8circles Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 I was given this book from a friend who used it while homeschooling her children. I am a Christian but I'm certainly not one who believes that Christians need to be always shown as happy & doing what's right. I don't believe that America is the new Israel. So... Can someone please give me either examples of inaccuracies in the text or point me to sources where I could find them? I'd like to get the facts so that I could formulate my own opinion. Please, no debating or bickering. Thanks for your input in advance! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amtmcm Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 (edited) I'm related to Roger Williams so of course I went straight to that section in The Light & the Glory for Children. Every other account I've read about Roger Williams confirms he was a good person (even a hero to some) and worked for religious freedom and rights for slaves & indians. If I could actually get through reading "I, Roger Williams," I understand he caves on some of his convictions towards the end of his life, but this does not erase the good things he did. In The Light & the Glory for Children I was struck by the negative tone they used when covering Roger Williams. I don't have it anymore so can't confirm exactly what was negative, but here's my recollection. It was like because he fought for religious freedom (for everyone, including Jews and non-puritans) he made "bad choices" according to the book. Roger Williams believed Christians are to be a light unto the world and by showing other faiths grace they would be more likely to consider Christianity than if it was forced down their throats like some other colonies were doing. In some colonies people could be thrown in jail for not showing up to church. The first Jewish Temple in the US was built in Rhode Island, Native Americans had land rights and slavery was illegal under Roger Williams' leadership. Roger Williams also founded the Baptist Church so he was a devout Christian. If I'm remembering correctly, The Light & the Glory did not agree with his beliefs. I promptly removed the book from my shelf and sold it at a used curriculum sale. Maybe The Light & the Glory's views on Roger Williams weren't inaccurate, but it didn't match my worldview. Edited August 1, 2009 by amtmcm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BettyL Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 I have not read this book yet! Now, I am curious and will be reading and following this forum for opinions about its content. :lurk5: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairProspects Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 From what I understand, a lot of the objection comes from the fact that he is a Minister, and not a Historian, so he is writing outside his field, and much of the scholarship (citations & source documentation/analysis) is not up to standard for a contemporary history work. I have not read the book in many years so I cannot comment on whether or not there is merit to these accusations. HTH! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donna A. Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 Roger Williams also founded the Baptist Church so he was a devout Christian. Founded the Baptist church? I don't think that's true. Source? Regardless, if he was Baptist, I can certainly see why Peter Marshall wouldn't agree with him! (I don't agree completely with either Williams or Marshall, btw. ;) ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matryoshka Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 Founded the Baptist church? I don't think that's true. Source? I know nothing about this book the OP's asking about, but was curious on this point as I remember thinking very highly of Roger Williams after reading about him when we studied colonial history, but I didn't remember reading anything about him founding the Baptist church. Google can find great things, though! Scroll down this link to The Baptists in the United States - seems RW's descendant has it right, at least in regards to the Baptist Church in the New World. Excerpt: The first Baptist Church in the United States did not spring historically from the English Baptist churches, but had an independent origin. It was established by Roger Williams (c. 1600-83). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donna A. Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 I know nothing about this book the OP's asking about, but was curious on this point as I remember thinking very highly of Roger Williams after reading about him when we studied colonial history, but I didn't remember reading anything about him founding the Baptist church. Google can find great things, though! Scroll down this link to The Baptists in the United States - seems RW's descendant has it right, at least in regards to the Baptist Church in the New World. Excerpt: The first Baptist Church in the United States did not spring historically from the English Baptist churches, but had an independent origin. It was established by Roger Williams (c. 1600-83). Hhmmm... Thanks! That makes more sense that perhaps he founded the Baptist church in the new world. I'll have to read through the entire article you linked, which appears to be from a Catholic perspective. I'd almost forgotten, but I think we have A History of the Baptists by Robert Torbet around here somewhere. I'll have to see what it says. Torbet is a Baptist who's taught church history at Baptist seminaries, so I'll be curious to see how his perspective matches up with the Catholic source. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chai Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 Oddly, I just read about this 15 minutes ago while I was putting together our history plan for the fall. In "A History of Us, Sourcebook", it says "Best remembered as the man who founded Rhode Island, Roger Williams was also the founder of America's first Baptist church..