Truce - History of the Christian Church

Give to help Chris do Truce full time!Tennessee was the first state in the United States to crack down hard on the teaching of evolution in public schools. Others had dabbled, but Tennessee went all the way. The ACLU wanted to challenge the validity of the case in the courts. In order to do that they needed an educator to teach it, get busted, and be brought to trial.At the same time, the town of Dayton, TN needed a boost. After the biggest employer closed down it faced serious economic trouble. What if the men of Dayon could manufacture a court case to draw the attention of the nation? They found a young teacher named John Scopes and convinced him to participate in their scheme. They booked Scopes, even though he probably never taught evolution. The ACLU had its case.Soon William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow hopped on board and it went from a publicity stunt to something for the history books. This is the event that some historians (wrongly) point to as the death of Christian fundamentalism in the United States until it was revived by the Moral Majority. One man fighting for the biblical idea of creation and another for godless atheism. But the real history is far more complex.Edward Larson, professor at Pepperdine University, joins us to discuss the trial and his Pulitzer Prize-winning book "Summer for the Gods".Helpful Sources: "Summer for the Gods" by Edward Larson Rhea County Heritage and Scopes Trial Museum Worth a visit! Court Transcript of the Scopes Trial (easy to find online) "A Godly Hero" by Michael Kazin Discussion Questions: What events led to the Scopes trial? Why did the ACLU feel they had to try the Tennessee Law? Who should decide what is taught in schools? Teachers? Parents? Lawmakers? Or some combination? What were William Jennings Bryan's motives for joining the prosecution? What were Clarence Darrow's motives for joining the defense? Should prayer be allowed before a trial about religion? Should Christians get involved in what is taught in schools? To what degree? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Give to help Truce! Donate here.In the 1600s, an Irish Archbishop named James Ussher did a bunch of math. The Bible is full of numbers and genealogies. He sat down and calculated that, in his opinion, the Bible dated creation at 4004 BC. According to Ussher, that is when God created man. That number has really stuck around!I gathered my small group together to explore the Adams Synchronological Chart. It is a 23-foot-long timeline of human history, beginning in 4004 BC and ending in 1900. There it was! The 4004 BC number! Which brings up an interesting question, right? What did Christians really believe about evolution just before it became a linchpin battle for fundamentalists?I turned to Edward Larson for answers. He's a professor at Pepperdine University and the author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning book "Summer for the Gods". The book chronicles the Scopes "Monkey" trial that we'll be covering in the next two episodes. But it also gives us a great introductory look at what Christians believed about evolution in the build-up to the trial.It turns out that evangelical Christians and even fundamentalists were all over the place when it came to ideas of evolution. Many Christians, like William Jennings Bryan, believed in an old earth and even some forms of evolution. But they thought that it was God who caused that evolution. Charles Darwin, though, said that evolution was a matter of chance adaptations, thus cutting God out of the equation. Fundamentalists like Bryan were determined to stop the spread of Darwinian evolution for that very reason. They believed that if young people were taught that they were the result of grand mistakes then what reason did they have to treat each other with respect? To be good citizens?Helpful Sources "Summer for the Gods" by Edward Larson "A Godly Hero" by Michael Kazin "The Birth of a Nation" on YouTube Article about James Ussher and his burial in Westminster Abbey Helpful article about Lamarck "The Evangelicals" by Francis Fitzgerald More about Henry Ford's Anti-Semitism An interesting article about "The Birth of a Nation" Discussion Questions: How did Cuvier and Lamarck differ in their ideas about evolution? Do you believe in a young or old earth? Do you believe in some evolution, macro-evolution, or no evolution at all? What is the best way to oppose an idea? When should we propose laws to combat ideas we don't like and when should we allow others to believe what they like? Do you think the fundamentalists were right to combat teaching evolution in schools? Now that you know about Bryan's failure to call out the KKK, what do you think of him? "Birth of a Nation" shaped American views about black people. Are there more modern films and series that have shaped society in similar ways? Or changed public opinion in other ways? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Give to help Chris make Truce!Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb were wealthy young men in the early 1920s. They lived in big homes in Chicago and had world-class educations. They were both pushed hard academically, and Richard was sexually abused as a child. Both graduated early from high school and college. The two were an odd pairing. Nathan was quiet and awkward, not particularly handsome. Richard was gregarious and outgoing, good-looking... and a psychopath.Nathan loved Richard, and the two sometimes had sex with each other. Richard realized he could control Nathan by trading intimacy for criminal activity. They started with typical juvenile delinquent behavior. Soon, though, Richard wanted more. He considered himself a master criminal, someone too smart to get caught. He and Nathan were exposed to the ideas of Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche wrote that the ultimate purpose of humanity was to evolve into what he called the ubermensch or superman. Leopold and Loeb thought they were that evolved human. Therefore, they should be able to plot and execute the murder of a young boy without ever getting caught.Only, they were so bad at it that it took very little time to pin it on them. Only the brilliance of Clarence Darrow, the country's most prominent defense attorney, could save their lives.In this episode, we're joined by Candace Fleming. She's the author of the book Murder Among Friends about the crime.The version of Also Sprach Zarathustra used in this episode is courtesy of the Creative Commons License and was produced by Kevin MacLeod.Sources: Murder Among Friends by Candace Fleming Helpful article on the Houston Symphony's website about Also Sprach Zarathustra Article about what Nietzsche meant by "God is dead" Full text of Also Sprach Zarathustra Helpful video about Nietzsche's work Smithsonian article about Leopold and Loeb William Jennings Bryan's closing arguments of the Scopes trial Clarence Darrow's closing arguments of the Leopold and Loeb trial Discussion Questions: Now that you know what the song Also Sprach Zarathustra is about, does it change your opinion of the piece? Do you think Nietzsche was right to worry about what would happen after Christianity took a back seat to world events? What should have been our response? With this little bit we covered about Nietzsche today, what do you think of his work? Can you see why it makes Chris nervous just to mention it in an episode? Do you see the connection between evolution and superman? Were people like Darrow and Bryan right to be concerned about young people learning Nietzsche's philosophy? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Eugenics. It's one of those words that gets thrown around these days, often by people accusing "the other side" of wrongdoing. But what is eugenics?I invited law professor Paul Lombardo, author of "Three Generations, No Imbeciles", to join me to try to answer that very question. It turns out that that question is harder to answer than you'd think. In the early 1900s, the word "eugenic" was often used to mean "pure" or to imply that a product was healthy for babies. But that word also extended into segregating certain populations from society and forced sterilizations.It is important to understand the history of eugenics because some Christians use the fear of eugenics as a lens to understand the Scopes "Monkey" trial. I think that is an accurate connection, but we really should understand it. Did William Jennings Bryan support eugenics? Can Christians support eugenics? Many did. There were even competitions that rewarded pastors for writing pro-eugenics sermons. That was especially true for liberal pastors.In this episode, we attempt to answer some tough questions. I hope you enjoy it!Helpful Sources: "Three Generations, No Imbeciles" by Paul Lombardo "Preaching Eugenics" by Christine Rosen "Summer for the Gods" by Edward Larson An article from Smithsonian Magazine about Herbert Spencer Paul's article about William Jennings Bryan's support of the WCTU and eugenics CDC article about syphilis Helpful article about the immigration act Helpful Focus on the Family article about how some Christians don't believe that the sins of the father carry over Washington Post article about the "welfare queen" of the Reagan era Discussion Questions: What is eugenics? How did the term "eugenics" differ in the early 1900s from today? Are you in favor of eugenics? Why or why not? How is eugenics tied to evolution? How is it not? Do Christians have a responsibility to play when it comes to protecting people with special needs? What can we do to help those with special needs? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Truce will be back on January 10th! Chris is working through the whole break in order to prepare for his big presentation in front of his church. He's trying to get Truce fully funded for 2023.New episodes are already done, but he's trying to create a little cushion of extra episodes in case of emergencies. Thanks for your support of the show!!! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Love Truce? Donate to help Chris make the show!Harry Emerson Fosdick had a certain reputation. He was the theological "bad boy" of modernist theology when he stood at a lectern in the 1920s and delivered his famous sermon "Shall the Fundamentalists Win?". He was in New York City. One preacher, preaching one sermon. But this one talk spread all over the country and created real upset. Could modernist theology win in the Northern Presbyterian denomination?J. Grescham Machen didn't think it should. He was a fundamentalist and wrote in response to Fosdick's sermon. But how does one keep out heresy?The fundamentalists decided to call in a big-name Christian celebrity -- William Jennings Bryan. He was on a cross-country crusade to stop the teaching of evolution in public schools. Not because he didn't believe in science. He did. The problem that Bryan saw with teaching evolution in school was the cruelty that humanity would express if they believed they were nothing more than animals.The battle between liberal and conservative Christians was a public one. William Jennings Bryan and Harry Emerson Fosdick wrote competing articles in The New York Times. Would it cause a split in the Northern Presbyterian denomination?Sources for this episode: "Fundamentalism and American Culture" by George Marsden "The Evangelicals" by Frances Fitzgerald "A Godly Hero" by Michael Kazin Articles about Fosdick on Christianity Today and the Gospel Coalition Fosdick's sermon Machen's response Westminster Confession of Faith Discussion Questions: What do you think are the basic beliefs required to call something "Christianity"? What if someone does not believe those things but still calls themselves a Christian? Does it matter when people try to use a word to describe themselves that does not apply to them? What is to be our response when we encounter someone who spreads false doctrine? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Love Truce? Donate to help Chris make the show!So far this season I've covered William Jennings Bryan, a man who enjoyed the nickname "Mr. Fundamentalist". But he wasn't really a fundamentalist. Experts point to another man as the true face of fundamentalism. That man was William Bell Riley. He was a famous preacher in his day, bouncing around the midwest until he settled in Minnesota. He founded the Northwestern schools to spread his vision of Christianity and picked debates with modernists at the University of Chicago. He formed the World's Christian Fundamentals Association to help deliver denominations from modernism.But... he lost. A bunch.In this episode we explore the life of William Bell Riley to discover why he and the fundamentalists burned brightly, only to fizzle out a few years later.Helpful Links: God's Empire by William Vance Trollinger Minnesota History article about Riley New Hampshire Confession Fundamentalism and American Culture by George Marsden The Evangelicals by Frances Fitzgerald Discussion Questions: How should we react to heresy? Do you look for strong leaders like William Bell Riley or do you prefer calm leaders? Why? Do you have a creed you live by? Does your church profess one? Why or why not? How do Bible schools shape our world? Have they impacted your life or the lives of friends? Riley and his friends lost in part because they were all trying to be leaders. Do you think you could submit to the leadership of others? If so, who? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Love Truce? Donate to help Chris make the show!Send checks to:Truce Media LLCPO Box 3434Jackson, WY 83001The modernish/ fundamentalist controversy was heating up in the early 1900s. Conservatives saw this coming a long way off but could not stop modernism from taking control of seminaries and popular pulpits. It was everywhere. It all came to a head with WWI.Theological conservatives saw WWI as evidence that the world was getting worse. To them, it was a chance to fight for patriotic reasons. Modernists were also pro-war because they thought this was the "war to end all wars". There would be no more war after this and democracy would take over the world. The liberals fired the first shots in this theological battle because they thought that premillennialism encouraged people to root for the end of the world.William Jennings Bryan was Secretary of State in the US during this time and did his best to keep us out of the war.This episode features the voices of George Marsden (author of "Fundamentalism and American Culture") and Michael Kazin, professor at Georgetown University and author of "What it Took to Win".Sources: Fundamentalism and American Culture by George Marsden The Evangelicals by Frances Fitzgerald A Godly Hero by Michael Kazin What it Took to Win by Michael Kazin These Truths by Jill Lepore To End All Wars by Adam Hochschild Dead Wake by Erik Larson (about The Lusitania) Woodrow Wilson's second inauguration Short article about Billy Sunday Discussion Questions: What was the purpose of WWI? What caused it? Would you have been for or against the war in the 1900s? How can pre and post-millenniallism shape a person's view of the world? Does it have to? How does social Darwinism tie into WWI and WWII? Is WWI an outcome of changing morality? How would you tell a large audience of Christians to adapt to changing morality? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Want to help Truce? Give via Venmo at: https://account.venmo.com/u/trucepodcast Help via Paypal Help via Patreon Pledge to help Truce Or support Truce via check by sending it to:Truce Media LLCPO Box 3434Jackson, WY 83001 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Love Truce? Donate to help Chris make the show!Walter Rauscenbush published his classic book Christianity and the Social Crisis in 1907. It went on to become a defining work of the social gospel movement. We've spent a lot of time talking about the social gospel this season. That is because it has been identified by historians as the key movement that fundamentalists rebelled against. So we really should understand it, right?In this episode, Chris takes us through highlights of this classic book in order to understand how the social gospel differed from evangelical Christianity. While it lifted up the necessity of doing good works, the social gospel often omitted salvation altogether. Contrast that to evangelical preachers like D.L. Moody who lived their lives with the sole purpose of evangelism.This division between evangelicalism and liberal theologies led to the Great Reversal when theologically conservative Christians went from participating in public acts of goodwill to distancing themselves from it.Breakdown of points made from Christianity and the Social Crisis Rauschenbush's thoughts on socialism (p152) Theories on prophets of the Old Testament creating Judaism - p3 - 5 Amos and Jeremiah denied that God ever told them to sacrifice - p6 Morality is the only thing God cares about - p6 God is interested in the morality of the nation over the individual - p11, 29 The Bible has been altered when it comes to the stories of Jesus - p62-63 Wealth is associated with the wicked in the Bible - p13 Jewish people distributed land in communistic ways - p14 John the Baptist and Jesus both wanted to restore theocracy to Israel - p53 Rauschenbush's ideas about how industry chews people up - p370 Socialism is inevitable - outside link page 153 Discussion Questions: What is Christianity? How much of Christianity can you remove before it becomes something else? Why are we so split between those of us who think of good works and those of us who think of salvation? What is the role of Christians in society? Now that you've decided on the role of Christians in society, how do you match up with your own expectations? Select Sources: Google Books version of Christianity and the Social Crisis Fundamentalism and American Culture by George Marsden More on the ship of Theseus Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices