Today’s liberals and secularists attempt to relegate the effects of America’s Judeo-Christian heritage exclusively to the realm of a personal theological choice, ignoring the fact that Judeo-Christian teachings also encompass a philosophy of living that is directly proportional to the degree of civil liberty enjoyed in a society. Early statesman Dewitt Clinton (1769-1828) correctly recognized that Biblical faith applies not just “to our destiny in the world to come” but also “in reference to its influence on this world,” and therefore must always “be contemplated in [these] two important aspects.” [i]
While today’s post-modern critics refuse to acknowledge the dual aspects of Judeo-Christian faith, America’s Framers wisely recognized and heartily endorsed the influence of those teachings on the civil arena – especially on the formation of America’s unique republican (i.e., elective ) form of government:
The Bible. . . . [i]s the most republican book in the world. [ii] John Adams, signer of the declaration, framer of the bill of rights, u. s. president
I have always considered Christianity as the strong ground of republicanism. . . . It is only necessary for republicanism to ally itself to the Christian religion to overturn all the corrupted political . . . institutions in the world. [iii] Benjamin Rush, signer of the declaration, ratifier of the u. s. constitution
[T]he genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament or the Christian religion. . . . [A]nd to this we owe our free constitutions of government. [iv] Noah Webster, revolutionary soldier, legislator, judge
They . . . who are decrying the Christian religion . . . are undermining . . . the best security for the duration of free governments. [v] Charles Carroll, signer of the declaration, framer of the bill of rights
[T]o the free and universal reading of the Bible . . . men were much indebted for right views of civil liberty. [vi] Daniel Webster, “defender of the constitution”
Scores of other Framers, statesmen, and courts made similarly succinct declarations about how the Judeo-Christian Scriptures not only shaped republicanism [vii] but also many other unique aspects of our civil culture.
For example, when Benjamin Franklin founded America’s first hospital, he chose the Bible’s story of the Good Samaritan for its logo, with the passage from Luke 10:35 beneath: “Take care of him and I will repay thee.” Significantly, it was Jesus Who not only taught that it was proper to help the hurt (Luke 10:25-37) but He also taught that it was proper to feed the hungry, befriend the stranger, clothe the needy, visit the bedridden, and support the imprisoned (Matthew 25:34-40) – and to do so for strangers (Luke 10:27-37) as well as for enemies (Matthew 9:35-39). His teachings provide the true standard for charitable relief and civil benevolence.
Scriptural teachings were so important to society at large that America’s most famous public school textbooks taught students Biblical teachings such as the Good Samaritan; [viii] and even today, states continue to pass “Good Samaritan” statutes to protect willing volunteers (i.e., Good Samaritans) from legal liability for good-faith assistance efforts. Incontrovertibly, Biblical teaching such as the Good Samaritan, the Golden Rule (“Do unto others and you would have them do unto you” Matthew 7:12), and many others have elevated the culture; and even though these specific teachings are exclusive to Christianity, their primary application is to civil society.
The Framers thus properly recognized Christian teachings as the basis of America’s great civil benevolence – its unprecedented willingness to help others:
Christian benevolence makes it our indispensable duty to lay ourselves out to serve our fellow-creatures to the utmost of our power. [ix] John Adams
[T]he doctrines proclaimed by Jesus and His apostles [include] lessons of peace, of benevolence, of meekness, of brotherly love, [and] of charity. [x] John Quincy Adams, u. s. president
Let the religious element in man’s nature be neglected and he becomes the creature of selfish passion. . . . [T]he cultivation of the religious sentiment . . . incites to general benevolence. [xi] Daniel Webster
Christianity introduce[ed] a better and more enlightened sense of right and justice. . . . It taught the duty of benevolence to strangers. [xii] James Kent, “father of american jurisprudence”
The Christian philosophy, in its tenderness for human infirmities, strongly inculcates principles of . . . benevolence. [xiii] Richard Henry Lee, signer of the declaration, framer of the bill of rights
President Obama has announced that he will rescind the conscience protection for medical workers that currently provides them legal protection for refusing to go against their conscience and beliefs by participating in abortions.
Significantly, the Bible makes the rights of conscience a repeated subject of emphasis, with thirty references in the New Testament alone. The warning is even issued that if an individual “wounds a weak conscience of another, you have sinned” (I Corinthians 8:12). Christians were therefore instructed to respect the differing rights of conscience (v. 13). (See also I Corinthians 10:27-29.)
The rights of conscience have long been a cherished characteristic of the American civil fabric, and America’s Framers openly praised these protections:
No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience. Thomas Jefferson, signer of the declaration
Consciences of men are not the objects of human legislation. William Livingston, signer of the constitution
Security under our Constitution is given to the rights of conscience. John Jay, original chief justice of the u. s. supreme court
Government is instituted to protect property of every sort. . . . [and] conscience is the most sacred of all property. James Madison, signer of the constitution
Today, the safeguards for the rights of conscience now appear in forty-seven state constitutions. The President’s decision to rescind these protections places him in direct opposition to four centuries of America’s civic and religious leaders.
We have just finished a piece that addresses conscience protection from a Biblical and historic perspective. You can read this piece online, or download it. http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=23592 Please share this information with friends and encourage them to contact their elected officials, urging them to preserve conscience protection for medical workers.
Protection for the rights of conscience is just one more reason that Biblical Christianity is so beneficial to a culture and why its principles must be preserved in public policy.
God bless!
David Barton
In identifying a candidate’s position in each of these four areas, citizens should not listen to what either of the current presidential candidates say, because their voting record as a U. S. Senator more accurately identifies their true position than do their words. As Founding Father Benjamin Franklin wisely noted two centuries ago, “Well done is better than well said” 126 – an adage that merely summarizes an oft-repeated Scriptural truth:
By their fruits you will know them. MATTHEW 7:20
They profess that they know God but in works they deny Him, being disobedient and unto every good work reprobate. TITUS 1:16
Why do you call me “Lord” and not do the things I tell you? LUKE 6:46
(The modern version of this is, “Actions speak louder than words.”)
But how can an official’s actions – i.e., his voting record – be checked on specific issues? After all, between 10,000 and 13,000 bills are introduced during each two-year session of Congress, and a Congressman or Senator will cast literally hundreds of votes, including dozens on most issues about which they publicly speak (e.g., abortion, agriculture, homosexuality, taxes, foreign affairs, education, etc.). So how can the average citizen wade through hundreds and even thousands of votes? Fortunately, there are dozens of public watchdog groups (both for and against any issue) that track the votes of every elected official in Congress.
For example, if a Biblical voter wants to determine where a candidate stands on the issue of abortion and the protection of unborn human life, pro-life groups such as National Right to Life will monitor those votes and award a score to each official – as will pro-abortion groups such as National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) and Planned Parenthood. Consequently, a voter can check the congressional scorecards of these groups to see whether an individual has a demonstrated recordof voting pro-life or pro-abortion. (Of course, if the monitoring group is pro-abortion, then a 100 percent rating means that the official is an enthusiastic supporter of abortion, while a voting record of 0 percent means that the official is unequivocally pro-life; and the opposite is true when examining the ratings of a pro-life group.)
Similarly, in the area of homosexuality, groups such as the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN) monitor voting records in support of homosexual issues. Therefore, for a Biblical voter, it is important that an official receive a low rating from these groups.
And organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) want a completely secular public square, so their rating of an official also needs to be low in order for that official to win the support of the Biblical voter.
When possible, it is always good to consult the records of more than just one group on any issue; after all, the Bible instructs that something should be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses; cf. Deuteronomy 19:15, Matthew 18:16, 2 Corinthians 13:1.
Numerous groups produce a scorecard and each makes its record available on its own website, but there is now a single website to which voters may turn to see the scorecards of many groups collected in one location:
1. Go to Project Vote Smart (http://www.votesmart.org/).
2. At the top right of the front page, click on “Presidential Candidates” (which will take you to http://www.votesmart.org/election_president.php?dist=bio.php).
3. Click on the photo of a presidential candidate.
4. When the page comes up for that candidate, under the candidate’s photo, click on “Interest Group Ratings.”
5. Dozens of scorecards on the candidates will appear, listed alphabetically by categories. To see where the candidate stands on abortion, go to the “Abortion” section at the top.
Then scroll down to “Civil Liberties and Civil Rights” to see the ratings of groups like the ACLU and AU and other secular groups that oppose public religious expressions as well as the ratings of pro-homosexual groups such as the Human Rights Campaign and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Scroll down to “Conservative” to see the ratings of many Biblically-oriented pro-family groups such as Christian Coalition, Concerned Women for America, Christian Action Network. And scroll down even further to “Family and Children Issues” to find the ratings of Biblical-values groups such as the Family Research Council.
6. Realize that the ratings presented in each category are from groups that are religious as well as secular, liberal as well as conservative, so make sure you know the philosophy of each group to understand whether its rating is good or bad from a Biblical viewpoint.
Today, secularists have convinced many Americans to compartmentalize their faith – to acknowledge God at church, home, or other private settings but to refrain in public venues. If a candidate holds this position, it means that he is willing to disconnect God from what he does – that he can put his faith in one box, his behavior in another, and never let the two meet. Such candidates often speak glowingly about faith but usually their votes show no indication of its influence on either their thinking or actions. The entire nation is put at risk by leaders who publicly acknowledge faith but then privately compartmentalize it. As the Rev. Matthias Burnet (1749-1806) insightfully warned in 1803:
Think not that men who acknowledge not the providence of God nor regard His laws will be uncorrupt in office, firm in defense of the righteous cause against the oppressor, or resolutely oppose the torrent of iniquity.
Notice the emphasis not only on acknowledging but also on regarding – i.e., honoring and personally observing – God’s laws. If both aspects are not present, then faith’s primary role will be limited merely to favorable publicity for the campaign.
Understanding the national benefits resulting from both publicly acknowledging God in words and honoring Him in actions, President George Washington forcefully declared:
It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.
President John Adams agreed:
The safety and prosperity of nations ultimately and essentially depend on the protection and the blessing of Almighty God, and the national acknowledgment of this truth is . . . an indispensable duty which the people owe to Him.
People of faith should elect leaders who will not only protect and expand the opportunity for the public acknowledgment of God but who will also apply His principles to public venues.
The four non-negotiables that a Biblical voter should verify about a candidate are his positions on:
1. Appointing originalist judges
2. Protecting unborn human life
3. Opposing the ennoblement of homosexuality
4. Publicly acknowledging God and honoring Him in policy
State and become the head in each, Uzziah had crossed an institutional line established by God Himself. Therefore, when he took the priest’s sacred utensils and prepared to make use of them, God sovereignly weighed in and instantly struck Uzziah with leprosy. It had been acceptable for Uzziah to honor God in his kingdom, and it had been acceptable for Uzziah to enter the temple to worship God; but when he attempted to violate the jurisdictional separation between State and Church – when he sought to be in charge of both the civil and religious arenas at the same time – God provided a dramatic message of His disapproval.
Episcopal Bishop correctly acknowledged:
Christ and Caesar are at peace, but their kingdoms are independent. They cooperate but should never unite.
But Americans also understood that an institutional separation did not require a public secularization. As early national Quaker leader Will Wood (1797-1877) affirmed:
The separation of Church and State does not mean the exclusion of God, righteousness, morality, from the State.
Early American Bishop Charles Galloway agreed, noting that:
The separation of the Church from the State did not mean the severance of the State from God.
The U. S. Supreme Court long upheld a policy of government cooperation with religious expressions and activities – as in its 1952 decision affirming:
The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. . . . Otherwise the State and religion would be aliens to each other – hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly. . . . When the State encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. . . . We cannot read into the Bill of Rights such a philosophy of hostility to religion.
Regrettably, the once clear institutional separation of Church and State has now been subverted into a militant policy of civic secularization, thus depriving America of the positive benefits it long experienced from the public acknowledgment of God. As James Adams (an editor of the Cincinnati Post) correctly noted:
The Founding Fathers called only for separation, not divorce. Only in the latter half of [the twentieth] century has the United States Supreme Court held that Church and State should be legally divorced. . . . To require religion to stand mute in any public debate deprives the nation of a voice that needs to be heard. We dare not muzzle morality in the marketplace or permit the wall of separation to turn into an Iron Curtain of religious repression.
As the November 2008 Presidential Election approaches, the Bible (as well as American history) offers sound counsel to people of faith to help determine their selection for President. That counsel will be examined in this book, which is written primarily for persons of Biblical faith – for those who hold the Scriptures as the authority in their lives. Regrettably, this does not encompass all who call themselves Christian, Jew, Protestant, or Catholic, for many individuals in each of those categories are not Biblical in their thinking. † And while some of the rhetoric in this work is specifically Christian, the principles are firmly grounded in the Scriptures and are therefore Judeo-Christian and thus appropriate for both Christians and Jews.
