I’d like to know how his position has been misrepresented. Please, Mr. Metaxas enlighten us with passages from your book. John Fea from Messiah College, Tracy McKenzie from Wheaton College and Greg Frazer from The Master’s College all represented you via passages from your book. Here are the passages we relied on.
Friday, July 15, 2016
Throckmorton: "Eric Metaxas Says His History of Religious Liberty Has Been Misrepresented"
Check it out here. A taste:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
Did he ever read any of your reviews?
Did he ever read any of your reviews?
Throckmorton accosted me on Twitter about my review of his review.
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2016/07/throckmorton-vs-metaxas-physician-heal.html
Once again, in his haste to attack his ideological enemy, Throckmorton ignores Metaxas's reason for writing the book, which is an exhortation for the return of faith and virtue in America and a necessary connection between the two.
Yes, Metaxas overdid religious liberty and tolerance among the Pilgrims. But that is not the main thrust of the book.
Nor do I think Metaxas has much to gain by crawling in the mud with hostile interlocutors like Throckmorton, who are clearly not interested in Metaxas's actual message, only in catching him in error and discrediting him.
I'm reminded that Norman Finkelstein calls himself a 'forensic scholar'. He's never produced any works of political theory since he finished his dissertation (in 1987), never worked in other departments of political science (e.g. American domestic politics, international relations, or comparative politics); never had the language skills to pass himself off as an areal specialist. Instead, he attacks other people's books and (he's admitted it) gets his assignments from ... Noam Chomsky.
The trajectory which runs from Dwight Eisenhower and Thos. Dewey to Donald Trump and from Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson to HRC is an unedifying one, to be sure.
” Nor do I think Metaxas has much to gain by crawling in the mud with hostile interlocutors like Throckmorton, who are clearly not interested in Metaxas's actual message, only in catching him in error and discrediting him.”
You constantly frame the issue as accursed liberal attacks against ideological enemies when the issue is an attempt to provide accurate information to potential readers and reviewers so that they, the users, can make an informed evaluation.
The reader, presumably Christian, but not necessarily, may not want to consume lies and errors – the supporting arguments, the premises – that they would otherwise have no viable way to assess if not for the Feas and Throckmortons, et al. And, consequently, they would be deprived of the ability to accurately assess the value of the overall thesis. If the premises fail, the thesis is unsupported and fails.
Your penchant to excuse these abuses is tantamount to giving a pass to what amounts to propaganda or, as you put it, the message.
TVD:
Nor do I think Metaxas has much to gain by crawling in the mud with hostile interlocutors like Throckmorton, who are clearly not interested in Metaxas's actual message, only in catching him in error and discrediting him.>>>>
Metaxas does not have anything to gain by paying attention to Throckmorton.
Throckmorton is not taken very seriously in the greater Evangelical community. He is virtually unknown.
Metaxas is well known and taken seriously by many. In fact, he is respected by many Christian groups. Veggie Tales is loved by just about everyone. His book on Bonhoeffer is often quoted. He has no personal scandals to beat him up about.
Maybe Throckmorton can say he is trying to fight against the Evangelical industrial complex. That might get him some traction.
That might be his real target anyway.
You constantly frame the issue as accursed liberal attacks against ideological enemies
I once heard of an academic who came up with the idea of producing a monograph to be derived from reading all the books published in English in a single year. He abandoned the project when he discovered that 16,000 books had been published in Britain in 1922.
So, you have to be selective in what you study. What's the research programme of Prof. X, Y, and Z?
1. Dr. Frazer's written one book (critiqued below) and a recent essay on Just War questions. His school is an extension of a Los Angeles megachurch and has a tiny faculty. Guy's been teaching for 28 years and is almost out to grass.
http://www.increasinglearning.com/gregg-frazer.html
2. Warren Throckmorton was somewhat miscast as an academic psychologist (though Grove City evidently thought he'd do for the purposes they had in mind). He produced several modest research projects over a nine year period, but he quit publishing 11 years ago and has more-or-less repudiated all of his professional publications. He's not a better fit for the historian's trade having no formal background in the subject. He's out to grass in about a half-dozen years.
