September 2017 – Page 6 – Warren Throckmorton

A Year Ago Today David Barton Claimed to Have an Earned PhD

A year ago today, religious right activist and member of Evangelicals for Biblical Immigration David Barton posted the following video on his Facebook and YouTube accounts.

In the video, Barton chastises progressives for questioning his claim to have an earned doctorate. He said he has an earned doctorate but that he has chosen not to talk about it. However, the next day Barton chose to take the video off of both websites and chose not to talk about the reasons why.
Barton’s haughty claim to have an earned doctorate gave way to silence after it was revealed that the degree came from Life Christian University, a

Life Christian University diploma reflection

diploma mill. According to the president of Life Christian University, Douglas Wingate, Barton didn’t attend the school but was given credit for his historical writings. Even though one cannot meaningfully call a degree earned when you don’t take any classes, that is exactly what LCU does with famous preachers and religious leaders.

The state of Missouri advised fellow LCU degree recipient Joyce Meyer that her claim of an earned PhD from the school was against state law. Meyer’s lawyer responded that Meyer had already decided that describing the LCU PhD as earned was false. Meyer now describes her LCU degree as honorary. Although that description is legal in Missouri, LCU’s is not accredited by a Department of Education recognized accrediting body and the status as a university is unusual since the school is registered with the IRS as a church.
Barton called his degree earned but sarcastically dismissed the honest reporting of what he called progressives. Barton has never explained or apologized for his demeaning and misleading statements. Yet, he still claims to be “America’s premier historian.” Would “America’s premier historian” try to pass off what can only be called an honorary degree as an earned one?

As of now, America’s premier historian has chosen not to talk about it.

Question for Evangelicals for Biblical Immigration: What Does Indigenous Mean?

President Trump’s immigration policies have split the evangelical world. Many called on Trump to save the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program while others applauded the president for rescinding it. Now that the matter is in the hands of Congress, lobbying for both sides is fierce. Some evangelical groups have promised an intense lobbying campaign to pass legislation favorable to illegal immigrants while others, such as Evangelicals for Biblical Immigration, promote a more exclusionary approach.
The EBI group recently wrote a letter to President Trump, Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell urging them to put Americans first. The view of the world espoused by EBI sounds similar to positions espoused by segregationists during the era leading up to the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Historian Paul Matzko illustrated this connection by citing a 1960 sermon by segregationist Rev. Bob Jones. Jones said, “[The Apostle] Paul said that God ‘. . . hath made of one blood all nations of men . . . .’ But He also fixed the bounds of their habitation. When nations break out of their boundaries and begin to do things contrary to the purpose of God and the directive will of God, they have trouble.”
To further illustrate, let’s compare the EBI letter to Caroline County Circuit Judge Leon Bazile’s 1959 rationale for Virginia’s law against biracial marriage in a case which involved Richard and Mildred Loving. That situation ultimately led to the Supreme Court’s 1967 landmark decision in Loving v. Virginia which struck down those prohibitions. First, the EBI letter’s statements about people and nations:

While some faith groups use selective Bible words for open borders and amnesty, we consider the whole counsel of Scripture. We find that the Bible does not teach open borders, but wise welcome. We are to welcome the lawful foreigner, who, like a convert, comes as a blessing (eg.s Ruth and Rahab). We also find Nehemiah building walls to protect citizens from harm. In Isaiah 1, we see God condemning the destruction of borders and indigenous culture.
All lives matter. The lives of North, Central and South Americans matter. The lives of Africans, Asians, Europeans and people from the Middle East matter. In Scripture, we learn that God placed us each in a family, a land, an epic story of creation, the fall and redemption. The Bible envisions a world of beautiful and unique nations, not a stateless ‘open society’ run by global oligarchs. Each of us is called to be a blessing where God has placed us in the world. (emphasis in the original)

Now read Judge Bazile’s rationale for keeping the races separate.

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

The EBI letter is not as nakedly segregationist as Bazile’s claim but contains similar reasoning. According to the Judge and the EBI letter writers, God made the borders and put the people in them. Our job is to smile, stay put, and deal with it.

What Does Indigenous Mean?

Without apparent awareness of our own history, the EBI writers say God condemns “the destruction of borders and indigenous culture.” If that is always true, then God must condemn America. The Europeans who came here obviously didn’t stay where God placed them. Instead they came to this land and destroyed the indigenous culture. Not only did the white European take this land from the native people, the “settlers” forced the native people to leave their lands time and time again, most notably between 1830 and 1840 in what became known as the Trail of Tears. Not only were borders destroyed, but thousands of native men, women, and children died during the march from the Southeast to Oklahoma.

Indian school, Carlisle PA. Public domain

They were punished for using their native language, wearing native dress and for any positive reference to their indigenous culture. If the EBI signers really believe that God condemns such destruction, then they should fall to their knees in repentance and fear.
The EBI letter is a confusing hodgepodge of nativist talking points baptized with references to the Bible used out of their historical context. It is understandable that the Breitbart alt-right crowd likes it.
There are practical reasons for limiting the number of people coming to the country, but I can see no reason, biblical or otherwise, to limit people by race, religion, or national origin. God as a prop for political xenophobia does not reflect his whole counsel, but rather reflects the worldly counsel of the writers.

The 1787 Constitutional Convention – Delegates Worried about Aristocracy

September 6, 1787 (Click to read Madison’s notes on the day)

Summary

The delegates continued their discussion of how to elect the president and vice-president.

Influences on the Delegates

Today, the delegate worried about an aristocracy was Pennsylvania’s James Wilson.

Mr. WILSON said, that he had weighed carefully the Report of the Committee for remodelling the constitution of the Executive; and on combining it with other parts of the plan, he was obliged to consider the whole as having a dangerous tendency to aristocracy; as throwing a dangerous power into the hands of the Senate. They will have, in fact, the appointment of the President, and, through his dependence on them, the virtual appointment to offices; among others, the officers of the Judiciary department. They are to make treaties; and they are to try all impeachments. In allowing them thus to make the Executive and Judiciary appointments, to be the court of impeachments, and to make treaties which are to be laws of the land, the Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary powers are all blended in one branch of the Government. The power of making treaties involves the case of subsidies, and here, as an additional evil, foreign influence is to be dreaded. According to the plan as it now stands, the President will not be the man of the people, as he ought to be; but the minion of the Senate. He cannot even appoint a tide-waiter without the Senate. He had always thought the Senate too numerous a body for making appointments to office. The Senate will, moreover, in all probability, be in constant session. They will have high salaries. And with all these powers, and the President in their interest, they will depress the other branch of the Legislature, and aggrandize themselves in proportion. Add to all this, that the Senate, sitting in conclave, can by holding up to their respective States various and improbable candidates, contrive so to scatter their votes, as to bring the appointment of the President ultimately before themselves. Upon the whole, he thought the new mode of appointing the President, with some amendments, a valuable improvement; but he could never agree to purchase it at the price of the ensuing parts of the Report, nor befriend a system of which they make a part.

By this late date in the convention, discontent still sounded from several of the delegates. Alexander Hamilton indicated his willingness to approve the plan even though he didn’t like it.

Mr. HAMILTON said, that he had been restrained from entering into the discussions, by his dislike of the scheme of government in general; but as he meant to support the plan to be recommended, as better than nothing, he wished in this place to offer a few remarks. He liked the new modification, on the whole, better than that in the printed Report. In this, the President was a monster, elected for seven years, and ineligible afterwards; having great powers in appointments to office; and continually tempted, by this constitutional disqualification, to abuse them in order to subvert the Government. Although he should be made reëligible, still, if appointed by the Legislature, he would be tempted to make use of corrupt influence to be continued in office. It seemed peculiarly desirable, therefore, that some other mode of election should be devised. Considering the different views of different States, and the different districts, Northern, Middle, and Southern, he concurred with those who thought that the votes would not be concentered, and that the appointment would consequently, in the present mode, devolve on the Senate. The nomination to offices will give great weight to the President. Here, then, is a mutual connexion and influence, that will perpetuate the President, and aggrandize both him and the Senate. What is to be the remedy? He saw none better than to let the highest number of ballots, whether a majority or not, appoint the President. What was the objection to this? Merely that too small a number might appoint. But as the plan stands, the Senate may take the candidate having the smallest number of votes, and make him President.

The discussion resumed the next day.

1787 Constitutional Convention Series

To read my series examining the proceedings of the Constitution Convention, click here. In this series, I am writing about any obvious influences on the development of the Constitution which were mentioned by the delegates to the Convention. Specifically, I am testing David Barton’s claim that “every clause” of the Constitution is based on biblical principles. Thus far, I have found nothing supporting the claim. However, stay tuned, the series will run until mid-September.
Constitutional Convention Series (click the link)
To follow on social media, click the following links:
Facebook (blog posts and news)
Facebook (Getting Jefferson Right – history news)
Twitter

A Real Life Reason to Reject the Nashville Statement

Last week I wrote some reactions to the Nashville Statement on sexual orientation and gender identity. The statement was written by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and has been the focus of much controversy since it was released a week ago. I thought the statement missed the mark in several ways, but the one I want to highlight with this follow up post is the Nashville Statement’s claim about disorders of sex development.
After my post on the Nashville Statement came out, I received the following email from Lianne Simon. Lianne is an intersex individual who tells her story on her website and also accompanies Dr. Megan DeFranza (PhD, theology, Marquette University) on speaking engagements regarding intersex conditions and theology. They manage the website intersexandfaith.org. Simon gave me permission to use her email:

In your Patheos post you said, “Practically, the Nashville signers don’t give us a clue how people Jesus referred to here can “embrace their biological sex.”
I think their intention is fairly clear. Sex is strictly binary to the signatories. Gender identity is entirely ‘adopted’ rather than rooted in biology. Therefore, intersex people must have a biological sex (i.e. male or female) that is confused or obscured by their disorder. So. the statement
“…and should embrace their biological sex insofar as it may be known.”
means that intersex people should embrace the sex assigned them by doctors and accept the medical treatment involved.
This is the way I, as a Christian intersex person, understand their position. As do my intersex friends.
We are castrated by doctors, undergo cosmetic sex assignment surgeries without our consent, are given hormones, lied to, have secrets kept from us, and made to live in shame–all in the name of their bloody binary view of sex.
That’s what their statement means to us.
They not only approve, they’re demanding that we embrace the evil that’s being done to us.
And if we object to the binary sex forced upon us, then we’re rejecting God’s plan and departing from the faith.
Kind regards,
Lianne Simon
www.intersexandfaith.org
www.liannesimon.com

Simon’s story is fascinating and well worth reading. She wrote a detailed response to the Nashville Statement at her website. She provides a human face to the topics covered in the Nashville Statement. I hope the signers will reconsider their pronouncements about disorders of sex development in light of Lianne’s life.
The part of the Nashville Statement Lianne referred to is below:

WE AFFIRM that those born with a physical disorder of sex development are created in the image of God and have dignity and worth equal to all other image-bearers. They are acknowledged by our Lord Jesus in his words about “eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb.” With all others they are welcome as faithful followers of Jesus Christ and should embrace their biological sex insofar as it may be known.
WE DENY that ambiguities related to a person’s biological sex render one incapable of living a fruitful life in joyful obedience to Christ.

Lianne’s story provides a real life foundation for my criticism that the guidance offered by the Nashville Statement is uninformed and inadequate. She concludes her blog post with this:

I’m grateful that the Nashville Statement says that we who are intersex are “created in the image of God and have dignity and worth equal to all other image-bearers.” But I’m troubled that this affirmation appears to require us to give up our bodily integrity and embrace some doctor’s guess at what sex God meant us to be.
Understand this—your Nashville Statement drives intersex people away from the Gospel.

The real world of sexuality is not as neat and clean as portrayed by the signers of the Nashville Statement. I hope Lianne’s story provides a caution to those who marginalize those who have been dealt a hand they didn’t ask for.

The 1787 Constitutional Convention – Executive Election Debated Again

September 5, 1787 (Click to read Madison’s notes on the day)

Summary

The delegates continued to consider proposals from the Brearly committee. A lengthy discussion concerned the election of the president.

Influences on the Delegates

Edmund Randolph worried that proposals for the president to come from the legislature would create a monarchy or an aristocracy.

Mr. RANDOLPH. We have, in some revolutions of this plan, made a bold stroke for monarchy. We are now doing the same for an aristocracy. He dwelt on the tendency of such an influence in the Senate over the election of the President, in addition to its other powers, to convert that body into a real and dangerous aristocracy.

Another Virginia delegate, George Mason, was even stronger in his criticism of the plan as it was being discussed by the delegates.

Col. MASON. As the mode of appointment is now regulated, he could not forbear expressing his opinion that it is utterly inadmissible. He would prefer the Government of Prussia to one which will put all power into the hands of seven or eight men, and fix an aristocracy worse than absolute monarchy.

The Virginia delegation worried that governmental power would be in the hands of too few people. Over the next couple of days, the election of the executive dominated discussion. It is obvious that many delegates feared the creation of a ruling class.