Dr. Mark Hulsether mhulseth@utk.edu, 4-2182

University of Tennessee Blackboard site: http://online.utk.edu

Fall Semester 2005 Office Hours: TR 3:30-4:30 McClung 507

Religion and Culture in the United States (Religious Studies/American Studies 355)

Topic: The Political Culture of U.S. Protestantism Since 1945

On issues from A to Z, abortion to Zionism, it is impossible to understand the contours of U.S. political culture without attention to religion. This course explores how people who fall within the Protestant majority—in one or another version from fundamentalist ultra-conservatism to postmodern feminist radicalism—have thought about and sought to influence U.S. society since World War II. It examines both how religious ideas and practices have shaped socio-political commitments, and how religion has been shaped by historical and social forces.

This is not a survey of religious diversity and conflict in U.S. history (like R.S. 351, typically offered every fall); rather it is one among several religious studies courses on more advanced topics in U.S. religion and culture. This course focuses on internal complexities and conflicts within mainstream (predominantly white) Protestantism in recent years. It addresses the so-called “liberal Protestant establishment,” the conservative evangelical denominations that are the de facto establishment in this part of the country, and the Protestant left. Using sociological and historical studies, theological documents, novels, and videos, we will explore how Protestantism evolved over time and chart its heated debates over issues such as the authority of science and the Bible, secularism, racial justice, women’s leadership, values in the media, and war.

Whether you are liberal or conservative, Protestant or not, this course will make you a more skillful participant in ongoing debates about politics and religion in this country. Also, by studying the internal complexity of one tradition in detail, you will improve your general skills for analyzing conflict and change within other cultural traditions.

Readings:

Margaret Atwood, The Handmaid’s Tale

Pat Robertson, The End of the Age

Mark Hulsether, Building a Protestant Left: Christianity and Crisis Magazine, 1941-1993

Susan Harding, The Book of Jerry Falwell: Fundamentalist Language and Politics

Readings for Religious Studies 355 (available via blackboard.)

Evaluation:

The course has two basic expectations. The most important is a careful reading of assigned texts. Lectures and discussions presuppose a reading of the assignments; they do not substitute for it. To provide structure and incentive for meeting this expectation, there will be quizzes and/or brief reflection papers at least every other week and students are required to participate in an on-line discussion board. These assignments should be relatively easy for students who are doing the expected work, but will make the course unsuitable for students who hope to pass without preparing the readings and actively thinking about how they relate to each other.

The second expectation is writing three papers that stress comparison, contrast, and critical analysis of our common readings. Two of these are mid-term and final integrative papers. In addition, each student will sign up for a debating team on one of the topics listed in our day-to-day schedule and write an individual analysis of his/her topic. Although these debate papers can use common readings as their major base of evidence, they also require some independent research. There is more information about this assignment later in this syllabus.

A set of films is scheduled outside regular class time. You may view these individually in the library if you cannot attend at scheduled times; some are also available to rent. Each student is expected to view at least two of these films during the semester. As an incentive to view more, up to 6% extra credit (two points per film beyond the first two) is available. To receive extra credit, you must turn in written reflections on each film that you watch, including your two required choices; our blackboard site has more information on these reports.

Late writing is lowered one letter grade per day unless you make other arrangements in advance. You are responsible for understanding UT policies regarding plagiarism; plagiarized papers receive a zero for the assignment plus a penalty of at least two letter grades for the course. After three unexcused absences, each additional absence lowers your course grade by 3%.

Evaluation is weighted as follows:

Week to Week Engagement with Course Materials 40%

Required netforum threads (10%)

Open netforum threads (10%)

Quizzes (10%)

Reflection papers (10%)

Integrative Papers 30%

Midterm integrative paper (15%)

Final integrative paper (15%)

Research and debate project 20%

Individual debate analysis (default grade for the overall assignment)

Contribution to group (may result in major adjustment to overall grade)

General Course Participation 10%

Extra credit reports on optional films and lectures Up to 6%

Religious Studies 351 is a recommended but not required prerequisite for this course. It introduces a historical framework and an approach to religious pluralism and conflict that we will presuppose. If you lack this background (or comparable work in US history or American Studies) you need not panic, since we will cover the essential information you need. However, do not be surprised if some readings are challenging and you must work hard on overview articles at the beginning of this course.

