Truce - History of the Christian Church

Give to help Chris make Truce

Homeschooling is a controversial subject. It began as something done by counter-culture folks and morphed into a beloved practice by fundamentalists and evangelicals. It has yielded students who excel over their public school peers... but also a good many people who are woefully undereducated. There have been legal fights over this method of education for decades, including some that RJ Rushdoony championed.

As we wrap up season 6 and ask, "What is the legacy of the Religious Right?" we must include homeschooling. It has become almost a litmus test in evangelical circles. If you don't homeschool your children, it can even cause some members of your church to question your parenting.

Our special guest today is Shawn Peters, who co-wrote the book Homeschooling: The History and Philosophy of a Controversial Practice with James G. Dwyer.

Sources:


Homeschooling: The History and Philosophy of a Controversial Practice by James G. Dwyer and Shawn Peters


Education in Massachusetts: Early Legislation and History by George Barrell Emerson

How Stuff Works article about public schools


Christian Reconstruction: RJ Rushdoony and American Religious Conservatism by Michael McVicar

Questions:

Do you know people who were homeschooled? How did they turn out?

How did the movement get started?

What role did RJ Rushdoony play in keeping it going?

What are some positive things about public education?

What are some negative things?

Can Christians leave society and still expect it to act in Christian ways?

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

Give to help Chris make Truce

How do we interpret the Constitution? It seems like an easy question, right? It turns out, it's quite difficult. As we wrap up season 6 of Truce, we're exploring some of the things that conservative evangelicals got out of their partnership with the GOP. One of the things they got was constitutional originalism.

Constitutional originalism is a theory of interpretation that holds the Constitution should be understood according to its original public meaning at the time it was adopted. Originalists argue that this approach anchors constitutional law in objective historical meaning, rather than in the personal values or policy preferences of modern judges. By tying interpretation to the text as it was originally understood, originalism aims to preserve democratic legitimacy: changes in constitutional meaning should come from amendments passed by the people, not from judicial reinterpretation. Supporters also claim that originalism promotes stability and predictability in the law by constraining judicial discretion.

Critics of originalism counter that the Constitution was written in broad, open-ended language precisely to allow adaptation to changing social and technological conditions. They argue that strict adherence to historical meanings can freeze outdated norms into modern law and fail to address contemporary realities the framers could not have foreseen. In practice, critics also contend that historical evidence is often ambiguous, allowing judges to selectively invoke history to reach preferred outcomes. As a result, the debate over originalism reflects a deeper tension between constitutional stability and constitutional flexibility in a living society.

Our special guest is Austin Steelman, historian at Clemson University.

Sources:


These Truths by Jill LePore


Reagan by Bob Spitz

Griswold v. Conn. from Oyez.org


Article about Robert Bork

Robert Kennedy's speech about Bork on C-SPAN (about 27 minutes in)


Article about Gorsuch and originalism


Article about Kavanaugh


AP story about Barrett's philosophy

Discussion:

What is constitutional originalism?

Why might some people like it? Dislike it?

Are there questions in US law that are not addressed by the Constitution? What are some examples?

How should those be addressed in an originalist worldview? In a worldview that sees it as a living document?

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

Give to help Chris make Truce

Kristin Kobes Du Mez is best known for her book Jesus and John Wayne, which looked at masculinity in American evangelicalism. Her new book, out now, does the same for femininity and positivity. Women today are often told to "live, laugh, love" and focus on the positive. They are to put mind over matter, even though that concept is not explicitly stated in the Bible. This attitude can make women susceptible to abusive relationships, scams, and multi-level marketing schemes.

The book covers a wide swath of history, from Love Comes Softly to The Total Woman and the Little House books. Kristin and I had a lot of fun geeking out over history. I'm excited for you to hear it!

Discussion Questions:

What are some of the messages that women get in your type of Christianity?

How do they differ from what men hear?

What is Keswick Holiness? How did it inform the Pentecostal movement?

What is New Thought?

How do these ideas push people toward free-market capitalism? What about multi-level marketing?

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

Give to help Chris make Truce

Can you believe it? The Truce podcast has crossed the 200-episode mark! Actually, this is something like the 203rd episode... but we still need to celebrate!

In this special bonus episode, Nick Staron joins Chris to answer listener questions like:

What was the most difficult interview you've ever done?

How do you decide how long a season should be?

Which books have shaped your worldview?

Have you ever considered doing a season on liberal Protestantism?

and more!

Thank you SO MUCH for your help in making this show. I really appreciate your prayers and that you're sharing this project with your friends. God willing, there will be a new episode in two weeks.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Give to help Chris make Truce

Richard Vigueries. What can be written about him? His nickname was "the founding father of the Religious Right". He founded RAVCO, which was a fundraising organization that raised money for... well, who didn't it raise money for?

In his book, Takeover, Viguerie laid out a detailed plan of how the far right could take over the Republican Party. It is a fascinating book, one that may not have had an overwhelming impact, but the idea within the book has.

In this special epsiode, Chris walks listeners through the book and the impact of the ideas inside.

Sources:


Takeover by Richard Viguerie


Reaganland and Before the Storm by Rick Perlstein


The Evangelicals by Frances Fitzgerald


God's Own Party by Daniel K Williams


Revive Us Again by Joel Carpenter


These Truths by Jill LePore


A Choice Not An Echo by Phyllis Schlafly

The Lord's Prayer

Discussion Questions:

Who was Richard Viguerie?

What are some of his grievances?

Why do you think he skipped the Republican presidents of the 1920s in his history?

What did he think of FDR? Of Robert Taft?

How do you see the conservative wound in this book?

What were some of Viguerie's prescribed tactics for taking over the GOP?

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