Donate to help Chris make Truce!

The first-century Christian Church had a lot going on. Their Savior died and was resurrected, sending the Holy Spirit and leaving them with the command to take this new message to all tribes and tongues. The book of Acts records some of their travels, as they went all over the known world with this good news. But they were not the only people evangelizing. So were the gnostics. Gnosticism takes a lot of different shapes. It was a belief system that challenged Christianity, even as some tried to incorporate elements into the faith.

Now consider modernist theology - what we've been talking about all season. It is a belief system that doesn't believe in the miracles or the divinity of Jesus. To evangelicals of the 1800s and 1900s, this was a real threat. Like Gnosticism before it, modernism threatened to destabilize the gospel message. What to do?

In this bonus episode, Chris takes a look at 1-3 John to see what they have to say about dealing with heresy.

Chris is hard at work on season 6! He'll be presenting these short episodes in the meantime to recap some of the themes of season 5.

Discussion Questions:

• If you were alive in the mid-1800s and saw modernism rising, what would you do?
• Do you think modernism is a heresy?
• How should Christians today deal with heresy?
• What did the fundamentalists get right and how did they mess up when approaching heresy?

Selected Source Materials:

• 1-3 John
• "The Early Church" by Henry Chadwick

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Rebroadcast! Chris has had a VERY busy few months! He's had to move (again!) and was in 2 different car accidents (neither of them his fault, but everyone was okay). He's busy at work on season 6 and there are a bunch of great "takeaway" mini-episodes coming up soon.

With all of the hubbub and busyness, let's rerun this classic episode from season 3.

Thanks for your patience! God willing, we'll talk again in two weeks.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

US Senator Joseph McCarthy unleashed an era of suspicion on the American people as he went looking for communists. His trials, both public and behind closed doors, focused on the government as well as Hollywood and the Army. He claimed that he had lists of communists, but failed to produce that list. It wasn't until the Army-McCarthy hearings in the spring and summer of 1954 that his unfounded hearings were put to rest.

One year later the play Inherit the Wind opened. It was supposed to be a critique of the McCarthy era set inside of a re-telling of the Scopes "monkey" trial. In doing so, it got many of the facts wrong. John Scopes never spent any time in jail. He didn't have a girlfriend, and that girlfriend was not berated on the stand. The townspeople of Dayton, TN were welcoming to both Bryan and Darrow.

To explore this work of art and revisionist history I spoke with the hosts of the Seeing and Believing podcast Kevin McLenithan and Sarah Welch-Larson.

Select differences between the Scopes trial and Inherit the Wind

• John Scopes was arrested but never spent time in jail.
• He was "arrested" in a soda fountain where the test trial was conceived and not in school.
• Scopes later claimed he never taught evolution, which is why he never took the stand in real life.
• The entire case was set up as a publicity stunt to bring attention to the town of Dayton, TN. They got the idea when they saw an ad placed by the ACLU.
• The character of Rachel did not exist in real life.
• The people of Dayton were welcoming to both Darrow and Bryan and Scopes was loved by many. He even spent time swimming with the prosecution between trial sessions.
• The moment when Bryan was on trial was held outdoors.
• H.L. Mencken was not some loveable curmudgeon. He was an anti-semite and a racist.
• Dayton largely did not vote for Bryan when he ran for president.
• Bryan died a few days after the trial, not while in the courtroom.
• Darrow did not carry a copy of the Bible and Darwin out of the courtroom.
• The textbook in question during the trial was clearly pro-eugenics, was sold in the soda fountain, and had been approved by the state textbook committee.
• The preachers of the town were kind. The odd sermon given the night of the trial never happened and the script adds a lot of strange things that are not in the Bible.
• Bryan wished the law to have no penalty, unlike his stand-in in the movie who hoped for a harsher punishment.

Sources

• Inherit the Wind (1960 version) starring Spencer Tracy
• Summer for the Gods by Edward Larson
• Chris' own visit to the Dayton museum dedicated to the trial
• Helpful video about the Napoleon painting

Discussion Questions:

• Where is the line between art and propaganda?
• Does art have an obligation to the truth?
• Do you see McCarthyism in Inherit the Wind?
• Is Inherit the Wind a fair way of discussing the Scopes trial, or a work of revisionist history? Why does it matter?
• What would it mean for a group that feels maligned and misunderstood to have a film misrepresent them?