The course treats controversial issues and asks you to develop personal judgments about them. For some students, the challenge of writing analytically and comparatively about deeply held religious-political values is the hardest part of this class, even though this challenge is more like a presupposition for our day-to-day activity than our goal: think of it more like getting to first base than scoring a run. If you develop a passion for this “game”—or even a dogged determination to keep running the bases—the “score” of a good grade will follow naturally. However, you will not thrive in this class if you do not actively relate the readings to each other and to your own ideas. This includes more than memorizing facts and expressing personal opinions. To participate in the class, you must agree to respectfully consider all points of view that are expressed in readings and discussions—even those you may consider offensive—and to dialog with them responsibly, that is, to present other people’s ideas accurately and in the best possible light before moving to criticism. All students may be questioned about their positions—that is, asked to give good reasons for them. Your grade is based on how clearly you express and defend your ideas, including how well you relate them to course readings, not on the specific ideas you defend.

Agenda and Assignments (May Be Revised)

8/25 R Introductions

Read: Start reading The End of the Age on a pace to finish by 9/15.

8/30 T Common vocabulary from the Bible (and our first debate about interpreting it).

Read: Selections from the Bible (full citations for all readings are at end of syllabus)

Bring to class: a list of the main things these specific texts say—directly or indirectly—about (1) wealth and poverty (2) relations of men and women, and (3) attitudes of Christians toward other religions.

A Conservative Christian Nightmare About A Liberal “Humanist” Future

9/1 R Essential background and vocabulary on U.S. religious history

Read: Szasz, “Religious America”; Chafe, “America Since 1945”

9/6 T Robertson in the context of the Religious Right

Read: Diamond, “Long March”; Sharlet, “Soldiers of Christ”; Reichley, “Faith in Politics.”

Film Series, 7:00 PM in Library 251: With God on Our Side

9/8 R Robertson in the Context of Christian Capitalism

Read: Fitzgerald, “Jim and Tammy”; Bilger, “Ole Anthony”

9/13 T Robertson in the context of End-Times Prophecy

Read: McAlister, “Empire of Their Own,” Kaplan, With God on Their Side

Film Series, 7:00 PM in Library Room 129: The Apostle

9/15 R Thoughts on interpreting Robertson’s The End of the Age

Read: Finish End of the Age; Frykholm, “Messages in Left Behind”;

A Scholarly Analysis of Liberal Protestants

9/20 T Orientation to Building a Protestant Left

Read: Hulsether, introduction through p. 10.

9/22 R The Emergence of Christianity and Crisis

Read: Hulsether, pp. 11-48; Niebuhr “Anglo-American Destiny and Responsibility”

9/27 T Liberal Protestants in the Cold War era

Read: Hulsether, “C&C in the 1950s”; King, “Letter From Birmingham Jail”

9/29 R Shattering of Consensus Over Black Power, Vietnam, and the Rise of the Right

Read: Hulsether, chap. 6-7; Ramsey, “Political Repentance Now” w. responses.

Film Series, 7:00 PM in Library 129: Eyes on the Prize

10/4 T More on the Neoconservative Challenge to Liberal Protestants

Read: Frank, excerpts from What’s the Matter With Kansas

10/6 R Toward new contexts and standpoints for theology: the rise of Liberation Theologies

Read: Hulsether, chap. 8 and 9; Trible, “Eve and Adam”; Daly, “Sin Big”

10/10 M Film Series, 7:00 in Library Room 129: Romero (first showing)

10/11 T Evolving Liberation Approaches in a Neoconservative Era

Read: Hulsether, chap. 10 and epilog; Norman, “Politicized Christ” w. responses.

