History and Religion Clashing?
October 8, 2011 3:24 PM Subscribe
How do you write about religion historically? I'm writing my history honors thesis on evangelical Christians, but all of my drafts sound theological and not historical. When I try to fix the problem, I end up just reciting facts.
I'm not sure how much background to give on evangelicalism and their beliefs without making the paper a critique of their beliefs. The secondary sources I've read on this topic are able to balance historical objectivity, as much as is possible on a topic like this, and the theology.
The particular problem I'm having is when I talk about the influence of the Holy Spirit on the way evangelicals think about their role in the world. Evangelicals will obviously credit various members of the Trinity with the way they live their lives, but when I say that the evangelical Christians just end up looking stupid and I don't sound objective.
Is there a way to fix this?
I'm not sure how much background to give on evangelicalism and their beliefs without making the paper a critique of their beliefs. The secondary sources I've read on this topic are able to balance historical objectivity, as much as is possible on a topic like this, and the theology.
The particular problem I'm having is when I talk about the influence of the Holy Spirit on the way evangelicals think about their role in the world. Evangelicals will obviously credit various members of the Trinity with the way they live their lives, but when I say that the evangelical Christians just end up looking stupid and I don't sound objective.
Is there a way to fix this?
It sounds like you really need another set of eyes on the manuscript. Is there a friend/sibling/spouse/etc to help out?
I say this not least because I'm having a hard time imagining problematic language in the way you describe. "Reverend James ascribes his blah to the grace of god" "Under this view of Christ's divinity, it's only natural that the congregation has accepted the following stuff as true" etc.
posted by kavasa at 3:55 PM on October 8, 2011
I say this not least because I'm having a hard time imagining problematic language in the way you describe. "Reverend James ascribes his blah to the grace of god" "Under this view of Christ's divinity, it's only natural that the congregation has accepted the following stuff as true" etc.
posted by kavasa at 3:55 PM on October 8, 2011
This may be less a "history and religion clashing" problem as much as a "I don't know how to keep my skepticism out of my writing" problem. On one hand, this can be appropriate, as writers, including historians, aren't and can't be objective. Having a perspective is not a bad thing. On the other hand, if you aren't careful you can sound like you aren't taking your subject matter seriously or engaging it on its own terms. This can be okay for certain kinds of writing but it doesn't lend itself to good history.
The key to good writing is probably good reading. As you read good writing, you get that in your head, just like infants acquire language by listening. So read more religious history. Given the subject matter, you need to be reading a lot of Mark Noll and George Marsden. You might even try just typing out a few paragraphs from one of your sources. It sounds silly, but I tell you, that kind of mimicry can be surprisingly effective at stuff like this.
In general though, just watch your modifiers.
posted by valkyryn at 3:59 PM on October 8, 2011 [1 favorite]
The key to good writing is probably good reading. As you read good writing, you get that in your head, just like infants acquire language by listening. So read more religious history. Given the subject matter, you need to be reading a lot of Mark Noll and George Marsden. You might even try just typing out a few paragraphs from one of your sources. It sounds silly, but I tell you, that kind of mimicry can be surprisingly effective at stuff like this.
In general though, just watch your modifiers.
posted by valkyryn at 3:59 PM on October 8, 2011 [1 favorite]
Make sure you're writing history and not sociology. What is the historical origin of these beliefs/practices? How have the beliefs changed over time. I would restrict your study to things 25 years ago or more. Generally that is history, and not current events.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:59 PM on October 8, 2011
posted by Ironmouth at 3:59 PM on October 8, 2011
The particular problem I'm having is when I talk about the influence of the Holy Spirit on the way evangelicals think about their role in the world. Evangelicals will obviously credit various members of the Trinity with the way they live their lives, but when I say that the evangelical Christians just end up looking stupid and I don't sound objective.Ok, so epistemologically speaking, historians can't prove that God did or didn't do something. Whether God (or Jesus or the Holy Spirit) caused evangelicals to think a certain way is sort of not something we can talk about, because what kind of evidence would there be for that? That's just not the way that secular historians operate.
