Before I get into the main part of the post, I got information from the professor who was influential in editing my book that an older lady in California who grew up in Grand Forks visited this summer and was heartbroken to see that church had been torn down. She contacted Dr. Caraher and he sent her a copy of my book. I thought it was pretty cool to see that some work that I had done actually had a personal benefit to people. Here is the story as relayed on the New Archaeology of the Mediterranean World blog.
I've been reading quite a bit on Gilded Age and Progressive Era religion in America. This is part of an independent study that I'm doing to prepare a historiographical essay on the period for my doctoral project/dissertation. I'm not really much into gender history, and any jobs that want an expert in that field are quickly ignored in my search for post-doctoral employment. However, I've read a couple of books this week that were pretty interesting on the subject, Clifford Putney's Muscular Christianity and Margaret Lamberts Bendroth's Fundamentalism and Gender, 1875 to the Present. The first focused mainly upon mainline churches, while the latter emphasized the more conservative branch of Christianity.
I personally found them both quite interesting in spite of my general aversion to reading gender histories. I especially found Bendroth's account a bit more interesting, given my personal background. One thing that I found a bit interesting was the ease with which women tended to operate in fundamentalist churches, given the goal of muscular Christianity held out by the mainline.
In other words, a picture appears in which the fundamentalist churches were actually more liberal for a time when it came to allowing women to preach and be evangelists. The proclamation of the message was more important than the messenger to these people. Even such such stalwart fundamentalist institutions as Moody Bible Institute and William Bell Riley's Northwestern College allowed women to study for the ministry, and Riley even personally endorsed traveling women evangelists. This liberality was quite surprising given the current reversal of attitudes on gender in which mainline liberals have no problem with women preachers and conservatives hold more to the view of John R. Rice, who wrote a book titled Bobbed Hair, Bossy Wives, and Women Preachers, that supported the Victorian ideal of a woman. Liberals who were afraid of the feminization of churches in the late Victorian age called for more adherence to the strenuous life and downplayed women's activity in churches. These books were actually a welcome respite from reading nearly exclusively about the Social Gospel.
Showing posts with label Fundamentalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fundamentalism. Show all posts
03 November 2012
19 August 2011
So Long to Summer, or, What I Did for My Summer Vacation
It is about that time of year at which most children groan and which most parents cheer with unrestrained joy. The first day of school has already occurred or is about to occur. I have had bittersweet feelings about this time of year for the last few years. As I started back at my job as a teacher, I was usually excited to start the new year. Last year, I was excited to be a full-time student for the first time since 1997 (even though I have some part-time side gigs to support myself in addition to my work as a GTA). This fall, I may actually get to slow down a bit after a whirlwind of a summer. Alas, it's back to school for me next week.
While I look back at the summer and wonder where it's gone, I did accomplish quite a bit, and hope to accomplish more by the time Tuesday morning rolls around.
As I wrote in a post earlier this summer about my summer gig, I've been doing some work for the Theodore Roosevelt Center's digital library. I'm wrapping that up through this month. It's been a pretty interesting learning experience. I'll have a post up on their blog in a few days.
I also had the opportunity to teach English for a week with a group from my church. That provided most of the photos that I've been posting in the last couple of weeks.
I started this blog the week before classes ended in May
From an academic standpoint, I've been able to accomplish a few things, although not nearly as much as I wanted. I had hoped to get some extensive reading done toward my comprehensive exams that I plan to take in the Spring. Well...that didn't exactly happen. On a positive note, I had entries accepted on "American Exceptionalism" and "Fundamentalism" for an Encyclopedia on American Politics and Religion that should come out in 2013 if the Mayans are off on their calculations. I also submitted a book review that I hope will come out shortly, for which I will provide a link as soon as it comes up. Finally, I plan to revise my paper for the 2013 Northern Great Plains History Conference--hopefully before Tuesday.
And then...it's back to the grind of life as a doctoral student.
While I look back at the summer and wonder where it's gone, I did accomplish quite a bit, and hope to accomplish more by the time Tuesday morning rolls around.
As I wrote in a post earlier this summer about my summer gig, I've been doing some work for the Theodore Roosevelt Center's digital library. I'm wrapping that up through this month. It's been a pretty interesting learning experience. I'll have a post up on their blog in a few days.
I also had the opportunity to teach English for a week with a group from my church. That provided most of the photos that I've been posting in the last couple of weeks.
I started this blog the week before classes ended in May
From an academic standpoint, I've been able to accomplish a few things, although not nearly as much as I wanted. I had hoped to get some extensive reading done toward my comprehensive exams that I plan to take in the Spring. Well...that didn't exactly happen. On a positive note, I had entries accepted on "American Exceptionalism" and "Fundamentalism" for an Encyclopedia on American Politics and Religion that should come out in 2013 if the Mayans are off on their calculations. I also submitted a book review that I hope will come out shortly, for which I will provide a link as soon as it comes up. Finally, I plan to revise my paper for the 2013 Northern Great Plains History Conference--hopefully before Tuesday.
And then...it's back to the grind of life as a doctoral student.
02 June 2011
Free Resource for Finding Recent Literature on Church History
While recently reading The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship by George Marsden, the book made me aware of an attempt by evangelical scholars to get together for learning and encouragement. Some evangelical scholars formed an organization known as the Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals. Wheaton College houses the Institute and hosts its website. The leadership of this organization includes some heavy hitters in the field of evangelical/fundamentalist history such as Marsden himself and Mark Noll to name a couple, so it is by no means a group of dubious scholarship.
The activities of the Institute include the holding of regional symposiums and national conferences on topics of interest to evangelical historians. The website includes short biographical information on some of the leading figures in evangelical and fundamentalist history--including theologians, pastors, evangelists, and song writers. Of particular interest to readers interested in some of the more recent scholarship on American evangelicals is the quarterly publication, the Evangelical Studies Bulletin. The Bulletin includes a listing of recent dissertations, scholarly articles, and books on topics of interest to the Institute's constituency. This particular newsletter is published on a quarterly basis, and the most recent editions are not made available for download immediately. However, the Spring 2010 edition is already available for download in a PDF format for the general public's perusal.
There are a number of free tools available on the internet that are beneficial for those studying church history. I hope to inform others of these sites as I run across them. If any readers have any sites that they know of, feel free to let me know, and I will pass them on.
The activities of the Institute include the holding of regional symposiums and national conferences on topics of interest to evangelical historians. The website includes short biographical information on some of the leading figures in evangelical and fundamentalist history--including theologians, pastors, evangelists, and song writers. Of particular interest to readers interested in some of the more recent scholarship on American evangelicals is the quarterly publication, the Evangelical Studies Bulletin. The Bulletin includes a listing of recent dissertations, scholarly articles, and books on topics of interest to the Institute's constituency. This particular newsletter is published on a quarterly basis, and the most recent editions are not made available for download immediately. However, the Spring 2010 edition is already available for download in a PDF format for the general public's perusal.
There are a number of free tools available on the internet that are beneficial for those studying church history. I hope to inform others of these sites as I run across them. If any readers have any sites that they know of, feel free to let me know, and I will pass them on.
15 May 2011
Latest Edition of Fides et Historia
The latest edition of Fides et Historia, the journal of the Conference on Faith and History came out last week. I found it quite interesting that the title of the first article was "The (Worst) Year of the Evangelical: 1926 and the Demise of American Fundamentalism." The title itself was not so much what interested me, but rather the topic, since I just sent in the first draft of an encyclopedia article on "fundamentalism." The president of the society, Barry Hankins (history professor at Baylor), pointed out three events that failed to put fundamentalists in a good light in 1926. The first was the Scopes Monkey Trial, although Hankins pointed out that the outcome of the trial was not originally looked at as a defeat for fundamentalists.
Hankins argued that it was not until the next decade that some began to look at the Scopes Monkey Trial as a contribution to the downfall of fundamentalism--although the movement did not really die out. The general public understanding of the trial now comes not from the trial itself, but rather from a theatrical presentation very loosely based upon the trial titled Inherit the Wind, which is about as far from true history as one can get. This movie did not come out until the 1960, but has done much to stigmatize fundamentalism. In all actuality, the prosecution won the case. According to Hankins, contemporary accounts tended to point out that the people of Dayton, Tennessee, were quite hospitable (not the country bumpkins as portrayed), and William Jennings Bryan intended to continue his anti-evolution work (rather than being totally defeated as portrayed in the movie). Even a review for Time believed the movie biased.
