NHC Home  TeacherServe Divining America Getting Back To You Christianity |
 |
     |
| Topic: |   Send us your queries and ideas. |
|
1. Heaven in Inherit the Wind Q. In the play and movie Inherit the Wind, the fundamentalist character Matthew Harrison Brady says something about God/heaven being on the dark side of the moon. Is this an early twentieth-century view unique to fundamentalists, a pre-modern (or pre-twentieth-century) Christian/Western view, or just something thrown into the play/movie by the writers? Robert A. Dear Robert, The phrase is just a figure of speech. Fundamentalists, like most Americans, evinced a wide range of sophistication about science/creation/evolution matters, including those who discounted it--see, for example, the new book by Edward J. Larson, Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate over Science and Religion (Basic Books, 1997). But I know of none who held to such literalism as heaven being on the dark side of the moon. Grant Wacker Associate Professor of the History of Religion in America Duke University Divinity School
2. Seventh-Day Adventists and Health Q. Do you know how the Seventh-Day Adventist church came into being? They seem to have a wide appeal in education and health. David A. Dear David, In brief, Adventists spun out of the remains of the William Millerite movement of the 1840s, which predicted Christ's return. When that failed, his followers regrouped, retooled the theology, and turned their main focus to health and healing. For a short treatment look at the article on Seventh-Day Adventists in Dictionary of Christianity in America by Daniel G. Reid et al. (InterVarsity Press, 1990).
For a longer treatment look at the early chapters of Prophetess of Health: Ellen G. White
and the Origins of Seventh-Day Adventist Health Reform by Ronald L. Numbers (University of Tennessee Press, 1992).
3. Anti-Catholicism in the 1920s Q. I teach A.P. U.S. History and am updating my notes for the next term. I found Julie Byrne's article "Roman Catholics and the American Mainstream" very informative. My question. Although the Catholic issue should not be discounted in the 1928 election, do you think it is valid to tell my students that the issue of economic prosperity was the bottom line in the election? What if Smith had not been Catholic, or (to speculate) what if Smith had run against Hoover in 1932 at the height of the Depression? Would his religion have been as big an issue? Thanks again,
A. Anti-Catholicism was not so much a deciding factor against Al Smith but rather a "given"--both within the Democratic Party and in the popular election (and corollarily the electoral college). He unquestionably faced backlash within his own party, and outside it, for being Catholic at a time of heightened nativist sentiment and KKK activity. In a related matter, he was also a "wet" candidate. In 1928, there were greater numbers of the new Democrats--urban immigrants, often Catholics, as well as immigrant Jews and migrated African Americans--and there were greater numbers of them voting. These votes carried Al Smith's relatively handy nomination in 1928. During these years, the Republicans were the majority party, and it was unlikely they were going to lose an election until a major event such as the Depression changed popular perceptions dramatically. Hoover was very popular, seen as a capable and energetic engineer. So Al Smith was going to have a hard time winning in 1928 regardless. Translated into issues, people were concerned that American economic prosperity continue. Al Smith was perceived as more concerned about opening soup kitchens than new factories, more about civil rights and welfare issues than U.S. industrial and international interests. In 1928 the Republicans won by a landslide, garnering 58.2% of the popular vote. The only state outside the traditionally Democratic Deep South that Al Smith carried in the electoral college was Massachusetts. But historians have pointed to this election as extremely significant because Al Smith is considered the cause and/or effect of the massive surge of the city working classes, mostly Catholics, into the electorate. For example, though Illinois went Republican as a state, in Chicago, about 30% more Catholic immigrants voted Democrat in 1928 than did in 1924 (this on top of the fact that there were many more immigrants who did vote in 1928). This huge shift in the Democratic Party, first visible in 1924 and then more visible in 1928, began to affect national politics decisively in the 1932 and 1936 elections. What if Smith had run against Hoover in 1932--would he have fared better? Would anti-Catholicism have mattered enough that he would have lost then as well? It's hard to tell, because the "Catholic factor" was never historically isolated so much that we know how decisive it was, or could have been. But it is certainly safe to say that as events and trends increasingly favored the urban immigrant voters, Al Smith--their Democratic machine-politics Catholic guy from New York City--could be seen as just slightly ahead of his times. All the best to you and your students. Thanks to my friends in the Duke University history department for reference on this question,
especially Paul Husbands.
4. Protestant Revivalism (1870-1940) Q. I am writing a paper on religion in America during the early 20th century and I was stuck on Protestant Revivalism. Between 1870 and 1940, worship practices changed or were modified in many of America's religious traditions. What were these changes in Protestant Revivalism? Anita University of Virginia A. Dear Anita: Between 1870 and 1920 or so, Protestant revivalism split into two definable subtraditions. The first took on the characteristics of an establishment and was well represented by Dwight L. Moody. Though established revivalism still called for conversions, the means proved orderly, emphasizing decorum in the services, a self-conscious commitment to Christ, and a planned repertoire of sentimental and very effective hymns (many written by Fanny Crosby). In the twentieth century, these folk commonly called themselves fundamentalists or conservative evangelicals. The second tradition involved less decorum: stormy preaching, toe-tapping music, and,
increasingly, miracles such as divine healing and speaking in tongues. The group gave birth to the
Pentecostal tradition and, after World War II, to the charismatic impulse in many mainline
churches. All of these changes (and more) are ably surveyed in George Marsden,
Fundamentalism and American Culture.
