David Barton

I think I became aware of David Barton when a local pastor I knew slightly wrote a piece for our newspaper's 4th of July edition, about the founding fathers' fervent Christianity. His piece was full of factual errors, much less erroneous interpretation, so I wrote him privately. After all, his piece had been presented to this university town as representing the local Christian community: and there were academic historians reading it, knowing even better than I do that most of his assertions about American history were false.

He was kind enough to write me back, defending what he'd said as true, and citing his source: David Barton's "Wallbuilders" website. I'm a longtime student of American history, so I looked at "Wallbuilders" to see if it had some worthwhile information I'd missed. Quite the contrary: the site's "information" was simply untrue, to an obviously-dishonest purpose. Such stuff has to offend anyone who values accurate history: but there's little that can be done to counter it. There are always people who will buy into fringe beliefs like the Atlantean age, or British Israelites. Honest history never seems to dissuade people who want to believe lies.

I just wrote off David Barton's crack-pot history as undeserving of serious attention. Others didn't take that view. The Republican Party of Texas elected Barton its Chairman eight times. The Republican National Committee named Barton its "liaison to social conservatives" during the 2004 Bush presidential campaign. In 2005, Time magazine profiled Barton as one of "The 25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America." (Barton frequently refers to this honor on his "Wallbuilders" website and in his Who's Who entry, but without quoting Time's biography: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1993235_1993243_1993261,00.html. More on that below.)

But unlike some of Time's "Influential Evangelicals," whom I respect as spiritual leaders (Billy Graham, Joyce Meyer, J. I. Packer, Chuck Colson, Rick Warren), Barton was singled out for his political influence on American Christians (see above). Barton's influence grows from his role as the founder of (in Time's words) "what might be called Christian counter-history," and its power to sway Christian voters. That influence continues: I understand that in 2012 Barton was chosen to help write the Republican platform...on which a Mormon priest ran for President.

But though his influence on Christians (and the country) is political, Barton studiously avoids mentioning politics. His high political achievements are the kinds of things anyone would ordinarily cite proudly in their Who's Who biography, or on their own website. Barton doesn't. Even his "Wallbuilder's" mention of Time's honor as an "influential Evangelical" links to that issue's cover: not to its biographical sketch detailing his work as a professional Republican operative. That reticence seems very curious, unless Barton wants to appear non-political...which he's emphatically not.

Barton's also been deceptive in claiming to be a "historian," and has only recently stopped referring to himself that way on his website. If his (self-written) Who's Who biography can be believed, he has a bachelor's degree in Christian Education. That in itself is not damning. Many amateur historians have done excellent and important work, despite having no formal training in history: Barbara Tuchman (with a degree in journalism) and David McCullough (English) come readily to mind. But Barton's version of America's "Christian heritage" fails AS history on that discipline's most basic standard, applicable to amateur and professional alike: factual accuracy, and honest interpretive methods.

More importantly, Barton's politically-skewed "history" doesn't meet Christians' most basic standard: love of the Truth/Jesus. Barton cites events which never happened, or didn't happen the way he portrays them, and quotes people as saying things they never said or wrote (his own website has a large section of "Disputed Quotations" where he attempts to defend the latter); and interprets it all in manifestly-biased ways that amount to "conservative" propaganda.

I used to pray that God would convict David Barton of his lies and his deceptive practices. But when a person's worldly success is based on untruth (Glenn Beck, for example, or Rush Limbaugh), it's particularly hard for them to repent: even if they are still able to recognize Truth. (And if I understand scripture correctly, men can so obstinately refuse to "receive the love of the Truth" that God sends on them "strong delusions," so that they can no longer recognize saving Truth. II Thessalonians 2:7-12)

All I know is that David Barton has taught, and continues to teach, lies. His lies are specifically intended to deceive Christians, for base political purposes. That much is manifest to any honest examination of the man and his teachings. But God examines the heart: He Alone is the sovereign Judge of David Barton's heart.

I can testify, however, that I no longer feel God leads me to pray for Barton to repent. Toward him, I feel led instead to pray that God will glorify Himself in destroying the enemies of Truth. That in His mercy, He will protect His people's hearts from the lies by which the enemy tries to lead us away from His Beloved Son ! That He will stir His people's love of Truth to intense flame ! I pray (as right now) that God will exalt His Name, putting to shame the father of lies and his evil-workers !

It's a prayer every Christian should pray. It's a prayer of protection for every one who loves our God and His Chosen; and of destruction on every enemy of Christ. It's a prayer pleasing to God. And He alone, the only righteous Judge of mens' hearts, determines who He is pleased to protect, and who He wills to destroy.

Whatever God determines toward David Barton, His judgements are righteous altogether, and are Glory to our King ! Praise Him !!

Amen !!

Drawing the Line II

Ted Williams was the last man in major-league baseball to bat over .400. He credited his hitting ability to his visual acuity, which tested at 20/10 when he entered the Navy in 1942. Williams claimed that he could see the spin of the ball's stitches from the moment it left the pitcher's hand, which told him the ball's future motion and placement when it reached home-plate.

An interviewer asked Williams about his legendary batting skills. It was simple, Williams said: he didn't swing at any ball except those which touched the strike-zone.

"But with your eyesight," said the interviewer, "surely you could have hit pitches that were only a sixteenth of an inch outside, or an eighth of an inch. Couldn't you have gotten even more hits that way ?"

"NO !" Williams said. "If I did that, where would I draw the line ?"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I cited this anecdote in a previous blog-post, that American Christians also need to draw the line: in our case, against the creeping worldliness that has led us far astray. It came back to mind today in a different connection: who draws the line ?

Ted Williams understood the strike-zone was built into the rules of the game. He simply determined to observe those rules.

So who draws the line ?

When I started work for the Post Office in the late '70s, they were still talking about a recent employee who'd been convicted of murdering her boyfriend. The testimony was that she'd shot and killed him after an argument one hot afternoon. Her defense ?: "I told him not to move that fan."

If "every man does what is right in his own eyes," who can say I'm wrong to kill anyone who displeases me ? I draw my own line, for my own reasons: and don't you dare move that fan.

Or if the armed anarchistic autonomy some clamor for today is not to our taste, are the brawling tribes of the earth better able to draw the line ? Don't we have the example of all history, that they will do as they have always done in their national moral autonomy, and find it laudable to murder in defence of "national interests" ?

We who believe that God Alone Fathers life, Creates "the game" and its rules: is He not Alone the Only righteous Judge fit to rule when the life He has given should be forfeit ?

No Light in America

My wife and I got a chance to actually talk this morning. It doesn't happen often. We're both on the verge of formal "retirement," with all that entails: and raising a 3-year old and 2 teenagers. We seldom get a chance to really talk to each other.

We have some different ways of viewing things, but mostly the same way as regards the faith. And we have many of the same disappointments regards our nation, and state, and church. The welcome opportunity to talk clarified again the simple outlines of that disappointment.

In broadest terms, disappointment that so many in our country are looking to politics for their truth: for the personal attitudes, deeply-held beliefs, and talking-points they choose to embrace ! Politics can be many things, and not all of them are evil: but looking to politics for truth is so profoundly foolish it must qualify as true insanity.

More grievous is that Christians look to politics for truth !! And infinitely more grievous, that Christians trust in politics...the world's method...to put the world's evils right.

If seeking truth from politics is insanity, trusting politics for spiritual and moral wellbeing is the most profound deception and unbelief. And both are the operative ways of most "evangelical" American Christians !

May God send His Spirit of DEEP REPENTANCE on His deluded people !! Amen !!

Reality Check

I've looked at the Church' danger in hundreds of different ways God reveals. He's awakened me to hundreds of deceits the enemy works to destroy Christ' Body and Christ' witness in us.

It still all comes down to this: Jesus IS the Truth. If we follow lies, we are not following Jesus.

Amen.

Cursing your ruler

"You shall not curse God, nor curse a ruler of your people." (Exodus 22:28)

Just another of the miscellaneous laws Moses laid out for the Israelites in the wilderness. How seriously are we supposed to take that ? Isn't cursing our rulers just par for the human course ?

But God obviously considers cursing a ruler a very great sin: He links it with cursing Himself. He doesn't specify the punishment: but we know He ordered a half-Egyptian Israelite stoned to death for cursing His Name. (Leviticus 24:10-16) Job's wife also understood death to be God's judgement for cursing Him, advising her husband to "Curse God and die." (Job 2:9)

Paul obviously took the law against cursing a ruler seriously. When he was brought before the Jews' ruling council in Jerusalem, Ananias, the High Priest, ordered someone to punch Paul in the mouth. Paul "reviled" his persecutor as a "whitewashed wall," until he was told Ananias was "God's High Priest." He backed down immediately, pleading ignorance of Ananias' office, "...for it is written, 'You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.' " (Acts 23:5)

We know at least part of how Paul understood God's command to not curse (or, per Acts, "revile," or "speak evil of") a ruler. Romans 13 makes clear the Church' understanding that Christians should "be subject to" human rulers (even, in the book of Romans' time, the legendarily evil ruler Nero), because they rule by God's sovereign choice, and in His authority. And those who "resist authority" (no doubt including cursing the ruler) opposes God's law, and will suffer the consequences.

