John FeaRezensionen
Autor von Was America Founded As a Christian Nation?: A Historical Introduction
Rezensionen
Believe Me: The Evangelical Road to Donald Trump von John Fea
One of the more useful history lessons in Fea's primer on religious power in America is his focus on the phenomena of court evangelicals. A brilliant term for faith leaders attracted to wealth entrenching politicians.
‘I approach this subject not as a political scientist, pollster, or pundit, but as a historian who identifies as an evangelical Christian. For too long, white evangelical Christians have engaged in public life through a strategy defined by the politics of fear, the pursuit of worldly power, and a nostalgic longing for a national past that may have never existed in the first place.’ (6)
As one would expect from a professional historian the book is well documented - there are over 20 pages of endnotes. The book then is no knee-jerk response to a strange event. Fea carefully analyses the background to Trump’s victory. He examines why Trump was chosen by evangelicals over Cruz, Rubio and Walker - all had strong Christian leanings - they perceived Trump to be a strong man who would protect them from the cultural shifts of the Obama legacy. Fea shows how Trump followed the playbook written by the Christian right such as those that comprised the Moral Majority. A playbook that that tapped into fear and anxiety. Fear of communism, of immigrants, of non-whites, and more recently of Islam — and fear of big-government interference. In Chapter 3 he examines the history of this fear, tracing it back to the Puritans and their fear of a spiritual and moral decline, and with creating a moral panic against witchcraft and Catholics. As Fea rightly observes:
‘Nearly all the anxieties evangelicals faced in the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries carried over into the fundamentalist movement of the twentieth century.’ (90).
All this shows to understand the present we must understand the past.
Chapter 4 examines those that Fea has labelled the ‘court evangelicals’:
‘The roster of court evangelicals includes Liberty University president Jerry Falwell Jr., Southern Baptist pastor and Fox News commentator Robert Jeffress, radio host and “family values” advocate James Dobson, evangelist Franklin Graham, Christian public relations guru Johnnie Moore (who claims to be a “modern day Dietrich Bonhoeffer”), longtime Christian Right political operative Ralph Reed, culture warrior Paula White, former presidential candidate Gary Bauer, and megachurch pastor Mark Burns.’ (57)
Paula White is allegedly the person who ‘led’ him to Christ. These evangelicals it seems have endorsed Trump in return for political influence, for power (albeit illusory); they see Trump, as a ‘baby Christian’, and as a strong man who will save the USA from secularisation. Some even have described Trump as a Cyrus figure!
The final chapter examines possible meanings behind Trump’s phrase ‘Make America Great Again’. What exactly does ‘again’ mean? Fea with his great historical insight shows that there hasn’t been a time when America was great! All that Trump has done with that phrase is tap into a sense of nostalgia for an illusionary vision of America as a Christian nation.
The book probably won’t convince all the 81% of evangelicals of the error of their ways— not least because the majority won’t read it. But, for those that do, it will give them pause for thought and hopefully help them to see that in supporting Trump they have colluded with the spirt(s) of the age and have bought the term evangelical into disrepute. As Fea has shown it is more fear, power and nostalgia rather than the lordship of Christ that caused them to support Trump.
This book should be required reading for all US evangelicals.
Contents
Aknowledgments ix
Introduction 1
1. The Evangelical Politics of Fear 11
2. The Playbook 37
3. A Short History of Evangelical Fear 65
4. The Court Evangelicals 99
5. Make America Great Again 133
Conclusion 155
Notes 167
His aim is to provide a primer on the study of the past. Its intended audience is “Christian college students who are studying history” (ix), but it would be a shame if those were the only ones who read it.
Fea writes with wisdom and insight and provides a helpful introduction of history undergraduates and for those who would like to study history. Fea is a Professor of American history at Messiah College, he is also the author of Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?, and so it is inevitable that his illustrations draw from that country. This has the down-side of making it less accessible for those who study non-American history.
Particularly helpful was the discussion on providence and history. How are we to interpret history from a Christian perspective? Can we have a God-perspective on history? Some would claim to, Fea is more sceptical. God obviously intervenes in history, but can the historian be true to her calling and interpret events as God interventions? Fea believes in providence (p 67) but contra Steven Keillor, is sceptical about providential history. He looks at one contemporary popular providential history book, that of The Light and the Glory by Marshall and Manuel. These authors write a Christian history focused on the sovereignty of God (p 74). Fea maintains that “An appeal to providence in a historical narrative like that of the East River fog of 1776 fails to help us better understand what happened on that day, and one of the historian’s primary tasks is to aid our understanding of the past” (p 78). My concern is that this could lead to the historian practicing methodological naturalism but on the other hand the danger is that providence can become what is beneficial to the one describing it. (p 81) Fea is right though when he states that we need to approach history with a “sense of God’s transcendent mystery, a health does of humility, and a hope that one day soon, but not now, we will all understand the Almighty’s plan for the nations" (p 81). Again to quote Fea: “historians are not in the business of studying God; they are in the business of studying humans” (p 85).
Providence, may not then be a useful tool for the historian but there are others that Fea reveals; these include: the idea that humans are created in the image of God; the reality of human sin; an incarnational approach to the past; the role of moral reflection in historical work. There is a good emphasis on the need for the historian not to preach or moralise.
As Fea states “the Christian church is in need of a history lesson”. He obviously has a passion for history, and this passion comes through. He also has a very high regard for history for him history is: “a discipline …the art of reconstructing the past .. the exciting task of interpretation” (p 3); “more about competing perceptions of the past event or life than it is about nailing down a definitive account of a specific event of life” (p 16); “a discipline that requires interpretation, imagination, and even literary or artistic style” (p 29); “the glue that holds communities and nations together” (p 37); “like being swallowed up in an immense ocean or field and losing oneself in its midst” (p 60); “essential for producing the kind of informed citizen, with the necessary virtues and skills, needed for our society to thrive” (p 116). “Doing history is not unlike the kind of ‘disciplines’ we employ in our spiritual lives—disciplines that take the focus off of us and put it on God or others (p 132). History has the power to civilise us and to transform. Sometimes I think he overstates the case, but nevertheless he makes some excellent points.
The final chapter takes a look at what those with history degrees are doing now (adapted from here). History degrees obviously prepares people for a wide range of vocations. The epilogue is a heart-felt appeal for “historians who are willing to go into churches and listen to people” to the benefit of the historian and the church. To this end, in an appendix, he makes an appeal for a “Center for American history and a civil society”. I hope it comes to fruition.
This book will help all budding historians be better historians.
This was a fascinating read on a multitude of levels and was a very good and thorough quick read. It switches a fair bit from what you THINK the work will be about (how Trump isn't really Christian and turns it back on why the Evangelicals voted for him, and why that was wrong/bad).
And that is definitely the basis for it all. It was WRONG, morally, ethically, and it was just BAD for the white Evangelicals to vote for Trump. Trading their ethics and morals for a Supreme Court Judge who *MIGHT* oppose Roe v. Wade.
I was more expecting a treatise on how Trump used Christianity/the Evangelicals to garner votes and (81% of Evangelicals voted for him) to gain himself the White House, but this did only a little on that, and more or less covered how Evangelicalism has effected politics in America, and why they vote the way they do, and why they voted for Trump more than say Bush Sr. or Jr.
There is definitely a lot to de-pack in this tight small (191 pages not counting notes/references/bibliography) piece of work.
For anyone intrigued on the politics and history behind how Trump won, and Evangelicalism or Christianity/politics, this is a very good book to start with (or to just read, period).
In the first part of the book, Fea looks at the substantial body of evidence, going back to the early 19th century, that the idea of America as a Christian nation is not a new idea of the political far right. It didn't start in the 80s with Ronald Reagan any more than it started in the Noughties with George W. Bush. It is an idea that has been prominently presented by politicians of the right and, maybe surprising to many not old enough to remember the 60s, of the left, as well, persistently throughout our history. Fea presents examples from politicians, ministers, and activists of all stripes in demonstrating this.
But that doesn't address the question of whether America was founded as a Christian nation, and Mr. Fea proceeds to address that question in the subsequent sections. The complications begin with the question itself. What do we mean by "founded"? What do we mean by "Christian nation"? What, even, do we mean by "America"? As John Fea explains and demonstrates quite clearly, these are all multiple choice questions. Was America "founded" in 1776, with the Declaration of Independence? In 1787, with the Constitutional Convention? In 1789, when the Constitution went into effect? Or are all those dates too late, and America was "founded" when the first colonies were founded?
Even more complex is "Christian nation." Much of the history, with quotes and examples, offered by those who are deeply invested in the "Christian nation" idea are in fact deeply ahistorical -- taking quotes out of context, ignoring other statements by the same people, ignoring or not understanding what certain words, phrases, and expressions meant in the 18th century to the people who said and wrote them. In other cases, eloquent expressions of the Christian importance of the Revolution are clearly polemical in intent, and interpret the Biblical passages in question in ways directly opposite of how they had been used throughout Christian history and the history of the American colonies to that point, claiming them as support for Revolution when they had for nearly two millennia been understood as support for obeying lawfully constituted government even when its actions were deeply unjust. There are also determined efforts to ignore, deny, or argue away the fact that a number of critical figures in the the Revolution and the writing and adoption of the Constitution either weren't Christians at all, or were lukewarm, not at all devout Christians. Those who were, were nevertheless strongly influenced by Enlightenment thought and ideals that many who espouse the "Christian nation" position find reprehensible.
It means ignoring the fact that the Declaration of Independence mentions God only a few times, in conventional and unspecific ways. It means ignoring the more important fact that the Declaration as conceived by its writers and signers was not intended as a founding document or a statement of core American beliefs at all, but as a foreign policy document, "a decent respect for the opinions of Mankind," aimed at justifying the Revolution to foreign governments in the hope of getting recognition and support.
It means ignoring the fact that the Constitution doesn't mention God at all, and mentions religion only to exclude it as a test for office, and the First Amendment adds to that only the exclusion of any possibility of a national established church, and protection of the right of free expression of religion, with no qualifications on those rights at all.
Does this mean John Fea is a firm adherent of the idea that America was not founded as a Christian nation? No.
Those who categorically reject the idea that America was founded as a Christian nation are making their own historical errors and misrepresentations. Most of the Founders were Christians, and the overwhelming majority of the population of the American colonies were Christians. The Founders who were not Christians nevertheless believed that religion in some form was a necessary part of peaceful and orderly society, and had no quarrel with the fact that most of their compatriots were Christians. None of the Founders understood the Constitutional ban on religious tests for office, or the First Amendment ban on established churches, as applying to the states, most of which had both until well into the first half of the 19th century. It was important to many of the founding generation to justify the Revolution in Christian terms because Christianity was a basic, guiding moral framework for them.
As I said at the beginning of this review, It's Complicated. This excellent book will allow no thoughtful reader the comfort of their own unexamined certainties.
Highly recommended.
I received a free electronic galley of this book from the publisher via NetGalley.
The author stands in the midst of two traditions: he professes to follow Jesus, he works at a "Christian" institution of higher learning, but he also wishes to uphold strong, robust historical scholarship. The book is the attempt to stand between two opposing religious and cultural positions: on one side, the confidence that America was founded as a specifically, uniquely, and exceptionally Christian nation, and on the other side, the confidence that America was essentially founded as a secular nation. He does so by first exploring the history of America and the idea of a "Christian nation"; he then explores the nation's origins, founding, and original documents to see if it was established as a "Christian nation," and he concludes by exploring the life stories of many prominent "Founding Fathers" to see if they were recognizably Christian / orthodox Christian in their lives and beliefs.
In the end Fea shows that many did believe that America was a "Christian nation," and yet from the beginning the enterprise was never established for that specific reason, and Enlightenment ideals regarding freedom and liberty were as much in play, if not more so, than actual Biblical ideals in the founding of America. He persuasively shows that arguments about the Christian nature of the founding and its documents cannot be sustained. In terms of the Founders themselves he does well at showing how they can neither be upheld as a group of orthodox Christians nor as fully secularizing Deists, but often stood somewhere in-between.
An essential read and corrective of so much misinformation out there. Also: don't trust David Barton on American history.
**--galley received as part of early review program
Left out of this history are some items that perhaps needed more discussion. Although the goal of the ABS was to distribute Bibles "without note or comment" to prevent one Protestant denomination to be preferred, very little is mentioned about the decisions to remove the Apocrypha from the Bibles as a standard practice. While this censorship was aimed at promoting anti-Catholicism, the Apocryphal books are also parts of some Protestant denominations as well.
Little also is mentioned of the Gideons International who also distribute free Bibles and New Testaments to hotel rooms across the country. Their philosophical relationship to and their aligned mission to the American Bible Society is not explored well enough.
Also missing is some comparison of similar societies in other religions. Several Muslim organizations have copied the practices and goals of the American Bible Society in providing free scriptures, as has several Buddhist organizations as well. Mentioned briefly, but not explored, are some of the interactions and contretemps by the ABS over the years with the Mormons in dealing with distributing their literature as well.
Many ABS published New Testaments were also used by soldiers as "spiritual armor", hoping that a bullet aimed for the heart would swerve slightly and hit the Bible in the breast pocket instead, thus saving the life of the trooper. This was the gist of many Civil War soldier's tales, and I still own a WWII pocket sized version of a New Testament with a brass cover, sold as a "Heart Guard" to protect the soldier from Japanese or German fire.
A good book for religious organizations and for people who are interested in the practice of the spread of Christianity and Christian ideals. Recommended also as part of the history of Missionary societies in the US and abroad.
His aim is to provide a primer on the study of the past. Its intended audience is “Christian college students who are studying history” (ix), but it would be a shame if those were the only ones who read it.
Fea writes with wisdom and insight and provides a helpful introduction of history undergraduates and for those who would like to study history. Fea is a Professor of American history at Messiah College, he is also the author of Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?, and so it is inevitable that his illustrations draw from that country. This has the down-side of making it less accessible for those who study non-American history.
Particularly helpful was the discussion on providence and history. How are we to interpret history from a Christian perspective? Can we have a God-perspective on history? Some would claim to, Fea is more sceptical. God obviously intervenes in history, but can the historian be true to her calling and interpret events as God interventions? Fea believes in providence (p 67) but contra Steven Keillor, is sceptical about providential history. He looks at one contemporary popular providential history book, that of The Light and the Glory by Marshall and Manuel. These authors write a Christian history focused on the sovereignty of God (p 74). Fea maintains that “An appeal to providence in a historical narrative like that of the East River fog of 1776 fails to help us better understand what happened on that day, and one of the historian’s primary tasks is to aid our understanding of the past” (p 78). My concern is that this could lead to the historian practicing methodological naturalism but on the other hand the danger is that providence can become what is beneficial to the one describing it. (p 81) Fea is right though when he states that we need to approach history with a “sense of God’s transcendent mystery, a health does of humility, and a hope that one day soon, but not now, we will all understand the Almighty’s plan for the nations" (p 81). Again to quote Fea: “historians are not in the business of studying God; they are in the business of studying humans” (p 85).
Providence, may not then be a useful tool for the historian but there are others that Fea reveals; these include: the idea that humans are created in the image of God; the reality of human sin; an incarnational approach to the past; the role of moral reflection in historical work. There is a good emphasis on the need for the historian not to preach or moralise.
As Fea states “the Christian church is in need of a history lesson”. He obviously has a passion for history, and this passion comes through. He also has a very high regard for history for him history is: “a discipline …the art of reconstructing the past .. the exciting task of interpretation” (p 3); “more about competing perceptions of the past event or life than it is about nailing down a definitive account of a specific event of life” (p 16); “a discipline that requires interpretation, imagination, and even literary or artistic style” (p 29); “the glue that holds communities and nations together” (p 37); “like being swallowed up in an immense ocean or field and losing oneself in its midst” (p 60); “essential for producing the kind of informed citizen, with the necessary virtues and skills, needed for our society to thrive” (p 116). “Doing history is not unlike the kind of ‘disciplines’ we employ in our spiritual lives—disciplines that take the focus off of us and put it on God or others (p 132). History has the power to civilise us and to transform. Sometimes I think he overstates the case, but nevertheless he makes some excellent points.
The final chapter takes a look at what those with history degrees are doing now (adapted from here). History degrees obviously prepares people for a wide range of vocations. The epilogue is a heart-felt appeal for “historians who are willing to go into churches and listen to people” to the benefit of the historian and the church. To this end, in an appendix, he makes an appeal for a “Center for American history and a civil society”. I hope it comes to fruition.
This book will help all budding historians be better historians.
2 
thornton37814 | 4 weitere Rezensionen | Dec 8, 2011 |
thornton37814 | 4 weitere Rezensionen | Dec 8, 2011 | 
1 casvelyn | Oct 27, 2011 |
casvelyn | Oct 27, 2011 | Diese Seite verwendet Cookies für unsere Dienste, zur Verbesserung unserer Leistungen, für Analytik und (falls Sie nicht eingeloggt sind) für Werbung. Indem Sie LibraryThing nutzen, erklären Sie dass Sie unsere Nutzungsbedingungen und Datenschutzrichtlinie gelesen und verstanden haben. Die Nutzung unserer Webseite und Dienste unterliegt diesen Richtlinien und Geschäftsbedingungen.