I am a lecturer in the department of History and Philosophy at the University of Tennessee Martin. I earned my PhD in British History at the University of Kansas (2016). My dissertation, “The Semantics of Reformation: Discourses of Religious Change in England, 1414-1688,” studied how the word “reformation” changed meaning in England. Originally used to denote the work of a church council, political upheaval in mid-sixteenth century Scotland redefined ‘reformation’ as political revolt. In the wake of the British civil wars of the 1640s, which contemporaries widely described as ‘reformation’, Anglican apologists recast this politically volatile descriptor by using it to denote not anti-monarchical rebellion, but the legally valid and politically peaceful restoration of ancient Christian belief and practice under the guidance of select Tudor sovereigns (Henry VIII to some extent, but especially Edward VI and Elizabeth).
At present, I am working on two projects. One is the transformation of my dissertation into a monograph. The second is a collection of essays on the Lambeth Conference, which I am co-editing with Paul Avis (forthcoming, T&T Clark Bloomsbury). My own contribution to this collection studies the interplay between the royal supremacy and the 1867 conference at Lambeth.
Now that I am done with graduate school, I look forward to a bit more free time, most of which I will spend with my beloved wife.
Behind many of the debates that Christians have about the Bible, there is an important but unstated assumption: that interpretation is inseparable from application and that context is important to both.
From time to time in history, there are periods of tremendous upset, which occur at the same time as periods of tremendous intellectual ferment. Anglicanism is undergoing the birth pains of a new synthesis.