history – Page 19 – Warren Throckmorton

David Barton's Unreal Appearance on Family Research Council's Washington Watch

David Barton was on Family Research Council’s Washington Watch Live yesterday to talk about his version of America’s founding. The host sitting in for Tony Perkins was Craig James.
As I was listening to Barton rattle off some of his usual distortions, it occurred to me again how far apart Barton and the Family Research Council are from Christian academia and the real world of scholarship. For instance, James introduced Barton as “one of the most respected historians in America.”
In what universe does Craig James’ America exist? James works for the same Family Research Council that once entered the real world and removed one of David Barton’s Capitol Tour videos from view because they acknowledged numerous historical errors. Now FRC hires Barton to give the tour again and James lauded the tour.
Respected historians don’t have their books removed from publication by their Christian publisher; nor do they have the same book voted least credible by other historians.
Barton again botches the Donald Lutz study of quotes from the Founding era. Barton made it seem as though Lutz studied the founders’ quotes when that was not the case (see this post for what the study actually did). Barton never tells his listeners that the Federalists didn’t cite the Bible in their defense of the Constitution.

Even fellow Christian Reconstructionist Joel McDurmon begs Christian nation advocates to stop citing the Lutz study because they are getting it wrong. McDurmon wrote in 2013:

To all my friends and fellow-laborers in Restoring America, Christian America, Monumental America, Christianity and the Constitution, followers of Verna Hall, Rosalie Slater, Vision Forum, Wall Builders, and anyone else, anywhere even remotely associated with such a project: Please, quit citing Lutz and Hyneman as proof the Framers of the Constitution quoted the Bible more than any other source. They did not, and misreading studies like this, and thereby perpetuating myths like this, is one reason liberal scholars so often laugh at you. It’s not always merely because they hate God. Sometimes, it’s because we give them reason.

Even though I disagree with McDurmon on many things, we disagree in the real world where scholars are respected when they get the facts right and are scorned when they perpetuate obvious falsehoods.
Barton then says in 1636 governments were instituted by Christians to give rights of conscience. He fails to mention that Roger Williams was tried by the General Court of Massachusetts and found guilty of heresy and sedition in 1635 and then fled Massachusetts Christian government to establish his own Christian colony.
Barton winds up by again saying Thomas Jefferson agreed with the House speaker to have church in the chambers. However, there is no record that Jefferson had any role in it. The chaplains asked the House if anyone objected to the idea and since no one did, the chaplains officiated.
As I have said before, I think Christian academics have a role in offsetting this misinformation and promoting accuracy.

Tony Evans Clarifies Statement About Stronger African-American Families During Slavery

About two hours ago, I received this statement apparently in response to the Christian Post article about Evans’ statements about slave families. The CP article triggered a post from me on the subject. Evans’ statement:
I never had or expressed a doubt that Evans condemned slavery or racism.
I offered my view in my post on the subject, linked to his full remarks in that post, and I am glad that Evans extended his remarks on the subject. Even though we don’t see this issue the same way, I want to thank Dr. Evans and A. Larry Ross Communications for sending this statement.

David Barton Misleads Ukrainian Pastors and Politicians about John Locke

In June 2014, David Barton went with PA Pastors’ Network president Sam Rohrer to lecture Ukrainian pastors and a few politicians on the Christian nation thesis. Nine minutes of Barton’s speech (through an interpreter) is on You Tube.
In the video (at about 4:20 through 6:20), Barton talks about John Locke’s use of Bible verses on the establishment of civil government. Watch:

Transcript:

This man is named John Locke. He was a great lawgiver in history and he was also a theologian. He wrote this particular book on civil government in 1690. This has been used by nations across the world in building their governments. We actually own many of the original works by these lawgivers from four or five centuries ago.
Now if I were to ask us as ministers to name the Bible verses we can think of that address civil government, I would imagine that we could come up with 25 or 30 verses.
In this book here less than 3 cm thick, he lists over 500 biblical references to how civil government is to operate…. No, (interrupting the interpreter) 1500, 1500. I don’t know of a Christian today who could name 1500 Bible verses on how civil government’s to operate.
We may be Christians but we don’t think biblically about government.