The other two events cannot be looked at in the same light however. The other two events highlighted in this article (taken from the author's presidential address at the society's biannual meeting) were the "abduction" of Amiee Semple McPherson and the murder trial of J. Frank Norris. The former was a very strange episode that almost led to a trial, and the latter led to a Norris acquittal by means of self defense. The main argument of the article was that certain events can tend to stigmatize a group in the public opinion. As examples of stigma, Hankins used Munster, the Salem Witch Trials, and Waco (no further explanation needed on the last one--one word suffices).
In any event, even though many thought fundamentalism was dead in the 1930s, it actually thrived and made a comeback, although some fundamentalists came to call themselves evangelicals. The comeback was so strong that 1976 was called the "year of the evangelical." The election of professed born-again Christian Jimmy Carter contributed to this claim. Far from being dead, the fundamentalists and evangelicals continue to impact American society in spite of some popular misconceptions of the movement.
Hankins argued that it was not until the next decade that some began to look at the Scopes Monkey Trial as a contribution to the downfall of fundamentalism--although the movement did not really die out. The general public understanding of the trial now comes not from the trial itself, but rather from a theatrical presentation very loosely based upon the trial titled Inherit the Wind, which is about as far from true history as one can get. This movie did not come out until the 1960, but has done much to stigmatize fundamentalism. In all actuality, the prosecution won the case. According to Hankins, contemporary accounts tended to point out that the people of Dayton, Tennessee, were quite hospitable (not the country bumpkins as portrayed), and William Jennings Bryan intended to continue his anti-evolution work (rather than being totally defeated as portrayed in the movie). Even a review for Time believed the movie biased.
The other two events cannot be looked at in the same light however. The other two events highlighted in this article (taken from the author's presidential address at the society's biannual meeting) were the "abduction" of Amiee Semple McPherson and the murder trial of J. Frank Norris. The former was a very strange episode that almost led to a trial, and the latter led to a Norris acquittal by means of self defense. The main argument of the article was that certain events can tend to stigmatize a group in the public opinion. As examples of stigma, Hankins used Munster, the Salem Witch Trials, and Waco (no further explanation needed on the last one--one word suffices).
In any event, even though many thought fundamentalism was dead in the 1930s, it actually thrived and made a comeback, although some fundamentalists came to call themselves evangelicals. The comeback was so strong that 1976 was called the "year of the evangelical." The election of professed born-again Christian Jimmy Carter contributed to this claim. Far from being dead, the fundamentalists and evangelicals continue to impact American society in spite of some popular misconceptions of the movement.
08 May 2011
What I'm Reading--Fundamentalism and American Culture
In preparation for the writing of an entry on fundamentalism for an upcoming encyclopedia, I am in the process of reading some scholarly work on the topic. One of the most influential scholarly works on this topic is Fundamentalism and American Culture by George Marsden. I figured that Marsden, a very influential historian of American Christianity would be not be a terribly antagonistic source. Marsden has been a professor of history at both Calvin College and Notre Dame and has published widely. Neither his scholarly credentials nor his Christian profession are really in question. One of his works is titled The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship,which questions the "lack of a spiritual center" in universities today. I had previously read a fairly lengthy biography that he published on Jonathan Edwards, and found it quite interesting.
In his preface, Marsden pointed out that he "attempted to assume a stance of detachment and to avoid using history for partisan debate," and that "this study represents a definite point of view and set of interests...This is an essay in distinctly Christian scholarship, an attempt to present a careful, honest, and critical evaluation not far from my own." (ix) His first edition, published in 1980, largely preceded the impact of the religious right in American politics, but the second edition, published in 2006, included a new section that discussed this development.
Marsden's account is more fair-minded than most caricatures of fundamentalism that are often put forth. He argues that fundamentalists were not necessarily anti-scientific, nor were they necessarily against culture per se, although some of the later fundamentalists tended to those positions. The scientific understanding of the intellectual fundamentalists, such as J. Gresham Machen of Princeton Theological Seminary (a thoroughly orthdox thinker), was closely tied to a Baconian and Scottish Common Sense view of science. In other words, the speculation of Darwin did not hold up to the observational component of science and, therefore, did not qualify as true science. The theological compromises of modernism were a big problem to the fundamentalists. The arguments over the supernatural aspects of the Bible and the extent of its own inspiration (was it written by God and innerant or was it written by men and fallible) were the main areas of conflict. Traditional fundamentalists, which rose from the evangelical, revivalist, and later premillenial traditions of the nineteenth century, believed (in my worldview, rightly) that modernism and Christianity were two completely different belief systems.