Maintaining a National and not a Personal Perspective
- Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people. PROVERBS 14:34
- Righteousness alone can exalt [America] as a nation. Reader! Whoever thou art, remember this; and in thy sphere practice virtue thyself and encourage it in others.
- I have one great political idea. . . . It is in substance, “Righteousness exalteth a nation; sin is a reproach to any people” [Proverbs 14:34]. . . . This constitutes my politics – the negative and positive of my politics, and the whole of my politics.
- If the time ever comes when we shall go to pieces, it will . . . [be] from losing sight of the fact that “Righteousness exalteth a nation, but that sin is a reproach to any people” [Proverbs 14:34]. . . . Unless we hold firmly to the great principles of righteousness [enunciated in the Declaration of Independence, in the Golden Rule, in the Ten Commandments, in the Sermon on the Mount], [America,] if it continues to exist, will be a curse and not a blessing.
Because the Scripture unequivocally declares that “Righteousness exalts a nation,” then the issues that the Bible identifies as directly impacting national righteousness should be foremost in Biblical voters’ minds as they select a President. Dozens of Bible passages affirm that a nation’s righteousness is determined by its public policies and how well they conform to God’s standards; only God-honoring policies that lead to God-honoring actions can exalt a nation.
How can a nation achieve God-honoring policies? William Paterson, a signer of the Constitution and a U. S. Supreme Court Justice, answered that question by citing Proverbs 29:2, 11 which says:
When the righteous rule, the people rejoice; when the wicked rule, the people groan.
God-honoring public policies in a nation are the result of God-honoring public officials enacting those policies. Therefore, if righteousness (i.e., God-honoring policy) is to exalt a nation, then a nation must have leaders like Daniel, Nehemiah, David, or Moses rather than Ahab, Jezebel, Manasseh, or Jeroboam.
In America, the only way there will be God-honoring public officials is if God-honoring citizens elect them. As Founding Father Noah Webster reminded citizens in his day:
The Scriptures teach. . . . that rulers should be men who rule in the fear of God, able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness . . . . It is to the neglect of this rule of conduct in our citizens that we must ascribe the multiplied frauds, breaches of trust, peculations , and embezzlements of public property which astonish even ourselves.
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?
It became obvious that if I wanted to help good candidates move forward to the November election, then I needed to get involved in a political party and participate in that party’s primary. Because the platform of the Republican Party on traditional moral issues and religious expressions was much closer to my beliefs than the platform of the Democratic Party, I chose to become involved as a Republican. However, I did not drop my values at the door when I began working in that Party; I brought those values with me. Those values have caused me not only to support many Republicans but also to oppose many. I am deeply involved in the Republican Party, but I still judge each candidate – from any Party – by Biblical standards. Quite frankly, I believe that God is not particularly impressed with any party, but that He is impressed with righteousness; and all parties should pursue it – and all Christians in whatever party should push their party to pursue righteousness. However, parties are the mechanism in this country by which righteousness can be advanced (or inhibited), for it is from parties that candidates are selected; this, therefore, requires the involvement of Christians in the party process if they truly want to be salt and light and preserve the culture.
My activity on behalf of many God-fearing candidates, and on behalf of Judeo-Christian values in the Party platform (as well as my efforts to get other God-fearing citizens to become involved in the party process), caused me to be recognized by other Republicans. Consequently, I have five times been elected as the Vice-Chairman of the Republican Party of Texas – the second highest partisan office in the state. In that role, I have worked diligently to recruit strong candidates for office who reflect the general standards set forth in the Scriptures, and I have worked just as diligently to ensure that our Party’s policies and platform conform to those values.
WallBuilders Involvement
I began speaking about America’s history and heritage in the late 1980s. Since then, I have averaged speaking to between 350 and 450 different groups each year, showing the influence both of Christians and the Bible in our civil institutions – including government, law, military, education, etc. Over the course of a year, I often speak to dozens of pastors’ groups (and thousands of pastors) in state or national denomination conferences, local ministerial groups, pastors’ briefings, etc. It is not uncommon that I will speak to somewhere between 5,000 to 15,000 pastors in a year.
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.)
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.
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.