On Saturday night, John had a front row seat for a David Barton presentation at the First Baptist Church of Brazoria, TX. When I heard that John was attending the session, I asked him to report on the event for our readers here at The Way of Improvement Leads Home. Enjoy!
Last night, David Barton appeared at the First Baptist
Church of Brazoria, TX (south of Houston) to make his presentation on America’s
Christian heritage.
My interest in Barton comes from my having critiqued his,
and other works on the Christian America thesis, so I was definitely anxious to
hear him. I knew the church would be packed out, so I made sure I got there
early. Of course, no self-respecting Baptist ever sits on the front row no
matter how crammed the place is, so the best seats in the house smoothly
beckoned me.
Right at 7 p.m. the MC
representing the local Baptist association hosting the event stood up to the
pulpit and led us in the recitation of the pledge to the US flag. (Don’t get me
started on pledging the flag in church). Then he gave the introduction of
Barton, “America’s Historian” according to “a major media news outlet” and “one
of Time’s 25 Most Influential
Evangelicals.” Barton ascended the dais, and immediately he was off.
Say what you want about Barton,
he is a walking encyclopedia. He can rattle off names, places, dates, and block
quotes with the best of them. He also had in his repertoire a host of obscure
anecdotes that delighted his audience. He was certainly an engaging
speaker. I could not help but hang on to every word. He was both witty and deadly earnest. He had the 300 or so people present in the palm of
his hand throughout the two hour lecture. As a
teacher and a preacher, I must say he has a gift that I lack.
But being there was less like
listening to a historian present on some topic on the early republic and more
like being at a magic show. Barton is really more like a Christian illusionist
than a historical thinker and teacher. When you go to a magic show, you see the
illusionist manipulate the props in order to dazzle you with effects that at
face value, look impossible but are undeniable. Barton is like that. His props
were a collection of raw historical data that he artfully and eloquently
presented to the audience. Then, just like an illusionist does, he manipulated
that data, compelling the audience to intuitively come to the conclusion that America
was and is specially chosen by God to be a Christian nation.
Barton’s use of the raw data was ironically,
but predictably, shoddy. He got a lot right. But there were several annoying,
bugaboo errors throughout his presentation. Not one of them was fatal to his
credibility, but taken together, they undermined him considerably. Black preacher
Rev. Richard Allen did not, in fact, serve as the lone pastor of a 2000 member
white church in Philadelphia. Woodrow Wilson was not the first writer of
history to present American society as divided along racial lines based on
fear, hate, and social Darwinism. The first Bible printed in America was not
produced by the US Congress. The United States had not consistently stood up
for the religiously oppressed of the world until fifty or so years ago.
Frederick Douglass was not a promoter of American exceptionalism. The
Constitution does not find its source in Scripture. The Second Great Awakening
was not an eighty year period of pure Christian awakening resulting in a
general state of godliness. America has never, before or after Abington v Schempp (1963), been a
paragon of biblical righteousness. But these kinds of errors are common in
Barton’s writings, and are to be expected.
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.
And he implies that anyone who
might arrive at a different conclusion than his falls into one of two
categories—either she is one of those who believe that “all the founders were
deists” or she is of the group that thinks that “the founders were enemies of
Christ.”
Barton has a smugness about him
that is strange and off-putting in a church setting. In Barton’s world, there
are three types of people: first, there are those who think they know the
founders better than they knew themselves. These are the scholars, the PhDs who
reject Barton’s thesis. He is sarcastically disdainful of them. Second are
those plain people who, by Barton’s lights, have not a clue about the source of
our founding ideas. And he pities these. But for Barton, the common factor that
joins these groups together is that, “they just don’t know their history” or
“their Bibles.”
Then, there’s Barton. He knows
everything. And he just comes to the simple conclusion, from the founders’ own
words, that America is a chosen nation of God in Christ.
But Barton is the one who doesn’t
know his history, or his Bible. If he were a student presenter in one of my
classes, I would dock him severely based on his historical and theological errors
alone. He said that “revival cannot happen in a climate hostile to God” but he
must not know that the salient periods of Christian growth have always come
through persecution. He irrationally denies that his conclusion leads him where
he cannot go—to the establishment of Christianity in America. He doesn’t seem
to appreciate the difference between special grace and common grace—special
grace being limited to things pertaining to salvation, and common grace being
bestowed on the “just and the unjust alike.” This leads him to dangerously
conflate America with salvation by grace through faith in Christ.
Sure, he has a host of facts from
the Bible and from the past at his fingertips. He can sure dazzle an audience
with his effortless use of them. But he forces those facts, errors and all,
into what becomes a bulging, bulky, gawdy package labeled, “Christian America.”
And the audience loved it.

.jpg)

1 comment:
"He got a lot right."
This is the part that's always missing and why I have felt that those who scorch his earth have hasd an agenda beyond mere historical factoid-checking.
[Until the recent "Jefferson Lies," which admittedly is a bridge way too far.]
But there were several annoying, bugaboo errors throughout his presentation. Not one of them was fatal to his credibility, but taken together, they undermined him considerably.
Well, that's a yes and no. Dr. Wilsey concedes here that these factoids are not earth-shaking, and indeed Barton's dogged critics have ignored what he gets right, and pumped up the factoids he gets wrong into scorched earth.
These are the scholars, the PhDs who reject Barton’s thesis.
Barton's thesis is pretty much Daniel Dreisbach's---an estimable scholar with a law degree from UVa and a DPhil from Oxford, and who's a prof @ American university.
And this is the problem---Barton's [admitted] problem with factoids does not equate to his thesis of a deeply Christian America being wrong. Dreisbach doesn't make those factoid mistakes. Anyone who wants to confront the thesis honestly needs to go through Dreisbach. Barton is easy pickins.
Post a Comment