Jim Bakker and David Barton Get Together

David Barton recently visited The Jim Bakker Show to talk about his new book The Founders Bible.  I’ve been watching Barton for a long time, and I sense several new points of emphasis during his visit.

After his publisher Brad Cummings speaks, Barton comes in around the 2:00 minute mark and starts talking about the relationship between sin and history.  He stresses how Paul, David, and Sampson were all used by God despite their sin. Interesting.  Then he starts talking about the flaws of  founding fathers and how God used them to build America.  Let’s consider the immediate context in which Barton makes these statements–the age of Trump.  God uses flawed men to build America.  This is Court Evangelicalism 101.

The old David Barton comes back around the 4:00 mark when as he claims that 27 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence held seminary or Bible school degrees.

Watch:

By the way, Barton’s view that the founders used biblical principles in their writings without citing chapter and verse may contain a kernel of truth.  Check out Daniel Dreisbach’s Reading the Bible With the Founding Fathers.  Barton, of course, takes this view to an extreme. Remember, his goal is to use the past to win the culture war rather than providing his followers with a nuanced view of how the founders engaged the Bible.

Here is another short video from David Barton’s appearance on the Jim Bakker show:

Here Barton is talking about a meeting with Glenn Beck and televangelist Rick Joyner. In this clip Joyner claims that Independent Network Charismatic leader (and King Cyrus coin guy) Lance Wallnau was also present.

I have written a lot about Beck and Wallnau, but some of you may not be familiar with Joyner.  He runs an organization called Morning Star Ministries.  Back in 1998 he tried to get a religious property tax exemption for his private jet, several tracts of land, and his vacation home.  He was also a business partner of Jim Bakker back in the PTL days and, in 2004, bought Bakker’s Heritage USA.  He is part of the Independent Network Charismatic movement, a believer in Seven Mountain Dominionism, and a climate change-denier.  Click here to learn more about him, compliments of Right Wing Watch;

Barton mentions that the meeting with Beck, Joyner, and Wallnau focused on “where the nation is going spiritually.”  I think it fair to read this as a culture-war strategy session.  Barton’s co-author Cummings was also at the meeting and he describes a vision Joyner had about the American Revolutionary War and the Civil War. God told Joyner that these events did not accomplish what they should have accomplished, especially as it relates to race relations.  That sounds about right.  But as Joyner’s dream came to end, he got a vision of a “Second American Revolution and Civil War” that will be “inevitable, just, and successful.”

Barton then affirms Joyner’s vision, and in doing so he says some accurate things about the failure of the founders to deliver on matters of racial equality.  This is a huge step for Barton. It led me to wonder where he was going this.  Where was the culture-war hook?

And then it happened.  At about the 4:50 mark Barton adds an additional layer to his interpretation of Joyner’s dream.  Rather than continuing with his mini-lecture on America’s failure in matters of race, he suggests that Joyner’s vision about a “Second American Revolution and Civil War” was actually about Roe v. Wade.  Barton says that we should expect a Civil War “over the abortion issue.”  If Roe v. Wade is overturned, California and other pro-choice states will secede from the Union and it will end in violence.

Watch the entire Bakker-Barton conversation here and here.

And if you really watch carefully, you will “learn” that:

