Category: david barton

The David Barton Cover Up: More on Gregg Frazer’s Critique of David Barton’s America’s Godly Heritage

On Monday, I wrote about a time in 2012 when David Barton was confronted by evangelical historians. I linked to a devastating critique of Barton’s America’s Godly Heritage by Gregg Frazer, professor of history at The Master’s College.  Much of the critique is helpful even if one has not seen Barton’s DVD because Frazer includes enough of the context to make the critiques clear. However, there is one section which might not be as clear as the others. To help readers use the critique well, I want to provide some additional context.

Specifically, I refer to this section of Frazer’s critique:

Barton’s claims about the percentage of quotes directly from the Bible or based on the Bible or from “men who used the Bible to write their conclusions” are gross misrepresentations that are too confusing and complex to explain briefly here. A few comments will have to suffice. First, his percentages are blown out of proportion. He notes that a study found the Bible to have the highest percentage of citations (34%) and he claims that another 60% came from “men who used the Bible to write their conclusions”; consequently, he claims that “94% of the quotes of the Founders were based on the Bible.” First, neither the 60% number nor the 94% number come from the study – Barton made those up. Second, the study is careful to note that “reprinted sermons accounted for almost three-fourths of the biblical citations, making this nonsermon source of biblical citations roughly as important as the Classical or Common Law categories [10%].” Most importantly, while Barton appeals to this study during his discussion of the framing of the Constitution, the study says that during the debate on the U.S. Constitution, “the Bible’s prominence disappears” and “(t)he debate surrounding the adoption of the Constitution was fought out mainly in the context of Montesquieu, Blackstone, the English Whigs, and major writers of the Enlightenment.” Even at that, the percentages are misleading in and of themselves, as misapplication and misinterpretations of passages (abuse of the Bible) are counted the same as proper use. Satan quotes the Bible (e.g. Luke 3:10-11) too, but that does not indicate any righteousness or interest in promoting Christianity on his part.

The study in question was conducted by Donald Lutz and Charles Hyneman, both then at the University of Houston. Frazer is correct in his criticisms but there is more that can be said about Barton’s misuse of the study. For that additional information, please see my prior post on how the Institute on the Constitution mimics Barton’s errors and then this post by Jim Allison and Tom Peters.

This is a case where Barton cites the study improperly, and then fails to cite all of the relevant sections of the study. Barton’s main argument is that the founders used the Bible as a foundation for our form of government. However, Lutz and Hyneman demonstrate that the Federalist defenders of the Constitution did not refer to the Bible once in their writings.  On page 194 of the study, Lutz charts the analysis of the citations in the Federalist and Antifederalist papers.

LutzHyneman

Note that the Bible was not cited at all by the Federalists. It was those who opposed various aspects of the Constitution, the Antifederalists, who cited the Bible.  While Lutz and Hyneman are fair in their research, Barton spins and omits relevant information to twist their argument beyond recognition.

The title of this post begins by calling attention to what I call “the David Barton cover up.” Religious right leaders know about the many critiques from Christian academics but those leaders choose to ignore them. David Barton’s fractured history is apparently too important to challenge. Major organizations (e.g., Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, Liberty University, Gateway Church) and individuals (e.g., David Lane, Glenn Beck, Sen. Ted Cruz) are aware of the findings of numerous conservative Christian historians. However, the work of these scholars does not matter. Countless state and federal legislators have been led astray which has consequences for the state of our political process.

These organizations and leaders are responsible as are Christian media sources who fail to ask these leaders hard questions; it remains to be seen if they will ever do the right thing.

