of any denomination would have a problem singing these songs in church today, but in the eighteenth century, they were considered inappropriate for worship.  The focus of the service, even the music focused on the Word, hence the singing of Psalms. 

I personally find this a very interesting topic.  I know of some Christians who believe that only hymns should be sung in church, but very few who want to sing the Psalms.  I also know of many who sing songs that are more contemporary.  This evidence from the 1700s almost makes one wonder what songs people will argue about in another 300 years if Jesus hasn't returned by that point.

Summer Gig--Internship

As of last Friday night, when I turned in the final grades from my section of "The United States since 1877" my first year as a doctoral student officially came to an end.  I really enjoyed being a full-time student again, and also enjoyed the opportunity to teach a college class on a college campus.  My assistantship ended with the semester, however, and I was left with the question of what to do with the summer.  While I am not against working at Wal-mart or some other similar job (I've worked in both the fast food and grocery industries in my day),  I wanted something that would be beneficial to my academic and career goals.

I found the perfect job, an internship with the Theodore Roosevelt digital library, which actually has North Dakota ties because of Roosevelt's time in Dakota Territory.  The first presidential library was set up for Herbert Hoover.  TR's second term ended about twenty years before Hoover's lone term began.  Therefore, there is no presidential library for Roosevelt.  One really cool thing about this job is that I get to read all sorts of old documents on all sorts of (sometimes) random topics related to one of my favorite presidents.  As an aspiring historian, this is the type of work that provides ammo for articles and, hopefully, books.  Regardless of whether any publications come from this work, it nonetheless provides a great learning experience and helps me understand more about one of the past eras that I find especially interesting.

One of the topics that I have already had an opportunity to notice is religion.  Various correspondents have discussed Catholicism, Methodism, and Protestantism in their letters and other communications with the Progressive Era president.  One of the interesting letters mentioned Protestantism and Americanism in the same context (actually the same phrase of the same sentence).  Some of my previous reading and research shows that many Americans from this era viewed the terms nearly synonymously.  I am only in the first week of this job, and I've already seen several of these interesting notes.  I'm hoping to see many more since my major research project is going to focus upon Progressive/World War I era Christianity. 

What I'm Reading--Jonathan Edwards and the Ministry of the Word

I recently finished reading (again) a short work on the Northampton minister of Great Awakening fame, Jonathan Edwards.  Jonathan Edwards and the Ministry of the Word is a good introductory biography of this famous minister.  In writing it, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School professor Douglas A. Sweeney attempted to provide an accessible biography that focused upon the importance of the Bible in the life of Edwards.  In general, he succeeded on both accounts.

Sweeney's work definitely emphasizes the importance of the written word, in general, and the Bible, in particular, on Puritan life in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.  The author began this work with a background of New England society and how it differs from our modern twenty-first century world.  Jonathan Edwards and the Ministry of the Word generally followed a narrative structure and traced the important events in the life of Edwards from his birth to his death.  The Congregational divine has often been called the greatest theologian in American history, and Sweeney focused a chapter on four works that Edwards wrote after his dismissal from his pastorate in Northampton, Massachusetts.  This chapter was a bit awkward as to its position in the book, serving as a bit of a parenthesis between the Northampton and Stockbridge chapters of Edwards' life.  Some of the theological issues dealt with in this chapter, titled "With All Thy Mind", could be somewhat tough sledding to those uninitiated to theological terminology. 

Sweeney pointed out a glaring weakness in Edwards' life--his racial understanding of the world.  The minister owned several slaves during his life, and Sweeney referred to Edwards as "something of a racist" (180) in his dealings with Indians as a cross-cultural missionary.  The author did not attempt to minimize these character flaws, but used them to point out the sinfulness of humanity. 

This work could have been slightly better with a greater explanation of the Half-way Covenant as background for the ouster of Edwards in Northampton.  It is easy to view the issue over communion as a local issue without more background information.  Rather, this controversy enveloped much of New England around the time of the Great Awakening.  Sweeney utilized published primary sources on the life of Edwards in the compilation of his text.  His work is a very good introduction to the life of Edwards, one of the more influential Christian thinkers in American history.