  • Jim Bakker just opened a “Prayer Mountain” in the Ozarks.
  • David Barton is “honored all over the world” and is “brilliant.”
  • Barton’s new book, The Founders Bible, is very heavy.
  • Barton claims that The Founders Bible is his “greatest book,” a “transformational book that will last generations.”
  • The Founders Bible is a “modern day version of the Geneva Bible.”
  • The Founders Bible takes the “wisdom” of the founders and “mixes it with biblical perspectives” and applies to the “issues we face today.” God and Country! There really is little daylight between the teachings of the founders and God.
  • Cummings took 16-hours of “masters-level church history” and never heard some of the stories Barton writes about in the The Founders Bible.  (Cummings attended seminary at Fuller Theological Seminary.  Fuller is a great evangelical seminary.  I thus think there is a reason he never heard Barton’s stories at Fuller).
  • Barton serves as a consultant for state social standards.
  • If young people just read primary documents they would come around to Barton’s views and come to believe that America is a Christian nation.  For Barton, these documents are frozen in time.  He is opposed to the kind of historical thinking that takes change over time, context, complexity, contingency, and causation seriously.
  • America is a “Christian nation,” which Barton defines as a nation in which the Bible shapes the culture.  His example is the free-market system.
  • Free market capitalism came from five Bible verses:  1 Timothy 5:8, 2 Thessalonians 3:10, Matthew 25, Luke 19, and Matthew 20.
  • The stock market is doing well because we are using “biblical economics.”
  • David Barton is humble and not a self-promoter.  (Unless you challenge him on his “earned doctorate“)
  • Colin Kaepernick does not know that “Black Americans” during the Civil War tried to save the American flag and received honors for it.
  • All the athletes today who refuse to honor the flag are products of “recent education.”
  • If you live in poverty in America today, you live better than the middle class in Europe.
  • Our schools focus too much on pre-Civil War chattel slavery and not enough on present-day slavery.
  • Slavery is not an issue of racism, it is a matter of economics.
  • The colonies really separated from England because we wanted to end slavery.  It wasn’t because of “no taxation without representation.”
  • At the time of the Civil War, the majority of the American population was “not racist.”
  • History is being rewritten to make the United States look bad.  “They” have made us a global bad guy.
  • David Barton helped Ukraine create a constitution.
  • 2 Timothy 2:15, which says “Study to shew yourself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth,” applies to both the Bible and the history of the American founding.
  • The reason college students like socialism so much is because of Internet memes.
  • The American Revolution was a success because the patriots were thinking more biblical than the supporters of the crown.
  • David Barton can predict a person’s view on the capital gains tax and climate change based on what they believe about abortion.
  • Trump has done “more things for righteousness” than all the presidents of David Barton’s lifetime combined.
  • It is “pathetic” that only half of evangelical pastors support Donald Trump.
  • The Founders Bible is the “greatest research tool of all time.”
  • Liberals hate the Bible.
  • People should go to church armed with guns because Christianity is under threat in America.  It is the only way to establish “order” in the country.

30 thoughts on “Jim Bakker and David Barton Get Together

  1. Perhaps the most disturbing part of this is the apparent desire to establish denial of climate change as a part of “true” evangelical Christianity. Evangelicals are destroying their own movement by embracing science denial.

    Like

    • Sean,

      You wouldn’t want us to embrace fables, would you? It’s better to have a small movement than one which champions falsehood.

      I am not a Roman Catholic but really have a lot of respect for retired Pope Benedict XVI. Before he left office, he said the same essential thing about his Church. (He was not discussing climate matters, but rather broader doctrinal issues.) Why comprise core values simply to gain numbers?
      James

      Like

      • James, I assume you meant “Why *compromise* core values simply to gain numbers?”
        Are you saying they should embrace climate denial, or just stay silent about things they do not understand?

        Like

        • Alex,

          That’s a good question. Answer: People in general would do best to remain “…silent about things they do not understand.” Christians specifically should limit their official public remarks to matters with definite Biblical import. Obviously, they should also understand the subject.

          James

          Like

          • “Can we remain indifferent before the problems associated with such realities as climate change…?”
            -Pope Benedict XVI
            If you respect him will you listen to him? He has his own scientists who aren’t funded by fossil fuels, or government grants.

            Like

            • Alex,

              I respect Pope Benedict XVI on theological matters. That is his forte’. He is, however, not an expert on science. The Vatican science advisors who reflexively parrot the media and globalist line need to do some independent thinking.

              But as I stated previously, Alex, I am all for reasonable environmental safeguards. I simply part company with you on all of the man-made global warming hysteria.

              James

              Like

  2. We are already living in a nation where people like this have a disproportionate amount of influence with the political leadership, where they are getting a small measure of what they want in exchange for their complete allegiance and political support. Can you imagine the hellscape of a country where people like this more fully held the reins of power? I am an evangelical, but the kind of theocratic state these people envision for our country would be a dystopian nightmare. Their enemies list includes everyone who is not an exact clone of their way of thinking, and they reinterpret all past and current history to conform to that way of thinking. Certainly, we all inevitably do a small measure of that reinterpretation ourselves, but nowhere to near this extent . . . seeking to impose their world view on everyone and preferably through sheer force, hoping for violent revolution which will result in the destruction of their enemies and their own political and cultural domination.

