Rick Green: Welcome to At the Core with Walker Wildmon and Rick Green, America's Constitution Coach. Thanks for joining me today. Not only are you joining me listening on air, but Bob Barth is in the studio with me, a friend of 20 years. Bob Barth: More than 20 years. Rick Green: Don't make me feel even older than I am, Bob. Bob Barth: I'm having a birthday coming up, and I don't want to tell you how old I am. Rick Green: You're not going to tell me? Bob and I used to go out and do a quick lecture for Oakbrook College of Law whenever they had everybody together. One time I did one in Indianapolis. I can't remember where the other one was, but anyway, thanks for coming on today. Bob Barth: It's a pleasure. Pleasure to be here. Rick Green: You came when we used to have leadership forums. Bob Barth: Yes. Rick Green: We had forums for biblical concepts of law and government and historical concepts. Then we transcribed those lectures into a book and put them out in a volume journal, actually. Bob Barth: I remember that. Rick Green: Now, be honest with the audience, though. The only reason I was there was probably because David Barton was busy. Bob Barth: We had asked David Barton, and David Barton recommended you, Rick. That's why you came. It was great to have you there, and the follow-up over the years has been wonderful. It's exciting to see what you've been doing through Patriot Academy. Rick Green: I always loved y'all because when I first started working for David Barton, he was getting a thousand requests a year. I was the first guy hired to actually be a surrogate speaker for him. If he couldn't make it, he would send out my information and say, "David can't be there, but Rick is a legislator in Texas and he's been with us." Not everybody would say, "Okay, we'll take the kid that nobody knows," but you guys did. Bob Barth: We came to find out that you speak about as quickly as David Barton does. Rick Green: That took a lot of practice. Bob Barth: I had to listen to him a lot. Rick Green: Seriously, one of the things that has to take place culturally is that we have to fix the legal part if we want to have justice again in the country. I always think of Isaiah 1:26: "I will restore your judges as at the first and your counselors as at the beginning. Afterward you shall be called the city of righteousness, the faithful city." You've been dedicated to this for what, 30 years now? Bob Barth: Oakbrook College started in 1995. Prior to that, I was associated with another law school and worked with them for a while. God had a way of working in my life that I never expected or anticipated, being involved in legal education at all. Rick Green: You've seen the importance of having people who are well trained in the foundations of law, the foundations of justice, and how our government and legal system are supposed to work. If they're poorly trained in those things, they have no sense of justice. They get into positions of power and have no problem weaponizing government. We're seeing so much of that now, where clearly evil is being called good and good is being called evil because people lack the foundation. Bob Barth: Absolutely. I try to define justice for law students. I ask them, "How do you define justice?" It's really the application of truth, in every area. Rick Green: For example, in a criminal trial, you're after the truth, right? You can't make a decision about whether someone is guilty or not guilty unless you know the truth. Bob Barth: In a more philosophical sense, unless you have a source of truth, or believe there is truth, how can anyone find truth if they don't even believe there is truth? Rick Green: How can you do justice? Bob Barth: The legal system is based on the fact that we're trying to do justice. But what is your source of justice, or your source of truth, to determine what's just and what isn't? Rick Green: Justice is the application of truth. Bob Barth: Application of truth. That's good. That's so true. Our civil government, of course, from Romans chapter 13, is supposed to punish those who do evil. That's the role of the civil magistrate. But in First Peter, we also talk about commending those who do good. Those are values that presuppose what is good and what is evil. Today we have people doing good and calling it evil, and people calling evil good, and vice versa. Rick Green: You have to have a source of truth. There is absolute truth. Bob Barth: There is truth. That doesn't mean that in every situation there's some fixed principle, but in most cases, particularly when you deal with justice, you have to have a source of truth that defines right and wrong. Rick Green: I got saved in law school. It brought me to my knees. Bob Barth: You're like Charles Finney. Charles Finney came to the Lord reading his law books. Rick Green: I'm guessing it wasn't the law books, though. Bob Barth: No, it wasn't the law school. I was a very confused young man. One night, while I was lying in bed, I cried out, "God, you've got to have a plan for me, because I don't have one." I was really struggling with the law. Law school was not what I anticipated. I said, "God, if you want me to stay in law school, I will. If you don't, just tell me what to do." I surrendered my heart to the Lord that night. I felt His presence. I had never felt it before. After that, I started reading the Bible, and it made sense for the first time. There was a right way to live. I don't know how people do it if they're just going on their emotions, or how the legal system does it based on popular opinion, opinion polls, or what the majority wants. If that's the source of truth, then our founders are in trouble and we're in trouble, because our founders really wanted to protect against the tyranny of the mobocracy. Rick Green: And the tyranny of the minority, too. Our legal system has to have standards of what is right and wrong. Our founders understood that, and they tried to protect the system of government they set up from one special-interest group overcoming another special-interest group. I want to go back to this application of truth because that's also why you would not prosecute in a situation if you're a district attorney and you find out the circumstances don't support it. You make the decision that, having looked at the facts and found the truth, you're not going to abuse the system and ruin somebody's life because of political motivation. Sometimes we think of justice only as prosecuting or putting somebody in jail. Sometimes justice is making the wise decision that somebody is being set up, or that a prosecution is purely political. I've been on the receiving end of that. If you're a district attorney and you recognize that a particular group is being targeted for political reasons, applying truth instead of convenience or whichever way the wind is blowing changes things. Whether you're a district attorney, judge, juror, or attorney, if your desire is to apply truth, that really changes things. It's not just a power struggle or what's convenient or what will help your career. You're pursuing truth. Bob Barth: In justice, we can't determine what is just merely by deciding for ourselves what's just and what's not. There has to be an objective standard that you're applying to get to justice. As you said, prosecutors and judges certainly have discretion. A prosecutor has discretion whether to prosecute or not. That's based on evidence and, to some degree, the intent of the individual. We try to teach in law school that if someone does something wrong, we have to ask what the appropriate sanction is in criminal law. Blackstone told us that the sanction must be proportional to the blameworthiness of the individual. That really gets into intent. In criminal law, there's the actus reus and mens rea. The blameworthiness of the individual is important in determining what the sanction should be. The other thing that's important is what happened to the individual and the consequences. The Bible says that if an ax head flies off and hits somebody, that was unintentional. It could be a homicide, but there is no mens rea. If you just look at the act, you have a homicide, but you have to look at the intent as well. It's both, not either or. Rick Green: Judges have discretion if someone is accused of a crime or even admits to a crime and is repentant. The purpose of the law really has been fulfilled. Mitigating circumstances have to be considered because the word blameworthiness carries a lot of weight. What does it mean if you did the act and admit to it, but there were other circumstances in play? It's not simply actual blame. How do you have ethics without this objective standard of truth? You hear about legal ethics classes and everybody wants lawyers to be more honest, but if there's no objective standard of truth, I don't even know what ethics means. Bob Barth: That's a very good question. It all becomes relative. It's kindness. They use the term civility now rather than ethics, so lawyers have to take civility courses so that they're civil in the courtroom. It's ridiculous to me because if you have a standard of right and wrong, you know how to treat a judge and other lawyers. You treat them with respect because you recognize that they are created in the image of God, just as you are, and everyone deserves that respect. Regardless of how much you want to win a case or how angry you are, you still treat them with respect, not merely because you're supposed to be civil, but because that's the right thing to do. Rick Green: I'm shocked at how few lawyers are coming out of law schools across the country with any sense of right and wrong. That's the reason you have a law of the jungle in that world. Part of the reason I wanted to have you on is to reinvigorate this conversation about how we raise up a generation of lawyers, judges, and counselors, as Isaiah 1:26 talks about, so that we can once again be a righteous city. We're working hard to get the right laws passed, but even if you get the law into the statutes, there has to be execution of the law down the road. There have to be guardians of truth. Too often Christians think, "I'm not going to go into that field because it's an evil or dirty field. I'm not going into politics or law because of the reputation." In fact, we need Christians in that arena. Bob Barth: Absolutely. It is a matter of calling. We know that one is saved not by good works, but Paul makes it very clear that we are saved to do good works. In Ephesians 2:10, we're God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works. We look for students who have a sense of calling, who desire to be advocates of truth and to fulfill the role of counselor by trying to reconcile people. We're given the ministry of reconciliation. Ultimately, some lawyers become judges and have to make decisions about what's right and wrong. They are ministers of justice as well. We chose that as our theme for the law school because that's really the model of the role of Christ. He is our advocate before the Father. He sent us the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, and He has given us the ministry of reconciliation. Rick Green: Amen. Bob Barth: Of course, He is the ultimate judge. That's the role of a lawyer in the human sense. We're doing the good works that God called us to do. "Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven." If people have a sense of calling to law or government policy, that's as much a ministry as anything else. Rick Green: And it's a vital ministry. The rest of the system falls apart without it. Rick Green: Welcome back to At the Core with Walker Wildmon and Rick Green, America's Constitution Coach. My friend Bob Barth is in the studio with me at Constitution City, Texas, here at the Patriot Academy campus. We're talking about the importance of getting Christians back in the legal field. For the longest time, it was frowned upon to go into anything called ministry, meaning church or the mission field somewhere around the world. What you said before the break, Bob, is spot on. The law is ministry because it's part of our life. In every area, it's ministry: law, politics, movies, the arts, all of it. It's a mission field. In the legal field, we desperately need the right people with the right convictions because it is a gatekeeper and guardian of the whole system. If the legal part breaks down, everything else breaks down. If we don't have justice, or if we have abusive justice, we lose society. Oakbrook College of Law teaches the foundations of law and the biblical foundations of what makes a good society, not just what makes a good legal system. Talk to me about the philosophy you use to teach students. Bob Barth: We want to teach the historical and biblical foundations, not because we're trying to indoctrinate students into our particular religious view of the legal system, but because those foundations are historical. The Declaration of Independence tells us significant things. If you study it, you know there was a preexisting worldview that the founders had. It wasn't something new or novel. It was generally the common, accepted position of people in the United States at that time. Under English rule for more than 100 years, English common law was the basis of the legal system. William Blackstone has a section on the nature of law. He describes law and its definition, and how, from the fixed principles ordained in creation, we as a society should also have fixed principles governing us, not because man decides them, but because they are preexisting principles. If we structure a legal system and society around those preexisting legal principles, Blackstone says there will be substantial happiness. You line up with the laws of nature and nature's God, and there is substantial happiness. Rick Green: I like that phrase. Bob Barth: It's a significant term. The founders used it in the Declaration of Independence: "laws of nature and of nature's God" and "our pursuit of happiness." Rick Green: So Blackstone understood that if you're going to follow the operator's manual, so to speak, you're going to function properly. The God who made you gave you an instruction manual on how to operate. Bob Barth: Blackstone helps us understand the legal foundations of the American legal system, even though he was an English scholar. Not everything our founders adopted from English common law was consistent with the system that developed in the colonies and states, but many of the principles were incorporated into our legal system. I often tell students that most law schools don't teach a definition of law. Perhaps in a jurisprudential philosophy course they might discuss different definitions. But Blackstone essentially says that law is a rule of action imposed by a superior upon an inferior, commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong. That presupposes right and wrong. It presupposes that someone has authority, and we would say God-given authority, to impose something upon those who are subordinate and that they are to obey it. Those in authority are supposed to make sure that the law is designed according to standards of right and wrong, punishing those who do wrong and commending those who do right. That's the perspective we want people graduating from law school and going into our culture to have: law is not merely reactive to the culture. Law should be more of a thermostat than a thermometer. Law is supposed to encourage doing right and punish those who do wrong. Of course, that presupposes the existence of right and wrong. Rick Green: The Declaration of Independence is not a religious document. Bob Barth: It's not a religious document, even though it mentions God four times. It's a document that declares a philosophy of government, almost an observation of the laws of nature. We consider it a self-evident truth. We don't have to defend it or prove it. Everybody knows there is a Creator God. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." That's a philosophy of government, not a religion. Christianity presupposes the Creator God, but it also presupposes the Savior, Jesus Christ. Whether you believe in Jesus Christ is not addressed in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. The existence of a Creator God is. Rick Green: Absolutely. That's the biblical worldview underlying the legal education you provide. Going back to the purpose of the law, I was thinking about a line from Frank Turek when he came to Patriot Academy years ago. He said, "The law is a great teacher." What you put into your statutes and legal system is going to teach the people. It's not just going to punish or reward them. It's also going to teach them. They're going to see the standard that is being held up. Is that an outgrowth of what you were describing? Through the law, this is the way we're going to treat each other as neighbors. You're presupposing that we're going to respect each other enough to follow it. Bob Barth: Absolutely. The law makes us aware of what is right and what is wrong. From a biblical standpoint, the purpose of the law is to bring us to repentance, but the purpose of the law is also to state what is right and wrong. Without the law, there was no sin, so there was no right and wrong that was punishable until God gave us the law. Rick Green: But the law existed before that. Bob Barth: The laws of nature and nature's God go all the way back to creation, not just to the Mosaic law. Rick Green: That brings up another point from Frank Turek: legislating morality. You really are doing that. Every law you pass says you're not creating morality, but you're defining it for people. You're saying, "This is right and wrong. This is moral and this is not moral. This is why we don't want this in our community, and therefore we're going to outlaw it, or we want this in our community, and therefore we're going to encourage it." People who say you can't legislate morality are mistaken. Every law legislates morality in some way. You're not creating or deciding what is moral. You're observing it and deciding what you want encouraged in your community. Bob Barth: Exactly. Blackstone gives us a great framework. He distinguished between laws based upon the laws of nature and nature's God, which are preexisting and cannot be changed, and civil law, where there is liberty. For example, a state legislature or city council could establish health-code regulations. That isn't directly in the laws of nature and nature's God, but indirectly we are supposed to do things that don't harm other people. There is an area of liberty there. A speed limit of 55, 65, or, in Texas, 75 or 85, is an area of liberty. But even before there were speed limits, the standard was that you cannot drive in a way that endangers another person's life, regardless of the speed. The speed limit is an area of liberty that man can decide within the context of the laws of nature and nature's God. In that indirect sense, even a speed limit legislates some morality: there is a safe speed to drive, based on the moral principle that you don't want to harm others. Then there are direct laws, such as "You shall not kill." In England, there were common-law crimes. It didn't matter whether a statute prohibited an act; it was still a crime. There is a distinction. Man has an area of liberty to legislate certain things deemed to be in the best interest of society or a particular culture, but other things are not discretionary. They are absolute. Rick Green: How do you deal with society going off the rails and laws beginning to say things that aren't true, such as the transgender issue? If I'm an attorney and my job is to uphold the law, or, as you said, to apply truth, what do I do in states that are passing laws absolutely contrary to the laws of nature and nature's God? Bob Barth: That's a real ethical dilemma. A lawyer's ethical obligation is not to be involved in things he cannot support. You can't zealously and vigorously represent your client within the context of truth if you're being asked to do something that isn't true. Rick Green: My father-in-law was a justice of the peace and a believer. He said, "I won't do same-sex marriages." That's a similar situation for a judge. But you're speaking more broadly, even about taking a client dealing with a particular issue. If that issue is immoral to you, does that mean you can't take the client? Bob Barth: You don't get your own truth. Rick Green: Right. I think this goes back to education and revival in the heart. The founders said our nation was meant for a righteous and religious people. Without a change of heart, and without people being honest about eternity being in their hearts, they won't be honest. Every generation is searching for truth, meaning, and purpose. It doesn't matter how old you are. Those are questions we have until they're answered. If you can't answer the questions of the meaning and purpose of life and what's important, you'll be susceptible to the winds of change. Rick Green: This is why I've always been such a big fan of Oakbrook. You don't just teach what current society says law and ethics are. You go back to the foundations and make sure that the student who is going to become a counselor understands those things first, so they can stand against changes in the law that move us away from truth. Bob Barth: We try to teach what is taught in any other law school in terms of the status of the law, but we also put those foundations in place. There are many areas of law that need to be reformed. We want to give students the tools to articulate why, not merely from a religious standpoint, but from a philosophy of government and what is right and wrong. They can also look at the practical consequences of where something will lead if we continue on that track. Rick Green: I like the Scripture in Proverbs: "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him." Then it says, "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes." I always have trouble remembering which one comes first. Bob Barth: Answer a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him. Then answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. Rick Green: The way I look at it is that you don't fall into the trap of their presuppositions, because then you're the same as they are. You're just arguing for a different end, and there's no principle involved other than a different goal. But then it says to answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. If somebody is off the track, that's a way to bring them back, or at least get them to consider the consequences of their logic. Bob Barth: You're challenging the underlying presuppositions on which their argument is based. Rick Green: Bob Barth is our special guest from Oakbrook College of Law. Applications open November 1. We'll be right back. Rick Green: Welcome back to At the Core with Walker Wildmon and Rick Green, America's Constitution Coach. Bob Barth is my special guest in the studio here in Constitution City, Texas. We're talking about Oakbrook College of Law. Applications open November 1. Back to what you were saying right before the break: how do you know when to answer a fool according to his folly or not answer a fool according to his folly? You were bringing it down to the presupposition on which the fool is basing the question and challenging that. Bob Barth: Exactly. I always encourage law students to take an editorial or news article and examine the position it takes on a particular public-policy or social issue. Think about the presuppositions behind the position. You never win if you're just arguing the surface level. It's you against them. Ask what the presuppositions are. Take the right to life, for example. If the presupposition is that life is meaningless except as individuals or society deem it important, that presupposition means there should be no law against murder. If I decide I don't like you and can kill you, that's the logical conclusion. Or consider marriage. If marriage is defined as a social construct, then marriage can be constructed to be anything we want. Rick Green: Anything we want. Bob Barth: That's why you don't answer a fool according to those presuppositions. You point out the presuppositions. You're not ignoring what they're saying; you're refusing to follow the path they're trying to put you on. Foolishness, according to the scriptural definition, is denying the existence of God. These positions deny the existence of absolute truth or of truth, right, and wrong. But you can take their logic and presupposition and bring it to its logical extension. If marriage is a social construct that can be decided individually, or sexuality is something you can decide individually based on personal desires, where does that lead? Where do you draw the line between what you think is right and child molestation, bestiality, or any of these things? Your logic will endorse that behavior. Rick Green: Why would child marriage be wrong? Bob Barth: Exactly. That's why you answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. Rick Green: My wife is always trying to get me not to respond on Facebook. Someone will jump on one of my posts and say something foolish, and I want to answer them according to their folly. Is there a time when it's appropriate simply to ignore it? I'm taking us out of the legal world and into the personal world. Is there an application of those two verses where my wife is right? Is there a time to let it go and say, "This isn't worth investing my time in"? Bob Barth: It's very difficult to know on social media because you don't know the condition of the person's heart. If they're a hardened fool, the only thing a response will bring is more conflict. But if they're open to instruction, Proverbs tells us to instruct the simple so they may be wise. In a personal conversation, you can discern what level of foolishness they're in. On social media, it's very difficult. Rick Green: Discernment is the operative word. We need to know when to engage and when not to engage, and whether someone is genuine about civil discourse. I tell the Patriot Academy students to enter a civil conversation by saying, "If I'm wrong, I want to know." I'm not going into it arrogantly, just trying to win the argument. I want genuine iron sharpening, which creates sparks and might be painful because I may discover I'm wrong. I genuinely want that sharpening. Then be genuinely curious about how the other person came to that conclusion. Ask questions and try to understand so you can instruct through those questions. The common goal is truth. Bob Barth: You're both desiring to know and have a better understanding of the situation or the truth, or to get another perspective, because we all have blind spots. We have to accept that we could be missing something, and therefore be willing to be corrected or instructed. That is wisdom. Rick Green: That makes you a fan of civil discourse. You want that interaction. I can think of times when someone corrected me or brought me through a logical process where I realized I had the wrong position or data. Instead of being painful, I loved it. I came away thinking, "That was great. It made me think more and dig deeper." I've said that it's either civil discourse or civil war. We need civil discourse. We want the engagement. Bob Barth: Your goal is truth, not personal advancement or being right. That's the difference. Rick Green: Even define victory as advancing truth. My friend Nicole Tysvaer in Delaware always says that. She fights most of the time and loses if you define victory as passing legislation or getting somebody elected because she's in a very blue state. But if you define victory as advancing truth, then every time you speak truth or engage someone, you've won. That goes back to your definition of law as the application of truth. Bob Barth: You know better than anyone that William Wilberforce took a long time. Rick Green: A 40-year overnight success. Bob Barth: It doesn't happen overnight. He kept doing it. Rick Green: That's a perspective we need to teach young people coming into law. They're not going to change or save the world overnight. We need people willing to nudge things back in the right direction. There's not going to be one dramatic move that fixes everything. We need people who know truth and can advance truth if we're going to win the culture. Bob Barth: It's not a quick fix. We are to be light and salt wherever we are, whether we're in law, politics, medicine, or business. We're to be light and salt and help people see that there is a difference. That's what we're called to do until He comes back. Rick Green: Amen. In our final few minutes, I want to go back to something you were starting to describe: the personality, skill set, or wiring that makes someone a good attorney, judge, counselor, or whatever. Speak to people who may be listening and thinking that this is the field God is calling them to. Bob Barth: The legal field is probably the most versatile field, at least in my opinion, in terms of education and training. You can use it in business, ministry, or anything. Rick Green: Exactly. Bob Barth: We have graduates who are pastors and graduates who are CEOs of companies. They never use their law degree directly or practice law. We have graduates involved in public policy or working with special-interest groups that defend religious freedom. Many are in private practice doing everything from estate planning and real-estate contracts to criminal defense and every other area. I didn't practice very much after law school, but it helped me tremendously in business. I started multiple businesses, and it saved me money by knowing those things or being able to communicate better with my attorneys. It helped me in public policy as a legislator. Even today, it helps me in commentary and in coaching students. To think you only get a law degree if you're going to be a litigator or open a law practice is not true. There are many applications. Rick Green: The legal training has helped me in every area. My dad told me while I was in college, "I really want you to get a law degree. I don't care if you want to drive a trash truck, go into business, or whatever you're going to do. Do it with a law degree. It's going to give you an advantage." He knew that from dealing with people in business, ministry, and other fields. Bob Barth: It goes back to your sense of calling. If you feel called to help the elderly, minister to families, or help people transfer their wealth from one generation to another, there are many possibilities. A lot of lawyers are in office practices and don't go into a courtroom very much. They serve individuals and answer their questions. Legal training is valuable for two things. First, it gives you the ability to think. You're challenged to think logically and clearly. We also try to help students think in terms of a standard of right and wrong. Second, it makes you familiar with many different areas of law to which everyone is exposed. Everyone will experience the death of a loved one and have to deal with transferring an estate. Everyone will become involved in contracts. Many people buy a house. There are areas of law that, if you have the background, you can understand. You should still seek legal advice for your specific situation, but at least you know the terminology and some of the procedures. You can discern that something isn't right instead of being totally blind and not knowing the right course of action. Rick Green: My dad told me the same thing. Whatever field you go into, a law degree will give you a leg up. Bob Barth: We've had a very diverse group of students. Some started law school after retiring, in their 60s. We've had very young people come through as well, as early as 16, 17, or 18, because at Oakbrook you can start law school without having an undergraduate degree if you're qualified. We've had mothers go through law school while homeschooling their children. There are so many different opportunities. Most pastors in the earliest history of our country had to be trained in law, not because they were going to be lawyers, but because they needed to be equipped to think, address the issues of the culture, and teach their congregations how God says to look at those issues. Rick Green: I love that. There are a lot of people listening who may be interested. You can go to OBCL.edu to learn more about Oakbrook College of Law. I've been a big fan of what you've been doing for a long time, not just because you were willing to have me speak all those years ago, although that probably helped, but because it opens this opportunity to so many more people. For our listeners, if you're not on the Patriot Academy email list, make sure you are. I have exciting announcements coming about scholarship opportunities to attend Oakbrook in 2027. Applications will need to start soon. Bob, it's been a pleasure. I've enjoyed the conversation, and it's been great to see you. Bob Barth: I appreciate you having me. It's been a great time, and I appreciate the opportunity. Rick Green: Good stuff. That's Bob Barth of Oakbrook College of Law. Check it out at OBCL.edu. I've got to emphasize this because we're down to one week, folks. The election is one week from today. Go vote early this week. Don't wait for Election Day. I am also a fan of having one election day, and I think we should go back to that, but while there's early voting, take advantage of it in your state. You never know if something is going to come up next week and keep you from getting there on Election Day. Bob Barth: The lines are a lot longer on Election Day, so get it done. Rick Green: Don't just vote yourself. Talk to your friends and family. Let everyone in your circle know. Get them a good voter guide. iVoterGuide.com is what we recommend. All the information is available there for all 50 states. Send it to your friends and family. If you're a pastor listening right now, this coming Sunday is your last opportunity to speak to this issue. It is 100 percent constitutional for you to do so, and your congregation needs to know. Make sure you're getting those voter guides passed out at church as well. I sure appreciate you listening today.
Rick Green: Welcome to At the Core with Walker Wildmon and Rick Green, America's Constitution Coach. Thanks for joining me today. Not only are you joining me listening on air, but Bob Barth is in the studio with me, a friend of 20 years. Bob Barth: More than 20 years. Rick Green: Don't make me feel even older than I am, Bob. Bob Barth: I'm having a birthday coming up, and I don't want to tell you how old I am. Rick Green: You're not going to tell me? Bob and I used to go out and do a quick lecture for Oakbrook College of Law whenever they had everybody together. One time I did one in Indianapolis. I can't remember where the other one was, but anyway, thanks for coming on today. Bob Barth: It's a pleasure. Pleasure to be here. Rick Green: You came when we used to have leadership forums. Bob Barth: Yes. Rick Green: We had forums for biblical concepts of law and government and historical concepts. Then we transcribed those lectures into a book and put them out in a volume journal, actually. Bob Barth: I remember that. Rick Green: Now, be honest with the audience, though. The only reason I was there was probably because David Barton was busy. Bob Barth: We had asked David Barton, and David Barton recommended you, Rick. That's why you came. It was great to have you there, and the follow-up over the years has been wonderful. It's exciting to see what you've been doing through Patriot Academy. Rick Green: I always loved y'all because when I first started working for David Barton, he was getting a thousand requests a year. I was the first guy hired to actually be a surrogate speaker for him. If he couldn't make it, he would send out my information and say, "David can't be there, but Rick is a legislator in Texas and he's been with us." Not everybody would say, "Okay, we'll take the kid that nobody knows," but you guys did. Bob Barth: We came to find out that you speak about as quickly as David Barton does. Rick Green: That took a lot of practice. Bob Barth: I had to listen to him a lot. Rick Green: Seriously, one of the things that has to take place culturally is that we have to fix the legal part if we want to have justice again in the country. I always think of Isaiah 1:26: "I will restore your judges as at the first and your counselors as at the beginning. Afterward you shall be called the city of righteousness, the faithful city." You've been dedicated to this for what, 30 years now? Bob Barth: Oakbrook College started in 1995. Prior to that, I was associated with another law school and worked with them for a while. God had a way of working in my life that I never expected or anticipated, being involved in legal education at all. Rick Green: You've seen the importance of having people who are well trained in the foundations of law, the foundations of justice, and how our government and legal system are supposed to work. If they're poorly trained in those things, they have no sense of justice. They get into positions of power and have no problem weaponizing government. We're seeing so much of that now, where clearly evil is being called good and good is being called evil because people lack the foundation. Bob Barth: Absolutely. I try to define justice for law students. I ask them, "How do you define justice?" It's really the application of truth, in every area. Rick Green: For example, in a criminal trial, you're after the truth, right? You can't make a decision about whether someone is guilty or not guilty unless you know the truth. Bob Barth: In a more philosophical sense, unless you have a source of truth, or believe there is truth, how can anyone find truth if they don't even believe there is truth? Rick Green: How can you do justice? Bob Barth: The legal system is based on the fact that we're trying to do justice. But what is your source of justice, or your source of truth, to determine what's just and what isn't? Rick Green: Justice is the application of truth. Bob Barth: Application of truth. That's good. That's so true. Our civil government, of course, from Romans chapter 13, is supposed to punish those who do evil. That's the role of the civil magistrate. But in First Peter, we also talk about commending those who do good. Those are values that presuppose what is good and what is evil. Today we have people doing good and calling it evil, and people calling evil good, and vice versa. Rick Green: You have to have a source of truth. There is absolute truth. Bob Barth: There is truth. That doesn't mean that in every situation there's some fixed principle, but in most cases, particularly when you deal with justice, you have to have a source of truth that defines right and wrong. Rick Green: I got saved in law school. It brought me to my knees. Bob Barth: You're like Charles Finney. Charles Finney came to the Lord reading his law books. Rick Green: I'm guessing it wasn't the law books, though. Bob Barth: No, it wasn't the law school. I was a very confused young man. One night, while I was lying in bed, I cried out, "God, you've got to have a plan for me, because I don't have one." I was really struggling with the law. Law school was not what I anticipated. I said, "God, if you want me to stay in law school, I will. If you don't, just tell me what to do." I surrendered my heart to the Lord that night. I felt His presence. I had never felt it before. After that, I started reading the Bible, and it made sense for the first time. There was a right way to live. I don't know how people do it if they're just going on their emotions, or how the legal system does it based on popular opinion, opinion polls, or what the majority wants. If that's the source of truth, then our founders are in trouble and we're in trouble, because our founders really wanted to protect against the tyranny of the mobocracy. Rick Green: And the tyranny of the minority, too. Our legal system has to have standards of what is right and wrong. Our founders understood that, and they tried to protect the system of government they set up from one special-interest group overcoming another special-interest group. I want to go back to this application of truth because that's also why you would not prosecute in a situation if you're a district attorney and you find out the circumstances don't support it. You make the decision that, having looked at the facts and found the truth, you're not going to abuse the system and ruin somebody's life because of political motivation. Sometimes we think of justice only as prosecuting or putting somebody in jail. Sometimes justice is making the wise decision that somebody is being set up, or that a prosecution is purely political. I've been on the receiving end of that. If you're a district attorney and you recognize that a particular group is being targeted for political reasons, applying truth instead of convenience or whichever way the wind is blowing changes things. Whether you're a district attorney, judge, juror, or attorney, if your desire is to apply truth, that really changes things. It's not just a power struggle or what's convenient or what will help your career. You're pursuing truth. Bob Barth: In justice, we can't determine what is just merely by deciding for ourselves what's just and what's not. There has to be an objective standard that you're applying to get to justice. As you said, prosecutors and judges certainly have discretion. A prosecutor has discretion whether to prosecute or not. That's based on evidence and, to some degree, the intent of the individual. We try to teach in law school that if someone does something wrong, we have to ask what the appropriate sanction is in criminal law. Blackstone told us that the sanction must be proportional to the blameworthiness of the individual. That really gets into intent. In criminal law, there's the actus reus and mens rea. The blameworthiness of the individual is important in determining what the sanction should be. The other thing that's important is what happened to the individual and the consequences. The Bible says that if an ax head flies off and hits somebody, that was unintentional. It could be a homicide, but there is no mens rea. If you just look at the act, you have a homicide, but you have to look at the intent as well. It's both, not either or. Rick Green: Judges have discretion if someone is accused of a crime or even admits to a crime and is repentant. The purpose of the law really has been fulfilled. Mitigating circumstances have to be considered because the word blameworthiness carries a lot of weight. What does it mean if you did the act and admit to it, but there were other circumstances in play? It's not simply actual blame. How do you have ethics without this objective standard of truth? You hear about legal ethics classes and everybody wants lawyers to be more honest, but if there's no objective standard of truth, I don't even know what ethics means. Bob Barth: That's a very good question. It all becomes relative. It's kindness. They use the term civility now rather than ethics, so lawyers have to take civility courses so that they're civil in the courtroom. It's ridiculous to me because if you have a standard of right and wrong, you know how to treat a judge and other lawyers. You treat them with respect because you recognize that they are created in the image of God, just as you are, and everyone deserves that respect. Regardless of how much you want to win a case or how angry you are, you still treat them with respect, not merely because you're supposed to be civil, but because that's the right thing to do. Rick Green: I'm shocked at how few lawyers are coming out of law schools across the country with any sense of right and wrong. That's the reason you have a law of the jungle in that world. Part of the reason I wanted to have you on is to reinvigorate this conversation about how we raise up a generation of lawyers, judges, and counselors, as Isaiah 1:26 talks about, so that we can once again be a righteous city. We're working hard to get the right laws passed, but even if you get the law into the statutes, there has to be execution of the law down the road. There have to be guardians of truth. Too often Christians think, "I'm not going to go into that field because it's an evil or dirty field. I'm not going into politics or law because of the reputation." In fact, we need Christians in that arena. Bob Barth: Absolutely. It is a matter of calling. We know that one is saved not by good works, but Paul makes it very clear that we are saved to do good works. In Ephesians 2:10, we're God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works. We look for students who have a sense of calling, who desire to be advocates of truth and to fulfill the role of counselor by trying to reconcile people. We're given the ministry of reconciliation. Ultimately, some lawyers become judges and have to make decisions about what's right and wrong. They are ministers of justice as well. We chose that as our theme for the law school because that's really the model of the role of Christ. He is our advocate before the Father. He sent us the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, and He has given us the ministry of reconciliation. Rick Green: Amen. Bob Barth: Of course, He is the ultimate judge. That's the role of a lawyer in the human sense. We're doing the good works that God called us to do. "Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven." If people have a sense of calling to law or government policy, that's as much a ministry as anything else. Rick Green: And it's a vital ministry. The rest of the system falls apart without it. Rick Green: Welcome back to At the Core with Walker Wildmon and Rick Green, America's Constitution Coach. My friend Bob Barth is in the studio with me at Constitution City, Texas, here at the Patriot Academy campus. We're talking about the importance of getting Christians back in the legal field. For the longest time, it was frowned upon to go into anything called ministry, meaning church or the mission field somewhere around the world. What you said before the break, Bob, is spot on. The law is ministry because it's part of our life. In every area, it's ministry: law, politics, movies, the arts, all of it. It's a mission field. In the legal field, we desperately need the right people with the right convictions because it is a gatekeeper and guardian of the whole system. If the legal part breaks down, everything else breaks down. If we don't have justice, or if we have abusive justice, we lose society. Oakbrook College of Law teaches the foundations of law and the biblical foundations of what makes a good society, not just what makes a good legal system. Talk to me about the philosophy you use to teach students. Bob Barth: We want to teach the historical and biblical foundations, not because we're trying to indoctrinate students into our particular religious view of the legal system, but because those foundations are historical. The Declaration of Independence tells us significant things. If you study it, you know there was a preexisting worldview that the founders had. It wasn't something new or novel. It was generally the common, accepted position of people in the United States at that time. Under English rule for more than 100 years, English common law was the basis of the legal system. William Blackstone has a section on the nature of law. He describes law and its definition, and how, from the fixed principles ordained in creation, we as a society should also have fixed principles governing us, not because man decides them, but because they are preexisting principles. If we structure a legal system and society around those preexisting legal principles, Blackstone says there will be substantial happiness. You line up with the laws of nature and nature's God, and there is substantial happiness. Rick Green: I like that phrase. Bob Barth: It's a significant term. The founders used it in the Declaration of Independence: "laws of nature and of nature's God" and "our pursuit of happiness." Rick Green: So Blackstone understood that if you're going to follow the operator's manual, so to speak, you're going to function properly. The God who made you gave you an instruction manual on how to operate. Bob Barth: Blackstone helps us understand the legal foundations of the American legal system, even though he was an English scholar. Not everything our founders adopted from English common law was consistent with the system that developed in the colonies and states, but many of the principles were incorporated into our legal system. I often tell students that most law schools don't teach a definition of law. Perhaps in a jurisprudential philosophy course they might discuss different definitions. But Blackstone essentially says that law is a rule of action imposed by a superior upon an inferior, commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong. That presupposes right and wrong. It presupposes that someone has authority, and we would say God-given authority, to impose something upon those who are subordinate and that they are to obey it. Those in authority are supposed to make sure that the law is designed according to standards of right and wrong, punishing those who do wrong and commending those who do right. That's the perspective we want people graduating from law school and going into our culture to have: law is not merely reactive to the culture. Law should be more of a thermostat than a thermometer. Law is supposed to encourage doing right and punish those who do wrong. Of course, that presupposes the existence of right and wrong. Rick Green: The Declaration of Independence is not a religious document. Bob Barth: It's not a religious document, even though it mentions God four times. It's a document that declares a philosophy of government, almost an observation of the laws of nature. We consider it a self-evident truth. We don't have to defend it or prove it. Everybody knows there is a Creator God. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." That's a philosophy of government, not a religion. Christianity presupposes the Creator God, but it also presupposes the Savior, Jesus Christ. Whether you believe in Jesus Christ is not addressed in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. The existence of a Creator God is. Rick Green: Absolutely. That's the biblical worldview underlying the legal education you provide. Going back to the purpose of the law, I was thinking about a line from Frank Turek when he came to Patriot Academy years ago. He said, "The law is a great teacher." What you put into your statutes and legal system is going to teach the people. It's not just going to punish or reward them. It's also going to teach them. They're going to see the standard that is being held up. Is that an outgrowth of what you were describing? Through the law, this is the way we're going to treat each other as neighbors. You're presupposing that we're going to respect each other enough to follow it. Bob Barth: Absolutely. The law makes us aware of what is right and what is wrong. From a biblical standpoint, the purpose of the law is to bring us to repentance, but the purpose of the law is also to state what is right and wrong. Without the law, there was no sin, so there was no right and wrong that was punishable until God gave us the law. Rick Green: But the law existed before that. Bob Barth: The laws of nature and nature's God go all the way back to creation, not just to the Mosaic law. Rick Green: That brings up another point from Frank Turek: legislating morality. You really are doing that. Every law you pass says you're not creating morality, but you're defining it for people. You're saying, "This is right and wrong. This is moral and this is not moral. This is why we don't want this in our community, and therefore we're going to outlaw it, or we want this in our community, and therefore we're going to encourage it." People who say you can't legislate morality are mistaken. Every law legislates morality in some way. You're not creating or deciding what is moral. You're observing it and deciding what you want encouraged in your community. Bob Barth: Exactly. Blackstone gives us a great framework. He distinguished between laws based upon the laws of nature and nature's God, which are preexisting and cannot be changed, and civil law, where there is liberty. For example, a state legislature or city council could establish health-code regulations. That isn't directly in the laws of nature and nature's God, but indirectly we are supposed to do things that don't harm other people. There is an area of liberty there. A speed limit of 55, 65, or, in Texas, 75 or 85, is an area of liberty. But even before there were speed limits, the standard was that you cannot drive in a way that endangers another person's life, regardless of the speed. The speed limit is an area of liberty that man can decide within the context of the laws of nature and nature's God. In that indirect sense, even a speed limit legislates some morality: there is a safe speed to drive, based on the moral principle that you don't want to harm others. Then there are direct laws, such as "You shall not kill." In England, there were common-law crimes. It didn't matter whether a statute prohibited an act; it was still a crime. There is a distinction. Man has an area of liberty to legislate certain things deemed to be in the best interest of society or a particular culture, but other things are not discretionary. They are absolute. Rick Green: How do you deal with society going off the rails and laws beginning to say things that aren't true, such as the transgender issue? If I'm an attorney and my job is to uphold the law, or, as you said, to apply truth, what do I do in states that are passing laws absolutely contrary to the laws of nature and nature's God? Bob Barth: That's a real ethical dilemma. A lawyer's ethical obligation is not to be involved in things he cannot support. You can't zealously and vigorously represent your client within the context of truth if you're being asked to do something that isn't true. Rick Green: My father-in-law was a justice of the peace and a believer. He said, "I won't do same-sex marriages." That's a similar situation for a judge. But you're speaking more broadly, even about taking a client dealing with a particular issue. If that issue is immoral to you, does that mean you can't take the client? Bob Barth: You don't get your own truth. Rick Green: Right. I think this goes back to education and revival in the heart. The founders said our nation was meant for a righteous and religious people. Without a change of heart, and without people being honest about eternity being in their hearts, they won't be honest. Every generation is searching for truth, meaning, and purpose. It doesn't matter how old you are. Those are questions we have until they're answered. If you can't answer the questions of the meaning and purpose of life and what's important, you'll be susceptible to the winds of change. Rick Green: This is why I've always been such a big fan of Oakbrook. You don't just teach what current society says law and ethics are. You go back to the foundations and make sure that the student who is going to become a counselor understands those things first, so they can stand against changes in the law that move us away from truth. Bob Barth: We try to teach what is taught in any other law school in terms of the status of the law, but we also put those foundations in place. There are many areas of law that need to be reformed. We want to give students the tools to articulate why, not merely from a religious standpoint, but from a philosophy of government and what is right and wrong. They can also look at the practical consequences of where something will lead if we continue on that track. Rick Green: I like the Scripture in Proverbs: "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him." Then it says, "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes." I always have trouble remembering which one comes first. Bob Barth: Answer a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him. Then answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. Rick Green: The way I look at it is that you don't fall into the trap of their presuppositions, because then you're the same as they are. You're just arguing for a different end, and there's no principle involved other than a different goal. But then it says to answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. If somebody is off the track, that's a way to bring them back, or at least get them to consider the consequences of their logic. Bob Barth: You're challenging the underlying presuppositions on which their argument is based. Rick Green: Bob Barth is our special guest from Oakbrook College of Law. Applications open November 1. We'll be right back. Rick Green: Welcome back to At the Core with Walker Wildmon and Rick Green, America's Constitution Coach. Bob Barth is my special guest in the studio here in Constitution City, Texas. We're talking about Oakbrook College of Law. Applications open November 1. Back to what you were saying right before the break: how do you know when to answer a fool according to his folly or not answer a fool according to his folly? You were bringing it down to the presupposition on which the fool is basing the question and challenging that. Bob Barth: Exactly. I always encourage law students to take an editorial or news article and examine the position it takes on a particular public-policy or social issue. Think about the presuppositions behind the position. You never win if you're just arguing the surface level. It's you against them. Ask what the presuppositions are. Take the right to life, for example. If the presupposition is that life is meaningless except as individuals or society deem it important, that presupposition means there should be no law against murder. If I decide I don't like you and can kill you, that's the logical conclusion. Or consider marriage. If marriage is defined as a social construct, then marriage can be constructed to be anything we want. Rick Green: Anything we want. Bob Barth: That's why you don't answer a fool according to those presuppositions. You point out the presuppositions. You're not ignoring what they're saying; you're refusing to follow the path they're trying to put you on. Foolishness, according to the scriptural definition, is denying the existence of God. These positions deny the existence of absolute truth or of truth, right, and wrong. But you can take their logic and presupposition and bring it to its logical extension. If marriage is a social construct that can be decided individually, or sexuality is something you can decide individually based on personal desires, where does that lead? Where do you draw the line between what you think is right and child molestation, bestiality, or any of these things? Your logic will endorse that behavior. Rick Green: Why would child marriage be wrong? Bob Barth: Exactly. That's why you answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. Rick Green: My wife is always trying to get me not to respond on Facebook. Someone will jump on one of my posts and say something foolish, and I want to answer them according to their folly. Is there a time when it's appropriate simply to ignore it? I'm taking us out of the legal world and into the personal world. Is there an application of those two verses where my wife is right? Is there a time to let it go and say, "This isn't worth investing my time in"? Bob Barth: It's very difficult to know on social media because you don't know the condition of the person's heart. If they're a hardened fool, the only thing a response will bring is more conflict. But if they're open to instruction, Proverbs tells us to instruct the simple so they may be wise. In a personal conversation, you can discern what level of foolishness they're in. On social media, it's very difficult. Rick Green: Discernment is the operative word. We need to know when to engage and when not to engage, and whether someone is genuine about civil discourse. I tell the Patriot Academy students to enter a civil conversation by saying, "If I'm wrong, I want to know." I'm not going into it arrogantly, just trying to win the argument. I want genuine iron sharpening, which creates sparks and might be painful because I may discover I'm wrong. I genuinely want that sharpening. Then be genuinely curious about how the other person came to that conclusion. Ask questions and try to understand so you can instruct through those questions. The common goal is truth. Bob Barth: You're both desiring to know and have a better understanding of the situation or the truth, or to get another perspective, because we all have blind spots. We have to accept that we could be missing something, and therefore be willing to be corrected or instructed. That is wisdom. Rick Green: That makes you a fan of civil discourse. You want that interaction. I can think of times when someone corrected me or brought me through a logical process where I realized I had the wrong position or data. Instead of being painful, I loved it. I came away thinking, "That was great. It made me think more and dig deeper." I've said that it's either civil discourse or civil war. We need civil discourse. We want the engagement. Bob Barth: Your goal is truth, not personal advancement or being right. That's the difference. Rick Green: Even define victory as advancing truth. My friend Nicole Tysvaer in Delaware always says that. She fights most of the time and loses if you define victory as passing legislation or getting somebody elected because she's in a very blue state. But if you define victory as advancing truth, then every time you speak truth or engage someone, you've won. That goes back to your definition of law as the application of truth. Bob Barth: You know better than anyone that William Wilberforce took a long time. Rick Green: A 40-year overnight success. Bob Barth: It doesn't happen overnight. He kept doing it. Rick Green: That's a perspective we need to teach young people coming into law. They're not going to change or save the world overnight. We need people willing to nudge things back in the right direction. There's not going to be one dramatic move that fixes everything. We need people who know truth and can advance truth if we're going to win the culture. Bob Barth: It's not a quick fix. We are to be light and salt wherever we are, whether we're in law, politics, medicine, or business. We're to be light and salt and help people see that there is a difference. That's what we're called to do until He comes back. Rick Green: Amen. In our final few minutes, I want to go back to something you were starting to describe: the personality, skill set, or wiring that makes someone a good attorney, judge, counselor, or whatever. Speak to people who may be listening and thinking that this is the field God is calling them to. Bob Barth: The legal field is probably the most versatile field, at least in my opinion, in terms of education and training. You can use it in business, ministry, or anything. Rick Green: Exactly. Bob Barth: We have graduates who are pastors and graduates who are CEOs of companies. They never use their law degree directly or practice law. We have graduates involved in public policy or working with special-interest groups that defend religious freedom. Many are in private practice doing everything from estate planning and real-estate contracts to criminal defense and every other area. I didn't practice very much after law school, but it helped me tremendously in business. I started multiple businesses, and it saved me money by knowing those things or being able to communicate better with my attorneys. It helped me in public policy as a legislator. Even today, it helps me in commentary and in coaching students. To think you only get a law degree if you're going to be a litigator or open a law practice is not true. There are many applications. Rick Green: The legal training has helped me in every area. My dad told me while I was in college, "I really want you to get a law degree. I don't care if you want to drive a trash truck, go into business, or whatever you're going to do. Do it with a law degree. It's going to give you an advantage." He knew that from dealing with people in business, ministry, and other fields. Bob Barth: It goes back to your sense of calling. If you feel called to help the elderly, minister to families, or help people transfer their wealth from one generation to another, there are many possibilities. A lot of lawyers are in office practices and don't go into a courtroom very much. They serve individuals and answer their questions. Legal training is valuable for two things. First, it gives you the ability to think. You're challenged to think logically and clearly. We also try to help students think in terms of a standard of right and wrong. Second, it makes you familiar with many different areas of law to which everyone is exposed. Everyone will experience the death of a loved one and have to deal with transferring an estate. Everyone will become involved in contracts. Many people buy a house. There are areas of law that, if you have the background, you can understand. You should still seek legal advice for your specific situation, but at least you know the terminology and some of the procedures. You can discern that something isn't right instead of being totally blind and not knowing the right course of action. Rick Green: My dad told me the same thing. Whatever field you go into, a law degree will give you a leg up. Bob Barth: We've had a very diverse group of students. Some started law school after retiring, in their 60s. We've had very young people come through as well, as early as 16, 17, or 18, because at Oakbrook you can start law school without having an undergraduate degree if you're qualified. We've had mothers go through law school while homeschooling their children. There are so many different opportunities. Most pastors in the earliest history of our country had to be trained in law, not because they were going to be lawyers, but because they needed to be equipped to think, address the issues of the culture, and teach their congregations how God says to look at those issues. Rick Green: I love that. There are a lot of people listening who may be interested. You can go to OBCL.edu to learn more about Oakbrook College of Law. I've been a big fan of what you've been doing for a long time, not just because you were willing to have me speak all those years ago, although that probably helped, but because it opens this opportunity to so many more people. For our listeners, if you're not on the Patriot Academy email list, make sure you are. I have exciting announcements coming about scholarship opportunities to attend Oakbrook in 2027. Applications will need to start soon. Bob, it's been a pleasure. I've enjoyed the conversation, and it's been great to see you. Bob Barth: I appreciate you having me. It's been a great time, and I appreciate the opportunity. Rick Green: Good stuff. That's Bob Barth of Oakbrook College of Law. Check it out at OBCL.edu. I've got to emphasize this because we're down to one week, folks. The election is one week from today. Go vote early this week. Don't wait for Election Day. I am also a fan of having one election day, and I think we should go back to that, but while there's early voting, take advantage of it in your state. You never know if something is going to come up next week and keep you from getting there on Election Day. Bob Barth: The lines are a lot longer on Election Day, so get it done. Rick Green: Don't just vote yourself. Talk to your friends and family. Let everyone in your circle know. Get them a good voter guide. iVoterGuide.com is what we recommend. All the information is available there for all 50 states. Send it to your friends and family. If you're a pastor listening right now, this coming Sunday is your last opportunity to speak to this issue. It is 100 percent constitutional for you to do so, and your congregation needs to know. Make sure you're getting those voter guides passed out at church as well. I sure appreciate you listening today.
Rick Green talks with Bob Barth of Oakbrook College of Law about why justice depends on an objective standard of truth. Barth explains how biblical and historical foundations shaped American law, drawing on William Blackstone, the Declaration of Independence, and the laws of nature and nature’s God.
The conversation examines the calling of Christians to serve in law, government, business, ministry, and public policy; the difference between applying truth and pursuing political convenience; and the need for discernment in civil discourse.
Barth also discusses how to challenge the assumptions behind public-policy arguments, when Proverbs calls believers to answer foolishness, and why legal training can prepare people for far more than courtroom practice.
The episode closes with encouragement to participate in early voting and share reliable voter information.
Live
Did you know American Family Radio is listener-supported? Your monthly financial support will allow us to continue upholding Godly values through our numerous channels, like American Family Radio, One Million Moms, The Stand magazine, and many more.
Become a Great Commission Partner TODAY to help AFR transform culture by rebuilding the family. When you donate today, you’ll get access to:
