This transcript is taken from a Stand in the Gap Today program originally airing on Nov. 18, 2022. To listen to the program, please click HERE.
Sam Rohrer: While the 2022 midterms may have passed and maybe in the past now many points of disagreement and clear evidences of fraud and corruption and concern still exist. But in the light of all of this, I submit that the impacts from this election are yet to be felt. Now, as we predicted on this program actually before the election, the fact that literally nothing had been done legislatively in any of the 50 states, either judicially, legislatively or administratively to change what was there and raised questions about fraud and corruption in 2020, with none of those things being done, we said it was literally unrealistic to expect anything to be different in 2022.
Now, while many observers find it convenient to ignore the evidence of corruption, and it’s coming out even as we do this program, or the fact that during the past two years there was no evidence of judicial justice or any concern by legislative leaders in either party across the country to frankly investigate the charges and the evidence of corruption, see, it goes to the heart of why the citizens of America, I believe, are at this moment, I could use the word deflated perhaps, discouraged to some degree and hopefully angered by what we have seen.
Now, the fact is that as we have discussed on this program, we did it yesterday on this program, there was a nearly a 10% increase in the elected to office on state level. Those who are avowed atheists and humanists that have been elected to various offices in 2022 versus 2020. But there’s a nearly 70% increase in those who are avowed atheists or humanists that are there since 2018. So the core analysis of this whole thing becomes not just political, but certainly very value-based. And it’s in this context that I’ve asked George Barna, director of research at the Cultural Research Center at Arizona Christian University to join Isaac Crockett and me again for what I’m calling this program, The 2022 Mid-terms, A Cultural Values Analysis.
George and the folks at the Cultural Research Center have done significant analysis over the years. You know, because he’s on here regularly. But they’ve done even in this regard, the election, a perspective of values and they’re offering a different take of the election analysis and I’m glad to be able to talk with him today about that analysis. So George, thank you so very, very much for being back with us again here on Stand in the Gap today.
George Barna: Oh, it’s always great to be with you and I’m looking forward to this discussion, ’cause again, this is one of those things that’s very practical and I think has dramatic implications for the future of our country.
Sam Rohrer: Well, we do too because… Well, it has to be, that just makes common sense. We agree with you, so I’m anxious to hear what you say as well, but let’s go into this. From my perspective, and I think yours as well, there was a grave disappointment to all of those, who in my opinion were God fearing and I’m going to say constitutional-loving. There was a much touted red wave, but it didn’t happen. And God rejecting and biblically immoral people were elected to office. Some of that which I just cited, it’s very clear corruption was rampant and numbers are coming out even right now as we do this program. But the fact to me, George, that no one in office on any level seemed to really care in the last two years. To me, is at the fundamental heart of this matter of values and cultural values that you measure so carefully. So here’s my first question. From a cultural values perspective, can you give a 10,000 foot overview, so to speak, of how and why this much anticipated and historic event that people expected fell so short?
George Barna: Well, Sam, I think there were a few things that we have to keep in mind. We had 110, maybe 111 million people vote in this election. That’s a lot of people. But when you put it in the context of 255 or so million adults, it’s a minority of people who participated. And remember, that’s a choice that they’re making. More than $18 billion was spent by candidates running for public office. And there were billions, literally billions of hours of news coverage devoted to the election, to the candidates, to the positions they were taking, the issues they were discussing. And yet, in spite of all of that investment in the process, akin to what you were saying earlier, it was essentially exactly the same process that we knew we had problems with a couple years earlier and maybe even four years prior to that. So what that did was, it left most Americans underwhelmed with what’s going on in politics in America today, and government in America. Left them frustrated and disappointment.
And the reason is because our political leaders refused to listen to what the people were concerned about and instead treated this as a business as usual opportunity, ignoring the clear problems that emerged from 2020. There was some minor tinkering here and there, but really in retrospect, all of the tinkering that was done, made the problems worse, not better. And the reason I would suggest for that is because what reigned wasn’t the common interest for public interest. What reigned was self-interest on the part of parties, politicians, ideologues and mega donors. Those were the entities that really had their way with this election and essentially ignored what was of concern to the people.
Isaac Crockett: George, I’m looking forward to really opening up this study that you just did as well. With all the things that you were able to measure and observe in this study, is it one thing that you could point to as kind of a standout, significant thing as we open this up that we could focus on?