So you can acknowledge that that's how the actors themselves would see things and then you can posit your own explanations. (And I don't think it makes them sound stupid to say that. It's what they believed. Lots of smart people have believed they were acting out God's will.) What factors do you think influenced various actors to view the Holy Spirit in various ways? Were they influenced by things going on in society? Were they reading particular ancient or modern texts that affected their views? Were they part of larger trends in religious or secular society, or were they forging their own way?
One question you can ask yourself is what you think is driving the developments that you discuss in your thesis. They thought it was God. What do you think?
posted by craichead at 4:03 PM on October 8, 2011
Empathy? Can you get your head around why evangelicals' theological positions made sense to them when they split off from other denominations, why some people in the early 1800's in the US, for instance, found the Baptist church attractive and converted to it?
posted by nangar at 4:11 PM on October 8, 2011
posted by nangar at 4:11 PM on October 8, 2011
History = change/time. Focus on the change.
posted by oinopaponton at 4:15 PM on October 8, 2011
posted by oinopaponton at 4:15 PM on October 8, 2011
I would suggest downloading the free Kindle software, then downloading some sample books by Justo Gonzalez, who is excellent at what you are describing.
posted by 4ster at 4:50 PM on October 8, 2011
posted by 4ster at 4:50 PM on October 8, 2011
Focus on some larger events that were taking place and fit your subject in historically. Big picture. If the evangelicals started doing X, what was going on politically or economically or socially that influenced them to make that move? Then be sure you have a thesis and are making an arguement. Making an arguement is essential to avoiding "just reciting facts."
For an example, watch Part 1 of the new Ken Burns documentary on Prohibition that just came out on PBS. It isn't just, "here was this weird law and people rebelled against it." It was decades of what was going on beforehand that made the law seem like a good idea (harder alcohol), and how much tax was collected from companies that sold alcohol (no personal income tax at this time in history so it made up one-thrid of the federal budget), and who the proponents were, and who the big dogs in the brewing industry were (German Americans), and how the world war's anti-German sentiment was used against alcohol, and viola! Suddenly prohibition starts to look like a viable idea. History is all about context.
posted by Knowyournuts at 5:09 PM on October 8, 2011
For an example, watch Part 1 of the new Ken Burns documentary on Prohibition that just came out on PBS. It isn't just, "here was this weird law and people rebelled against it." It was decades of what was going on beforehand that made the law seem like a good idea (harder alcohol), and how much tax was collected from companies that sold alcohol (no personal income tax at this time in history so it made up one-thrid of the federal budget), and who the proponents were, and who the big dogs in the brewing industry were (German Americans), and how the world war's anti-German sentiment was used against alcohol, and viola! Suddenly prohibition starts to look like a viable idea. History is all about context.
posted by Knowyournuts at 5:09 PM on October 8, 2011
The particular problem I'm having is when I talk about the influence of the Holy Spirit on the way evangelicals think about their role in the world. Evangelicals will obviously credit various members of the Trinity with the way they live their lives, but when I say that the evangelical Christians just end up looking stupid and I don't sound objective.
Seconding a request for one of those passages you think doesn't sound objective.
Hey, part of understanding history involves understanding why people do what they do. You don't necessarily need to believe the Holy Spirit doctrine yourself, you just need to make it clear that THEY did, and WHY they did. Maybe they'll still sound nuts, but if you can prove that there's a logic in that nutsiness, then, okay.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:29 PM on October 8, 2011
Seconding a request for one of those passages you think doesn't sound objective.