Film Series, 4:00 in Library Room 129: Romero (second showing)

10/13 R HAPPY FALL BREAK

A Secular Nightmare About A Fundamentalist Future

10/18 T Orientation to new unit

Midterm integrative paper due

Read: Begin Atwood, The Handmaid’s Tale on pace to finish by 11/1

10/20 R Case studies on religion, sex, and gender I: Total Women and Promise Keepers

Read: Ehrenreich, “Hitting Below the Bible Belt”; Minkowitz, “Name of the Father”

Film Series, 7:00 PM in Library 251: Blood in the Face

10/25 T Case studies on religion, sex, and gender II: Southern Baptists

Class meets in Library Room 129 to watch film, Battle for the Minds

10/27 R Case studies on religion, sex, and gender III: Ex-Gays and Ex-Ex-Gays

Read: Erzen, “Sexual Healing”; Hendershot, “Holy Homosexuals”

11/1 T Discussion of The Handmaid’s Tale.

Read: Finish Atwood (pay special attention to the final “historical notes” section)

A Scholarly Analysis of Conservative Protestants

11/3 R Dr. Hulsether at American Studies Association: Work Day for Debate Teams

Film Series, 7:00 PM in Library 129: The Handmaid’s Tale

11/8 T Debate #1: Resolved, that evangelicalism is a positive force for women’s well-being.

Read: Harding, introduction through chap. 2

11/10 R Debate #2: Resolved, that the U.S. mass media are biased against Christian values.

Read: Harding, chapter 3-4.

11/15 T Debate #3: Resolved, that there are good reasons to fear the religious right

Read: Harding, chap. 5-6

Film Series, 7:00 PM in Library 129: The Eyes of Tammy Faye

11/17 R Debate #4: Resolved, that public schools should teach intelligent design theory.

Read: Harding, chap. 8; Frank, “Inherit the Whirlwind”; at least one article on creationism from blackboard site.

11/22 T Dr. Hulsether at American Academy of Religion. Work on debate papers.

11/24 R HAPPY THANKSGIVING

11/29 T Debate #5: Resolved, that left-liberal Protestants offer a more promising model for the 21^st century than the New Christian Right.

Read: Harding, chap. 10 and postscript

Debate Papers due

12/1 R Conclusions I:

Read: Ammerman, “Golden Rule Christianity;” Elisha, “Sins of Soccer Moms,”

Film Series, 7:00 PM in Library 129: Speaking to Power

12/6 T Conclusions II:

Read: Fowler, “Theories of Religion;” Roof, “Redrawing the Boundaries”

12/14 W Scheduled Final Exam Period, 5:00 to 7:00 PM.

Final integrative papers due in McClung 501 by 5:00 P.M.

Blackboard Site and Netforum Discussion

The course requires use of http://online.utk.edu/, or “blackboard,” for accessing readings and sharing information. You need a UT username and password to access blackboard, and Acrobat Reader software (free at www.adobe.com) to open files posted there. When I email you through blackboard, the message goes to your university account (the one ending in utk.edu or tennesse.edu); please forward your mail if you use a personal account such as hotmail.

We will maintain an online discussion board, which is accessible from inside blackboard or directly at http://itc.utk.edu/cgi-bin/netforum/sr/a/1. We will give it structure in two ways. First, everyone must post at least four times during the term to open threads. (All threads not labeled as required are open.) These are yours to shape as you choose. Sometimes I may initiate them, but I also encourage you to start your own threads. I will edit if necessary. Posts on these threads are not evaluated except in the general sense that thoughtfulness counts. Personal opinions are welcome and your grade is based primarily on how much you participate compared to other students. Second, we will establish a rotation of required responses to thought questions that I will post. These required threads are graded for depth of engagement with the readings. Although personal opinions are not unwelcome, they must supplement rather than substitute for analysis of the articles under discussion.

The Research and Debate Project

We will practice skills of critical analysis, persuasion, and research through debates scheduled during the fourth unit of the course. Two teams will work on each proposition. Half of your preparation should be based on thinking in depth about how class discussions and common readings relate to your subject. Some readings include arguments and evidence that is important for your topic, even though that topic is not their immediate focus; thus part of your task is to think creatively about indirect connections. The other half of your preparation should be based on research in both primary sources and scholarly secondary sources.

