My Work

I've been doing a lot of work lately, but it feels good. I haven't begun my crazy semester schedule yet, so I've still had many days where I put in about 7 hours of work during the day and stop working in the evening (though I have worked a few nights this week). I don't mind the work when it's things like what I've been doing this week--composing a mock syllabus for a course on the history of Christianity in the United States and writing a literature review about approaches to the study of religion.

It's fun to imagine the primary sources I will give to my future students--the ones that made me excited about American religious history, like Tom Paine's The Age of Reason, or Emerson's essays, or William James' Varieties. It's also fun to unearth things on google books (one of the most helpful tools for a scholar of the 19th century ever created!). I've found books by classic Protestant theologians and founders of new religions, like Mary Baker Eddy. The documents are much more fun than a simple history book could ever be on its own.

My literature review piece is kind of fun as well. I'm a bit of an odd duck for a historian, because I really thrill in working with abstract concepts, rather than concrete people and places. Literature reviews allow me to think about the most broad ideas for comparison among a pile of scholarly books and to think carefully about what I like and don't about their approaches.

It also makes me think about what I've gotten myself into in studying religious history. From what I've seen, historians of religion, more than any other historians, feel compelled to explain their relationship to their historical material. Why? It seems to me that there is a need to justify working on 'weirdos' who aren't always motivated by earthly concerns. Really, there's a need to justify taking their beliefs seriously at all. At least that's how I see it.

I don't think this justification comes entirely from a place of fear. I get the impression that while some of my colleagues do think that that religious history is a silly waste of time, most of them just simply don't know what to make of it. They've spent most of their lives outside of any kind of serious religiosity and can't relate to it or explain it. In this sense I feel amply qualified to approach the subject, acknowledging my own limitations and biases, as one of the 'fallen' who still loves and appreciates the 'saved' very much. I've got a little bit of an insider perspective on both the sacred and the secular world. Or I'd like to think so.

Even with these challenges, I sometimes have a small glimmer that I have something to contribute. I'm not talking world-altering here, but just something that other scholars will like, or maybe the reading public (one day, maybe?). Also, I believe that what I'm studying IS important. Religion is important in American history, and it continues to matter in our public life, intellectual life, and cultural life today. But, that relationship is complicated and not always clear. I'm not wasting my time by trying to figure it out.

I guess I just need to write this post, explaining why I do like what I'm doing, because I've got one awful semester coming up. Qualifying exams are about 4 months away, and I've got about 100 books to read, 8 more papers to write, a conference to attend, grants to apply for, a class to take, and a class to TA all at the same time. I'm not saying my situation is uniquely difficult (on a rational level), but it nevertheless feels daunting and intimidating. I don't anticipate being very well rested or happy until the end of May, once the ball gets rolling next week. But, I can look back to this post and remember that there is something about it all that I like. Really.