« Inaugural Scriptures | Main | "How Great Thou Art" & the 100-Year-Old Bass »
Oil, Coal, and Conservative Religion
Is there a connection? Historians press - perhaps too hard - for answers.
This is a belated report from the American Historical Associa-
tion/American Society of Church History conference, held in New
York City the first week of January. Excellent sessions on American religious history abounded, with a surprising number of them scheduled on the AHA program. My hunch is that this abundance has something to do with the relative scarcity of American Christian history on the program at the American Academy of Religion, the other major conference for scholars in this field, but that's my own professional bugaboo, not worth ranting about here.
Anyhow, I'd like to focus on one AHA session, titled, "Oil, Coal, and Conservative Religion in the Twentieth Century." (In the interest of full disclosure, I worked with four of the five scholars involved with this session at Duke or the University of North Carolina, so I'm not exactly choosing it at random.)
The first paper, by Brendan Pietsch at Duke, dug into the mind of Ly-
man Stewart, the early twentieth-century oil tycoon who bankrolled
The Fundamentals. Drawing on Stewart's writings, the paper found an alchemical link between drilling and evangelism, as Stewart repeatedly professed a desire to transmute oil wealth into "living gospel truth" as quickly as possible. The paper also sketched a link
between the breathless search for new reserves -
Stewart was known to sniff for oil in gopher holes - and a similarly exhilarating search for hidden truths in the Bible's prophetic passages.
The second paper, presented by Seth Dowland, also of Duke, told the story of coincident school boycotts and coal miners' strikes in West Virginia in 1974. First, angry about new language arts textbooks they called "trashy, filthy, and too one-sided," conservative Christian parents pulled their children out of the Kanawha County public schools. A few days later, the country's coal miners, including many from the same area of West Virginia, struck for higher wages and better health benefits. A miner who lived down the street from the head of the United Mine Workers of America told the Charleston Gazette, "I don't think there will be anybody back to work until those textbooks are out." Dowland went on to detail the ways two groups of disgruntled West Virginians came together in a "populist revolt that captivated the nation."
Finally, Darren Dochuck of Purdue University elucidated the little-known career of R.G. LeTourneau, extraction industry pioneer, defense contractor extraordinaire, and founder of an eponymous evangelical university specializing in the training of engineers. Dochuck called his paper, "Extracted Truth: The Politics of God and Black Gold in Post-World War II America." he depicted LeTourneau as a man absolutely convinced that he moved mountains of dirt for the glory of God.
Causality Crusade
Katie Lofton, soon to join the faculty of Yale University, responded to these papers. She pressed all of the presenters to identify causal relationships between the phenomena on which they reported. To paraphrase her questions, Did Lyman Stewart's belief in an imminent Second Coming propel him into the oilfields and govern the decisions he made there? Did West Virginia coal miners really walk off their jobs because they didn't like an English textbook? Did LeTourneau's evangelicalism predetermine his alliance with the New Right (including the Bush family) and indifference to the environmental consequences of extraction?
In several ways, the papers begged such questions. All three had linked the energy industry and evangelicalism with an "and," but none had stated an emphatic "because." Additionally, each paper quoted at least one figure providing religious justification for his or her actions. The causal connection leapt out of the sources, putting the historians on the spot. If a historical actor writes that God instructed him to dig his well right here, or move that particular mound of dirt, on what grounds may a scholar argue otherwise? On the other hand, aren't scholars expected to probe such claims? If historians cannot add context and critical analysis to the primary sources, libraries ought to trade out all of their monographs for photocopied diaries and letters.
The Suction Hypothesis
In other ways, though, the causality crusade made me uneasy, because it seemed to single out conservative religion. By way of contrast, my dissertation on The Christian Century noted that the magazine derived significant financial support from William H. Hoover of Hoover vacuum fame, but none of my readers asked me for a causal link between suction and liberal Protestantism. The re-founding editor of the Century was a Disciples of Christ minister, Hoover was a Disciples layman, and no further connection seemed necessary. Does theology always reign supreme among conservative Christians' motivations? Does conservative - especially Fundamentalist - Christianity strike scholars as so exotic that it obscures other lines of inquiry? In short, are conservative Christians treated differently by historians than members of different traditions, and, if so, how and why?
None of this is to suggest that I found the AHA session hostile or biased. The stories told by the presenters deserve more attention, and the ensuing discussion clarified some issues while complicating others, which is exactly what academic conferences are supposed to do. I left thinking more about my own motivations and about the kinds of questions I pose to historical actors. Should I look for a link between suction (or perhaps broader subjects like cleanliness and domesticity) and liberal Protestantism? I'll let you know if I find any.






Comments
Hey, great account. Wish I'd been there to glow about what is clearly another stellar crop of Dukies.
Posted By: Anonymous | January 28, 2009 11:37 AM
My Hoover sucks, just like Duke's last-second defense, but I guess for vacuums that's a good thing.
My impression, Elesha, is that it's wholly appropriate for researchers such as yourself to examine if evangelical celebrities truly use their belief system as their primary motivation or decision-making guide. This is a fundamental tenet of evangelical faith, i.e., personal behavior should use Scripture as it's starting point. Should LeTourneau's wealth be seen as God's blessing for his faith--something we should all emulate--or a tribute to his business and engineering acumen that most of us will never have no matter how much we pray? That's a good question as evangelicals are taught to believe the former.
Evangelical belief in the Bible as "sole authority for life and faith" might not always extend to which specific trees to cut down, but nevertheless in evangelical churches I've been in, the prayer concerns are usually quite practical, and rarely spiritual in nature. The general teaching is if you follow God's Word, you can expect to succeed in all aspects of daily life-- just look at any celebrity or millionaire Christian for proof. If it doesn't work out for you, then you must not be praying right or following God's will close enough. On a social level, evangelicals typically defend their political choices by some proof text or eschatological belief (at least amongst themselves; on TV they try to find some societal benefit of course).
Mainline friends of mine, on the other hand, seem much more adept at separating their religious life from practical living or political allegiance. I've never heard a mainline friend describe a decision in terms of prayer or biblical guidance, they never seem to feel guilty about choices that I would feel guilty for, and they don't often say one thing and do another. Nevertheless, many are committed to moral living and "traditional values", and many are more loving or compassionate than my evangelical circle of friends. Perhaps historians don't examine the scriptural motivations for liberal Protestant actions because they don't explicitly claim them to begin with as evangelicals do?
My sense is that an insightful analysis of celebrity evangelicals would reveal that human abilities or choices are as much a factor as spiritual in their outward success, just as we assume for liberals, even though they will inevitably claim it was "all from God". I think the evangelical culture would do well to A) recognize that the work of God typically involves both spiritual commitments as well as human effort or decision-making, and B) see as counter-productive the use of evangelical celebrities as testimony that all a Christian has to do is follow the Bible and pray to be successful like (fill in the blank).
Thanks for your writing, Elesha, I know it flows from both personal faith and hard work. And genetics maybe?
Posted By: Dan Holmberg | January 30, 2009 10:15 PM