Read on Twitter
A response to the responses: first, thanks. Appreciate the variety and diversity of answers. Where to begin. 1) I too use the work of @timgloege As Lofton says, it's groundbreaking for a number of reasons. Tim examines the leveraging and use of the term on behalf of various and
Largely commercial interests. This is much better than the typical treatment of evangelicalism, which as I've been writing recently, takes the term as self evident 2) The fact that no one references the work of @FinbarrCurtis or @JohnModern speaks to an utter lack of imagination
When it comes to the conceiving of the term itself. Is theory only productive when it's easily digestible? This in itself is disappointing, especially coming from those who in theory took their obligatory "theory" class in grad school. Good theory is readable, yes, but it also
Challenges the reader to rethink what she had previously thought. It also challenges thought structures themselves (RIP Charles Long). 3) Notice who all responded to my initial inquiry: those who study evangelicalism, or are evangelicals themselves studying US evangelicalism, or
Were trained at evangelical schools by evangelical scholars. Some may "tire" of such questions and debates, but they reappear because they need to be asked because they've largely been repressed by historians unwilling to self examine. Sure, "this doesn't exist," is trite, but it
Also proves a point 4) that saying evangelicalism doesn't exist ushers forth a level of discomfort unparalleled in the field by those whose scholarly work depends on a stable "evangelical" 5) why is it so difficult to see scholarly work as producing the very thing it investigates
6) Yes, asking "what is religion" is common practice in the study of religion, but such inquiry is rarely extended to evangelicalism. I agree, historians certainly ask what history is, to an extent, but why do American religious historians rarely examine how they themselves add
To the history of the term and its construction over the years? 7) the fact that some "tire" of this conversation is more a reflection of their unwillingness to examine their own preconceived notions and taken for granted assumptions. Some reading suggestions to follow to address
First, many who responded obviously never read or engaged the special issue of Religion published some time ago, featuring Modern, Curtis, @CallahanChip, Rosemary Hicks, Jason Bivins, and others. Avoiding "theory" because it's hard to read no longer works: https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rrel20/42/3
And how about this text from one of my favorite scholars of American religion: David Watt. Here, Watt examines "antifundamentalism," which is the closest work I've found that examines the examiners not unlike @McCutcheonSays. It's a truly wonderful read: https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9780801448270/antifundamentalism-in-modern-america/#bookTabs=1
Written from within the historical profession itself, might I also suggest Kathryn Lofton's years in the making piece published in the pages of Modern American History, "Why Religion is Hard for Historians (and how it can be easier)
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/modern-american-history/article/why-religion-is-hard-for-historians-and-how-it-can-be-easier/E5C4D054604FD5D8226B73CC29B2FC51
Such work does not...
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/modern-american-history/article/why-religion-is-hard-for-historians-and-how-it-can-be-easier/E5C4D054604FD5D8226B73CC29B2FC51
Such work does not...
Take place in a vacuum. Again, the resistance to theory from within the historical profession is as old as the profession itself. No logical reason for this beyond disciplinary hubris. Sure we can read Carr, but what about Foucault, Benjamin, Chakrabarty, or Hayden White? Yes,
Some seminars cover such texts, but obviously not enough. To summarize: saying something "doesn't exist" may seem trite, but it serves a valuable purpose: to dislodge establishment knowledges that don't question the conditions of their possibility in the first place. Ok I'm done.
