New Blog: American Creation
John Fea
Our readers should be aware of the folks over at American Creation, a new group blog "to promote discussion, debate and insight into the religious aspects of America's founding." They have an eclectic group of contributors who do a great job of scouring the web for materials related to Christianity and the Founding. It looks like part of their mission is to debunk the "Christian America" myth circulating among certain sectors of American evangelicalism. One of their contributors, Jon Rowe, is the most dogged critic of the Christian America thesis I have ever run across and I have learned much from reading his own blog over the last few years.
As some of you know, I am writing a popular book for the church tentatively titled "Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?: A Primer for Christians," so needless to say I will be checking American Creation often.
Our readers should be aware of the folks over at American Creation, a new group blog "to promote discussion, debate and insight into the religious aspects of America's founding." They have an eclectic group of contributors who do a great job of scouring the web for materials related to Christianity and the Founding. It looks like part of their mission is to debunk the "Christian America" myth circulating among certain sectors of American evangelicalism. One of their contributors, Jon Rowe, is the most dogged critic of the Christian America thesis I have ever run across and I have learned much from reading his own blog over the last few years.
As some of you know, I am writing a popular book for the church tentatively titled "Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?: A Primer for Christians," so needless to say I will be checking American Creation often.
Comments
Take, for example, Rowe's post about GW's letter to a French minister. From this one letter, which would obviously contain diplomatic deference, Rowe concludes, "This letter clearly shows how Americans viewed the French Revolution as a continuation of the American: Sister republics founded on "liberty.""
I'm sorry, but that kind of overstatement is plain old sloppy scholarship. And in my opinion, the entire blog reeks of this kind of "tendenz".
Sorry if I worded it strongly, but I just don't think it serves anyone well for the American Creation folks to respond to the sloppy scholarship of the David Barton types with sloppy scholarship of their own.
As for the difference between AC and RIAH, we'll have to agree to disagree. Your contributors may post some strong opinions, but I don't get the sense that they always have some particular viewpoint they want to prove. The tone of RIAH seems to invite criticism, while the tone of AC seems to be above it.
Just my thoughts. Perhaps I'm way off base. :)
Speaking of grad students, I happen to be a grad student at the illustrious University of Colorado @ Colorado Springs, where I have the distinguished honor of learning at the feet of the great Dr. Paul Harvey, who is CLEARLY one of the premiere historians of our day!!!
Well, it may look that way but as you read on at American Creation you will find there are a few of us who are trying to hold those Deists and U(u)nitarians feet to the fire!
I will grant, however, that each of the contributors individually has certain points of view and "agendas" on things, but that's why the blog founder (Lindsey) has invited several contributors. Balance.
As for the "sloppy scholarship," I will grant Manlius part of his point. There has been a lot of David Barton bashing over at AC - something I'm not comfortable with. I believe Barton has overreached in some areas, and I have no problem with constructive criticism of his claims. But the criticism by a couple of the AC contributors has been harsh - which, of course, sets up the AC contributors to be judged according to the standards they are placing on Barton. So, on that point, Manlius, you've made an observation that I think we all need to bear in mind.
FWIW, my own view on the founders is that I think a lot of folks underestimate the Puritan influence on the Unitarians, while others underestimate the Enlightenment/Deist influence on the Anglicans. The confusing amalgamation of all this (which Franklin seems to embody uniquely in his own person) gives ample opportunity for us to cherry pick quotations to serve our own ends.
So I guess you can put in the skeptical camp when it comes to making a clear call on the religious principles of the founders. Maybe that's why I reacted to the AC blog the way I did.
Peace to all, and thanks to the AC contributors for not taking what I said personally.
Forgive me if this question seems ignorant.
I've concluded -- and I'll gladly stand corrected if I see compelling evidence to the contrary -- that most of the theorizing on the "differences" between the American and French Revolutions was done after the fact, in hindsight, after the mess was over. Similar to the way that history truly understood Vietnam (and now Iraq) after the fact ("history" is still "out" on Iraq). Edmund Burke who supported the American but not the French Revolution got it right beforehand -- but he was one of the few. But America at the time viewed the two revolutions as sister events, twin republics founded on "liberty."