On the day of the debate, we will flip a coin to determine which side of the argument the teams will defend. Each team will present three minute opening statements, then take turns responding to each other’s arguments in one-minute rebuttals. Eventually we will open the floor for questions from the class. Debates are graded for depth of analysis, inclusion of relevant arguments from course readings, and overall quality. This last category includes the opening statement, cogent responses to questions (as opposed to restating arguments and talking past each other), and ability to address core arguments at their strongest. The opposite of the quality I have in mind is the format of “screaming heads” television shows featuring tiny sound bites and efforts to win at any cost through evading questions and presenting opponents unfairly. Such “wins” are defeats for the wisdom of analysis and will be counted as failures for the purposes of our class.

Your individual paper should be about five pages long. Present each side of the argument in its best possible light. Either as part of your analysis as you proceed, or in a separate section at the end, argue for your own position. Which argument (or combination of arguments) is persuasive, and why? Because of the explosion of plagiarism at UT, I will not consider a grade higher than C unless you relate your topic explicitly to assigned readings. When you discuss these readings, you may cite them in the text using a form like this—(Harding, p. 23)—and you need not list them in your bibliography. All other sources must be cited in a standard bibliography. Please do not list sources discovered by other members of your debate team unless you have studied them yourself; I will pay attention to how your citations inform your arguments. Presenting a colleague’s research as your own and drawing on sources that you fail to cite are both forms of plagiarism; this remains true even if you do not quote these sources word for word.

Your default grade for the debate and corresponding paper, taken together, is the same as your paper grade. This will be your grade if your group’s performance and your personal contribution to the group are both average. This grade may be adjusted by up to three letter grades based on (1) the quality of your presentation and (2) whether you were a group leader or slacker. Please send me a confidential email estimating the contributions of the members of your group. For example, if it had three people who were equally prepared and worked the same amount, write: Person A, 33%; Person B, 33%, Person C, 33%. Use a narrative if you prefer. Do not rank everyone the same in cases where I can tell from personal observation that this is not credible.

More on Strategies for Research

You are unlikely to find the best leads through global searches in library or internet-based catalogues—these turn up a lot of garbage and outright misinformation along with the gold—but rather through looking up articles that are cited in recent scholarly works and/or recommended by someone knowledgeable. You should consider the footnotes and bibliographies of the Hulsether and Harding books your first research tool, and your best place to start browsing is in the resources that I have placed on reserve and posted to blackboard. You may move beyond these sources, but if you substitute sources that you discover through other means, and these turn out less useful than what you could have found through the recommended method, this will affect your grade. It is not always safe to use sources that turn up in Google searches or Christian bookstores! If in doubt, you must either check such sources against scholarly ones, or you may not use them in your papers, unless you are simply quoting them as primary sources and critically analyzing them.

For basic information on subjects in US religion I recommend Laderman and León, Religion and American Cultures and Lippy and Williams, Encyclopedia of the American Religious Experience. These are shelved as BL2525.R448 2003 and BL2525.E53 1988 in the library reference room. You might also search the Religion Index and Religious and Theological Abstracts (the best places to start), the Humanities Index (which includes history, literature, philosophy, arts, and religion) and Infotrac (especially for current events). My website gathers useful resources (http://web.utk.edu/~hulseth/linkindex.html) including a page with special relevance for us (http://web.utk.edu/~hulseth/430hits.html) that one of my classes put together a few years ago. This site needs updating; please email me if you have suggestions for additions.

Full Citations, Supplementary Readings Packet

Selections from the Bible: Genesis 1-3:17; Exodus 2:23-6:13; Leviticus 20, 25; Amos 4-6:7; Matthew 5-7:27; Galatians 3; Ephesians 5:21-6:9; Revelation 18, 21-22.

Ferenc Szasz, “Religious America,” Modern American Culture, ed. Mick Gidley (Longman, 1993), 23-44.

William Chafe, “America Since 1945” in The New American History, ed. Eric Foner (Temple University Press, 1990), 143-161.

