In review of Alan Heimert's work, Sidney Mead accuses Heimert of defining Calvanism the way that he wants. Heimert only defines two major impulses, Calvanism being one of them. In comparing all the reviews we read, it appears that Heimert does lump quite a few differing religious identities under the guise of "Calvanism" to serve the purpose of his thesis. Even William McLoughlin, who seems to really admire Heimert's work, notices that some denominations are ignored and others are simply lumped together. In history is it ever acceptable "to use a word to make it mean what you want?" Is Hemiert really doing that? Are Heimert's conclusion too much of a stretch or can we allow his assumptions in his reading "past the lines"?
No comments:
Post a Comment