5. Native Americans and Christianity Q. I am a student in Canada and am double majoring in Native Studies and Sociology. My question: why do Native Americans continue to turn to Christianity as their belief system when everything they need is within their own beautiful and rich culture. After everything the Europeans put them through—after the genocide, forced conversion and residential schools—you would think they would want nothing further to do with them. What is it that still pulls Native Americans toward Christianity? Thank you for taking the time to read my request. A. I don't know about the appeal of Christianity among contemporary Native Americans, but James Axtell has got some interesting material about the logic of 18th-century conversions in his book The Invasion Within: The Contest of Cultures in Colonial North America (Oxford University Press, 1985). You might look into the writings of William McLoughlin on the 19th-century Cherokee, who were the most "christianized" of any of the tribes. He has several wonderful books on the history of the Cherokee, including The Cherokees and Christianity, 1794-1870 (University of Georgia Press, 1994) and Cherokees and Missionaries, 1789-1839 (Yale University Press, 1984). Christine Leigh Heyrman Professor of History University of Delaware There are two websites you may want to check out. In the site “The Religious Movements Homepage @ the University of Virginia” at http://cti.itc.virginia.edu/~jkh8x/soc257/home.htm, go to the page “Native American Spirituality” at http://cti.itc.virginia.edu/%7Ejkh8x/soc257/nrms/naspirit.html, and scroll down to Part IV: “Native American Spirituality and Christianity.” You might also check out the website “Christianity Among the Indians of the Americas,” a project of the Marquette University Archives, at http://www.mu.edu/library/collections/archives/indians.html. National Humanities Center
6. Slavery and the Bible Q. Even though the Bible considers the treatment of slaves, how could the 19th-century Christian justify the owning of another human as a part of his or her Christian belief system? Please suggest literature aligned with these questions or, even better, answers. Thanks! A. First response to Question #6 from Christine Leigh Heyrman Justifications drawn from the Bible were key to the proslavery argument as it evolved in the South after 1830. Its proponents adduced numerous instances from scripture to show that both the Old Testament Jews and the teachings of Jesus supported slavery. (The abolitionists, of course, turned the Bible to exactly the opposite purpose in their effort to establish that slavery was a sin.) Proslavery advocates also contended that masters and mistresses fulfilled the Christian duty of “stewardship" toward their slaves—benevolently providing for a people, the argument went, who could never sustain themselves in freedom. The best introduction to the proslavery argument (and its strong
religious dimension) is reading these treatises—and the most
influential have been collected in The Ideology of Slavery: Proslavery
Thought in the Antebellum South, 1830 to 1860 (Louisiana State
University Press, 1981). This anthology was edited by Drew Gilpin Faust,
who also provides a superb introduction. Another source well worth
consulting by the same author is A Sacred Circle: The Dilemma of the
Intellectual in the Old South, 1840-1860 (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977).
Second response to Question #6 from Laurie Maffly-Kipp I recommend that you read the work of David Brion Davis, starting with The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture (Cornell, 1966; Oxford, 1988). It is sufficiently lengthy that it should answer at least some of these very difficult questions! Davis's other works include Slavery and Human Progress (Oxford, 1984) and The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Revolution, 1770-1823 (Cornell, 1975; Oxford, 1999). Laurie Maffly-Kipp Associate Professor of Religious Studies University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill An outstanding web resource for primary source material in this area is “Making of America,” a digital library from the University of Michigan, at http://moa.umdl.umich.edu. Go into “Advanced Search,” then click “Index Search,” then click “Subject Search,” then enter “slavery – justification.” You’ll get nine publications, but you’ll find many more by clicking in the subject links listed for each publication. Some of the publications you’ll find are
7. Fundamentalist Beliefs Q. To what extent do you think a typical fundamentalist would agree with the following statements:
Glenn A. To question one, most fundamentalists would say yes, although "good lives" would not be the criterion. The criteria would be (1) salvation through faith in Christ, (2) manifested in good lives—in that order. To question two, my guess is that most would say no, although they would insist that the devil is a personal and living presence. One can gain some data on these questions from a new sociological study by Christian Smith called Christian America? What Evangelicals Really Want, just published by the University of California Press (April 2000). Best, Grant Wacker Associate Professor of the History of Religion in America Duke University Divinity School A web resource you may want to consult is the site of the Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals, Wheaton College, at http://www.wheaton.edu/isae. National Humanities Center
Getting Back to You
|
TeacherServe Home Page
National Humanities Center Home Page
Revised: October 2000
nationalhumanitiescenter.org