I was quite
critical of Kik and pointed out some significant errors in his presentation,
exegesis and reasoning. One of the Postmillennialists told my friend that my
review was poorly done and very unscholarly. He was especially disappointed
that a seminarian had produced it.
Now my
professor who was by no means in agreement with me on my assessment of Kik, gave
me an 'A' on the project and I was praised for my thorough treatment.
What's the
lesson?
I learned
that scholarly assessment can be somewhat subjective. If I had written in
favour of Kik the Postmillennialist would have probably praised my erudite
ability and professional due diligence. And I would have still got an 'A'.
Some will
contest this and say that good and proper scholarship is something that is
recognizable. While I don't doubt that is somewhat true I think it's pretty
tough on a practical level. A Biblically-minded author will never meet the 'scholarly'
standards of a mainstream theological school. And frankly a theologically
liberal scholar will always appear to conservative eyes a poor and terribly
biased scholar when approaching any theological issue. There are always
assumptions at work and it is both rare and difficult to find them obscured.
It's easy to present your work as scholarly and pepper your work with abundant
quotes. This is all the more true as the various camps fund 'scholars' to
produce such 'academic' works that can be cited and given credibility within
their own circles and echo chambers.
When it
comes to history there are somewhat more objective standards. Some authors get
carried away in their interpretation and commentary and even when restraining
this impulse, it is still impossible to escape all bias. But a careful scholar
can help to present an accurate picture... one that is usually less than
pleasing to the die-hard partisans of any faction.
When it
comes to history I think Christians ought to be very careful and this
especially true when history is utilized for political purposes. I believe this
tendency represents a flawed theological perspective but nevertheless those
that engage in it, if I grant them validity for the sake of argument, ought to
be all the more committed to a truthful picture of history in a fallen world.
That is if they are Christians concerned with being truthful.
Therefore it
is disappointing to see an article like this:
I am familiar
with Grove City College and there are some good men affiliated with the
institution. I would hope they too would be saddened to witness this kind of
'scholarly' work being produced by their colleagues.
Monroe is
probably best known for the Monroe Doctrine and its implication and application
have had a profound effect on the history of the hemisphere. It implicitly
assumed a certain ideology which needs to be considered and as a Christians
it's something we need to weigh as we look back on the history of the United
States.
This scholar
did not feel the need to mention it. Such an omission is inexcusable.
Leaving the
Monroe Doctrine aside, this albeit brief work of hagiography, for that's what
it is, also engages in blatant and frankly manipulative anachronism.
He also
posits:
I
think the reason Monroe ran unopposed was that nobody at that time felt
threatened by the federal government. In 1820, Uncle Sam was still confined to
original duties of keeping Americans safe and upholding contracts and property
rights. In other words, in the minds of free Americans, there was neither a
handout to be gained from the federal government nor the threat of confiscation
of a portion of one’s property for redistribution to special interests. In
short, the government was limited, unobtrusive, and benign.
The
underlining was mine and simply represents his 'links' to other articles on
these points that have nothing to do with Monroe or his times.
Is this
pertinent to assessing Monroe or is this plug for his political agenda in our
own day? It wouldn't be scholarly to point out the United States had a
population of about 10 million at the time with seemingly endless frontiers,
land, resources and slave labour. No, to mention 'handouts' and 'confiscation'
(itself misleading) was certainly a scholarly observation.
I also find
it interesting that career politicians are usually condemned by the Right, but
in this case it is something to be celebrated. Also, to discuss the collapse of
the Federalist Party... that wouldn't be pertinent to the discussion either.
Apparently that had nothing to do with Monroe's easy path. This scholar has
already worked it all out for us.
I'm not
against offering an interpretation or opinion but I think one ought to at least
mention that a point might be controversial or that there might be other views.
I'm not a scholar of course but that seems like maybe a responsible thing to
do, and certainly helpful to readers... that is if I really want them to learn
and understand an issue. That is if I'm not trying to manipulate them.
I might want
readers to also consider the issue of Liberia and its capital 'Monrovia' as
well as the Seminole Wars and maybe as a Christian I might want to address
Monroe's view on religion. But I'm afraid these points might destroy the
picture the author is trying to paint.
Considering
Grove City College's connections with Presbyterianism and figures like Machen I
would think the author would be interested in the fact that Presbyterians of
the day referred to Monroe as something of an infidel.
Grove City's
Center for Vision and Values has won numerous awards and is widely recognized.
Typical of most think-tanks it is little more than an echo-chamber filled with
two-bit hack 'scholars' that are little more than academic mercenaries. This is
to be expected of the world but when I see so-called Christians engaged in this
sort of thing it needs to be called out for what it is... lies, deception and
evil.
The
Wikipedia article on Monroe is more scholarly and informative than this work
produced by a supposedly Christian institution.
It's also
disappointing that The Aquila Report, a site utilized by many Christians
supposedly searching for sound news and information would deem it worthy of a
reposting.
Welcome to
American Christianity in the year 2015. Truth is only what is politically
convenient.