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Love Truce?? Donate to keep the show going!

The trial was basically over. The prosecution won. John Scopes was moments away from being convicted of teaching evolution in Dayton, Tennessee. The ACLU and the prosecution had what they wanted. But Clarence Darrow did not. He wanted to make a monkey out of William Jennings Bryan, the famous "fundamentalist". But how?

Darrow knew that if he turned down the chance to make a closing argument that Bryan would not be able to make one either. That meant that Bryan's carefully crafted words would never get heard. But he had one more trick up his sleeve. He would call Bryan, the lawyer for the prosecution, to the stand. Imagine that! The case was no longer about the defendant. It was about the lawyers trying to flex.

Bryan took the bait. He got on the stand outdoors next to the Rhea County Courthouse in front of an audience of millions. Darrow, in a masterstroke, hit him over and over with the questions of any village atheist. Did Jonah really get swallowed by a large fish? Did the sun really stand still because Joshua prayed that it would? And Bryan... floundered on live radio.

This event was made even more famous by the long-running play Inherit the Wind on broadway, which was followed up by a movie adaptation. But the play got it all wrong. Edward Larson, professor at Pepperdine University, and author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning book Summer for the Gods, joins Chris to uncover what really happened on that muggy summer day.

Helpful Sources:

• "Summer for the Gods" by Edward Larson
• Rhea County Heritage and Scopes Trial Museum Worth a visit!
• Court Transcript of the Scopes Trial (easy to find online)
• "A Godly Hero" by Michael Kazin

Discussion Questions:

• Bryan believed in majoritarianism. What is that idea? What do you think of it?
• Do you think Bryan should have gotten on the stand? Why or why not?
• How did Bryan do on the stand in your opinion?
• Does this court case matter in your understanding of fundamentalism?
• How and when should Christians make stands for their beliefs? When should we stay quiet?

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Give to help Chris do Truce full time!

Tennessee was the first state in the United States to crack down hard on the teaching of evolution in public schools. Others had dabbled, but Tennessee went all the way. The ACLU wanted to challenge the validity of the case in the courts. In order to do that they needed an educator to teach it, get busted, and be brought to trial.

At the same time, the town of Dayton, TN needed a boost. After the biggest employer closed down it faced serious economic trouble. What if the men of Dayon could manufacture a court case to draw the attention of the nation? They found a young teacher named John Scopes and convinced him to participate in their scheme. They booked Scopes, even though he probably never taught evolution. The ACLU had its case.

Soon William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow hopped on board and it went from a publicity stunt to something for the history books. This is the event that some historians (wrongly) point to as the death of Christian fundamentalism in the United States until it was revived by the Moral Majority. One man fighting for the biblical idea of creation and another for godless atheism. But the real history is far more complex.

Edward Larson, professor at Pepperdine University, joins us to discuss the trial and his Pulitzer Prize-winning book "Summer for the Gods".

Helpful Sources:

• "Summer for the Gods" by Edward Larson
• Rhea County Heritage and Scopes Trial Museum Worth a visit!
• Court Transcript of the Scopes Trial (easy to find online)
• "A Godly Hero" by Michael Kazin

Discussion Questions:

• What events led to the Scopes trial?
• Why did the ACLU feel they had to try the Tennessee Law?
• Who should decide what is taught in schools? Teachers? Parents? Lawmakers? Or some combination?
• What were William Jennings Bryan's motives for joining the prosecution?
• What were Clarence Darrow's motives for joining the defense?
• Should prayer be allowed before a trial about religion?
• Should Christians get involved in what is taught in schools? To what degree?

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Give to help Truce! Donate here.

In the 1600s, an Irish Archbishop named James Ussher did a bunch of math. The Bible is full of numbers and genealogies. He sat down and calculated that, in his opinion, the Bible dated creation at 4004 BC. According to Ussher, that is when God created man. That number has really stuck around!

I gathered my small group together to explore the Adams Synchronological Chart. It is a 23-foot-long timeline of human history, beginning in 4004 BC and ending in 1900. There it was! The 4004 BC number! Which brings up an interesting question, right? What did Christians really believe about evolution just before it became a linchpin battle for fundamentalists?

I turned to Edward Larson for answers. He's a professor at Pepperdine University and the author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning book "Summer for the Gods". The book chronicles the Scopes "Monkey" trial that we'll be covering in the next two episodes. But it also gives us a great introductory look at what Christians believed about evolution in the build-up to the trial.

It turns out that evangelical Christians and even fundamentalists were all over the place when it came to ideas of evolution. Many Christians, like William Jennings Bryan, believed in an old earth and even some forms of evolution. But they thought that it was God who caused that evolution. Charles Darwin, though, said that evolution was a matter of chance adaptations, thus cutting God out of the equation. Fundamentalists like Bryan were determined to stop the spread of Darwinian evolution for that very reason. They believed that if young people were taught that they were the result of grand mistakes then what reason did they have to treat each other with respect? To be good citizens?

Helpful Sources

• "Summer for the Gods" by Edward Larson
• "A Godly Hero" by Michael Kazin
• "The Birth of a Nation" on YouTube
• abbey.org/abbey-commemorations/commemorations/james-ussher">Article about James Ussher and his burial in Westminster Abbey
• Helpful article about Lamarck
• "The Evangelicals" by Francis Fitzgerald
• More about Henry Ford's Anti-Semitism
• An interesting article about "The Birth of a Nation"

Discussion Questions:

• How did Cuvier and Lamarck differ in their ideas about evolution?
• Do you believe in a young or old earth?
• Do you believe in some evolution, macro-evolution, or no evolution at all?
• What is the best way to oppose an idea?
• When should we propose laws to combat ideas we don't like and when should we allow others to believe what they like?
• Do you think the fundamentalists were right to combat teaching evolution in schools?
• Now that you know about Bryan's failure to call out the KKK, what do you think of him?
• "Birth of a Nation" shaped American views about black people. Are there more modern films and series that have shaped society in similar ways? Or changed public opinion in other ways?

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Give to help Chris make Truce!

Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb were wealthy young men in the early 1920s. They lived in big homes in Chicago and had world-class educations. They were both pushed hard academically, and Richard was sexually abused as a child. Both graduated early from high school and college. The two were an odd pairing. Nathan was quiet and awkward, not particularly handsome. Richard was gregarious and outgoing, good-looking... and a psychopath.

Nathan loved Richard, and the two sometimes had sex with each other. Richard realized he could control Nathan by trading intimacy for criminal activity. They started with typical juvenile delinquent behavior. Soon, though, Richard wanted more. He considered himself a master criminal, someone too smart to get caught. He and Nathan were exposed to the ideas of Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche wrote that the ultimate purpose of humanity was to evolve into what he called the ubermensch or superman. Leopold and Loeb thought they were that evolved human. Therefore, they should be able to plot and execute the murder of a young boy without ever getting caught.

Only, they were so bad at it that it took very little time to pin it on them. Only the brilliance of Clarence Darrow, the country's most prominent defense attorney, could save their lives.

In this episode, we're joined by Candace Fleming. She's the author of the book Murder Among Friends about the crime.

The version of Also Sprach Zarathustra used in this episode is courtesy of the Creative Commons License and was produced by Kevin MacLeod.

Sources:

• Murder Among Friends by Candace Fleming
• Helpful article on the Houston Symphony's website about Also Sprach Zarathustra
• Article about what Nietzsche meant by "God is dead"
• Full text of Also Sprach Zarathustra
• Helpful video about Nietzsche's work
• Smithsonian article about Leopold and Loeb
• William Jennings Bryan's last.htm">closing arguments of the Scopes trial
• Clarence Darrow's closing arguments of the Leopold and Loeb trial

Discussion Questions:

• Now that you know what the song Also Sprach Zarathustra is about, does it change your opinion of the piece?
• Do you think Nietzsche was right to worry about what would happen after Christianity took a back seat to world events? What should have been our response?
• With this little bit we covered about Nietzsche today, what do you think of his work? Can you see why it makes Chris nervous just to mention it in an episode?
• Do you see the connection between evolution and superman?
• Were people like Darrow and Bryan right to be concerned about young people learning Nietzsche's philosophy?

