Last night’s conversation at Presbycast about a lot of things Presbyterian, together with current research on Roman Catholic debates during the 1980s about the church and American identity, got me thinking about whether I, as a historian of J. Gresham Machen and the OPC get away with writing this kind of evaluation of the PCUSA. What follows is from Jay Dolan’s The American Catholic Experience (1985) [Dolan taught history for many years at Notre Dame]. Here’s his description of what happened in the United States after Vatican II:
Another change that transformed the religious world of Catholics was a new understanding of sin. The traditional concept of sin was grounded in a system of laws, some of which were rooted in Scripture or the natural law, while others were promulgated by the church. The new Catholic morality argued for a more personal, less legalistic, approach to sin. The virtue of love became primary, together with the individual conscience. The implications of this shift, publicized in both scholarly and popular works, was tremendous. Perhaps most dramatic was the decline in confession. A 1974 study found that only 17 percent of the Catholics surveyed went to confession monthly, compared to 37 percent in 1963. Soon form followed function, and reconciliation rooms, where priest and penitent could interact face to face, replaced the dark confessional box. Penitential services became popular, and on some occasions a public general absolution replaced private confessions. (434).
For those who say nothing changed after Vatican II, Dolan is a contrary voice and a recognized authority on Roman Catholicism in the United States to boot (not a blogger or apologist).
But that’s not the primary reason for unearthing this quote. The point is this: what if I wrote this about the PCUSA after the OPC’s formation? What if I asserted in a book published by a trade press (Doubleday) that the PCUSA had become liberal, that it changed its theology on sin and salvation, and that these departures from historic Presbyterian practices constituted a “new” Presbyterianism, or Protestantism for a “new age.”
Of course, while wearing my OPC hat, I think that about the PCUSA. But I can’t get away with that in the mainstream publishing world without running the risk of being ostracized from the profession as the Gary North of American historians. Call me a coward. But historians of American religion cannot make certain claims about communions everyone knows to be theologically accurate because they don’t want to admit that the fundamentalists had a point.
It could also be a function of 2k. What is acceptable for churchmen’s judgments is not so for professional historical scholarship. We don’t always succeed but we do try to keep theological judgments from informing historical analysis. Sometimes that’s artificial. But it’s also the case that professional academics is not the place to settle ecclesiastical conflicts.
Still, why do those academic calculations not apply to Jay Dolan, the history of Roman Catholicism in the United States, or Doubleday? Is it a function of academic seniority? Once you acquire tenure you can write whatever you want?
Or is it that what Dolan said is actually good history and that converts and apologists have yet to catch up with the church they’ve joined and celebrated?
9 thoughts on “Do Historians Do This?”
I can’t speak to scholarship proprieties, but, yea, the converts don’t own the communion they now claim to champion on the internet. Which makes their church solely a virtual church. Vat II isn’t getting rolled back and pastoral application is what the charism equips the clergy and the laity to do. Not sure what’s so difficult to grasp about what Dolan is claiming, other than the converts haven’t been adequately catechized, weren’t there or are essentially protesting in the pews.
Letme, the irony is that history is one of the biggest appeals to converts — all that history before Luther. But they are as Cafeteria as Commonweal. There’s all that history after Luther too.
One litmus test would be to investigate the kind & type of publishers who gave the nod to Fosdick’s many works. Or as the Southern politicians used to say, “Is you fer me or is you agin’ me; there ain’t no in between?”
“For those who say nothing changed after Vatican II”
Who is saying this again?
“The virtue of love became primary…”
I wonder if he means something along the lines of Situation Ethics.
James Young, that would be YOU. You know, the church always has dissidents and heretics. But no dogma has changed, just pastoral practice.
BTW, I read this this morning. Reminded me of you:
Rome as Hillary, or Rome’s apologists as Hillary defenders.
Oh, how the audacious have fallen.
Me (all about)? You must be confused – I agree things changed after Vat2. Boniface agrees. Dogma did not change. Boniface agrees. Church always has dissidents and heretics. Boniface agrees. Rome has problems and has made mistakes and stumbles (just like Hillary). Boniface agrees.
Would it make a difference if you were a PCUSA’er?
b, sd, it would a little but it could also get you branded in the PCUSA as — eeegads — a Machen sympathizer.