“Shut Up and Start Writing:” We’re Starting a Writing Group!

That will be our motto.

So, after some inquiring on Facebook, I’ve discovered that there is some interest among colleagues to start a writing group that would help us all stay focused on our writing projects and get stuff done this summer. There are a lot of ways to do a writing group but I thought we would keep this one simple, encouraging, and easy. So here’s what I propose:

1. We will run the group for the next 7 weeks, from the week of July 2 through the week of August 6 (so the final check in would be August 11). At that point we can re-group and decide if we want to keep going through the Fall semester.

2. I will post a writing group post on Fridays, you then have until Monday morning to check-in in the comment section and leave at least two pieces of information: what you did this past week and what you plan to do next week. Feel free to also leave comments about how your project is going, struggles you’re having with it, things that got in your way, things that helped, etc. This is supposed to be about accountability AND support. Hopefully the comment section will be a place of mutual support and cheering on.

3. Your goals for each week can be whatever you think will help you. Measure in time, words, pages, whatever. The more specific you can make it the better, though. It will be easier for you to see your progress and for us to hold you accountable if you have tangible goals for the week.

So, if you are interested in participating all you need to do is leave a comment below letting us know what you’re currently working on (chapter, book manuscript, revisions, article, dissertation, etc.) and what your goal is for next week. I don’t expect this group to get huge, but if it does I’ll cut off the number at some point. No one wants to read 100 people’s writing goals. Also, don’t be lame and quit or go AWOL without at least letting us know first. Feel free to leave any questions in the comments or send me a tweet.

I think this is going to be fun!

The Invention of American Evangelicalism; or, Why Ed Blum is Mad

The following is a cross-post from Religion in American History. Check out the great comments on the original post.

(If you’re unsure what made Ed mad read this post.)
[Update: Ed says he's not mad anymore, just passionate. Also, read this post from Ed where he expands his thoughts on race and evangelicalism. His thoughts echo much of what's in this post.]

Evangelical history is a lot like this plaque from the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecrafts. The plaque was affixed to the spacecrafts in order to communicate some basic information to any extraterrestrial life they might encounter as they zoomed toward Jupiter and beyond. The plaque is rife with information but the most obvious elements are the map of the solar system and the drawing of a man and woman. The plaque was meant to represent us (humans) to them (aliens). But more than that, the plaque also represents us to us. It shows what we thought was really important (hydrogen) and who we thought we were (that shapely white heterosexual couple with the man standing tall and waving while the woman extends her leg Angelina Jolie Oscars style). It represented us to ourselves.

This is the same dual work that much “evangelical history” does. On the one hand, the history of evangelicalism represents what evangelicalism is or has been to those not within the fold. It’s a project that says, “See, we have been at the heart of democracy and republicanism in America. Ours is the religion of freedom, liberty, choice, and reason.”  It’s also a project that represents itself to itself-that is, to evangelicals. Often these representations are meant to call today’s evangelical Christians to be a better sort of Christians by reminding them of what they once were. “Once we had the social passion of the great abolitionists and the depth of thought of Edwards. We can have that again.” I think it is this dual work of representation that creates the blindspots around race and gender that engendered Ed’s battle cry and Kelly Baker’s questions.

That said, I don’t think the problem is really about representation. It’s not that there aren’t enough African American, Latino/a American, or Asian American evangelicals in our indexes and lists. The problem is not representation but construction. Or, to put it as a question, why do we think there even is such a thing as evangelicalism? Or evangelicals? To be blunt, why do we care who is or isn’t an evangelical?

The term “evangelical” has a long history that I won’t get into and that I’m sure many readers of this blog know more about than I do. However, it seems that the term has been self-applied or imposed upon a variety of Protestants since the Reformation. It is a “native term” batted about by Protestants throughout their various squabbles with themselves and others. For some American Protestants at certain places and times “evangelical” signified “true.” Evangelical Christianity stood in contrast to infidel Christianity (be it liberal or deistic or what have you). Or conversely, to put myself in the shoes of the Unitarians I’ve been reading all week, “evangelical” Christianity is stiff mindless orthodoxy that lacks the refined reason and liberty of liberal Christianity. The question of who is or isn’t “evangelical” or what is or isn’t “evangelicalism” is a Protestant debate between Protestants and has become a historiographical question within American religious history insofar as American religious history is still under-girded by Protestant sensibilities and categories.

The real question for historians of American religion and especially historians of American evangelicalism is “what are the politics of the category evangelical?” Why do we want more African Americans in a list of evangelicals? Why do we want more women? Because it is a privileged category. It is also a constructed category. It is, to use my favorite Jon Butler phrase, an interpretive fiction. It is an invention, first within the minds of Protestants since the Reformation and then within the minds of historians from Robert Baird to the guys at Patheos. Rather than worry about who is or isn’t an evangelical or adding more diversity to the list, historians should be investigating the process of this invention. We should be tracing the politics of the term and what is at stake in various places and times when people take, leave, fight for, argue about, or compromise over what it means to be “evangelical.” We don’t need more or different histories of evangelicalism or evangelicals, we need a genealogy of the term. We need to trace the invention of American evangelicalism. We need to stop assuming that evangelicalism is something out there for us to track down in the archive or research field and label correctly. Instead, let’s pay attention to how various subjects imagine evangelicalism and the political, cultural, and social forces at work in those imaginings. Let’s find out what’s at stake when people get included or excluded from “evangelicalism.” I’d do it but I have this other thing I’m working on.

Let me be clear, I don’t think evangelical historians should stop doing what they are doing. The work of representing evangelical history to outsiders and other evangelicals is important and I’m glad there are wise and talented folks doing it. However, the ways these historian construct “evangelicals” is ripe for analysis by those investigating how “evangelicals” are invented. In this way “evangelical history” can be the source material for a genealogy of evangelicalism. For folks like Ed who are unsatisfied with our current constructions of “evangelical,” adding a bunch of new names to the list or changing the category will not solve the problem. For a while “Puritan” stood as the privileged category of religious history. Perhaps we’re now realizing that it’s been replaced by “evangelical.” (A process that itself is worth investigation). We have to deconstruct these categories and dig up the processes that have bestowed their privilege upon them, whether by historical subjects or historians. We can’t just change the plaque on the spacecraft. 

An Awesome 19th Century Insult Discovered Amongst Dissertation Sources

You, sir, are “a blasphemer, a malicious barking dog, full of ignorance, bestiality, and impudence, an imposter, a base corrupter of the sacred writings, a mocker of God, a contemner of all religion, an impious, lewd, crooked-minded vagabond, and a beggarly rogue.”

Use that next time you find yourself in a doctrinal dispute.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,786 other followers

Powered by WordPress.com