Randy Alcorn's Blog, page 203

Election 2012 Part 5: Is it Wrong to Vote for the Lesser of Evils? Shouldn’t We Instead Vote for a Third Party Candidate?

If you haven’t read some of the previous blogs, you may wish to, since this one flows out of them:

Part 1: Racial Issues, Helping the Poor and Financial Responsibility
Part 2: Which Candidate Will Best Protect Religious Liberties?
Part 3: Which Candidate Has More Christian Beliefs? (And Should I Vote for a Mormon?)
Part 4: Do the Candidates Have Different Positions on Abortion and Does it Matter?

I’ve received many comments from those who believe that we should vote for a third party candidate. Why? Because voting between President Obama and Governor Romney involves choosing between the lesser of two evils, which means choosing evil, something no Christian should do.

First, let me say that I appreciate the vigorous exchange in the blog comments and take no offense at those who disagree with me. I appreciate it when Christians can make their arguments without painting those who disagree as stupid, less spiritual, or lacking an eternal perspective. I was very encouraged to see some asking each other’s forgiveness for what they said. Godly people land on different sides of this issue, but still love the same Jesus.

To begin with, I think there are radically different understandings of what a vote is. In this presidential election, what does your vote mean to you? Is it:

1) The expression of your highest hopes and ideals

2) An affirmation of doctrinal agreement

3) A statement to the world about your Christian convictions

4) An unqualified endorsement of a candidate’s character and wisdom

5) A means of protest against the established parties that have both failed miserably

6) A choice of the better of the only two viable candidates who remain, both of them very flawed, and one of whom will be president

Your answer to this question will largely determine your voting choices. Do you view voting like choosing a marriage partner? (Be extremely choosy.) Or like choosing a school or job? (Choose wisely, but know you can change schools or jobs.) Or like choosing a seat on the bus? (The best seats are already taken, but you choose the best alternative that’s left.)

What will you do in this election? Here are some options:

1) Abstain from voting because you are so disillusioned, and/or your citizenship is in Heaven, not earth.

2) Vote for a candidate you know has no chance of winning, but you’ll sleep better knowing you didn’t vote for the lesser of evils.

3) Vote for whichever one of the two electable candidates you believe will do the most good for the most people and inflict the least amount of harm; who will most uphold and least undermine our moral base and liberties.

Years ago, dissatisfied with the Republican and Democratic candidates, in two elections I wrote in Alan Keyes. Once I voted for Howard Philips. So I understand that perspective.

When voting within a party, I’ve chosen my closest-to-ideal candidate in the primaries. I don’t care whether anyone thinks he’s electable. But in the general election, things have shaken out and it usually comes down to only two candidates who can win. In recent years, I’ve voted for the one I think would do better than the other, despite my serious reservations about both.

So I’ve done it different ways at different times, always following my conscience and asking the Lord’s leading. I think what pushes me away from the third party options in this election is the stark nature of a few of the issues. Yes, there is abortion and the Mexico City Policy and the Supreme Court nominations. And there is the changing definition of marriage. (See Does the Fight for Marriage Really Matter?).

But what sticks out to me most is the urgency created by the dramatic erosion of religious liberties. I seriously wonder if the continued dismantling of our religious freedoms for another four years might permanently strip us of the very rights we will need if we are to influence our country’s direction—including through third party politics, pastors still being able to pass out voter’s guides, etc. This is one of the main reasons I’m determined to make my vote count this time.

Probably a dozen commenters wrote, “Voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil.”

I understand the logic. I’ve used it. But there is another way to look at it: To vote for the lesser of evils is to vote for less evil.

Think about it. Don’t we want less evil? Doesn’t less evil mean more good? I’m voting for the greater good my children and grandchildren and this country will experience than if the only other viable choice were elected. (Please don’t write saying others were far better candidates and Christians should have supported them. The only point I’m making is, regardless of the reasons, none of them will win the election.)

Yes, I don’t like either candidate. But, for instance, let’s say I believe only one single claim Governor Romney has made. A few blog posters have claimed everything Romney has ever said is a lie, which is quite a trick if you think about it, but I’m 99.9% sure this one is true: If elected, he will reinstate the Mexico City Policy, so that American taxes no longer pay for abortions overseas. If he failed to follow through on appointing prolife justices, and everything else, that one single thing is compelling, isn’t it? What makes me think he would keep that promise? Because every Republican since Ronald Reagan has implemented it, and every Democrat has rescinded it. Even if you believe Romney cares about nothing but trying to make himself look good (as one person commented), he would look very bad to break his promise to reinstate the Mexico City Policy. Does it matter to you that your taxes are paying for abortions around the world? It matters to me.

So this is one clear demonstration of how a vote for “the lesser of evils” is a vote for less evil. By voting for the third party, and not voting for the only person who can and will reinstate the Mexico City Policy, isn’t the voter in effect making more likely the greater of evils?

If there are two men and I’m choosing between them, unless their degree of good and evil is exactly the same, and their commitment to religious liberty, human rights, morality, sanctity of marriage and financial responsibility is identical, then righteousness is at stake in my vote.   

“But by definition, the lesser of evils is still evil.” Yes, and also by definition, the lesser of evils is less evil.

We all know that the ideal is no evil. If we lived in Eden or on the New Earth, as all who know Christ one day will, there would be no evil. But that’s not where we live. And no party, candidate or vote will get rid of all evil. The best we can do is vote for less evil and more justice than the other electable candidate offers.

“But that’s just thinking pragmatically.” Or is it simply thinking logically, and trying to make a positive difference with the only power now left to me? Is voting my individualized expression of ideals? Or is it bringing my ideals to bear on the messy choice between two very flawed alternatives?

