By Kristen Roehrig
Senior Honors Thesis Department of Religious Studies University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Spring, 2019
Approved:
_____________________________ Dr. Brandon Bayne, Thesis Advisor
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction………..…3
Chapter 1: History, Leaders, and Theology of Christian Reconstructionism………...…...…6
RJ Rushdoony, Homeschooling, and the Threats of the Secular State………….……...…6
Dominion and Christian Reconstructionist Theology………14
Christian Reconstructionism in Recent Decades………...……18
Chapter 2: Rhetoric, Dominion, and the Second Amendment………..… 20
American Vision………20
David Barton and WallBuilders……….…24
Gun Owners of America………28
Rhetoric as Influence……….…32
Chapter 3: Christian Reconstructionist Influence on Debates About the Second Amendment and Elsewhere………..… 34
American Vision, David Barton, and the Mountains of Dominion………...34
Gun Owners of America and the United States Courts……….…39
Conclusion……… 46
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project would not have come to fruition without the input, assistance, patience, inspiration, and encouragement of many people. In particular:
To Dr. Brandon Bayne, thank you for taking a chance on me, for narrowing my focus, and for pushing me to explore topics outside of my comfort zone.
To Dr. Molly Worthen, thank you for critiquing me honestly, for reminding me to listen to the words of the people I’m studying, and for giving me your time merely because I asked.
To Mom and Dad, thank you for supporting me in every single academic endeavor, for constantly being interested in the meanderings of my work, and for reminding me that I don’t always need a perfect plan in order to be successful.
To the professors who have shaped my experience at UNC, thank you for inspiring me to read anything and everything, cultivating my curiosity, and helping me along the way.
INTRODUCTION
Christian Reconstructionism, a Reformed, conservative, form of Christianity, first and foremost seeks the dominion of Christians over all parts of society. Rousas John Rushdoony believed and taught that the modern state posed a threat to Christians and to the biblically correct order of society. Alongside the contributions of lawyers, political activists, and theologians, he transformed Christian Reconstructionism from a niche theological viewpoint to a far-reaching and influential movement. Many iterations of Christian Reconstructionism exist, but all hold some degree of the same commitment to instituting the rule of Christians in society, partly because they believe God commands that society be structured as such and also because it will prepare the way for Jesus’ return.
The Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution states “a well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” American citizens, thinkers, and political leaders, have debated these words, the punctuation between them, the history that created them, and the intent behind them at various points throughout American history, but the debate has intensified in recent decades as mass shootings appear in the news on an ever-increasing basis. There are many sides to the debate and many people who see their side as the only correct one.
Christian Reconstructionist theology and the Second Amendment are unavoidably connected through the Reconstructionist goal of Christian dominion. In the present project, I explore the contours of this connection and the outcomes of it by looking at Reconstructionist history, rhetoric, and influence on and beyond the Second Amendment debate. Three
American Vision is a Christian Reconstructionist nonprofit organization that provides educational material to churches. It also serves as a platform for the writings of its various contributors, including Joel McDurmon, who writes about gun rights in a way that connects them to Reconstructionist biblical interpretation and principles. Gary DeMar, a political activist essential to the growth of the Christian Reconstructionist movement’s influence within conservative politics, is also affiliated with American Vision and writes about the Second Amendment.
David Barton writes homeschooling history curricula, has held high-level positions in various Republican organizations, and makes outlandish claims about American history. He is also an outspoken Second Amendment rights advocate. Through his organization, WallBuilders, Barton publishes homeschooling material aligned with Christian Reconstructionist principles, though he may not name it as such. Barton’s writing about the Second Amendment makes particularly clear the connection between homeschooling, political influence, and theological views that inform opinions about the Second Amendment.
Gun Owners of America prides itself on being more conservative even than the National Rifle Association and not compromising in its Second Amendment rights advocacy. Though Gun Owners of America does not identify itself as Christian, much less Reconstructionist, its leaders often allude to Reconstructionist principles and some have distinct ties to the Christian
Each of these organizations and leaders are worthy of study because their words and actions illuminate the intellectual and theological basis for a Christian Reconstructionist view of the Second Amendment. This thesis aims to explore the history and rhetoric that inform the influence of Reconstructionism. A methodological challenge arises in that specifying the exact nature or degree of influence is difficult in the absence of specific proof, but influence exists even if it is not directly acknowledged or even noticed by the person or entity being influenced. The frameworks that activists use to discuss the Second Amendment influence one another and the audience consuming them. Rushdoony and Reconstructionism were by no means the only influences on conservatism in the last half century, but the frameworks used by
Reconstructionists coincide with those of many non-Reconstructionist conservatives, and that correlation should not be ignored even if causation is not necessarily present.
In my first chapter, I trace the history of and some of the key figures in the Christian Reconstructionist movement, the role of Reconstructionism in the homeschooling movement of the 1970s, and the most central theological premises of Christian Reconstructionism. I then explore how those premises, especially dominionism, inform views of, conversation about, and actions related to the Second Amendment. In my second chapter, I analyze the rhetoric of Larry Pratt, Joel McDurmon, and David Barton. In my third chapter, I discuss the varying degrees and types of influence exerted by each of these people and organizations. Overall, I argue that the Reconstructionist goal of Christian dominion connects the debate around the Second
CHAPTER 1: HISTORY, LEADERS, AND THEOLOGY OF CHRISTIAN RECONSTRUCTIONISM
A brief study of the life of Rousas John Rushdoony, the cultural moment in which he lived and worked, and the Christian Reconstructionist movement that he helped found lays the groundwork for an understanding of the modern-day impact of Christian Reconstructionist theology on debates about the Second Amendment. The theology of the Christian
Reconstructionist movement forms the foundation for both the overt and oblique arguments made by the leaders to be explored in later chapters. In addition to providing a brief recounting of the history of Christian Reconstructionism, in this chapter I argue that it became a wide-spread movement because it arose in a time of social change and perceived turmoil. I also argue that this same cultural milieu and the tenants of Christian Reconstructionism influence rhetoric and policy around the Second Amendment.
RJ Rushdoony, Homeschooling, and the Threats of a Secular State
rendered American churches incapable of combating the threat posed by the secular state.”1 Later
in his career, in a piece written for the Chalcedon Report (the newsletter produced by Rushdoony’s organization, the Chalcedon Foundation), Rushdoony explained how the state posed this threat. He argued that rules created by humans- by the state- are by definition flawed because they “reflect a particular human interest,” and therefore create an inability for humans to accurately judge themselves: “If law is a product of a human agency, it cannot judge that
agency… In every humanistic social order, justice becomes the will of the state, and freedom becomes a luxury.”2 If human law will always be flawed, God’s law can be the only true law. To
the problem of this disconnect between the actions of the government and the perception among Christians that the government was overreaching its bounds, Rushdoony found a solution. The dominion of Christians over the tools of government would lead to the imposition of God’s law, instead of law based in human interests.
Rushdoony sought to foster Christian dominion primarily through the expansion of the homeschooling movement. Homeschooling provided a concrete way in which to respond to Reconstructionist woes about the tyranny of the secular state and the church’s current inability to fight it because “education based on Christian principles would not only help save the souls of enrolled children but, over time, would also…lead to the spiritual redemption and regeneration.”3
Rushdoony published Intellectual Schizophrenia in 1961, in which he explored the shortcomings of public schooling. He argued that “statist schools” had “no concept of truth to offer,” and were “unable to give any true sense of direction or purpose, or a concept of growth.”4 He also argued
1 Michael McVicar, Christian Reconstruction: RJ Rushdoony and American Religious Conservatism (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2015), 31.
2 RJ Rushdoony, "The Law, the State, and the People" in The Roots of Reconstruction (Vallecito: Ross House Books, 1991) 188-9.
3 McVicar, Christian Reconstruction, 1.
that, though the state “is an important institution,” schooling falls outside of its jurisdiction and should be left to the family.5 Rushdoony’s influence on the larger homeschooling movement
taking place at the time grew based on this principle of education managed by each individual family in order to overcome the inadequacies of the state.
In 1965, Rushdoony founded the Chalcedon Foundation primarily for the purpose of influencing primary education curriculum and practices. McVicar explained that through the Chalcedon Foundation,
Rushdoony hoped to shift humanity’s epistemological framework away from autonomous reasoning and toward a God-centered mode of thought… all aspects of learning and scholarship, especially in terms of historical study, must be interpreted through God’s plan.6
Rushdoony named the organization after the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon held in the fifth century to confront heresies and codify the creeds of the Christian church. The Council decreed that Jesus was simultaneously and equally human and divine and put an end to the notion of a divine right to kingship. For Rushdoony, this called believers to end the idolatry of reason and the state and to instead recognize the sovereignty of God in all areas of life.7 Rushdoony’s
interpretation of the Council of Chalcedon aligned with the Chalcedon Foundation’s primary goal of combatting the offenses of the secular state through homeschooling.
Homeschooling was effectively illegal in most states until the 1970s, which only reinforced Rushdoony’s and other conservative Christians’ fears that the secular state barred them from creating a fully Christian society. This legal obstacle posed a problem for the families who wanted to manage schooling within the family, as Rushdoony taught. In 1987, Rushdoony served as an expert witness in the landmark Texas court case Leeper et al. v. Arlington ISD et.al., 5 Rushdoony, Intellectual Schizophrenia, 61.
6 McVicar, Christian Reconstruction, 87.
which pitted the Texas state school system against Gary and Cheryl Leeper, who sued for the right to homeschool their children. During cross examination, when asked what made
educational instruction at home acceptable and necessary, Rushdoony stated:
If you don’t have the proper motivation in the family then learning is going to fail whether it’s in a state-controlled situation or privately controlled situation, and the key factor in the family is faith. If there is a religious motivation which governs the family then there is going to be learning, but if you remove that nothing the state does is going to supply it. All the state can supply is coercion and coercion doesn’t work.8
He added that it is a “Biblical premise that the father is the instructor, the parents are.”9
Rushdoony’s words demonstrate his central thesis, that the secular state is unable to provide the services it claims to and that the family should be the central governing authority.
The court ruled in Leeper’s favor, and other states were soon to follow.10 Amid Leeper v.
Arlington ISD and a litany of other legal challenges to homeschooling, Rushdoony began to work alongside John Wayne Whitehead. In 1982, the two men created a Christian law firm called the Christian Rights Foundation, later the Rutherford Institute, with the mission of “defending homeschoolers or any other issue they deemed a threat to the free practice of Christian faith.”11 The name of the organization referenced Samuel Rutherford, who in 1644
wrote Lex Rex, a lengthy political treatise which supposedly inspired Thomas Jefferson’s and John Locke’s ideas of government and Jefferson’s supposed desire to institute a Christian
government in the United States. Whitehead’s ambitions grew quickly, and with the help Francis A. Schaeffer V (son of the prolific evangelical leader, Francis A. Shaeffer IV), the Rutherford Institute became one of the first Christian public interest law firms.12 It developed political and
8 "Rushdoony Leeper Transcript," RJ Rushdoony, 1987, http://rushdoony.sitewave.net/rushdoony-leeper-transcript-texas-homeschool-trial/.
9 “Rushdoony Leeper Transcript,” RJ Rushdoony. 10 McVicar, Christian Reconstruction, 2.
11McVicar, Christian Reconstruction, 171.
12 Francis A. Shaeffer V also played a key role in the evangelical anti-abortion movement of the 1980s; see McVicar
legal strategies that proved essential to the homeschooling movement and the creation of “a more radical brand of Christian activism” with influences still visible in recent decades.13
The American homeschooling movement emerged in the wake of cultural and legal changes in the 1960s and 70s. Rushdoony enumerated some of the particular changes that vexed him in The Law, the State, and the People, written in 1983, saying “we see the rise of another kind of freedom, the freedom of slaves, the freedom of irresponsibility… Nothing is more devastating to man and society. Abortion, the sexual revolution, homosexuality, and more are all evidences of slave freedom, not responsible freedom.”14 In his detailed account of the history and
rise of homeschooling in the United States, Milton Gaither identified a number of cultural
realities that paved the way for the homeschooling movement, the three most important of which were anxiety at changing race relations, distaste for government programs seen as intrusive, and disapproval of changes in school curriculum.
Far-reaching changes to government policy and landmark Supreme Court decisions occurred in the 1970s, which led to the legalization of abortion, increased access to birth control, and the institution of welfare, antidiscrimination laws, and tax breaks for childcare. Social upheaval changed race and gender relations in the US.15 Meanwhile, changes in school
curriculums augmented the anxiety already present in conservative circles: “conservatives began to rally in opposition to the new focus on social history... They were particularly upset over discussions of race and sex that tended to make the United States look bad.”16 In response to this
13 McVicar, Christian Reconstruction,171. 14 Rushdoony, “The Law,” 189.
15 The National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment debate generally underwent upheaval in the 1970s as well; see Jill Lepore, “Battleground America: One Nation, Under the Gun,” The New Yorker, April 16, 2012, https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/04/23/battleground-america.
anxiety and the encroachment of the government, some conservatives Christians turned to homeschooling.
Race-related anxiety was perhaps the most important in the list of influences on homeschooling. Suburbanization because of policies like the 1968 Fair Housing Act led to the growth of all-white schools in suburbia, but eventually suburbanization and busing led to desegregated schools. With their children now zoned for desegregated schools, many conservatives turned to private schools that came to be known as “segregation academies.”17
When courts questioned the legality of these private schools, homeschooling provided another way out of desegregated schools. Gaither summarized these causes, saying simply “with
minorities in and God out, many conservative Protestants left.”18 A larger upheaval had occurred
in the United States; as the country changed so did education, and homeschooling provided parents with a method of tight control over the curriculum their children consumed. With the Chalcedon Foundation and the Rutherford Institute providing organizational and legal support, Rushdoony turned homeschooling into a salient option among conservative Christians.
More generally as the leading thinker of the Reconstructionist movement, Rushdoony taught that society, instead of being reformed over time, must start over entirely so as to create a world “where people of God would exercise dominion using biblical law as a blueprint for a totally ‘reconstructed’ and holy social order.”19 This radical revision would have to begin with
reformation of commonly accepted interpretations of the United States Constitution as a secular document. Rushdoony believed that the Constitution governed what had once been an “orthodox
17 Gaither, “Why Homeschooling Happened,” 93, 116.
18Gaither, “Why Homeschooling Happened,”,116. See also Randall Balmer, “The Real Origins of the Religious Right,” Politico, May 17, 2014, https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133?o=1.
Christian nation” and that the Constitution did not contain direct references to Christian beliefs because at the time of its writing, state constitutions contained religious references. He believed that the drastic alteration of social structure in the South after the Civil War destroyed this Christian establishment and that the institution of the biblical law given to Moses in the Old Testament was the only way to rectify it and overcome “the radical reordering of its society by atheists”.20
Rushdoony’s ideas of dominion also relied on the power of the patriarchal family as a central governing entity, to which he alluded in his testimony in Leeper v. Arlington ISD.21 He
taught that God’s law intended that the family provide a check against the state and maintain control over what Rushdoony viewed as the most important parts of Christian life. In Intellectual Schizophrenia, he wrote “the family is, sociologically and religiously, the basic institution, man’s first and truest government, school, state, and church… Man, in the image of God, here exercises dominion as a priest in Christ, his wife a help-meet that he might fulfill his image mandate.”22
Families contribute to the dominion of Christians by filling the roles currently occupied by an overreaching government. The context of the fear of government expansion and oversight and the resentment among Christians that fueled the conservative Christian homeschooling
movement explain the way in which the effects of social upheaval create a desire in Reconstructionists to control schooling and all other areas of life as well.
Rushdoony did not create the Reconstructionist movement alone. Economist, writer, and activist Gary North, brought economic theory and, more importantly, political organizing skills. North and Rushdoony met when North was in college and he later married Rushdoony’s
daughter. The relationship between the two men eventually soured, but North 20 FitzGerald, The Evangelicals, 340.
21 See quotes on page 9
Infused the Reconstructionist legal code of the Old Testament with Laissez-faire
economics. North’s books argued that if the Mosaic law code of the Old Testament were revived, church tithes could replace the income tax and private charity could replace the government’s social programs.23
North deemphasized the role of the federal government, as did Rushdoony, and in doing so provided economic language to the Reconstructionist movement.
More importantly, North contributed his skill for political organizing and connections to the conservative political establishment. While Rushdoony favored “the patient creation of institutions focused on education and family… North bought Rushdoony-style Reconstruction out of the family and the homeschool by injecting it into political environments.”24 North created
a grassroots-organizing framework and formed alliances within many sects of Christians in Republican politics that proved essential to the success of Reconstructionism as a movement with sway in the political realm.
Between these men and their diverging yet complimentary areas of expertise, Reconstructionism grew into a movement with political influence in the United States. This political influence was and still is indispensable to Reconstructionists because many of their theological goals require drastic alterations to the government. Rushdoony and his ideas found a home with “a dedicated minority of Christian conservatives who longed to fundamentally redraw the boundaries between individuals, families, the church, and the state,” whether for the goal of homeschooling, complete Christian dominion, or something in between.25 The organizations and
activists in subsequent chapters allude often to achieving this reconstitution of society partly through the bearing of arms.
23 Daniel K Williams, God's Own Party: The Making of the Christian Right (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 226.
Dominion and Christian Reconstructionist Theology
There are many variations of Christian Reconstructionism and varying degrees of conservatism within them. Reconstructionists and the scholars who study them have varying ideas about which tenets are truly the most central, but dominion, theonomy, regeneration, presuppositionalism, and postmillennialism are commonly accepted by scholars as essential to Reconstructionism as a whole.26 These ideas comprised Rushdoony’s personal theology and also
inform the connection between Christian Reconstructionism and the Second Amendment. First and foremost, the imposition of Christian dominion over society guides each of the other principles of Reconstructionism. The most precise definition of dominion comes from Rushdoony himself: “Man is called to exercise his image mandate in knowledge, righteousness, holiness and dominion, subduing the earth agriculturally, scientifically, culturally, artistically, in every way possible asserting the crown rights of King Jesus in every realm of life.”27
Dominionism appears in various forms in Reconstructionist theology, motivates each principle explored below, and has compelled Reconstructionists to focus on the Second Amendment.
Similar to dominion and often used as a synonym, theonomy refers to the
Reconstructionist goal of modeling American law on Old Testament law and using the Bible as the central governing text. Dominion refers to Christian rule over all aspects of life, while theonomy refers to Christian rule specifically within the government. Rushdoony and other Reconstructionists believed that the imposition of biblical law would eventually lead to decentralized government power because local governments and the patriarchal family unit would become more powerful. Taxation would no longer be necessary and the church would provide something of a social safety net. Additionally, the criminal justice system would be
26 See Worthen, “The Chalcedon Problem,”401; FitzGerald, The Evangelicals, 338; McVicar, Christian
Reconstruction, 4.
based on the laws of the Old Testament, meaning that “stoning, burning at the stake, hanging, and ‘the sword’” would be acceptable forms of capital punishment and that a greater range of crimes including lying about one’s virginity or adultery would merit capital punishment.28 In
order to institute theonomy, Christians first must establish dominion, and so the two are mutually reinforcing. The rhetoric and actions of organizations with Reconstructionist ties and theologies explored in the coming chapters often include the right to firearms as a symbol for the right to reconstitute the government when it oversteps acceptable bounds.
Another central tenet of Christian Reconstructionism is the Calvinist notion of regeneration which, through the interpretation of a Reconstructionist, states that social regeneration must occur in order for Christians to institute Biblical law and theonomy. Molly Worthen explained: “the social reformation [Rushdoony] envisioned was a slow process based on individual regeneration before all else.”29 After individuals have received God’s grace and
then allowed it to transform them, they can participate in instituting Christian dominion. Rushdoony even believed that Calvin himself overlooked the magnitude of the importance of this regeneration.30 The only way the Reconstructionist project would be effective would be if
individuals themselves first accepted God’s grace so that they could then take more effective dominion over a broken society.
In his position paper “Revolution or Regeneration,” written in 1989, Rushdoony made the argument that this regeneration on an individual basis is superior to widespread and immediate revolt against the government. He explained that the Bible does not call for revolution that will eventually regenerate individuals, instead it calls for individual regeneration that will eventually reach the scale of a revolution: “For Christianity, man must be changed by the sovereign grace of 28 FitzGerald, The Evangelicals, 342-343.