Hey, part of understanding history involves understanding why people do what they do. You don't necessarily need to believe the Holy Spirit doctrine yourself, you just need to make it clear that THEY did, and WHY they did. Maybe they'll still sound nuts, but if you can prove that there's a logic in that nutsiness, then, okay.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:29 PM on October 8, 2011
Response by poster: I'm Christian, and I grew up evangelical, so I'm not too worried that I won't be fair to Christian beliefs. I'm more afraid that I'll either go into way too much detail for the non-Christians who will be reading my thesis, or spend too much time either reflexively defending or mocking the beliefs. I've read a lot of Marsden and Noll, and they are both excellent at writing about religion. It's just harder than I had anticipated to find the right voice.
I rewrote one of the paragraphs that was bothering me, and I think it sounds a little better (I haven't edited for writing style or grammar yet, so don't get angry):
"Jesus, both as savior and example, was the cornerstone of their entire movement, with an important leader going so far as to say that “as a group…as a movement…we hold to only one creed: Jesus Christ.” As the Jesus Movement grew in influence, it came more into conflict with more traditional churches and denominations. Members of the movement believed that the established churches were afraid of the movement because they refused to espouse dogma or define their doctrinal beliefs. Christians outside the movement decried the lack of theological rigor, and expressed concerns that because of the flexibility of beliefs that the Jesus Movement would be likely to fall prey to charismatic preachers who might lead them astray."
Does that sound ok?
posted by kingfishers catch fire at 6:34 PM on October 8, 2011
I rewrote one of the paragraphs that was bothering me, and I think it sounds a little better (I haven't edited for writing style or grammar yet, so don't get angry):
"Jesus, both as savior and example, was the cornerstone of their entire movement, with an important leader going so far as to say that “as a group…as a movement…we hold to only one creed: Jesus Christ.” As the Jesus Movement grew in influence, it came more into conflict with more traditional churches and denominations. Members of the movement believed that the established churches were afraid of the movement because they refused to espouse dogma or define their doctrinal beliefs. Christians outside the movement decried the lack of theological rigor, and expressed concerns that because of the flexibility of beliefs that the Jesus Movement would be likely to fall prey to charismatic preachers who might lead them astray."
Does that sound ok?
posted by kingfishers catch fire at 6:34 PM on October 8, 2011
The subject of your sentences bounces around in a way that obscures the subject of the paragraph, and, if you keep up like that, the subject of your work generally. I also don't like "was the cornerstone" or "were afraid" or "refused to espouse dogma" which sneak implicit value judgements in. Here's one way I'd think about it:
posted by wobh at 7:15 PM on October 8, 2011 [1 favorite]
The Jesus Movement's refusal to define doctrine came from a belief that traditional churches were mired in dogma. They believed that Jesus Christ, as both savior and example, released them from theological discipline required by their critics with [John Smith] going so far as to say, "as a group...as a movement...we hold to only one creed: Jesus Christ."I sort of hastily threw that together, so take that caution, but I think that's much more like the kind of thing you want to be writing for something like this.
Nor did the Movement fear being led astray by charismatic preachers, as others outside the movement supposed....
posted by wobh at 7:15 PM on October 8, 2011 [1 favorite]
In addition to watching your modifiers, you really need to watch your referents.
Also, it would probably be a good idea to capitalize "Movement" consistently.
I don't think wobh's restatement is quite what you're getting at. How about:
You want to write about the history of the Jesus Movement, well brother, it's being written as we speak. The primary documents are out there on the internet. MeMail me if you'd like to talk in more specifics.
posted by valkyryn at 6:53 PM on October 9, 2011
Also, it would probably be a good idea to capitalize "Movement" consistently.
I don't think wobh's restatement is quite what you're getting at. How about:
Leaders of the Jesus Movement viewed Jesus Christ, as both savior and example, as the cornerstone of the Movement, one going so far to say that "as a group. . . as a movement. . . we hold to only one creed: Jesus Christ."Also, and just FYI: the heirs of the Jesus Movement are, in no small part, PDI, lately renamed Sovereign Grace Ministries, which is currently undergoing something of an existential crisis caused by... charismatic but allegedly misguided leaders. Poke around here for some pretty inside dope. Things have been building for about five years now, but they've really come to a head in the past six months or so, with the head of the denomination basically stepping down in June. I've got friends who are involved with denomination, so I've sort of been keeping my eye on this one, and in my own opinion, this is basically the natural result of trying to set up a church body without bothering to clearly spell out how things are actually going to work.