    I am far, far more troubled and concerned about today’s bellicose religious right than I ever was about the “godless liberal secular humanists” bogeyman I heard so much about in my evangelical churches. God help us.

    Liked by 2 people

    • I included that second paragraph both because it is what I firmly believe, and also in anticipation of the likely “But Hillary!” reply.

      Like

      • Dave H.

        Speaking as a man who is not a Bartonite, I respectfully believe you are overstating your case in writing that these people want to bring about their ends, “…through sheer force, hoping for violent revolution….” It would be difficult for you to find anything close to that plan in their writings.

        James

        Like

        • I’m not saying that they are actively planning this, but I do believe they see such revolution as almost inevitable and they would welcome it as they see themselves as the victors in such a scenario. While I haven’t formally studied the various dominionist movements, I do keep one uneasy eye on the troubling views being expressed within some of these movements as reported by observers and watchdogs. I see more and more references to views that today’s culture wars will inevitably lead to a second civil war. Joyner’s vision of a second American revolution and Barton’s expectation of a civil war over abortion are not to be taken lightly here. When I hear people talk about taking to the streets with their guns if an election doesn’t go the way they want it to, or if Trump is impeached, or if such-and-such law is passed, I no longer dismiss this as the hyperbolic rhetoric of fringe elements. Such talk is becoming more and more mainstream and “normalized” all the time. I know people who fancy themselves as an American Revolutionary-style militia-man in waiting for the call to go out and reclaim the country.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Dave H.

            Thanks for the clarification. Please keep in mind, however, that thus far the real organized violence has come from the official left. ANTIFA and sister organizations on campus and in urban areas are currently the violent actors in the cultural-political wars. No Christian groups have even hinted at storming the institutional ramparts.

            James

            Like

            • I am against violent action on all fronts. The left has its share of violent provocateurs, as you observe. Although in the wake of Charlottesville, I believe you are overstating your case when you say that the real organized violence has come from the left, as if the right is blameless in this regard. And it is my perception that there has been a higher amount of un-organized violence (i.e. “lone gunman”-type) from the right than from the left, although examples exist of both.

              And while Christian and para-Christian groups aren’t currently calling to storm the institutional ramparts, for some of them that is only because they believe the institutional powers currently favor them. As I mentioned, some have predicted the need to do so in the event that the current status quo changes, be it through an election or legislative action or court decision.

              As a Christian, I am particularly sensitive about discussions regarding the potential need for violent action being made by those claiming the mantle of Christ when they talk about such things. I’m concerned with violence from all sides, but from a faith standpoint I’m particularly troubled when I find out that “the phone call is coming from inside the house.”

              Like

                • John,

                  Charlottesville was a “flash in the pan” compared to all of the violence being fermented the left. Additionally, it was not a Christian action. The folks responsible for the disturbances there were simply political extremists void of Biblical moorings.

                  James

                  Like

                  • Be careful what you call a “flash in the pan,” James. These white supremacists believe they are Christians and our president did not condemn their actions. They long for a white Christian America and are willing to engage in violence to get it.

                    Liked by 1 person

                    • John,

                      I cannot believe you are accepting the CNN-Democrat narrative that Trump did not condemn the violence. His statement on the day of the event was selectively edited to make him look like he had a laissez faire attitude toward the violence. He condemned the thugs on both sides.

                      Finally, if you think that the extremists at Charlottesville were actual Christians, you have not examined their beliefs. They are not in the same universe with Barton or anyone else in the Christian political movement.

                      James

                      Like

                    • James, I am afraid you have been watching too much Fox News. Trump said that there were good people on both sides at Charlottesville. When asked to clarify, he pretty much doubled down. Yes, later he made a half-hearted condemnation of the white supremacist, but he never apologized or showed remorse for his previous statement. Granted, the white supremacists are not the same as Barton and others on the Christian Right, but when someone names the name of Christ on behalf of white supremacy they should be called out. Trump’s court evangelicals backed him through this entire incident. Robert Jeffress said that Trump said nothing wrong when he said that there were good people on both sides. The others remained silent. I assume you are a Christian, James. Why do you remain silent and continue to carry water for the president on this front?