God through Jesus Christ. Then the changed man can change the world.”31 Rushdoony noted the
difference between revolution and individual regeneration, but other Reconstructionists and some of the activists explored in this thesis draw this line with less distinction. They speak on the scale of widespread revolution made possible by firearms.
Presuppositionalism, another key to Reconstructionist theologies, is essential to theonomy, dominion, and regeneration. Presuppositionalism originated in part with the apologetics of Cornelius Van Til, whose “central innovation was his challenge to the premise that it is possible for Christians to reason with non-Christians from a set of neutral
assumptions… the human mind can accurately comprehend reality only if proceeding from the truth of biblical revelation.”32 In order to reason with any person, both people must have the
same assumptions about God; both must be regenerated individually by accepting God’s grace. Likewise, the Reconstructionist project assumes that every person in society must accept God’s sovereignty in order for dominion and theonomy to function.
Lastly, postmillennialism, a theological principle by no means exclusive to Reconstructionists, also depends on dominion, theonomy, and presuppositionalism.
Postmillennialists believe that Jesus will establish his kingdom on earth only after Christians precede him by taking dominion and creating a society based in Reconstructionist principles.33
This need to pave the way for Jesus guides Reconstructionist activism. Christians must take dominion partly because it is the divinely ordained order for society, but also because it will prepare the way for Jesus’ return. Notes of postmillennialism are present in the connection between Reconstructionism and the Second Amendment because eventually controlling the
31 RJ Rushdoony, "Revolution or Regeneration" in The Roots of Reconstruction (Vallecito: Ross House Books, 1991), 426.
government requires the means by which to reconstitute it, and Reconstructionist activists often argue that guns are essential to that effort. Postmillennialism is not unique to Reconstructionists, or even to conservative Christians. In the Cambridge Dictionary of Christian Theology,
McFarland noted that “while some postmillennialists believe that this inexorable progress of the gospel will ultimately be achieved by means of Christian political supremacy, the majority hold that it will be the product of cumulative effect of missionary activity rather than any sort of legal mandate.”34 There is a spectrum of postmillennialism, from involving Christians in social justice
and/or political causes to taking dominion over all government and society.
Based on these central doctrines, Christian Reconstructionism sought the “radical reordering of the relationship between human beings and the Christian God,” which would “fundamentally alter the shape of American society, culture, politics, and economics.”35 All of
these principles further the project of Christian Reconstructionism, and most centrally further the goal of instituting Christian dominion. Reconstructionists view the world through the lens of dominion, and this tendency permeates Christian rhetoric on the conservative end of political debates in the United States, particularly in the debate over the Second Amendment. Language of dominionism and Christian Reconstructionism frames central discourses about the need for an absolute right to bear any and all arms, examples of which are explored in later chapters.
Christian Reconstructionism in Recent Decades
Throughout the 1960s, Reconstructionism’s popularity and Rushdoony’s ability to mobilize a movement grew. In a societal landscape rife with tensions and changes,
Reconstructionists began to see “the fraying of a once tightly woven social fabric.”36 Rushdoony
aligned with this prevailing feeling and felt that the overreach of the government and its role in the secularization of society augmented these problems. As the Christian Right coalesced around a feeling of abandonment and confusion at social and political changes in the 1970s,
Reconstructionism and iterations of Reconstructionist theology provided both a solution to and a religious framework with which to survive this cultural chaos. In the 2000s as the Tea Party grew, iterations of Rushdoony’s theology and his views about government began to be visible also in the talking points of leaders in the Tea Party.37 Even as much as he avoided direct
involvement in politics and criticized the greater evangelical movement for being weak, the Christian duties about which Rushdoony spoke served as a framework of political thought for activists fighting for rights they felt had been infringed upon.
The goal of Christian Dominion connects Reconstructionist theology with a conservative interpretation of the Second Amendment and the rhetoric and policy that come from it. Christian Reconstructionists argue that the current American government overreaches the originally intended bounds of its power and something must be done to fix this. Many Reconstructionist gun rights activists argue that private ownership of firearms is part of the solution. Journalist Sarah Posner explained that Christian Reconstructionists favor an extreme interpretation of the Second Amendment so that they “can exercise their duty to take up arms against a government that has exceeded its bounds established by God.”38 Firearms symbolize protection of other
divine rights and Reconstructionists believe that they also should function as a check on, or even
36McVicar, Christian Reconstruction, 107. 37McVicar, Christian Reconstruction, 7.
a threat to, a government that overreaches its divinely ordained bounds by infringing on those rights.
Rushdoony, though he can seem to be an esoteric theologian, was by no means ignorant to the political clout of conservative Christians, even ones with whom he disagreed. In a position paper written in 1985, just after the President Ronald Reagan’s reelection, titled “The New Power in the ‘Christian Right,’” Rushdoony cited statistics about the increasing number of Americans who identify themselves as conservative and notes the power of the activism of young people and non-politicians around conservative issues. He concluded the reflection with this:
The president’s re-election was thus the surface froth on a new and strong movement which is determined to re-shape the United States on Christian premises. It is principled, and it is future and action oriented. It has escaped notice because of its elusive nature.39
Rushdoony knew exactly what his movement was capable of and how his ideals would come to be essential to the conservative Christian movement in American politics. One of the many manifestations of Christian Reconstructionism’s influence appears in conservative activism, action, rhetoric, and policy around the Second Amendment.
CHAPTER 2: RHETORIC, DOMINION, AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT
Political and religious leaders and organizations use Christian Reconstructionist language as a framework in which to frame their views of the Second Amendment. American Vision labels itself a Reconstructionist organization with the goal of “exercising servanthood
dominion.”40 It does not focus exclusively on gun rights, but Joel McDurmon is a leader of the
organization who writes prolifically on the subject. David Barton wields influence among some
39 RJ Rushdoony, "The New Power in the ‘Christian Right’" in The Roots of Reconstruction (Vallecito: Ross House Books, 1991), 1122.
conservatives and makes dominionist assertions about Second Amendment rights. Gun Owners of America does not explicitly identify as Christian Reconstructionist, but Larry Pratt plays a high-level role in the organization using Reconstructionist language and theological frameworks to discuss gun rights. In each case, Reconstructionism and the goal of Christian dominion provide reasoning through which to advocate for unrestricted firearms. I argue that the concept of freedom protected by firearms and the desire for Christian dominion are united because of a notion of divine rights, especially as those connections are visible in the language of influential conservative leaders in the debate around the Second Amendment.
American Vision
American Vision produces Christian Reconstructionist religious education curricula and hosts conferences around the United States, making Reconstructionism accessible in many church environments, even if the churches are not necessarily aligned with Reconstructionism. American Vision influences the conservative side of political debate in the United States and takes stances on gun rights based on Reconstructionist biblical interpretation and principles. American Vision’s mission is to “Restore America to its Biblical foundation” by “exercising servanthood dominion.”41 The hope of national restoration through the rule of Christians guides
the activists discussed in this thesis and impacts how Joel McDurmon writes about Second Amendment rights.
Gary DeMar, former president of American Vision, creates educational material for the organization. He authored three volumes in the 1980s called God and Government, which “is an articulation of Rushdoony’s ideas in workbook format.”42 In reference to the Second
41 "About," The American Vision.
Amendment, DeMar wrote “to protect hearth and home, life and limb is a biblical, constitutional, and common sense right.”43 Conservative Christian leaders including DeMar often reference the
notion of a divinely ordained right to bear arms that the government must therefore protect. DeMar wrote an article in 2014 arguing that the Bill of Rights did not give the right to bear arms, but that it was rather a pre-existing right. In the article, he quoted a letter written by Gun Owners of America to President Obama correcting his use of “give” when referring to the Second
Amendment.44 DeMar argued that the right already existed and quoted the words of Gun Owners
of America attesting those rights to a divine hand. Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America and DeMar often collaborate and much of their language is similar.
Joel McDurmon is especially vocal in the realm of the Second Amendment. He also writes prolifically, with titles including American Fascist: The Real Theodore Roosevelt,
Christian Victory in Every Realm of Life, God Versus Socialism, How to Argue With a Liberal… and Win!, and The Return of the Village Atheist. American Vision does far more than lobby for Second Amendment rights, but McDurmon writes often about the Second Amendment and uses American Vision as a platform for his views on guns. McDurmon tends to focus on three main themes: a Christian history of the United States, the related idea of divinely ordained rights, and gun rights as a proxy for the appropriate scope of government.
McDurmon’s views on the Second Amendment depart from the idea that the right to bear arms comes from God and that the maintenance of that right protects the autonomy of Christians in a tyrannical government structure. In “‘Bring your Guns to Church’ Sunday,” he traced these roots, referencing John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and the “Christian legal tradition they
43 Gary DeMar, "Pastor Says 'Love Your Neighbor Not Your Gun,'" American Vision, January 10, 2013, https://americanvision.org/6873/pastor-says-love-your-neighbor-not-your-gun/.
inherited.”45 In another article, he noted that “you absolutely cannot ‘renounce’ your Rights
without renouncing the God who gave them… our rights are given by our God, not our government.”46 Politicians, lobbyists, and public figures often reference the idea of Christian
history of the United States, but Reconstructionists and other conservative Christians in particular use the idea of a Christian history to corroborate claims that certain rights come directly from God and therefore should not be infringed.
McDurmon argues that, since gun rights are a divine right, taking them away represents an assault on American (Christian) rights and values. The Reconstructionist underpinnings of this assertion becomes clear when understood alongside McDurmon’s assertion that “evil seeks positions of power… and from there seeks to eliminate the avenues of power that threaten it (an armed populace). Thus tyrannical government seeks gun control laws.” 47 In classic
Reconstructionist fashion, he regularly argues that Christians need to retain the right to rise up against the secular government because it overreaches its divinely ordained bounds, and if gun rights are revoked, the right to resist will be as well.
The most clearly dominionist component of McDurmon’s ideology comes in his discussion of 1st Samuel, a story also referenced by Larry Pratt to make similar points.48 In his
commentary on 1st Samuel, McDurmon traced the story of Jonathan, the son of Saul, who stood
up to his father’s government. McDurmon argued that Jonathan acted contrary to pressures around him because not only did he go against the existing establishment, but he also resisted his
45 Joel McDurmon, "'Bring Your Guns to Church' Sunday," American Vision, November 6, 2017, https://americanvision.org/2342/bring-your-guns-to-church-sunday/.
46 Joel McDurmon, "Sorry Liberal Christian Professor, you can't 'renounce' your second amendment right," American Vision, December 7, 2015, https://americanvision.org/ 12787/sorry-liberal-christian-professor-you-cant-renounce-your-second-amendment-right/.
47 McDurmon, “Bring Your Guns”.
own family. He argued that Jonathan’s civil disobedience and the arms it entailed were necessary to create change. This argument echoes the notion that God calls on Christians to take dominion, that this involves disobeying the existing establishment, and that arms are necessary to do it.
McDurmon closed his commentary with the most punctuated part of the argument, effectively demonstrating the essential connection between dominionism and Second Amendment freedoms, saying
Until Christ advances His kingdom in such a way that enough hearts are changed, enough of society is under the dominion of the godly, and the protection of life does not require such force as arms, the widespread distribution and prevalence of arms is the safest way to protect innocent life in society… In short, we carry guns so that one day we don’t have to carry guns.49
Just War Theory provides a useful framework through which to analyze McDurmon’s statement. Though it has been debated extensively among many thinkers, Saint Augustine and Saint
Thomas Aquinas established the basic framework of Christian Just War Theory. Aquinas wrote of three conditions required to make an act of violence just: first, that a valid authority figure must oversee and authorize the violent action; second, that there must be a “just cause;” and; third, “that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of the good, or the avoidance of evil.”50
Of these, the third is the most essential to the argument McDurmon made about 1st
Samuel. He justified the violence of firearms by saying that guns protect innocent life and therefore contribute to a valid cause. The first of the premises also assumes there must be an authority that dictates which causes are valid, and in the framework of Christian
Reconstructionism that authority lies with modern Christians who interpret the laws of the Old
49 Joel McDurmon, "'God's Gift': Liberty and Responsibility (1 Sam. 14:1-23)," American Vision, June 6, 2013, https://americanvision.org/8252/gods-gift-liberty-and-responsibility-1-sam-141-23/.
Testament. Overall, with his allusions to the justness of the war against tyranny, McDurmon foreshadowed the dominion of Christians. He justified their taking over and the means by which they will do it by arguing that the US government should not be allowed any use of force
because it does not fit the characteristics of a just power. The complexity of Just War Theory should not be understated, but even a simple reading of it sheds light on how McDurmon views Christians as able to deem violence just.
David Barton and WallBuilders
David Barton’s role in the creation of homeschooling curriculum and his outspoken views on the Second Amendment have earned him an infamous reputation as a conservative figure. Barton holds this influence despite the fact that he has no formal training as a historian and his work is widely discredited. In 2012, the History News Network deemed his work The Jefferson Lies: Exposing Myths You’ve Always Believed about Thomas Jefferson the least credible book in print.51 Julie Ingersoll explained that, though Barton does not necessarily
identify as Christian Reconstructionist or use all of the language and theological frameworks common to the movement,
He speaks of dominion, biblical law, the necessity of bringing every area of life under the lordship of Christ, and sphere sovereignty of biblically ordained institutions… the approach to history that has made Barton famous is rooted in Rushdoony’s biblical philosophy of history.52
Barton’s statements about the Second Amendment and his views on American history portray dominionist language, even if he avoids the label of Reconstructionist.
51 David Austin Walsh, "What is the Least Credible History Book in Print?," History News Network, July 16, 2012, https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/147149.