George Barna: No, we’ll probably focus on a number of those things. There were a variety of themes that came out. One of those, I don’t want to be completely discouraging to people. One of the things that we saw was that more than seven out of 10 Americans said that in spite of all this nonsense, they believe in our system of government, they believe it’s not broken. But what’s happening is that there are a number of bad actors, if you will, players in this play who have evil roles, evil intent. They’re doing things that are not in the best interest of the people they’re being elected to serve.
And so what’s happening is the system is okay, but it is being abused for personal gain by many of the people who have been voted into office. That’s the perspective of most Americans. And I think that’s an incredibly healthy perspective, to recognize that the problem is not as perhaps the Biden Administration has been arguing for a couple of years now, that we need to completely change our political system. Most Americans are saying, “No, the problem is that there’s abuse.” What kind of abuse? You’ve got people entering office with little financial cushion in their lives, but leaving with above average unusual levels of wealth. We’ve got all kinds of examples like that, that we could turn to. But the problem is that we’ve left politicians to police the system, in other words, to police themselves and that’s not working.
Sam Rohrer: Okay. And ladies and gentlemen, that goes to the heart of values. Police themselves how? According to what? When we come back, we’re going to go further into this report here today that’s been done by Dr. George Barna. And we’re going to go into the voter’s mindset, the voter’s expectation. That’s you and me. We’re going to find out what his survey said and how that played into the lack of interest or the support for the program.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Sam Rohrer: Our focus today is another review of the 2022 midterm, a bit different than what you have heard. This is a cultural values analysis and Isaac and mine’s guest today is Dr. George Barna, not a stranger obviously to our program. They did a report, he and the cultural research center did, and were looking just a piece of what was written because it was so much information in there, but we’re going to look here now at this section of a piece of what they analyzed. And that had to do with the voters’ mindset. What was in the minds of the voters, the citizens that they were able to research?
When I think about that, it takes me to scripture and the scripture as a foundation here for this discussion makes it very, very clear that, “As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.” We also know that every person is a sum total of all that goes into his eyes and ears because what goes in there then ultimately flows through his mind and heart. And it ultimately evidences itself in that person’s choices. Choices that impact not only that individual’s life, but family members, the neighborhood in which he lives and ultimately the nation. Now what a person thinks and believes in their heart, we know again from scripture, will establish that person’s expectation. Expectations for life, for themselves, for others around them, and certainly what they expect from those who are in positions of authority, particularly in civil authority government. That’s what we’re talking about here now.
So linking these values with the values of those expressed ultimately by the one who ultimately gets into office. And then the analysis of these values are really critical for making any potential future change. And that’s what we’re talking about today. Yet very few people actually go to the heart of values as preceding choices and as we regularly do in this program or the guest, George Barna, we do this because we know that once choices and values ultimately, fundamentally arise from that person’s world view, which takes you right down to one’s view of God. All right, now with that established George, let’s go a little further into your study here.
In your report, you cite the statistic that quote, and I think you already did on the other side, “A mere 7%.” Wow. “A mere 7% express a high level of trust in Congress.” That is abysmally low. And then you want to say with only 20% trusting that the government would usually do the right thing. I think that’s it, only 20%. So you then go on to say that, “Enormous numbers of citizens believe that many if not most in office are corrupt and incompetent.” I think that’s true. I agree with that. You didn’t measure me, but here’s the point. How did this attitude, in your opinion, affect citizen participation and therefore perhaps the outcome of the election? And how must that be considered now post midterm?
George Barna: Well, Sam, I could identify maybe three or four different ways in which that affected what happened in the midterm election. The first thing, that lack of trust, that sense of these people don’t really stand for us, that most voters hold, clearly depressed turnout. When you look at, as we talked about earlier, all the money and effort that was put into getting people excited about the election to get them to participate in the election, and yet only about 46% of adults, qualified eligible voters, actually voted. There were only three of our states where you had at least six out of 10 people voting. That’s not a huge number, but only three states, Minnesota, Maine and Wisconsin, where you had 60% or more voting. You had 37 states with less than 50% turnout. You had five states that had less than 40% turnout. So clearly I think this negative attitude that people have toward elected officials and government itself impacted turnout.