                      Like

                    • Yes, Trump did call out behavior and actions after Charlottesville. But in my view (and that of many others) he did it in relatively soft terms, only after having been pressed to make a statement, and he made sure to characterize it in both-siderism terms. His words were understood by the white nationalist groups to be mild, and some have spoken of viewing Trump as being an ally sympathetic to their cause. In any case, they form part of his coalition of support, and he is unlikely to do anything to significantly alienate that support.

                      Like

                    • John,

                      Again, I am very disappointed that a man with your obvious research skills did not read the president’s Charlottesville statement in its complete context. You do not have to go to Fox News to find it.

                      When he spoke of good people on both sides, he was referring to both sides of the Confederate monument debate. (By the way, there are many fair-minded people who differ on the monuments.). Trump was not referring to street brawlers and violent extremists.

                      James

                      Like

                    • James: You make it sound like what happened in Charlottesville was something akin to an academic debate over the role of monuments in the teaching of history. That is not what happened.

                      Liked by 1 person

                  • JOHN,
                    True that the academic debate about old monuments is not akin to street-fighting.

                    Also true that Trump did not support any faction of violet thugs or refer to them as “good people.”

                    James

                    Like

            • Just for a tiny bit of perspective, ANTIFA stands for anti-fascist and they apparently see themselves as a counter to a rising tide of actual violence and the increasing rhetorically threat of violence on the right. You really should do some deeper research into the rise of Christian-based militias. Of course, we know that you won’t.

              Historically, the Ku Klux Klan, and offshoots, have attracted the support of good white God-fearing Christians and have always wrapped their efforts as a crusade for Christ and Christian values. Of course you will poo poo this and of course there’s always the “they are no true Christians” debate but it certainly doesn’t help to try and hide from this reality.

              Like

              • Jim in STL,

                The conservative militias you mentioned in your first paragraph have never injected themselves into offensive operations to intimidate their opponents. These militias stay to themselves. The same cannot be said of ANTIFA.

                As far as your second point about historically racist groups, you are correct in marking them as acting contrary to Christian teaching. Just because a man is a gentile and has his name on a church membership roll somewhere hardly makes him a Christian. Furthermore, these fringe groups no longer are active in their violence. The same cannot be said of ANTIFA and other hoodlums of the left.

                Jim, I believe you are fair-minded. You will have to search a long time in order to find organized, consistent, violent, unlawful behavior by Christians.

                Like

                • I am not an advocate for ANTIFA but your characterization of them being somehow the only purveyors of violent street confrontation is completely unbalanced. As I said above, they see themselves as a counter to right wing groups, thugs, that are bringing violence and threats of violence and are often armed and ready to rock and roll, as they say. It’s a mutual non-admiration society. Any honest effort to discuss this issue has absolutely got to present a fuller picture than you do if the point is to understand whats going on.

                  However, if the point is to whitewash or angelicize the right and smear and demonize the left then you are doing a swell job.

                  And, just out of curiosity, do you go to a day job at the White House?

                  Like

                  • Jim in STL,

                    You continue to cite violence by organized conservatives but fail to provide current examples. If there were consistent behavior matching the ANTIFA thuggery, I would acknowledge it as wrong. As I told Dr. Fea, the isolated example of Charlottesville was not the work of traditionalist Christians. The last time I checked my history books, NAZIs are socialists———not conservatives. Conservatives want a limited centralized state; socialists of all stripes like an activist central government.

                    As far as my day job, Jim, I am confined to close quarters much of the time. I act as the sole caregiver for my wife who is totally disabled.

                    James

                    Like

  3. It is telling that Mr. Barton uses the New American Standard Bible (NASB) as the translation for his FOUNDER’S BIBLE while touting it as a “modern day version of the Geneva Bible.” Nothing could be farther from the truth. The Geneva Bible had great literary merit, which the NASB does not. Furthermore the Geneva Bible was based on a fuller Koine text than the NASB. The NASB was not introduced until 1971 and is the product of a degree of “modernist” scholarship, a fact Mr. Barton may not realize.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s