Timothy Larsen is McManis Professor of Christian Thought at Wheaton College.  He’s been a Visiting Fellow at Trinity College, Cambridge.  Some of the research for this new book was conducted while a Visiting Fellow at All Souls College, Oxford.

This interview revolves around Larsen’s latest book, The Slain God: Anthropologists and the Christian Faith

Moore: This is a rather unusual area of study.  What led you to write an entire book on it?

Larsen:  My whole scholarly life I have been interested in the collision between modern thought and historic, orthodox, Christian beliefs.  A lot of these tensions have been explored over and over and over again by scholars: Christianity and Darwinism, Christianity and Marxism, Christianity and Freudian theories, Christianity and modern biblical criticism, and so on and on.  When I read the letters and self-reflections of people in the second half of the nineteenth century and the twentieth century, however, what I noticed repeatedly was them mentioning the writings of anthropologists as unsettling to faith.  This was a major theme in the primary sources, in the historical record.  What had anthropologists discovered or theorized that seemed incompatible with Christian thought? I wondered.  When I tried to find a written explanation for this, I instead learned that no scholar had made a sustained attempt to try to map this terrain as of yet, so I decided I would have a go at it myself.

Moore: When does the discipline of anthropology as we think of it today begin?

Larsen:  In the second half of the nineteenth century.  E. B. Tylor, who is often considered the founder of the discipline, published an early seminal work, Primitive Culture, in 1871, and was appointed to the first university position in anthropology (at the University of Oxford) in 1884.  Franz Boaz, who is considered the founder of the discipline in the United States, received his first university appointment in 1899 (at Columbia University).  During the World War I era, Bronislaw Malinowski pioneered the expectation of intensive fieldwork.

Moore: You write that Edward Tylor “could not find a way to think anthropologically and as a Christian at the same time.”  Why is that?  What would you have told him if you had the chance?

Larsen:  He was in the grip of a pretty smug, self-flattering, stadial way of thinking – with the three stages of human development being: savages, then barbarians, and then civilized people.  He thought because “primitive” peoples were religious this somehow discredited faith as incompatible with being modern and civilized and scientific and so on.

I wish I could have explained to him that there is a lot more continuity in the human condition over time than he ever imagined – that so-called “savage” people were actually quite logical, scientific, and rational in ways he could not see, and that so-called modern people have other needs and thoughts and experiences and insights that do not fit into his procrustean assumptions about what is means to be a rationalistic, scientific, modern person.

Moore: The Christians at the college in Didsbury had a wonderful confidence that made them more than willing to engage skeptics like James George Frazer.  How common was that among the Christian population during the late nineteenth century?

Larsen:  What a great question!

This is one of the major misconceptions of evangelical and orthodox Christians in the nineteenth century – that they were somehow fearful of modern ideas and rejecting scientific and theoretical advances, that they were hostile and obscurantist.  Some of that stereotype is just erroneous secularist propaganda and urban legends that have been transmuted into the public consciousness as “fact”.  For example, you can read in major, premier, authoritative venues (a recent book by Yale University Press, for example, and articles in papers of record such as the New York Times) that Christians in the nineteenth century opposed the introduction of anesthetics for women in childbirth because Genesis supposedly dictates that this experience must be painful.  Yet this is a completely false urban legend.

I defy anyone to find a single sermon by any minster of any denomination anywhere saying any such thing, let alone an article in a Christian magazine or other publication, let alone an official pronouncement by a denomination.   There are many examples of this kind of thing.

Some of this misunderstanding comes from back-dating things that happened in the Fundamentalist movement beginning in the 1920s (which did have anti-intellectual, fearful, and obscurantist elements to it).

Late Victorian Christianity was actually quite open to and welcoming of new knowledge and scientific theories—even ones that were surprising given traditional Christian assumptions—and very confident that faith and science would cohere together in one, integrated worldview.

Moore: Mary Douglas is an utterly fascinating person.  She was shrewd in the best sense of that word.  Unpack her observation that “Debates which originate in quite mundane issues tend to become religious if they go on long enough.”

Larsen:  Yes, yes, I feel like I have been inspired to become a better, braver scholar by reading about her life and work.  She was so comfortable in her own skin as a leading intellectual who was also a conservative Christian!  That particular quote has been picked up on by several anthropologists since I wrote the book and it haunts me as well.

What she means is that people who imagine that theology can be set aside, marginalized, or ignored in modern academic discussions are actually the ones being intellectually naïve.  What intellectuals really care about are issues which go to the heart of the question of the nature of reality, of meaning, of ethics, of values – and these are all debates that are inherently bound up with theological content and reflections.  Whenever you discuss anything (“Is it important to recycle plastics?” let’s say, “Or should I buy this new suit of clothes that I want?”), the more you discuss it without coming to a quick conclusion, the two sides of the question inevitably lead you back to a more fundamental value or sense of meaning or conviction or principle or proposition and this is heading you into the territory of religion.

Moore: What has been the response to your book from those within the academic world of anthropology?

Larsen:  I am unbelievably, joyfully, relieved to say that it has been received very well.  I say this because for at least a couple years while I was researching it I felt like an incompetent interloper, if not a complete fraud.  I have never even taken an Anthropology 101 course!  I had to learn the whole discipline from scratch just by reading, and reading, and reading.  I was quite ready to be rebuked by professional anthropologists for not understanding the key theories in the discipline correctly and just not “getting it”.  Instead, the contemporary anthropologists that I most admired, not least the ones who do not self-identify as Christians – including  Tanya Luhrmann at Stanford University and Joel Robbins at Cambridge University, as well as the former Director of the Royal Anthropological Institute, Jonathan Benthall (in the Times Literary Supplement! – I would count it a triumph to have my work abused in the TLS) – have received it so wonderfully warmly and appreciatively.  There was a whole panel on the book at the annual meeting the American Anthropological Association, and I have been invited to speak on it at the major anthropology seminar at Oxford, at the London School of Economics (the very storied seminar that Malinowski founded), at Cambridge, at Northwestern University, and so on.  It feels like dumb luck that I wrote this book at a time when the Anthropology of Christianity has suddenly become a hot subfield in the discipline.  I am very, very grateful for how anthropologists have welcomed and received my work.

Moore: What kind of non-academic would profit from reading your book?

Larsen:  Another surprisingly wonderful question.  These things are a matter of taste, so I am willing to accept humbly if others see it differently, but I see myself as a narrative historian who works very hard to have a literary quality in my work akin to an author of fiction.  Just like a short story writer uses a lot of details in description to build up a vivid, compelling portrait of an imagined character, so I have tried to do that with these historical characters.  In other words, I think the lives I present in the book do work for the ordinary, intellectually curious reader who cares about the human condition and experience as lived up-close and in-detail.  Buy it for your grandmother for Christmas!



One thought on “SLAIN BY GOD

  1. edwardtbabinski

    Larsen: “One of the major misconceptions of evangelical and orthodox Christians in the nineteenth century – that they were somehow fearful of modern ideas and rejecting scientific and theoretical advances, that they were hostile and obscurantist.”

    Me: No one is saying nineteenth Christians were rejecting ALL scientific and theoretical advances (not unless those Christians were Amish), but many Christians in the nineteenth century still took aim at scientific and theoretical advances IF they were difficult to reconcile with Scripture. For more on the “control thesis” (not the same as the “all-out conflict-with-science thesis”), see Richard H. Jonses’s For the Glory of God: The Role of Christianity in the Rise and Development of Modern Science: The Dependency Thesis and Control Beliefs

    Likewise, it depended on the Evangelical. B.B. Warfield seemed to make room for the evolutionary idea of common ancestry. But other Evangelicals fought against it and attempted to maintain either a young or old-earth creationism. The majority of nineteenth century Evangelicals as well as Catholics also insisted that humanity began with a literal first couple, Adam and Eve. In the nineteenth century there were also Christians who defended flat earthism and geocentrism, and even the flat earthers were known to have done quite well in public debates with professional scientists.

    Some modern day Intelligent Design proponents like Stephen Meyer continue to idolize a nineteenth century Christian creationist named Louis Agassiz, who came from a long line of ministers. Agassiz wrote loads that argued in favor of the idea that different races of humanity were each created separately and could be classified on the basis of specific climatic zones (just as he viewed the separate creations of animal and plant species), and that the different races of humanity were accordingly endowed with unequal attributes by their Creator.

    And speaking about being against modern developments…

    Pope Gregory XVI (1765-1846) and Cardinal Lambruschini opposed basic technological innovations such as gas lighting and railways, believing that they would promote commerce and increase the power of the bourgeoisie, leading to demands for liberal reforms which would undermine the monarchical power of the Pope over central Italy. Gregory XVI in fact banned railways in the Papal States, calling them chemins dʼenfer (literally “road to hell,” a play on the French for railroad, chemin de fer, literally “iron road”).

    Larsen: “Christians in the nineteenth century opposed the introduction of anesthetics for women in childbirth because Genesis supposedly dictates that this experience must be painful. Yet this is a completely false urban legend.”

    Me: Completely false urban legend? Or a minority view among Christians? There have certainly been some Christians who have argued that God gave us pain to teach us spiritual lessons and we must not interfere with the Lordʼs lesson plan by alleviating that pain. Even Mother Teresa, who founded the Sisters of Charity in India in the late 20th century was averse to the use of anesthetics in her clinics. She even repeated to the press a story about her meeting with someone who was suffering painfully with cancer. She told the man, “Jesus is kissing you,” and added that the man replied, “Then I wish he would stop.” Some Christians were against a womanʼs pain being relieved during childbirth (via anesthesia/anesthetics) because the Bible states in the book of Genesis that God cursed woman by “multiplying her pain during childbirth,” and who were we to defy the Lord?

    And here are more things that at least some Christians were against in the nineteenth century:

    Inoculations and Vaccinations
    Some Protestant and Catholic ministers railed against inoculations and vaccinations as “an encroachment on the prerogatives of Jehovah whose right it is to wound and smite.” While Pope Leo XII (1823-1829) decreed that vaccination against smallpox was “against Godʼs will.” [See Andrew Dickson White, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, Chapter XIII: From Miracles to Medicine Theological Opposition to Inoculation, Vaccination, and the Use of Anæsthetics (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1896)]

    In the 1880s Josephine Cochrane invented the dishwashing machine… From 1913 on there was a dishwasher in every… (no, not even in every grand hotel–just some of them). The Victorian prejudice was strong against denying women the devotional labor to which God had called them. There were clergymen who actually called the dishwasher immoral. [Alistair Cooke, “A Giant Step for Womankind,” Letter from America section of BBC World News, Monday, 29 May, 2000]

    For more on the question of Christianity’s influence or non-influence on the development of modern science please read


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *