Comments on: William Penn founded the Quakers and other tall tales from David Barton

By: Bernie

Bernie — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:51:42 +0000

Oh Lordy! I hate to think what else he contrived whilst speaking from ‘his’ pulpit.
Thanks for the info Warren. I may, if time permits this weekend, put it, to rather some good use.

By: Warren

Warren — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:51:42 +0000

Jon Rowe wrote:

Though I am starting to see some consistency in Barton’s understanding of Christian minimums. If non-Trinitarians like Mormons can qualify as “Christians,” so too can many if not most of the Founding era unitarian Christians.

Jon – I was thinking something similar as well. He does a similar thing with Beck that he does with Adams and sometimes Jefferson. I suppose I should add Washington in there too. Barton hears a Founder say Christian and that means evangelical to him. He hears Beck invoke Jesus (the Mormon Jesus was a spirit child of the Heavenly Father and Mother and thus a brother to all of us) and he hears the Jesus of evangelical creed.

By: Patrocles

Patrocles — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:51:42 +0000

That’s more a battle about words and their meanings. We know that Barton sees Mormons as Christians. He seems to see everyone as a Christian who has a particular devotion for the gospel and Jesus as unique phenomena – which would include Penn, the Unitarians of 1800, Adams and Jefferson – but not most contemporary “universalist” Quakers and Unitarians. (Adams,in fact, had some inclinations to universalism, but didn’t subscribe to it.)
As for “evangelical”, the word simply referred to the gospel; and in that way it was, of course, used by the founders of the “evangelical” movement. Afterwards it has often been confined to the adherents of the evangelical movement, That would exclude most persons of the 18th century, but would include e.g. nearly the half of the Quakers after 1830. The meaning of “evangelical” changed once more when the remainders of the Great Revival melted with the remainders of orthodox Calvinism (Princeton theology) after 1900 and “evangelicals” got to be seen as fiercely dogmatic (which wasn’t the case in the 19th century). In any way, Barton is completely free to use the word in a broader sense.
Barton seems (unconsciously?) to strive for a new (or lost) concept: the concept of a unity of all people who are devoted to the gospel and Jesus as unique phenomena, confronted against the people who don’t. So he inevitably stumbles over the traditional words which are inept to this unwonted concept. (And yes, maybe his “new unity” is only built as a base for his political aims -but none the less, it’s an interesting idea.)

By: Lynn David

Lynn David — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:51:42 +0000

Well, Liberty University lists his talk as a sermon. So you that straight-away tells a person that Barton is will not necessarily deal with factual truths.

By: Jon Rowe

Jon Rowe — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:51:42 +0000

The idea that Unitarians (of the Founding era) can’t be Christians is not modernism; it’s orthodoxy.
Founding era Unitarianism (I term it “unitarianism” and leave the “u” uncapitalized because the unitarianism of the Founding era — mid to late 18th Century — usually wasn’t an official denomination, but a theology) defined itself by disbelieving in the Trinity. They identified and understood themselves to be “Christians.” It was the orthodox of that era and of today who claim, no, you must believe in the Trinity to be a “mere Christian” (as CS Lewis would term it).
I think the kernel of Truth in Barton’s claim might be the unitarians of the Founding era weren’t quite like today’s UUs. They were quite theistic, devout and very often biblical.
In this sense, they may be more like today’s Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses. Non-Trinitarians, but nonetheless very devout and theistic. Though the Founding era unitarians were also very rationalistic, “enlightened” and “liberal” for their day.
Though I am starting to see some consistency in Barton’s understanding of Christian minimums. If non-Trinitarians like Mormons can qualify as “Christians,” so too can many if not most of the Founding era unitarian Christians.