tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post7782664370264153500..comments2024-03-01T11:17:49.152-07:00Comments on Religion in American History: Bodies and BaptistsPaul Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13881964303772343114noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-70868165364725465652009-06-24T21:33:44.910-06:002009-06-24T21:33:44.910-06:00Thanks for this post on Lindman's book. I'...Thanks for this post on Lindman's book. I've read it, though probably not as carefully as I need to. On the whole I liked what she did, but she stays so close to the sources at times that it's hard to see the forest from the trees.<br /><br />I also resonate with your comments about the Whig interpretation of early American Baptists. Isaac does indeed perpetuate the monogenetic sense of origin. As you point out the political arrangements differed by region. So, monogenetic myth needs to be shattered. And good historians can help complexify the story. So I invite some of you do just that.<br /><br />I think that it's not just the Whig interpretation that needs a magnifying glass, but the wider range of issues. For example, I traced the historiographical interpretations of Roger Williams over the years in my presidential address to the Baptist Professors of Religion. There was a hue and cry among those who read (very wrongly I think) Williams (and Baptists) as some sort of proto-democrat/s. I link that article here and invite any comments. But thanks for this post.<br /><br />Best,<br />Curtis Freeman<br /><br />You can get the full text through ATLA<br />http://www.baylor.edu/prs/index.php?id=54797Curtis Freemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10969990860857021066noreply@blogger.com