“One is astonished in the study of history at the recurrence of the idea that evil must be forgotten, distorted, [and] skimmed over. We must not remember that Daniel Webster got drunk, but only that he was a splendid constitutional lawyer. We must forget that George Washington was a slave owner. . . [We cannot] simply remember the things we regard as creditable and inspiring. The difficulty, of course, with this philosophy is that history loses its value as an incentive and example; it paints perfect man and noble nations, but it does not tell the truth.” --- W.E.B. Dubois
You must be a great reader, if you want to be a great writer. This video is a clip from a lecture of one of my favorite Christian Philosophers, Dallas Willard. He points out that the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of the presenter to tell the story accurately, especially if he intends to persuade people. Whether teaching, preaching, writing, or reading, there is an opportunity to seek the truth.
I am currently reading Lies My Teacher Told Me, by James W. Loewen. The first chapter has forced me to wrestle with an issue he calls heroification. Initially, I was resistant to what I perceived as an outright attack on my American heritage. However, after reviewing his sources and delving deeper into the book, I have concluded that he is correct in his assessment that we have a problem that needs addressed. Our nation and the textbook manufacturers have an agenda, they only share a one-sided version of history.
Loewen does not say all our former leaders were evil and cruel, but he does bring attention to the fact that they suffered human shortcomings, and made some tragic mistakes. These significant pieces of information are blatantly omitted in most of our textbooks. Telling an accurate version of history, and acknowledging failures does not undermine any good or noble cause they participated in, but we cannot ignore the importance of NOT sweeping racism, murder, lies, and blatant propaganda under the rug. The best policy is to tell the truth.
This brings me to my real dilemma. Just as I have been guilty of buying into false ideas such as, Thomas Jefferson thought, “all men are created equal,” (even though he owned black slaves), I have also been guilty of believing other false ideology. Ignorance about American history may be indicative of additional areas in which I am equally ignorant, like church history. Did writers with a less than honest bias, whitewash the historical icons of the church? It is interesting that after doing a little research, Martin Luther and John Calvin exhibited extreme racism, and murdered people that did not convert to their version of Christianity. Does the church protect the deeds of pastors and other prominent figures with the same veracity that the textbooks defend the brutal assault, rape, and destruction of the Native American's?
In his book Pagan Christianity, Frank Viola explores pagan traditions that have been adopted by most groups that identify with the Christian faith. Some of his facts may shock you. The same heroification process that most nations have applied to the forefathers seems to be equally active in religious circles. It paints a pretty picture, but it’s not based on the truth. Accurate information is available, but not pleasant to share. Are we perpetuating a lie, when we do not correct this false viewpoint of history? These are painful discussions, but I believe that it is imperative that those in the academic community make a concentrated effort to avoid following this pattern that promotes falsehood. Do you think we place the Christian forefathers on a pedestal, just like other empires have throughout written history? Is it possible that this kind of deception is still going on today?
5 comments:
That reminds me of a quote from Arvo Part, an Estonian composer: "Our price is what our morals and flaws are, our true price."
“The evil that men do lives after them, The good is oft interred with their bones.” So says Shakespeare in Julius Caesar, which somewhat belies the thesis of your text: that it is necessary to examine the warts or worse of great men in history to get the true picture of them. If viewed from the perspective of our culture and shibboleths, yes, we can find character flaws, but viewed as people of their time, whether in politics or religion, these icons made huge contributions despite actions and ideas which we now may find reprehensible.
I must offer a disclaimer before defending Martin Luther since I am a LCMS Lutheran, but to say he murdered people isn't accurate, to my knowledge. Church law superseded civil law in Luther's day and that law said, for example, the penalty of blasphemy was death. Luther was merely asking that the laws that were applied to all other Germans also be applied to the Jews. The Jews were exempt from the church laws that Christians were bound by, including charging interest. Taken out of context, his comments might easily be mistaken for murderous intent.
Jeanne, thank you for sharing your thoughts. You bring up some excellent points about perspective. I feel fortunate to have some writer friends like you to help me to refine my skills. I have always looked up to Martin Luther and consider him to be one of the most courageous and influential men of his time. He unflinchingly addressed a difficult topic. The purpose of my post was not intended to attack his character, nor was I proposing that we should write detailed exposés about ideology and actions that are no longer accepted as societal norms. My goal was to focus on this process of heroification. Though not Lutheran, I was raised in a protestant church that held Luther in high esteem. However, I wish someone had told me as a young person that despite Luther’s accomplishments, there were a number of destructive books and ideas he promoted. I learned this lesson the hard way after using him as an example for the role model Christian. An atheist friend of mine was thrilled to share the truth of the matter with me. After a brief phase of denial, then research, I discovered he was not the flawless icon I had always believed him to be. I have dozens of books on church history, and almost none of them address Luther’s desire to exterminate the Jews and other non-believers. This should not happen in a world where such emphasis is put on education. We have access to all Luther’s books, but the church chooses only to share the things that paint him in a positive light. His negative ideas need at least a passing acknowledgement, if we are going to honestly document history, as did the writers of the Bible. This type of discussion allows those that are educated about the cultural changes that have taken place over the last five hundred years, will then have an opportunity to explain how this came about. I appreciate your insight and thoughts and look forward to more discussion in the future. Your comments have inspired me with another blog topic.
Well, Paul, I'm suspicious of a number of things--the term heroification, firstly, which suggests that heroes are made up out of whole cloth for some purpose. I don't believe it. I believe that they emerge into glory from their good deeds. I also believe we desperately need spotless heroes, particularly in times like ours where Patrick Moynihan's term about our culture as "defining deviancy down" is a way of life. Secondly, it's always good to consider the source--in textbooks or blurbs on TV and computer blogs. They may have an agenda, some purpose in trashing a hero, bringing them down to size. It may seem appropriate at first glance, to "tell the story accurately" perhaps, but what good does it do, really? I've heard tales about Martin Luther King, mainly concerning sexual proclivities that were less than edifying, but again, who's spreading that around and for what purpose? Doesn't demeaning a hero make it harder for young people to emulate them? By the way, if an atheist tried to give me the facts on Luther being a murderer, I'd want the original source. Luther was the most hated and feared man in Europe at the time, and his enemies included not just the Pope but the Holy Roman Emperor. He lived under a death warrant the balance of his life after refusing to recant. If his best friend wrote that he murdered people, I'll accept it, but who knows what calumny was spread about him. Anyhow, Paul, this was an interesting discussion. Be sure to question teachings as you go through academia. Not all that glitters there is gold.
Truth be told, I have criticisms of Loewen’s books as well as Luther’s. I don’t have any specific documentation from LCMS, but I do have multiple references from ELCA theologians (I know their stance may be different) in defense of Luther. However, even his apologists acknowledge and repent for some of the “hateful and murderous statements” (their words not mine) made by Luther, both in books and publicly. They also point out the differences in our cultures, and this is a critical component to consider in this type of scenario.
I will continue to wrestle with this idea of spotless heroes. I have been resistant to openly assaulting good men throughout history, but the more I learn about propaganda the less inclined I am to participate in promoting ignorance. Some of the texts I grew up reading are blatant lies in the face of hard documentation from the original authors. These are the ones that are the most offensive to me. I will consider your thoughts and sincerely appreciate your participation in this discussion. You have added value to the conversation. I will take your advice and question academia.
Post a Comment