What do you think?
Rate this book
Why Study History?: Reflecting on the Importance of the Past
What is the purpose of studying history? How do we reflect on contemporary life from a historical perspective and can such reflection help us better understand ourselves, the world around us, and the God we worship and serve?
In this introductory textbook, accomplished historian John Fea shows why Christians should study history, how faith is brought to bear on our understanding of the past, and how studying the past can help us more effectively love God and others. Deep historical thinking can relieve us of our narcissism; cultivate humility, hospitality, and love; and transform our lives more fully into the image of Jesus Christ.
192 pages, Paperback
First published September 15, 2013
34 people are currently reading
786 people want to read
About the author
John Fea
16 books58 followersJohn Fea (PhD, State University of New York at Stony Brook) is associate professor of American history and chair of the history department at Messiah College in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. He is the author of Was America Founded as a Christian Nation? and writes a popular daily blog, The Way of Improvement Leads Home.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 42 reviews
May 13, 2024
It's the week where I'm finishing up all my college books! This was decent and thought-provoking, but didn't share many new ideas.
March 30, 2014
John Fea has a passion for history and for his Christian beliefs. Fea clearly explains why he believes that people should study history and how Christians can use their faith in their study of it. Fea believes that Christians should use the "Image of God" doctrine and other Christian teachings to help them study past peoples and events on their own terms. Fea does not believe that Christian historians, or any historians, should judge the people and events of the past. Instead, historians should treat their sojourns into the past as if they were strangers in a foreign country. Everyone deserves to be studied within the context of the place, time, and ideologies of their present.
Fea makes a strong case for why academic historians should occasionally leave the 'Ivory Tower' to help the non-academic public appreciate history and learn to think historically. Fea argues that historical thinking and appreciation will better our civil society.
As a historian with a secular worldview, I found Fea's chapters on how Christians should and should not use their faith to study the past fascinating and helpful. I also enjoyed reading this book; Fea's passion for the study of history permeates his writing, which makes this book an enjoyable as well as interesting read.
A must read for anyone who studies history, wants to study history, or loves history.
Fea makes a strong case for why academic historians should occasionally leave the 'Ivory Tower' to help the non-academic public appreciate history and learn to think historically. Fea argues that historical thinking and appreciation will better our civil society.
As a historian with a secular worldview, I found Fea's chapters on how Christians should and should not use their faith to study the past fascinating and helpful. I also enjoyed reading this book; Fea's passion for the study of history permeates his writing, which makes this book an enjoyable as well as interesting read.
A must read for anyone who studies history, wants to study history, or loves history.
July 16, 2021
Sometimes I’ll read a book and just keep thinking about it over and over again. It will come up in conversations, I’ll share what I’ve been learning through it to others, and it will drastically impact my view that particular subject. John Fea’s book has made me go through this experience again, to my delight. This is an incredible book not only on history, but particularly on being a Christian historian.
Chapter 1 deals with the question, what does a historian do? History in its most basic sense is the collection of facts about the past. Put together, they weave a story that non-historians can easily digest. So historians are the people who are responsible for assembling data and putting together a coherent narrative.
This leads to problems though. How can one be purely objective in his/her assemblage of such data? The inclusions and subsequent exclusion of source material, the historian ultimately is led to interpreting the past. And with interpretation comes bias. And with bias comes bad history. In chapter 3, John Fea looks at the task set before a historian: to tell the truth about the past. But this truth telling is often times clouded amongst a barrage of differing interpretations. Understanding your biases and telling the story of history in the most objective way is of utmost importance.
Dr. Fea looks at several different interpretations that have a negative impact on reaching this lofty goal. First, providentialist history. A providentialist history examines the world as if God is responsible for everything. While from a theological perspective, this is true. However, the historian’s job is to understand events as they were. Ascribing why Alexander Hamilton missed his first shot at Aaron Burr due to the hand of God makes for bad history. Further, saying that the founders of our nation were “inspired” by God to write the Constitution is bad history as well. Second, progressive of Whig interpretation of history. I’ve written about this elsewhere, speaking from Herbert Butterfield’s “The Whig Interpretation of History.”
Among the most interesting sections of the book is why Americans like history. Many will recall their days of sitting in school listening to a teacher ramble on about dates and times. For this reason, many have a bad taste of what history is. But on the contrary, important historical sites around the United States and even the world are visited by millions of Americans a year; documentaries and a whole channel on television are dedicated to preserving history in video form; movies and other media saturate the minds of Americans with historical underpinnings. Why is this? In chapter 2, Dr. Fea gives several good reasons: the past inspires us to escape the pressures of modern life; the past inspires us and fills us with good emotions; the past helps us escape to a more simple way of life; the past reminds us of who we are; and the past is familiar and helps us engage with historical figures and connections that relate to us. I know I have been impacted by all of these traits for my own love for the past.
Some of the later chapters are about how to use the art of history in the world today. For example, in chapter 6, titled “History for a Civil Society”, Dr. Fea looks at how history can be used to effect the world and change it. Chapter 7 is entitled “The Power to Transform” and is about how as Christian historians, we can engage the culture at large. Chapter 8 is about what you can do with a history degree.
Overall, this is an impactful book that both the budding Christian historian and the layman would find interesting. I am discovering there are many parallels with historical study and a multitude of different occupations. I sometimes kick myself to adding a history major because it is taking me a really long time to graduate. But with the encouragement of this book, I am more convinced that my time has not been wasted and I have learned much about myself and about the world around us that will serve me better in future years because of this long stroll through history.
Chapter 1 deals with the question, what does a historian do? History in its most basic sense is the collection of facts about the past. Put together, they weave a story that non-historians can easily digest. So historians are the people who are responsible for assembling data and putting together a coherent narrative.
This leads to problems though. How can one be purely objective in his/her assemblage of such data? The inclusions and subsequent exclusion of source material, the historian ultimately is led to interpreting the past. And with interpretation comes bias. And with bias comes bad history. In chapter 3, John Fea looks at the task set before a historian: to tell the truth about the past. But this truth telling is often times clouded amongst a barrage of differing interpretations. Understanding your biases and telling the story of history in the most objective way is of utmost importance.
Dr. Fea looks at several different interpretations that have a negative impact on reaching this lofty goal. First, providentialist history. A providentialist history examines the world as if God is responsible for everything. While from a theological perspective, this is true. However, the historian’s job is to understand events as they were. Ascribing why Alexander Hamilton missed his first shot at Aaron Burr due to the hand of God makes for bad history. Further, saying that the founders of our nation were “inspired” by God to write the Constitution is bad history as well. Second, progressive of Whig interpretation of history. I’ve written about this elsewhere, speaking from Herbert Butterfield’s “The Whig Interpretation of History.”
Among the most interesting sections of the book is why Americans like history. Many will recall their days of sitting in school listening to a teacher ramble on about dates and times. For this reason, many have a bad taste of what history is. But on the contrary, important historical sites around the United States and even the world are visited by millions of Americans a year; documentaries and a whole channel on television are dedicated to preserving history in video form; movies and other media saturate the minds of Americans with historical underpinnings. Why is this? In chapter 2, Dr. Fea gives several good reasons: the past inspires us to escape the pressures of modern life; the past inspires us and fills us with good emotions; the past helps us escape to a more simple way of life; the past reminds us of who we are; and the past is familiar and helps us engage with historical figures and connections that relate to us. I know I have been impacted by all of these traits for my own love for the past.
Some of the later chapters are about how to use the art of history in the world today. For example, in chapter 6, titled “History for a Civil Society”, Dr. Fea looks at how history can be used to effect the world and change it. Chapter 7 is entitled “The Power to Transform” and is about how as Christian historians, we can engage the culture at large. Chapter 8 is about what you can do with a history degree.
Overall, this is an impactful book that both the budding Christian historian and the layman would find interesting. I am discovering there are many parallels with historical study and a multitude of different occupations. I sometimes kick myself to adding a history major because it is taking me a really long time to graduate. But with the encouragement of this book, I am more convinced that my time has not been wasted and I have learned much about myself and about the world around us that will serve me better in future years because of this long stroll through history.
October 25, 2013
This is a great introductory text for someone who is curious about history and why they should consider studying it for themselves. I loved studying History in college and have often thought that my experience has helped me in my vocation. Fea's book confirmed my thought and gave some concrete examples as to how Christian's can study history well. Proper study of history is exercising love toward those actors in the past with whom we may not agree.
I will be encouraging this book to people who ask me dismissively, "You studied History? What are you going to do with that? Be a high school teacher?"
I will be encouraging this book to people who ask me dismissively, "You studied History? What are you going to do with that? Be a high school teacher?"
April 26, 2014
NOTE: This book was provided to me free by Baker Academic and Net Galley without any obligation for a positive review. All opinions offered above are mine unless otherwise stated or implied.
This is a helpful work arguing for the importance of studying history. It is written by John Fea who is a professor that specializes in early American history. Although the book is written by a Christian for a Christian audience, non-Christians can benefit from reading this book. The author’s passion in the book is contagious. Hopefully if you have not thought about why history is important this book will ignite an interest. In this review I will cover the strengths of the book follow by some constructive criticism. While I do have some lengthy criticism of the book I hope that it would not be misconstrued that I did not enjoy the book nor do I want anyone to get the impression that its weakness outweigh its strength. Even where I disagree with Fea, it nevertheless helped clarified my own thoughts concerning a Christian philosophy of history.
STRENGTHS
The beginning of the book distinguished between the past and history something that people can easily confuse as being synonymous. History is the study of the past. Fea also talks about the “five Cs” of history: It is the study of the past that takes into account (1) change over time, (2) context, (3) causality, (4) contingency and (5) complexity. The author acknowledges how some people can think of history as being boring but he also observed the ironic popularity of history; for instance the New York Times’ best seller lists often include “narrative historical” works and also how a significant factor for the tourism industry is generated by people’s interests in the past.
I appreciated the book’s reasons for why one should study history. The author noted that history should inspire and warn us. Yet he also acknowledge the danger of “Presentism,” when one assume “unwarranted continuities between the past” (Location 596). The past is a different time than today as the author likes to point out. I was particularly struck with the point that history should humble us when we look into the past and that the study of history makes us more compassionate and slower to jump to premature conclusion concerning those who are different than us.
Readers will also appreciate the chapter on what you can do as a history major outside the immediate field of being a historian and being a teacher of history. As a pastor I also appreciate the epilogue on history and the church.
WEAKNESS
There is a full chapter devoted to the discussion of whether or not God’s providence should be invoked in discussing history. I believe the book has some unresolved tensions about the role of providence in history. He does not find the discussion of providence to be helpful for the historian. One example given is that appealing to providence does not “help us better understand what happened” with Washington crossing the East river in 1776. I submit that while we cannot scrutinize fully and certainly the Divine purpose of Washington crossing the river in 1176, nevertheless the doctrine of providence ensure that the event was not “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing,” to borrow a line from MacBeth. Elsewhere Fea gives us examples of how poor history has been committed by those who have written providential history in the past. In most instances I agree with his examples but I don’t think it rule out categorically that one can never see the providence of God in historical instances. I believe the doctrine of providence is important since it is what makes history intelligible and significant though we can admit much of God’s way is a mystery.
Another example of his objection towards invoking providence in studying history is his stance against the claim “that the Reformation was an example of God’s providential intervention in the affairs of humankind” since this would “suggest that God was not overseeing human history before he had to ‘intervene at Wittenberg in October 1517” (Location 1294ff). But this argument does not follow, since believing that the Reformation was an act of God’s providence does not necessitate that God’s providence was not operating before 1517. We can see instances in Scripture where God’s providence is clearly identified and yet we see God working leading up to His “intervention” even though His involvement with human affairs might not be what we expect. Think of the Egyptian exodus, the Babylonian captivity, the Incarnation, etc.
More problematic is the book’s tension with history and ethics. The author is critical of the relationship of history and ethics such as using history to draw moral lessons. Nor should history condemn the past. Yet throughout the book he constantly presupposes how history ought to teach us moral lessons. How can one look to history for inspiration and warning without realizing that moral categories are involved? The author stated in the book that history “reminds us of the inherent weakness in the human condition” such as “slavery, violence, scientific backwardness, injustice, genocide, racism, and other dark episodes” (Location 1027ff.) which presupposes moral judgment are being made when one engages in historical studies.
This discussion about providence and ethics touches on a larger discussion of the role of faith and history. It is interesting to note that he sees providence as a tool of the theologian but not that of the historian (Location 1143ff.). This presupposes a dichotomy of history/theology that makes the author’s project difficult if he wishes to present a Christian perspective of history. Such an endeavor itself is a theological/religious act, being involved with one’s faith and relation to God, etc. Moreover, where do we draw the line between what a historian can and cannot use from the Bible? The author is silent on a clear methodology. This leads to the following tension: On the one hand providence is not a legitimate tool for the historian but on the other hand “it is very difficult to understand historical figures like Nero, Caligula, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Pol Pot without a robust understanding of sin” (Location 1481ff.). We need a robust understanding of sin in evaluating wicked men like Hitler but then on other hand Fea thinks the doctrine of providence in the Bible shouldn’t be used. Yet even his statement that the Bible’s doctrine of sin is helpful for the historian goes against what he also wants us to believe that “history demands we set aside our moral condemnation about a person, idea, or event from the past in order to understand it” (Location 1874ff.). Of course we don’t want a knee jerk condemnation done prematurely without a full understanding of the historical contexts of such men but at the same time we should make some kind of moral evaluation and have our theology of sin inform us what’s going on to enrich our historical reflection. Contrary to certain claims made throughout the book, history should acknowledge wicked past actions as wicked.
It is also strange to see Fea say that because mankind is made in the image of God this must mean “there are no villains in history” (Location 1393ff.). This train of thought does not matches up to the way the Bible present historical narratives since the very Bible that teaches us that we are made in the image of God also gives account of those who were enemies of God and God’s people.
I was genuinely surprise at Fea quoting Wineburg and Walter McDougall approvingly when they advance a view of history that makes history accomplish things only God can bring about (around Location 2017ff.). Wineburg and McDougall call history “the religion of the modern curriculum” that “must do the work of theology” such that it would humble us and leave us with a sense of awe and worship directed towards the past; history here for all intent and purpose has taken the role of God. It is idolatrous. Space does not permit me to develop a full critique but this is where the role of theology, philosophy and apologetics intersect with history. It is interesting that the author wishes to protect the field of history from encroachment from theology but does not notice the encroachment of history in the sphere of theology. Theology tells us that any idol that is above God will disappoint us and does not please Him. This of course would be against the grain of a Christian desire to pursue history. Philosophically, if we could borrow the insight of the Dutch philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd, to make any sphere absolute in the place of religion will end up having rational problem under scrutiny because it is reductionistic while the sphere itself can be further reduced as being dependent upon other spheres thus indicating how it really can’t be the fountain head for everything else. In terms of Reformed apologetics we can make the observation that even Wineburg and Walter has to borrow capitals outside of history itself in order to talk about things like humility as a virtue (which is from the sphere of ethics and religion). Again space does not permit us to develop this point but a Reformed apologist would further argue that to even talk about history as a source of inducing awe (which is appropriate so long as it does not take the place of God or become itself a secularized “religion” or “theology”) presupposes the Christian worldview. Again to get to the point at hand it is a shame that in encouraging a Christian perspective of history the author does not notice the idolatrous language his sources use to describe history.
I would say in summary that the author is weak in theology. We see this weakness in some of the problems noted earlier but it is also evident in how Fea assumes certain individuals to be Christians in the book. Though the book’s argues creatively of how history can serve Christians and the church, there is no discussion about the field of historical theology. I think it is reasonable to expect at least a passing remark about the role of historical theology for the life of the believer. He also attacks the “belief that human history has already been ‘scripted’ by God” inevitably “teaches us that this world is not as important as the next one, so we do not need to invest in it with any degree of seriousness” (Location 2033ff.). But such a conclusion that does not logically follow.
As a minor point the book argues persuasively that history should make us more conscious of understanding others who are different than us and that has implication for how we relate to others whom we disagree today. Fea laments on the culture war and how much it is driven by ignorance but one can’t help but to notice his own misrepresentation of the Tea party movement when he writes “The Tea Party movement and other libertarians have convinced millions of Americans that they have to answer to no authority but themselves” (Location 1811ff.).
CONCLUSION
Again, all this does not take away from the fact that I enjoyed this book. I give this book a five out of five for stimulating one to think as a Christian concerning the subject of history.
This is a helpful work arguing for the importance of studying history. It is written by John Fea who is a professor that specializes in early American history. Although the book is written by a Christian for a Christian audience, non-Christians can benefit from reading this book. The author’s passion in the book is contagious. Hopefully if you have not thought about why history is important this book will ignite an interest. In this review I will cover the strengths of the book follow by some constructive criticism. While I do have some lengthy criticism of the book I hope that it would not be misconstrued that I did not enjoy the book nor do I want anyone to get the impression that its weakness outweigh its strength. Even where I disagree with Fea, it nevertheless helped clarified my own thoughts concerning a Christian philosophy of history.
STRENGTHS
The beginning of the book distinguished between the past and history something that people can easily confuse as being synonymous. History is the study of the past. Fea also talks about the “five Cs” of history: It is the study of the past that takes into account (1) change over time, (2) context, (3) causality, (4) contingency and (5) complexity. The author acknowledges how some people can think of history as being boring but he also observed the ironic popularity of history; for instance the New York Times’ best seller lists often include “narrative historical” works and also how a significant factor for the tourism industry is generated by people’s interests in the past.
I appreciated the book’s reasons for why one should study history. The author noted that history should inspire and warn us. Yet he also acknowledge the danger of “Presentism,” when one assume “unwarranted continuities between the past” (Location 596). The past is a different time than today as the author likes to point out. I was particularly struck with the point that history should humble us when we look into the past and that the study of history makes us more compassionate and slower to jump to premature conclusion concerning those who are different than us.
Readers will also appreciate the chapter on what you can do as a history major outside the immediate field of being a historian and being a teacher of history. As a pastor I also appreciate the epilogue on history and the church.
WEAKNESS
There is a full chapter devoted to the discussion of whether or not God’s providence should be invoked in discussing history. I believe the book has some unresolved tensions about the role of providence in history. He does not find the discussion of providence to be helpful for the historian. One example given is that appealing to providence does not “help us better understand what happened” with Washington crossing the East river in 1776. I submit that while we cannot scrutinize fully and certainly the Divine purpose of Washington crossing the river in 1176, nevertheless the doctrine of providence ensure that the event was not “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing,” to borrow a line from MacBeth. Elsewhere Fea gives us examples of how poor history has been committed by those who have written providential history in the past. In most instances I agree with his examples but I don’t think it rule out categorically that one can never see the providence of God in historical instances. I believe the doctrine of providence is important since it is what makes history intelligible and significant though we can admit much of God’s way is a mystery.
Another example of his objection towards invoking providence in studying history is his stance against the claim “that the Reformation was an example of God’s providential intervention in the affairs of humankind” since this would “suggest that God was not overseeing human history before he had to ‘intervene at Wittenberg in October 1517” (Location 1294ff). But this argument does not follow, since believing that the Reformation was an act of God’s providence does not necessitate that God’s providence was not operating before 1517. We can see instances in Scripture where God’s providence is clearly identified and yet we see God working leading up to His “intervention” even though His involvement with human affairs might not be what we expect. Think of the Egyptian exodus, the Babylonian captivity, the Incarnation, etc.
More problematic is the book’s tension with history and ethics. The author is critical of the relationship of history and ethics such as using history to draw moral lessons. Nor should history condemn the past. Yet throughout the book he constantly presupposes how history ought to teach us moral lessons. How can one look to history for inspiration and warning without realizing that moral categories are involved? The author stated in the book that history “reminds us of the inherent weakness in the human condition” such as “slavery, violence, scientific backwardness, injustice, genocide, racism, and other dark episodes” (Location 1027ff.) which presupposes moral judgment are being made when one engages in historical studies.
This discussion about providence and ethics touches on a larger discussion of the role of faith and history. It is interesting to note that he sees providence as a tool of the theologian but not that of the historian (Location 1143ff.). This presupposes a dichotomy of history/theology that makes the author’s project difficult if he wishes to present a Christian perspective of history. Such an endeavor itself is a theological/religious act, being involved with one’s faith and relation to God, etc. Moreover, where do we draw the line between what a historian can and cannot use from the Bible? The author is silent on a clear methodology. This leads to the following tension: On the one hand providence is not a legitimate tool for the historian but on the other hand “it is very difficult to understand historical figures like Nero, Caligula, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Pol Pot without a robust understanding of sin” (Location 1481ff.). We need a robust understanding of sin in evaluating wicked men like Hitler but then on other hand Fea thinks the doctrine of providence in the Bible shouldn’t be used. Yet even his statement that the Bible’s doctrine of sin is helpful for the historian goes against what he also wants us to believe that “history demands we set aside our moral condemnation about a person, idea, or event from the past in order to understand it” (Location 1874ff.). Of course we don’t want a knee jerk condemnation done prematurely without a full understanding of the historical contexts of such men but at the same time we should make some kind of moral evaluation and have our theology of sin inform us what’s going on to enrich our historical reflection. Contrary to certain claims made throughout the book, history should acknowledge wicked past actions as wicked.
It is also strange to see Fea say that because mankind is made in the image of God this must mean “there are no villains in history” (Location 1393ff.). This train of thought does not matches up to the way the Bible present historical narratives since the very Bible that teaches us that we are made in the image of God also gives account of those who were enemies of God and God’s people.
I was genuinely surprise at Fea quoting Wineburg and Walter McDougall approvingly when they advance a view of history that makes history accomplish things only God can bring about (around Location 2017ff.). Wineburg and McDougall call history “the religion of the modern curriculum” that “must do the work of theology” such that it would humble us and leave us with a sense of awe and worship directed towards the past; history here for all intent and purpose has taken the role of God. It is idolatrous. Space does not permit me to develop a full critique but this is where the role of theology, philosophy and apologetics intersect with history. It is interesting that the author wishes to protect the field of history from encroachment from theology but does not notice the encroachment of history in the sphere of theology. Theology tells us that any idol that is above God will disappoint us and does not please Him. This of course would be against the grain of a Christian desire to pursue history. Philosophically, if we could borrow the insight of the Dutch philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd, to make any sphere absolute in the place of religion will end up having rational problem under scrutiny because it is reductionistic while the sphere itself can be further reduced as being dependent upon other spheres thus indicating how it really can’t be the fountain head for everything else. In terms of Reformed apologetics we can make the observation that even Wineburg and Walter has to borrow capitals outside of history itself in order to talk about things like humility as a virtue (which is from the sphere of ethics and religion). Again space does not permit us to develop this point but a Reformed apologist would further argue that to even talk about history as a source of inducing awe (which is appropriate so long as it does not take the place of God or become itself a secularized “religion” or “theology”) presupposes the Christian worldview. Again to get to the point at hand it is a shame that in encouraging a Christian perspective of history the author does not notice the idolatrous language his sources use to describe history.
I would say in summary that the author is weak in theology. We see this weakness in some of the problems noted earlier but it is also evident in how Fea assumes certain individuals to be Christians in the book. Though the book’s argues creatively of how history can serve Christians and the church, there is no discussion about the field of historical theology. I think it is reasonable to expect at least a passing remark about the role of historical theology for the life of the believer. He also attacks the “belief that human history has already been ‘scripted’ by God” inevitably “teaches us that this world is not as important as the next one, so we do not need to invest in it with any degree of seriousness” (Location 2033ff.). But such a conclusion that does not logically follow.
