David Barton

Tell us about the Republican National Committee employing your services in 2004. How many churches/pastors did you speak at? What was the purpose? Was it successful in your opinion?

The story of my involvement with the Republican National Committee begins much earlier than 2004. It actually involves two different paths of my learning and experience that eventually converged into what I did for the Republican National Committee. Those two paths involved a path of political involvement, and a path of ministry involvement. Allow me to present a bit of background on both paths.

1. Political Involvement I believe strongly in the truth of Proverbs 14:34: “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.” This verse addresses national, and not individual, righteousness (although there are plenty of other verses that do address personal righteousness). National righteousness is a product of national policies (such as our policies on abortion, marriage, public acknowledgment of God, usury, private property, social ministries, and many other areas directly addressed by the Scriptures); and those national policies are the product of the officials we elect to represent us from the local to the national level. Therefore, if there is to be righteousness that can exalt a nation, it will be the result of placing into office God-fearing leaders who will craft national policies that God can bless. Hence, the truth of Proverbs 29:2: “When the righteous rule, the people rejoice; when the wicked rule, the people groan.” This means that if I want to see Proverbs 14:34 become a reality in America – if I want to enjoy the blessings that can flow from the promise in that verse – then I must focus my attention on (1) electing officials who comport with the requirements of verses such as Exodus 18:21 and (2) electing and securing the appointment of judges who fulfill the requirements of Ezra 7:25, Psalms 2:10-12, 2 Chronicles 19:6-7, etc.

The simplest means to do this is by voting. But I soon discovered that on too many occasions when voting in the November general election, I often ended up having to make a decision between candidates that I might characterize as the bad and the worse, rather than the good and the better. So how could I have better choices on the ballot in November? To place better candidates on the November ballot meant that I must vote in the primary elections that occurred before the November general election.

I found that often, both major parties had at least one God-fearing candidate on the ballot in their primary, but those Godly candidates were often defeated and thus did not get to advance to the November election; and this was because so few God-fearing voters voted in primary elections. (Whereas it is unfortunate that usually only 1 in 4 Christians will vote in the November general elections, it is even more unfortunate that only 1 in 16 will vote in a primary election. Christians too often say they want to be an independent voter and not be partisan, but by so doing, they do not help the best candidates advance through the primaries to reach the November election.)

david barton david barton

What can Christians do to return the U.S. to a “Christian nation?’

The Christianity practiced in America was described by John Jay as “wise and virtuous,” by John Quincy Adams as “civilized,” and by John Adams as “rational.” A clear distinction was drawn between American Christianity and that of Europe in earlier centuries. As Noah Webster explained: “The ecclesiastical establishments of Europe which serve to support tyrannical governments are not the Christian religion but abuses and corruptions of it.” Daniel Webster similarly explained that American Christianity was: “Christianity to which the sword and the fagot [burning stake or hot branding iron] are unknown – general tolerant Christianity is the law of the land!”

Furthermore, the Christianity practiced in America was not threatened by other religions, nor did it try to exclude them. The American Founders believed that truth would prevail on its own merits and did not need the sword of government to produce compliance and enforce conformity. In fact, American Christianity generally adopted the attitude which Elijah demonstrated in his confrontation with the prophets of Baal on top of Mt. Carmel: he offered them the opportunity – and even extra opportunities – to practice their religion, to pray, to seek to rouse Baal, etc.; he simply insisted, however, that he also be allowed to make his appeal to God; the results would speak for themselves. As Founder Ezra Stiles (1727-1795, a military chaplain during the American Revolution and then the president of Yale), explained in 1783:

Here [in America] will be no bloody tribunals, no cardinal’s inquisitors-general to bend the human mind. . . . Religion may here receive its last, most liberal, and impartial examination.  Religious liberty is peculiarly friendly to fair and generous disquisition.  Here Deism will have its full chance; nor need libertines more to complain of being overcome by any weapons but the gentle, the powerful ones of argument and truth.  Revelation will be found to stand the test to the ten thousandth examination.

True Christianity has nothing to fear from other religions; in fact, if a Christian fears the power of another religion, then perhaps he is in the wrong religion and should join the one whose power he fears.

The Christianity practiced in America, as compared with the rest of the “civilized” world, was open, protecting freedom of religion and freedom of conscience of others – even of dissenters and non-believers. This Christianity was behind the abolition movement, the civil rights movement, and the urban renewal movements – quite unlike the established Christianity that largely characterized Europe.

david barton david barton

What prompted you to engage in this area of ministry?

At the risk of engaging in religious clichés and Christian-speak, the simple answer is: God. My background made it highly improbable (for several reasons) that I would ever do what I am now doing. First, I grew up in rural life in Texas. The town in which I live had only 220 folks when I moved there, and up to three years ago, I was still able to ride my horse to work (5 miles). In rural life, we have a tendency to fulfill literally God’s command in Exodus 20:9, “Six days shalt thou work”; consequently, working 12-14 hours a day, six days a week, is common. And in our town, the average response time for a call for help to the sheriff was one hour.

I say this to explain that in this type of rural life, you learn to be independent – to do things for yourself. You really don’t need (and often don’t want) outside help from the government, for you have your community – your local church, your family, and your neighbors. In fact, in many rural areas, most country folks would be happy not seeing someone from the government; further, they generally have no desire to engage in politics; and additionally, they tend to avoid attorneys and the law, tending to believe that the law complicates rather than simplifies life (in rural America, your personal word is your bond and is generally sufficient as your only contract).

Second, in addition to a rural lifestyle, I grew up loving science and math. I attended college on a math and science scholarship, and after college I taught math and science in high school; I was not a fan of the study of history or the humanities.

Finally, I was actively involved in church work, serving on the staff of various churches in positions ranging from youth director to music director to director of Christian education to associate pastor. All of this is to say that growing up, and during my early years of employment, the four things I definitely didn’t want to be involved with were law, history, government, and politics – and now I’m intimately involved with all four! Therefore, I conclude it is a God thing, for I would not have voluntarily chosen the areas in which I am now involved.

Where I am now, of course, has occurred through a number of smaller steps over a period of years by which God has guided us to what I am doing today. And I have no doubt that those providential steps will continue and may well guide me into other areas in the future that I might not have anticipated or pursued on my own initiative. This is not to say, of course, that there has not been hard work and long hours and much personal retraining involved; there has been. It is just that once I believed that God had directed me into something, I know that I need to commit myself to it with all my heart, body, soul, and mind.

david barton david barton

What is the greatest threat that you see facing America concerning church-state issues?

Now, more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature. . . . [I]f the next centennial does not find us a great nation . . . it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.

We believers who “represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation” certainly have not done a good job “in controlling the political forces.” Despite the 80 percent increase in evangelical voter turnout in 2004 (from 15 million in 2000, to 27.1 million in 2004), nearly 55 percent of America’s 60 million evangelicals still did not vote in the 2004 election. (Can you imagine how different the culture of America might now be if the remaining 33 million evangelical Christians voted their values, and elected leaders at all levels who embraced their values?) Therefore, if righteousness does not prevail in the public policies of our nation (or state or city), and if Congress (and state legislatures and city councils) continues to be out of step with the values of “We the People,” it will be our own fault.

What can Christians do to return the U.S. to a “Christian nation?’

This is a question that should not be answered without first defining what a “Christian nation” is. Yet, in many ways, it is easier to define what a Christian nation is not than what it is. There are two things it is not.

First, contrary to the fears raised by secularists and the pejoratives used by the political left, a modern Christian nation is not coercive. No, Christians do not want to force everyone to pray; and they will not pass a law that everyone must attend church, etc. Too many today think of a “Christian nation” in terms of the historical “Christian nations” of Europe: Great Britain, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Sweden, France (during the time of American exploration and discovery), etc. But our Founders endeavored to make clear that American Christianity was not like that in Europe.

david barton david barton

When and why did you start WallBuilders?

This emphasis on presenting original history and documents is now the aspect of WallBuilders for which we are probably best known. I often feel like what King Josiah must have felt when they brought him the old scroll that they had discovered during the rebuilding of the Temple. He looked at it, read it, and essentially said, “We used to be like this???” It was a shocking revelation to that generation to see what the original practices of previous generations had been. So, to me, has been the rediscovery of important moral, religious, and constitutional aspects of our American history.

While in 1988 I initially saw the removal of school prayer as the cause for the decline in the nation, I now know that there was much more involved. As the courts have explained in no less than ten different cases: “Prayer is the quintessential religious practice.” Prayer, an acknowledgment of God, is the simplest identification of a philosophy which recognizes not only the God of heaven but also His laws and standards of conduct. Prayer is the “heart” of religion and was by necessity the first target of a more general and much broader attack upon religious principles and expressions.

Therefore, it is not surprising that after the removal of prayer, there quickly followed cases rejecting not only the Bible but any values derived from them (the Ten Commandments, the teaching of pre-marital sexual abstinence to students, the singing of religious songs among other songs in school concerts, the displaying of student artwork with religious themes, graduation acknowledgments that include God, individual students reading the Bible during free time, etc.).