Sociologists Andrew Whitehead, Landon Shnabel, and Samuel Perry have researched extensively the connection between Christianity, Christian nationalism, and views on the Second Amendment. They have defined Christian nationalism as consisting of the belief that “America has always been- and should always be- distinctively Christian in its national identity, sacred symbols, and public policies… for adherents to this ideology, America’s historic statement about human liberties (e.g., the First and Second Amendments) are imbued with sacred, literal and absolute meaning.”53 Whitehead et al. argued that the connection between this worldview and
Second Amendment literalism lies in the fact that Christian nationalists see the furthering of Christian values as the solution to gun violence because they attribute it to “the break-down of Christian values” and “the nation’s ‘moral decline.’”54 Per this definition of the term, Barton is a
Christian nationalist, and this way of thinking frames his analysis of the Second Amendment. His organization, WallBuilders, purports these values through homeschooling curriculum and books, all written by Barton.
His book The Second Amendment: Preserving the Inalienable Right of Self-Protection traced through a Christian nationalist lens the Christian history of the Second Amendment in America and the ways in which it is being destroyed today. He traced three main themes: the divinity of the Second Amendment, guns as a way to preserve other rights, and homeschooling as an essential step in protecting the Second Amendment.
In the book, Barton regularly referenced the idea that Second Amendment rights come from God and not from humans. Larry Pratt, McDurmon, and numerous other politicians and advocates echo this notion. Pratt stated that “the declarations of those who framed our
53 Andrew L. Whitehead, et al., "Why Some Christians Don't Believe in Gun Control: They Think God handed Down the Second Amendment," The Washington Post, July 25, 2018,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2018/07/25/why-some-christians-dont-believe-in-gun-control-they-think-god-handed-down-the-second-amendment/.
government and its Second Amendment confirm that the rights in that Amendment indeed secure the Divine right of individuals,” and that “it is not reasonable to assert that an inalienable, God-given natural right has changed and thus should be ‘modernized.’”55 Over the course of the 63
page book, he referred to “God-given,” “divine,” “inalienable,” or “natural” rights 35 times. This focus on the role of God in the creation of the Second Amendment relates both to dominionism and Christian nationalism because it asserts the Christian foundation of gun rights. Barton argued that if a right does not come from God, the government should not set out to protect it, but since the Second Amendment comes from God, it must be protected.56 More broadly, Barton grounded
the nation’s history in Christianity in order to strengthen the divinity of this right.
Barton used rights to guns as a proxy for other rights, but did so in a unique way. In discussing the views of the Founding Fathers (or, more accurately, selective quotes of their writings) Barton said “those Founders confirm that every citizen not only has a right to life, liberty, and property but also has the natural right to use force to preserve and defend those rights.”57 Barton argued that having the right to bear arms literally assures that other rights
cannot be infringed because the people have a means by which to threaten the infringer. Therefore, not only do Second Amendment rights symbolize other rights, they also literally ensure the protection of other rights. Similarly, he stated that the Second Amendment allows “citizens to defend themselves not only against the aggression of other individuals but also against that of the government.”58 This parallels the claims of Pratt and others that a tyrannical
government threatens Christians and must be combatted.
55 David Barton, The Second Amendment: Preserving the Inalienable Right of Individual Self-Protection (Aledo: WallBuilders Press, 2000), 29, 46.
Barton’s work related to homeschooling also reflects dominionist theology. His
organization, WallBuilders, produces homeschooling curricula grounded in his view of Christian history. Ingersoll explained that Barton’s work is uniquely influential not only because it reaches many students, but because of the way Barton glorifies homeschooling:
Barton’s focus is on revealing the special relationship between God and the history and purpose of America… Christian homeschoolers, and believers who embrace this vision of history, find themselves at the center of plans of almighty God.59
In teaching the divinely ordained nature of American history, Barton also teaches the divinity of the rights in the early American documents. He has argued that education fit this model in the early days of the country, saying “religious teachings were considered to be such a fundamental part of a well-rounded education that the founders feared what might transpire if education no longer included those principles.”60 Here, he tied morality to religion and ties religion to
education, arguing that the three of these should not be separated as they are by a tyrannical government.
Moreover, he argued that schools, or parents in the home, must teach students about firearms, stating that the Founding Fathers “understood that the key to a safe society rested not on the regulation of guns… or any other kind of weapon but rather on the regulation of the heart, something accomplished only by the combined influence of religion and education.”61 By
arguing that Christians should manage the schooling of their children in order to protect and strengthen their religion and that firearm skills should be taught in school, Barton called for Christians to protect dominion both by teaching their religion and teaching how to defend it against the state.
Gun Owners of America
The mission of Gun Owners of America is “to preserve and defend the Second
Amendment rights of gun owners” and the organization prides itself on being more conservative and less willing to compromise than even the National Rifle Association.62 Though Gun Owners
of America does not identify itself as Christian, much less Christian Reconstructionist, its leaders often allude to Reconstructionist principles. Leaders of the Gun Owners of America often argue that gun rights are both a symbol of other rights and a literal way in which to defend those rights. HL Richardson founded the organization during the cultural upheaval of the 1970s, aligning with the growing fear of government oversight and reduction of rights.63 The organization’s website
states “Americans have lost some of our precious gun rights and we want them back,” demonstrating that many of the fears of the 1970s that motivated the organization in the first place have not disappeared.64
Larry Pratt, formerly the executive director of Gun Owners of America, continues to be a widely visible and vocal proponent of the organization’s values. Pratt “refuses the label
‘Christian Reconstructionist’” and “prefers to identify as a ‘Biblical Christian,’” but his
statements often align closely with Reconstructionist theology.65 Indeed, Pratt and RJ Rushdoony
had an amiable relationship, working together on legal challenges to homeschooling in the 1970s.66 Pratt wrote for the Chalcedon Report periodically in the years shortly before Rushdoony
died in 2001.
62 "About," Gun Owners of America. https://gunowners.org/about-goa/.
63 See Jill Lepore, “Battleground America: One Nation, Under the Gun,” The New Yorker, April 16, 2012, https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/04/23/battleground-america
64 "About," Gun Owners of America, https://gunowners.org/about-goa/. 65 Posner, “Gun Ownership.”
When interviewed on television or in mainstream journalism, Pratt keeps his more obviously Reconstructionist assertions to a minimum. He tends to argue along the same lines as he did in CBS Evening News’s series Voices Against Violence that “the problem of mass murder in this country is the gun free zone… a good guy with a gun is the way you stop a crime.”67 He
often argues that tragedies are caused by the fallibility of humans or a lack of self-protection and not by the legality or accessibility of the weapons used. Within the context of his organization and in conservative circles, however, Pratt alludes to firearms as a key component of dominion. He invokes three main dominionist themes in reference to the Second Amendment: minimalism in government structure, the government not monopolizing force, and the right to absolute self-defense that thereby becomes necessary.