As a minor point the book argues persuasively that history should make us more conscious of understanding others who are different than us and that has implication for how we relate to others whom we disagree today. Fea laments on the culture war and how much it is driven by ignorance but one can’t help but to notice his own misrepresentation of the Tea party movement when he writes “The Tea Party movement and other libertarians have convinced millions of Americans that they have to answer to no authority but themselves” (Location 1811ff.).
CONCLUSION
Again, all this does not take away from the fact that I enjoyed this book. I give this book a five out of five for stimulating one to think as a Christian concerning the subject of history.
November 25, 2021
This book is written in an accessible way and makes a good critique of Christian (and usually conservative) historians that manipulate American history for their own gain. And, this book was written by a conservative Christian historian! This was definitely a solid read.
April 24, 2023
Wonderful introductory book on the task of history. Fea’s 5 C’s of History is one of the most helpful frameworks for thinking historically without falling headlong into bad history.
August 31, 2022
This book, while having some truth, has a blatant ideological bent that affects the things written so that they are to some degree unusable.
July 7, 2017
I first read John Fea's book "Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?" in college after it was recommended by my professor (who is also cited in this book), Beth Barton Schweiger. I bought it, and it changed my intellectual life.
This book had a similar effect on me. As a world history teacher, I have been looking for a good, semi-concise answer to the inevitable "why are we learning this stuff?" question, and I think I came away from this book with some ideas for a much better presentation of that answer that I will share on the first day of school each year.
However, my favorite parts of this book were the most unexpected parts, where Fea explained how the study of history can complement and deepen Christian faith. These were musings that I had never considered but make complete sense to me now. Chapter 3 (on providence in history) all the way through Chapter 7 (on the way history can transform lives) had me glued to the book because of the way he connected my foremost passion (my Christian faith) to one of my other passions in life (the study of history). Fea is probably more politically liberal than me (although, as any good historian, you can never tell his political beliefs for sure), but this doesn't matter because I believe he is truly one of the greatest minds in evangelical Christianity. highly recommend this book for any Christian who is interested in the study of history on any level.
This book had a similar effect on me. As a world history teacher, I have been looking for a good, semi-concise answer to the inevitable "why are we learning this stuff?" question, and I think I came away from this book with some ideas for a much better presentation of that answer that I will share on the first day of school each year.
However, my favorite parts of this book were the most unexpected parts, where Fea explained how the study of history can complement and deepen Christian faith. These were musings that I had never considered but make complete sense to me now. Chapter 3 (on providence in history) all the way through Chapter 7 (on the way history can transform lives) had me glued to the book because of the way he connected my foremost passion (my Christian faith) to one of my other passions in life (the study of history). Fea is probably more politically liberal than me (although, as any good historian, you can never tell his political beliefs for sure), but this doesn't matter because I believe he is truly one of the greatest minds in evangelical Christianity. highly recommend this book for any Christian who is interested in the study of history on any level.
August 14, 2022
"For the narcissist sees the world--both the past and the present--in his own image. Mature historical understanding teaches us to do the opposite: to go beyond our own image, to go beyond our brief life, and to go beyond the fleeting moment in human history into which we have been born...Of the subjects in the secular curriculum, it is the best at teaching those virtues once reserved for theology--humility in the face of our limited ability to know, and awe in the face of the expanse of history." —Sam Wineburg, Historical Thinking.
A highly accessible, humbly intellectual work by Fea. Drawing from classic and contemporary historians alike, Fea successfully highlights the need for true historicism within Christian culture - and academia in general - all the while elucidating such delicate issues as Providential history, historical presentism, and value judgments in historiography. Intrinsically valuable to the casual reader and serious historian alike.
A highly accessible, humbly intellectual work by Fea. Drawing from classic and contemporary historians alike, Fea successfully highlights the need for true historicism within Christian culture - and academia in general - all the while elucidating such delicate issues as Providential history, historical presentism, and value judgments in historiography. Intrinsically valuable to the casual reader and serious historian alike.
June 17, 2024
Summary: A Christian historian explains why the study of history is important to us, what historians do, and helpful and unhelpful ways to relate our faith to the study of history.
It seems to me a sad consequence of our “post-truth” age is our lack of trust in nearly everything. Sadly, this includes for many the study of history, which some will claim is just shaped by agendas across the political spectrum.
John Fea, in a book meant as an introductory text for students, as well as for more general audiences, both admits that history reflects a process of constant revision as new sources emerge and yet that because of the disciplined processes (including the 5 C’s of historical study) academic historians use, it is possible to attain approximations to the truth that give us reasonable confidence in what happened in the past and why. While we never attain to absolute certainty, this does not mean that we cannot learn from historians to our profit.
He contends that the study of the past may inspire us, sometimes offer an escape from modern life, and at other times help us understand who we are and how we got here. We are in constant dialogue with the past whether we admit it or not. At the same time historians teach us to use the past without misappropriating it. First, we must understand the past on its own terms, as an “other,” rather than through the eyes of our particular present. This involves empathy and humility, which he illustrates with the example of an evangelical scholar studying at a Latter Day Saints school, who only made progress in understanding their history when he recognized that whatever he thought, LDS adherents believed the teachings they received and acted in accord with them.
Fea tackles the question of providence as it relates to historical study. While he affirms providence, he contends that this is the province of theologians, and that historians are doing something besides history when they attempt to read God’s providence into historical events. He does not outright deny the possibility of writing providential history and notes examples of those who have attempted such writings. He believes this must be done with great humility, recognizing our inherent limitations in knowing the plans of God.
Fea does believe there are Christian resources we may bring to bear in the study of the past: our understanding of the imago dei, the reality of human sin, the relevance of the incarnation to the study of a physical past and the use of our minds, and the use of moral reflection upon both the good and the bad we encounter in our study, not to preach, but to see.
The study of history is important to cultivating a civil, democratic society. Careful work at understanding combined with humility and empathy are not only skills necessary in the study of history. They are the skills necessary for reaching across the divides in our national discourse. If there is any hope of healing our discords, these practices are crucial. History may also be transformative. It is a form of public engagement, of loving our neighbors in the past. For the Christian, it may be a spiritual discipline calling forth prayer, self-denial, hospitality, charity, and humility as we study the “other” in the past.
One of the objections to studying history is the problem of getting a job with that major. Fea admits the challenge but seeks to open our eyes to the range of occupations that draw upon the skills learned by those who study history. He describes a student who subsequently worked in a children’s hospital in Malawi. She learned to listen well, write well, and tell good stories. She learned empathy walking in the shoes of the dead, and learned how to step out of her own approach to the world. Fea goes on to list famous people who studied history and shares examples of some of the things he sees his former students and others doing: writing, marketing and digital analytics, business, sales, television sports, filmmaking, medicine, ministry, criminal justice, and real estate.
In an epilogue, Fea discusses the importance of doing good history for the church, and the public engagement of those who have studied history. He describes his own public engagements around his book Was America Founded as a Christian Nation? in which he challenges many aspects of this notion. Those engagements have led to fruitful conversations, stretched his own thinking, and made him reconsider how he pursues his calling as an academic theologian to not only advance knowledge in his discipline, but serve the wider Christian community.
This is such a good introduction that I would commend it not only for students but all thoughtful Christians. In helping us understand the work of historians, Fea gives us tools to evaluate historical claims and narratives rather than defaulting to pervasive skepticism or just accepting the opinions of our tribe. More than this, Fea show us what kind of person we must become to study history well and that these virtues equip us well for life in society. Finally, he gestures toward ways we bring our faith to bear in the study of history to elucidate rather than distort what we are seeing as we listen to the past through sifting various sources. All of this seems vital and useful as we seek to understand the times, both past and present, and live with wisdom in our time.
