Righteous Discontent: The Women's Movement in the Black Baptist Church, 1880–1920 . By Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1993. xii + 306 pp. $34.95.
Righteous Discontent: The Women's Movement in the Black Baptist Church, 1880–1920 . By Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1993. xii + 306 pp. $34.95.
复制标题
正义的不满：黑人浸信会的妇女运动，1880-1920 年。作者：Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham，马萨诸塞州剑桥：哈佛大学出版社，1993 年。xii + 306 页，34.95 美元。
作者：
S. Stanley
教会随后的撤退和对世界的调整，一个著名的摩门教“奇迹”背后的“真实”故事，以及战争的困境。正如奎因所指出的，这是一组有代表性的文章，不一定是最伟大的文集，因为一些最伟大的文章没有被收录。例如，马文·希尔（Marvin Hill）极具影响力的文章没有一篇被包括在内。然而，尽管有人可能会对收录内容提出异议，但即使是这本书中最弱的一篇文章也值得一读。他们已经读过了。它们不仅以前都曾出版过，而且大多数早已成为通用货币。那么为什么要写这本书呢？最简单的回答是，这是教会斗争中的一枪。这些文章中的每一篇都激怒了教会的保守派。虽然这本书在导致奎因被逐出教会的事件中没有发挥重要作用，但熟悉摩门教总权威的宗教历史学家很容易看出这本书的挑战。在这一过程中，新摩门教历史学家在教会的主流保守派中树敌颇多，他们不喜欢对传统的主日学校信仰促进历史的揭露（无论多么礼貌）。对历史学家来说，真相就是真相，他们相信教会可以直面“真实”的过去。然而，保守派认为这些历史学家是恶意的信仰破坏者，他们积极地想要伤害教会，或者充其量是被误导的傻瓜，他们对他们可能对教会和谐或对年轻人和易受影响的人造成的损害几乎没有判断力。尽管每一篇文章都值得一读，但诚实地观察曾经激发《新摩门教史》的非凡能量现在正在减弱，它曾经拥有的新鲜感也在消退，这一点很重要。曾经让人解脱的东西现在看起来像是自我专注。学者们现在需要将他们的研究转向更大的美国背景下的教会历史。因此，《新摩门教史》受到攻击就不足为奇了。令人沮丧的是，这些攻击不是来自那些试图使教会历史研究更加复杂的人，而是来自那些目光短浅的游击队员，他们不明白历史编纂的时钟不能倒流，他们把像迈克尔·奎因这样勇敢的人变成了英雄。
the church's subsequent retreat and adjustment to the world, the "real" story behind a famous Mormon "miracle," and the dilemmas of war. This, as Quinn points out is a group of representative essays, and not necessarily a greatest hits collection, for some of the hits are missing. None of Marvin Hill's highly influential essays, for example, are included. Yet while one may argue about inclusion, even the weakest essay in the volume is worth reading. And read they have been. Not only has each been previously published, most have long since passed into common currency. So why the book? The briefest answer is that it is a shot in a church battle. Each of these articles is the sort that irritate church conservatives. While this particular volume played no significant role in the events leading to Quinn's excommunication, religious historians familiar with the prickliness of the Mormon church's General Authorities will readily see the challenge in the book. Along the way the New Mormon Historians made a good many enemies among the church's dominant conservatives who disliked the debunking (however politely) of the traditional Sunday school faith-promoting history. To the historians truth was truth and they believed that the church could face up to its "real" past. The conservatives, however, looked upon these historians as malicious faith destroyers who actively wanted to hurt the church, or at best, as misguided fools who showed little judgment regarding the damage they could do to church harmony, or to the young and impressionable. Although each of these essays is worth reading, it is nevertheless important to honestly observe that the remarkable energy that once fired the New Mormon History is now waning, and the freshness it once possessed ebbs as well. What was once liberating now seems like self-absorption. Scholars now need to turn their inquires to the larger, American context of the church's history. It is thus unsurprising that the New Mormon History is under attack. What is depressing is that the attack is not coming from those attempting to bring even greater sophistication to the study of the church's history, but from short-sighted partisans who fail to understand that the historiographical clock cannot be turned back and have turned a brave man like Michael Quinn into a hero.