 

Historian Scott Culpepper: When the Church Spreads Propaganda

Dr. Scott Culpepper currently serves as associate professor of history at Dordt College in Sioux Center, IA. His Ph.D. is from Baylor University and he has a M.Div. from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. Culpepper is the author of Francis Johnson and the English Separatist Influence: The Bishop of Brownism’s Life, Ministry, and Controversies (Mercer University Press, 2011). When he read my post earlier today, he had the following reaction:

Two very disturbing realities are revealed in Warren‘s piece. First, while the people in the pews may still be operating out of ignorance, evangelical and Republican leaders can no longer hide behind that defense. They know Barton’s methods are unethical and they simply do not care because he furthers their agenda. Which makes one rightfully question if an agenda that rests on so little integrity is really worth furthering.
Second and perhaps more frightening, the article reveals a reluctance on the part of evangelical Christian scholars who know better to press these issues because of their fear that the evangelical constituency will retaliate in defense of Barton. Once again, I have to ask if such a constituency is really worth appeasing. I experienced some of this timidity personally at the Conference on Faith and History this fall and have no doubt that Warren knows whereof he speaks. These are sad times when the body of Christ has effectively become an arm of the Ministry of Propaganda.

Scott has had some experience with pressure to overlook Barton’s historical mischief. Appreciate his thoughts here and hope other Christian historians will continue to expose the cover up.

The Great Confrontation of 2012: David Barton and the Evangelical Historians

In August 2012, Thomas Nelson (now part of Harper Collins Christian) pulled David Barton‘s book The Jefferson Lies from publication. This rare move by Thomas Nelson took place in the midst of efforts by several people to confront Barton with his errors. While I cannot tell the whole story (in part because I don’t know it and in part because the main players are not willing to discuss it completely), I can provide a little more insight into the situation. The door was opened to this by a footnote on David Barton’s website and other vague references to a series of meetings that took place in 2012. The footnote is on the page where Barton claims to explain false quotes from his first book. Barton says this:

Although many people, including several respected academics, have told David that they admire his honesty and transparency, others have attempted to use this practice against him. For instance, in a recent critique of David’s work, Professor Gregg Frazer of The Master’s College writes:

“Having been confronted over the use of false quotes, Barton was forced to acknowledge their illegitimacy in some way on his website. There, he describes them as “unconfirmed” – as if there is some doubt about their legitimacy. In a computer age with search capabilities, we know that these quotes are false – the fact that they are listed as “unconfirmed” reflects a stubborn attempt to hold onto them and to suggest to followers that they might be true. That is made worse by the fact that under these “unconfirmed” quotes are paragraphs maintaining that the bogus quote is something that the person might have said.” 2

What an interesting reward for trying to be honest and transparent.

Barton’s claim to be “honest and transparent” requires much more attention, but for the purpose of this post, let me move on to Barton’s description of the source of Gregg Frazer’s words. In the footnote, Barton explains the source of Frazer’s quote:

From a hostile written review of David Barton and WallBuilders written by Gregg Frazer at the request of Jay Richards. That written critique was subsequently passed on to David Barton on August 13, 2012, by the Rev. James Robison, to whom Jay Richards had distributed it. 

After Jay Richards read my book with Michael Coulter, Getting Jefferson Right: Fact Checking Claims about Our Third President, he asked ten Christian historians to read both The Jefferson Lies, and then our book. Richards wanted to get expert opinions on the facts in each book. He also asked Gregg Frazer to review Barton’s DVD, America’s Godly Heritage (which is still for sale on Barton’s website).

With Frazer’s permission, the complete review of America’s Godly Heritage is now available here.

As is clear from an examination of the paper, Frazer did not look at each one of the quotes in Barton’s first book. He specifically examined the DVD series America’s Godly Heritage. Even though the DVD is still for sale, Frazer found faulty quotes in it.

As Barton says in his footnote, this paper was presented to Barton by James Robison surrounding the time when his book was pulled by Thomas Nelson (August 2012). Robison is an apostolic elder at Gateway Church and host of the television show Life Today. As this footnote reveals, Robison was in on the confrontation as was Richards and the Christian historians. While I don’t know specifics, some met with Barton at his ranch where he rejected their advice and counsel. Furthermore, Barton met with at least one leader at the Family Research Council in August 2o12. In that meeting, Barton’s errors were confronted with promises from Barton to provide corrected material. However, nothing happened on Barton’s end until the Family Research Council was confronted by numerous Christian historians in the Spring of 2013.

Despite numerous clear factual errors, FRC continues to have Barton involved in their presentations to pastors. As Politico documented in 2013 (Sen. Ted Cruz defends Barton in this article), Barton has been accepted back into the good graces of the political arm of the Christian right (e.g., this apologetics conference).

The awareness of Barton’s systematic distortion of the nation’s founding is well known at the highest levels of the Christian political right and yet many such groups continue to promote Barton as an exemplary historian.  Because the Christian right is aware of the problems but continues to feature Barton as an historian, the “great confrontation of 2012” has turned into the “great cover-up of the present.”

Gregg Frazer’s review of America’s Godly Heritage is a devastating critique of this popular DVD program. It has been read by high level decision makers on the Christian right and ignored. I urge readers to read it and pass it around. I intend to give it more attention by focusing on various highlights in upcoming posts. Here is a follow up post on Frazer’s review.

Ted Cruz's Father Spreads Barton's Fables in Church

In private conversations with evangelical leaders about David Barton’s pseudo-history, I have been asked what harm Barton’s fables cause. After all, many of the founders were orthodox Christian and religious devotion was more respected then than now, so what does it hurt if Barton stretches the truth a little? He is basically on the right side of things so what’s the problem?
There are many problems with that line of thinking, most of which I don’t have time to address now. However, one I will note is that the lies spread and grow. They get bigger. Another one is that once the horse gets out of the barn, you can’t often get it back in. Even when Barton pulls back a bit and gets a bit more honest, his followers don’t necessarily follow suit.
Case in point: Rafael Cruz, the father of big Barton fan Ted Cruz in a speech at John Hagee’s church recently. Right Wing Watch brings the sad news.
[youtube]http://youtu.be/sZJh7MUI_GY[/youtube]
Cruz’s big applause line was a complete fiction. As long time readers know, Robert Aitken printed the first English Bible in America. Congress gave an endorsement after the fact and recommended the work for its religious and artistic merits but did not order it to be printed for use in schools at any level. Cruz plagiarized Barton and told a huge whopper on top of it.
After being hammered on the matter for years (and having that story removed from a Focus on the Family broadcast), Barton changed his rendition of the Aitken story a bit to make it a little more accurate. However, did Rafael Cruz get the memo? Not at all; in fact, he embellished Barton’s fable by saying Congress ordered the Bible to be “the principle textbook in primary schools, high schools and universities.” None of that is true. All I can think of is this Progressive commercial:
[youtube]http://youtu.be/moqX4t04yYo[/youtube]
Cruz then channels Barton on the role of Solomon Grayzel in the 1963 Abington v. Schempp case. He essentially says what Barton says which is almost never a sign of an accurate presentation.
Prominent evangelicals apparently don’t think the rules apply to them. Plagiarize, stretch the truth, do whatever, it matters not for the cause is just.

David Barton's Profamily Legislators Conference Features Ted Cruz and Bobby Jindal: The Universe Next Door

Going on right now, David Barton’s periodic gathering of state legislators operates in some parallel universe where Barton is an expert in American history.
[youtube]http://youtu.be/7b5c0YVmLZU[/youtube]
Ted Cruz is there dignifying the event. So is Bobby Jindal. They are the unfortunate links to the universe were most of us live; as are those attending, which is the frightening part of the whole thing. I wonder if Barton will give a talk on policy relating to post-traumatic stress disorder and Satan.


Of course. The only member of the media invited to attend is Todd Starnes. He can spin whatever they need.

Post by Joyce Krawiec.

Not that they care, but I have little respect for Cruz and Jindal, both of whom should know what they are doing by appearing on behalf of Barton.
Once again, the evangelical establishment demonstrates that what moves them is prestige and money.