Three immediate thoughts on this piece about biblical ignorance the Christian Right:
(1) I don’t think that playing gotcha on the books of the Pentateuch is a good way to assess Bible knowledge/ignorance (i.e. that wasn’t a good example for the article’s thesis);
(2) Won’t a certain sector see this deficit as an incentive to actually increase the quality and quantity of bible study groups?
(3) And if (2) happens, won’t that actually increase, in the near term, the possibility of misapplied verses and bad politics?
The problem with Christian Right politics is not so much bad Bible knowledge but an unwillingness—after injecting theology into the public square—to tolerate compromise, process, and democracy. That kind of liberalism reads as license to them. The true believer in so-called pro-life politics abhors compromise. Living life in the abstract makes it difficult to deal with practical messiness of democracy. – TL
I can get behind substantial portions of this reply (esp. the critique of The Enlightenment). But the real issue, as I see it, is in the final paragraph on faith statements—because that’s the problem fronted in Peter Conn’s original critique of Wheaton College (IL) in an article on accreditation issues. I think both Conn and Jones underestimate the on-the-ground complexity from their con and pro positions, respectively. Both ignore the practical workarounds of faculty, as well as the pressures of the constricted job market that require sometimes quiet assent. And then there’s the granddaddy problem of them all: does the institution require *literal* assent to every point in the statement, knowing of course that all scripture scholarship does not require literal interpretations to make the scripture deeply meaningful. As a point of reference, here is Wheaton College’s “Statement of Faith and Educational Purpose.” – TL
After pondering my conversations with (medical) students over the past six months, I’ve decided that the memorable mnemonic of “The 9 Cs” has to be updated. Because I’m constantly emphasizing the notion of competing narratives with my students this seemed a natural addition:
Competition: The notion of competing narratives is essential to historical thinking. It is especially related to complexity and conjecture. Narratives compete for our attention most obviously in politics and in family memories. But the principle is also at work in reading and constructing histories generally. The “winning” narrative usually displays the best integrated and plausible storytelling, for people are fond of comprehensiveness in their histories (even while generalists understand the importance of narrowed and specialized historical inquiry). That said, no one story can ever integrate everything. And changing one or two elements (citations/sources) can change the perception and slant of a historical narrative. As such, a good historical thinker always knows that other legitimate narratives exist.
So it’s now “The 10 Cs.” I’ll update that entry with a new post. – TL
I don’t recall which of my friends recommended this documentary, but Jodi and I finally watched it last night. It’s fantastic.
If were teaching regularly, I would use this at the start of a course to emphasize several points about good historical thinking: memory, competing narratives, perspective, sources, selection, emphasis, context, presentism, and on and on. I can’t recommend this enough to all of my historian friends.
Have you seen it? What did you think? What other films or documentaries put the full range of historical thinking on display? – TL
From this article: “During the Cold War, the CIA loved literature — novels, short stories, poems. Joyce, Hemingway, Eliot. Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Nabokov. Books were weapons, and if a work of literature was unavailable or banned in the Soviet Union or Eastern Europe, it could be used as propaganda to challenge the Soviet version of reality. Over the course of the Cold War, as many as 10 million copies of books and magazines were secretly distributed by the agency behind the Iron Curtain as part of a political warfare campaign.”
Even Britannica’s *Great Books* set was used in this effort. I hope to document and discuss this, as well as other international/transnational uses of the great books idea, in my next book project. – TL
Yesterday at the USIH blog I put up this post on the notion of “a great books sensibility.” It’s the first of what will be three or four such essays. Please check it out and leave a comment. I plan on using this theory in an upcoming book, and would like critical feedback so as to develop more nuance. – TL