I asked Greg Forster, an expert on John Locke (see an earlier critique of Barton’s treatment of Locke), to evaluate Barton’s claims about Locke and the 1500 verses. Forster’s answer is below in full:

Barton does not tell us the title of the book he holds up, but from his description it is impossible that it could be any book other than the Two Treatises of Government. However, his characterization of it is outrageous. Claiming that the Two Treatises “lists over 1,500 biblical references on how civil government is to operate” is not much more dishonest than claiming that the Bill of Rights protects 1,500 rights.
In his edition of the Two Treatises, editor Mark Goldie of Cambridge University lists only 121 Bible verses cited in the entire Two Treatises. And that’s including all the places where Locke didn’t cite the verse explicitly and Goldie “interpolated” the citation. In addition to those 121 Bible verses referenced, Goldie lists six places where Locke cited an entire chapter of the Bible, and one place where he cited an entire book (Proverbs). That’s it. But anyone who has read the Two Treatises will know Barton’s claim is false without having had to count.
Moreover, a large number – possibly even the majority – of those 121 citations are not to passages “on how civil government is to operate.” The Bible references in the Two Treatises are heavily concentrated in the First Treatise. The overwhelming majority of the First Treatise, in turn, is devoted to an extended analysis of small number of selected verses from the first two chapters of Genesis, especially Genesis 1:28-30. That’s a lot of analysis devoted to understanding the biblical text, but it’s not a large number of verses cited. The remainder of the First Treatise, where other biblical verses are cited more frequently, looks to the Bible not primarily for instruction on civil government but almost entirely on the power of parents over their children, especially the inheritance of property from parents to children. Locke is interested in these verses because he wants to use them to refute Robert Filmer’s claim that today’s kings inherit their power from Adam, but these are clearly not “biblical references on how civil government is to operate.” They are biblical references on how families are to operate. In fact, the point that descriptions of the how the family should work are not descriptions of how civil government should work was Locke’s main point!
After all this, it seems trivial to point out that Locke did not, in fact, “write” the Two Treatises in 1690; he published it in that year, but wrote it much earlier.

Perhaps Barton is counting the over 900 verses in Proverbs. However, not all of those verses relate to civil government. Clearly, Barton embellishes and inflates until what he starts with is unrecognizable.

Gary Scott Smith on Religion in the Oval Office

My Grove City College colleague Gary Scott Smith is featured talking about his new book on American presidents and religion in a podcast on conservative website Ricochet. Click the image to listen to the interview.

Gary is chair of the history department at GCC and an immense help to me in understanding how historians operate. He has reviewed and offered helpful suggestions for many of my blog posts debunking David Barton.
You can read an interview with Gary about the book at John Fea’s blog here.

Thomas Kidd on Why the Southern Baptists Canceled Ben Carson's Speech

Recently, the Southern Baptist Convention canceled Ben Carson’s appearance at a SBC pastor’s conference. A group within the convention, Baptist21, had objected and won the day. Baylor history professor Thomas Kidd had this to say in Monday’s edition (4/27/15) of the Washington Post:

This was a welcome outcome to what had the potential to be a serious snafu for the SBC. Whatever the organizers’ intentions, Baptist21 has this exactly right – hosting any political candidate carries a tacit implication of endorsement. Baptists and other evangelical denominations would do better to stop platforming political candidates at all. This includes handing out political pamphlets and “voter guides” at church.

Kidd has this exactly right. Perhaps churches have a right to speak politically but, in my opinion, they shouldn’t be arms of political parties whether on the right or left. Of course, this view of the church’s mission flies in the face of the Christian nationalist position. Fueled by a belief that their brand of Christianity should dominate the culture (dominionism), Christian nationalists view politics as a kind of evangelism where God is proclaimed as a political answer to political problems. Most conflate the Christian church with Old Testament Israel and mistake the promises made to Israel as promises to the church.