Whether or not Paul wrote the book of Romans, he was a Christian, and a leader of the Church: it's inconceivable that he would have rejected that teaching. Indeed, his actions before the Jerusalem council show him practicing that teaching. Upon learning that Ananias...who had personally played a key role in condemning Jesus to death...was "God's High Priest," Paul immediately, publicly, repented of his "reviling" words against him.

God puts His command to "...not...curse a ruler of your people" on some kind of equality with not cursing Himself. The writer of Romans gives us further insight into why God views that as sin. The Church taught that this was God's commandment, and that Christians should obey it even when the ruler de jour was Nero. Paul acted in obedience to that commandment.

And what do you say about the ruler of your people, American Christian ? That America's President in any regard tries to obey God's mandate that human rulers be "a minister of God to you for good" ? Or does mention of the name "Obama" raise in your spirit a stream of the vilest hatred and slander ?

Do the words that flow from Christians' mouths, e-mails, facebook posts, and blogs show what spirit is in them ?

If so, may America's Church learn what God means when He commands "You shall not...curse a ruler of your people;" and deeply repent.

A Praise

Very creation sings His Presence: His ravishing beauty, His power.

Does anything He's graced, not ?

He Fathers Life; and all life lives giving and receiving, expends as He IS, Love, in Love.

Man, His creation, beautified in Him, lives graced by Love for Love.

He IS, in all, His Presence His Love, His Praise, Life.

All, sing love praise live HIM.

Amen, Amen.

The Problem With Democracy

During World War I, the U.S. Secretary of War decided that prostitution was a danger to the health and moral fiber of soldiers and sailors. Red-light districts near military bases were ordered shut down. Martin Behrman, political boss and mayor of New Orleans, reluctantly complied by shutting down the city's legendary Storyville district: famously remarking, "You can make prostitution illegal in New Orleans, but you can't make it unpopular."

The problem with democracy is a moral problem: sin is popular. Government of, by, and for the people will be as people are: and people are sinners.

Today we're seeing majority popular opinion becoming more accepting of abortion and gay marriage: so we increasingly have laws protecting those evils as "rights." Public opinion is being professionally manipulated to view gun "rights" as sacred: so legislators (politicians who keep their jobs by giving people what they want) rush to make it so in law.

But the deeper problem of democracy is that "people rule" (as "democracy" means) is the exact opposite of the government God desires, intends, warrants, decrees, empowers, pledges, and guarantees among men: His Own Kingdom.

In this choice, this head-to-head confrontation of governments, Jesus cries to followers of democracy the first word He cried to this fallen world, and cries today and always,

REPENT !!

I'm Not Sure

I'm re-reading James 1. Had recommended that as a starting-place for a new believer who's never really read the Bible before, and I wanted to hear it again myself before talking about what he got from it.

One of my favorite verses is in that chapter: "If any man lack wisdom..." I certainly know that's me. But I can still remember when the full import...the operative reality...of that verse hit me 10 or 15 years ago: and I did what James said.

One time when our men's group was studying James, I asked the guys if they'd ever asked God for wisdom. They all said they had, of course. But as we talked about it, it became clear they meant they'd asked God for wisdom in some particular circumstance. It struck me at the time that that was true and good, as far as it went: but that my understanding of the verse was somewhat different.

I put it aside to think about, like other somewhat-differences I note between my own thinking and other believers'.

Maybe I have a handle on it now...maybe not. But I understand James to mean we can ask God for wisdom as a lifestyle (an over-worked word, but the right one here). That's not to say prayer for circumstantial wisdom is at all inapplicable, or any kind of error. It's also not to say that it's either/or: even those who pray for a life of wisdom doubtless have circumstances arise which require particular prayer.

So where does the shade or increment of difference lie ? Prayer for circumstantial wisdom is as obedient to the scripture as prayer for a wise life: and I don't doubt, as fully honored by God. Yet there is something greater in God's pleasure with Solomon's asking for wisdom: and I understand Solomon was asking for wisdom in all that God had given him, more than to act wisely in a particular circumstance (I Chronicles 1:10-12).