3. John Fea's produced about 20 publications on late 18th and early 19th century history (with a couple of excursions elsewhere). Some are research articles and some are monographs. His objects period figures and the presbyterian bodies of the time. He's also produced some commentaries in loci like Magazine of History and The History Teacher. His school has a census larger than normal for a private college; it's a descendant of an off-brand Mennonite sect and has no denominational affiliation, describing itself as 'non-denominational' evangelical &c. For now.
Now, one of these three is most unlike the other two.
Blogger Mrs. Webfoot said...
TVD:
Nor do I think Metaxas has much to gain by crawling in the mud with hostile interlocutors like Throckmorton, who are clearly not interested in Metaxas's actual message, only in catching him in error and discrediting him.>>>>
Metaxas does not have anything to gain by paying attention to Throckmorton.
...
Maybe Throckmorton can say he is trying to fight against the Evangelical industrial complex. That might get him some traction.
That might be his real target anyway.
Since Throckmorton spends the rest of his time not on history but attacking the Right on other subjects--including on [homo]sexuality [on which he has repudiated his own work, as Art Deco notes above], might there be something to this?
As for the other gentlemen Mr. Deco mentions, calling oneself a
"Christian historian" seems to me an admission of theological agenda, if not a theopolitical one. Yet to accuse an accredited historian of an agenda seems discourteous, if not a slander. I really don't know how to negotiate this dilemma cordially or collegially.
As for meself, I make no secret of being a gentleperson of the right, since classical philosophy, traditional morality, classical liberalism and the Founding principles themselves are all more welcomed there. Leftism is a creature of "modernity," which unapologetically presents itself as the better way.
Anyway, the laughable part is being accused of having an agenda by people who seem to deny having an agenda themselves, despite plain evidence to the contrary.
"Reality has a liberal bias." Genius, pure sophistic genius, passing off an ideological agenda as scientific fact, as reality. And there you have it, folks--Metaxas is biased [TVD is biased], but their critics are not.
Watch out. Gail force ad hominems and driving red herrings. To paraphrase an old legal aphorism, “if the facts aren’t on your side, pound the messenger(s)…then pound them again...and again.”
At least we’re all informed by the back and forth between the historians and the message weavers and can make an informed choice. And apparently, in some cases, it’s facts be damned if they interfere with a good heart-warming message.
Anonymous jimmiraybob said...
Watch out. Gail force ad hominems and driving red herrings
It's "gale" force.
And you're boring our readers. Again.
"1. Dr. Frazer's written one book (critiqued below) and a recent essay on Just War questions. His school is an extension of a Los Angeles megachurch and has a tiny faculty. Guy's been teaching for 28 years and is almost out to grass.
"http://www.increasinglearning.com/gregg-frazer.html"
Yes the author of the critique, like Dr. Frazer, is a friend of the site.
You could have mentioned that Mark Noll, Thomas Pangle and Russell Muirhead enthusiastically blurbed his book.
All three of Metaxas' critics are Protestant evangelicals. I don't consider either Fea or Throckmorton to be that far to the left. To me they seem more moderate politically and theologically.
Frazer on the other hand is as fundamentalist an evangelical as it gets (he's a young earth creationist). He has very conservative political leanings. But he makes clear that his theology trumps his worldly political sympathies.
So he's a fundamentalist on Romans 13. Therefore, the American Revolution was a sin as all revolutions are. The political implications for this conviction are irrelevant to him.
"It's "gale" force."
Yes, you are correct sir.
"And you're boring our readers. Again."
Perhaps. I wasn't exactly thrilled with sitting through boring history classes in high school either but I have since learned the errors of my way.
All three of Metaxas' critics are Protestant evangelicals. I don't consider either Fea or Throckmorton to be that far to the left. To me they seem more moderate politically and theologically.
I don't think the common political taxonomy is all that illuminating in describing these men under most circumstances (though both have produced flat-footed critiques of Ted Cruz). What you have to ask is whether someone's approach is orthodox, seeks fidelity, and makes only incremental adaptations or whether someone conceives of religion as something derivative of and subordinate to the ambient secular culture.
S.M. Hutchens, Peter Berger, and (unintentionally) Holmes Hartshorne have produced writings which offer some guidance as to the wherefores of the self-immolation of the Christian academy (and Hutchens has offered that 'Wheaton is doomed'). I'd repair to these.
Watch out. Gail force ad hominems
Metaxes' thesis is one of political sociology. Configurative assessments of discrete historical periods amount to trying to cut the roast a butter knife if you want to argue that thesis (though you can place a tile in the mosaic that way).
