David Barton, Thomas Jefferson, Young Evangelicals, and Me

   

As some of you know, this blog is usually devoted to my lackluster attempts to do political philosophy. However, we're taking a break from our normal programming today to take a look at this blog post on Young Evangelicals Speak. I'm not entirely satisfied that David Barton (and history) are quite being given their fair shake, and wanted to add my .02 cents to the arena of public discussion and set a few things straight.

Before I start, however, a moment of personal disclosure is warranted. I worked for Wallbuilders and did some of the research for this book, so I cannot claim to be disinterested. However, they're not paying me to write this and I don't consider it my duty to defend Mr. Barton from all sides--I don't necessarily see eye to eye with him on everything myself. In this case, however, given my personal knowledge of and involvement with the issue at hand, I feel the need to say something. (Besides, it is summer, I have nothing better to do, right?) As a last note, this is not meant to be an attack on the good folks at Young Evangelicals Speak. I certainly don't mind their questions/comments/critiques, and I don't think they mind mine.
So, here goes. I'm going to address the post in the order it was written, quoting the relevant portions in italics, with my comments below. In case you missed the link above, the blog post is here.

One thing I hope our readers know is that although conservative, I do my best to remain intellectually honest and not give free passes to my political allies. If anything, I’m actually stricter towards those I agree with. I greatly dislike finding out I was mislead.

Admirable sentiments, in my opinion. The author of the post goes on to mention that he has not read the book, and to quote from the book description, which describes Jefferson as a "man who reveres Jesus."


"A man who revered Jesus.” How does that square with Jefferson’s famous bible? Barton explains on his website: “What Jefferson did was to take the ‘red letter’ portions of the New Testament and publish these teachings in order to introduce the Indians to Christian morality.”
Christian morality maybe, but certainly not Christianity. Even if the part about evangelizing the Indians is true (and it’s historically dubious), Jefferson’s bible is certainly not merely a simplified edition. In a letter to Adams, Jefferson described it as a fixing of the historical record:


We must reduce our volume to the simple Evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the amphiboligisms into which they have been led, by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his and which is as easily distinguished as diamonds in a dung-hill. The result is an octavo of forty-six pages.
You can read the result for yourself. As it shows, the "amphiboligisms" "misconceptions" “dicta” and "dung-hill" cut out by Jefferson include all the miracles as well as the resurrection, reducing the gospels to a mere "code of morals." If Barton thinks that’s orthodox Christianity, he fails not only as a historian, but also as a theologian (ironically, his background is theology, not history, and we already knew he had difficulty distinguishing between Christianity and Mormonism.)"


Jefferson (and Barton is quick to point this out) actually had two different edited Bibles, one specifically titled "for the Use of the Indians" (apparently some historians think--and perhaps they are right--that this is a disguised poke at the Federalists.) However, Barton is not trying to argue that Jefferson's theology is orthodox. He's attempting to combat "the notion that Jefferson so disliked Christianity and the Scriptures that he made is own Bible." (pg. 67, The Jefferson Lies.) Jefferson, believe it or not, actually was a big fan of both Jesus and Christianity. To be more precise, his Jesus and his Christianity. Jefferson believed that Christianity and Jesus' motives had been corrupted by his biographers (I disagree with him there) and the church (can't really disagree with him here.) Probably Jefferson's idea of "rescuing" Jesus's works went into his later edited Bible, which was The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth. Incidentally, both versions of the book contained references to miracles and the supernatural (pg. 80, The Jefferson Lies.) As Barton points out, Jefferson called Jesus' "system of morality...the most benevolent and sublime probably that has been ever taught..." Barton is trying to argue that Jefferson was not a Jesus-basher (he wasn't), not that he was theologically orthodox (he wasn't).


A review in the Wall Street Journal nails this point exactly:


Jefferson was "pro-Christian and pro-Jesus," [Barton] says, although he concedes that the president did have a few qualms about "specific Christian doctrines." The doctrines Jefferson rejected—the divinity of Christ, the Resurrection, the Trinity—are what place him in the camp of the deists and Unitarians in the first place. It was Jefferson's difficulty with these doctrines that persuaded his close friends Benjamin Rush and Joseph Priestley that Jefferson's skepticism went beyond anything even these latitudinarian believers could endorse.
I don’t dispute that Jefferson was a very influential founder, or that he made immense contributions to the nation (although he was also a mass of contradictions). But to claim him as a devout evangelical Christian is to make Christianity subservient to political ideology. It is no different than the often complained about practice of liberals claiming Leonardo da Vinci, William Shakespeare, or Abraham Lincoln was homosexual. With claims such as these Barton has crossed a line that no Christian or historian should cross. He has redefined orthodox Christianity to exclude the divinity of Christ, and he has rewritten history to serve his political ends. Barton has done to Jefferson what Jefferson did to Christ - rewrote history to exclude the inconvenient parts and then justified it by claiming to “fix” the record.

Jefferson was, indeed, pro-Unitarian. But Barton acknowledges this, and does not attempt to paint Jefferson as an evangelical Christian. Indeed, Barton states that "many of the declarations made by Jefferson...definitely do not comport with an orthodox understanding of what it means to be a Christian." (pg. 189, The Jefferson Lies.) Barton argues that Jefferson's personal religious history is checkered, and that at some times he made completely orthodox statements (and claimed to be a Christian) while at others he completely rejected core tenants of the Christian faith. Barton closes his section on Jefferson's Christianity by stating his personal belief that "probably no human today can know for sure whether or not Jefferson finished his life as a Christian in good standing with God through Jesus Christ." (pg. 190, The Jefferson Lies.) I, for one, hope he did. Barton does argue--convincingly--that Jefferson at times held orthodox beliefs, and he argues with certainty that Jefferson was not an atheist or deist (in the "Divine clockmaker" sense of the word "deist.") But regardless of whether or not Jefferson ended his life as a Christian, claiming Barton is attempting to paint Jefferson as a through-and-through evangelical Christian is simply not true.