As the Jesus Movement grew, it came into conflict, perhaps inevitably, with established denominations and traditions. Members of the Movement tended to believe that this was because the established churches were so mired in dogma and doctrine that they were afraid of Movement's significant lack of either. The established churches, on the other hand, frequently criticized the Movement's lack of theological rigor, warning that this doctrinal flexibility might render the Movement vulnerable to charismatic but misguided leaders.
You want to write about the history of the Jesus Movement, well brother, it's being written as we speak. The primary documents are out there on the internet. MeMail me if you'd like to talk in more specifics.
posted by valkyryn at 6:53 PM on October 9, 2011
kingfishers catch fire, the sample you provided is sufficiently objective. In writing about religion from a historical point of view, it is absolutely fine to describe the beliefs that a particular group holds; just present it from a factual, objective point of view. (I say this as an adjunct professor who teaches the history of Christianity in a community college.)
If you make statements such as,
"Members of the movement believed that the established churches were afraid of the movement because they refused to espouse dogma or define their doctrinal beliefs. Christians outside the movement decried the lack of theological rigor, and expressed concerns that because of the flexibility of beliefs that the Jesus Movement would be likely to fall prey to charismatic preachers who might lead them astray."
THEN, please give me some examples of how they refused to espouse dogma or define their doctrinal beliefs. AND be specific about WHICH Christians outside the movement 'decried the lack of theological rigor.' Give some examples, please, of the critics and what they were criticizing. MeMail me if I can be of assistance.
The Wikipedia article on "Jesus Movement" includes a fine academically-appropriate bibliography that may be helpful to you if you are still doing research.
With all due respect to valkyryn, the "Jesus Movement" of the 60s/70s is not all subsumed into Sovereign Grace Ministries. The "Jesus Movement" was a very broad evangelical movement that influenced many different theological bodies, non-denominational churches, parachurch bodies, etc. While the goings-on at Sovereign Grace churches are interesting (I also have friends there and am studying it from an outsider's, historian's perspective), SGM is but one of many contemporary ministries and churches that can point back to the "Jesus Movement" as a founding theology/ideology.
posted by apartment dweller at 11:09 AM on October 10, 2011
If you make statements such as,
"Members of the movement believed that the established churches were afraid of the movement because they refused to espouse dogma or define their doctrinal beliefs. Christians outside the movement decried the lack of theological rigor, and expressed concerns that because of the flexibility of beliefs that the Jesus Movement would be likely to fall prey to charismatic preachers who might lead them astray."
THEN, please give me some examples of how they refused to espouse dogma or define their doctrinal beliefs. AND be specific about WHICH Christians outside the movement 'decried the lack of theological rigor.' Give some examples, please, of the critics and what they were criticizing. MeMail me if I can be of assistance.
The Wikipedia article on "Jesus Movement" includes a fine academically-appropriate bibliography that may be helpful to you if you are still doing research.
With all due respect to valkyryn, the "Jesus Movement" of the 60s/70s is not all subsumed into Sovereign Grace Ministries. The "Jesus Movement" was a very broad evangelical movement that influenced many different theological bodies, non-denominational churches, parachurch bodies, etc. While the goings-on at Sovereign Grace churches are interesting (I also have friends there and am studying it from an outsider's, historian's perspective), SGM is but one of many contemporary ministries and churches that can point back to the "Jesus Movement" as a founding theology/ideology.
posted by apartment dweller at 11:09 AM on October 10, 2011
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by foursentences at 3:51 PM on October 8, 2011