One woman commented on a previous blog: “I am going to cast my vote for Jesus Christ.” It’s a nice gesture, but I think Jesus wants us to use our vote in a way that matters. Jesus is not running for president. He already sits on a throne. A year ago there were more than two electable people, but now that there are two, shouldn’t we try to choose the one likely to do the most good and the least evil?

There’s something very flawed in the argument that “choosing the lesser of evils is always evil.” Scripture says every man is a sinner, an evil-doer (Romans 3:23). Even born-again Christians struggle with evil-doing (Romans 7:14-25).

“For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it…We all stumble in many ways. Anyone who is never at fault in what they say is perfect.” (James 2:10, 3:2) To deny our sin is to call God a liar (1 John 1:10).

What does this mean? It means—wait for it—that your third party candidate is also a sinner, a doer of evil. Maybe you think he is a Christian, but then, consider how many Christians have made terrible decisions and have become corrupt when put into positions of power they weren’t prepared to handle.

Presumably you believe your man would do less evil than the Republican or Democratic candidates. I understand that. You’re probably right. But do not imagine you are taking the high road by refusing to vote for the lesser of two evils. In fact, by voting for your third party candidate, you are choosing the lesser of three evils.

And if your candidate cannot win, your vote is effectively insuring the victory of the greater of three evils.

Frank Turk, in “Math and Elections”, makes what I believe is a compelling argument that demonstrates how voting for a third party, if enough people do it, assures that the greater of evils will win. He argues, “You have to vote for someone with a mathematical likelihood of winning if you really want to affect change… a vote against Obama but not for Romney ensures Obama’s victory.” (Read it if you don’t understand why.)

Some say, “But my principles compel me to vote for the best possible candidate, even if he can’t win.” If a vote is only a statement of best-case-scenario ideals, that’s understandable. But what if instead you view your vote as a practical tool that wouldn’t violate your principles because it can actually reduce evil, which should be one of your principles? Someone commented, “Logically, a vote for a third party candidate is as much not a vote for Obama as it is not a vote for Romney.” That sounds logical until you look at the math, then you see it isn’t true. If you are serious about thinking this through, please do not dismiss Frank Turk’s logic without actually reading him.

No matter how pure our intentions, votes can be used strategically or counterproductively. When we think we are taking the moral high ground, we may inadvertently help bring about a less moral result. If you are thinking of not voting or of voting for a third party candidate I would encourage you also to read the provocative article by Dan Philips.

Now, both Turk and Philips can be blunt. Philips is at times downright insulting. (I give more benefit of the doubt to third party voters and candidates than he does, perhaps because I’ve voted that way myself.) However, something can be insulting but also largely true, even if overstated. I have learned from the logic of those who have insulted me, and you can too. I would ask that you listen with an open mind, and ask God to guide you. “Listen to advice and accept instruction, that you may gain wisdom in the future” (Proverbs 19:20-21).

I just read an argument against pragmatism, from the Constitution Party. Much of it is very good, biblical quotes and all. But it’s reasonable to ask whether enough people can or will get behind this or any party for it to become a political force. Is it possible that our secular nation, or nominally religious nation, would elect a man from this party to the White House?  Years ago I thought there might be a chance, so I voted for the party’s founder, Howard Philips. Now, apart from a widespread Great Awakening, I don’t believe it’s going to happen. (I truly hope I am wrong.) But if that great awakening does happen, it won’t come through political parties, but through the Holy Spirit of God working through his people, as churches and families. Meanwhile I try to faithfully serve Jesus, reach people with the gospel, serve in my local church, and exercise my vote to the limited extent that it reduces evil and increases good.

Jesus said, “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves” (Matthew 10:16). The person who lives his life in doctrinal and moral compromise needs to be reminded to be as innocent as a dove. The person who lives his life expecting of his country a degree of Christian spirituality that can’t be realized in a fallen world (e.g. returning or moving a post-Christian society to biblical values across the board), needs to be reminded to be as shrewd as a serpent.

To be shrewd is to be wise in the sense of Proverbs, which means being pragmatic not by compromising doctrine but by realizing which strategies work and which don’t. (More on that in the next blog.) The innocent dove may have noble ideals, but he must realize that sometimes his choices are limited. He must not think only of what could be done in the best of all possible societies, but also what can be done in his society as it is now, to make it better instead of worse.   

“Follow your conscience,” many commenters say. I agree. My conscience once told me not to vote for a candidate unless he was the best of all. My conscience now tells me, in this general election, to vote for the better of the only two candidates who can win. My convictions haven’t changed. But my life experiences, including my long conversations with Americans whose worldviews are radically different than mine, have changed my views on what’s realistically possible in a post-Christian nation.   

One caution for some who disagree. Isn’t it a bit presumptuous and condescending to believe you are listening to your conscience and following the Lord by “not voting for the lesser of evils,” but your brothers and sisters are not listening to their conscience or following the Lord by using their votes to “vote for less evil”?  

One person said, “I want to send a message with my vote.” I understand. What I want to do is make a difference with my vote.

Is there truth to the old saying, “Politics is the art of the Possible”? Are some of us trying to do what is impossible? Ask yourself what is actually possible on Election Day. Ask yourself which of the only two candidates who can win might do a better job.

In Monday’s blog I will address what I believe is a highly inaccurate charge stated in the blog comments: “There is no difference between the candidates.” Really? Not on the tax funding of abortions overseas? Not on gay marriage? Not on religious liberties, which are of deep concern to any member of a religious minority that could be persecuted?

I’ll also address the questions related to pragmatism, compromise, whether God wants America to get the candidate it deserves, whether your view of the end times relates to voting, and  whether it’s right to vote for someone who supports abortion in some cases (e.g. rape and incest), even if he opposes it in the great majority of cases.

