Evangelical version of American History - Why?

[Somerville]

Another 'history' book has been published by an evangelical writer/radio host, Eric Metaxas, purporting to tell us that Christianity played far more of a role in the foundation of this nation that those secular, academics are willing to admit.

Mr Metaxas, though he failed to mention the influence of David Barton in his book, If You Can Keep It: The Forgotten Promise of American Liberty, has since publication admitted that his work owes a great deal to Mr Barton's various works of 'history'.

BUT, just as with Barton's books, Metaxas' volume is little more than yet another attempt to create a past which never was.

There are historians and academics who are evangelical Christians who are just a tad upset with Metaxas and his false history.

Links to a few reviews by such people
Warren Throckmorton, Professor of Psychology at Grove City College and Fellow for Psychology and Public Policy at the Center for Vision and Values which is a part of Grove City College.

Most recent project is Getting Jefferson Right: Fact Checking Claims about Our Third President, which is a book with GCC colleague Michael Coulter. In the book, we fact-check claims often made by Christian Nationalists about Thomas Jefferson. The book was triggered by the publication of David Barton’s The Jefferson Lies, a book which brings most of those claims together.

To support his vision of America, Metaxas selectively refers to events in American history. When one is attempting to teach lessons from history, one should make sure the facts are right. Throughout the book, Metaxas is careless with facts and as a consequence misleads his readers and calls his conclusions into question.

Here are three basic errors. Metaxas calls John Adams a “committed and theologically orthodox Christian,” says Thomas Jefferson believed in Yahweh as his God, and implies that the Constitutional Convention acted favorably on Ben Franklin’s call to daily prayers. None of these claims are true. Adams did not believe in orthodox teachings including the Virgin Birth and deity of Christ, Jefferson believed Yahweh was vindictive and cruel, and the Constitutional Convention did not vote on Ben Franklin’s motion to have daily prayers. In fact, according to Franklin, the Convention, save three or four delegates, did not think prayers were necessary.

Read more: Eric Metaxas’ If You Can Keep It: A Critical Review | The Daily Caller

Search Results metaxas

John Fea, (Ph.D, Stony Brook University, 1999) is Professor of American History and Chair of the History Department at Messiah College in Grantham, Pennsylvania, where he has taught since 2002.

Metaxas claims that he is called by God to write such flawed history. He thus sees the criticism of his work as a “point of pride.” As an evangelical Christian who also believes he has a calling, I find this sort of “blessed are the persecuted” mentality to be offensive.

Read more: https://thewayofimprovement.com/category/review-series-on-metaxas-if-you-can-keep-it/

continued in next post

 

[Verthaine]

Another 'history' book has been published by an evangelical writer/radio host, Eric Metaxas, purporting to tell us that Christianity played far more of a role in the foundation of this nation that those secular, academics are willing to admit.

Mr Metaxas, though he failed to mention the influence of David Barton in his book, If You Can Keep It: The Forgotten Promise of American Liberty, has since publication admitted that his work owes a great deal to Mr Barton's various works of 'history'.

BUT, just as with Barton's books, Metaxas' volume is little more than yet another attempt to create a past which never was.

There are historians and academics who are evangelical Christians who are just a tad upset with Metaxas and his false history.

Links to a few reviews by such people
Warren Throckmorton, Professor of Psychology at Grove City College and Fellow for Psychology and Public Policy at the Center for Vision and Values which is a part of Grove City College.

Most recent project is Getting Jefferson Right: Fact Checking Claims about Our Third President, which is a book with GCC colleague Michael Coulter. In the book, we fact-check claims often made by Christian Nationalists about Thomas Jefferson. The book was triggered by the publication of David Barton’s The Jefferson Lies, a book which brings most of those claims together.

Search Results metaxas

John Fea, (Ph.D, Stony Brook University, 1999) is Professor of American History and Chair of the History Department at Messiah College in Grantham, Pennsylvania, where he has taught since 2002.


continued in next post

Dominionists never did have a problem in rewriting history in their quest to rule over everyone.

 

[Somerville]

Robert Tracy McKenzie, professor and chair of the Department of History at Wheaton College.

Metaxas believes unabashedly in American exceptionalism, although he is quick to disavow all forms of jingoism or triumphant nationalism. The United States is exceptional, he contends, because we have a unique mission—a divinely ordained, unique mission—to be a blessing to the other nations of the world.

Although I’m sure he means well, the theological implications of this belief are enormous and appalling. One of my favorite historians of the American Civil War, Steven Woodworth, calls this blurring of the roles of the church and the nation “patriotic heresy.”

Read more: https://faithandamericanhistory.wordpress.com/2016/07/04/america-as-a-city-on-a-hill/

Gregg L. Frazer is professor of history and political studies at The Master’s College in Santa Clarita, California. He’s the author of The Religious Beliefs of America's Founders: Reason, Revelation, and Revolution (University Press of Kansas). Gregg is a deacon at Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California.

One of the more egregious historical errors is the claim that the “very first settlers on American shores” came “precisely” to gain religious freedom, along with the equally false claim that “in America the idea of religious freedom was paramount,” and that there was “a complete tolerance of all denominations and religions” from the beginning (34–35).

The first settlers to the American shores (that would become the United States) settled at Jamestown in 1607 and came seeking profits, not prophets. Like many on the Christian Right, Metaxas skips Jamestown altogether. He says: “Since the Pilgrims came to our shores in 1620, religious freedom and religious tolerance have been the single most important principle of American life” (70). The Pilgrims and Puritans did come seeking religious freedom, but only for themselves. They didn’t value or allow religious freedom for others.

Read more: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/book-reviews-if-you-can-keep-it

Why are liars such as Metaxas and David Barton so successful in spreading these false tales about America? Is it because they speak of their Christian faith in conjunction with their lies, that so many Americans fail to comprehend the prevarications?

 

[Tanngrisnir]

The taint of Barton and his utterly fraudulent work is indelible.

 

[Beaudreaux]

So, you don't like the guy or his version of history. Got it.

 

[Somerville]

So, you don't like the guy or his version of history. Got it.

The two men named as prevaricators don't write "history" - they create a fantasy world which never was but which far too many believe in.

Barton is perhaps most famous for his book about Thomas Jefferson which was withdrawn from publication by its publisher for the blatant lies contained therein.

Publisher Thomas Nelson has withdrawn 'The Jefferson Lies" after a lengthy review found the author, David Barton, had included "historical details that were not adequately supported," said Brian Hampton, a senior vice president and publisher for Thomas Nelson.

Hampton said the move was "extremely rare" and he could not recall a time in the publisher's history when it had recalled a book in this manner. "We’re disappointed for everyone concerned," Hampton said.

Read more: Barton's 'Jefferson Lies' book yanked – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

It ain't just the right which luvs its 'history' but they do seem to have more influence at the local level than the other guy mentioned in the following link.

Lies the Debunkers Told Me: How Bad History Books Win Us Over

Politicians quote them. Movie stars revere them. But these authors are so busy spinning good yarns that they don't have time to research the facts.

Earlier this month (July 2012), George Mason University's History News Network asked readers to vote for the least credible history book in print. The top pick was David Barton's right-wing reimagining of our third president, Jefferson's Lies: Exposing the Myths You've Always Believed about Thomas Jefferson. But just nine votes behind was the late Howard Zinn's left-wing epic, A People's History of the United States. Bad history, it turns out, transcends political divides.

If these books seem an unlikely pair, they also have a good deal in common. Both flatter their readers by promising to let them in on hidden truths of which most people, and most experts, are unaware. Both offer stark, simplistic accounts (buttressed, in Barton's case, by a litany of historical errors). And both undermine the notion that the past can be rationally interrogated, debated, and revised by people from opposite sides of the ideological spectrum.

and an answer as to why I think knowledge of real history is vital to the structure of this nation

All of this is worth remedying because a well-functioning democracy requires at least a minimal threshold of public trust and a modest baseline of historical agreement. When we repeatedly fall prey to partisan debunking, and when the validity of basic facts -- and even the method of defining them -- is subject to constant ideological chicanery, there's very little room for substantive debate and conversation.

When political opponents cannot agree upon basic facts, when their visions of the past, present and future have little congruence, our nation is endangered.

 

[Beaudreaux]

...

It appears that no one of any standing gives the guy or his "work" any support. So, why be concerned? I could see being concerned if no one had been calling him out on his theories and bastardized version of history. Yet, they are. We get it. Since you've shown us that there are numerous people with prestige and impeccable standing calling him out denouncing his work, I'm not all that concerned.

So, with no disrespect to you intended then or now, I go back to my original thought in my original post - So, you don't like the guy or his version of history. Got it.

 

[LaylaWindu]

Who cares, idiots always try to lie about history to make themselves look better, people they like look better or something else they want viewed differently. I'm a christian myself but I'll never understand these lies. What's funny is that it doesn't matter. Even if this country was founded on Christianity (which is was not) the first amendment pretty much negates that. Another funny thing is, I never really hear the argument that we are a christian nation or we were founded on christianity unless its somebody trying ignore the rights of others or justify breaking the law.

 

[prometeus]

Who cares, idiots always try to lie about history to make themselves look better

The problem is not with the idiots who write such crap, but the morons who believe it and think it is gospel and unfortunately there are more than just a few.

 

[LaylaWindu]

The problem is not with the idiots who write such crap, but the morons who believe it and think it is gospel and unfortunately there are more than just a few.

Wish I could say I disagree but I don't. There are more loons out there than I would like.

 

[DarkWizard12]

Another 'history' book has been published by an evangelical writer/radio host, Eric Metaxas, purporting to tell us that Christianity played far more of a role in the foundation of this nation that those secular, academics are willing to admit.

Mr Metaxas, though he failed to mention the influence of David Barton in his book, If You Can Keep It: The Forgotten Promise of American Liberty, has since publication admitted that his work owes a great deal to Mr Barton's various works of 'history'.

BUT, just as with Barton's books, Metaxas' volume is little more than yet another attempt to create a past which never was.

There are historians and academics who are evangelical Christians who are just a tad upset with Metaxas and his false history.

Links to a few reviews by such people
Warren Throckmorton, Professor of Psychology at Grove City College and Fellow for Psychology and Public Policy at the Center for Vision and Values which is a part of Grove City College.

Most recent project is Getting Jefferson Right: Fact Checking Claims about Our Third President, which is a book with GCC colleague Michael Coulter. In the book, we fact-check claims often made by Christian Nationalists about Thomas Jefferson. The book was triggered by the publication of David Barton’s The Jefferson Lies, a book which brings most of those claims together.

Search Results metaxas

John Fea, (Ph.D, Stony Brook University, 1999) is Professor of American History and Chair of the History Department at Messiah College in Grantham, Pennsylvania, where he has taught since 2002.


continued in next post

The problem is that this is all over semantics. Was john adams a theologically orthodox christian? Well, it depends on what you think a 'theologically orthodox christian is'. I've been brought up in southern Christianity for 26 years, and I've never even heard of the phrase. With the kind of rhetoric spilled out on here and certainly on college campuses, anyone who regularly goes to church could be seen as a 'theologically orthodox christian". I've never read the book but the critics so far don't seem to be about facts, but simply on how one man may interpret the thoughts and opinions of another, and in the end a waste of time.

 

[Somerville]

The problem is that this is all over semantics. Was john adams a theologically orthodox christian? Well, it depends on what you think a 'theologically orthodox christian is'. I've been brought up in southern Christianity for 26 years, and I've never even heard of the phrase. With the kind of rhetoric spilled out on here and certainly on college campuses, anyone who regularly goes to church could be seen as a 'theologically orthodox christian". I've never read the book but the critics so far don't seem to be about facts, but simply on how one man may interpret the thoughts and opinions of another, and in the end a waste of time.

It is the author, Eric Metaxas, who used the term "theologically orthodox christian". I hope you noted that all the writers named see themselves as evangelical Christians - not some "liberal, God-hating academic types"


Please tell us which church(es) you see as "theologically orthodox"?

Only opinions? Did you miss the discussion about "religious freedom" in 17th C. Massachusetts?

A few words from the OP

Here are three basic errors. Metaxas calls John Adams a “committed and theologically orthodox Christian,” says Thomas Jefferson believed in Yahweh as his God, and implies that the Constitutional Convention acted favorably on Ben Franklin’s call to daily prayers. None of these claims are true. Adams did not believe in orthodox teachings including the Virgin Birth and deity of Christ, Jefferson believed Yahweh was vindictive and cruel, and the Constitutional Convention did not vote on Ben Franklin’s motion to have daily prayers. In fact, according to Franklin, the Convention, save three or four delegates, did not think prayers were necessary.

From post #3

One of the more egregious historical errors is the claim that the “very first settlers on American shores” came “precisely” to gain religious freedom, along with the equally false claim that “in America the idea of religious freedom was paramount,” and that there was “a complete tolerance of all denominations and religions” from the beginning (34–35)

 

[apdst]

One thing's for sure. This country wasn't founded by a bunch of atheists.

 

[jet57]

Robert Tracy McKenzie, professor and chair of the Department of History at Wheaton College.


Gregg L. Frazer is professor of history and political studies at The Master’s College in Santa Clarita, California. He’s the author of The Religious Beliefs of America's Founders: Reason, Revelation, and Revolution (University Press of Kansas). Gregg is a deacon at Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California.



Why are liars such as Metaxas and David Barton so successful in spreading these false tales about America? Is it because they speak of their Christian faith in conjunction with their lies, that so many Americans fail to comprehend the prevarications?

They are successful because people by and large don't bother to study world history to see the true part religion played in the founding of this country. As a result, anybody cn go back and rearrange any set of documents and writings into any context that they wish, to tell whatever story they want to.

The only part that religion played in the founding of the US was, just like in Norther Ireland, a tool for attracting people to the plantation. King James VI had HIS version of the Bible written for just such a purpose, hoping that planters would go to Northern Ireland to spread the word. The Puritans were run out of England and sent on their way to the new plantation.

In those days, religion and territory went hand in hand.

 

[Oberon]

So, you don't like the guy or his version of history. Got it.

He's obsessed with Barton and Xians in general for some reason. Anybody who is so obsessed with distorting the great contributions of Christianity to the West and American in particular probably has a mental disorder. More objective people can easily find out for themselves the influences of the First and Second Great Awakenings and trace the Christian influences on the Bill of Rights and most all of our modern legal systems, and yes Liberalism as well, not to be confused with the gibbering lunacy peddled by the current Democratic Party and academia these days as 'progressive' and 'liberal', but genuine liberalism.

One can also note the constant focus on Jefferson, as if he was the only Founder who existed, never mind the other couple of hundred of them ... only the one or two 'deists' count .... probably because they only know the names of one or two.

 

[CLAX1911]

So, you don't like the guy or his version of history. Got it.

His "version" of history is fabricated.

 

[Oberon]

The problem is that this is all over semantics. Was john adams a theologically orthodox christian? Well, it depends on what you think a 'theologically orthodox christian is'. I've been brought up in southern Christianity for 26 years, and I've never even heard of the phrase. With the kind of rhetoric spilled out on here and certainly on college campuses, anyone who regularly goes to church could be seen as a 'theologically orthodox christian". I've never read the book but the critics so far don't seem to be about facts, but simply on how one man may interpret the thoughts and opinions of another, and in the end a waste of time.

Jefferson never once publically said what his beliefs were, he kept them to himself, as did many other politicians. We do know from private letters he was no atheist, and greatly admire Christianity, and in at least two letters to two close personal friends he claimed to be a Christian. Considering he burned a lot of his letters later in life, letters he didn't want made public and concerned for his legacy, he didn't burn those. He was all over the place politically, nobody could ever pin him down on anything, which is why he was known as 'The Sphinx' by most of his contemporaries; everything he said was for a specific political purpose at a specific time. He was more liberal than many of his contemporaries re theology, and from reading some of his views he wasn't very well read or particularly intelligent in his interpretations of it as a body of work, and too heavily influenced by the 'Enlightenment' and 'Reformation' propaganda, but that is the case with many intellectually fashionable men of his day, and not out of the ordinary.

 

[Oberon]

One thing's for sure. This country wasn't founded by a bunch of atheists.

Well, the only 'new atheist' success stories the Dawkin's Dufuses crowd can point to is people like Jeffrey Daumer, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Mao, so naturally they have to constantly pull slanted gibberish out of their asses; it makes them feel productive.

 

[Oberon]

They are successful because people by and large don't bother to study world history to see the true part religion played in the founding of this country. As a result, anybody cn go back and rearrange any set of documents and writings into any context that they wish, to tell whatever story they want to.

The only part that religion played in the founding of the US was, just like in Norther Ireland, a tool for attracting people to the plantation. King James VI had HIS version of the Bible written for just such a purpose, hoping that planters would go to Northern Ireland to spread the word. The Puritans were run out of England and sent on their way to the new plantation.

In those days, religion and territory went hand in hand.

Drivel.

 

[Oberon]

For those who are genuinely interested in History, they can find Forrest MacDonald's The Jefferson Presidency, which goes into some details on the demographics of Jefferson's America, and they can also look up Thomas Helwys for where the 'separation of church and state' principle first appears.

 

[jet57]

Drivel.

Why so?

 

[Manc Skipper]

Why so?

For one thing, the Puritans weren't "driven out" they huffed out because they weren't allowed their own religious excesses, spent a few years in Europe where they failed to gain traction either, and eventually set sail for the New World. They were even a minority on the Mayflower! Outnumbered by the economic migrants.

 

[jet57]

For one thing, the Puritans weren't "driven out" they huffed out because they weren't allowed their own religious excesses, spent a few years in Europe where they failed to gain traction either, and eventually set sail for the New World. They were even a minority on the Mayflower! Outnumbered by the economic migrants.

You don't understand the method of "plantation". Puritans were told that they could practice their religion in the New world. You are correct; they were driven out the same way that Scots were driven from their land over to Ireland, and then driven to the colonies.

A plantation is always an economic mission that is funded by mercenaries who retain property that is taken and thus receive "government powers". "Religion" in the old days was a tool of government as money is a tool of government today.

So, I'm having a bit of trouble seeing where we disagree exactly.

 

[Manc Skipper]

England had been sending prisoners to serve their sentence in the USA for a decade before the Mayflower sailed. (and right on through till 1770) Then Australia was discovered, even further away!

 

[jet57]

England had been sending prisoners to serve their sentence in the USA for a decade before the Mayflower sailed. (and right on through till 1770) Then Australia was discovered, even further away!

Yeah, and they went as indentured servants too.

What's your point?