Some of the more interesting topics that came up in the book, more from some research interests that I have, were the idea of Americanism and reform. Some of the conservative fundamentalists were for labor unions, for better wages and better living conditions, and against child labor in the Gilded Age, when social Darwinism and the idea of the survival of the fittest tended to frown on such help for the poor. Conservative (theologically-speaking) evangelicals only abandoned this concern after the advent of the Social Gospel among modernist/(theologically) liberal ministers that focused only upon social ills at the expense of conversion of the soul. It was also interesting that fundamentalists were considered less-than-patriotic by some of their liberal counterparts during the Great War for their tendency toward ambivalence about American involvement in the war (before the US actually joined). Their concern was more involved with the return of Christ, which they expected at any minute. Fundamentalist patriotism increased greatly during the first Red Scare after the war, and it viewed modernism, Darwinism, and Bolshevism as threats to Christian (i.e. American) civilization.
Marsden's book tended to be fairly unpolemical on either side of the issue, and provided some hypotheses, drawn from writers such as Sandeen and Hofstadter, as to why fundamentalism arose as it did. He pointed out that one of the misconceptions of the origins of the movement is the idea that uneducated Southerners founded fundamentalism. Rather, this belief system arose first in the Northern cities, and spread from there. Los Angeles was one of the earlier hotbeds of fundamentalist activity. For those interested in the history of fundamentalism, this is a good scholarly introduction to the concept. However, those who would want a more polemical apologetic may be left a bit disappointed.
In his preface, Marsden pointed out that he "attempted to assume a stance of detachment and to avoid using history for partisan debate," and that "this study represents a definite point of view and set of interests...This is an essay in distinctly Christian scholarship, an attempt to present a careful, honest, and critical evaluation not far from my own." (ix) His first edition, published in 1980, largely preceded the impact of the religious right in American politics, but the second edition, published in 2006, included a new section that discussed this development.
Marsden's account is more fair-minded than most caricatures of fundamentalism that are often put forth. He argues that fundamentalists were not necessarily anti-scientific, nor were they necessarily against culture per se, although some of the later fundamentalists tended to those positions. The scientific understanding of the intellectual fundamentalists, such as J. Gresham Machen of Princeton Theological Seminary (a thoroughly orthdox thinker), was closely tied to a Baconian and Scottish Common Sense view of science. In other words, the speculation of Darwin did not hold up to the observational component of science and, therefore, did not qualify as true science. The theological compromises of modernism were a big problem to the fundamentalists. The arguments over the supernatural aspects of the Bible and the extent of its own inspiration (was it written by God and innerant or was it written by men and fallible) were the main areas of conflict. Traditional fundamentalists, which rose from the evangelical, revivalist, and later premillenial traditions of the nineteenth century, believed (in my worldview, rightly) that modernism and Christianity were two completely different belief systems.
Some of the more interesting topics that came up in the book, more from some research interests that I have, were the idea of Americanism and reform. Some of the conservative fundamentalists were for labor unions, for better wages and better living conditions, and against child labor in the Gilded Age, when social Darwinism and the idea of the survival of the fittest tended to frown on such help for the poor. Conservative (theologically-speaking) evangelicals only abandoned this concern after the advent of the Social Gospel among modernist/(theologically) liberal ministers that focused only upon social ills at the expense of conversion of the soul. It was also interesting that fundamentalists were considered less-than-patriotic by some of their liberal counterparts during the Great War for their tendency toward ambivalence about American involvement in the war (before the US actually joined). Their concern was more involved with the return of Christ, which they expected at any minute. Fundamentalist patriotism increased greatly during the first Red Scare after the war, and it viewed modernism, Darwinism, and Bolshevism as threats to Christian (i.e. American) civilization.
Marsden's book tended to be fairly unpolemical on either side of the issue, and provided some hypotheses, drawn from writers such as Sandeen and Hofstadter, as to why fundamentalism arose as it did. He pointed out that one of the misconceptions of the origins of the movement is the idea that uneducated Southerners founded fundamentalism. Rather, this belief system arose first in the Northern cities, and spread from there. Los Angeles was one of the earlier hotbeds of fundamentalist activity. For those interested in the history of fundamentalism, this is a good scholarly introduction to the concept. However, those who would want a more polemical apologetic may be left a bit disappointed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)