I’ll conclude by saying I disagree with the comments saying if you have an eternal perspective you will never vote for the lesser of evils. Choosing to endure torture rather than deny Christ, seeing God at work in your worst adversity, laying claim to God’s promises of a New Heavens and New Earth (2 Peter 3;13)—all these involve eternal perspective. But an eternal perspective may also motivate you to vote for less evil and more good that could actually happen, as compared to the more idealistic positions of a candidate who is supported by 3% of the country.

Because you know this world is not your home, and that it is terribly fallen, you put your hope in Christ, not in this country. But as a steward of your American citizenship, you try your best to support good and resist evil, realizing how that is best done in politics isn’t spelled out in Scripture, and godly people will see it differently. Then, together with those who agree on Christ who is primary and disagree on what’s secondary, you trust God and serve him and hold up Jesus Christ and the gospel of grace as the only hope for this nation and this world.  

      

More Election 2012 Blog Posts

Part 1: Racial Issues, Helping the Poor and Financial Responsibility

Part 2: Which Candidate Will Best Protect Religious Liberties?

Part 3: Which Candidate Has More Christian Beliefs? (And Should I Vote for a Mormon?)

Part 4: Do the Candidates Have Different Positions on Abortion and Does it Matter?

ballot drop site photo credit: amanky via photopin cc

photo credit: fatedsnowfox via photopin cc

flag photo credit: ladybugbkt via photopin cc

Election 2012 Part 4: Do the Candidates Have Different Positions on Abortion and Does it Matter?

First: Due to the many blog comments raising questions about third party candidates, and issues of conscience in not voting for “the lesser of two evils,” I will devote Thursday’s blog to that subject.

Meanwhile, if you haven’t thought through abortion—and I’m convinced most people haven’t—you need to or this blog just won’t make sense. At least please read this two-page handout I wrote. It succinctly states the biblical and historical position that unborn children are created by God, in his image, and that God expects his people to defend their right to live.

If you wish to dig further, I’ve written many other articles on this subject and two books, ProLife Answers to ProChoice Arguments and Why Prolife?

Someone recently posted a comment saying, “All you care about is abortion.” Not true. I care about the poor, about racial issues, equal pay for equal work, and women’s rights. As I stated in the first blog, “Election 2012, Part 1: Racial Issues, Helping the Poor and Financial Responsibility,” I believe in helping the truly poor and empowering those who are capable  to work out of their poverty.

I devoted the second blog to religious liberties. This may prove the single most important issue in this election, and will have profound impact on our future rights.

In the third blog I addressed my serious problems with the Mormon faith of one candidate and the nominal Christianity of the other.

Now I come to the subject of abortion. And while it is not the only issue, it’s vitally important.  I recently addressed the question, “Shouldn’t we care about other social injustices besides abortion?” My answer was an emphatic yes, which is why our ministry gives financial resources, time and attention to fighting these other injustices. But when I bring it up, many Christians refuse to stay on track with the issue of abortion. They immediately say, “But what about….?” I think it’s revealing how many people always change the subject.

When an entire people group is being stripped of its rights, enslaved, or killed, it is hard to imagine how any Christian could not be deeply concerned. The Jews weren’t the only suffering people in Nazi Germany, the slaves weren’t the only suffering people in America, and the unborn aren’t the only people today whose rights are violated. But when you consider that over fifty million American children have been killed by legalized abortion in the last forty years, I find it incredible that many Christians speak out less on their behalf than that of any other needy people. (Consider a recent evangelical justice conference where every human rights cause was addressed by the speakers, with one exception: abortion.)

President Obama has relentlessly denied the most basic right—the right to life—to the poorest of the poor: weak and helpless unborn children who cannot vote and cannot speak for themselves.  

The president has been a voice for the abortion industry, supporting the right to abort a child at any time during the pregnancy, until the moment of birth. He has defended partial birth abortion. It is a matter of fact that the President of the United States fully endorses the following: a doctor beginning delivery of a live newborn baby, then shoving scissors in the back of his or her skull and sucking out his or her brains. (See this medical depiction of the process.)

These are not just words. Don’t pass over them. Contemplate a baby 80% out of the womb, who millions of Americans would love to adopt (with no inconvenience to the mother, whose pregnancy is over).  Instead of this child being taken eight more inches outside the womb, she is viciously murdered by scissors, then her brains are literally sucked out. This is not a horror movie. This is an actual procedure publically defended by the President of the United States.  His wife wrote in defense of partial birth abortion, calling it “a legitimate medical procedure.”  

If THIS is not evil, could you please explain to me what IS evil?

When I get comments from angry people, as I will because of saying what I just did, I always find it interesting that they are not angry at those who defend the hideous killing of children, including the president and his wife. Rather, they are angry at people who oppose that killing, and are simply pointing out the truth about what it really entails.

(Similarly, I am baffled when people get upset at anyone showing the pictures of murdered children. Why not get upset with those who are actually murdering and defending the murder of the children in the pictures? When the pictures of murdered Jews were published in The New York Times, who did people get upset with: The New York Times, or the Nazis?)

As an Illinois state senator, Obama opposed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which simply said that if a child survived an abortion, and was lying there helplessly, that his life should be saved by hospital staff.

A prominent evangelical, who supported Barack Obama in 2008, earnestly assured me that abortions would decrease under his presidency. I pointed out that he had promised Planned Parenthood that he would rescind the Mexico City Policy, so that American tax money would fund abortions around the world. My friend told me, “No way would he do that!” I said, “Are you calling him a liar?” I only wish he had been lying. Within days of his inauguration President Obama revoked the Mexico City Policy. Now all of us who pay taxes—including the prolifers who voted for Barack Obama—are paying for the killing of children all over the world.