____________________
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher for review.
It seems to me a sad consequence of our “post-truth” age is our lack of trust in nearly everything. Sadly, this includes for many the study of history, which some will claim is just shaped by agendas across the political spectrum.
John Fea, in a book meant as an introductory text for students, as well as for more general audiences, both admits that history reflects a process of constant revision as new sources emerge and yet that because of the disciplined processes (including the 5 C’s of historical study) academic historians use, it is possible to attain approximations to the truth that give us reasonable confidence in what happened in the past and why. While we never attain to absolute certainty, this does not mean that we cannot learn from historians to our profit.
He contends that the study of the past may inspire us, sometimes offer an escape from modern life, and at other times help us understand who we are and how we got here. We are in constant dialogue with the past whether we admit it or not. At the same time historians teach us to use the past without misappropriating it. First, we must understand the past on its own terms, as an “other,” rather than through the eyes of our particular present. This involves empathy and humility, which he illustrates with the example of an evangelical scholar studying at a Latter Day Saints school, who only made progress in understanding their history when he recognized that whatever he thought, LDS adherents believed the teachings they received and acted in accord with them.
Fea tackles the question of providence as it relates to historical study. While he affirms providence, he contends that this is the province of theologians, and that historians are doing something besides history when they attempt to read God’s providence into historical events. He does not outright deny the possibility of writing providential history and notes examples of those who have attempted such writings. He believes this must be done with great humility, recognizing our inherent limitations in knowing the plans of God.
Fea does believe there are Christian resources we may bring to bear in the study of the past: our understanding of the imago dei, the reality of human sin, the relevance of the incarnation to the study of a physical past and the use of our minds, and the use of moral reflection upon both the good and the bad we encounter in our study, not to preach, but to see.
The study of history is important to cultivating a civil, democratic society. Careful work at understanding combined with humility and empathy are not only skills necessary in the study of history. They are the skills necessary for reaching across the divides in our national discourse. If there is any hope of healing our discords, these practices are crucial. History may also be transformative. It is a form of public engagement, of loving our neighbors in the past. For the Christian, it may be a spiritual discipline calling forth prayer, self-denial, hospitality, charity, and humility as we study the “other” in the past.
One of the objections to studying history is the problem of getting a job with that major. Fea admits the challenge but seeks to open our eyes to the range of occupations that draw upon the skills learned by those who study history. He describes a student who subsequently worked in a children’s hospital in Malawi. She learned to listen well, write well, and tell good stories. She learned empathy walking in the shoes of the dead, and learned how to step out of her own approach to the world. Fea goes on to list famous people who studied history and shares examples of some of the things he sees his former students and others doing: writing, marketing and digital analytics, business, sales, television sports, filmmaking, medicine, ministry, criminal justice, and real estate.
In an epilogue, Fea discusses the importance of doing good history for the church, and the public engagement of those who have studied history. He describes his own public engagements around his book Was America Founded as a Christian Nation? in which he challenges many aspects of this notion. Those engagements have led to fruitful conversations, stretched his own thinking, and made him reconsider how he pursues his calling as an academic theologian to not only advance knowledge in his discipline, but serve the wider Christian community.
This is such a good introduction that I would commend it not only for students but all thoughtful Christians. In helping us understand the work of historians, Fea gives us tools to evaluate historical claims and narratives rather than defaulting to pervasive skepticism or just accepting the opinions of our tribe. More than this, Fea show us what kind of person we must become to study history well and that these virtues equip us well for life in society. Finally, he gestures toward ways we bring our faith to bear in the study of history to elucidate rather than distort what we are seeing as we listen to the past through sifting various sources. All of this seems vital and useful as we seek to understand the times, both past and present, and live with wisdom in our time.
____________________
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher for review.
August 6, 2015
This book hardly answered the question of why we should study history. There was absolutely no mention of how history helps us interpret current events by putting them in context. He spent the vast majority of the book discussing Christianity in some form, and this could not have been discerned from the cover! Wasted $10 bucks on this. I should have done more research before purchasing.
January 7, 2020
Elegantly written, and accessible, but I think there should be more signposting about the fact that easily 1/3 of this book discusses history from Christian/evangelical perspectives, for the benefit of secular readers who may not necessarily be interested in engaging with these Christian ideas when they picked up this book.
October 21, 2013
John Fea, Why Study History? Reflecting on the Importance of the Past (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013). Paperback / Kindle
Why study history?
John Fea sets out to answer this question in his eponymous new book, which is subtitled, “reflecting on the importance of the past.” Fea is associate professor of American history and chair of the history department at Messiah College in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. An evangelical Christian teaching at an evangelical college, he has written or edited several books, including Was America Founded as a Christian Nation? A Historical Introduction [1] , The Way of Improvement Leads Home: Philip Vickers Fithian and the Rural Enlightenment in Early America , and Confessing History: Explorations in Christian Faith and the Historian’s Vocation . He blogs regularly at The Way of Improvement Leads Home.
Fea pitches his book primarily to college students interested in the study of history as a major, but also to history teachers and history buffs. I fall into the last category. And as a history buff, I thoroughly enjoyed and highly recommend this book, for several reasons.
First, it helped me understand what good historians do. In chapter 1, Fea outlines the task of a historian with five Cs: (1) “chronicle change over time,” (2) “study the past in context,” (3) pay attention to “causality” and (4) “contingency,” and remember that “the past is complex.” If this is what historians do, then history is an inherently “revisionist” project, though not a relativist one. We can know the past, but we must admit that our current understandings may be inadequate to it.
Second, Fea helped me navigate the various reasons why people study history. Chapter 2 outlines and critiques some of those reasons: for inspiration, to escape the pressures of modernity, to form a personal or social identity, for role models, to advance certain political positions. Chapter 3 identifies a basic problem with all these reasons in the words of L. P. Hartley: “The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.” When we forget the strangeness of the past, we distort it for present purposes. For Christians, especially in America, one of those distortions is a providential reading of American history that all too often exaggerates our nation’s goodness and downplays its sins. Chapter 4 provides a sympathetic critique of such readings.
The critique of providential readings of history does not mean that Christian historians have no theological resources to bring to bear on their vocation. Chapter 5 shows how the imago dei, the reality of sin, the Incarnation, and moral reflection all should influence how Christian historians do their craft. “The human experience is a drama with many ethical twists and turns,” Fea writes, “but the historian is not always in the business of using his or her voice to preach.”
Fourth, Chapters 6 and 7 showed me how historians—and history-minded citizens—can positively influence civil society. There is an inherent tension between the desire to present the past without ideological blinkers and the desire for history to influence civil society. The way Fea resolves this tension is not by proposing this or that account of history but by emphasizing the virtues of historical consciousness. Studying the past in all its foreignness, seeking to understand it on its own terms and in its own context, draws students of history outside of themselves and their ideological commitments. It is, in other words, a powerful tonic for narcissism.
Finally, in chapter 8, Fea shows history students what they can do with their major. I was not a history major in college, and this chapter had the least relevance to me. Nonetheless, in an era when the financial bottom line plays an often decisive role on what college students choose to major in, and when the humanities especially are taking a lot of hits, it’s nice to see someone present anecdotal evidence for the fact that you can study history and still get a good job.
In an appendix, Fea outlines a proposal for the creation of a “Center for American History and a Civil Society.” If I had some money, I’d definitely invest it in this project. Fea’s vision of how Christians (and others) should study the past and work for a more civil society is one that resonates with me.
P.S. If you found my review helpful, please vote “Yes” on my Amazon.com review page.
Why study history?
John Fea sets out to answer this question in his eponymous new book, which is subtitled, “reflecting on the importance of the past.” Fea is associate professor of American history and chair of the history department at Messiah College in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. An evangelical Christian teaching at an evangelical college, he has written or edited several books, including Was America Founded as a Christian Nation? A Historical Introduction [1] , The Way of Improvement Leads Home: Philip Vickers Fithian and the Rural Enlightenment in Early America , and Confessing History: Explorations in Christian Faith and the Historian’s Vocation . He blogs regularly at The Way of Improvement Leads Home.
Fea pitches his book primarily to college students interested in the study of history as a major, but also to history teachers and history buffs. I fall into the last category. And as a history buff, I thoroughly enjoyed and highly recommend this book, for several reasons.
First, it helped me understand what good historians do. In chapter 1, Fea outlines the task of a historian with five Cs: (1) “chronicle change over time,” (2) “study the past in context,” (3) pay attention to “causality” and (4) “contingency,” and remember that “the past is complex.” If this is what historians do, then history is an inherently “revisionist” project, though not a relativist one. We can know the past, but we must admit that our current understandings may be inadequate to it.
Second, Fea helped me navigate the various reasons why people study history. Chapter 2 outlines and critiques some of those reasons: for inspiration, to escape the pressures of modernity, to form a personal or social identity, for role models, to advance certain political positions. Chapter 3 identifies a basic problem with all these reasons in the words of L. P. Hartley: “The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.” When we forget the strangeness of the past, we distort it for present purposes. For Christians, especially in America, one of those distortions is a providential reading of American history that all too often exaggerates our nation’s goodness and downplays its sins. Chapter 4 provides a sympathetic critique of such readings.
The critique of providential readings of history does not mean that Christian historians have no theological resources to bring to bear on their vocation. Chapter 5 shows how the imago dei, the reality of sin, the Incarnation, and moral reflection all should influence how Christian historians do their craft. “The human experience is a drama with many ethical twists and turns,” Fea writes, “but the historian is not always in the business of using his or her voice to preach.”
Fourth, Chapters 6 and 7 showed me how historians—and history-minded citizens—can positively influence civil society. There is an inherent tension between the desire to present the past without ideological blinkers and the desire for history to influence civil society. The way Fea resolves this tension is not by proposing this or that account of history but by emphasizing the virtues of historical consciousness. Studying the past in all its foreignness, seeking to understand it on its own terms and in its own context, draws students of history outside of themselves and their ideological commitments. It is, in other words, a powerful tonic for narcissism.
Finally, in chapter 8, Fea shows history students what they can do with their major. I was not a history major in college, and this chapter had the least relevance to me. Nonetheless, in an era when the financial bottom line plays an often decisive role on what college students choose to major in, and when the humanities especially are taking a lot of hits, it’s nice to see someone present anecdotal evidence for the fact that you can study history and still get a good job.
In an appendix, Fea outlines a proposal for the creation of a “Center for American History and a Civil Society.” If I had some money, I’d definitely invest it in this project. Fea’s vision of how Christians (and others) should study the past and work for a more civil society is one that resonates with me.
P.S. If you found my review helpful, please vote “Yes” on my Amazon.com review page.
June 12, 2024
Fea is a historian and a Christian. He often writes on subjects that have connection with the Christian faith. In this work, Fea argues for the value of studying history, including as a college/university major. Studying history, he claims, should help a person better analyze and draw conclusions about issues. It also can promote humility in one's self and increase empathy towards others. A major emphasis of the book is that historian's should maintain objectivity and avoid making moral judgments in their study and presentations. The goal is to discover and to describe what happened, not to pronounce one side good and another evil. Along with this argument, while affirming his belief in God's providential oversight of history, he notes that a history must be careful to avoid stating that they know what God was doing in a particular event or era. I agree, in the main, with Fea's arguments but I am not sure that complete objectivity is either possible or desirable. After all, the information one uses, the arguments one makes, and the way these are presented is not morally neutral, even if one avoids overt statements of moral approval or disapproval.
January 23, 2019
Professor John Fea's book: Why Study History should be a required reading for all incoming college freshman history majors becuase this gives you extremely important information about the nature of history and how it's more than just memorization of dates, people and events.
Throughout the book, Professor Fea focuses mainly on his connection to his Christian faith but also connecting it to themes of empathy and humuty regarding understanding the people within a certain time period. Take for instance General Robert E. Lee and all of the lingering consequences of the Civil War (including the current issue of the Confederate monuments); Professor Fea teaches on the use of presentism: using our 21st century knowledge to explain the past.
One of Professor Fea's main points is learning to put yourself into the shoes of those who have made an impact on history; whether direct or indirect.
Throughout the book, Professor Fea focuses mainly on his connection to his Christian faith but also connecting it to themes of empathy and humuty regarding understanding the people within a certain time period. Take for instance General Robert E. Lee and all of the lingering consequences of the Civil War (including the current issue of the Confederate monuments); Professor Fea teaches on the use of presentism: using our 21st century knowledge to explain the past.
One of Professor Fea's main points is learning to put yourself into the shoes of those who have made an impact on history; whether direct or indirect.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 20, 2019
After reading this, I really admire Fea as a historian. His thoughts are all-encompassing and measured. He draws heavily on his work concerning religion and early America. Published in 2013, his work is even more important in the current climate of religion and politics.
“As a historian, the language of ‘restoration,’ ‘reclaiming,’ or ‘taking back’—as it is used by many of my Christian conservative friends—does not make much sense to me. What America do those who use this language want to restore? The assumption is that America was somehow a moral or Christian place in an earlier age....A deeper understanding of the past would help Christians think twice before making ill-informed historical arguments when they enter the public square and also be more cautious before making impassioned pleas to ‘restore America.’” (161-162)
“As a historian, the language of ‘restoration,’ ‘reclaiming,’ or ‘taking back’—as it is used by many of my Christian conservative friends—does not make much sense to me. What America do those who use this language want to restore? The assumption is that America was somehow a moral or Christian place in an earlier age....A deeper understanding of the past would help Christians think twice before making ill-informed historical arguments when they enter the public square and also be more cautious before making impassioned pleas to ‘restore America.’” (161-162)
March 21, 2024
This is an amazing book for anyone interested in studying history. As a history student in college, I was very encouraged by Fea's writing. The book tells you how to identify fallacies, dives into the importance of history to society and the Church, gives advice for those studying history to make their work better, has an overview of potential careers for history majors, and includes a list of skills acquired through historical study and how they can be applied. Super conversational and a very easy read, this was the least offensive required reading I think I've ever had at school. I disagreed with some of Fea's points, but I felt very understood throughout, so I'll call it a win!
July 4, 2025
Superb.
Quoting Sam Wineburg: "History educates ('leads outward' in the Latin) in the deepest sense. Of the subjects in the secular curriculum, it is the best at teaching those virtues once reserved for theology–humility in the face of our limited ability to know, and awe in the face of the expanse of history."
Quoting Sam Wineburg: "History educates ('leads outward' in the Latin) in the deepest sense. Of the subjects in the secular curriculum, it is the best at teaching those virtues once reserved for theology–humility in the face of our limited ability to know, and awe in the face of the expanse of history."
September 3, 2019
Awesome book
I really loved this book. Any serious student of history should read this. This book is a book that teaches about the different schools of present history. Well written a filled with lots of great stories.
I really loved this book. Any serious student of history should read this. This book is a book that teaches about the different schools of present history. Well written a filled with lots of great stories.
July 1, 2021
Fea helped me see my presentism: projecting today's values backwards. He also helped me see how and why history changes though the facts don't change. History is always being revised as we tell new stories about who we are. Please read this book,
January 2, 2025
Overall a great experience to discuss this book this past semester. Giving it 4 stars since towards the end some of the chapters can read a bit repetitive. Very well-written, though, and will change your outlook on the discipline of being a historian!
January 14, 2018
An excellent read and a thoughtful discussion of why the study of history is important for betterment of both democracy and a Christian life
May 11, 2018
A book I had to read for my senior capstone class.
May 8, 2021
a fantastic, balanced, and honest discussion of the importance of history
April 24, 2022
Very compelling and interesting book! I enjoyed the authors Christian perspective and his exhortations to future Christian historians.
