During our conversation she assured me the United States Constitution was a Divine document. Glen Beck confirmed it. He may have endorsed the book she held in her hand. American Exceptionalism is a myth bought into by many, sadly.
My minor in college? History. Where? Oklahoma Baptist University. The 18 hours that comprise my minor do not make me an expert. But, it comes in handy to sniff out inaccuracies. I am hoping they have not entertained this sort of pseudo-history in the History Department there. It looks like the GOP has.
Last night I got home after a long day. Patty told me she may have to re-consider her party affiliation. She asked if I had heard of David Barton. I had. We had a discussion. Who knows? Maybe we will both become Independents. Marty Duren may yet convince me, if not Greg.
Recently I spotted a Facebook post by Nathan Finn. He also posted the same to Twitter. He noted,
https://twitter.com/nathanafinn/status/232937814805856256″ data-datetime=”2012-08-07T20:34:37+00:00
And today, Finn pointed to an article on the subject,
https://twitter.com/nathanafinn/status/233543298365681664″ data-datetime=”2012-08-09T12:40:36+00:00
Finn is a Baptist History professor at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. I met Nathan in person a few years ago. We had online exchanges prior to that encounter at Northwest Baptist Association. I am glad he is calling attention to the matter.
The situation with Barton reminds me of the reaction I read to an incident in Arizona. In early reports conservative media outlets claimed Christians’ rights were being trampled for simply wanting to hold a Bible Study. Upon further investigation it seems the media and The Rutherford Institute supported the wrong side of that story.
I fear too many Christians are on the wrong side of the Barton story. At least too many hailing from the conservative side of the world. It is nice to note that Finn, a conservative Southern Baptist, is not taken in. May his tribe increase and his voice be heard often. Unfortunately it will be hard to stymy Barton’s voice and his alleged 30-year plan. Texas appears to have taken in the Kool-Aid.
Barton will be speaking at the GOP National Convention. Surely this is the consequence of Dr. Land’s call for nothing short of a marriage between the Religious Right and the GOP.
Not satisfied with the relationship between between the Republican Party and the religious right, Land said in March 1998: “The go-along, get-along strategy is dead. No more engagement. We want a wedding ring, we want a ceremony, we want a consummation of marriage.”
Who would have thought a reference to intercourse would be the chosen metaphor for the Religious Right? Such bedding would require synchronizing agendas and histories. Who could be surprised that a revisionist re-telling of American history in support of the marriage would be an important project? Conservative politics needs chapter and verse.
Over the years I have heard conservatives charge liberals with revisionist history. Every politician contorts history to support their campaigns and policies. This is no different. My wife sees right through this and she has never read any of the things I do.
Bob Robinson, of Vanguard Church, posted a link to this NPR story on Barton and his outrageous claims. I realize many of my readers will immediately form an opinion based on my reference to NPR. Since many of you consider yourselves fair and balanced, click on over and give it a listen for some balance to what you hear from Barton.
One more reason for my oft apolitical position on the upcoming election. No party is immune. All their beds are full.
UPDATE: Nathan Finn Tweeted that Thomas Nelson pulled Barton’s book on Jefferson.
View Comments (44)
There was a Southwestern Seminary professor who wrote a stinging takedown of Barton back in the 1990s - maybe in the SW Journal of Theology? I always heard that this professor was pushed out under Paige Patterson in part due to his scholarship on Barton.
Do you know who I'm talking about? I can't remember his name.
If I can remember his name, I'll look up the journal articles. His writings were perhaps the earliest scholarly critique of Barton.
It's amazing how much influence Barton has gained over the years and how he's mainstreamed. I think most folks were content ignoring him until he landed with a major publisher in Thomas Nelson.
Aaron,
You may be referring to Jim Spivey. While I did not have him while at Southwestern, I believe my brother Paul did. As I remember it, he really liked Spivey.
Aaron,
I found additional information, that included the reference to Spivey here.
I believe the prof was Stookey not Spivey. I sat Nader Stookey for several classes including 2 by arrangement as I was finishing my masters. He was fantastic and I remember hearing that he was denied tenure because of some things he had written about Barton.
Ryan,
I think you are correct about Stookey.
Ryan,
I received and email that contained the following,
But the Southwestern prof who critiqued David Barton and got in hot water was Stephen Stookey
http://www.baptiststandard.com/2003/4_14/print/professors.html
Todd,
Thanks for the article. I'm not sure who has revised American history more -- liberals or conservatives like Barton. I take everything that Barton teachs (or, more appropriately, "promotes") with a huge grain of salt. I think that David Barton has been masterful at marketing a revisionist history to a willing and all-too unquestioning Christian audience. With the help of those in the Christian community who should know better, Barton has been able to use his marketing skills and connections to turn his "history lessons" into a multi-million dollar empire. Not a bad gig if one can get it :-)
Unfortunately, the marriage between Evangelical Christians and the Republican Party continues without showing any signs of abatement. Although there are clear differences between the two major parties in America, the church should never get in bed with any politician or political party, no matter how much we might agree with some of the agenda. That Richard Land called for such a consummation of that kind of religious/political marriage is yet another indication of why it is far past time for him to retire. Thanks again and God bless,
Howell
Howell,
Thanks for the comment. I really enjoyed your comments on the AZ case over at Voices.
You wrote,
That Richard Land called for such a consummation of that kind of religious/political marriage is yet another indication of why it is far past time for him to retire.
This is precisely why I think it both dangerous and a mistake to risk his continue representation of Southern Baptists until October 2013. He led Evangelicals into the GOP boudoir, I think we should return to our love for Jesus and tell both parties, "Good Luck!"