People point out that Mitt Romney has flip-flopped on abortion, which he supported in 2002 when running for Massachusetts governor. That’s absolutely true. Some say he put his finger in the political wind and changed his mind. But sometimes people mean it when they change their minds. Converts to a position can earnestly embrace it. And sometimes when they defend a position they come to hold it as a true conviction. Doesn’t it make sense to judge someone by where he landed, not by where he started?

Many say it makes no difference whether or not the president is prolife, since presidents don’t initiate legislation and vote on it. But presidents do nominate Supreme Court justices. Unfortunately, prolife presidents have made a number of poor choices, leading people to say it makes no difference.

Mitt Romney says he’s prolife now. Paul Ryan is unmistakably prolife, and will unquestionably do what he can to influence judicial appointments. In contrast, both President Obama and Joe Biden are staunchly in favor of legalized abortion. Romney and Ryan would likely nominate prolife Supreme Court justices. President Obama will not appoint any Supreme Court judge who’s not fully approved by Planned Parenthood, the world’s largest abortion provider.

Mitt Romney says he believes Roe v. Wade should be overturned. President Obama emphatically states it should not be. Planned Parenthood is so convinced that there will be a huge difference on the abortion issue, that their president, Cecile Richards, says she’s campaigning full-time for Barack Obama!

I don’t agree with all George W. Bush’s choices. But in 2006 he nominated a prolife Supreme Court justice, Samuel Alito. Despite the opposition of the proabortion lobby and its politicians, Alito’s nomination was upheld. In 2007 Alito voted to uphold the ban on partial birth abortion. Everyone agrees there is a strong chance he will vote against Roe v. Wade if it’s reconsidered. This is an example of a president’s position on abortion making a difference.

The Supreme Court appears split 4-5 on Roe v. Wade. Three Supreme Court justices will be entering their 80′s in the next four years, and another will be in his late seventies. The balance of the court’s view on abortion could change radically with only one or two appointments, and that change could affect decisions for decades. Those who are prolife but not planning to vote, or to vote for a third party, need to prayerfully consider this reality. Don’t dismiss it as a vote for the lesser of evils (more on that in my next blog) when it could oppose a horrific evil and ultimately save the lives of millions of children. (I’m not sure it will—I am saying it certainly could.)

But even if the president makes no judicial appointments, the Mexico City Policy alone determines whether all U. S. taxpayers are funding the killing of children around the world. Governor Romney has specifically said he will reinstate the policy.

Because of this, I cannot see how any prolifer can seriously argue (as some have in the comments on these blogs) that it does not matter what the next U. S. president believes about abortion. Does it really make no difference to you whether your taxes are paying for abortions around the world? Of course it matters.

Planned Parenthood and National Right to Life agree on only one thing—whether the next president is prolife or prochoice may radically affect our abortion laws. If this election won’t make any difference concerning abortion and its future legality, do you really believe Planned Parenthood would be spending millions of dollars to keep Romney from being elected?

Is it consistent with the Scriptures and with the heart of Jesus to suggest it makes no difference to God whether the President of the United States staunchly defends or opposes the killing of unborn children? How can you reconcile this with the repeated biblical statements that God hates the shedding of innocent blood and will bring judgment on the nation who does it?

Do this so that innocent blood will not be shed in your land…and so that you will not be guilty of bloodshed. (Deuteronomy 19:10)

Surely these things [judgment and destruction by other nations] happened to Judah according to the Lord’s command, in order to remove them from his presence because of the sins of Manasseh [head of state] and all he had done, including the shedding of innocent blood. For he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, and the LORD was not willing to forgive. (2 Kings 24:2-4)

What God says here doesn’t apply only to unborn children, but it certainly includes them:

Defend the cause of the weak and the fatherless;
Maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed.
Rescue the weak and needy;
Deliver them from the hand of the wicked (Psalm 82:3-4).

Consider the words of Jesus: “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me…whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’” (Matthew 25:40,45). Christ takes personally what we do and don’t do for God’s most vulnerable children (not restricted to the unborn, but certainly including them).

I will grant that some needy people may fare better, for a season, under an Obama presidency. Others may get more long-term empowerment under a Romney presidency. The men embody two different ways of helping. Personally, I believe that we as Christians are responsible to step forward and help the poor however we can, not just with our taxes but our personal assistance, financial and otherwise.

I always welcome comments, and read every one of them (that’s why my next blog will respond to those saying we shouldn’t vote for the lesser of evils). But based on my long experience, I have a few requests before you comment on the present blog:

1) Please don’t tell me unborn children are all I care about. Of the seven million dollars of my book royalties we’ve given away, far more has gone to help the born than the unborn—feeding and clothing poor women and children, providing them fresh water and immunizations, and providing shelters in their war-torn countries. We’ve also given a great deal to help women who’ve chosen to give birth to their children.

2) Please don’t change the subject from abortion by saying how much you care about other people. I’m truly glad that you do. I’ve written many other blogs about helping those other people. But this one is about unborn children. Can you please talk about them?

3) Every time I write about abortion, people start their comments with “I’m a prolife Christian, but….” What follows usually renders these words meaningless.  

I’ve been part of the prolife movement for about thirty years. The word “prolife” has an historic meaning. You can say you are “prolife” when it comes to the environment, wars, feeding the hungry, sex trafficking, or even animals. That’s great that you care about these things. But historically to be prolife means this: that you believe that unborn children are in fact children, just as valuable as the rest of the human race. It means you believe the weakest and most vulnerable children have the right to life, and should be legally protected from the moment of conception.

You are free to agree or disagree with the above, but that’s what the word has long meant. So if you say “I’m a prolife Christian, but…” and what follows is an explanation of why you think abortion should remain legal, or it doesn’t matter whether those you vote for favor or oppose legalized abortion….well, go ahead and say that, but you’re not prolife. Saying you are may comfort you, but you are laying claim to something you don’t really believe. No one can be prolife who says, “I support a candidate who is unswervingly committed to the legalized killing of innocent children.” (This is the equivalent of saying, “I’m pro-environment, but I support a candidate who is absolutely committed to the legalized dumping of toxic chemicals into all America’s rivers.”)

So, go ahead and say it if the only people you really care about are the ones who are already born. That may be cruel and selfish, but it is at least honest. I have had unbelievers tell me this. From their naturalistic Darwinian worldview, it makes sense that the more powerful would have the right to take precedence over the weaker. They are wrong, but are consistent with their beliefs. Saying “I am a prolife Christian” should require that you be consistent with yours.

I am no great fan of the Republican Party, but it does have a platform unequivocally committed to the protection of unborn children. In contrast, the Democratic platform is emphatically in favor of legalized abortion. The Democratic National Convention featured speaker after speaker celebrating the unqualified right to abortion.  It sounded exactly like a Planned Parenthood convention. (If any organization openly celebrated the killing of three-year-olds, what would we think? If we are less offended by celebrating legalized killing of the unborn, it demonstrates a simple fact—we don’t really view the unborn as human beings. But a true Christian must ask, how does God their Creator view them?)

If you are grateful your parents didn’t choose to take your life, I would encourage you to vote for a candidate who will defend the right to life of an unborn child. And don’t vote for a candidate who celebrates the right to kill what he once was and you once were. (And who your parents, friends, spouse, children and grandchildren all once were—unborn children.)

All advocates of legalized abortion, all candidates who defend abortion, and all who vote for those candidates, have one thing in common—they were not aborted. Had they been, they would not be here to run for office. And you would not be here to vote.

      

Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves,
for the rights of all who are destitute.
Speak up and judge fairly;
defend the rights of the poor and needy.

Proverbs 31:8-9

Photos source: prolife images from Priests for Life | Supreme Court image | abort73 shirt design

Election 2012 Part 3: Which Candidate Has More Christian Beliefs? (And Should I Vote for a Mormon?)

My previous blog, on religious liberties, concerned the response of Christian organizations and business owners filing suit against the Obama administration because of its demand that organizations pay for, via their insurance coverage, their employees’ surgical abortions and contraceptives (including abortifacients).

I was surprised reading my blog’s comments to hear professing Christians say that they do not believe it is an infringement of religious liberties for a Christian university, ministry or business to be required to do this. If you haven’t read that blog you may wish to. This subject has far-reaching importance. I find it difficult to understand how the administration’s demands can be seen as anything other than a fundamental violation of historic religious liberties.

Well, time to move on so that I can offend others. :) (Truthfully, I’m not trying to offend anyone. But that won’t keep it from happening.)

Regarding Mitt Romney’s Mormonism…. I grew up in a nonchristian home. My dad was a tavern owner, we never went to church, and even Billy Graham was persona non grata in our house. I was empty and searching, but in high school my life was radically changed. The Jesus I came to know was the one I learned about through reading Scripture. This Jesus is not “however you wish to define him.” Rather, he is the second member of the triune God, not creature but Creator (John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16).  

I believe in the gospel of God’s grace secured on the cross by Jesus Christ, the God-man. It cannot be earned or achieved in by human works, ceremonies or church affiliations (Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5). This is the only true gospel, the one of which Scripture says, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8).

The Mormon faith began with the appearance of an angel to Joseph Smith, proclaiming a gospel contrary to Scripture’s. Am I troubled by the idea of voting for a candidate who has served as a bishop in, and continues to be part of, a religious group that misrepresents both Jesus Christ and the gospel? In a word: Yes.

Some will argue that it’s hateful and bigoted to say this. I feel no hatred. I know and love a number of Mormons. (I also know atheists and agnostics—and for that matter, Steelers and Raiders fans—and countless others whose beliefs and passions I don’t share, but whose company I still enjoy :).

Others will say, “You don’t know what you’re talking about—you know nothing of Mormonism.”

On the contrary, I have studied it extensively. Years ago I read all the Mormon holy books, including the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. I went to a Mormon library to read portions of Journal of Discourses, the 26-volume collection of sermons by early leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Published by the stenographer of Brigham Young, it records over 1400 sermons of the most prominent LDS leaders in the first four decades of Mormonism. It includes sermons by Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, Heber C. Kimball and fifty-some others.

I have met at length with Mormon elders, current Mormons and former Mormons who left the church after coming to faith in Christ. We have together looked at passages in their documents that teach many things that contradict Scripture. I know enough about Mormonism to know it is distinctly different from biblical Christianity. (I know I will hear from sincere Mormons grieved that I have said this. I truly do not want to offend you or any of my Mormon friends, including those I grew up with; what I want you to know is the saving grace of Jesus, the God-man revealed in Scripture, who went to the cross and paid for our sins, offering to us an eternal life we cannot in any sense earn or achieve.)

Al Mohler expressed some helpful, clear thoughts about Mormonism. I will quote a paragraph, but his article is well worth reading:   

Mormonism does not claim to be just another denomination of Christianity. To the contrary, the central claim of Mormonism is that Christianity was corrupt and incomplete until the restoration of the faith with the advent of the Latter-Day Saints and their scripture, The Book of Mormon. Thus, it is just a matter of intellectual honesty to take Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, at his word when he claimed that true Christianity did not exist from the time of the Apostles until the reestablishment of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods on May 15, 1829.

There are various websites where former Mormons present the church’s doctrine as it was taught to them, and is recorded in the writings of LDS leaders God supposedly spoke through. Had I not personally studied Mormon writings and dialogued with Mormon leaders, I doubt I would believe that the following are teachings of the church. Here are just some of them: 

God was once a man like us.
God has a tangible body of flesh and bone.
God lives on a planet near the star Kolob… The sun receives its light from the star Kolob.
God the “Heavenly Father” has at least one wife, our “Mother in Heaven,” but she is so holy that we are not to discuss her.
Jesus was married.
There are many gods, ruling over their own worlds.
We can become like God and one day rule over our own universes.
Jesus and Satan (“Lucifer”) are spirit brothers, and they are our brothers—we are all spirit children of Heavenly Father
Jesus Christ was conceived by God the Father by having sex with Mary, who was temporarily his wife.
Before coming to this earth we lived as spirits in a “pre-existence”, during which we were tested; our position in this life (whether born to Mormons or savages, or in America or Africa) is our reward or punishment for our obedience in that life.
The Garden of Eden was in Missouri. All humanity before the Great Flood lived in the western hemisphere. The Ark transported Noah and the other survivors to the eastern hemisphere.
If a Gentile becomes Mormon, the Holy Ghost actually purges his Gentile blood and replaces it with Israelite blood.
A righteous Mormon will actually see the face of God in the Mormon temple.

I see Mormon websites denying these are their doctrines, but when I look a number of them up in their texts they are there. I recently read a Mormon scholar in a popular magazine saying that a number of these doctrines have never been taught by the church. He said it was absolutely false that Mormons believe God the Father took on a human body and had sex with Mary in order for her to conceive Jesus.

Yet here is Brigham Young, second president of the LDS, whose words were supposedly inspired by God:  “The birth of our Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his father, as we were of our fathers” (Journal of Discourses, volume 8, p. 115). Look it up for yourself.

Or, if you think the star Kolob stuff  is made up, just read Pearl of Great Price as posted by the Mormon church online. Please don’t leave me a comment saying this is not what the church teaches. Just go to the link, search for “Kolob” and you can see for yourself what it says (see Abraham 3:2–16, on page 36 of the linked file). Read it in context. It will be an eye-opener. Read the article by former Mormon Sandra Tanner on the location of the Garden of Eden. Here’s a summary of the teaching of the Heavenly Mother. And here’s Jesus and Satan as spirit brothers.

Here’s another summary of Mormon teachings. (link to). And a helpful comparison between Mormon and Christian doctrines.

Okay, so where does this leave me in regard to Mitt Romney’s Mormonism? Honestly, in the past I would have said, “No way would I vote for a presidential candidate with those beliefs.” I don’t like the idea of the president of the United States being the most prominent face of Mormonism in the world. I don’t like the idea that as a sharp, well-spoken person he could draw people toward a faith that denies the deity of Christ our Savior, and distorts the gospel of grace.

But none of that changes the fact that one of only two candidates will become president of the United States. And while the presidential candidates both profess to be Christians, in my opinion they each have beliefs that sharply contradict historic, biblical Christianity.

In Governor Romney’s case there is a rejection (though likely never explicit) of the biblical gospel and identity of Christ, as well as a number of bizarre beliefs unique to Mormonism. What President Obama believes in his heart about Christ, I cannot tell you. But I do know that he has been a devastatingly outspoken opponent of the right to life of our smallest and most vulnerable children. He has boldly implemented a healthcare plan that violates historic religious liberties, actually attempting to compel Christian organizations to pay for their employees’ abortions (which they believe to be child-killing). He also has affirmed that gay marriage should be established on a legal level equal to heterosexual marriage, changing the historic view of the family.

I believe each of these positions is a dramatic departure from Scripture, and from the historic Christian faith. I don’t just mean from modern evangelical Christianity, I mean Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and every tradition within Protestantism that has ever professed belief in the Bible.  (Modern liberal Protestantism is different in that it simply follows secular culture in either explicitly or implicitly denying the Scriptures.)

So how do I choose between two candidates who in my opinion fall far short? I must consider not simply the candidates’ professed religious beliefs, but their past positions on moral issues, their promises and statements of intentions of what they will do in office.

Respected evangelical theologian Wayne Grudem says of Mitt Romney, “He seems to me to stand for policies that reflect biblical values, including all or nearly all of the policies that I advocated in my book Politics — According to the Bible.” Grudem says,

Romney is a Mormon, and I strongly disagree with a significant number of Mormon theological beliefs, which I find to be inconsistent with the Bible and with historic Christian teachings. But many Mormon teachings on ethics and values are similar to those in the Bible….

…Have we come to the point where evangelicals will only vote for people they consider Christians? I hope not, for nothing in the Bible says that people have to be born again Christians before they can be governmental authorities who are used greatly by God to advance his purposes.

Grudem has more to say about this, and you may find it helpful.

Some believers are saying that given the choices, they’re not going to vote. I understand. I’ve been there. But not this time. Part of me really resists the lesser of two evils approach. I find it hard to explain what’s different this time, except that in the last four years we have lost things (particularly in the arena of religious liberties) which, if not recovered in the next four, I think may never be recovered. I have children and grandchildren. I don’t want them to pay the price for my disenchantment and unwillingness to choose between two candidates. I am voting for their sake because I can’t figure out, this time at least, how I can help them by not voting.

I was just finishing this blog when I saw John Piper’s “I am Going to Vote.” He explains, “The likelihood that both presidencies will be identical in the good and evil they do is infinitesimal. One will very probably do more good amid the bad, even if only a little.” If I might make a lot of difference for my children and grandchildren, I will certainly do it. And if I could make even a little difference I will do that too.

All Christians should do our best and search the Scriptures, weigh and measure the relative strengths and weaknesses of the candidates, and vote as best we can considering the options before us. So, yes, I am troubled voting for a candidate who is a Mormon. But am I more or less troubled voting for the other candidate? Ravi Zacharias says, “If you are choosing between those for whom the Christ is not supreme in salvation, you have to choose the one who will give you the best moral soil in order to live for Christ and to live out your faith.”

I take comfort in the fact that we are not voting for a pastor, but a president. (If we were voting for a pastor, I would definitely do a write-in!) In a Christianity Today article “Is There Anything Wrong With Voting for a Mormon? Three Views”, Molly Ziegler Hemingway quotes Martin Luther as saying, “Christians are not needed for secular authority. Thus it is not necessary for the emperor to be a saint. It is not necessary for him to be a Christian to rule. It is sufficient for the emperor to possess reason.”

Luther meant not only wisdom, but moral reason. So as you consider who to vote for in an election that lacks an ideal candidate, ask yourself which man’s (and include the vice presidents too) stated values and track record is in the best interests of: a sound moral framework, care for the needy that motivates and empowers them, financial responsibility, the upholding of civil and religious liberties, and a reasonable national defense.

Subsequent blogs in the short time before the election will include abortion, gay marriage, and a few other issues. So if there is one more person left I haven’t yet offended, take heart. I’m not done. :)

      

Election 2012, Part 2: Which Candidate Will Best Protect Religious Liberties?

In part one, I addressed the issues of race, helping the poor and financial responsibility.

This blog is about religious liberties. I believe where the next president stands on this issue will profoundly influence the culture in which our children and grandchildren will live. Will they be free to live out their religious convictions, even when unpopular, without being punished?  

On March 12, 2012, the Obama administration issued a final rule under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) that requires many health insurers to charge all enrollees for elective abortions, as well as for providing contraceptives of all kinds, including those which cause abortions.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) published a two-page analysis explaining what this regulation means for American taxpayers who do not want to pay for others to kill unborn children. They said:

Under this Act, millions of American taxpayers will be forced to help support abortion coverage, in two ways:

(1) Through their tax dollars all taxpayers will be forced to subsidize overall health plans that cover elective abortions, contrary to the policy of the Hyde amendment and every other major federal program, and

(2) Many of these Americans will also be forced to pay directly for other people’s abortions.

Some will say this is technically not “tax funding of abortions,” because the required surcharge will be a premium payment rather than a tax payment as such. But what the payment is called is less important than what it actually does.

Attorney Hannah Smith says, “This mandate is one of the most troubling intrusions on the right of religious freedom in our country that we’ve seen in a long time…It puts religious organizations in a terrible position of having to choose between following their convictions and obeying the law, and I think that is a perilous place for religious organizations. It is troubling that the government has chosen to impose this on them.”

These actions by the Obama Administration have provoked an unparalleled number of lawsuits by Christian organizations. Knowing some of these organizations, I am convinced that they are not overreacting, nor are they motivated by political posturing. On the contrary, most of them avoid politics, and do not have money to burn. They are undertaking these great legal expenses only because they feel that they have no other choice. Many of them will, if necessary, close their doors before they will do what they believe is morally wrong in God’s sight. (Good for them—if it comes to it, may we all have the courage to do the same. But if we can keep it from coming to that, shouldn’t we?)

Here is one example:

The U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief filed on February 13, 2012 by lead counsel Bioethics Defense Fund exposes how the individual mandate not only forces individuals into private purchases, it also effectively mandates millions of Americans to violate their consciences by being put into policies that require direct personal payment into a special insurance fund for other people’s elective abortions.

Bioethics Defense Fund filed the amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court in support of the twenty-six State Attorneys General; organizations represented on the brief include the American College of Pediatricians, Christian Medical and Dental Association, American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Catholic Medical Association, Physicians for Life, National Association of Prolife Nurses, and Medical Students for Life of America. 

In August, Wheaton College filed suit against the government because, according to President Phillip Ryken, this mandate “runs roughshod over Wheaton’s religious beliefs, and the beliefs of millions of other Americans, by forcing it to provide health insurance coverage for abortifacient drugs and related education and counseling.”

Biola University, Grace College, and other highly respected colleges have filed similar lawsuits against the Obama Administration. Wheaton’s case was dismissed under a “safe harbor” ruling, meaning they will not have to comply with the mandate until August of 2013. But this simply means they can hang on to their religious liberties for one more year before time expires!

America’s religious organizations aren’t looking for an extra year before they are forced to violate their consciences or be fined out of existence. They are looking for their liberties not to be stripped from them in the first place.

The Obama administration has repeatedly assured concerned citizens that there is a religious exemption to their mandate. But it is written so narrowly that most religious organizations cannot qualify. It is a token exemption, apparently designed to calm people’s fears.

Vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan called enforced-payment-for-abortion (or payment for insurance covering abortions) “an assault on religious liberties.” Vice President Joe Biden responded by saying, “Let me make it absolutely clear: No religious institution, Catholic or otherwise, including Catholic Social Services, Georgetown Hospital, Mercy Hospital, any hospital, none has to either refer contraception, none has to pay for contraception, none has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact. That is a fact.”

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops responded by saying Biden’s statement was simply untrue.

This is not a fact. The HHS mandate contains a narrow, four-part exemption for certain ‘religious employers.’ That exemption was made final in February and does not extend to Catholic social services, Georgetown hospital, Mercy hospital, any hospital, or any other religious charity that offers its services to all, regardless of the faith of those served.

