American Christianity: Exploring the Land and Waters of the Bible

The US Navy’s survey of the major water features of Syria and Palestine in 1852 serves as compelling primary evidence for historical interpretation of international diplomacy and domestic policies. It reveals the motivations that shaped American engagement in the region during the nasency of our nation, emphasizing the significance of strategic intelligence and international relationships. For example, the survey route included Portugal which had been a key ally since 1791 when the American Consul was established there.¹

While some historical interpretations overlook the faith community of the era or conflate religion with culture, it is essential to recognize that Christianity played a significant role for the American government and its military branches during the first half of the nineteenth century through its mature, supportive infrastructure. Differently, American diplomacy in the antebellum period can be understood through Marxist relations of production by examining how economic interests and class relations influenced diplomatic and trade actions.² Nevertheless, the primary evidence from the report contextualized the fact that invaluable support for the naval survey was provided by Christian organizations in the US. Key supporters were Professor Silliman at Yale College and the Friends of Missions in Cincinnati.³ Biblical scholars from these groups informed the survey’s planning, helping determine specific research locations in Syria and Palestine, such as the water feeder of the Jordan River and the Dead Sea, the Sea of Galilee. The naval ocean journey to Palestine required the support of missionaries already present there such as Dr. De Forest of the American Evangelical Mission in Syria.⁴ Acknowledging these contributions is crucial for a more nuanced understanding of the survey’s motivations and successes.

The report, “The Official Report of the United States’ Expedition to Explore the Dead Sea and the River Jordan” by William Francis Lynch was a significant endeavor that reveals some of the strategic motivations of the United States during the antebellum period. This expedition was made possible through a diverse array of support, with key tangible and intangible costs covered by the robustness of Christianity in the early American Republic. 

Support for the Survey

The success of the survey was underpinned by substantial support from various entities. The US Navy personnel provided the logistical framework necessary for such an ambitious undertaking. Additionally, the diplomatic consul in Portugal played a crucial role facilitating communications and access to vital resources. American parachurch organizations and deployed missionaries offered both moral and logistical support. This indicates a commitment to both exploration and the promotion of American Christian values abroad. These networks were foundations of a growing American presence in foreign lands driven by a mix of exploration, commerce, and the Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-20).

Challenges Faced

However, the survey was not without its challenges. The Ottoman government posed significant obstacles creating complicated bureaucratic negotiations. Communication barriers further complicated interactions with local guides who held Middle Eastern truth-telling cultural norms and folkways.⁵ Additionally, the expedition faced physical dangers including hostile encounters with Arab tribes demanding protection bribes. Harsh environmental conditions were the desultory heat, desert sands, and the lack of identifiable transportation routes. 

Interpretations of Motivations Behind the Survey

The historical context of the 1850s seems to reveal two primary motivations driving the survey. First there was a pressing need for strategic intelligence during a time when the United States was navigating significant domestic political and economic challenges, particularly the tensions between the North and South. This period of antebellum uncertainty prompted a recalibration of US foreign policy increasingly influenced by trade dynamics and tariffs rather than solely diplomatic considerations. This discussion would benefit from further analysis on the “Tariff of Abominations” (1828) and the tariff-based strategies that seemed to substitute at this time for cohesive foreign policy.⁶

Finally, the main apology of the report was that the observations and findings about the geological and geographical features of the Land of the Bible, though based on limited time and resources, aimed to remain objective and factual. Moreover, they also acknowledged the challenge of interpreting these findings in relation to biblical accounts. Therefore, the surveyors emphasized the importance of respecting both scientific observations and scriptural interpretations, affirming that the geological history aligns with biblical narratives without contradiction. This tension was balanced by the survey report authors after analyzing the interconnectedness of domestic and global affairs by respectfully deferring to the greater role of American Christianity as a presence in shaping perceptions and policies in the Middle East.

Further reading: Percival Barlow, The General History of Europe; and Entertaining Traveller (London: W. and J. Stratford, 1791). [link]

_______________________________________

1. 1. U.S. Mission Portugal, “U.S. Embassy Lisbon – U.S. Embassy &Amp; Consulate in Portugal,” U.S. Embassy & Consulate in Portugal, February 15, 2024. ↩︎
2. 2. Read about the notion of the Black proletariat, Matteo Battistini, “Karl Marx and the Global History of the Civil War: The Slave Movement, Working-Class Struggle, and the American State Within the World Market,” International Labor and Working-Class History 100 (January 1, 2021): 162. ↩︎
3. 3. William Francis Lynch, “Official Report of the United States’ Expedition to Explore the Dead Sea and the River Jordan,” ed. authority of the Hon. William A. Graham, Secretary of the Navy, Sabin Americana: History of the Americas, 1500-1926 (Baltimore: John Murphy & Co., 1852), 85–86. ↩︎
4. 4. Ibid., 44; Christine Beth Lindner, “Negotiating the Field: American Protestant Missionaries in Ottoman Syria, 1823 to 1860” (PhD Dissertation, Levantine Heritage Foundation, University of Edinburgh, 2009), 114. ↩︎
5. 5. Ibid., 11. ↩︎
6. 6. Broadus Mitchell, “The Abominable Tariff-Making 1789-1828,” Current History 42, no. 250 (1962): 327. ↩︎

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bibliography

Barlow, Percival. The General History of Europe; and Entertaining Traveller. London: W. and J. Stratford, 1791. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/CW0102196463/ECCO?u=vic_liberty&sid=bookmark-ECCO&xid=703a8555&pg=1.

Battistini, Matteo. “Karl Marx and the Global History of the Civil War: The Slave Movement, Working-Class Struggle, and the American State Within the World Market.” International Labor and Working-Class History 100 (January 1, 2021): 158–85. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0147547921000089.

Lindner, Christine Beth. “Negotiating the Field: American Protestant Missionaries in Ottoman Syria, 1823 to 1860.” PhD Dissertation, Levantine Heritage Foundation, University of Edinburgh, 2009. https://www.levantineheritage.com/pdf/CB-Lindner-PhD-2009.pdf.

Lynch, William Francis. “Official Report of the United States’ Expedition to Explore the Dead Sea and the River Jordan.” Published by authority of the Hon. William A. Graham, Secretary of the Navy. Sabin Americana: History of the Americas, 1500-1926. Baltimore: John Murphy & Co., 1852. Accessed October 24, 2024. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/CY0100820834/SABN?u=vic_liberty&sid=bookmark-SABN&xid=6c0faca8&pg=85.

Mitchell, Broadus. “The Abominable Tariff-Making 1789-1828.” Current History 42, no. 250 (1962): 327-332,-362–63. https://www.jstor.org/stable/45310745.

Portugal, U.S. Mission. “U.S. Embassy Lisbon – U.S. Embassy &Amp; Consulate in Portugal.” U.S. Embassy & Consulate in Portugal, February 15, 2024. https://pt.usembassy.gov/u-s-embassy-lisbon/.