I am a big fan of David Swartz‘s scholarship, especially his Moral Minority: The Evangelical Left in an Age of Conservatism. David will be at Messiah College later this semester to deliver the Schrag Lecture, an annual lecture sponsored by the Sider Institute for Anabaptist, Pietist, and Wesleyan Studies. His lecture is entitled “Anabaptists, Evangelicals, and the Search for a Third Way in Postwar America.” I get the privilege of offering a brief response to what I know will be an excellent presentation by David.
David is also a regular blogger at The Anxious Bench, the blog where he recently reviewed my Why Study History?: Reflecting on the Importance of the Past. It is a generous review. Probably too generous. Here is a taste:
The most striking argument of the book, in my reading, is Fea’s articulation of the limits of historical knowledge. This is not a provocative assertion to the trained historian, but it is for many evangelicals, which appear to be Fea’s target audience. He views evangelicals with ambivalence. The positive spin is that evangelicals are passionate and have a strong activist streak that seeks to better the world. But he also sees certain strains of evangelicalism that practice an ugly triumphalism, an American patriotic jingoism, and a willingness to “use” or “preach” history in partisan ways (be sure to check out his evaluations of Steven Keillor and Eric Metaxas). It is to this sector of evangelicalism, which Fea has encountered to varying levels in the classroom, radio talk shows (be sure to check out the account of Fea’s run-in with Glenn Beck on pages 123-126), and outside speaking engagements, that he issues a powerful admonition.
Fea argues that the past is a foreign country. “It is easy to ignore or dismiss the parts of the past we do not like,” he writes. “Yet all historians must come to grips with its utter strangeness. Too much present-mindedness makes for bad history.” He warns against, for example, the providentialist history of Peter Marshall’s The Light and the Glory, which contends that God has a special destiny for America. Such a conclusion, Fea says, is impossible to prove and fails to consider the “five C’s” of historical thinking: change over time, context, causality, contingency, and complexity. The book works hard to instill a sense of limits, reminding evangelical biblicists of St. Paul’s imagery of seeing through a glass darkly.
It’s true that this book metes out firm correction. But don’t think that this book is a grumpy jeremiad. Why Study History is an enthusiastic declaration of the importance of studying history. Fea meditates on the virtues of historical consciousness. He argues that history has the power to transform individual lives and collective identities. History offers us opportunities to practice—and deepen—Christian virtues of love, hospitality, and compassion for our neighbor. In a chapter entitled “So What Can You Do with a History Major,” Fea offers compelling narratives of fulfilling careers and strong skills sparked by the study of history at the college level. A concluding chapter proposes the creation of a Center for American History and a Civil Society.
This accessible manuscript is peppered with stories from Fea’s teaching and speaking gigs. But it’s also learned, drawing from the best scholars in the evangelical world (Mark Noll, Robert McKenzie) and the broader academy (Sam Wineburg, Peter Novick, Carlo Ginzburg, Gordon Wood). Why Study History, written by an evangelical historian with a growing reputation as a public intellectual, is a terrific primer for undergraduates and should enjoy strong sales in historical methods and philosophy courses at religious colleges.
Tom Van Dyke says
which contends that God has a special destiny for America.
So did GWash in his Farewell Address. Further, both Jefferson and Lincoln [and countless others] suspected that Divine Justice awaited as punishment for slavery.
I have found that the belief in a “special destiny” for America is also in the context of the biblical “special destiny” of Israel, which included great punishment for its sins. Not quite a “triumphalism.”
Such a conclusion, Fea says, is impossible to prove
But like the “Does God Exist” debate, he who avoids the burden of proof wins. As that infidel Jefferson put it, “Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference!”
It would be an irony to accuse Jefferson of being too religious, although in the context of our present day, he was.
and fails to consider the “five C’s” of historical thinking: change over time, context, causality, contingency, and complexity.
Well, it's true that “historical thinking” changes–and presently we're mired in this race-class-gender fad–but there was a historical truth; the historian's job is not to create it or define it, but discover it.
[Another problem with “presentism” is that our present standards of judgment may not be that great either.]
“Context” is a tricky concept, for in the end it's malleable, or as one fellow put it, 'He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.'
So did/does God have a special destiny for America? The problem with modernity is that we're required to proceed as though God does not exist, winning the debate by mooting the question in its cradle.