Review: Why Study History?

Cover image of "why Study History?" by John Fea

Why Study History? (Second Edition), John Fea. Baker Academic (ISBN: 9781540966605), 2024.

Summary: A Christian historian explains why the study of history is important to us, what historians do, and helpful and unhelpful ways to relate our faith to the study of history.

It seems to me a sad consequence of our “post-truth” age is our lack of trust in nearly everything. Sadly, this includes for many the study of history, which some will claim is just shaped by agendas across the political spectrum.

John Fea, in a book meant as an introductory text for students, as well as for more general audiences, both admits that history reflects a process of constant revision as new sources emerge and yet that because of the disciplined processes (including the 5 C’s of historical study) academic historians use, it is possible to attain approximations to the truth that give us reasonable confidence in what happened in the past and why. While we never attain to absolute certainty, this does not mean that we cannot learn from historians to our profit.

He contends that the study of the past may inspire us, sometimes offer an escape from modern life, and at other times help us understand who we are and how we got here. We are in constant dialogue with the past whether we admit it or not. At the same time historians teach us to use the past without misappropriating it. First, we must understand the past on its own terms, as an “other,” rather than through the eyes of our particular present. This involves empathy and humility, which he illustrates with the example of an evangelical scholar studying at a Latter Day Saints school, who only made progress in understanding their history when he recognized that whatever he thought, LDS adherents believed the teachings they received and acted in accord with them.

Fea tackles the question of providence as it relates to historical study. While he affirms providence, he contends that this is the province of theologians, and that historians are doing something besides history when they attempt to read God’s providence into historical events. He does not outright deny the possibility of writing providential history and notes examples of those who have attempted such writings. He believes this must be done with great humility, recognizing our inherent limitations in knowing the plans of God.

Fea does believe there are Christian resources we may bring to bear in the study of the past: our understanding of the imago dei, the reality of human sin, the relevance of the incarnation to the study of a physical past and the use of our minds, and the use of moral reflection upon both the good and the bad we encounter in our study, not to preach, but to see.

The study of history is important to cultivating a civil, democratic society. Careful work at understanding combined with humility and empathy are not only skills necessary in the study of history. They are the skills necessary for reaching across the divides in our national discourse. If there is any hope of healing our discords, these practices are crucial. History may also be transformative. It is a form of public engagement, of loving our neighbors in the past. For the Christian, it may be a spiritual discipline calling forth prayer, self-denial, hospitality, charity, and humility as we study the “other” in the past.

One of the objections to studying history is the problem of getting a job with that major. Fea admits the challenge but seeks to open our eyes to the range of occupations that draw upon the skills learned by those who study history. He describes a student who subsequently worked in a children’s hospital in Malawi. She learned to listen well, write well, and tell good stories. She learned empathy walking in the shoes of the dead, and learned how to step out of her own approach to the world. Fea goes on to list famous people who studied history and shares examples of some of the things he sees his former students and others doing: writing, marketing and digital analytics, business, sales, television sports, filmmaking, medicine, ministry, criminal justice, and real estate.

In an epilogue, Fea discusses the importance of doing good history for the church, and the public engagement of those who have studied history. He describes his own public engagements around his book Was America Founded as a Christian Nation? in which he challenges many aspects of this notion. Those engagements have led to fruitful conversations, stretched his own thinking, and made him reconsider how he pursues his calling as an academic theologian to not only advance knowledge in his discipline, but serve the wider Christian community.

This is such a good introduction that I would commend it not only for students but all thoughtful Christians. In helping us understand the work of historians, Fea gives us tools to evaluate historical claims and narratives rather than defaulting to pervasive skepticism or just accepting the opinions of our tribe. More than this, Fea show us what kind of person we must become to study history well and that these virtues equip us well for life in society. Finally, he gestures toward ways we bring our faith to bear in the study of history to elucidate rather than distort what we are seeing as we listen to the past through sifting various sources. All of this seems vital and useful as we seek to understand the times, both past and present, and live with wisdom in our time.

____________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher for review.

Still Evangelical?

4537

I follow different publishers on Twitter as one way of learning about their latest books. On Saturday, I saw and responded to this tweet from InterVarsity Press:

Bob Trube on Twitter Yes I am still evangelical Evangelicals who have become ensnared with the politics of the Left or the Right have left in sacrificing the centrality of Christ …

I sent this reply:

“Yes, I am still evangelical. Evangelicals who have become ensnared with the politics of the Left or the Right have left [evangelicalism] in sacrificing the centrality of Christ [for political access and influence].” (Bracketed words add clarity for what was an abbreviated, tweet response.)

The tweet is no doubt part of a campaign to promote a new book, Still Evangelical?, that wrestles with the question, in the aftermath of the 2016 election, whether they still want to identify with the evangelical tribe. The book is on my “to read” pile, so look for a review in the near future.

My response reflected a “moment of clarity” earlier in the week. I was participating in a retreat of faith leaders involved in collegiate ministry at the university where I have worked in collegiate ministry over twenty years. The majority of those in the room were mainline Protestant, Catholic, or representatives of other religions. In the course of the day, exercises moved from fun, but relatively non-threatening discussion to the point of sharing about our religious identity. I was paired with a woman from what I would characterize as a “progressive Protestant denomination” and her views reflected that. Do I play coy, go vague, or tell the truth?

I went for truth with the qualification that evangelicalism for me had nothing to do with political captivity to the Left or the Right (and I do think both have occurred in recent American religious and political history). I went on to say that for me, this identifier goes back to the root of the word “evangel” as good news, and that David Bebbington’s “Quadrilateral” is still a useful rubric for what I consider near and dear, and in what I believe this good news consists:

  • Biblicism doesn’t mean for me a wooden literalism but that God hasn’t left us in the dark, but in a variety of ways from poetry to prophecy to history, God has spoken a trustworthy word to bring us the light of God’s grace and how we might live in consequence of that grace, and that the Bible is crucial in defining the character of the new community of God’s people and how they live out the life of faith together.
  • Crucicentrism,  that God has broken into our estrangement from him in the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ, doing for us what we could not do for ourselves, what we desperately needed. As I said in my tweet, Christ is central to my faith, the focal point of all of scripture and my hope in life and death.
  • Conversionism. The good news is that because of what Christ accomplished, we are no longer left to efforts to try harder to be better, struggling against the tyranny of self. We are “new creations” in Christ, people in whom life has begun anew, cleaning the slate of all our wrongs, and providing a new capacity, the indwelling Spirit of God, enabling us to live into that new creation life.
  • Activism. The grace of God moves us to a life of pursuing the beauty and goodness that reflects that grace, while making known in our words as well as our deeds the extravagant love of God revealed in Christ and the offer of new life in him for all who believe.

This movement, with all its flaws led the way to the abolition of slavery on both sides of the Atlantic, provided the basis of social work in our cities, has fought human trafficking on a global basis, as well as provided the impetus for a missions movement, flawed at times, but also resulting in indigenously led Christian movements throughout the world, including one in China that may soon be the largest in the world.

In sharing this, I came to a moment of clarity that “evangel” and “evangelical” are good words, and there is really nothing quite like them as identifiers for a life shaped by this good news. I have also been reading To Light a Fire on Earth by Bishop Robert A. Barron, one of the leaders of the “New Evangelization” in the Catholic Church and have been impressed by how unashamedly he uses the terms “evangelism,” “evangelical,” and “evangel” throughout the work.

No doubt these carry some distinctive valences for Barron, and yet what strikes me is not only his unashamed use of these good words that so many evangelicals are fleeing from, but also that in the effort he is leading within Catholicism, one can detect some of the same distinctives one sees in Bebbington’s Quadrilateral, distinctives I will elaborate in my forthcoming review.

All this leads me to the conclusion that it is time to reclaim this identity, and this good word rather than to slink away from it, either in identification or affiliation. It’s time for us to say to those who have co-opted this identity for a politically captive idolatry that they have lost their way, they have strayed from their first love, and we would love for them to repent, but that they should not use “evangelical” for what is a type of “national” or “political”  or racially homogeneous religion.

My fear, and it is a temptation I recognize in myself, is that in walking away from the identifier “evangelical,” whether we leave the “tribe” or not, is that we will also walk away from the good distinctives that are part of Bebbington’s Quadrilateral. (I am aware that some, like Timothy Gloege have advocated that we ought to abandon these, and I think John Fea has responded well to this contention.) This temptation to mute our identification and what makes it distinctive seems to leave us with a vague religion defined by what we are not, perhaps some form of personal piety, and maybe an impetus toward do-good-ism.

My sense is that instead we need to press more fully into that identity in ways that address our present crisis. I could see us pressing into listening hard to the whole counsel of God in the Bible rather than our selective readings. I could see us pressing into the way the work of Christ is for all without distinctions of gender, class, race, or national origins and the implications for a society deeply riven by these divisions. I could see us pressing into the transforming power of conversion and what that means for so many in our society without hope. I could see us pressing into an activism that explores how each and all of us might live out callings that pursue beauty, goodness and truth in a world where there is far too much ugliness, evil, and lie.

All this lies behind my response to InterVarsity Press’s tweet. Yes, I’m still evangelical. And unashamedly so.

[I would also commend a great article by a colleague that explores this same landscape, Evangelicalism: It’s a Brand but its Also a Space.]