I plan some posts today from the Conference, although not in order of presentation.
I intend to blog this session so John Fea can’t post on it first. He is on the panel. I am pretty sure I will get this out first.
John Fea, Chris Gerhz, and Paul Putz are sitting on a panel where they are displaying their blogs and discussing their efforts on social media. John Fea was live tweeting it as it took place.
Jon Den Hartog is setting up the panel now and asking good questions. One, do Christian historians bring certain virtues to the discussion of history? Another question, what is the direction from here with historians and social media.
John’s model for blogging is the Andrew Sullivan’s Daily Dish. He started it to help promote his work, and it has become his online vita. Sunday night Odds and Ends has become a regular feature of the blog. Another is: So What Can You Do With a History Major?
John’s virtual office hours is a hit on the blog. His blog has become a legitimate piece of his scholarly work with full support of Messiah college.
Is blogging scholarship? Not in the traditional manner, according to Fea. However, he says it is a form of public engagement and service.
Chris Gerhz is up now and is talking about his 3 years of blogging and his 5 (!) blogs. He also started blogging to extend his scholarly work and perhaps has written enough in 3 years to fill a book.
He has used a blog to assist with a class; and another to promote his department. He also promotes what history majors can do with their major. I think I need to start doing that with psychology majors. What can you do with a BA/BS in psychology? Might be short and repetitive but I might be surprised. Chris also runs a research oriented blog.
Writing History in the Digital Age is a book featured by Chris in his talk.
Chris learned to write via blogging, and thinks out loud about projects and topics of interest; blogging as “pre-argument.”
Now Paul Putz. Paul was a teacher and has become a historian. Paul was converted to become a historian via the Religion in American History blog. The power of blogging.
Social media takes up a lot of time and won’t make you an historian, Paul says, but it is a public expression of what he is doing as a grad student. Blogging gets his work out there where it could actually be read by other historians. My words, blogging is a high wire act; high risk, possibly high reward. Write something good and someone might notice.
As a graduate student, blogging allows Paul to join the online community of scholars and find community. I certainly agree with this point.
Paul’s paper is so good that I kind of missed the end of it. One of the cool exhortations was to promote other people with your blogging which is a good way to avoid fluffy self-preoccupation.
Now Jon Den Hartog is opening it up for questions.
Question: Should you put up content on the blog which will later be in a book? Will people buy it if they can get it on the blog. The panel members don’t do that with the exception of a book Fea did where he build chapters around some blog posts. I know from experience that the book is always going to be worth buying.
Lots of conversation about the meaning of online community ended the session.
Grove City College’s Gary Scott Smith chimes in with a question about writing op-eds and columns for major newspapers. Way to represent GCC GSS! Most of the responses indicate that social media blends seamlessly into print media opportunities. I have certainly found this to be true.
Month: September 2014
Mark Driscoll on Repentance
This Resurgence blog post on repentance from Mark Driscoll is simply stunning.
For those keeping score at home, this checklist may come in handy.
Conference on Faith and History: Allen Guelzo on Lincoln's Gettysburg Address
Last night I attended the opening address of the Conference on Faith and History with the keynote speech provided by Civil War historian Allen Guelzo. Guelzo gave an excellent talk on Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. He noted several misconceptions (for instance, Lincoln did not write the speech on the way to the ceremony honoring the dead at Gettysburg) and noted the inspiration for the content of Lincoln’s remarks. He presented numerous points but here are a few:
- The Gettysburg address is almost “anorexic” in verbal expression with so much packed into 272 words.
- The address marked the transition from classical speech in American politics to “middling” speech which was a more common form of oration.
- Lincoln clearly declared the importance of those who died at Gettysburg as the guardians of democratic principles worth dying for. Democratic ideals survived at Gettysburg even as many soldiers did not.
- We would not remember the elegance or importance of the address if the North had lost the war. If the South had won, the North might have faded into a “Scandinavian irrelevance.”
- In his second inaugural address, Lincoln delivered a speech which recognized that the North and South had their “hands in the toilet over slavery.” Noting that Lincoln asserted that God’s judgment had been delivered on both sides, Guelzo referred to the end of Lincoln’s address:
Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
Guelzo’s speech was worth the price of admission and was a wonderful beginning to the conference.
Is Mars Hill Church in Ballard Growing?
Last week, the Ballard (WA) News-Tribune posted an article with reaction to the recent closing of Mars Hill locations in downtown Seattle and the University district. Mars Hill leaders hope that the people who attended the closed locations will move to the Ballard campus. In describing that campus to the Ballard paper, church spokesperson Justin Dean is quoted as saying:
The Ballard church has been growing and is in a strong position to support those coming in from other churches.
I say “quoted as saying” because it is hard to believe he was quoted properly.*
I have comments from several Ballard attenders and former leaders who tell me that attendance at Ballard has followed the downward trend of the other locations. Reports are consistent that attendance has gone from about 1,100 adults/week a year ago to around 450 adults/week this September thus far.
I asked Justin Dean for comment and/or attendance figures, but have not received a reply. I will post any information I get.
I want to add that Dean again placed the blame for the recent declines on the leadership of the church.
“Some of our churches can no longer support the ongoing costs associated with their buildings and paid staff. We acknowledge that the reason for much of the decrease in attendance and giving falls to us, the leadership of Mars Hill,” said spokesperson for Mars Hill, Justin Dean.
This statement could be a positive sign. However, it is unclear what the leadership is owning. Perhaps, they believe they have done a lousy PR job. Or perhaps they acknowledge the validity of various concerns which former members and leaders have raised.
The question about growth at Ballard is a case in point. Is the statement a factual one with public disclosure coming to back it up? Or is it spin? Or is it an unfortunate misquote? Mars Hill Church can show positive movement by a transparent explanation or signal business as usual by allowing the disconnect between rhetoric and reality hang out there without comment.
*I realized after I posted this that my wording implies that the reporter may have been in error. I have been assured by the writer of the newspaper article that Dean was indeed quoted correctly. I can also add that I never heard from Dean.
Blogging from the Biennial Meeting of the Conference on Faith and History
Heading out to Pepperdine University to attend the Conference on Faith and History. I will present a brief paper at the conference on faulty history in the public square.
Primarily I will draw on my experience taking on David Barton’s work, and the subsequent efforts to confront advocacy history among related religious right groups (e.g., National Religious Broadcasters, Family Research Council, Focus on the Family and others). Looking forward to speaking along with Fred Beuttler, Jon Wilsey in our session. Dwight Brautigam is the chair and Jon Boyd will provide reactions to the presentations.
The CFH describes itself as
…a community of scholars exploring the relationship between Christian faith and history. We welcome members from a variety of Christian traditions around the world. We also seek to learn from scholars outside the Christian tradition. Our primary goal is to encourage excellence in the theory and practice of history from the perspective of historic Christianity.
I intend to write some posts from the Conference. Watch John Fea’s blog as he will be doing the same thing.