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calandalsmom Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 Many christians take issue with the providentialist tone of this book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BettyL Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Everyone has probably forgotten about this post...except for me! I just finished reading the book. I enjoyed it very much, but did not agree with everything I read. I loved that Peter Marshall used the original writings for most all of his historical accounts. It was wonderful to read from the original diaries, early historians, ship's logs and autobiographies of these famous American settlers. I was fascinated with the many flaws I found in my own thinking about who these people were. Reading their story, in their own words, brought such color and brilliance to the facts! I also loved the story telling, real book, quality of the read. However, I did not agree with the providential slant that the author was proposing. I do not believe America is the New Israel. It is not valid, in my mind, to take Old Testament prophecies and promises given to Israel from the Bible and apply them to America. I would highly recommend the book for it's historical content! Since my dd is studying early American history this year, it was a wonderful boost for my preparation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellie Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 I don't know why it isn't considered "accurate." The authors quote original source documents; how could that not be "accurate"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nestof3 Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 However, I did not agree with the providential slant that the author was proposing. I do not believe America is the New Israel. It is not valid, in my mind, to take Old Testament prophecies and promises given to Israel from the Bible and apply them to America. :iagree: I haven't read the book in question, but I am just agreeing with you in principle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 I don't know why it isn't considered "accurate." The authors quote original source documents; how could that not be "accurate"? It may be Accurate to a point. One must always remember that there is Context and the fact that there is always at least two, if not three and four or five and six, sides to every issue and event. Even worse is Abeka history and literature UGH! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootAnn Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 A friend loaned this to me this summer to read and I've since given it back, but I remember that I disagreed with the author(s?) when they made general observations that didn't seem supported by any facts. For example, the author cites Christopher Columbus's writing that he felt his voyage was inspired by God (not exact wording - something like that he felt God was leading him or God wanted this, etc.). Then, the author says Christopher Columbus was a Christian Missionary with no citations of any times that CC witnessed to the natives or performed any typical "missionary" activities. During the chapter about US forces during the Revolutionary War, the author talks about the condition that the British forces left churches in the cities they took over (burned things, kept animals in the sacred spaces, etc.). Then, the author states that the US forces now knew that the war they were fighting wasn't just for freedom, it was a RELIGIOUS WAR! I don't remember any other mention of this point or any backup to it. I didn't like the fact that there were no footnotes or citations, but since the book seemed to be geared toward younger kids and not adults, I can see where the author felt free to leave them out. (Sometimes I'm bothered by this lack in SOTW, FWIW.) IMO, you should read it yourself and then judge whether you feel comfortable using it with your own kids. I know that it wasn't the type of book that I was interested in using with my own kids when we get to this time period in history. But, my friend who loaned it to me indicated that it is a favorite in the HS community. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicoleab2 Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Interesting topic. I read the book years and years ago and now I want to read it again, just so I can think for myself this time through! Thanks... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris in VA Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 I'm not a big fan of Marshall, just to be clear. I did want to comment, however, that the reason he says that Columbus felt his purpose for his voyage was to spread the Gospel was based on Christopher Columbus' diary entry where he details his experience of God calling him to do just that. Sorry, I can't document that, but I have heard it often enough in other places to think it's probably accurate. He does say that CC disobeyed God and sort of "forgot" his purpose, turning greedy, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 (edited) Add the connections with Judaism and the Jewish Expulsion from Spain to Columbus...not mentioned in the book, I believe (will have to look again). Instead they make him out to be some sort of hero of the Christian faith and the catalyst for converting the "heathen savages". Now I am NA and do believe in Providence. But it's the demeaning inference that is made, as though all atrocities are simply excused because there were converts. There are upsides and downsides to Columbus and what followed. There is also inference, not in the book, that the New World was not totally unknown (oh, and the "flat earth" theory had been dispelled long before Columbus, so that infamous part of the story is bunk). *note to self...go reread the book on the part about Columbus* Edited September 3, 2009 by mommaduck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orthodox6 Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 (edited) Many christians take issue with the providentialist tone of this book. :iagree: Christians who reject the theory of "Providentialist History" (inexact term) would call that platform of the book a major "inaccuracy" with respect to teaching U.S. history. Edited September 3, 2009 by Orthodox6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.