George, Mark Noll, Hoffer discussed on Exvangelical

Exvangelical
|

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

Kind of see it a little different way. Re The word reactionary. itself is really loaded term and you know if we think of the the sort of. What it was like to live in the late nineteenth century which I actually think we as early twenty first century people can have a lot of sympathy for I see a lot of similarities in the sort of the cultural anxieties of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century here a hundred years later, and so what I think happens at any given moment in historical time line is that stuff occurs you know new ideas come up new books are written new ideas. You know Kinda new patterns of community come to the fore people who haven't previously had voice be express their voices and. All of that causes reactions among all of every group of human beings. And and so now when I would have said one time Oh. Yeah. The fundamentalists or reactionary against liberal culture and that they were just trying to protect themselves against these changes I think that probably the fairer thing to for me. Fair way for me to think about it at least is that. Human beings react to change. And Liberal of the people who became Protestant. Liberals were reacting to change as well. So. They were reacting by saying. You. Know these are these ideas are worth listening to maybe there's something here that we can learn from. Maybe we haven't always understood the what. Jesus. Intended in terms of living in. Adjust universe, and so they were reacting their adaptation was a reaction to those those things and I think fundamentalists were doing the same thing as well. You know as they were also reacted and and they adopted and so so what I what I think is the the false narrative is that either one of these two sides emerged from the nineteenth century into the first years the twenty twentieth century maintaining. A kind of protestantism that had been practiced say fifty or seventy years before. Both groups Reacted to social change intellectual change. And I think also internal pressures within their own traditional ill edition. and they formed two different pathways. Really. Of. Adapting. To those changes. As and so I would rather think of that. Is Adaptation and and. Transformation rather than just being quote unquote reactionary because of the nature of the word the action, very. Loaded Connotation for sure. Yeah. It does this conversation I. Think you know one thinks it's important. Do is to try to. Win. Any good historian is always trying to do is put herself in him or himself you know back into the narrative and A. How how would I feel? How did these people? How do these people see their moment and so so I think that you know very few people were. Were standing there. You know kind of imagining themselves. In a way that was negative they saw themselves as the heroes of their own stories and one group. The more modernist and liberal types were heroes in their own story. They believe that they were protecting your saving Christianity by. Adopting these. New, ideas and fundamentalists had the exact opposite approach. Yeah and I I am certainly sort of showing my cards a little bit as being someone that mood from more conservative. Faith of origin to one that is more open, more liberal for lack of a better word. So. I appreciate the the way in which you responded to that question even the way in which I which I worded it. So thank you for exploring that with me. Right makes a difference I think into how we read the stories. You know because I mean I can I can look back in the history fundamentalism WANNA tear my hair out because I journey through. Evangelical ISM as a personal. Experience of personal narrative. Mostly in the nineteen seventies, eighties and eighties for about fifteen seventeen years of my life. And and so. You know coming out on the other side I had very strong reaction against it and at the and that was very problematic for me because I had considered my south evangelical, all the way through my undergraduate, my seminary education, and even into my PhD when I was studying studying with Marsden as so my personal identity was wrapped up in the historical narrative that I was studying and while I was working with this historical narrative I always wanted to give it the benefit of the doubt because I wanted my tribe to look good. Which is true for a lot of the people who are. Well known historians in this field you know Mark Noll does not want a marginal who taught at Wheaton for years and then Notre Dame. You, know he he doesn't want. To look bad those are his people you know George, George. Martin. Did Not want jobs look bad those his people in and and so. What you try to do historian and I'm so grateful that I studied with these these types. Of of thinkers, it was almost all men because there were very few women in the field back. Then there was only one woman a real note, a woman named eat bloom Hoffer who studied history of Kinda cost the whistle. And so Most these people studied with you know they they were in a real on real mission to. Understand. What had been good about their own tribes. And that meant that they approached. Fundamentalism far more sympathetically than any other. Of. Scholars since. The argument started one hundred hundred years ago. So. So I really I wear that I..

Coming up next