Could this question be a false dichotomy? It could be both. I haven't watched the whole thing, but my initial reaction is it is both history and hagiography. Maybe you are using the word hagiography in a way I am not familiar.
Thanks for sharing. Always enjoy your posts. They are both informative and thought provoking.
Thanks for the kind words, Steve. I guess I am wondering if Southern Seminary sees this as a promotional video that selectively chooses historical events to serve their present agenda (exalt Mohler and attract more students to Southern) or if it is a work of history that takes into account the voices and ideas of those who opposed Mohler. All of the evidence that is used–interviews and historians mostly–seem to be pointing in one triumphalist direction. I am not posting this to try to criticize Southern as much as I am to get my readers to think more about the way the past is presented in public life.
Point very well made, but the dichotomy of a advertising video or a piece of history seems inexact. It is seemingly a work of history that is promoting the position they agree with. It obviously does not utilize voices or ideas that oppose Mohler, but does that de-legitimatize (if that is a word) it as a work of history?
The triumphalist tone reminds me of Hayden White's work “Metahistory.” While I think there are some serious problems with his overall thesis (and he even admitted as much) there is still something that is accurate in the creation of history by historians. The humanness of history as you mention: the selection process, the victorious tone, etc. I guess one can call it a incomplete history, but still an accurate history.
On another note, there has been a documentary produced which is from the “progressive” perspective of what happened at Southern Seminary called “Battle for the Mind.” It would be an interesting exercise to watch them back to back to discuss as you say the way the past is presented.
Great discussion. By the way I have purchased your work “Why Study History?” Wonderful read that I would highly recommend. What other contemporary works would you suggest on the practice and writing of history (i.e. philosophy of history/historiography).
Steve: I understand your point. I think I posted this video in the context of my *Why Study History?* book. I think a lot of people dabble in the past without necessary “doing” history. All historians bring a certain bias to bear on their work, but when the attempt to promote a particular agenda in the present trumps an honest attempt to tell a story in all its complexity and fullness, then I think we move from history to some kind of propaganda. Institutions like Southern (or my own institution, Messiah College) do this all the time, but I wouldn't call it good history. I think this is Southern video is probably more similar to the work of David Barton or Howard Zinn. History as propaganda. There does not seem to be any attempt to listen or understand the voices of Southern's opponents or outside observers. I will check out the “Battle for the Mind” video (is it online?) and see if they are doing the same thing.
I happened to watch it at a special screening at the Dallas Museum of Art when the SBC was holding its annual convention in Dallas during the summer of 1997.
It doesn't look like they have an online version to watch.
On the Southern video, you are probably right about them “dabbling” in history without actually “doing” history. That is an interesting distinction that is hard to quantify (or even impossible to quantify). As you say in your work (WSH?) “History is not an exact science.” Although I don't know if I would compare it to propaganda, unless you mean it in the more generic sense instead of the derogatory sense. I would think they did a better job in “dabbling” in history than Barton. I don't know about Zinn, although his particular bias I happen to not agree.
Whatever the case, you bring up some fascinating points about when bias (which all historians or people who dabble in history bring to their work) pushes the work into propaganda instead of good history.
I suppose that it is one of those examples and issues where a historian recognizes it (history vs. propaganda) when they see it because of the years of doing, practicing, and writing history. A point that I would acquiesce to your expertise and experience.
I hope I am not coming across as disagreeable, but more conversational. I was fortunate enough to take a class on historiography and really enjoyed the topic and discussion and don't get to many chances to discuss it with others.
Thanks for bringing up a great topic that allows me to participate in the discourse of history. As always insightful, provocative, and interesting.
Could this question be a false dichotomy? It could be both. I haven't watched the whole thing, but my initial reaction is it is both history and hagiography. Maybe you are using the word hagiography in a way I am not familiar.
Thanks for sharing. Always enjoy your posts. They are both informative and thought provoking.
Thanks for the kind words, Steve. I guess I am wondering if Southern Seminary sees this as a promotional video that selectively chooses historical events to serve their present agenda (exalt Mohler and attract more students to Southern) or if it is a work of history that takes into account the voices and ideas of those who opposed Mohler. All of the evidence that is used–interviews and historians mostly–seem to be pointing in one triumphalist direction. I am not posting this to try to criticize Southern as much as I am to get my readers to think more about the way the past is presented in public life.
Point very well made, but the dichotomy of a advertising video or a piece of history seems inexact. It is seemingly a work of history that is promoting the position they agree with. It obviously does not utilize voices or ideas that oppose Mohler, but does that de-legitimatize (if that is a word) it as a work of history?
The triumphalist tone reminds me of Hayden White's work “Metahistory.” While I think there are some serious problems with his overall thesis (and he even admitted as much) there is still something that is accurate in the creation of history by historians. The humanness of history as you mention: the selection process, the victorious tone, etc. I guess one can call it a incomplete history, but still an accurate history.
On another note, there has been a documentary produced which is from the “progressive” perspective of what happened at Southern Seminary called “Battle for the Mind.” It would be an interesting exercise to watch them back to back to discuss as you say the way the past is presented.
Great discussion. By the way I have purchased your work “Why Study History?” Wonderful read that I would highly recommend. What other contemporary works would you suggest on the practice and writing of history (i.e. philosophy of history/historiography).
Thanks.
Steve: I understand your point. I think I posted this video in the context of my *Why Study History?* book. I think a lot of people dabble in the past without necessary “doing” history. All historians bring a certain bias to bear on their work, but when the attempt to promote a particular agenda in the present trumps an honest attempt to tell a story in all its complexity and fullness, then I think we move from history to some kind of propaganda. Institutions like Southern (or my own institution, Messiah College) do this all the time, but I wouldn't call it good history. I think this is Southern video is probably more similar to the work of David Barton or Howard Zinn. History as propaganda. There does not seem to be any attempt to listen or understand the voices of Southern's opponents or outside observers. I will check out the “Battle for the Mind” video (is it online?) and see if they are doing the same thing.
Interesting stuff.
Steve: Do you have a link for that “Battle for the Mind” video?”
The only link I could find for the “The Battle for the Minds” (it was plural instead of singular) was at:
http://www.newday.com/films/Battle_for_the_Minds.html
PBS had a lengthy description of the film at:
http://www.pbs.org/pov/battlefortheminds/film_description.php
I happened to watch it at a special screening at the Dallas Museum of Art when the SBC was holding its annual convention in Dallas during the summer of 1997.
It doesn't look like they have an online version to watch.
On the Southern video, you are probably right about them “dabbling” in history without actually “doing” history. That is an interesting distinction that is hard to quantify (or even impossible to quantify). As you say in your work (WSH?) “History is not an exact science.” Although I don't know if I would compare it to propaganda, unless you mean it in the more generic sense instead of the derogatory sense. I would think they did a better job in “dabbling” in history than Barton. I don't know about Zinn, although his particular bias I happen to not agree.
Whatever the case, you bring up some fascinating points about when bias (which all historians or people who dabble in history bring to their work) pushes the work into propaganda instead of good history.
I suppose that it is one of those examples and issues where a historian recognizes it (history vs. propaganda) when they see it because of the years of doing, practicing, and writing history. A point that I would
acquiesce to your expertise and experience.
I hope I am not coming across as disagreeable, but more conversational. I was fortunate enough to take a class on historiography and really enjoyed the topic and discussion and don't get to many chances to discuss it with others.
Thanks for bringing up a great topic that allows me to participate in the discourse of history. As always insightful, provocative, and interesting.
I've enjoyed the conversation, Steve. Let me know what you think about Why Study History?