Pratt most often references both directly and obliquely the importance of a minimalist government structure, echoing the spirit of Rushdoony’s words, “Biblical law leads to a minimal state.”68 In “What Does the Bible Say About Gun Control?,” Pratt stated that “control of
individuals is to be left to self-government. Punishment of individuals by the civil government is to be carried out when self-government breaks down.”69 Humans should govern themselves, and
the right to bear arms serves as a symbol for the ability to maintain that government minimalism. In reference to statistics about lower rates of gun violence in countries with more restrictive gun laws, Pratt wrote “foreign gun laws are applied in an environment of greatly restricted civil liberties and other controls.”70 In those environments, he argued, the lack of gun rights represents
67 CBS Evening News. "Voices Against Violence: Gun Owners of America," Youtube, October 23, 2015, https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%E2%80%9CVoices+Against+Violence
%3A+Gun+Owners+of+America.%E2%80%9D+YouTube.+CBS+Evening+News%2C+October+23%2C+2015. 68 Rushdoony, “The Law,” 186.
69 Larry Pratt, "What Does the Bible Say About Gun Control?," Gun Owners of America, December 24, 2008, https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/the-american-exception/.
the lack of other rights, and therefore the lack of self-government. He consistently uses this point to argue for the political saliency of advocating for absolute gun freedom, saying that citizens fear having gun rights taken away because other rights would be soon to follow.71 The ideal of
minimalist government structure is not exclusive to Reconstructionism, but Pratt’s ties to Rushdoony and his writings for the Chalcedon Foundation suggest the Reconstructionist reasoning behind his desire to retain the right to use arms against the government use arms.
Pratt’s assertion that the government should not hold a monopoly on force follows logically from this desire for a minimalist government. In “What Does the Bible Say About Gun Control?” Pratt stated based on his reading of Jesus’ reference in Matthew 5 to Exodus 21:24-25 (“an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”) that “the Bible distinguishes clearly between the duties of the civil magistrate (the government) and the duties of the individual… Individuals have the responsibility of protecting their lives from attackers.”72 Pratt uses this biblical evidence
in many statements about government overreach and his fear of a government monopoly on force, the polar opposite of Christian dominion. To Pratt, Jesus’ words indicate that citizens should retain an ability to use force so as not to create a government monopoly. Throughout the essay and others, Pratt often referenced a monopoly on violence as a symbol of other instances of monopolization of government power. In his essay “The American Exception” discussing research published on gun laws in various countries, Pratt argued along the same lines, saying “the Founding Fathers of the American Republic intended that universal gun ownership should prevent the federal government from having a monopoly of force.”73 In this example, Pratt
connected the words of the Founding Fathers with the intentions of Jesus and used this presumed
71 Larry Pratt, "The Tory Mentality: Predictable Political Losses of Conservatives," The Chalcedon Foundation, January 1, 1998, https://chalcedon.edu/magazine/the-tory-mentality-predictable-political-losses-of-conservatives. 72 Mat. 5:38 New Revised Standard Version; Exodus 21:24-25 New Revised Standard Version; Pratt, “What does the Bible Say About Gun Control?”.
connection to argue for the law as God intended it. Pratt’s opposition to the government’s use of force reflects Reconstructionist assertions about the importance of keeping power within the family and maintaining the ability of the individual to act in opposition to the government.
Minimal government that shares the right to use force with its citizens leads to a society which necessitates self-defense. Pratt argues, both when speaking to a narrow, conservative audience and in mainstream media situations, that the people should have an absolute right to self-defense whenever remotely necessary. In “What Does the Bible Say About Gun Control?” he stated that “God clearly has not told us never to kill. He has told us not to murder, which means we are not to take an innocent life,” and “it is a serious mistake to equate a civilized society with one in which the decent people are doormats for evil.”74 This notion that killing a
human being can be acceptable in some situations is the logical extreme of dominionism. Reconstruction does not advocate for murder, but dominion requires self-government, so when Pratt connects self-government to self-defense, it follows that he ultimately advocates for the right to kill. Similarly, he stated in an interview on CNN that “it is much more lethal to live in a gun control regime than in the United States where you can protect yourself.”75 In Pratt’s mind,
safety comes from having a gun at all times. Pratt uses gun control legislation to represent all other legislative efforts by the government, so protecting the right to self-defense represents protecting other freedoms as well. The larger goal of instituting dominion in the United States leads Pratt to argue that the secular state as it stands should have minimal power, that the right of the people to keep the government from monopolizing violence, and that the right to self-defense in all cases.
74 Pratt, “What Does the Bible Say About Gun Control?”.
Rhetoric as Influence
To deem rhetoric not worthy of study merely because words do not always translate to action ignores the root of the issue. Even if organizations and people do not directly state that they exist for the sole purpose of instituting Christian dominion, their rhetoric alluding to that end can influence the way that political leaders, activists, and voters think about the Second Amendment. No matter how abstract the rhetoric of McDurmon, Barton, and Pratt may seem, it alters the frameworks in which people at the conservative side of the debate think and vote.
Joel McDurmon uses the notion of divinely ordained rights as an argument to limit the scope of government and alter the framework through which his audience considers government action. David Barton uses the notion of a Christian history to glorify the Second Amendment, positing a Christian nationalist framework that centers God in American history and demonizes the secular state. Larry Pratt uses dominionist language and invokes fear of the overreaching state in order to play to the already existing fears of conservatives, some of which are rooted in the cultural milieu discussed in the first chapter. With dominionist language, Pratt provides a framework through which conservative leaders and voters look at legislation.
In all of these examples, the eventual goal of Christian dominionism creates the framework in which these leaders operate. They do not write policy or serve in elected
capacities, and still through the language they use impact the framework through which elected leaders and the public and think about the Second Amendment and government generally, as will be visible in the next chapter. Understanding the theological roots of this rhetoric is
CHAPTER 3: CHRISTIAN RECONSTRUCTIONIST INFLUENCE ON DEBATES ABOUT SECOND AMENDMENT AND ELSEWHERE
The impact of dominionist theology reaches beyond rhetoric about the Second Amendment. American Vision and WallBuilders write and distribute educational content for churches and schools. Joel McDurmon and David Barton influence media and the range of ideas to which their audiences are exposed, and Barton is a household name in Republican politics. Gun Owners of America and its leaders file briefs in landmark court decisions. The modes of impact that these leaders employ vary, but all draw from similar Christian Reconstructionist theological principles that pertain to the Second Amendment and seek to alter American government and culture. In this chapter, I argue that American Vision and David Barton influence education and government and that Gun Owners of America affects the outcomes of court decisions.
American Vision, David Barton, and the Mountains of Dominion
On his radio show in April 2011, David Barton enumerated areas of life over which Christians should attempt to take dominion, saying “there’s five areas that you have to be able to influence and control if you are going to take culture and that’s media, business, government, education, and pulpit.”76 These areas repackage the idea of Seven Mountains Dominionism, the
Reconstructionist idea of controlling seven specific areas: business, government, media, arts and
entertainment, education, family, and religion.77 Barton’s and McDurmon’s influences can be
interpreted through this framework.
Barton influences education in three ways. First and most simply, WallBuilders offers a range of homeschooling curricula. The organization’s website states that their library of books and videos “introduce the current generation of Americans to an uncensored view of America’s religious and political history” and that the materials are used by “public officials… individuals, churches, Christian educators, and various organizations.”78 This material makes Barton’s
dominionism and Christian nationalism readily accessible for parents and influential in the education of children. Second, despite the fact that many scholars have discredited and refuted him, some conservatives still see him as a knowledgeable figure in education curriculum and policy.79 For example, in March of 2009, he served on a committee charged with revising
American history textbooks for the Texas school system after the Texas Board of Education “approved new science standards that made room for creationist critiques of evolution.”80 Barton
and the other conservative members of the review board argued that “the curriculum… should clearly present Christianity as an overall force for good- and a key reason for American
exceptionalism, the notion that the country stands above and apart.”81 Despite the fact that Barton
has virtually no credibility in academia, as this example demonstrates, he still affects education on a large scale since he is called on as an expert. Third, in addition to being seen as credible, conservative audiences regard Barton as trustworthy beyond the realm of education. Karl W.
77 Kyle Mantya, "David Barton Advocates Seven Mountains Dominionism," Right Wing Watch, April 4, 2011, http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/david-barton-advocates-seven-mountains-dominionism/.
78 WallBuilders, “About Us: Our Activities,” 2018, https://wallbuilders.com/about-us/#.
79Randall J. Stephens and Karl W Giberson, "Introduction," in The Anointed: Evangelical Truth in a Secular Age (Cambridge: Belknap Press, 2011), 12.
80 Stephanie Simon, "The Culture Wars' New Front: US History Classes in Texas," The Wall Street Journal, July 14, 2009, https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124753078523935615.
Giberson, a physicist who also studies the debate between creation and evolution, noted in reference to Barton’s role in education that “Barton’s millions of fans… are drawn to him because he speaks their language… invokes their faith, and wants to help them take back ‘their’ country from liberals and secularists.”82 Speaking to a conservative audience that tends to see
itself as embattled, Barton differentiates himself from experts who may be perceived as elitist by speaking to the issues that concern conservative audiences in frameworks that appeal to their worldview.
Just as Barton influences education by creating accessible materials imbued with certain Reconstructionist values, American Vision influences the pulpit by creating church education materials that are easily accessible. Ingersoll explained that “Christian Reconstructionism often spreads through committed small groups who promote it in their churches, which may be sympathetic to aspects of Christian Reconstruction but don’t identify with the movement. American Vision’s work is key to those efforts.”83 Through this slow dissemination of ideas,
American Vision alters how church communities view the society around them.
American Vision’s political influence is visible in the influence of its Worldview Super Conferences on growth of the Tea Party movement. At these conferences, leading
Reconstructionist and Reconstructionist affiliated figures such as Gary North, Gary DeMar, and Herb Titus came together to share ideas. The height of these conferences occurred
simultaneously with the birth of the Tea Party movement during President Barack Obama’s first term. Ingersoll provided a detailed account of a Worldview conference in Building God’s Kingdom, and her argument about their significance centers on the way in which many central ideas of the Tea Party align with Reconstructionist theology. Worldview Conferences at the time
of the birth of the Tea Party created an opportunity for what Ingersoll called “cross-fertilization” of ideas that influence political conversations and lobbying.84
McVicar also discussed the influence of Reconstructionism on the Tea Party, though he argued it is present to a lesser degree, saying, “while it would be inaccurate to characterize… the Tea Party as influenced by Reconstructionism, it would be accurate to note that they are resonant and mutually reinforcing phenomena.”85 For McVicar, the Tea Party reinforces Reconstructionist
ideas more than it is influenced by them. Even if Ingersoll and McVicar disagree over the degree of American Vision’s and Reconstructionism’s influence in the Tea Party, both noted that they reinforce each other. American Vision’s materials and content also affect the voters who elect Tea Party and other conservative leaders because they provide a Reconstructionist framework with which to process politics. Lastly, it is notable that Joel McDurmon was elected to the Georgia GOP state committee in 2013, providing him with the ability to impact the party platform and which candidates the party supports.86
Many journalists have documented David Barton’s role in Republican politics. He served as the vice chair of the Texas Republican Party from 1997-2006, a counselor to the Republican National Committee during George W Bush’s 2004 presidential race, and as a member of the RNC’s Platform Committee in 2012 when it called for bans on abortion and same-sex marriage.87
Most notably, Barton played an integral role in Ted Cruz’s 2016 run in the Republican primary. Barton managed a Super Pac that raised millions of dollars for Cruz’s campaign and effectively helped Cruz to court the evangelical vote.88
84 Ingersoll, “Building God’s Kingdom,”177. 85 McVicar, Christian Reconstruction, 226. 86 Ingersoll, Building God’s Kingdom, 170.
87 Patricia Murphy, "The Evangelical Power Broker Behind Ted Cruz," The Daily Beast, January 29, 2016, https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-evangelical-power-broker-behind-ted-cruz.
https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/1/25/16919362/understanding-the-fake-historian-behind-americas-Most importantly, though, Barton helped Cruz make the argument that America was founded as a Christian nation and should be returned to those roots. John Fea, a conservative historian who is very critical of Barton, explained the connection between Cruz and Barton, “Cruz wants to ‘restore’ the United States to what he believes is its original identity… But before he can bring the country back to its Christian roots, Cruz needs to prove that Christian ideals were indeed important to the American founding. That’s why he has David Barton.”89 Despite
having his books recalled from publication, his academic credentials questioned on a regular basis, and his claims often refuted point by point, Barton still influences Republican politics.
This occurs partly because well-known and well-liked conservative figures praised Barton and lend him credibility. Glenn Beck, a conservative political commentator, lauded Barton as “the most important man in America” in 2010 because of his historical work; in 2011, Mike Huckabee said that Americans should be “forced at gunpoint” to hear Barton speak.90
When media figures like Beck and Huckabee who are trusted by conservatives praise Barton, they contribute to his appeal. Barton uses his Christian nationalist ideas of history and his Reconstructionist assertions about what American government should look like to influence the Republican Party.
Gun Owners of America and the United States Courts
The Gun Owners of America, particularly Larry Pratt, have a vocal and outward-facing approach to advocating for Second Amendment rights. Meanwhile, the organization also influences court proceedings and decisions related to Second Amendment rights through the religious-right.
89 John Fea, "Ted Cruz's Campaign is Fueled by a Dominionist Vision for America," The Washington Post, February 4, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/ ted-cruzs-campaign-is-fueled-by-a-dominionist-visionforamericacommentary/2016/02/04/86373158-cb6a-11e5-b9ab-26591104bb19_story.html? noredirect=on&utm_term=.49e8714096e4.