I'm not sure: but perhaps God's greater pleasure is in Solomon's trusting Him for more: for all time, rather than one time. That seems to accord with James' words regards wisdom: that God gives generously to any who ask Him without doubting. It makes sense to me that His pleasure, and His generosity, is greater when we trust Him, act-in-belief toward Him, for all things. The latter is how I understand Jesus' Own walk, and His teaching...the Kingdom of God.

Repentance

In the first gospel, it was the first word Jesus spoke as He began His public ministry: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 4:17). It's the very first step by which the unrighteous and unholy (ourselves) must approach Him Who IS Righteousness and Holiness: and a continual requirement of a continuing relationship with Him. But how do we get there ?

Meditating on that question, there seem two requirements. I'm not sure of their order, or ranking: or if they should be ordered or ranked. Indeed, the two work so closely together I'm not sure they're separate things at all, except for convenience in talking about them. In themselves, they seem more like intertwined aspects of one reality.

Honesty with ourself, about our self, seems crucial: how else can we unrighteous and unholy ever perceive, much less admit, that's what we are ? But, apart from Sovereign grace, how can malefactors such as we are even conceive a measure perfect enough to gauge our own depravity ?

Yet we do. C. S. Lewis points out in opening Mere Christianity that we all behave as if we believe there's a universally-recognized moral standard: we appeal to it, as if certain everyone knows the rules, when we are wronged by someone flouting it. And more to the point, we go to elaborate lengths to justify our own shabby behavior in terms of that standard: arguing that we did not really transgress its rules because (insert excuse here).

Unrighteous and unholy as we are, we yet seem to believe there is a "right" and "wrong," which others (at least in their dealings with us) should adhere to. Our choice for honesty comes in how we personally relate to that moral standard we believe incumbent on all...do we believe it incumbent on ourself ? If we except our self from its authority, we lie to ourselves that we acknowledge its absolute force. Honesty with ourselves begins in acknowledging that we are limited beings: and limited first as subject to a standard of righteousness independent of our own desires and purposes.

If we are not thus honest with ourself about our self, how honest can we be with God ? The only possible honesty to God is acknowledging we are NOT God. If we hold ourselves only to a standard whose highest "good" is our self, how truly do we acknowledge One more righteous and holy than ourself: or how honestly desire His forgiveness, if we're satisfied with our own ? The dishonest heart's repentance and forgiveness are hollow; a lie; self-deceiving religious form; hypocrisy. Only fierce honesty can repent as God requires, in spirit and in truth.

Repentance also requires (in the wonderful title of Derek Prince' seminal teaching) agreeing with God. First, that HE IS GOD: that His rule and His law (present in attenuated form in Lewis' "universally-recognized moral code") are infinitely more righteous than our own. In the same honesty, our heart must agree with God's that we have transgressed against His righteousness, rule and law: no excuses. Repentance.

If we agree with God that He IS The King and The Authority, honesty must acknowledge Him as the One against Whom we transgress. If we agree, as He says, that He is the Judge, honesty must recognize His right to condemn and His power to punish. Unless we agree honestly with God that "I AM" is Sovereign- and True-Alone GOD as He says, our repentance is empty: and worse than empty, it is the stench of fleshly self in His nostrils.

With any honest heart which agrees in Him, God is pleased: His pleasure, the highest honor granted by The King. And to any who thus pleases Him, He is pleased to give more of HIMSELF: His mercy-to-forgive, His Fatherly care...even adoption as His sons. To honest hearts, He grants the greatest desire to which man can aspire: God's Own PRESENCE, now and forever.

All praise to HIM Who IS all in all. Amen.

Loving Truth (Even on Facebook)

I have a facebook "friend" ("friended" because she's the wife of a real-life friend) who continually posts all the current political/social lies. Among other things, she posts a lot of tea party stuff (including regular posts from the Australian Tea Party....!?!?!?)

As a Christian, I have to see lies as spiritual warfare. Jesus said He IS "the Truth." He called satan "the father of lies." It's as simple as Jesus said: spreading lies is working for the enemy. By definition, a lie contradicts Truth, as when "The serpent said...'You surely will not die !' " (Genesis 3:4). By nature, a lie is a Personal denial of Jesus Christ.

Even the evil secular world recognizes the simple moral judgement that lies are wrong. Even the spiritually-blind can see that following lies produces disastrous results: who can ignore the utter destruction of Germany when it followed Hitler's "Big Lie" ? In terms of the Bible's deeper moral wisdom, lies are spiritual poison to those who ingest them, producing spiritual death. What kind of "friend" feeds their friends poison ?