The removal of prayer was the first step on the infamous “slippery slope.” While the removal of school prayer cannot be blamed for all the declines, the presence or absence, legality or illegality, of prayer and the acknowledgment of God in public arenas is the primary indicator of the philosophy under which official public policy is being conducted. When there is an official recognition of prayer – “the quintessential religious practice” – there is also an embracing of the values and teachings of which prayer is a primary indicator.

Consequently, the return of school prayer will be a significant indicator of forthcoming change. That is, it will be a signal that the first step has been taken not only toward recognizing God, but toward reinstating His values upon which our traditional moral, ethical, and disciplinary standards long depended.

david barton david barton

Why do you feel a sense of urgency about church-state issues?

I don’t know that I feel an urgency; that word probably conveys the wrong tone from my perspective. I don’t feel an urgency, or a pressure, as though I were facing a deadline, or a point of no return, or as if time was running out.

Passion might be a more accurate term for what I sense, for I do feel strongly that all public policies should comport as much as possible with applicable Biblical principles, whether in law, education, economic, social services, etc. I also feel strongly that citizens have been given a stewardship over the nation, and that they will answer to God for what they do with the nation He has placed in their trust. It is therefore unacceptable to me that God’s people should – as did the servant in Matthew 25 and Luke 19 – go and hide themselves, refusing to exercise stewardship over this important trust. I particularly find this unacceptable when there are so many unequivocal Scriptures that so clearly set forth the appropriateness of our involvement in the civil arena.

I also feel passionately about a trans-generational approach. That is, the Bible frequently demonstrates that the prayers of one generation are often answered by God through the succeeding generation. Thus, in the Bible, there was always an emphasis on training up, preparing, teaching, and engaging the next generation. Victories that we gain today must be preserved by the next generation; and we must also lay the groundwork now for additional victories to be gained by subsequent generations. Not only are we to “occupy until He comes” (Luke 19:13), but we must teach the next generation (and every subsequent generation) how to do the same until He does return.

What is the greatest threat that you see facing America concerning church-state issues?

The greatest potential threat that I see is the refusal of God’s people to be involved. Consider some disturbing facts.

National polling shows that 72 percent of Americans support a marriage amendment, but only 48 percent of the Senate voted for such an amendment; 77 percent of the nation supports public displays of the Ten Commandments, but only 57 percent of Congress voted for such displays; 87 percent of the nation wants “under God” preserved in the Pledge, but only 57 percent of Congress voted to protect those words; 75 percent of the nation supports faith-based programs, but only 52 percent of Congress voted for those programs; etc.

Why is Congress often 20 to 30 percent out of step with Americans on cultural and Biblical issue? I believe that President James A. Garfield provided the answer. (By the way, President Garfield was a Christian minister, very active in ministry during the Second Great Awakening; in fact, we have original letters from Garfield setting forth how many services he preached and how many converts he baptized.) Garfield explained:

david barton david barton

Share with us the spirit of the Boston tea party.

In the early 1600s, King James I had stridently resisted the Reformation; so to counter the spreading Reformation teachings, he introduced two counter-Reformation “doctrines”: the Divine Right of Kings, and complete submission and non-resistance to authority, explaining that “it is seditious in subjects to dispute what a king may do” and that “I am the husband, the whole [British Isles] is my lawful wife: I am the head and it is my body; I am the shepherd and it is my flock.”

Those doctrines were embraced by British leaders for the next century-and-a-half, but American ministers such as the Rev. Jonathan Mayhew disputed those claims. In Mayhew’s famous and widely-distributed sermon using the Bible to disprove the king’s errant doctrines, he asserted that “rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.” Therefore, when King George III imposed the tax on tea, the colonists first protested it through traditional means, citing both Scriptures and British law in support of their positions. When the King attempted to coerce them into submission, the colonists resorted to civil disobedience.

(Hebrews 11 lists many heroes of our faith, including the Hebrew midwives, Daniel, Moses, etc., who were made famous for their civil disobedience – for refusing to violate God-ordained principles). Significantly, shortly after the Boston Tea Party, it was proposed in Congress that America’s national motto should be “Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God.”

How has the teaching structure of our country’s educational system changed?

