To whom is Jon Rowe writing?
Jim Babka on Dec 3rd 2008
In the past, we’ve had a commenter here at Positive Liberty who was critical of Jon Rowe’s properly exclusionary use of “orthodox Christianity.” Then a new blog called American Creation was created for debating all things relating to the Christian Nation thesis. This commenter became a contributor there.
Within the last week or so, that gentleman, Kristo Miettinen (whom I don’t know), had this particularly barbed charge he threw Mr. Rowe’s direction:
First of all, you do realize, don’t you, that for the historical question that we are discussing, it is not the opinion of “orthodox Christian theologians” that matters, but rather the standard appropriate for historians of Christianity….You aspire to be a historian (or at least to write a book on history), so it’s time to stop playing silly games with sectarian definitions and start thinking like a historian. Except that as soon as you do, your position collapses. In order to defend the position you are wedded to, you have to cling to an unhistorical definition of “Christianity”, and furthermore you have to pretend, against contrary evidence, that your opponents (like Barton) cling to that same unhistorical definition, when in fact they don’t (for historical purposes).
Mr. Miettinen is well-educated and sharp. I’m thrilled that we have someone with intellect and proper educationdefending Barton. I tried to get Barton on my now defunct radio show to defend his position, and his organization, Wallbuilders, has a standing policy of refusing challenging venues. Mr. Barton doesn’t debate.
It’s not hard for Jon, myself, and most of the people who read this blog to understand why Barton doesn’t debate. He’d lose in the minds of the audience that matters to him most. But if I still had my radio show, I’d give Mr. Miettinen an opportunity to come on and have a friendly debate with Mr. Rowe. It wouldn’t have the same impact as a Barton appearance, which would reverberate round the web, but it’d still be interesting and valuable.
Jon Rowe is correct to attempt to define orthodoxy, because as David Barton uses it, he (Barton) is engaging in sleight of mouth. And I suspect he knows he’s doing it.
One of Barton’s core arguments is that 52 of the 55 signers of the Declaration of Independence were orthodox in their Christian faith. When Barton is speaking to a television audience, he might even go a bit further and say, “evangelical,” instead of “orthodox.” Barton may, as Miettinen has spelled out, have a method to justify his position, but Barton’s audience is clearly getting a very different message.
And why does he make this argument of high level of orthodoxy, and even occasionally substitute the word, “evangelical?”
Well, the answer is simple. It’s what his audience wants to hear. And here’s the part Mr. Miettinen misses when he says that Rowe is, and Barton is NOT clinging to the unhistorical definition of Christianity: Barton is not a historian.
Rather, Barton is a politician. He’s been a high-ranking member of the Texas GOP and a paid consultant to the Republican National Committee, including a stint as a GOTV spokesman for the 2004 Bush campaign. He continues to lead groups of pastors into the fold with special DC tours. Barton is an advocate, not a scholar.
I suspect Mr. Rowe’s clarification of the Founder’s orthodoxy, or lack thereof — AS MODERN LAY-FOLK UNDERSTAND IT — is quite a threat to Mr. Barton’s story, or at least with his audience. Maybe Rowe’s use of the term orthodox Christian doesn’t follow some hifalutin rule of history departments, but it sure breaks down the opposition. What if Barton’s audiences knew that several of the signers were unitarians? You see, creeds aside, there are few more important notions to Christian Right Evangelicals than the deity of Christ. Jesus was God. Unitarians, Socinians (Jefferson’s likely position), and Arians (e.g., Jehovah’s Witnesses) are all heretics from an Evangelical perspective — even if they call themselves Christian.
It is doubtful that modern Christian Right Evangelicals would support Jefferson or Adams for elected office today, were their true opinions on the public record. Even David Barton knows that, which is why he uses tortured logic to re-present them in a more “helpful” image. Jon Rowe knows of their heresy as well, and he’s exposing it, effectively driving a wedge into the Barton myth. Good for Jon.
Now, one can choose to write books on a subject, even about such hallowed things as history, without being an accredited scholar (Barton did it). Sometimes, it’s better to break the rules.
Jon Rowe is not a professionally trained, accredited member of the club of historians. He’s a layman with a serious avocation for this aspect of history. His primary writing has been on blogs, not in academic journals. And his interest in the question of the role Christianity played in the founding, appears to be related to its modern, political application.
I am an Evangelical. I think we need about 100 Jon Rowe’s, though it would be even better if they too were Evangelicals — people from in the camp to right it. Fortunately, much of what Jon is doing is popularizing the work of Gregg Frazer, who is an Evangelical. We need more Rowe’s because Barton, in a phrase Evangelicals will have special appreciation for, “tickles the ears of his audience” — that is, he tells them what they want to hear; not what’s true. If he did tell the truth, it would be too nuanced to be of remunerative value to him, or political value to his partisan patrons.
If this was a Christian (founded) Nation, then for Mr. Barton, it means vote Republican. For his listeners, most of whom will agree to give their vote to the GOP after hearing his presentation, it means something more…
This was our country. It was stolen. We need to take it back.
This is a powerful motivator to the culture wars. Jon can elaborate on his personal motivations vis a vis the culture war (it wouldn’t surprise me if the relevance of the Christian Nation theory to the culture war was, in part or even primarily, what attracted him to this line of study). But this misunderstanding of our national history has done something that deeply disturbs This Evangelical, for it has politicized the mission of the Church. Modern evangelicals are not known for graciousness and good works, so much as they’re known for being pro-war, moral nanny, Republicans.
There is no command or example in the New Testament to either win a culture war or take a nation back (in fact, I could cite Scripture that seems to contradict such a notion). This was not the mission of Jesus, the Apostles, or the early Church. It is the joining of Church and State that ruined the Church, requiring a very tardy Reformation that still is not yet complete. Today’s church-going folks still don’t understand the difference between evil and sin, because they don’t understand the one-to-one connection between power-seeking and evil. This failure leads to many errors.
Evil is harm to your fellow man — a failure to follow the second Great Commandment to, “love your neighbor as you love yourself.” Coercion is necessarily a practice that violates this rule. Government power, used to make the culture more moral, is simply brow-beating backed by force — beyond the scope of what a government should be doing.
Sin is anything that blinds you to God. The Bible is quite concerned with this matter of sin, and presents spiritual renewal by way of a relationship with the risen Jesus. That is the “Good News.”
While there may be some overlap between sin and evil, it’s no accident that today’s conservative Christians, in an anti-theological War on Sin, are using evil means to justify their good ends. The state cannot save people from sin. The state is bad news for humanity. Barton is the pied piper of this War on Sin movement. He teaches the song of evil to ill-informed children who want to rid the world of sin. Even if he tries to sound scholarly, the shoddy lyrics of his tune go something like . . .
America was a Christian land,
It was stolen by anti-God people.
We need to take it in hand.
Vote Republicans into power.
So Jon, don’t wait for accreditation from History Headquarters. Write a book that tells the truth, and criticizes David Barton for his misuse of history to achieve dubious political ends. Let’s put an end to the culture wars, and move to a voluntary society. The political parties have been the primary beneficiary of the culture wars. Let them shrivel and die too.
Hardball delenda est.
Filed in The Belfry, The Bookshelf
Many thanks Jim. I’m writing a post now to alert my other blogs of your defense of me.
Sure, Jon. But I’m curious how you would respond to the specific parts of it.
Jim,
As a born-and-bred evangelical become agnostic, I am in full agreement with your claim that becoming involved in politics has been bad for the church. It’s a point I’ve been making for years, to little avail. Clearly Jesus rejected temporal power, and the lust for temporal power has been–as it inevitably must be, and historically always has been–a great corrupter. As American Christianity becomes ever less spiritual and more power-hungry, it becomes uglier and uglier, and a greater threat not only to liberty but to salvation of souls as well.
A very interesting post, Jim. Thanks.
The rejection of temporal power unfortunately has never been a particularly popular Christian option, although groups like the Moravian Brethren and Anabaptists have certainly held it. The alliance of this option with the pluralistic philosophy of governance has allowed it to really come into its own and flourish for the first time in history. It is largely because I agree with you that the rejection of power should rightfully be at the core of the Christian gospel that I have argued on my blog and will continue to argue that pluralism is the most faithful way for a Christian to “integrate faith and politics,” as they say.
Best,
-Chris
Chris, read your blog post, and I like it.
Thanks for that, Chris. I was raised in the Church of the Brethren, and was about to try to post something about this; but you said it better than I could, with a broader focus than my experience with one small denomination could give …
Thanks guys. Scott, that’s pretty neat that you were raised Brethren. I went to an Anabaptist university as an undergraduate, and loved their peacemaking emphasis. But I was raised Pentecostal, so I’m also drawn to pietist spirituality. The Moravians, at least historically, combined both of those things. I wasn’t aware there were many Moravians still around.
My radio show begins tomorrow night. Perhaps I could bring Jon and Kristo Miettinen on my show at some point. Would be a fun discussion.
Ed,
The only problem is I teach on Tuesday and Thursday nights from 5:00-8:30. However, I AM free on Thursdays (on Winter break) as of next week (Thurs. the 11th).
Jim,
Honestly, I don’t mean this as a copout. But I agree with every word you said in this article.
I am reading a collection of book reviews by Gordon S. Wood collated in a book titled, “The Purpose of the Past”; this collection provides an overview of the state of historiography from Mr. Wood’s perspective. Wood is one our best historians regarding America’s founding; this collection of Wood’s reviews all focus on America’s founding as published by a variety of authors.
At the same time I’ve been reading Wood’s essays I was astonished to find a Mr. Miettinen using David Barton as if he were a legitimate historian and claiming that Jon’s approach to history was flawed. Astonished because Mr. Miettinen seems to have some debate skills, but practicing those skills in a field where I perceive him to be extremely weak on understanding both the content and context of our history at any significant volume. I normally find that good debaters are humble about debating in areas where they are mundanely ignorant. Most Barton defenders are not good debaters and they certainly know almost nothing about our founding history.
Here is Gordon Wood on page 271 of the aforementioned book that I think was appropriate regarding recent posts by Miettinen at AmericanCreation regarding both Jon and Barton:
While Jon may not yet have the formal experiences that note one as a historian; as a long-time ardent student of America’s founding history, it is my opinion that Jon absolutely possesses the qualities and work product as described by Wood above which is why I read all his blog posts in this forum.
My immediate reaction to Mr. Miettinen’s posts was that he needs to quit looking to buttress his arguments with quotes he finds from Barton and instead actually study America’s founding history for several years before he takes up debating our history. I would recommend he question Jon rather than waste Jon’s time in having him go down rabbit holes. Mr. Miettinen is in no way ready to inform me about our heritage while I find Jon has the work ethic and integrity to be an extremely valuable resource for readers and students such as myself.
*Wood was reviewing John Patrick Diggin’s 2000 book, “On Hallowed Ground: Abraham Lincoln and the Foundations of American History” for the Oct. 30, 20000 edition of “The New Republic”. Wood percieved Diggins to be a cultural critic using history as a tool to promote his conservative political beliefs. As an equal opportunity abuser of ideologues, Wood happens to nail even more “historians” on the left in this collection than those on the right.
Interesting uses of “coercion,” “evil,” and “pluralism” here. As I’m bilingual, I understand them in the context of this blog, but not outside it.
>>“To study history,”, he [Diggins] says, “is to study events in order to understand how similar conditions lead to similar effects.” But in reality, historians seek to study past events not to make transhistorical generalizations about human behavior but to understand those events as they actually were, in all their peculiar contexts and circumstances.
This is just a post-modern historical methodology polemicizing against modern ones. I happen to think that there is a legitimate place for both modern and post-modern methodologies, and there are many legitimate historians who agree with me. Don’t buy into the polemic just because somebody managed to get it published.
Chris Smith - I don’t know you so I if were to give you the benefit of the doubt I’d suggest you re-review the quote, it’s Wood talking about Diggins; Wood is most certainly not a post-modernist as you refer to him in your post and is in fact one of its most vocal critics. I’m guessing that maybe you thought I was quoting Diggins, who does employ a number of post-modernist techniques which Wood rightly criticizes.
In fact the book I referenced has Wood not such much attacking post-modernism, but attacking the idea it should either overwhelm all historian’s energies or completely supplant history as narrative or history “from above”. Wood also trashes post-modernist authors for mischaracterizing or even inaccurately describing historical events as he does in this quote.
Also, that “somebody” [Wood] who “managed to get it [book] published” is the one of the most sought after historians of my generation.
You don’t know me so I’m not sure why you would insinuate that I would accept Wood’s premise merely “because somebody managed to get it published.” That would suggest I have no ability to critique my reference and also suggests you need to get up to speed on your historians. Wood is in high demand and has been for decades; in fact he’s currently writing a volume in the Oxford History of the United States dealing with the period of the early Republic, 1789-1815, to be titled, “Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815.”
I too have no problem with some post-modernist historians and never claimed to condemn that approach en masse. In fact, I believe some post-modernists do serve a role and also make it easier for those with better writing talents to resource material to write better narratives. However, I do think the serious student needs to have a wide, deep, understanding of a certain historical period prior to attempting to evaluate many post-modernist claims given their propensity to revise history to support their personal biases.
The debates we see Rowe have at American Creation are a perfect example of ideologues looking to revise history without even first understanding it in order to support their current political positions. I have observed three people debating Rowe at American Creation that clearly do not have a viable understanding of our founding and therefore are prone to quotemining, or inaccurately categorizing people, ideas, and movements and therefore extrapolating positions well beyond or just plain different than what our primary sources allow.
Jim,
What an incredible rant. As I’ve said of Jon, so I’ll say of you: I’m sure you’re capable of better than this.
So, for instance, when you say “as David Barton uses it, he (Barton) is engaging in sleight of mouth”, can you cite Barton? This is, as I’m sure you know by now, one of my principal complaints against Jon: he says nasty things about Barton but refuses to back them up with citations of where Barton actually says what Jon says he says. Can you do better?
For instance, you repeat Jon’s malarkey that “One of Barton’s core arguments is that 52 of the 55 signers of the Declaration of Independence were orthodox in their Christian faith”. I have quoted Barton to Jon, the point being that Barton’s claim was that perhaps as many as 52 of the 55 signers were orthodox members of Christian denominations - in which count Barton conspicuously inludes one “Benjamin Franklin (Deist)”. This is not nearly the same thing as your claim. Show me where Barton says what you say he says, if you can. Otherwise, shame on you (and Jon).
You say “Barton is a politician”. If true, so what? I’m an engineer, and a soldier. For all I can say in public, I might be a baby killer for Bush. Does that invalidate anything I say? Of course not. So why the ad hominem against Barton? Perhaps because you have nothing better to say against him?
Then you say silly things like “What if Barton’s audiences knew that several of the signers were unitarians?” I’m right here, and I have no problem with Unitarians (when is the last time you had a theological discussion with a Unitarian? It was not too long ago for me, over some Finger Lakes red wine…) Your point is, apparently, “there are few more important notions to Christian Right Evangelicals than the deity of Christ”. Sure. So what? I’d happily agree to a consensus form of government with my Unitarian bretheren. You I’m not so sure about…
To your claim “Maybe Rowe’s use of the term orthodox Christian doesn’t follow some hifalutin rule of history departments, but it sure breaks down the opposition”, my reply, already made, ignored by you (though I presume you have read it, as you are reacting to me) is that Rowe is clinging to a tight definition of orthodoxy and Christianity in order to set up the most convenient target for himself. If he would adopt the definition of “Christianity” that I propose, or any of the other similar ones, he would have to admit that America was founded as a Christian nation (albeit unorthodox), and this is anathema to him. Torn between agreeing with me on what Christianity is and admitting that America is a Christian nation (albeit not of the sort that the most dim-witted readers of Barton might suppose), and goring Barton’s ox (even though it’s not actually Barton’s ox but only Rowe’s hallucination thereof), Rowe consistently chooses the latter. He is not a seeker of truth but a seeker of conflict, and he will not waver in his aim upon his chosen target.
Are you on drugs when you suggest that “It is doubtful that modern Christian Right Evangelicals would support Jefferson or Adams for elected office today”? Really. Depending on your definition of “evangelical”, you’re probably talking about me. Compared to Bush, McCain, Reagan, or anything that the Republicans have offered recently (never mind the Democrats), these founders would be a breath of fresh Christian air today. After all, how do you think Romney got to be such a conservative favorite? As you say, “If this was a Christian (founded) Nation, then for Mr. Barton, it means vote Republican.” I disagree with the validity of the inference, but I endorse the conclusion. I long for the day when the conclusion would be “then vote Democrat or Republican”, but we’re not yet there today.
You descend to your natural depth when you say “Modern evangelicals are not known for graciousness and good works, so much as they’re known for being pro-war, moral nanny, Republicans.” Nonsense like this tells us balanced folk to ignore everything you say. You reinforce this point when you follow up “There is no command or example in the New Testament to either win a culture war or take a nation back…” After all, there is also no passage in scripture that tells us to drop trou, grab our ankles, and accept change we can believe in. We can debate turning the other cheek if you want to go there, I don’t believe that it gets you to where you want to go. Despite your claim to the contrary (”Today’s church-going folks still don’t understand the difference between evil and sin”), we curchgoing folk are pretty well tuned in.
You, on the other hand, are obviously not. You reveal this when you absurdly claim “Evil is harm to your fellow man”. This is post-Christian humanist claptrap, as though man were the measure of all things. Evil is rebellion against God, not harm to man, and can be manifest in harm to lower orders of creation over which we have dominion (like the environment) as much as in harm to humans. It can also be absent in harm to man, e.g. the hypothetical assasination of Hitler.
You rail against “Government power, used to make the culture more moral, is simply brow-beating backed by force”, as though somebody were advocating that. Citation, please? Or else apology? Do you mean Barton here? I assume so, but if you do, you’re wrong. Read his final chapter, “the solution”, in MoS.
I could go on all night, your distortions are so dense. But it is late, I am returning from a trip and getting reintegrated into home, and my guess is I’d rather engage your replies to what I have already said than engage the rest of your post.
-Kristo.
I have quoted Barton to Jon, the point being that Barton’s claim was that perhaps as many as 52 of the 55 signers were orthodox members of Christian denominations - in which count Barton conspicuously inludes one “Benjamin Franklin (Deist)”.
Kristo,
I think you are mistaken. Ben Franklin indeed was formally associated with various orthodox churches but he qualifies as one of Barton’s 3 Deists.
Jon,
It’s in chapter 2 of MoS. Individual believers are orthodox, or not, by the standards of their denominations. Denominations, in turn, are Christian, or not, by general recognition in the community of denominations. But I don’t recall Barton labeling any denominations as orthodox, or not (I can check again at home tonight).
Kristo,
Yes check because I’ve been long aware of Barton’s citing ME Bradford’s stat on the 50 to 52 out of 55 figure. And I and countless other references to it understand it as arguing that the 50-52 were orthodox Trinitarian Christians (because whatever confessions the established churches used always had THAT in common). And that Franklin was one of the 3-5 “Deists.”
Mr. Miettinen, I watched Mr. Barton say it on the Trinity Broadcasting Network in the Fall of 2004 — the run-up to the Bush-Kerry election, where he was a paid spokesman for the Republican National Committee. He also made fraudulent claims about the number of Evangelicals who didn’t vote in 2000 during that interview.
Ad hominem is a logical error. But I guess the real question is, is it wrong to engage in it or not? Because at no point do I resort to it. But you do, frequently. And in your accusal of same, you purposely miscast (lie about) my very legitimate qui bono argument.
1) There was more to my argument then one quote, to which I’ve just provided you a source (this is blog, not a graduate thesis).
2) There’s an obvious (apparently to everyone but you) difference between Barton’s motivation and yours. Do they pay engineers to go around and tell other engineers that this was a Christian Nation for some reason other than getting out the vote?
3) You manage to contradict yourself. Yes, Barton is a “politician” you acknowledge, but then you say, “So what?” Then, in the same paragraph, you accuse me of “ad hominem,” and “having nothing nice to say about him?” Which is the label politician; a so what, an ad hominem, or a mean thing to say?
As for reading the “final chapter” of Barton’s book, how sophomoric. I don’t have to spend years playing in garbage in order to realize it smells. Mr. Barton has been on television dozens of times. I grew up in a home with a parent that valued his history enough to buy a good deal of it, and share it with friend. In other words, I’ve been watching and reading Barton since you were in short pants.
No, I’m not on drugs, prescribed or otherwise. I’ve been known to take a vitamin or two. Why is this not irrelevant, ad hominem?
I don’t know how you would know my “natural depth” having never met me or engaged me before. Again, why is this not ad hominem?
Nor do I believe that the Scriptures commanded us to vote for Obama — especially in the colorful (and where I a fundamentalist, the sacrilegious) way you described it. Since you like to give reading assignments, please read my archives at this blog, and my actual position (as opposed to your dramatic assumption) will be clearer to you.
And I have no clue what “post-Christian, humanist claptrap is” — apparently it’s someone who disagrees with you. I plan to write specifically about the topic of the difference between sin and evil in the future. Not that you’ll accept this, but some of the Scriptures on which I base my understanding include I Timothy 6:9-11, Romans 14:23 and I Corinthians 8. But your definition of evil matches the general Christian Right definition, and it is precisely the reason the Gospel has been put to such shame. And for that, I believe the apology that’s in order isn’t mine.
Overall, I found the tone of your reply both insulting and nasty. That really wasn’t necessary. As for “silliness,” I don’t have all day either. I could sit here all day responding. Much of what you write is circular, when it’s not insulting.
But I did not attack you personally. I complimented you in my piece as an intellectual. I engaged your position. In light of your reply, my position seems confirmed and my argument strong, especially now that I’ve sourced the troubling quote.
You are rude sir. An apology is in order. But if you can’t do the Christian thing here, I hope at least you will be a gentleman in the future on this blog, if for no other reason than your selfish motivation to be persuasive with others who read what transpires here.