tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post4976670256905263172..comments2024-03-26T11:33:59.219-06:00Comments on Religion in American History: Glenn Beck, Methodism, and "Black Founders"Paul Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13881964303772343114noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-44274392119109737022010-10-12T08:47:16.218-06:002010-10-12T08:47:16.218-06:00Thanks, all, for your comments. Sorry it's tak...Thanks, all, for your comments. Sorry it's taken me a few days to respond.<br /><br />Anthea, I do hope you'll weigh in on these issues. I'd be very interested in your thoughts.<br /><br />Curtis, you're certainly right that we (historians, I presume?) have a lot of work to do in articulating to the public how history/historical scholarship works. <br /><br />Nat, "oversimplification" is a nice way of characterizing what B&B are doing here. If you're interested (and the story of Allen and the AME is a fascinating one that deserves wide readership), you should really take a look at Richard Newman's biography (<em>Freedom's Prophet: Bishop Richard Allen, the AME Church, and the Black Founding Fathers</em>). For the sake of brevity, suffice it to say that the congregation at St. George's was already largely segregated and that very few Christian communities in the early Republic were integrated in the modern sense of that word. But the history of it all is much more complex than that, and contrary to Beck's assertions, professional historians have not "hid" that history at all, but rather have gone to great lengths to try and make it an integral part of the American story.Christopherhttp://usreligion.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-17462886828103462702010-10-07T14:29:10.531-06:002010-10-07T14:29:10.531-06:00Somehow I doubt they've ever read Richard Newm...<i>Somehow I doubt they've ever read Richard Newman. Too bad for them, since more of an emphasis on the black founders would tend to augment a more Christianized view of the founding era. </i><br /><br />Per his customary incompetence, it appears Barton once again has the right thesis but the wrong evidence. It's a shame that the culture wars take precedence, and there are far too many who more interested in condemning "them" rather than merely correcting them.<br /><br />But Barton-Beck wouldn't be possible without the true common misperception, that "the Founders were all deists." The system failed somewhere.<br /><br />For even if reducing religion to "ceremonial deism" is a necessary "legal fiction" in the 21st century, as Gordon Wood says, there are far too many products of our system who believe that a bland deism was actual religious landscape of the Founding.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-72150811099360589972010-10-07T14:13:30.543-06:002010-10-07T14:13:30.543-06:00I've seen some of the Beck and Barton stuff on...I've seen some of the Beck and Barton stuff on black history. It troubles me deeply. I'm glad you can write about this in a responsible and winsome way. It's the kind of approach to history that makes my blood boil, not so much because Beck and Barton are forwarding it (that's irresponsible enough), but because of my concern that this is being consumed as valid history by his listeners and viewers. We have a lot of work ahead of us.<br /><br />Curtis J EvansAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-90205139378970429602010-10-07T08:50:48.420-06:002010-10-07T08:50:48.420-06:00Apologies for the double post (it was long too), F...Apologies for the double post (it was long too), Firefox hiccuped.The Cannonshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14448657753448366372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-82288468287325148542010-10-07T08:47:41.037-06:002010-10-07T08:47:41.037-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.The Cannonshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14448657753448366372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-61438180126919714052010-10-07T08:47:04.651-06:002010-10-07T08:47:04.651-06:00Great post, Chris.
Two parts:
Introductory - Are ...Great post, Chris.<br /><br />Two parts:<br />Introductory - Are Beck and Barton (B&B) drawing on an oversimplification of the incident where Allen leaves the St. George congregation to form the FAS? Was Allen seeking a resolution to a less than desirable internal segregation at St. George's by creating a separate black congregational movement? Did the white AND black congregants resist this? Was their resistance based on the inherent morality of integration? (This is me using Wiki, being totally ignorant of the context and history, looking for some explanation of where B&B are getting this little anecdote.)<br /><br />Conclusory - It seems B&B's position that things were moving "in the right direction" [paraphrasing] is based in part on the notion that neither the white nor black congregants at St. George's wanted to segregate because they had some moral sense of social integration. Is this a mis-characterization of the state of things in that (or other) congregation(s)? Was there or was there not a general sense of social integration at least in parts of the US at the time? I think this is the crux of what B&B are driving (or grasping) at. Their underlying question seems to be: "Given that there was a general sense of racial integration among congregants (and hence much of America), might this have become the norm across large segments of the U.S. due to efforts of abolitionists and integration-minded activists had preachers such as Allen not chosen to move towards racial congregationalism?"<br /><br />Any follow up to the co-option section? Way back during his HLN days I clued in to the fact that Beck is subtly "Skousenite" or whatever, and I find it absolutely fascinating that he's now making Skousenites out of Evangelicals, creating an "anti-progressive" American history, promoting American propheticism(?), etc. It's like he's trying to grab onto parts of loosely connected, often fringe ideas and create this new cohesive world view. Crazy Mormons.<br /><br />NathanielThe Cannonshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14448657753448366372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-21983530432301342712010-10-07T05:30:49.872-06:002010-10-07T05:30:49.872-06:00OMG. The bones of Richard Allen are RATTLING down ...OMG. The bones of Richard Allen are RATTLING down the street from me. Thanks for this, I didn't know Beck had started in on AFAM rel history. I've been avoiding watching him but now I have to get into the fray!<br />Anthea ButlerAnthea butlerhttp://antheabutler.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-33955676217528267092010-10-06T23:38:56.456-06:002010-10-06T23:38:56.456-06:00Chris: Yes, here I'll blame Beck for my team&#...Chris: Yes, here I'll blame Beck for my team's ineptitude, but in our league we're all subject to the Curse of Matt Sutton, the Prince of Darkness. <br /><br />A rhetorical question? Yes, but no. I understand their Founding Fathers nonsense -- a distorted and bad interpretation, but at least one spun from a few stray quotations and facts here and there. But this Richard Allen story is just flat earth stuff. <br /><br />Somehow I doubt they've ever read Richard Newman. Too bad for them, since more of an emphasis on the black founders would tend to augment a more Christianized view of the founding era. <br /><br />As for hidden history, who has time to read the mountain of books on this subject? The only thing hidden is my TV remote control, which usually gets buried underneath said pile.Paul Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13881964303772343114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-18608519261119163262010-10-06T22:37:28.358-06:002010-10-06T22:37:28.358-06:00I'm 3-1 and tied for second in my FF league so...I'm 3-1 and tied for second in my FF league so far. Here's to hoping posting on Beck doesn't curse my luck.<br /><br />Recognizing that yours was probably a rhetorical question, I'll venture an answer anyway, since I am genuinely curious about the source of their information. It seems clear at this point that Beck is taking all of his talking points on early American history from Barton, but I don't know what Barton is drawing on. While I find Barton's interpretations of the founding fathers' religion, for instance, suspect, I can at least (kind sorta) see where he's coming up with these ideas--a TJ reference to Christianity here, a GW prayer there. But they butchered the Richard Allen story so incredibly bad that I have no clue where they're getting this all from. One would think they'd at least consult Allen's own writings, but doing so would, of course, undermine everything they say about him and Philadelphia Methodism. Perhaps the folks at American Creation can help with where Barton is coming up with all of this.<br /><br />What strikes me as increasingly odd is that Beck and Barton keep driving home the point that this is all part of America's "hidden history" that professional historians have intentionally been hiding, when of course, <em>every single freaking issue</em> Beck and Barton discuss has been written on at length by historians, from Richard Allen and the MEC to the religion of the Founding Fathers.Christopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13838699621239633661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-90513305530652370082010-10-06T17:49:04.461-06:002010-10-06T17:49:04.461-06:00Chris: Once again this year, my fantasy football t...Chris: Once again this year, my fantasy football team's losing streak is doubtless attributable to all the Beck postings on here just as the season started -- so thanks a lot for dooming me to some more losses. <br /><br />But seriously, I'm tempted to paraphrase whoever it was (was it Dorothy Parker?) who said of Lillian Hellman's autobiography, every word is a lie, including "and" and "the." In this case, not a lie, but every single thing they say about Allen, St. George's, etc. could not possibly be more wrong if they tried to get a zero on the test. Where do they come up with this crap, do you know? This is 2 + 2 = 5 stuff.Paul Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13881964303772343114noreply@blogger.com