Henry Imler March 26th, 2007

In reading both Material Christianity and Parlor Piety, I had mixed reactions to Colleen McDannell’s claims. At first glance, she presented two clear arguments for the change of Christian American attitudes towards the home over time and the change in how the social sciences viewed American Christianity over time. She did a great job looking at issues and tying them to the larger picture. However, there were also some minor issues that kept creeping up, such as the backing of claims and the lack of distinction amongst religious groups.

The question of relevance has been one of the themes of the semester so far. At what point does an ethnographic study of religion cease to be linked to larger themes and become a curiosity? McDannell was obviously aware of this and was quick to bypass the problem in both her articles. I noticed that she was quick to make her studies relevant to the larger whole of scholarship very early on in both articles. In Material Christianity, she links her study of the photograph as a case study of American Christianity, saying , “..throughout American history, Christians have explored the meaning of the divine, the nature of death, the power of healing, and the experience of the body by interacting with a created world of images and shapes.”(1) In her other article, she immediately states that her cases in the article are “quintessential examples” of the larger American picture of Christianity. (2) By her linkage of the specific to the general, McDannell attempts to demonstrate how ethnographic sketches, even ones done over time, can be relevant to the larger picture.

In her articles, I kept running into what felt like unfounded claims. They were not outright falsehoods, but were just too much of a stretch for me without concrete examples. For instance, she claimed that “bad architecture encouraged sinfulness.”(3) While this might have been the case, she only quotes one or two architects in support of the converse of the above quote. How can the reader be sure that such a quote is representative of the general attitude of Christian America at that particular time? It might be more sensible that the architect that said the structure of the home influenced morals was speaking instead from a sales pitch instead of encapsulating the attitudes of Christian America. Another instance of this was later on in the same article where she stated, “Merely believing was not enough. Christians must visually demonstrate their piety. They must make their homes sacred.” (4) Perhaps this was not the only reason for how they decorated their homes. Perhaps it was in their belief that having such a home was an outward sign of an inward faith instead of making their homes sacred. Another issue that kept creeping up was the lumping together of all the denominations into a single group. While she was upfront about this, it still seemed as though there might be more at work behind the scenes besides the issues she described. I am not saying that she is incorrect in these statements, but a more careful approach is needed to convince me completely of her claims.

Overall, I would have liked a more careful look at the issues she raised. At the same time I realize that if she had looked as carefully as I would have liked, I would be reading two books this week instead of four articles.

Footnotes

1. McDannell, Material Christianity, p.24.
2. McDannell, Parlor Piety: The Home as Sacred Space in Protestant America, p.162.
3. Ibid. p. 165.
4. Ibid. p. 170.

• Christianity
• Comments(0)