david barton – Page 85 – Warren Throckmorton

Confirmed: David Barton’s Founders’ Bible Cites Pro-Slavery James Hammond as Proponent of America as Christian Nation

I first pointed out here and here that an early draft of the Founders’ Bible contained a positive and substantial reference to South Carolina pro-slavery leader James Hammond. I wondered over the months since then whether or not the reference stayed in the Bible since Hammond is such an unsavory character in American history. Indeed, Hammond’s endorsement of America as a Christian nation remained in the Founders’ Bible on pages 2091-2092:

To me, it seems wrong to elevate Hammond in a study Bible or for any purpose. Senator Hammond was one of the most articulate defenders of slavery as a Christian institution and social good in the pre-Civil War era. Hammond was also a child molester according to his own diaries. And yet the authors of the Founders’ Bible laud him as a non-Christian American leader who is fit to defend their view of America as a Christian nation.

The context for Barton’s use of Hammond is an article titled America: A Christian Nation. In one of the previous posts I provided most of that article. For now, I want to point out again why Hammond made his statement about America as a Christian nation. In September, 1844, Hammond issued a day of thanksgiving proclamation (read the entire proclamation here) that was overtly Christian calling on all citizens to

assemble at their respective places of worship, to offer up their devotions to God their Creator, and his Son Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of the world.

Understandably, the Jewish citizens of South Carolina felt excluded by this proclamation. In the Founders’ Bible, Barton dismisses their concerns by saying “a small group openly censured him and demanded an apology.” Clearly, the Jewish citizens who stood up to Hammond are not the heroes of the Founders’ Bible article. They don’t even deserve mention. Instead, Hammond’s arrogant and hypocritical reply is what merits inclusion in the Founders’ Bible.

Beyond the insensitive inclusion of Hammond in a study Bible as a positive voice, this article raises important questions about what Barton and the publishers of the Founders’ Bible want to promote. I ended an earlier post on this subject by raising similar issues.

Those who are about to publish the Founders’ Bible have reached into history to bring us face to face with a racist, pro-slavery advocate who used his office to privilege his view of Christianity. His vision was of a Christian nation that included slavery as a blessing and moral good. When the Jewish community understandably felt excluded by the proclamation, he disregarded their call for a pluralistic response.

Is this the kind of government the publishers of the Founders Bible wish for the nation?

There are other historical problems with the Founders’ Bible which will come to light over the coming weeks.

I invite you to read the former posts:

Founders’ Bible Cites Pro-Slavery Leader as Proponent of America as a Christian Nation

Founders’ Bible Cites Pro-Slavery Leader as Proponent of America as a Christian Nation, Part Two

David Barton: Christian Illusionist?

This post comes by way of John Fea’s blog. Although Fea wrote about it last week, there is still something fresh here. Fea cited John Wilsey who teaches history and theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Wilsey heard David Barton speak at a church in Brazoria, TX and filed a report on the experience.

Wilsey calls Barton a Christian illusionist. Although generally critical, he says Barton is a walking encyclopedia. Wilsey’s assessment of Barton speech:

The really disturbing aspect of the presentation is that Barton is a manipulator of Christian folks who sincerely love their country. He goes in front of Bible believing people who, for the most part, do not spend all their time thinking about the American founding but who do want to believe that America’s heritage is exclusively Protestant. He goes with data mined from the historical record that will suit his particular cultural agenda. He presents that data with no explanation of context. He gives no credit to any other sources that are not explicitly evangelical.

Early in Wilsey’s report, I think he gives Barton too much credit. Calling him a walking encyclopedia implies that Barton is actually providing facts when he speaks. Of course, some of what Barton says is true, but he often weaves facts together with legend to create a false picture. Thus, when he is motoring through his speech, failing to even finish some words before he starts the next, he is not getting it right, even as he says some true things.

The term Christian illusionist is troubling. I think if you simply take the term Christian as a category, I understand what Wilsey is saying. Barton is after all not a Hindu illusionist. However, there is something wrong about Christians creating illusions as if they were reality. Another word besides illusionist might be more descriptive.

There is a market for Christian illusionists. The response to The Jefferson Lies being pulled and the exposure of Barton’s historical illusions has been disappointing. Initially some Christian groups came out with admissions and apologies that they had been fooled by the illusionist. However, even many of those articles lacked a prophetic call for truth. Christian leaders who should know better are sitting silent, knowing the illusion is taking place but failing to do more to stop it. Meanwhile, thousands, probably millions, are deceived.

For a good book that debunks Barton’s illusions about Thomas Jefferson, go here.

Michael Coulter and I will be on a Blaze webcast at 1pm

Here is the link: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/watch-todays-live-blazecast-one-hour-with-david-bartons-harshest-critics/ (The video is now embedded at this link.)

Michael Coulter and I will be guests with Scott Baker and Billy Hallowell on The Blaze webcast today at 1pm. The Blaze is Glenn Beck’s news website. We will be discussing our book Getting Jefferson Right and related matters.

The link to the live broadcast (saved for later viewing also) will be available on front page of The Blaze around 12:30pm. I hope you will tune in and send us some questions through the hour.

Another Evangelical Scholar Critiques David Barton’s The Jefferson Lies

Back in August, Glenn Sunshine, one of the evangelical scholars Jay Richards asked to read Getting Jefferson Right and The Jefferson Lies, provided a summary of his reactions to both books on his blog. Better late than never getting it on the blog here.

Prof. Sunshine cannot be accused of being a leftist (check out his blog) and has used Wallbuilders’ materials in the past.

The Founders’ Bible to be released September 14

According to the project Facebook page, the Founders’ Bible is slated to be released this Friday. The Founders’ Bible is David Barton’s newest project and is being published by Shiloh Road Publishing, a subsidiary of Windblown Media, publisher of The Shack. Here is the product description:

David Barton, Signature Historian, sets the record straight, unveiling the true and forgotten history of America’s founding, the source of what made this nation so great, inviting us to return to those foundations, and fan back to full flame the torch of liberty that is meant to shine as a light unto the nations.

America stands at the crossroads of human history, once revered and respected through out the world for its exceptionalism, a gleaming “city set on a hill” as a beacon of enduring freedom, now reviled, its influence reduced, teetering on the brink of disaster. . . . If ever there was a desperate need for us to look back and rediscover the vision, the passion, and the wisdom of those who laid the glorious foundations, it is now!

I wrote about the Founders’ Bible in July when articles included in it were printed on a publisher’s web forum. I added a post today at Crosswalk which summarizes the unbelievable inclusion of pro-slavery James Hammond as a Christian leader and proponent of American as a Christian nation. If those pre-publication articles are any indication, the many problems we and others have pointed out with Barton‘s other historical writings are likely multiplied in the Founders’ Bible.

What are we supposed to learn from the Founders’ Bible?

A quick review of the Facebook page for the Founders’ Bible provides a clue about what it might mean to the publishers of the project for the nation to “rediscover the vision.” One entry links to an organization called, Biblical Christian Solutions In Government. The recommended article is a reprinted 1791 letter from Benjamin Rush to Rev. Jeremy Belknap which promotes the use of the Bible in schools. Rush, in contrast to Jefferson, believed that the promotion of Christianity in schools would provide a critical basis for republican self-government. To Belknap, Rush asserted

Such a mode of instructing children in the [C]hristian religion, would convey knowledge into their understandings, and would therefore be preferable to teaching them creeds, and catechisms, which too often convey, not knowledge, but words only, into their memories. I think I am not too sanguine in believing, that education, conducted in this manner, would, in the course of two generations, eradicate infidelity from among us, and render civil government scarcely necessary in our country.

In contemplating the political institutions of the United States, I lament, that we waste so much time and money in punishing crimes, and take so little pains to prevent them. We profess to be republicans, and yet we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government, that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of [C]hristianity, by means of the [B]ible; for this divine book, above all others, favours that equality among mankind, that respect for just laws, and all those sober and frugal virtues, which constitute the soul of republicanism.

Make everybody a Christian and then all will be well. Does this link and endorsement tell us anything about the intentions of the Founders’ Bible? One cannot be sure since there is no commentary, but I think it is fair to assume that the promoters believe teaching Christianity in schools would be desirable.

The organization which posted Rush’s letter takes inspiration from Alexander Hamilton’s short lived idea to rally the Federalist party after the defeat of John Adams in the 1800 election. Jefferson and the Republicans had won the election and Hamilton wanted to regroup and plot a new course. To do so, he suggested the formation of the “Christian Constitutional Society” (you can read a summary of the idea in Thomas Jefferson’s biography by Randall here, see pages 10-12).

Hamilton’s proposal to friend James Bayard is fascinating and reminds me of how advocacy groups operate today. Consider this section:

Yet unless we can contrive to take hold of and carry along with us strong feelings of the mind, we shall in vain calculate upon any substantial or durable results. Whatever plan we may adopt to be successful must be founded the truth of this proposition. And perhaps it is not very easy for us to give it effect especially not without some deviations from what on other occasions we have maintained to be right. But in determining upon the propriety of the deviations, we must consider whether it be possible for us to succeed without in some degree employing the weapons which have been employed against us and whether the actual state and future prospect of things be not such as to justify the reciprocal use of them.

Hamilton advised playing on the feelings of the people and compromising principles because the other side had done so. Hamilton advocated fighting fire with fire. Christianity is mentioned only twice in Hamilton’s plan. It is obvious from the letter that Hamilton wants to use religion for the purpose of organizing his political party. Delaware federalist Bayard had no interest in the idea and told Hamilton that his plan would arouse jealousies within the party.

In the present case, the authors of the Founders’ Bible do not seem to be interested in nuance. Is requiring the teaching of the Christian religion in schools their way to “rediscover the vision” and return to the “glorious foundations?” If so, then this Christian wants no part of it, and I suspect most others won’t either.