James Reichley, “Faith in Politics,” in Religion Returns to the Public Square, ed. Hugh Heclo and Wilfred McClay (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003), 163-194,

Sara Diamond, “The Long March” in Not By Politics Alone: the Enduring Influence of the Christian Right (Guilford Press, 1998), 57-88.

“Pat Robertson,” in Protestantism in America ed. Randall Balmer and Lauren Winner (Columbia University Press, 2002), p. 240-242.

Jeff Sharlet, “Soldiers of Christ: Inside America’s Most Powerful Megachurch,” Harper’s Magazine, May 2005.

Burkhard Bilger, “God Doesn’t Need Ole Anthony,” New Yorker (12/6/04), 70-81.

Frances Fitzgerald, “Jim and Tammy” New Yorker, 4/23/90, 45-87.

Melani McAlister, “An Empire of Their Own,” Nation 9/22/03, 31-36.

Esther Kaplan, With God on Their Side (New York: New Press, 2004), 8-33.

Amy Johnson Frykholm, “Social and Political Messages in the Left Behind Series” in Rapture, Revelation and the End Times ed. Bruce Forbes and Jeanne Kilde (Palgrave, 2004), 167-195.

Reinhold Niebuhr, “Anglo-American Destiny and Responsibility,” from God's New Israel, ed. Conrad Cherry (University of North Carolina Press, 1998), 296-299.

Mark Hulsether, "Christianity and Crisis in the 1950s and Early 1960s," Journal of Presbyterian History 79 #2 (2001), 151-171.

Martin Luther King, Jr., “Letter from Birmingham Jail” in God's New Israel, ed. Conrad Cherry (University of North Carolina Press, 1998), 343-355.

Paul Ramsey, “Political Repentance Now!” Christianity and Crisis, 10/28/68, 247-252, with a range of responses.

Thomas Frank, selections from What’s the Matter With Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America (Holt and Company, 2004).

Phyllis Trible, “Eve and Adam: Genesis 2-3 Reread,” in Womanspirit Rising: A Feminist Reader in Religion, ed. Carol Christ and Judith Plaskow (Harper and Row, 1979), 74-84.

Mary Daly, “Sin Big” New Yorker (11/26/96), 76-88.

Edward Norman, “A Politicized Christ,” Christianity and Crisis, 2/19/79, 18-25, with responses by Peter Berger (3/19/79, 52-54) and Dorothee Soelle (3/19/79, 50-52.)

Barbara Ehrenreich, et. al., “Fundamentalist Sex: Hitting Below the Bible Belt,” in Re-Making Love: the Feminization of Sex (Anchor, 1986), 134-160.

Donna Minkowitz, “In the Name of the Father” Ms. (November/December 1995), 64-71.

Heather Hendershot, “Holiness Codes and Holy Homosexuals” in Shaking the World for Jesus: Media and Conservative Evangelical Culture (University of Chicago Press, 2004), 114-142.

Tanya Erzen, “Sexual Healing: Self-Help and Therapeutic Christianity in the Ex-Gay Movement,” in Religion and Healing in America ed. Linda Barnes and Susan Sered (Oxford University Press, 2005), 265-80.

Thomas Frank, “Inherit the Whirlwind,” in What’s the Matter With Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America (Holt and Company, 2004), 200-214.

Omri Elisha, “Sins of our Soccer Moms: Servant Evangelism and the Injuries of Class,” in Local Actions ed. Melissa Crocker and Maggie Fishman (Columbia University Press, 2004), 136-58.

Nancy Ammerman, “Golden Rule Christianity: Lived Religion in the American Mainstream,” in Lived Religion in America ed. David Hall (Princeton University Press, 1997), 196-216.

Wade Clark Roof, “Redrawing the Boundaries,” in Spiritual Marketplace: Baby Boomers and the Remaking of American Religion (Princeton University Press, 1999), 180-216.

Robert Booth Fowler, et. al., “Theories of Religion, Culture, and American Politics” in Religion and Politics in America, second ed. (Westview Press, 1999, 250-267.