Larry Diamond has offered that decades of study of political forms and transitions has persuaded him that there are almost no social and cultural prerequisites for electoral and deliberative institutions to take root, so a thesis of the sort Metaxes promotes would seem dubious Of course, you have to define terms, and it true that what we have now is a mess of toy-telephone legislative bodies as a feature of a political order which is fundamentally a theatre of lawyers. The whole business gets ever more meretricious, and it arguably does derive from the collapse of intellectual and moral seriousness in and among the elite bar (as well as the relentless advance of shabbiness and vulgarity in the political culture at large). Don't look for the academy to issue many jeremiads regarding this. That's not collegial and they're part of the problem.
"What you have to ask is whether someone's approach is orthodox, seeks fidelity, and makes only incremental adaptations or whether someone conceives of religion as something derivative of and subordinate to the ambient secular culture."
All three of the Drs. are I think theologically orthodox on matters like the Trinity, ecumenical creeds and inspiration of scripture.
I think all three, with Frazer the most conservative and the other two more moderate and perhaps center left on some issues, want to preserve the faith against culture.
But here's the rub: "Christian Nationalism," though not a "secular" movement (obviously) is something that is just as culturally produced and inauthentic to the faith as are the latest secular-left kinds of fads.
And so on this issue, they have focused more on attacking a movement from the right than the left. But, it seems to me, they share your critique of preserving the faith against ambient cultural movement.
Economics for instance. On a personal level, I tend to be sympathetic to laissez faire utopia, but I'm not fanatical about it. We don't live in that world. And while a lot of libertarians decry any deviation from such as "socialism" that doesn't describe former governors Gary Johnson and Bill Weld whom I endorse and who will put forth a fiscally conservative policy while understanding we don't live in this laissez faire libertarian utopia.
As it relates to the Bible/Christianity and economics. David Barton has tried to argue the Bible's consistency with free market economics, limited govt. His arguments there are laughably absurd.
That's not to say the case can't be made. There are some smart Christian academic types who support Ron Paul and write for Lew Rockwell's site who are better suited to make that case.
But as I read the texts of the Bible myself, no I don't see a case for modern free market economics. I won't say the Bible is socialistic either. There's plenty of arguable economic egalitarianism in Bible. But in the NT it's more of a moral teaching (it could be subsumed under the auspices of voluntary charity).
And under the OT it's arguably irrelevant as that's a dead era and a foreign country if ever there were one. Things like the Jubilee are completely inconsistent with the world in which we live today. But yes, looking to the "spirit" of such passages, you can get socialism and religious-Marxism.
I see Jesus as someone who is completely a-political and said virtually nothing about secular economic principles, other than to instruct believers on how to live under virtually any political system. St. Paul's teachings on Romans 13 where he instructed believers to submit to the pagan tyranny of imperial Rome also support such.
Our classically liberal system of economics, given to us by figures like Richard Price and Alexander Hamilton is founded on institutionalized legal usury. They found a way to argue such consistent with Christianity; but that was a huge change and by no means apparent from texts of the Bible or then extant traditions of Christianity where the general rule was usury was banned (the exceptions in medieval Christendom look more like the fees we see in Islamic banking where bans on usury are still the rule).
You also had a strange dynamic of Jews and Christians being able to charge one another usury, but not themselves.
That's a different world. The world that Price and Hamilton gave us is better suited for economic growth. But it arguably has way less biblical support or support in the prior traditions of Christianity than the old way of doing things.
So when someone like John Fea argues, in good faith, that he thinks the Democrats have the more authentically Christian policy on things like Immigration and economic issues, no I don't see this as "someone conceiv[ing] of religion as something derivative of and subordinate to the ambient secular culture."
Frazer is, for lack of a better world, fanatical (he's my friend, so I don't mean to insult him) on preserving the authenticity of his fundamentalist faith against both "the ambient secular culture" AND against the heresy of Christian Nationalism which is just as foreign to the traditional practice of the faith as the latest we get from "the ambient secular culture."
As it relates to the Bible/Christianity and economics. David Barton has tried to argue the Bible's consistency with free market economics, limited govt. His arguments there are laughably absurd
So when someone like John Fea argues, in good faith, that he thinks the Democrats have the more authentically Christian policy on things like Immigration and economic issues,
This sort of gamesmanship on your part is unattractive.
the heresy of Christian Nationalism
The use of the term 'heresy' makes no sense unless it's your contention that Barton's thesis or Metaxes' is a theological one.
"This sort of gamesmanship on your part is unattractive."
Okay. How about this: You find me something Dr. Fea wrote that is as stupid as this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtCpVhRtlZ4
But here's the rub: "Christian Nationalism," though not a "secular" movement (obviously) is something that is just as culturally produced and inauthentic to the faith as are the latest secular-left kinds of fads.
No, it's a set of contentions about historical matters and the dynamics of public life. It's not a doctrinal or moral teaching or a discipline.
"the heresy of Christian Nationalism,
"The use of the term 'heresy' makes no sense unless it's your contention that Barton's thesis or Metaxes' is a theological one."
It's not? Why is Barton giving lectures in churches and having this incorporated as official doctrine at "Christian" colleges if that's not the case?
"No, it's a set of contentions about historical matters and the dynamics of public life."
Absent faith based presuppositions, it's bad history. David Barton is not saying, as TVD does, America's Founders thought God was on their side. Rather, Barton is saying, as an "historian," God was on the side of America.
"It's not a doctrinal or moral teaching or a discipline."
Is that why other conservative evangelicals imbibed in "Christian Nationalism" have doubted Dr. Gregg Frazer's salvation for rejecting such?
If it's not a "doctrine," a "moral teaching" or a "discipline" then why does such get ANY kind of attention, much less a great deal of popular attention so David Barton can line his pockets, from churches?
It's not? Why is Barton giving lectures in churches and having this incorporated as official doctrine at "Christian" colleges if that's not the case?
The point of theology is 'knowledge of God'. It's points are metaphysical and moral, not sociological; soteriological, not historical.
That Barton lectures in church buildings is immaterial. The local novus ordo parish here gets a visit from some sister or regular priest about once a month. I've yet to hear a theological argument from any one of them. They're all dunning for money for their missions.
Now, Barton makes arguments on the subject of moral theology. He also makes historical arguments, some satisfactorily supported, some not. I assume he also balances a checkbook, but that doesn't make bookkeeping a theological exercise.
Okay. How about this: You find me something Dr. Fea wrote that is as stupid as this.
I'd use terms like 'facile' or 'glib' or 'imprudent' to describe Barton's remarks, not 'stupid'. There isn't anything he fails to perceive that a reasonable person would perceive. If he pulls something out of his rear, you'd have to have his references committed to memory to see it on the spot. He does not, in any gross way, contradict himself. Nor does he say anything that offends against common knowledge.
Now, I've spent my life in liturgical bodies where Sacred Scripture is simply not used this way, in either high-table discourse or ordinary conversation. (And where nearly all homilies and sermons are badly rendered and forgettable). So, no, it's rather jarring, and I think he's repurposing Scripture in ways that will confuse and not illuminate.
I don't know that Fea's ever said anything stupid (though I would not apply any sweet adjectives to his recent Christianity Today piece). His piece in Magazine of History was introduced with this abstract "White public school students and members of Confederate patriotic societies gather around an equestrian statue of Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson at the dedication of Jackson Park in Charlottesville, Virginia, on October 19, 1921. City officials had recently demolished a black neighborhood to make room for the park. The monument in Jackson Park tangibly demonstrates how fantasies of the Lost Cause and the Old South were used to justify racial oppression in the early twentieth entury. And, more generally, the Jackson Park monument is emblematic of the way memories of the past shape the reality of the present. (“Unveiling of Stonewall Jackson Monument, 1921. Charlottesville, Virginia,” Prints Collection, Albert and Shirley Small Special Collections Library, University of Virginia)". Jackson Park ambles over 0.4 acres, just enough to contain 15 or 20 row houses. I suppose Dr. Fea might say the editors added the abstract without showing it to him.
It's not unusual, by the way, for academics to say stupid things. The stupid is usually a component of the prejudices of the tribe.
We have our own Godwin's Law here at American Creation: Everything always comes down to slavery or David Barton.
Slavery thank God ended. David Barton needs to cash in his chips and make like a tree and leave.
the subject was neither slavery nor Barton but
As an online discussion grows longer at American Creation, the probability of an invalidation involving slavery or David Barton approaches 1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
Post a Comment