March 20, 2017
This book changed my view on the value of studying history. We've all heard the 'learn history to not repeat mistakes' line, but this book takes it far deeper. It's an excellent read for anyone, Christian or not. Highly recommend.
November 1, 2013
This review, by Dr. Nicholson, has been provided courtesy of Desert Bible Institute (www.desertbibleinstitute.com).
Why Study History: Reflecting on the Importance of the Past, by John Fea, is a useful and insightful book into how the fields of history and theology intermingle. The book, written primarily for History students, explores the ideas of how history can, and is, looked at through the lens of theology. It also does the opposite by trying to help the reader appreciate theology by looking at it as a historian does. The book gives many tools for thinking about history and theology in these ways, and it accomplishes this in an interesting and purposeful way.
Perhaps one of the most useful areas of this book for theologians comes early on when Fea gets to reader to think about the many ways people encounter the past today. It is amazing to think of all that has come before us, and how any subtle shift in those events could have radically changed our current situation. The book doesn’t get sci-fi or metaphysical at this point, but instead directs the readers’ attention to how every event in the past interacts with each other to form the world that we are currently living in. When we give ourselves time to think about this, the idea is awe-inspiring.
Too often we thrust our current values or perceptions as correct in regards to history. Fea points out to us that too often the facts that we have assumed are true can radically change when new details or information comes out. It is our responsibility, therefore, to enter the past for the purpose of making sense of people, places, and values that are different than our own. Our idea therefore that history is fixed or stagnate is woefully misplaced.
As a Christian, one of the ideas that I found interesting in this book was issue of providence. If God does have a plan for us, then it seems likely that there must be some pattern to it in history. Fea examines many of the major works and schools of thought on this issue. This concept makes history have a whole new influence in the discussion of theology when we stop to think that if God has a master plan and that “in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose” (Romans 8:28) then we should be able to discern, to a greater or lesser degree, how He has affected history.
It is clear that Fea supports a Christian perspective of history and states that historians should have “an adequate theological and biblical understanding.” He brings to light such issues as the difficulty of understanding historical figures such as Nero and Adolf Hitler without a definitive understanding of the concept of sin. On the other hand, he warns us if historians are to write ethically about what happened in history, “they should do so with caution so that preaching does not trump historical interpretation.” Additionally, he berates self-professed historians that use Sunday school proof-texting or moral platitudes as their basis for historical analysis.
In all, this was a very insightful book with a clear direction and purpose. There are spots in the book where the lengthy explanations, though useful to a student of history, could be a bit dry for the lay-reader. It should be considered; however, that this book was intended for History students and not pastors and theologians. Nonetheless, anyone taking the Bible and biblical history serious will find many useful tools in the textbook.
Trent Nicholson, Ph.D., D.Min.
Desert Bible Institute, President
Dr. Nicholson reviews academic, Christian living, and fiction books for a variety of publishers in an array of formats. He is never paid for any of his reviews. He writes these strictly as a courtesy to his students at Desert Bible Institute and for any other readers that might find his insights valuable. For more reviews or information, visit Dr. Nicholson’s blog at drtnicholson.wordpress.com.
The book for this review was provided free of charge by Baker Academic through NetGalley.com. This book was provided without the expectation or requirement of a positive response. Thank you to both the publisher and NetGalley.com for the opportunity to both read your advanced copy and to provide this unpaid evaluation. All opinions in this review reflect the views of the author and not DBI, NetGalley.com, or the publisher.
Why Study History: Reflecting on the Importance of the Past, by John Fea, is a useful and insightful book into how the fields of history and theology intermingle. The book, written primarily for History students, explores the ideas of how history can, and is, looked at through the lens of theology. It also does the opposite by trying to help the reader appreciate theology by looking at it as a historian does. The book gives many tools for thinking about history and theology in these ways, and it accomplishes this in an interesting and purposeful way.
Perhaps one of the most useful areas of this book for theologians comes early on when Fea gets to reader to think about the many ways people encounter the past today. It is amazing to think of all that has come before us, and how any subtle shift in those events could have radically changed our current situation. The book doesn’t get sci-fi or metaphysical at this point, but instead directs the readers’ attention to how every event in the past interacts with each other to form the world that we are currently living in. When we give ourselves time to think about this, the idea is awe-inspiring.
Too often we thrust our current values or perceptions as correct in regards to history. Fea points out to us that too often the facts that we have assumed are true can radically change when new details or information comes out. It is our responsibility, therefore, to enter the past for the purpose of making sense of people, places, and values that are different than our own. Our idea therefore that history is fixed or stagnate is woefully misplaced.
As a Christian, one of the ideas that I found interesting in this book was issue of providence. If God does have a plan for us, then it seems likely that there must be some pattern to it in history. Fea examines many of the major works and schools of thought on this issue. This concept makes history have a whole new influence in the discussion of theology when we stop to think that if God has a master plan and that “in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose” (Romans 8:28) then we should be able to discern, to a greater or lesser degree, how He has affected history.
It is clear that Fea supports a Christian perspective of history and states that historians should have “an adequate theological and biblical understanding.” He brings to light such issues as the difficulty of understanding historical figures such as Nero and Adolf Hitler without a definitive understanding of the concept of sin. On the other hand, he warns us if historians are to write ethically about what happened in history, “they should do so with caution so that preaching does not trump historical interpretation.” Additionally, he berates self-professed historians that use Sunday school proof-texting or moral platitudes as their basis for historical analysis.
In all, this was a very insightful book with a clear direction and purpose. There are spots in the book where the lengthy explanations, though useful to a student of history, could be a bit dry for the lay-reader. It should be considered; however, that this book was intended for History students and not pastors and theologians. Nonetheless, anyone taking the Bible and biblical history serious will find many useful tools in the textbook.
Trent Nicholson, Ph.D., D.Min.
Desert Bible Institute, President
Dr. Nicholson reviews academic, Christian living, and fiction books for a variety of publishers in an array of formats. He is never paid for any of his reviews. He writes these strictly as a courtesy to his students at Desert Bible Institute and for any other readers that might find his insights valuable. For more reviews or information, visit Dr. Nicholson’s blog at drtnicholson.wordpress.com.
The book for this review was provided free of charge by Baker Academic through NetGalley.com. This book was provided without the expectation or requirement of a positive response. Thank you to both the publisher and NetGalley.com for the opportunity to both read your advanced copy and to provide this unpaid evaluation. All opinions in this review reflect the views of the author and not DBI, NetGalley.com, or the publisher.
August 11, 2016
What is history? Why bother studying it? John Fea has written this accessible and jargon-free book to address these questions. He helpfully focuses on “the pursuit of history as a vocation” (ix).
His aim is to provide a primer on the study of the past. Its intended audience is “Christian college students who are studying history” (ix), but it would be a shame if those were the only ones who read it.
Fea writes with wisdom and insight and provides a helpful introduction of history undergraduates and for those who would like to study history. Fea is a Professor of American history at Messiah College, he is also the author of Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?, and so it is inevitable that his illustrations draw from that country. This has the down-side of making it less accessible for those who study non-American history.
Particularly helpful was the discussion on providence and history. How are we to interpret history from a Christian perspective? Can we have a God-perspective on history? Some would claim to, Fea is more sceptical. God obviously intervenes in history, but can the historian be true to her calling and interpret events as God interventions? Fea believes in providence (p 67) but contra Steven Keillor, is sceptical about providential history. He looks at one contemporary popular providential history book, that of The Light and the Glory by Marshall and Manuel. These authors write a Christian history focused on the sovereignty of God (p 74). Fea maintains that “An appeal to providence in a historical narrative like that of the East River fog of 1776 fails to help us better understand what happened on that day, and one of the historian’s primary tasks is to aid our understanding of the past” (p 78). My concern is that this could lead to the historian practicing methodological naturalism but on the other hand the danger is that providence can become what is beneficial to the one describing it. (p 81) Fea is right though when he states that we need to approach history with a “sense of God’s transcendent mystery, a health does of humility, and a hope that one day soon, but not now, we will all understand the Almighty’s plan for the nations" (p 81). Again to quote Fea: “historians are not in the business of studying God; they are in the business of studying humans” (p 85).
Providence, may not then be a useful tool for the historian but there are others that Fea reveals; these include: the idea that humans are created in the image of God; the reality of human sin; an incarnational approach to the past; the role of moral reflection in historical work. There is a good emphasis on the need for the historian not to preach or moralise.
As Fea states “the Christian church is in need of a history lesson”. He obviously has a passion for history, and this passion comes through. He also has a very high regard for history for him history is: “a discipline …the art of reconstructing the past .. the exciting task of interpretation” (p 3); “more about competing perceptions of the past event or life than it is about nailing down a definitive account of a specific event of life” (p 16); “a discipline that requires interpretation, imagination, and even literary or artistic style” (p 29); “the glue that holds communities and nations together” (p 37); “like being swallowed up in an immense ocean or field and losing oneself in its midst” (p 60); “essential for producing the kind of informed citizen, with the necessary virtues and skills, needed for our society to thrive” (p 116). “Doing history is not unlike the kind of ‘disciplines’ we employ in our spiritual lives—disciplines that take the focus off of us and put it on God or others (p 132). History has the power to civilise us and to transform. Sometimes I think he overstates the case, but nevertheless he makes some excellent points.
The final chapter takes a look at what those with history degrees are doing now (adapted from here). History degrees obviously prepares people for a wide range of vocations. The epilogue is a heart-felt appeal for “historians who are willing to go into churches and listen to people” to the benefit of the historian and the church. To this end, in an appendix, he makes an appeal for a “Center for American history and a civil society”. I hope it comes to fruition.
This book will help all budding historians be better historians.
His aim is to provide a primer on the study of the past. Its intended audience is “Christian college students who are studying history” (ix), but it would be a shame if those were the only ones who read it.
Fea writes with wisdom and insight and provides a helpful introduction of history undergraduates and for those who would like to study history. Fea is a Professor of American history at Messiah College, he is also the author of Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?, and so it is inevitable that his illustrations draw from that country. This has the down-side of making it less accessible for those who study non-American history.
Particularly helpful was the discussion on providence and history. How are we to interpret history from a Christian perspective? Can we have a God-perspective on history? Some would claim to, Fea is more sceptical. God obviously intervenes in history, but can the historian be true to her calling and interpret events as God interventions? Fea believes in providence (p 67) but contra Steven Keillor, is sceptical about providential history. He looks at one contemporary popular providential history book, that of The Light and the Glory by Marshall and Manuel. These authors write a Christian history focused on the sovereignty of God (p 74). Fea maintains that “An appeal to providence in a historical narrative like that of the East River fog of 1776 fails to help us better understand what happened on that day, and one of the historian’s primary tasks is to aid our understanding of the past” (p 78). My concern is that this could lead to the historian practicing methodological naturalism but on the other hand the danger is that providence can become what is beneficial to the one describing it. (p 81) Fea is right though when he states that we need to approach history with a “sense of God’s transcendent mystery, a health does of humility, and a hope that one day soon, but not now, we will all understand the Almighty’s plan for the nations" (p 81). Again to quote Fea: “historians are not in the business of studying God; they are in the business of studying humans” (p 85).
Providence, may not then be a useful tool for the historian but there are others that Fea reveals; these include: the idea that humans are created in the image of God; the reality of human sin; an incarnational approach to the past; the role of moral reflection in historical work. There is a good emphasis on the need for the historian not to preach or moralise.
As Fea states “the Christian church is in need of a history lesson”. He obviously has a passion for history, and this passion comes through. He also has a very high regard for history for him history is: “a discipline …the art of reconstructing the past .. the exciting task of interpretation” (p 3); “more about competing perceptions of the past event or life than it is about nailing down a definitive account of a specific event of life” (p 16); “a discipline that requires interpretation, imagination, and even literary or artistic style” (p 29); “the glue that holds communities and nations together” (p 37); “like being swallowed up in an immense ocean or field and losing oneself in its midst” (p 60); “essential for producing the kind of informed citizen, with the necessary virtues and skills, needed for our society to thrive” (p 116). “Doing history is not unlike the kind of ‘disciplines’ we employ in our spiritual lives—disciplines that take the focus off of us and put it on God or others (p 132). History has the power to civilise us and to transform. Sometimes I think he overstates the case, but nevertheless he makes some excellent points.
The final chapter takes a look at what those with history degrees are doing now (adapted from here). History degrees obviously prepares people for a wide range of vocations. The epilogue is a heart-felt appeal for “historians who are willing to go into churches and listen to people” to the benefit of the historian and the church. To this end, in an appendix, he makes an appeal for a “Center for American history and a civil society”. I hope it comes to fruition.
This book will help all budding historians be better historians.
November 5, 2013
This book addresses two questions. The first is the question on the cover, "Why Study History"? The second is what the study of history means for Christians. It is written by a history professor of a Christian college.
As to the first question, the answer is rather obvious: history should be studied to ascertain as much as possible from the evidence what happened in the past. When answering this question, Fea does so with intellectual integrity. Is America a "Christian nation"? The answer is far more complicated than either side on that debate would likely admit. The author goes to great lengths to make the reader understand that history should be examined using evidence and from an objective point of view. On that aspect, the author does his profession justice.
The author further goes on to explain that the work of historians is to describe the past, not to judge it from a moral perspective. Historians do their best to describe what happened, not whether or not it is right or wrong. Morality is not within the purview of the historian. Here I feel that the author does an excellent job making this case.
On the second question, the author talks about what history means to Christians and also what the profession of historian means to Christianity. My assumption was that he would delve not only into the history of Christianity, but its veracity from a historical perspective. This he does not do. Fea goes on in the latter chapters to discuss how Christianity and the study of history are mingled. In the entire book, there is not one reason given why a person should be a Christian. It is apparently written for Christians, and I can't imagine why it would be interesting to anyone who isn't a Christian and a history student or a potential history student.
If you're a Christian interested in the study of history, you might find some of the advice in the book valuable. If you don't fall into both categories, I can't see where this book would be of much use. Those whose main interest is the study of history should find other works. Those with an interest in the history of Christianity and its veracity will not find relevant information here. I believe this work was targeted at a very narrow audience. This should be considered by potential readers.
Disclaimer: This book was provided free of charge by the publisher/author for the purposes of review through Goodreads "First Reads" program.
As to the first question, the answer is rather obvious: history should be studied to ascertain as much as possible from the evidence what happened in the past. When answering this question, Fea does so with intellectual integrity. Is America a "Christian nation"? The answer is far more complicated than either side on that debate would likely admit. The author goes to great lengths to make the reader understand that history should be examined using evidence and from an objective point of view. On that aspect, the author does his profession justice.
The author further goes on to explain that the work of historians is to describe the past, not to judge it from a moral perspective. Historians do their best to describe what happened, not whether or not it is right or wrong. Morality is not within the purview of the historian. Here I feel that the author does an excellent job making this case.
On the second question, the author talks about what history means to Christians and also what the profession of historian means to Christianity. My assumption was that he would delve not only into the history of Christianity, but its veracity from a historical perspective. This he does not do. Fea goes on in the latter chapters to discuss how Christianity and the study of history are mingled. In the entire book, there is not one reason given why a person should be a Christian. It is apparently written for Christians, and I can't imagine why it would be interesting to anyone who isn't a Christian and a history student or a potential history student.
If you're a Christian interested in the study of history, you might find some of the advice in the book valuable. If you don't fall into both categories, I can't see where this book would be of much use. Those whose main interest is the study of history should find other works. Those with an interest in the history of Christianity and its veracity will not find relevant information here. I believe this work was targeted at a very narrow audience. This should be considered by potential readers.
Disclaimer: This book was provided free of charge by the publisher/author for the purposes of review through Goodreads "First Reads" program.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 42 reviews