Barton controversy at Louisiana College

Just by being himself, David Barton is near the center of a controversy at Louisiana College. In an open letter to LC’s trustees (posted at the blog of another LC former faculty member Rondall Reynoso), former faculty member Scott Culpepper explains his experience of bringing to light what he believed to be errors in the commencement speech.
I don’t pretend to know what’s going on there and am not posting this to take sides. I post the link to demonstrate how another Christian faculty member felt after raising concerns about Barton’s facts (Reminds me of this post). Happily, I have faced none of that at GCC. In fact, I have been supported in many important ways. However, I have heard from faculty members elsewhere who are discouraged from expressing what they know to be true.
 

54 thoughts on “Barton controversy at Louisiana College”

  1. Warren’s claim that the unitarians were not evangelical, however, is not exactly correct. The claim was made in the following two articles:
    /2011/09/were-unitarians-evangelical/
    /2011/09/unitarianspart2/
    However, as Tom pointed out, “very ‘evangelical’ is subject to interpretation.” This phrase could have at least two different meanings. It could be a reference to a particular set of dogmas which are held in common by most of the churches which have historically identified themselves as being evangelical. This is the interpretation that Warren gives to the term in his articles. It could also be a references to the belief in the evangel or, as it is more commonly called, the gospel.
    I’m not sure which reference Barton intended to make, and I’m not the least bit interested in speculating, but I would like to point out that if he was referring to a belief in the gospel, then his statement would be correct. In the 1801 book The Practical Efficacy of the Unitarian Doctrine, Joshua Toulmin made the following statement about the evangelical nature of the unitarianism of that era:
    “I then accompany Peter before the tribunal of the high-priest, and I again listen, to hear his doctrine: not disgusted with the simplicity of his former discourses, but impressed with their simplicity and the energy with which they acted. Such was that energy, that I see no occasion that there was for him to introduce, in a future discourse, any other, new principles to aid its operation on the human mind. I wait, however, to hear what he will say’ and how far he will pursue the same strain of address or deviate from it. The same strain is adopted, and the same principles as before, alone are urged. ‘Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ, of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man (i.e. the lame man of whom we read in the former chapter) stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought by you builders, which is become the head of the corner: neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven, given among men, whereby we must be saved.’ I can discover here, also, no other doctrines but the unity of God, the humanity of Christ, his resurrection from the dead, and salvation through him. Peter speaks as would an Unitarian.”
    Mr. Toulmin continued throughout his book to give multiple attestations to the fact that the Unitarian doctrine of the late 18th and early 19th centuries included the doctrine of salvation by grace through the finished work of Jesus Christ. Mr. Toulmin’s book can be read online at this link:
    http://books.google.com/books?id=tfCgrjO8YY0C&lpg=PA21&pg=PA21#v=onepage&q&f=false
    And I would also recommend reading the article “On the Trinity” which appeared in the 1831 edition of the Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate. That article is available at this link:
    http://books.google.com/books?id=-zMrAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA366#v=onepage&q&f=false

  2. I don’t know what he was getting at and neither do you. To try to hang Barton with a single interrupted sentence fragment is uncharitable at least and dishonest at worst. And I already said you’re right about about the Holy Ghost in the private [post-presidential] letter, but that pales next to his use of Trinitarian language as president. Regardless of his private letter, in public the “unitarian” John Adams acknowledged the Holy Ghost. this is significant, far more significant than a snotty letter he wrote in retirement. I’m trying to tell the unfortunate reader the whole story, not just the Barton Bash so he walks away more informed about religion and the Founding, so that this isn’t a complete waste of time.
    Obsession with other people’s errors is not the same as a love of the truth, and neither is it remotely as satisfying.
    http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/07/an-error-worse-than-error/rr-reno

  3. Interesting. He mentions the infrastructural problems at LC. And Aguillard now writes: Louisiana College is taking several bold steps this year. We are launching a $50 million capital campaign to improve student housing, educational facilities, infrastructure and many other needed projects. We have too long neglected much of what is essential to operate a quality institution of Christian higher learning.
    It would appear that LC has many more problems than just an acceptance as Barton speaking truth as though he were a Christ incarnate. Rondall Reynoso, who was the professor terminated in the piece which you quote above, looks upon Aguillard’s termination as the only cure for Louisiana College.
    Perhaps I am wrong. However, it seems that a particular state of the fundamentalist mind-set which would accept doctrinal statements in conformity to that view which Barton espouses ultimately has a propensity towards creating their own theocratic fiefdom. Such seems to be results at Louisiana College.

  4. Tom Van Dyke says:
    February 26, 2013 at 4:37 pm
    “I don’t know what he was getting at and neither do you. ”
    I do. so does everyone else here but you. Barton was claiming that unitarian’s believed in the trinity until 1839.
    “To try to hang Barton with a single interrupted sentence fragment is uncharitable at least and dishonest at worst. ”
    it isn’t a single interrupted sentence. 1st barton disagrees with the statement “a unitarian is someone who doesn’t believe in the trinity”. then barton emphatically says “he (adams) believed in the trinity”

  5. Tom Van Dyke says:
    February 26, 2013 at 4:37 pm
    “I don’t know what he was getting at and neither do you. ”
    I do. so does everyone else here but you. Barton was claiming that unitarian’s believed in the trinity until 1839.
    “To try to hang Barton with a single interrupted sentence fragment is uncharitable at least and dishonest at worst. ”
    it isn’t a single interrupted sentence. 1st is disagrees with the statement

  6. Tom Van Dyke says:
    February 26, 2013 at 4:37 pm
    “I don’t know what he was getting at and neither do you. ”
    I do. so does everyone else here but you. Barton was claiming that unitarian’s believed in the trinity until 1839.
    “To try to hang Barton with a single interrupted sentence fragment is uncharitable at least and dishonest at worst. ”
    it isn’t a single interrupted sentence. 1st barton disagrees with the statement “a unitarian is someone who doesn’t believe in the trinity”. then barton emphatically says “he (adams) believed in the trinity”

  7. Tom Van Dyke says:
    February 26, 2013 at 4:37 pm
    “I don’t know what he was getting at and neither do you. ”
    I do. so does everyone else here but you. Barton was claiming that unitarian’s believed in the trinity until 1839.
    “To try to hang Barton with a single interrupted sentence fragment is uncharitable at least and dishonest at worst. ”
    it isn’t a single interrupted sentence. 1st is disagrees with the statement

  8. I don’t know what he was getting at and neither do you. To try to hang Barton with a single interrupted sentence fragment is uncharitable at least and dishonest at worst. And I already said you’re right about about the Holy Ghost in the private [post-presidential] letter, but that pales next to his use of Trinitarian language as president. Regardless of his private letter, in public the “unitarian” John Adams acknowledged the Holy Ghost. this is significant, far more significant than a snotty letter he wrote in retirement. I’m trying to tell the unfortunate reader the whole story, not just the Barton Bash so he walks away more informed about religion and the Founding, so that this isn’t a complete waste of time.
    Obsession with other people’s errors is not the same as a love of the truth, and neither is it remotely as satisfying.
    http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/07/an-error-worse-than-error/rr-reno

  9. But Barton wasn’t writing to the “man in the street,” Tom. He was writing to a close friend who knew his real beliefs, and there is absolutely no question that he was being sarcastic with his holy ghost comment.
    And please explain how on earth what Barton said to Stewart could have had some other possible meaning no matter how Barton might have ended that unfinished sentence. Stewart said a Unitarian was someone who didn’t believe in the trinity, and Barton clearly said “no” to that. How can that be interpreted in any other way?
    Barton: You know what a Unitarian was then?
    Stewart: Yeah, someone who didn’t believe in the Trinity.
    Barton: No, no. Not until 1839, long after his death. It did not become —
    Stewart: So John Adams believed in the Holy Ghost?
    Barton: He believed in the Trinity, and that’s where Unitarian

  10. 1) By “very” evangelical, Barton uses “evangelical” as an adjective, not a noun. [As an adverb, “very” cannot modify a noun. I can’t believe we have to parse every word in a TV interview like this.]
    2) Barton did not get the opportunity to make his point clear about unitarianism in the Jon Stewart interview because he was interrupted. It’s uncertain what he was getting at. To try to get mileage out of an unfinished sentence on TV is bull. If that’s your level of inquiry, you’re worse than he is, and you’re not scoring any points with anybody except your Amen Corner.
    And if anybody’s interested in the historical truth aside from Bashing Barton, although John Adams averred he was a unitarian in private, while he was in public life he hid it. Near the close of his presidency [1799] is a proclamation that although can be viewed in the unitarian Christian scheme, uses the Trinitarian formulation:
    “…that they call to mind our numerous offenses against the Most High God, confess them before Him with the sincerest penitence, implore His pardoning mercy, through the Great Mediator and Redeemer, for our past transgressions, and that through the grace of His Holy Spirit we may be disposed and enabled to yield a more suitable obedience to His righteous requisitions in time to come…”
    [Bold face mine.]
    So jerk Barton around on Adams all you want. The man in the street would have had no reason to doubt Adams as a Trinitarian. The rest is footnotes.

  11. Warren,
    To simply assert that the students at Liberty would have understood Barton the same way that you understood him is not very professional of you. Perhaps you should consider this article from the Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals entitled “Defining the Term in Contemporary Times”
    http://www.wheaton.edu/ISAE/Defining-Evangelicalism/Defining-the-Term
    To quote the article:
    “There are three senses in which the term “evangelical” is used today in the early 21st-century. The first is to view as “evangelical” all Christians who affirm a few key doctrines and practical emphases. British historian David Bebbington approaches evangelicalism from this direction and notes four specific hallmarks of evangelical religion: conversionism, the belief that lives need to be changed; activism, the expression of the gospel in effort; biblicism, a particular regard for the Bible; and “crucicentrism,” a stress on the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.”
    The Unitarians of the early 18th century would have fit this contemporary usage of the term “evangelical.”

    1. Bill – The next sentence says: However, some consider his broad categories so inclusive that they would exclude few Christians of any stripe.
      As my history colleagues said in my post on this topic, the theological wars at the time were about orthodoxy and the Unitarians were on one side and the Trinitarians were on the orthodox side. Parse it if you must but there is no meaningful sense that Unitarian were considered theologically orthodox at that time or now. Yes, they had high thoughts about the Bible and believed that Jesus was special. But he wasn’t God which must be a part of any definition of evangelical. If you can be evangelical and not believe Jesus is God then the term has no meaning distinct from Christian.

  12. But Barton wasn’t writing to the “man in the street,” Tom. He was writing to a close friend who knew his real beliefs, and there is absolutely no question that he was being sarcastic with his holy ghost comment.
    And please explain how on earth what Barton said to Stewart could have had some other possible meaning no matter how Barton might have ended that unfinished sentence. Stewart said a Unitarian was someone who didn’t believe in the trinity, and Barton clearly said “no” to that. How can that be interpreted in any other way?
    Barton: You know what a Unitarian was then?
    Stewart: Yeah, someone who didn’t believe in the Trinity.
    Barton: No, no. Not until 1839, long after his death. It did not become —
    Stewart: So John Adams believed in the Holy Ghost?
    Barton: He believed in the Trinity, and that’s where Unitarian

  13. 1) By “very” evangelical, Barton uses “evangelical” as an adjective, not a noun. [As an adverb, “very” cannot modify a noun. I can’t believe we have to parse every word in a TV interview like this.]
    2) Barton did not get the opportunity to make his point clear about unitarianism in the Jon Stewart interview because he was interrupted. It’s uncertain what he was getting at. To try to get mileage out of an unfinished sentence on TV is bull. If that’s your level of inquiry, you’re worse than he is, and you’re not scoring any points with anybody except your Amen Corner.
    And if anybody’s interested in the historical truth aside from Bashing Barton, although John Adams averred he was a unitarian in private, while he was in public life he hid it. Near the close of his presidency [1799] is a proclamation that although can be viewed in the unitarian Christian scheme, uses the Trinitarian formulation:
    “…that they call to mind our numerous offenses against the Most High God, confess them before Him with the sincerest penitence, implore His pardoning mercy, through the Great Mediator and Redeemer, for our past transgressions, and that through the grace of His Holy Spirit we may be disposed and enabled to yield a more suitable obedience to His righteous requisitions in time to come…”
    [Bold face mine.]
    So jerk Barton around on Adams all you want. The man in the street would have had no reason to doubt Adams as a Trinitarian. The rest is footnotes.

  14. What is there to rub my nose in, Tom? Bill linked to where Warren posted the transcript of exactly what Barton said on The Daily Show, which was just what I said he said – that Unitarians believed in the trinity.
    /2011/05/david-barton-on-john-adams-the-trinity/

  15. Warren,
    To simply assert that the students at Liberty would have understood Barton the same way that you understood him is not very professional of you. Perhaps you should consider this article from the Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals entitled “Defining the Term in Contemporary Times”
    http://www.wheaton.edu/ISAE/Defining-Evangelicalism/Defining-the-Term
    To quote the article:
    “There are three senses in which the term “evangelical” is used today in the early 21st-century. The first is to view as “evangelical” all Christians who affirm a few key doctrines and practical emphases. British historian David Bebbington approaches evangelicalism from this direction and notes four specific hallmarks of evangelical religion: conversionism, the belief that lives need to be changed; activism, the expression of the gospel in effort; biblicism, a particular regard for the Bible; and “crucicentrism,” a stress on the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.”
    The Unitarians of the early 18th century would have fit this contemporary usage of the term “evangelical.”

    1. Bill – The next sentence says: However, some consider his broad categories so inclusive that they would exclude few Christians of any stripe.
      As my history colleagues said in my post on this topic, the theological wars at the time were about orthodoxy and the Unitarians were on one side and the Trinitarians were on the orthodox side. Parse it if you must but there is no meaningful sense that Unitarian were considered theologically orthodox at that time or now. Yes, they had high thoughts about the Bible and believed that Jesus was special. But he wasn’t God which must be a part of any definition of evangelical. If you can be evangelical and not believe Jesus is God then the term has no meaning distinct from Christian.

  16. Aguillard finally called me in for a rather strange conversation in which I tried to convince him with historical evidence that Barton was incorrect, and he responded by continually asserting that I would believe otherwise if I felt the spiritual vibe at Barton’s headquarters in Aledo, TX.

    It’s a matter of Faith. Facts have no place here.
    I’ve tentatively come to the conclusion that religion and rationality are not inherently contradictory.. That gullibility and superstition aren’t essential parts of religion, for while there’s much evidence they are, there’s at least some evidence that they’re not. It’s not possible to explain observed phenomena if they are.
    The question is – is Barton’s and Aguillard’s way the wave of the future?
    For while religion is not inherently irrational, it seems to me that political religion/ religious politics is. As the Right takes over Evangelism, or Evangelism takes over the Right, there is a growing disregard for the uncertainties and tentative nature of evidence-based conclusions, and a complete reliance on the claims of Absolute Truth given by Faith and prejudice. Verdict first, trial afterwards.
    Reality wins in the end. But perhaps not before the Gods of the Copybook Headings have dealt harsh lessons.

  17. Bill Fortenberry says:
    February 25, 2013 at 10:58 pm
    “I’m not sure which reference Barton intended to make, and I’m not the least bit interested in speculating”
    Given Barton’s propensity to insinuate (or outright assert) the founding fathers believed the same things Barton does, it is hardly a stretch to assume he meant evangelical to mean the same thing it does today.

  18. What is there to rub my nose in, Tom? Bill linked to where Warren posted the transcript of exactly what Barton said on The Daily Show, which was just what I said he said – that Unitarians believed in the trinity.
    /2011/05/david-barton-on-john-adams-the-trinity/

  19. Aguillard finally called me in for a rather strange conversation in which I tried to convince him with historical evidence that Barton was incorrect, and he responded by continually asserting that I would believe otherwise if I felt the spiritual vibe at Barton’s headquarters in Aledo, TX.

    It’s a matter of Faith. Facts have no place here.
    I’ve tentatively come to the conclusion that religion and rationality are not inherently contradictory.. That gullibility and superstition aren’t essential parts of religion, for while there’s much evidence they are, there’s at least some evidence that they’re not. It’s not possible to explain observed phenomena if they are.
    The question is – is Barton’s and Aguillard’s way the wave of the future?
    For while religion is not inherently irrational, it seems to me that political religion/ religious politics is. As the Right takes over Evangelism, or Evangelism takes over the Right, there is a growing disregard for the uncertainties and tentative nature of evidence-based conclusions, and a complete reliance on the claims of Absolute Truth given by Faith and prejudice. Verdict first, trial afterwards.
    Reality wins in the end. But perhaps not before the Gods of the Copybook Headings have dealt harsh lessons.

  20. Bill Fortenberry says:
    February 25, 2013 at 10:58 pm
    “I’m not sure which reference Barton intended to make, and I’m not the least bit interested in speculating”
    Given Barton’s propensity to insinuate (or outright assert) the founding fathers believed the same things Barton does, it is hardly a stretch to assume he meant evangelical to mean the same thing it does today.

  21. However, as Tom pointed out, “very ‘evangelical’ is subject to interpretation.” This phrase could have at least two different meanings.
    Ms. Rodda, pls meet Mr. Fortenberry. Some of us have looked forward to this day. The rest of us saw it as inevitable. Have at it. You are both gentlepersons of admirable and indeed uncommon thoroughness and are a worthy test of each other’s mettle.
    Not to mention the truth…
    But Barton claims that the unitarians DID believe in the trinity until 1838.
    I’m not going to rub your nose in this one, Chris. But for the time being, neither am I going to let you slip the same noose you’ve prepared for David Barton. Back it up or withdraw it.

    1. I suppose “a very evangelical denomination” could have a zillion meanings but the meaning in the ears of his listeners (Liberty University) is evangelical like you.
      Quibble over it if you must but there is no meaningful sense in which Unitarians were evangelical in today’s sense of the word. Barton’s point was that the founders were really evangelicals like us because the Unitarians didn’t become liberal non-evangelicals until 1838. He also used that approach to questions about John Adams and the Trinity on the Daily Show. Here is the link with transcript – /2011/05/david-barton-on-john-adams-the-trinity/

  22. Warren’s claim that the unitarians were not evangelical, however, is not exactly correct. The claim was made in the following two articles:
    /2011/09/were-unitarians-evangelical/
    /2011/09/unitarianspart2/
    However, as Tom pointed out, “very ‘evangelical’ is subject to interpretation.” This phrase could have at least two different meanings. It could be a reference to a particular set of dogmas which are held in common by most of the churches which have historically identified themselves as being evangelical. This is the interpretation that Warren gives to the term in his articles. It could also be a references to the belief in the evangel or, as it is more commonly called, the gospel.
    I’m not sure which reference Barton intended to make, and I’m not the least bit interested in speculating, but I would like to point out that if he was referring to a belief in the gospel, then his statement would be correct. In the 1801 book The Practical Efficacy of the Unitarian Doctrine, Joshua Toulmin made the following statement about the evangelical nature of the unitarianism of that era:
    “I then accompany Peter before the tribunal of the high-priest, and I again listen, to hear his doctrine: not disgusted with the simplicity of his former discourses, but impressed with their simplicity and the energy with which they acted. Such was that energy, that I see no occasion that there was for him to introduce, in a future discourse, any other, new principles to aid its operation on the human mind. I wait, however, to hear what he will say’ and how far he will pursue the same strain of address or deviate from it. The same strain is adopted, and the same principles as before, alone are urged. ‘Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ, of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man (i.e. the lame man of whom we read in the former chapter) stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought by you builders, which is become the head of the corner: neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven, given among men, whereby we must be saved.’ I can discover here, also, no other doctrines but the unity of God, the humanity of Christ, his resurrection from the dead, and salvation through him. Peter speaks as would an Unitarian.”
    Mr. Toulmin continued throughout his book to give multiple attestations to the fact that the Unitarian doctrine of the late 18th and early 19th centuries included the doctrine of salvation by grace through the finished work of Jesus Christ. Mr. Toulmin’s book can be read online at this link:
    http://books.google.com/books?id=tfCgrjO8YY0C&lpg=PA21&pg=PA21#v=onepage&q&f=false
    And I would also recommend reading the article “On the Trinity” which appeared in the 1831 edition of the Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate. That article is available at this link:
    http://books.google.com/books?id=-zMrAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA366#v=onepage&q&f=false

  23. Chris is correct on this particular point. Warren posted a transcript of Barton’s statement at this link:
    /2011/05/david-barton-on-john-adams-the-trinity/

  24. Tom … He said it on The Daily Show. He pulled it out of his butt right there and then when Stewart pointed out that Adams was a Unitarian and questioned him about the holy ghost quote. I’ll need to find the video and transcribe his exact words.

  25. I read that here on your blog, Warren. Very “evangelical” is subject to interpretation. No smoking gun here, sorry. Chris Rodda just claimed Barton claimed
    But Barton claims that the unitarians DID believe in the trinity until 1838.
    A bald assertion of fact. Your call. I don’t think it holds.

  26. Tom – Just use the search function on this blog and you will find where Barton calls Unitarians a very evangelical denomination.

  27. But Barton claims that the unitarians DID believe in the trinity until 1838.
    Since “unitarian” is by definition non-Trinitarian [uni = 1, tri = 3], Chris, go ahead and supply the direct quote because this paraphrase and hearsay stuff has GOT to go.
    [FTR, you are correct about his egregious misreading of the Holy Ghost quote. But this is tangential until shown to be relevant.]

  28. But Barton claims that the unitarians DID believe in the trinity until 1838. He made that one up to defend his lie that John Adams said that governments had to be administered by the holy ghost to be legitimate.

  29. Perhaps I am wrong. However, it seems that a particular state of the fundamentalist mind-set which would accept doctrinal statements in conformity to that view which Barton espouses ultimately has a propensity towards creating their own theocratic fiefdom. Such seems to be results at Louisiana College.
    Actually, Barton has taken criticism for opening up his consideration of Christianity to the Founding-era unitarians [who rejected the Trinity but considered Jesus as Messiah, a savior*] and even Mormons.
    By contrast, Joe Aguillard is threatening his Baptist denomination’s centuries-long detente with Calvinism, which is neither the normative theology nor is it a banned one. One can be a “Reformed” Baptist or not: “Unity on the essentials, toleration on what are not” has been the Louisiana Southern Baptist code.
    Aguillard complains [or at least the complaint is—again, my best understanding from reading this & that on the blogs] that the Reformed types are taking over [one of the booted faculty even claimed to be Armininian], getting pushy on both the faculty and the student level. If so, the good ole fashioned “normal” Baptists are at the bottom of the intellectual/theological totem pole, tolerated where the norm is for them to be doing the tolerating.
    Certainly one scandal of the evangelical mind is that they’re not very good–or interested–in explaining themselves outside their own circle. If Aguillard has a reasonable argument, this would be it, that his moves are not aggressive, but defensive, not banning Calvinism as much as keeping Louisiana College safe for those without an interest in Calvinist theology.
    As for David Barton’s part in all this, he doesn’t really have a part except as a political football—I suspect that many of Joe Aguillard’s opponents are also opponents of the GOP and the Religious Right.
    Just a suspicion, mind you. Coincidence, even. ;-P
    _________
    *http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2010/02/who-were-unitarians.html
    “”The word UNITARIANISM, as denoting this opposition to Trinitarianism, undoubtedly expresses the character of a considerable part of the ministers of this town and its vicinity, and the commonwealth…We both agreed in our late conference, that a majority of our brethren believe, that Jesus Christ is more than man, that he existed before the world, that he literally came from heaven to save our race, that he sustains other offices than those of a teacher and witness to the truth, and that he still acts for our benefit, and is our intercessor with the Father. This we agreed to be the prevalent sentiment of our brethren.”
    If the Mormons are Christians, surely these guys are, at least socio-historically speaking.

  30. However, as Tom pointed out, “very ‘evangelical’ is subject to interpretation.” This phrase could have at least two different meanings.
    Ms. Rodda, pls meet Mr. Fortenberry. Some of us have looked forward to this day. The rest of us saw it as inevitable. Have at it. You are both gentlepersons of admirable and indeed uncommon thoroughness and are a worthy test of each other’s mettle.
    Not to mention the truth…
    But Barton claims that the unitarians DID believe in the trinity until 1838.
    I’m not going to rub your nose in this one, Chris. But for the time being, neither am I going to let you slip the same noose you’ve prepared for David Barton. Back it up or withdraw it.

    1. I suppose “a very evangelical denomination” could have a zillion meanings but the meaning in the ears of his listeners (Liberty University) is evangelical like you.
      Quibble over it if you must but there is no meaningful sense in which Unitarians were evangelical in today’s sense of the word. Barton’s point was that the founders were really evangelicals like us because the Unitarians didn’t become liberal non-evangelicals until 1838. He also used that approach to questions about John Adams and the Trinity on the Daily Show. Here is the link with transcript – /2011/05/david-barton-on-john-adams-the-trinity/

  31. Interesting. He mentions the infrastructural problems at LC. And Aguillard now writes: Louisiana College is taking several bold steps this year. We are launching a $50 million capital campaign to improve student housing, educational facilities, infrastructure and many other needed projects. We have too long neglected much of what is essential to operate a quality institution of Christian higher learning.
    It would appear that LC has many more problems than just an acceptance as Barton speaking truth as though he were a Christ incarnate. Rondall Reynoso, who was the professor terminated in the piece which you quote above, looks upon Aguillard’s termination as the only cure for Louisiana College.
    Perhaps I am wrong. However, it seems that a particular state of the fundamentalist mind-set which would accept doctrinal statements in conformity to that view which Barton espouses ultimately has a propensity towards creating their own theocratic fiefdom. Such seems to be results at Louisiana College.

  32. Chris is correct on this particular point. Warren posted a transcript of Barton’s statement at this link:
    /2011/05/david-barton-on-john-adams-the-trinity/

  33. Tom … He said it on The Daily Show. He pulled it out of his butt right there and then when Stewart pointed out that Adams was a Unitarian and questioned him about the holy ghost quote. I’ll need to find the video and transcribe his exact words.

  34. I read that here on your blog, Warren. Very “evangelical” is subject to interpretation. No smoking gun here, sorry. Chris Rodda just claimed Barton claimed
    But Barton claims that the unitarians DID believe in the trinity until 1838.
    A bald assertion of fact. Your call. I don’t think it holds.

  35. Tom – Just use the search function on this blog and you will find where Barton calls Unitarians a very evangelical denomination.

  36. But Barton claims that the unitarians DID believe in the trinity until 1838.
    Since “unitarian” is by definition non-Trinitarian [uni = 1, tri = 3], Chris, go ahead and supply the direct quote because this paraphrase and hearsay stuff has GOT to go.
    [FTR, you are correct about his egregious misreading of the Holy Ghost quote. But this is tangential until shown to be relevant.]

  37. I concur with ken, the actions of Barton and Aguillard does not imply any similarities in their motives. However, let’s not forget that Barton is not the point of Warrens post (though perhaps Warren may want to change the header to not include Barton’s name).
    All the same, their actions appear to suggest they used the same textbook regarding social-political tactics. Barton may not be the president of a university; but he shows the same vehemence in his efforts to discredit his critics.
    I seriously question the reason of anyone who cannot see that Barton and Aguillard use the exact propagandist tactics they accuse their opponents of using. (Ad hominem accusations, Appeals to fear, Appeals to prejudice, Reductio ad Hitlerum and Disinformation to name just a few)
    Curious what is happening at LC. It could easily be looked at as a microcosm of a nation governed by the ideals of a few. I hope the collage as a whole can find its way out, but if it does not, the postmortem analysis would be an interesting read.
    While I think the callow behavior of certain predominate ‘Christian’ leaders is nothing new, it is a promising change to see these activities being recognized and criticized by others in the Christian community rather then just the secular press. It hints at the potential for change. That being the Christian community finding its center again; as it has had to do time and again in ages past.
    While I think the callow behavior of certain predominate ‘Christian’ leaders is nothing new, it is a promising change to see these activities being recognized and criticized by others in the Christian community rather then just the secular press. It hints at the potential for change. That being the Christian community finding its center again; as it has had to do time and again in ages past.

  38. But Barton claims that the unitarians DID believe in the trinity until 1838. He made that one up to defend his lie that John Adams said that governments had to be administered by the holy ghost to be legitimate.

  39. Perhaps I am wrong. However, it seems that a particular state of the fundamentalist mind-set which would accept doctrinal statements in conformity to that view which Barton espouses ultimately has a propensity towards creating their own theocratic fiefdom. Such seems to be results at Louisiana College.
    Actually, Barton has taken criticism for opening up his consideration of Christianity to the Founding-era unitarians [who rejected the Trinity but considered Jesus as Messiah, a savior*] and even Mormons.
    By contrast, Joe Aguillard is threatening his Baptist denomination’s centuries-long detente with Calvinism, which is neither the normative theology nor is it a banned one. One can be a “Reformed” Baptist or not: “Unity on the essentials, toleration on what are not” has been the Louisiana Southern Baptist code.
    Aguillard complains [or at least the complaint is—again, my best understanding from reading this & that on the blogs] that the Reformed types are taking over [one of the booted faculty even claimed to be Armininian], getting pushy on both the faculty and the student level. If so, the good ole fashioned “normal” Baptists are at the bottom of the intellectual/theological totem pole, tolerated where the norm is for them to be doing the tolerating.
    Certainly one scandal of the evangelical mind is that they’re not very good–or interested–in explaining themselves outside their own circle. If Aguillard has a reasonable argument, this would be it, that his moves are not aggressive, but defensive, not banning Calvinism as much as keeping Louisiana College safe for those without an interest in Calvinist theology.
    As for David Barton’s part in all this, he doesn’t really have a part except as a political football—I suspect that many of Joe Aguillard’s opponents are also opponents of the GOP and the Religious Right.
    Just a suspicion, mind you. Coincidence, even. ;-P
    _________
    *http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2010/02/who-were-unitarians.html
    “”The word UNITARIANISM, as denoting this opposition to Trinitarianism, undoubtedly expresses the character of a considerable part of the ministers of this town and its vicinity, and the commonwealth…We both agreed in our late conference, that a majority of our brethren believe, that Jesus Christ is more than man, that he existed before the world, that he literally came from heaven to save our race, that he sustains other offices than those of a teacher and witness to the truth, and that he still acts for our benefit, and is our intercessor with the Father. This we agreed to be the prevalent sentiment of our brethren.”
    If the Mormons are Christians, surely these guys are, at least socio-historically speaking.

  40. I’m not so sure it is accurate to say Barton is “near the center” of whatever is going on at LC. Based the reports by Culpepper and Reynoso is sounds like Aguillard is doing this all on his own.
    Remember, just because christian nut-jobs may sound a like doesn’t mean they are part of the same cabal 🙂

  41. I concur with ken, the actions of Barton and Aguillard does not imply any similarities in their motives. However, let’s not forget that Barton is not the point of Warrens post (though perhaps Warren may want to change the header to not include Barton’s name).
    All the same, their actions appear to suggest they used the same textbook regarding social-political tactics. Barton may not be the president of a university; but he shows the same vehemence in his efforts to discredit his critics.
    I seriously question the reason of anyone who cannot see that Barton and Aguillard use the exact propagandist tactics they accuse their opponents of using. (Ad hominem accusations, Appeals to fear, Appeals to prejudice, Reductio ad Hitlerum and Disinformation to name just a few)
    Curious what is happening at LC. It could easily be looked at as a microcosm of a nation governed by the ideals of a few. I hope the collage as a whole can find its way out, but if it does not, the postmortem analysis would be an interesting read.
    While I think the callow behavior of certain predominate ‘Christian’ leaders is nothing new, it is a promising change to see these activities being recognized and criticized by others in the Christian community rather then just the secular press. It hints at the potential for change. That being the Christian community finding its center again; as it has had to do time and again in ages past.
    While I think the callow behavior of certain predominate ‘Christian’ leaders is nothing new, it is a promising change to see these activities being recognized and criticized by others in the Christian community rather then just the secular press. It hints at the potential for change. That being the Christian community finding its center again; as it has had to do time and again in ages past.

  42. I’m not so sure it is accurate to say Barton is “near the center” of whatever is going on at LC. Based the reports by Culpepper and Reynoso is sounds like Aguillard is doing this all on his own.
    Remember, just because christian nut-jobs may sound a like doesn’t mean they are part of the same cabal 🙂

Comments are closed.