Skip to main content

Notebook Religion

Doubting Thomas

(N.C. Wyeth/Bettmann/Corbis/AP)

Religion

Doubting Thomas

Scholars call Jefferson a skeptic as David Barton finds a new publisher for his controversial book

The controversy over David Barton's The Jefferson Lies (see "The David Barton Controversy," Aug. 25 issue) led Thomas Nelson to stop publishing the book (see "Lost confidence," Aug. 9)—but Glenn Beck's Mercury Ink plans to publish a new edition.

Beck wrote the foreword to The Jefferson Lies, and Mercury Ink's announced goal is to "publish and promote books and authors that Glenn is passionate about." Mercury Ink partners with Simon & Schuster. Publishers Weekly reported that Barton in the new edition "will rephrase some things to remove any potential confusion."

Meanwhile, let's look at one of the key points in contention. Most historians prior to Barton described Thomas Jefferson as a life-long religious skeptic, but Barton writes in The Jefferson Lies that there "never was a time when [Jefferson] was anti-Jesus or when he rejected Christianity." Barton states that for much of Jefferson's adult life his faith was "nothing less than orthodox."

The Jefferson Lies commends Daniel Dreisbach, an American University professor, calling him one of the few Jefferson scholars who employs a "sound historical approach," so I asked Dreisbach whether he agreed with Barton. Dreisbach replied that he has a "very hard time" accepting the notion that Jefferson was ever an orthodox Christian, or that Jefferson ever embraced Christianity's "transcendent claims."

Barton told me that he does not necessarily disagree with Dreisbach. The Jefferson Lies states that by 1813, when Jefferson was 70, he had rejected the doctrine of the Trinity. Barton said he mainly wants to emphasize that Jefferson was no atheist or secularist.

That's not sufficient for Barton critics Warren Throckmorton and Michael Coulter, authors of Getting Jefferson Right, who state that Barton misinterprets historical evidence in portraying Jefferson as consistently orthodox before 1813, and leaves out essential points that would contradict that portrayal.

For example, in a 1788 letter Jefferson declined to become a child's godfather because he thought doing so would have required him to affirm publicly a belief in the Trinity. Jefferson wrote that the "difficulty of reconciling the ideas of Unity and Trinity, have, from a very early part of my life," kept him making such an affirmation. The Jefferson Lies does not address this statement.

Similarly, in Jefferson's 1803 unpublished "Syllabus," he commended Jesus' philosophy as "the most perfect and sublime" taught by man, but also characterized Jesus' teachings as "defective." Jefferson argued that only "fragments" of Jesus' actual life have survived, and have "come to us mutilated, misstated, and often unintelligible" in the New Testament.

Barton cites another part of the "Syllabus" in The Jefferson Lies, but not these passages. He does quote at length from a 1787 letter from Jefferson to his nephew, in which Jefferson tells him simply to read the Bible as you would other ancient documents, and to "question with boldness even the existence of a god." Barton argues that Jefferson was merely instructing his nephew in Christian "apologetics."

Barton says his critics are exaggerating The Jefferson Lies' claims about Jefferson's faith. Barton insists he never called Jefferson a "robust Christian," and says Thomas Nelson editors cut out sections of the book that might have answered some objections.

Barton also offers evidence that Jefferson affirmed traditional beliefs prior to age 70. In a 1776 document, Barton writes, Jefferson "affirmed that Jesus was the Savior, the Scriptures were inspired, and that the Apostles' Creed 'contain[ed] all things necessary to salvation.'" (According to The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, this statement is in Jefferson's notes on John Locke's religious writings.)

Who is right—Barton, or Throckmorton and Coulter? Louisiana State University professor James Stoner, one of Glenn Beck's "Beck University" lecturers, says Throckmorton and Coulter's book seems "entirely in line" with what he knows about Jefferson's faith. Stoner describes Jefferson as a "rationalist skeptic."

Professor Kevin Gutzman, who has appeared both on WallBuilders radio and the Glenn Beck program, argues that "Jefferson was not a Christian, if the word 'Christian' has any meaning," because he rejected the Bible's "supernatural content." Gutzman thinks Jefferson's skepticism certainly predated 1813.

Does all this matter? To those who want to understand more about the founding of the United States, it does.

See "A message to WORLD readers on the David Barton controversy," by Marvin Olasky, Aug. 16.

Comments

  • Because I Think
    Posted: Mon, 04/11/2016 07:12 pm

    I wish to echo JAB's comments.  I too felt the articles about the "controversy" focused too much on what other people were saying.  The most troubling aspect of World's coverage was the disregard for Barton's reputation.  My impression of Mr Barton's work is that at times he makes more of certain facts then I would, however, I have cut him some slack because he is fighting a tide of extensive and deliberate misrepresentation present our society.  I believe it is reasonable to challenge Mr Barton on his position without challenging his Historian credentials.  My experience suggests the accuracy of a person's position correlates much better with the quality of his historical references than the number of letters behind his name.  Mr. Barton has always provided extensive first person testimony.  Just because we disagree with his conclusions, does not mean we are justified in destroying his reputation.

  • Anonymous (not verified)
    Posted: Mon, 04/11/2016 07:12 pm

    Thomas, when I read your earlier article on David Barton, I was a little disturbed by the tone of the article as I perceived it. Learning that Thomas Nelson was dropping a book that they had already scoured and tweeked seemed very odd, and you seemed a little easily to ever-so-subtly question his research. I quickly then ordered the book before it disappeared to see for myself. What was struck me immediately was the voluminous footnotes. [Only any Ann Coulter book possibly has more footnotes!]I have discovered that the "Getting It Right" authors are not historians, and apparently don't purport to be. So is there an agenda? There are many questions this raises on all sides.I was once fired from a job as network administrator because I did not have any "schooling" on the subject. What I was unprepared to defend at my young age at the time was that I lived and breathed computers, and could have at that time TAUGHT any of the classes that might have been available. I did get some satisfaction a few years later when working at another company, the outside "consultant" who had questioned my education came to work at the same company, and ended up being placed UNDER my supervision, and she had to sit and learn from my experience.I sense a similar situation with Mr. Barton....he lives and breathes American history, as his ample original document collection attests, and just because someone has the "DR." or some such label in front of their name does NOT make them necessarily a passionate or more accurate evaluator or critic of whatever topic, or dictate that they have a better understanding of said topic.Yes, TRUTH is TRUTH, but I believe it is important to use your gut when evaluating whether someone's perspective might indeed be a more accurate, a more COMPREHENSIVE representation of history. There are SO many details to consider!....and I find Mr. Barton's perspective fascinating, and worthy of our consideration.As an orator of Biblical chapters myself, I have sometimes had to pray and study and study and pray for hours, just to make sure that I have an inflection "just right," to make sure that what I am emphasizing correctly conveys the truth of a passage. And after years of study and performance, I MAY YET CHANGE slightly a pause, or a phrase, because through my passion for study and truth I discovered, possibly through another part of Scripture, or from insight by another Pastor or teacher, that I needed to adjust my presentation to more correctly or accurately share a valuable truth, to the best of my ability.Mr. Barton seems to have the right attitude, and seems to desire a passion to "get it right." I think he deserves the right to be HIS part of the body of Christ, and to share his understanding of what accurate, historical truth is. Let us then be considerate and appreciative of the dedication that acquiring his insights truly demands.