Todd,
I do not see in this article where you have proven David Barton wrong on the facts.
The original sources that David Barton has on display and which are available for reading were the clicher for me. Facts do not lie.
I simply care not if NPR thinks otherwise....What is the truth concerning U.S History? After reading original sources I am convinced that David Barton is right.
Robert,
I did not post a personal piece wherein I demonstrate anything about David Barton other than my agreement with Nathan Finn and others who believe he is offering hack-history. There are plenty of fine scholars are taking care of that well and good. If he (Barton) is right about Jefferson, for instance, why did Thomas Nelson just today announce they were pulling his book?
If you want Barton to be right, I am sure he will be right. But, just because you want him to be right does not make it so. Further, that you suggest your reading of the original sources convinces you Barton is right does not require me, or anyone for that matter, to believe he is correct.
Well said, Todd. At one point I had seriously considered chunking my Deep South,Old School heritage and joining the Republican Party, whose candidates I usually voted for despite party affiliations. Then they were co-opted by first the tea party (and I mean its take-over by big money, not so much the initial grass roots efforts), now Barton et. al., and Land's call. I am glad to hear of Nathan's assessment and hope it prevails. I have never met him, but what contact I have had with him (e-mail, through blogs, etc.) suggests he is a scholar and a gentleman in the best sense of the words.
John Fariss
Thank you John.
I believe your assessment of Nathan Finn is spot on.
Todd,
I saw that link too....Keep in mind that Messiah is unashamedly Anabaptist and VERY much
Arminian.aka they have an agenda too!
HarperCollins is hardly someone who I want use as my guiding source ...apparently you do!
Robert,
This is not SBC Voices. Turning this into a Calvinist-Arminian debate would be like me saying you like Barton because it worked for Calvin in Geneva. I did not take your first comment to want to head in that direction, I am not sure why you want to make such a turn on the subject now.
As to Harper-Collins, you err here as well. It did not bother you before that Nelson, owned by Harper-Collins, published and helped promote the large money making enterprise known as David Barton. But, when they pull his book all of the sudden you become their detractor. One cannot have their cake and eat it too.
I don't think anyone can question Nathan Finn's conservative bona fides. If he is questioning the historicity of Barton's teaching, it should give all of us who are part of the vast right-wing conspiracy pause.
At the very least, to check our facts!
Dave,
Right-wing conspiracy? You? Come on. I have my facts all wrong. ;)
Todd,
My only point was that we need to follow the money which flows from the competing agendas which in turn flows from the theology of a group.
BTW- Leaving David Barton aside I do like John Calvin's Geneva. Thats why I am not an evangelical.
Robert,
If you do not see how your point subverts the sentiment of your original comment, there is little hope for us going forward. Big money flows in all directions. Everyone has an agenda. When a person begins re-writing history to advance their agenda, as Nathan Finn points out, then you have pseudo-history.
We have witnessed your unflappable loyalty to John. If it is all the same, we are going to give our energies toward Jesus - Evangelical or otherwise.
I had Dr. Stephen Stookey for most of my history classes at SWBTS in the late 90's. He adeptly exposed the inaccuracies and falsehoods of David Barton. My classmates and I owe him a debt of gratitude for that.
A few years ago Barton was a featured speaker at a conference I attended. It was a very frustrating experience as a room full of otherwise earnest and Christ loving pastors and believers drank in every word he spoke without any pushback. As a matter of fact, he received the most raucous response of any of the speakers. Unfortunately, it never dawned on the majority of those listening that Barton was willfully distorting the truth. Those folks were sharp folks. However, they made the mistake that we all have a tendency to make - they trusted a charlatan. We can do better than that. We must learn to be more discerning.
I'm conservative in my political orientation and it shows in my voting record. However, I'm concerned that evangelicals are making a significant mistake in our developing relationship with the GOP. It reminds me of the parable of the snake who convinced the rabbit to let him ride on his back across the forest one day. Even as he was very reluctant at first, the snake convinced the rabbit to let him ride. As they traveled, the rabbit and the snake had a pleasant visit. So pleasant that the rabbit began to think that he had been wrong about the snake all along. When they got to the other side, as he was climbing off his back, the snake sunk his fangs into the rabbit. As he was dying, the rabbit said "I thought we were friends, why did you do that?" The snake replied, "You knew what I was when you let me crawl on your back." I'm afraid that the GOP is the snake that has crawled on the back of American evangelicals.
God help us when we forget that our singular calling is Gospel proclamation, not political affiliation.
NJ,
I like your parable. Yet, under Land's influence, it seems the rabbit demanded the snake take a ride n it's back.I am reminded of the Pharisees insistence the Roman Governor do its bidding in the death of Jesus.
Todd,
Regardless of how they came about, evangelicals, including Southern Baptists, would do well to divest themselves of allegiances to political parties and activism. History has proven over and over again that the collusion between the church and state always turns out bad for the church. I'm thankful for men like Finn, Spivey, and Stookey who call Southern Baptists away from the nonsense of Barton and his ilk. Good post that brings the attention of your readers to this significant issue.
NJ,
I agree. That is really the nexus for the post.
Todd, your fellow history minor from OBU is with you all the way on this one.
Even if some lack a history background, we are supposed to be people who can exegete source material.
Frank,
Add in your PhD work in Baptist History and you may easily verify our mistakes are made when we have an idea in search of a text.
Watch out for that bobcat.
Absolutely on "an idea in search of a text." It's not good whether we are using a biblical or historical text to justify our own ideas.