Secondly, I would say it impacted how willing people were to invest a lot of their time and energy in preparing what they needed to do, which was to vote. And so we found that only 38% of voters said that they put a lot of thought into the election, whether that was the issues, the candidates, the party platforms, all those things. Most people didn’t give it a lot of thought. And what that resulted in, I would say thirdly, is that we had lower standards and expectations. We didn’t expect it to be something maybe that would satisfy our felt needs about what government would do and become it. It didn’t help us to lift our perspective about politicians. And fourthly, I’ll just end with this that, well, maybe I’ll add one other thing, but three out of four people in America said that all of this gave them a sense of anger toward the system and toward what’s going on.
And I think that’s important because when you look at the electorate, what we found is that 15% could be described as indifferent. They went out, they cast their vote, they didn’t care too much about what was going on. They were like, “Yeah, whatever.” We had about one third, 32%, who were in a category I would call antagonistic. And these were people who had some emotional energy about what was going on. They felt combative. They had negative feelings toward people who believed differently, but most people, 54% are in the disconnected category. They didn’t even care enough to go out and vote. So that’s really, I think the profile that’s most important for us to change in the future.
Sam Rohrer: Okay. George, very quickly, just a follow-up before Isaac comes in on that. A couple things you said raised a question. You talked about a low percentage, 38%, actually put any thought, serious thought into the vote. And I’m going to say I’m assuming who they’re going to vote for, but then you also said reduced ended up in lower standards and expectations. And I’m asking there, poor options, meaning either unqualified, unexciting or whatever candidates, was it that the issues didn’t grab the people as being of sufficient cause to investigate? Or was it because the candidates were so poor with no vision and no clarity in what they believed that they really felt that didn’t make any difference? Can you speak to that a little bit?
George Barna: Well, I think it’s not either or, it’s a combination of both. Different people put different emphasis on either. It was about issue positions or it was about the absence of vision. Both of those are true and we can talk about this more later on, but I think one of the things that we’re finding is that elections fail to excite people because what gets talked about, are positions on issues, which, number one, the people realize they can’t really have much impact on. And number two, it’s very hard for them to hold candidates who become public officials, accountable for the comments they made about those positions.
So it’s almost an exercise in diverted attention to spend the entire campaign season with candidates talking about something that the people know doesn’t really matter in terms of who these candidates are. What people want to know is what do you believe about the future? Where do you want to take us? How’s he going to affect my family? And who are you? What do you stand for as a human being? I can tell you my values and beliefs, but I want to know yours. Candidates typically avoid any discussion of that.
Isaac Crockett: So what you’re saying and what your report talks about, you were able to diagnose these issues with evidence, with facts. I think every one of us listening, we feel this. I was just talking with my brother-in-law and some contractors, some construction workers that were working with him yesterday. I was at my mechanics shop with a guy who was staunch mad-guy type Republican, another guy staunch, typical liberal democrat. And everybody would agree that the government is corrupt, that they were frustrated with the election. But it’s interesting that you say these low standards were disconnected. We all see that. But I find it interesting. Where do we lay the blame? I know myself, my own tendency is to always lay the blame on the politicians, but your study shows that we, the citizens, we the voting public think, I’m actually reading from your work right here. The voting public is not immune to this blame for the letdown. And so ,I’m wondering what could we put on us as Americans, as the voters or those who didn’t even vote? How much of this blame should we also take for the midterms?
George Barna: Frankly, Isaac, I think we are the ones who are primarily to blame because we’re engaging in insanity. We keep letting the same process happen and expecting better results. Well, that’s not even possible. And so we knew after 2020 we had huge issues. Nothing’s been done. People have wrung their hands, they’ve expressed frustration. But what we’re doing is we’re expecting politicians to police themselves. They’re the ones who are creating the problems. They themselves may be the problem. And so how can we expect them to say, “Oh yeah, we’ll take care of that,” and wait for that to happen. It won’t happen.
If this is government of the people by the people and for the people, we have to recognize we own this government and therefore we have to own the problems related to the government. We got to step up. We got to act like the boss of what’s going on here. And it’s in our hands to reform the system that politicians clearly have no self-interest in reforming. And so we’re going to have to demand responses, responsive leadership, we’re going to have to do things maybe instead of waiting for leaders to do it. And so it’s a whole different approach to government, but we’re in a place in American history where the people need to take charge.
Sam Rohrer: And ladies and gentlemen, taking charge arises out of a worldview. It rises out of one’s values because those in Washington right now and most of our state legislature do nothing. They’re exercising their values and they’re taking charge, but they are not the ones to take the kind of charge they’re in. So when we come back, we’re going to talk about what George is laying out here. We need a different approach. We’ll build that out. What different approach?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Sam Rohrer: Well, we’re going to get back into this here now with Dr. George Barna, looking at a different approach because very clearly, well, as the old saying goes, “Doing the same thing in the same way, hardly produces a different result.” And George just gave a different variation of that in the last segment. But when it comes to the matter of elections, which where you’re dealing with people, you and me, citizens who have expectations based on our world view and our definition of values and our cultural values and then presented with candidates, more often than not, cleverly disguise their values.
And that’s just what George was talking about in the last segment. And I can say from someone who had been in office for nearly 20 years, it’s very easy to deceive the public. Many, if they’re not bound by God’s laws, will absolutely tell the voter and their audience exactly what that group wants to hear, even though it may be totally different than what they just told the group up the road. So we find ourselves in a culture where a person who honestly shares their cultural values about life, human sexuality, marriage, justice, the purpose for government. When we share these things, actually in our culture, those people are attacked. Now, that’s clear that we’ve got a major problem. So most cases, they just submit to a culture which now says, “Anything goes,” but there are some things that the culture says doesn’t go. And most of those are the values that we hold dear.
Just a personal thing, just a night or two ago, two individuals who I served with in the Pennsylvania legislature for nearly 15 years, get together and we’ve been out of office now for about 10 years. We got together and we were talking about the election and all that happened, and one of the fellas there said, “You know what?” He said, “Guys”, and we were all part of a conservative caucus when I was Pennsylvania house. One of the fellas made a comment and he said, “You know what? I think that if we ran right now and we’re as clear in what we believe as a Christian now and what we stated 10 years ago when we ran, we wouldn’t be elected.” Well, I don’t know. George just talked about things here.
In your report, you have a section entitled, A Different Approach. In fact, you make this statement, which I would like for you to explain a little bit. You said this, “Our political process has been sidetracked by self-interest, resulting in election cycles that divert everyone’s attention from our national identity,” keywords, “and from establishing a governance process,” that’s also a key phrase, “that remains true to who we are.” There’s a lot in that statement. I don’t think we can pull it all apart here right now, but what do you mean, first off, by the process being sidetracked by self-interest? Whose self-interest, how sidetracked?
George Barna: Well, Sam, this goes back to what we were talking about before the break, where we know that politicians are most comfortable discussing issues. They don’t want to discuss themselves, their background, their character, their values, their beliefs. They’ll talk about the issues, which is frustrating for the electorate because they know that they can’t really affect what the politician, if elected, will eventually do in relationship.
Sam Rohrer: George, getting off at that point, do you really believe that candidates love or like to talk about the issues or just the bullet points that they have been given in the context of what is not politically correct?
George Barna: Well, based on my interaction with most campaigns, candidates like to tell as little as possible about who they are and what they plan to do because there’s the potential that somebody might call them on it and hold them accountable. Most voters though, are not sufficiently informed to know or to recall or frankly to even care what most politicians have said about the issues, much less about issues of character or whatnot. We know that because more than four out of five incumbents get reelected, people are ignorant about what they’ve done in office, but they dislike change. And so it’s a lot easier to go with what you know. I’ve seen the name around, I’ve seen the person’s face around, I know they’ve already served. So let’s not rock the boat. That’s the mentality. But what kind of self-interest are manipulating the political process? We could talk about the mega donors who are circumventing the donation law by investing millions and millions of dollars in political action committees, PACs
We could talk about the technology companies like, well there are a lot of them, but Google is one that’s been charged with skewing the kind of information that people get when they try to do a search on what a candidate has said, what a candidate believes, who are the candidates, all of that. Apparently the information flow, according to the allegations has been skewed so that people are not getting truth. The political parties push candidates in such a way so that their party platform will prevail, which was never voted on by the public, never put together by a commission or a group of citizens. That was done in the back room by a bunch of politicians. We look at the media, the narratives that they insist upon telling us night after night after night, and looking for facts that will fit the narrative as opposed to creating a narrative that fits the facts.
And so those are the kind of self-interests that are subverting the democratic process in our republic. And those are the kinds of actors that the people have to rise up against and put in their place, not allow them to have such undue influence of what happens in our elections. And unless we change that, it’s the old expression, going back to what we were saying before, “Nothing changes if nothing changes.”
Isaac Crockett: George, to take that maybe a level further, and I really don’t know how far we could dig into it, it becomes so existential, but this idea of knowing who we are. So we want a government that represents who we are. Do we as the citizens, who are electing them, do we know who we are? Do these candidates, and I’ve known some candidates very, very closely, and sometimes it almost feels like they’re not really a person, they’re a machine because it’s not just them, it’s all these people around them, all these donors like you’ve brought in, do they know truly their real identity? Do they know who they are? Perhaps if you have any thoughts on that from these studies that you’ve been trying to figure out, get into the mind of the voter.
George Barna: Isaac, good question, because I think what you’re alluding to is the fact that so many of the candidates, not all of them, of course, there’s some tremendous public servants out there, but they’re clearly in the minority. Most people who hold public office, certainly at a federal level, probably also at a state level, statewide level, are playing a role. They understand what it’s going to take to get elected. And so they hire strategists, they hire pollsters, they hire managers, they hire media experts, they hire all kinds of people to get them into office. And the driving motivation for them often is not that they’re dying to serve the people, it’s that they’re dying to exploit the system for their own benefit. So then it goes back to your questioning about the people. Well, how can we let that happen? Do we know who we are?
No, we don’t. And that’s part of the issue. Our research is showing that most Americans don’t have a clear sense of purpose for their life. They can’t really identify their values very well. They have a worldview that’s really just a mixed up combination of ideas from a variety of different philosophies of life. More than seven out of 10 Americans have no personal relationship with Jesus Christ. They don’t know what it means to be an American or even what the rights and responsibilities are of a citizen. Why is that? Because we’re not reflective. We don’t like to think. We like to do stuff, we’re people have action. And so we don’t mind voting, but we’re not going to spend a lot of time thinking about it, digging for the facts, trying to clarify everything, even looking deeper in our souls and trying to figure out, “But why am I voting? What’s the purpose of this? What am I trying to achieve through this personal action?”
So that’s why we’re not cornering candidates for public office and insisting that they tell us who they are. We’re afraid they might turn the tables on us and say, “Well, who are you?” And to get deeper into that conversation, we don’t want to deal with that. So it’s so much easier just to let people talk about issues that we really can’t affect, some of which don’t even affect our lives, and we can’t hold these people accountable for it. That’s much safer than having to spend time digging into our hearts and our minds and our souls and our experience, our relationships, our beliefs, all of these things, to figure out who am I? How did I get here? What am I about? And what kind of people do I want representing me in an establishment, an institution, the government that literally, in America today, is primarily responsible for codifying morality for our population. And so we let it go. We just appease ourselves with doing that which is the path of least resistant.
Sam Rohrer: And George, hearing what you’re saying, and ladies and gentlemen, you’re thinking, “Boy, that question to Isaac asking what George said, ‘If the people we generally don’t know who we are and are afraid to look in the mirror and say, who am I? What do I believe? What do I want?’ Is it not interesting that in a representative republic, that those in office look just like us?” Think about that. That’s an indicting statement. Really, it’s all of us in this country. Culturally, we’re talking about cultural values, not candidate values, not citizen values, but cultural values. We’re all in this bucket together. When we come back, we’re going to try to give a few solutions.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Sam Rohrer: Okay, we’ve been looking at the midterms just past. On this program, earlier in the week, we’ve considered a number of different approaches about the way we can analyze what’s happening. And in every case, we come back to worldview. We come back to an element of prophecy that’s unfolding before us. We cannot cut that out. It’s actually there. And as we’re talking today with Dr. George Barney, he just talked about another segment. We don’t know who we are as a people. Candidates don’t know who they are and the system doesn’t really want them to really define carefully who they are, and they don’t want to define who they are because then you can measure them. And nobody wants to be measured. Sounds like the biblical principle of accountability, doesn’t it? Because it is. So we want to take what we’ve talked about today and move it to the point of being actionable. But one thing we know for sure, that honesty and integrity and a biblical worldview, those things, those views dictate to us that we do exactly what we were talking about in the last segment.
Scripture says to examine yourselves. Many places says that, examine yourselves. One says, “As to whether or not you were even in the faith.” The book of James tells us to look in the mirror of God’s Word. Why? It’s the only way you can honestly evaluate our condition and who we are. Now that’s a worldview that takes us to the Word of God to do that evaluation. The world doesn’t want to go the Word of God for evaluation. So it’s part of our culture. But God says throughout the Old Testament to Israel and to any nation who loves freedom and prosperity, to look around, because then you can determine where we are. For instance, Deuteronomy is a great book to go to. God says there, just look around and you can see where you are. If you’re receiving blessing and enjoy good health, have prosperity, got plenty of food to eat, children that are blessed, God says, if those things are present, then that’s an evidence of God’s blessing because those things come only from Him.
But He says, if you look around and you see corrupt officials who are in office immorality and lawlessness that abounds, pandemics, scripture calls out, failing health, shortages of food and insecurity, a nation that is wrapped in debt. All of those things scripture talks about. God says, if you see those things, then you know have a country that’s walked away from God and experiencing the judgment of God. So honestly, looking into God’s Word is necessary for determining what we do about it. And honest research, what George has been talking about here, also demands that if we view honest research and find results, that we honestly look at it and deal with it so that we can change course accordingly, because we do need a course change in this country.
So George, let’s go to this. Do what you said regularly. You regularly say, “All right, now in light of what we have, what difference does it make?” I’m going to ask you that question about what we have talked about today and what you put in the results here today. What difference does it make based on your analysis and what you’ve gone over and shared today? What is the pathway forward for our nation if we ever want to see again the evidence of God’s blessings?
George Barna: Well, Sam, I think there are a number of things that we can do and I talked about them in the report. I’ll quickly allude to them. One of those is that Americans, three out four Americans, are saying that they want public officials to have the mindset and the behavior of a servant leader. That’s not what we have in most cases today. And so we’re going to have to insist on different types of people running for office and having different kinds of conversations with those candidates in order for us to understand what is their mindset. Do they see themselves as coming into office to sacrifice their life for the good of the American people? Or are they getting in there because they want the retirement plans, they want the notoriety, they want the post office benefits that so many politicians seem to get. And so part of that is going to be insisting on understanding how these people will add value to the life of a typical American.
72% of people in this country say that’s what they want to know. And they also want these leaders to talk about vision. What’s their compelling vision for the future? Can they clearly articulate where they see us going, how we’re going to get there, how it’s going to affect our families? All of these things and more. But that kind of an orientation, which has been missing. A second thing is that, as the people, we’re going to have to frankly resist government overreach, excessive authority exerted over our lives. 76% of Americans are saying they want more control over their own lives and less government interference into the personal choices we make. Well, it’s not going to happen unless we change the system. The system is very happy, continually taking more authority, taking more power. You can even see this with all the executive orders that our current president has signed.
That’s the executive branch usurping what the legislative branch alone is supposed to be doing, but nobody’s stopping it. And so it goes on and on and on. We’re going to have to know the Constitution, we’re going to have to know how government works, understand the implications of what’s being done to us and be willing to stand up and fight against it. And partly that relates to a third thing we might do, which is to think about how we measure what’s going on in government. We need to institute better mechanisms of objective measurement because you get what you measure. Right now, what we measure is dominance. And so what we’re getting are political leaders who have become extraordinarily skilled at dominating the public, dominating the system to our disadvantage. We need different measures. We’re not even looking at the right stuff.
And a fourth thing that I’ll mention is that our educational institutions play a major role in this as well, along with families, making sure that our young people are taught the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship, what our civic duties are, increasing our knowledge of how the government system works, how politics fits into that, having a working understanding of the core documents of our nation, because those tell us what government should be and how it should behave. So the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, et cetera, all of those things are critical. And ignorant people cannot rise up and change the system to be better. We have an incredible foundation for our nation. We have an incredible legacy of documentation of very smart, but more importantly wise people whom God brought together to build this nation and they put it on paper.
Just like God wants us to thrive in life, He knew we couldn’t do it on our own so He gave us the Bible so that we’d have principles that would outline for us, “Here’s how to thrive the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights.” These are similar kinds of documents where men of God got together, listened to the Lord, prayed about it, put together these documents with principles of governance that have been proven to work for more than a quarter of a millennium. And for us not to even know what’s in those documents is to our shame. But it’s also why our country is unraveling. So we’ve got to go back and educate ourselves. These are all part of the solution. But the key thing for us to remember is we’ve got to know who we are, what we believe, why we believe it, why we live and how our government can facilitate us being the people that God created us to be.
Sam Rohrer: Thank you so much, George Barna. Ladies and gentlemen, you see where George was going? We here on the program know, we have to take people there. Until we look into the Word of God and find out who we are from God’s perspective, we’ll never get to what George is talking about. Our founders went to the Word of God and they took from it the principles. We have left it, we need to get back. That is our emphasis for the last two years. It remains today. We must return to God, return to God. All of us, may we lead that way.
Recent Comments