Believing what Jesus said, it's painful, infuriating in the extreme, to see Christians (CHRISTIANS !!!) spreading lies on facebook, in e-mail, in their blogs. The only good way I've found to respond to Christians (?) who do the enemy's work is to point out their "facts" don't measure up to Truth...as non-judgementally as possible.

"Non-judgementally" because personal culpability is not the ultimate point here. Personal failing we ALL have always with us: and calling each other evil names short-circuits our receptivity to reproof. To get across the spiritual evil of lies, our best hope is that "friends" who spread them are not so personally invested in them that they personally identify with the lie. It's helpful that virtually all e-mail and facebook lies are authored by Anonymous: giving greater possibility that whosoever will can more dispassionately (and honestly) compare someone else's false "facts" with verifiable reality.

It's noteworthy that "honesty," "fact," and "reality" all, in one regard or another, relate to TRUTH. Even more noteworthy that all are expressions of what really exists...of I AM. In the same way that Creation declares God's glory (Psalms 19:1) and His righteousness (Psalms 50:6) such that all men see it (Psalms 97:6), I understand that the Truth through Whom all things came into being (John 1) is indelibly stamped on the human world in full view of All humankind. Most of all do we, who claim to follow that One Who IS "the Truth," have to LOVE Truth in our honesty to facts and reality. Sadly, if our e-mails, facebook posts, and blogs are a reliable indicator, such honest love is severely lacking in the heavily-politicized American Church.

Fortunately, there are a number of good fact-checking sites online whose honest research verify if the latest political-social factoid actually happened, or if some partisan interpretational "spin" is truthful. I reference and forward those pages when I want to non-judgementally confront a "friend" who's spreading lies. The hope is that anyone with a spiritual consciousness of "Truth," any who honestly love Him, will understand, and repent of these lies.

The deeper question is one that's intrigued me for over 40 years: WHY do people believe lies ? I grew up in a neighborhood only a few miles from the world headquarters of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and a number of kids I grew up with were RLDS or Mormon (indeed, our high-school graduation was held in the RLDS temple next to the parking-lot where Mormons claim Jesus will return to earth). My spiritual awareness as a teenager was practically nil, only the rudiments impressed on my unwillingly mind by years of Southern Baptist Sunday School and sermons: but I remember wondering even then how nice folks, intelligent people, could believe the stuff my Mormon friends did ?

The question came into sharper focus in the early '70s. I was mostly apolitical at the time, a former druggie recently begun to walk in Christ: but we were all hyper-aware of the Watergate drama playing out daily. It seemed obvious to me then, as it does even more today, that President Nixon was lying his ass off to save himself. But my parents, longtime Nixon followers, entirely believed his lies that he hadn't done anything wrong, and that everything negative being said about him was the work of political enemies out to get him.

My parents were "good," church-going people, and they weren't stupid. Yet they believed Nixon's lies to the day they died. It put the question prominently before me again: why do good, intelligent people believe manifest lies ?

Even after 40 years, I have difficulty understanding how it can be. It's more clear to me than ever that accepting Truth, or believing a lie, is a moral choice God gives us. More clear too that following Truth (Jesus) is the Way (Jesus) of Life (Jesus) and blessing: and following a lie the sure road to destruction and death. But the best answer I've come up with why people would choose the latter, is that they want to.

My facebook "friend," perhaps in oblique reference to the many times I've challenged her lying posts, recently posted this (itself by an anonymous author):

"Just because I post it, doesn't mean I'm going through it and it doesn't mean that it's directed at anyone. Maybe it's just that I like what I read or what I see and so I share it. I am Human!"

The attempt to disavow responsibility for one's own posts ("Just because I post it...") seems disingenuous on the face of it. But I doubt my "friend" really means it, anyway. Her admission that "...it's just that I like what I read or what I see and so I share it" sounds very much like she recognizes she's responsible for what she posts.

But my focus was on her reason for posting lies: "...I like [them]." That part of her statement seems very honest, and confirmation of my small understanding why people believe lies: it pleases us to do so. In the broad view, the autonomous ("self-law") mind of man in rebellion against God, accepts and acts on no authority higher than its own: we want to do what pleases us.

The problem of being governed by our autonomous mind could not be more stark than it is in regard to Truth: as stark as (and part of) the choice between death and Life (Whom Jesus also said He IS). God gives us a free choice: will we love and follow Truth, and live...or do as we please ? Everything in His governing reality, framed and fashioned by His Word of Truth, follows from that choice.

Woe to American Christianity, whose public testimony (in its facebook posts, e-mails, and blogs) is that it "likes" lies !!

God, Father of mercy, break our evil hearts to REPENT before You !!!