Brad Hart, my co-blogger at American Creation shares with us part of his Master's thesis that he's working on. The idea is to portray the "Christian America" movement as an "imagined community" (after Professor Benedict Anderson's book "Imagined Communities"). Another co-blogger Tom Van Dyke, in the comments, voices his dislike of Hart's thesis. Van Dyke asserts Hart's thesis "rests on the assertion that the Christian nation argument is a discontinuity from American history, a new phenomenon, and as you clearly assert, built on a lie ['rewriting history']."
Van Dyke accurately points out similar arguments have been made for a long time. See for instance Jaspar Adams'. Van Dyke could have added to that the Holy Trinity case (1892), BF Morris' "The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States," and George Washington the Christian. Hell, TVD could have invoked Parson Weems' revisionist account of George Washington.
The problem is the Christian Nation idea is a myth. It was debunked by modern scholars and, since the 1970s, figures like Peter Marshall and David Barton are trying to "reconstruct" what has been "deconstructed." But ultimately the "imagined community" of "Christian America" has very old roots. What might make for an interesting BOOK (certainly too much for a paper) is to trace the origins of the Christian America idea, show when and how it was deconstructed, examine the attempt to "reconstruct" the myth and compare the difference between what was "deconstructed" and what Barton et al. are trying to "reconstruct."
If you listen to Barton et al. speak, modern scholars (PhDs in the academy) are the chief enemy. They are the "revisionists"! Well, no. For the most part (as I see it) they are right and he is wrong. Though they tend to have their own mythical pitfalls as well (i.e., the Founders were a bunch of Deists). The hard truth for those who believe in sacred cows is sometimes/often the debunkers or deconstructors are in the right. There was a brilliant episode of The Simpson's with Donald Sutherland that played this angle up.
As Allan Bloom taught, philosophy itself is about debunking sacred cows. Socrates was guilty as charged.
To illustrate this dynamic, there is a figure named James Renwick Willson, whom scholars mistakenly believe to be Bird Wilson (son of Founder James Wilson) who, in 1831 gave a sermon terming all of the Presidents elected thus far [Washington to Jackson] "infidels" and not more than "unitarians." While I can't speak for the accuracy of Jackson, Rev. Willson was probably right about Washington through JQ Adams. They were not more than "unitarians" and the "orthodox" considered that theology to be a softer form of "infidelity." But it was not the respected Bird Wilson who gave this sermon without controversy (as many scholars mistakenly report). Rather it was the unrespected Calvinist covenanter (folks who disagreed with the US Constitution because it contained no covenant to the Triune God) James Renwick Willson who was burned in effigy for that sermon! But like Socrates and his disbelief in what we now know to be false gods of the Greek City, Willson was right. The people just couldn't handle the truth.
I need not touch upon the controversy whether it's a good thing to debunk mythical sacred cows. The Simpson's episode with Donald Sutherland came down on the Straussian side that it was better for the people of Springfield to believe in the noble lie that Jebidiah Springfield was a true hero and a good man. But the Christian Nation idea has already been buried by scholars. The question, from my end, is whether we support the efforts of Peter Marshall, David Barton et al. to resurrect the myth and to that I say Hell no.
8 comments:
The problem is the Christian Nation idea is a myth. It was debunked by modern scholars
Appeal to authority. Case closed, you win.
Moreover, Jasper Adams' arguments are very solid, and he is not the revisionist Parson Weems. Very bad to lump them together. Bad. Evil.
I didn't intent to appeal to authority. I actually was just calling it as I see it.
What I might agree with you is that what modern scholars have attempted to reconstruct in the ashes of the debunked "Christian Nation" (the post Everson separation world) is every bit as mythical as to what was deconstructed. That's one reason I like the Straussian scholars (of which I would include Dr. Frazer as one). They don't buy into EITHER the Christian Nation OR the post Everson "separation" myths.
Elsewhere you write
The central thesis of the Christian America argument that is easily deconstructed is "it's by virtue of our specific theology [Sola-Scriptura Protestantism] that America's Founding order was created."
Sola scriptura? I know our commenter Our Founding Truth argues that [or does he?]. But does your villain and favorite whipping boy David Barton argue that? I'm not aware of it.
Jasper Adams argues what I would call a Christian nation thesis in 1833. That will do, and has been left unmolested.
As for Brad's thesis, I'll jump out of that kangaroo court over here where there's some air. We have Dominionists, "Soft Dominionists" [whatever they are], Christian nationists, evangelicals and the Moral Majority all congealed into one big neck called an "imagined community" so that Brad can wring it. I really have no idea exactly who's in this "imagined community." I'm sure what he writes applies to someone, perhaps D. James Kennedy's congregation and a few others, but quickly becomes a mishmash as we try to widen the net.
Jon:
Have you read "The Search for Christian America" by Noll, Hatch and Marsden? They address almost everything you mention. An excellent book.
Rowe writes:
The problem is the Christian Nation idea is a myth. It was debunked by modern scholars and, since the 1970s, figures like Peter Marshall and David Barton are trying to "reconstruct" what has been "deconstructed." But ultimately the "imagined community" of "Christian America" has very old roots.
And while I am in complete agreement that the "Christian Nation" argument is a myth, that doesn't exclude it from being an imagined community. Many if not most nations construct their "nation-ness" on falsehoods. Germans were never a pure race, Rome was not built by Romulus and Remus and the United States is not a Christian Nation.
Brad,
Years ago when I was just getting into this debate. As I recall I got it on loan from a library when I lived in NJ. And then when I started studying more seriously I noted how often that book was cited by scholars as authority.
I need to actually buy a copy of it and reread it very carefully. I am aware of most of its arguments based on other sources from them I have read AND how often its arguments are cited by other scholars.
Tom,
That's exactly the impression I get from David Barton. If he doesn't actully come out and say it, he certainly does a good job leaving that impression in the minds of the folks to whom he speaks.
He completely "elides" (to use a term of yours) the natural law nuance that you outlined above in your most recent post.
When he explains quotations that discuss the natural law he'll term it "biblical natural law" and not explain futher, leaving the [mis]impression in the minds of his readers that this simply means what the Bible says period.
OFT is the way he is in large part because of Barton's malign influence.
That's exactly the impression I get from David Barton. If he doesn't actually come out and say it, he certainly does a good job leaving that impression in the minds of the folks to whom he speaks.
Well, if I can reject the "authority" of your consensus of "modern scholars," I can certainly reject David Barton's authority.
Which I do.
Which is all I've ever been saying. Listen to the arguments, track down the original sources instead of believing some "scholar"'s paraphrase, and make up your own damn mind. Do some homework---nobody is going to hand you "truth" on a silver platter.
For crissakes, people, even the Bible takes some homework, and that's supposed to be the word of God Hisself!
Why would you take some scholar's word for anything?
I know you see where I'm going with this, Jon...
Post a Comment