SIGNIFICANTLY, AMERICA’S FIRST PUBLIC EDUCATION LAW WAS PASSED IN 1647. CALLED “THE OLD DELUDER SATAN ACT,” IT WAS ENACTED TO PREVENT “THAT OLD DELUDER, SATAN, TO KEEP MEN FROM THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SCRIPTURES.” AMERICA’S FIRST TEXTBOOK (THE NEW ENGLAND PRIMER, 1690) RELIED HEAVILY UPON THE BIBLE AND WAS USED IN AMERICAN CLASSROOMS UNTIL THE 1930S.

THE FIRST ENGLISH-LANGUAGE BIBLE PRINTED IN AMERICA WAS IN 1782, PRINTED BY THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS AS “A NEAT EDITION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES FOR THE USE OF OUR SCHOOLS.” IN 1789, CONGRESS PASSED THE FIRST FEDERAL LAW ADDRESSING EDUCATION, REQUIRING THAT SCHOOLS TEACH “RELIGION, MORALITY, AND KNOWLEDGE.” IN 1791, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION BENJAMIN RUSH (TITLED “THE FATHER OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION”) PENNED A POLICY PAPER SETTING FORTH A DOZEN REASONS WHY THE BIBLE WOULD NEVER BE TAKEN OUT OF SCHOOLS.

IN 1844, A UNANIMOUS U. S. SUPREME COURT DECLARED: “WHY MAY NOT THE BIBLE, AND ESPECIALLY THE NEW TESTAMENT . . . BE READ AND TAUGHT AS A DIVINE REVELATION IN [SCHOOL]. . . . WHERE CAN THE PUREST PRINCIPLES OF MORALITY BE LEARNED SO CLEARLY OR SO PERFECTLY AS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT?” THERE ARE DOZENS OF SIMILAR EXAMPLES, BUT FOR THREE CENTURIES THE PHILOSOPHY OF AMERICAN EDUCATION REFLECTED PROVERBS 1:7 THAT “THE FEAR OF THE LORD IS THE BEGINNING OF KNOWLEDGE.” THIS REMAINED THE STANDARD UNTIL 1962-63, WHEN THE U. S. SUPREME COURT FIRST ORDERED THE REMOVAL OF VOLUNTARY PRAYER AND BIBLE READING FROM PUBLIC EDUCATION.

david barton david barton

There are several things churches can do.

(1) Churches can educate about America’s Godly heritage. Our heritage can’t be upheld if citizens don’t know what they are upholding.

(2) Churches can educate citizens in a full Biblical worldview. Today, we live in a society that compartmentalizes our faith, telling us that it is applicable for home or church but not for school, law, government, or the public arena in general. We must return to an understanding that it applies to all aspects of life – that the Bible just as surely offers specific guidance on the minimum wage and capital gains tax as it does on the salvation of our souls or the preservation of our family. Citizens should know what the Bible teaches about education, medicine, taxes, the military, and every other area of life. If we don’t understand that the Bible applies to government, then we will make no attempt to uphold America’s Godly heritage, which – from an historical standpoint – has been especially demonstrated in the arena of government.

(3) Churches can equip citizens to preserve our foundations (“If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” Psalms 11:3). Each of us can preserve America’s Biblical foundation in two ways. First, we can preserve it through what we do in our own lives. This is preserving America’s foundations from the bottom up – rising upward from individuals in every home and community. But the second way to preserve America’s foundations is from the top down – that is, not just in individual citizenry but also in our collective public policy. We can do this by electing individuals to office who fulfill the requirements for elected office first set forth in Exodus 18:21, which instructs: “Choose out from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness.” These are the Biblical qualifications for office-holders. Other verses provide similarly important instructions for a nation’s preservation – for example, Proverbs 14:34, which declares that, “Righteousness exalts a nation.” Yet Proverbs 14:34 is not independent from Exodus 18:21; these two verses are actually related. That is, America can’t be exalted without righteous policies; but she can’t have righteous policies without righteous leaders. And America won’t have righteous leaders unless righteous citizens are willing to vote for leaders according to the Biblical guidelines set forth in Exodus 18:21. After all, Proverbs 29:2 succinctly tells us that, “When the righteous rule, the people rejoice; but when the wicked rule, the people groan.” In America, whether the righteous rule or whether the wicked rule is totally our choice – we are the ones who place either of them into office. A challenge given to early Americans by the Rev. Mathias Burnet in 1803 is still applicable for us today. He admonished believers in that generation:

Let not your children have reason to curse you for giving up those rights and prostrating those institutions which your fathers delivered to you.

Churches can uphold America’s Godly heritage by equipping members to be good stewards of the nation and of the blessings that God has entrusted into our hands.

david barton david barton