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Eugenics. It's one of those words that gets thrown around these days, often by people accusing "the other side" of wrongdoing. But what is eugenics?

I invited law professor Paul Lombardo, author of "Three Generations, No Imbeciles", to join me to try to answer that very question. It turns out that that question is harder to answer than you'd think. In the early 1900s, the word "eugenic" was often used to mean "pure" or to imply that a product was healthy for babies. But that word also extended into segregating certain populations from society and forced sterilizations.

It is important to understand the history of eugenics because some Christians use the fear of eugenics as a lens to understand the Scopes "Monkey" trial. I think that is an accurate connection, but we really should understand it. Did William Jennings Bryan support eugenics? Can Christians support eugenics? Many did. There were even competitions that rewarded pastors for writing pro-eugenics sermons. That was especially true for liberal pastors.

In this episode, we attempt to answer some tough questions. I hope you enjoy it!

Helpful Sources:

• "Three Generations, No Imbeciles" by Paul Lombardo
• "Preaching Eugenics" by Christine Rosen
• "Summer for the Gods" by Edward Larson
• An article from Smithsonian Magazine about Herbert Spencer
• Paul's article about William Jennings Bryan's support of the WCTU and eugenics
• CDC article about syphilis
• Helpful article about the immigration act
• Helpful Focus on the Family article about how some Christians don't believe that the sins of the father carry over
• Washington Post article about the "welfare queen" of the Reagan era

Discussion Questions:

• What is eugenics?
• How did the term "eugenics" differ in the early 1900s from today?
• Are you in favor of eugenics? Why or why not?
• How is eugenics tied to evolution? How is it not?
• Do Christians have a responsibility to play when it comes to protecting people with special needs?
• What can we do to help those with special needs?

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Truce will be back on January 10th! Chris is working through the whole break in order to prepare for his big presentation in front of his church. He's trying to get Truce fully funded for 2023.

New episodes are already done, but he's trying to create a little cushion of extra episodes in case of emergencies. Thanks for your support of the show!!!

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Love Truce? Donate to help Chris make the show!

Harry Emerson Fosdick had a certain reputation. He was the theological "bad boy" of modernist theology when he stood at a lectern in the 1920s and delivered his famous sermon "Shall the Fundamentalists Win?". He was in New York City. One preacher, preaching one sermon. But this one talk spread all over the country and created real upset. Could modernist theology win in the Northern Presbyterian denomination?

J. Grescham Machen didn't think it should. He was a fundamentalist and wrote in response to Fosdick's sermon. But how does one keep out heresy?

The fundamentalists decided to call in a big-name Christian celebrity -- William Jennings Bryan. He was on a cross-country crusade to stop the teaching of evolution in public schools. Not because he didn't believe in science. He did. The problem that Bryan saw with teaching evolution in school was the cruelty that humanity would express if they believed they were nothing more than animals.

The battle between liberal and conservative Christians was a public one. William Jennings Bryan and Harry Emerson Fosdick wrote competing articles in The New York Times. Would it cause a split in the Northern Presbyterian denomination?

Sources for this episode:

• "Fundamentalism and American Culture" by George Marsden
• "The Evangelicals" by Frances Fitzgerald
• "A Godly Hero" by Michael Kazin
• Articles about Fosdick on emerson-fosdick.html">Christianity Today and the Gospel Coalition
• Fosdick's sermon
• Machen'sshallunbeliefwin.pdf"> response
• Westminster Confession of Faith

Discussion Questions:

• What do you think are the basic beliefs required to call something "Christianity"?
• What if someone does not believe those things but still calls themselves a Christian?
• Does it matter when people try to use a word to describe themselves that does not apply to them?
• What is to be our response when we encounter someone who spreads false doctrine?

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices