The David Barton Controversy

david barton

I am beginning to think that as Gail Riplinger was to textual criticism, David Barton is to American history. He is the conservative equivalent of Howard Zinn.

If you don’t want to read through my “opinion,” at least make sure to scroll to the bottom and hit the audio links. Believe me: they are worth your time.


If your family homeschools, or if you send your kids to a Christian school, or even if you are actively involved in Republican politics, listen to talk radio, and consider yourself a TEA party oriented person, the name David Barton has circled around your orbit at least a few times.

Barton heads up WallBuilders, a ministry that claims to “present America’s forgotten history” regarding our Christian faith, morals, and constitutional heritage.

If you have watched any of Barton’s DVD presentations, he travels around Washington D.C. and other historical venues showing his viewers important landmarks and documents pertaining to Colonial America, the Revolutionary War, the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the ratification of the U.S. Constitution.   When Barton is interviewed on Christian TV programs, or even conservative TV shows like Glenn Beck, he always has with him a collection of “original” documents to show the audience.  Things like Ben Franklin’s Bible, or John Adam’s personal letters to some Baptist minister, or some unknown speech George Washington gave at a Methodist church.

Barton’s basic assertion in his DVDs, his books, and those TV interviews is that America’s founding Fathers – you know, the guys with their faces on our currency – were practicing evangelical Christians.  When they wrote up the Declaration of Independence and eventually the Constitution, they intended on founding a Christian nation.  Radical secular leftists, Barton contends, have hijacked American history over the last 50 years, revising it to teach that all the founding fathers were really deists and anti-Christian atheists and the last thing on their agenda was founding any country supportive of biblical Christianity.  His mission with WallBuilders is to set the historical record straight.

If you have heard him speak, his presentations are impressive and compelling.  Again, when he is making his case, he will have old, yellowed documents with him that are laminated, which means they are really important.  He also has stacks of old, brittle looking books that were supposedly printed in 1798 or thereabouts.

Those documents and books are intended to bolster his case for his “evangelical founding fathers” view of American history because he says they are original source documents, meaning they haven’t been altered by secular leftists.  Of course, the audience, upon watching Barton lift up one of those documents to wave in front of the TV cameras, has to assume he is accurately relaying to them what that document really says.  Honestly.  What average person, let’s say living in Wisconsin or  Maryland, really has carefully examined one of John Adam’s original letters to Thomas Jefferson?  Barton says he has and so that person has to trust him that he is relaying accurate information about the contents of the letter.

In recent months, however, Barton has come under fire for just that:  Other historians – [and by “other” historians, I mean Christian historians, and by “Christian” historians, I mean Bible-believing, Jesus loving historians, not those prissy liberal “the-Bible-is-full-of-errors” “Christians”] – have taken issue with Barton claiming he has the bad habit of cheery-picking historical citations and spinning them in such a way so as to present his evangelical narrative of American history.   In other words, he abuses the historical documents to embellish and exaggerate the truth.

jeffersonA big example of this is found in the controversy surrounding his book published this past summer titled, The Jefferson Lies: Exposing the Myths You’ve Always Believed about Thomas Jefferson.  In that book, Barton presents the case that what we are told about Jefferson is for the most part a leftist fabrication.  In reality, he was really a faithful evangelical Christian and it wasn’t until later in his life as he grew senile, that he began to write negative things about God and Christianity.

The claims Barton makes did not sit well with just any historians, but particularly a  number of those Christian historians I noted above.  They worked together to challenge Barton’s views of Jefferson by showing the gross, factual errors he has in his books and his outright re-reading of history.  In short, they demonstrate that  Barton was doing the exact same thing he accuses his secular liberal critics of doing: Selectively citing sources and reinterpreting them  so as to revise history.

The vetting these historians made to Barton’s book was so devastating that Thomas Nelson, the publisher, dropped it.  The management cited the overwhelming number of factual errors contained in the book as the reason for their canceling it.  I thought their reaction was ironic, seeing that they are so willing to toss out Barton’s book over “factual errors,” but still publish a bizarre book in which a child claims to have gone to heaven.  Barton didn’t make them enough money, I suppose; but I digress.

I personally have never read anything by Barton. I have seen one or two of his DVD presentations and I have watched him on a number of television interviews.  I have always been dubious of his assertions about the founding fathers.  When he waves the yellow, laminated letter on the TV screen, I’m a tad suspicious. Having read enough history in my lifetime, including a few original source documents, I thought his “evidence” never passed a sniff test.  There were question marks in my mind.

Liberals of course hate the man’s guts.  That is because they relish having a proctologist view of American history and reject America’s exceptionalism that makes it the most unique and special country in the world.  So when Barton gives his exaggerated claims about America’s founding fathers, they pounce on them as proof of how out of touch Christians are with reality and what hypocrites they truly are.  Certainly that is a moon-bat reaction, but while they may go overboard in the other direction to maintain their distorted anti-American narrative, I’d have to admit they have a point about Barton.

I have also been troubled with how Christians, and I mean respectable, ought-to-know-better Christians, go to Barton as a reliable source on American history.  Conservative pundits like Glenn Beck, I can understand, but Christians who have made a name for being pillars of spiritual discernment?  I’ve seen him interviewed by Todd Friel in the past, as well as Kirk Cameron for his Monumental documentary that was released early this spring, and many Christian reconstructionists have always recommended his materials.

One of Barton’s historian critics has been Gregg Frazer who teaches history and political science at the Master’s College.  He published a book earlier this year called, The Religious Beliefs of America’s Founders: Reason, Revelation, and Revolution that puts our founding fathers in a more balanced and accurate perspective.  He argues that they weren’t rank atheists and deists, but nor were they committed Christians.  They were, as Dr. Frazer calls them, “theistic rationalists.”

At the behest of my pastor, John MacArthur, Dr. Frazer has been going around to the various fellowship groups on Sunday mornings at Grace Church giving a presentation on America’s founding fathers, as well as addressing many of David Barton’s claims about them and what he calls “the Christian America movement” that is growing among homeschoolers.  My hope is that Dr. Frazer will be given a break-out seminar at this next year’s Shepherd’s Conference in March 2013.  I imagine many, many pastors have encountered promoters of Barton’s materials in their churches.

He gave two presentations recently that are worth downloading and considering.

The Religious Beliefs of America’s Founders [Part 1]

The Religious Beliefs of America’s Founders [Part 2]

The first presentation gives historical background to the men we call “founding fathers,” where as the second presentation addresses specifically what David Barton claims.  If you want to hear his rebuttal and refutation of David Barton, listen to the second one first.  But make sure to get the first one, as well.

Christians need to be advocates of truth, even when the truth is not what we may want it to be.


10 thoughts on “The David Barton Controversy

  1. Indeed. Someone should put up a David Barton/WallBuilders Survivor blog on which victims can document their garment rending stories of intellectual abuse.

  2. Thanks for this Fred I've got a lot of friends who are wall builders. I'm going to listen to the MP3s and then send them to a few friends of mine. It would be nice to this made into a video.

  3. Pingback: Is Kirk Cameron Jumping the Shark? | hipandthigh

  4. Pingback: Why The “Christian” America View is Dangerous | hipandthigh

  5. Pingback: Answering Survivor Bloggers and Other Sundry Theological Cranks | hipandthigh

  6. Mr. Frazer’s book utilizes a flawed definition of Christianity that, when taken to its logical conclusion, eliminates not just the founders but everyone throughout all of history from being a Christian. I’ve recently posted an article explaining the flaws in Mr. Frazer’s definition and also providing a correct definition of Christianity that agrees with the Bible as well as many of the creeds and confessions of the various churches. You can read my article on my website at:

  7. A “flawed definition of Christianity?” Really? Can you elaborate on that claim? Instead of just linking me to an article I can’t really read at this time, can you please summarize what you mean by that in a brief comment here? I’ll try to take a look at your article when I have a moment, but honestly, are you just jumping over here to promote a book you have coming out?

    BTW, your expertise in the area of history is what exactly? I’ve never heard of you. What info I found on the web searching for your name “Bill Fortenberry” doesn’t really come up with anything substantial. Are you a pastor? Researcher? Teacher? On-line discernment ministry guy or something?


  8. I have no officially recognized historical expertise. I am simply someone who has devoted a great deal of time in studying original source writings. My only real claim to historical fame is that I have received several expressions of thanks from some of the more famous historians.

    To summarize my article, let me simply state the flaws in Mr. Frazer’s definition and let you read the article when you can for the documentary support of my claims. Here are the flaws that I point out:

    1) Mr. Frazer criticized his own method of definition when he ridiculed Michael Novak for using a similar definition.

    2) Mr. Frazer erred in claiming that the Council of Trent taught the doctrine of justification by faith.

    3) Mr. Frazer was only partially correct when he claimed that the Council of Trent taught the doctrine of eternal punishment.

    4) Mr. Frazer’s claim that no one can be a Christian who denies the inspiration of the full canon of the Scriptures coupled with his claim that the Council of Trent recognized the inspiration of the full canon of Scriptures leads to the logical conclusion that none of the denominations that he listed are Christian denominations.

    5) Mr. Frazer erroneously claimed to have discovered an “official” creed of the Baptists.

    6) The Council of Trent is the only “official” creed mentioned by Mr. Frazer which agrees with his definition of Christianity.

    7) The Bible and all of the other creeds provide unanimous attribution to a very different definition of Christianity.

  9. I have no officially recognized historical expertise. I am simply someone who has devoted a great deal of time in studying original source writings. My only real claim to historical fame is that I have received several expressions of thanks from some of the more famous historians.

    Wouldn’t you think having some officially recognized historical expertise would be helpful with evaluating those original source writings? It is one thing to read the original source documents; it is quite another to evaluate and interpret them accurately, and to represent them accurately. That is Frazer’s main beef with Barton. It is the same with a number of other historians both secular and Christian. Barton is misrepresenting the character of Thomas Jefferson and a number of other original founders of the U.S.

    BTW, who are those famous historians that gave you several expressions of thanks?

    To summarize my article, let me simply state the flaws in Mr. Frazer’s definition and let you read the article when you can for the documentary support of my claims.

    You claimed that Gregg has a “flawed definition of Christianity.” The points you supply here are honestly nit-picky disagreements you have with various statements Frazer may have made in his book. None of them really pertain to “flawed definitions of Christianity.” Maye you disagree with his comment about what the council of Trent considered the “full canon of scripture” but that is hardly a “flawed definition of Christianity.”

    I don’t have his recently published book, just the original Phd thesis on which the book is based. Just doing a scan through it, I am not finding any of the objectionable comments you complain about in your seven points. I’ll try to secure the book, but at this juncture, nothing you raise here tells me Gregg has a “flawed definition of Christianity.” You may not like his challenges to Barton and the mythos many modern day Christians have built around the founding of our country, but I see no “flawed definition of Christianity” in his work.

  10. No, I do not think that obtaining official recognition of my historical expertise will aid my understanding at all. Such recognition would only be useful in encouraging stubborn individuals to consider my work to be worthy of their time. It is quite possible to understand historical writings without being recognized for that understanding. If you would be so kind as to read through my article, I am confident that you would find my comprehension of the sources to be quite adequate. You would also find that the list of errors which I provided above are actually very significant and that my charge is well supported.

Comments are closed.