The Facebook and other sites on the interwebs, including one as prominent as MSN's homepage, had a history book in the news yesterday. This is quite unusual. What is even more unusual is the fact that the "history" book was written by a Christian author.
The book was David Barton's recent tome The Jefferson Lies. There is no link because the book has been pulled from shelves by Thomas Nelson Publishers. Barton is famous for his support among such famous Republican leaders as Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann, and Mike Huckabee. These three have each made a run at the White House in the past two terms. Barton attempts to illuminate the Christian roots of American government for the masses. Liberals have derided him. Gingrich says he learns something new every time he hears Barton speak. Huckabee said that all Americans should be forced to listen to Barton.
Barton has frequently accused liberal historians of trying to hide the religious nature of the founding fathers. I've argued on this site multiple times that some of the founding fathers were devout Christians. Most historians would agree with that assessment. Barton goes a bit too far. In The Jefferson Lies, he attempted to paint the third President, Thomas Jefferson, as an orthodox Christian. There was no surprise that he got nailed on this by secular historians. The surprise was the number of Christian historians, some of whom are conservative evangelicals, who joined in the parade of critics. Christian authors such as Thomas Kidd at World Mag and Napp Nazworth at the Christian Post noted the affair, as did left-leaning publications such as Mother Jones. The news was everywhere.
Nelson pulled the book because of questions about its accuracy in dealing with the facts. Just about any person with a casual interest in American history knows that Jefferson was anything but orthodox in his beliefs. The whole letter from the Danbury Baptists to Jefferson arose because many people in Jefferson's day believed he was an atheist, and the Baptist Association wanted clarification that they would not be persecuted. These fears would not have been prevalent if he had been an outspoken God-fearing man. Barton's webiste at Wallbuilders tried to deal with the accusations. A scathing critique by Warren Throckmorton and Michael Coulter is dismissed because it disagreed with Barton's philosophy on American exceptionalism and these professors quoted "a number of liberal professors to prove that American Exceptionalism is a bad thing, not something good. So from the start, these two make clear that they object to the philosophy I set forth..." He also accused them of jealousy because academic books don't sell as well as popular history.
Some popular history sells quite well. Barton has sold many books. He mentions David McCullough in his attempt at refuting his critics as a popular historian. I've read many of McCullough's works. Most are not ground-breaking in interpretation. They are, however, quite good as a form of narrative history. I've thoroughly enjoyed books like The Johnstown Flood, John Adams, and 1776. Some historians may criticize McCullough for synthesizing the hard work of academic historians, but I've never heard him criticized for misusing evidence in the way that Barton is accused of distorting it. Historical interpretations vary. This is widely accepted. They can be debated. Arguments that go against clear facts, such as the idea that Jefferson was pretty much orthodox is not acceptable, nor should it be.
I will clearly state that I am an evangelical. Most outside the fold would consider my religious beliefs pretty conservative. However, as an aspiring historian, I find it troubling that people would fabricate a story and try to pass it off something other than historical fiction in the name of Jesus. Christ claimed to by the way, the truth, and the life. If he is truth, his followers should seek out the truth, wherever that truth may lead, even if it leads to answers we don't like. While historical knowledge is a sort of provisional truth, there is a truth out there. To fabricate "knowledge" for political gain is not Christ-like. To think that all of these years that I've heard about liberals and their attempt at revisionist history, one within the fold is one of the worst offenders.
Please note: I do realize the need for revisionist history. Sometimes, new evidence is available that leads to new knowledge and new interpretations. Other times, interpretations are not exactly adequate and need to be expanded or totally revised. American history and American church history are not one and the same. This fact does not hurt my faith, nor should it hurt that of any other American Christian. Making up an interpretation that doesn't hold up to the evidence does not reflect good on Christ or Christians, however.
Showing posts with label Thomas Jefferson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Thomas Jefferson. Show all posts
04 July 2012
Today Is July 4--Founding Fathers and Thoughts on Theological Liberalism
Well, it's another July 4, where many people will celebrate the Declaration of Independence from Great Britain. Of course, declaring independence and actually winning it are two different things. Perhaps we should actually celebrate the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1783 as our official independence day. That's not as fun, though, because it took far less in terms of guts.
There is frequently a debate over whether or not the founding fathers of the nation were all evangelicals or all Deists. I've argued before that it's difficult to lump the founding fathers into one easy group. There were founding fathers from both groups. The link above is a post from last your that discusses a bit about John Witherspoon, a minister who signed the Declaration of Independence. Baylor professor Thomas Kidd wrote about the top five forgotten evangelical founders this week. The good thing about his posts are that they are actually scholarly and written by an expert in early American religious history, unlike some other "experts" that try even Thomas Jefferson out to be an evangelical, rather than the Deist he actually was. People who study American church history should not just cherry pick documents that seem to argue what they want. It's important to look at a person's entire body of work.
Another post this week that interested me was a discussion about historians of liberal Protestantism, which deals with the twentieth century. There is quite a bit about evangelical religion in this period. My own work deals with the subject of evangelical history. The question arises why there are not as many historians of liberal Protestants. A definition is in order, liberal Protestants tend to be liberal in the theological sense. While they frequently have liberal leanings in a political sense, the major emphasis is theological liberalism, at least as far as I understand.
Perhaps the answer to this question is the fact that theologically liberal Protestants are much less influential in American society because they are a shrinking demographic in society. Some evangelical denominations have lost members and there is a growing number of non-religious people in America today, but these losses are nothing when compared to the influence that the mainline denominations once had in American society.
Much of this could probably be explained because of the non-supernatural bent of these liberal Protestants. For example, if Jesus was just another man who had a special spark of the divine, there's not much to differentiate him from the descriptions that other religions have of their founders. If he actually resurrected from the dead and was God and man as the New Testament describes, on the other hand, then Christianity holds infinitely more importance. I think this difference is the reason for much of the decline of liberal Protestantism. If Jesus isn't really who the Bible claims, why not just become a hedonist and skip church?
There is frequently a debate over whether or not the founding fathers of the nation were all evangelicals or all Deists. I've argued before that it's difficult to lump the founding fathers into one easy group. There were founding fathers from both groups. The link above is a post from last your that discusses a bit about John Witherspoon, a minister who signed the Declaration of Independence. Baylor professor Thomas Kidd wrote about the top five forgotten evangelical founders this week. The good thing about his posts are that they are actually scholarly and written by an expert in early American religious history, unlike some other "experts" that try even Thomas Jefferson out to be an evangelical, rather than the Deist he actually was. People who study American church history should not just cherry pick documents that seem to argue what they want. It's important to look at a person's entire body of work.
Another post this week that interested me was a discussion about historians of liberal Protestantism, which deals with the twentieth century. There is quite a bit about evangelical religion in this period. My own work deals with the subject of evangelical history. The question arises why there are not as many historians of liberal Protestants. A definition is in order, liberal Protestants tend to be liberal in the theological sense. While they frequently have liberal leanings in a political sense, the major emphasis is theological liberalism, at least as far as I understand.
Perhaps the answer to this question is the fact that theologically liberal Protestants are much less influential in American society because they are a shrinking demographic in society. Some evangelical denominations have lost members and there is a growing number of non-religious people in America today, but these losses are nothing when compared to the influence that the mainline denominations once had in American society.
Much of this could probably be explained because of the non-supernatural bent of these liberal Protestants. For example, if Jesus was just another man who had a special spark of the divine, there's not much to differentiate him from the descriptions that other religions have of their founders. If he actually resurrected from the dead and was God and man as the New Testament describes, on the other hand, then Christianity holds infinitely more importance. I think this difference is the reason for much of the decline of liberal Protestantism. If Jesus isn't really who the Bible claims, why not just become a hedonist and skip church?
21 June 2012
Thoughts on Teaching Early American History
Before I get into the meat of this post, here's an interesting post by Baylor history professor Thomas Kidd on Obama, Romney, and Evangelical voters. It asks whether politics trumps theology in the presidential election. Personally, I wonder how much trumps theology in everyday American life, but that's another story altogether. Politics is only one area of discussion in this realm.
It appears that I will again be teaching a section of the US to 1877. Some of the course must, of course talk about American church history, but this is not the only major topic for discussion. There is also ideology, politics, race relations, gender relations, economics, as well as a mixture of all the above.
I try to take a middle-of-the road position when teaching history. Some historians focus on the political and military (I don't do many battles in my class, to the consternation of some, but I love the reasons for and consequences of wars). Others focus on what is known as social history, or history from below. This type of history looks at the indentured servant, the slave, the domestic helper, and the yeoman farmer. I try to look at both, because I don't think focusing entirely upon one or the other truly gives a complete picture of the past (if such a picture is possible in the first place--it isn't, but looking at all angles gives a better picture of the past).
When teaching American history, I am increasingly frustrated by American history texts for a couple of reasons. There is frequently little on pre-Columbian native cultures, and there is little on the Europe that builds up to the Age of Exploration. It is almost as if there were a few Indians here, with the exception of the Inca and Aztecs and that the Europeans were just out searching for gold.
The fact is, neither is true. There were massively important Indian cultures in North America that had integrated trade networks with other native peoples. Some were quite successful and more advanced than some Europeans. Also, there were huge religious conflicts that led to exploration--Christians (Catholic and Protestant) wanting to avoid Muslim middlemen, and both groups wanting to claim souls and gold before the other could. The rivalry was especially intense between Spain and England. I feel the need to cover these topics extensively.
In fact, I spend much of the first half of class in Europe, because it affected so much of what happened in America. Many Americans tend to think that the Bill of Rights was something thought up by the founding fathers. Now, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, and Hamilton were smart guys, but they merely built upon ideas prevalent in England and other European nations. Discussing all of these issues makes it very hard to get to 1877--but I shall try.
It appears that I will again be teaching a section of the US to 1877. Some of the course must, of course talk about American church history, but this is not the only major topic for discussion. There is also ideology, politics, race relations, gender relations, economics, as well as a mixture of all the above.
I try to take a middle-of-the road position when teaching history. Some historians focus on the political and military (I don't do many battles in my class, to the consternation of some, but I love the reasons for and consequences of wars). Others focus on what is known as social history, or history from below. This type of history looks at the indentured servant, the slave, the domestic helper, and the yeoman farmer. I try to look at both, because I don't think focusing entirely upon one or the other truly gives a complete picture of the past (if such a picture is possible in the first place--it isn't, but looking at all angles gives a better picture of the past).
 |
| TJ--Thomas Jefferson |
The fact is, neither is true. There were massively important Indian cultures in North America that had integrated trade networks with other native peoples. Some were quite successful and more advanced than some Europeans. Also, there were huge religious conflicts that led to exploration--Christians (Catholic and Protestant) wanting to avoid Muslim middlemen, and both groups wanting to claim souls and gold before the other could. The rivalry was especially intense between Spain and England. I feel the need to cover these topics extensively.
In fact, I spend much of the first half of class in Europe, because it affected so much of what happened in America. Many Americans tend to think that the Bill of Rights was something thought up by the founding fathers. Now, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, and Hamilton were smart guys, but they merely built upon ideas prevalent in England and other European nations. Discussing all of these issues makes it very hard to get to 1877--but I shall try.
30 January 2012
The Founding Fathers and Christianity
One of the blogs that I frequently check out as a student of American church history is the the Religion in American History Blog. Today, there was a really interesting interview regarding the religious beliefs of Patrick Henry and other founding fathers.
Baylor University professor Thomas Kidd wrote a book on Henry, and is the interviewee in this particular post. He brings up a very important point that people often ignore. Many people today look at the founding fathers as men of great faith and claim that most of them were fervent evangelicals. This is simply not the case. The other extreme is false, as well. People on the other side of the argument try to claim that almost all of the founding fathers were deists like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. Both sides of the argument have ulterior motives in trying to sell their position, but they are both wrong at the end of the day. It is safe to say that just about all of the founders were profoundly impacted by the Judeo-Christian belief system, but actual beliefs varied widely. For a previous post on this part of American church history, look here.
One important thing to point out about these people with widely differing beliefs is that they nevertheless came together for a common cause. Then again, it was only a few years before the niceties wore off. We haven't come very far in that regard over 200 years.
Baylor University professor Thomas Kidd wrote a book on Henry, and is the interviewee in this particular post. He brings up a very important point that people often ignore. Many people today look at the founding fathers as men of great faith and claim that most of them were fervent evangelicals. This is simply not the case. The other extreme is false, as well. People on the other side of the argument try to claim that almost all of the founding fathers were deists like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. Both sides of the argument have ulterior motives in trying to sell their position, but they are both wrong at the end of the day. It is safe to say that just about all of the founders were profoundly impacted by the Judeo-Christian belief system, but actual beliefs varied widely. For a previous post on this part of American church history, look here.
One important thing to point out about these people with widely differing beliefs is that they nevertheless came together for a common cause. Then again, it was only a few years before the niceties wore off. We haven't come very far in that regard over 200 years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)