HHS has proposed an additional ‘accommodation’ for religious organizations like these, which HHS itself describes as ‘non-exempt.’ That proposal does not even potentially relieve these organizations from the obligation ‘to pay for contraception’ and ‘to be a vehicle to get contraception.’ They will have to serve as a vehicle, because they will still be forced to provide their employees with health coverage, and that coverage will still have to include sterilization, contraception, and abortifacients. They will have to pay for these things, because the premiums that the organizations (and their employees) are required to pay will still be applied, along with other funds, to cover the cost of these drugs and surgeries.

The week before last this all came close to home for me, when one of my publishers, Tyndale House, also took action against the administration:

WASHINGTON — Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing Tyndale House Publishers filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday against the Obama administration’s abortion pill mandate. Tyndale House is one of the world’s largest privately held Christian publishers of books, Bibles, and digital media.

The publisher is subject to the mandate because Obama administration rules say for-profit corporations are categorically non-religious, even though Tyndale House is strictly a publisher of Bibles and other Christian materials and is owned by the non-profit Tyndale House Foundation. The foundation provides grants to help meet the physical and spiritual needs of people around the world.

In a statement to their employees, Tyndale’s president, Mark Taylor—a man I deeply respect—said, “We should be allowed to follow our own moral and religious beliefs in the way we operate our business and our employee health plan…. This is against our biblical values as a company, and it is a violation of religious freedom.”

Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Legal Counsel Matt Bowman says,

Bible publishers should be free to do business according to the Book that they publish…To say that a Bible publisher is not religious is patently absurd. Tyndale House is a prime example of how ridiculous and arbitrary the Obama administration’s mandate is. Americans today clearly agree with America’s founders: the federal government’s bureaucrats are not qualified to decide what faith is, who the faithful are, and where and how that faith may be lived out.

Tyndale says it filed suit because “The mandate forces employers, regardless of their religious or moral convictions, to provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and all forms of contraception under threat of heavy penalties.” I am told that if they refuse to go along with the government’s mandate, it would cost Tyndale $100 per employee per day, amounting to something like $8 million in a year.

Christian business owners are being faced with the same dilemma. That’s why at least five for-profit companies have filed similar suits. They include Hobby Lobby in Oklahoma, O’Brien Industrial Holdings in Missouri, Hercules Industries in Colorado, Seneca Hardwood Lumber Company in Pennsylvania, and Weingartz Supply Company in Michigan.

Hobby Lobby has come under attack for daring to file suit against the government, including cries of “Boycott Hobby Lobby.” I know and respect the Green family, owners of Hobby Lobby. Founder and owner David Green stated, “Our government threatens to fine job creators in a bad economy. Our government threatens to fine a company that’s raised wages four years running. Our government threatens to fine a family for running its business according to its beliefs. It’s not right.”

Hobby Lobby says their failure to comply with the mandate could subject the company to as much as $1.3 million in daily fines. Their attorney says, “They’re being told they have two choices: Either follow their faith and pay the government [ultimately] half a billion dollars or give up their beliefs.”

David Green refuses to provide or pay for two specific abortion-inducing drugs such as the so-called “morning after” pill, because Green’s “most deeply held religious belief” is that life begins at conception.

Refering to the lawsuit filed by Tyndale House, senior legal counsel Matt Bowman says, “The new health-care law demands that Americans choose between two poison pills: either desert your faith by complying, or resist and be punished.”

I have read widely on this matter, and it is for real. There is no way I can express how truly serious and stunning this violation of religious liberties is. For now it applies to nonprofit Christian organizations and for-profit Christian businesses and everyone else. But even though they are given a temporary exemption, how long will it be before every local church in America is told exactly the same—they must pay insurance that provides abortions and abortion-causing contraception for its employees, or be punished so severely they will have to close their doors?

If the current administration stays in office, I think it’s likely that the religious liberties we are on the brink of losing will not only be lost, but may never be regained.

Historically, I have not been a big fan of Governor Mitt Romney. But I do know he has stated he is emphatically opposed to any government mandates forcing Christian organizations to pay for abortions and contraceptives. He has stated that under his administration he will reestablish and respect the religious rights that have been and are being taken away. (And as much I disagree with his Mormonism, his being part of a religious organization makes it more likely that he is telling the truth about protecting religious rights.)

What is at stake in this election?  I don’t think it’s unfair to say that Christian liberties have never been assaulted in our history as much as they are being right now. If it continues, the damage done in the next four years might never be undone.

On this particular issue, my opinion about the candidates is obvious. But you must answer for yourself. Which candidate, President Obama or Governor Romney, is more likely to defend America’s religious liberties? Which candidate is more likely either to continue or reverse the policies already in motion that will force Christian organizations and businesses (and eventually churches) toward a choice between civil disobedience, severe fines, closing their doors or violating their biblical convictions?

And, finally, how important do you think these religious liberties really are?

In upcoming blogs I plan to address the troubling issue of Mitt Romney’s Mormonism (FYI, it does bother me), as well as the issues of gay marriage and abortion. What matters most, and what doesn’t?

“Seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper.” (Jeremiah 29:7)

      

Remember Us and Pray for Us: the Persecuted Church

Today’s guest blogger, Tami Yeager, is the bookkeeper at EPM. She also happens to be an area coordinator for The Voice of The Martyrs. (Read more about Tami.)

...

This month marks the 45th anniversary of The Voice of The Martyrs (VOM). It was in October of 1967 with $100, an old typewriter, and 500 names and addresses that Richard Wurmbrand published the first issue of Jesus to the Communist World, later renamed The Voice of The Martyrs. It was a newsletter dedicated to sharing the testimonies from our brothers and sisters in restricted and hostile nations.  

Both Richard and his wife Sabina had been imprisoned in Communist-ruled Romania. Richard spent nearly 14 years in prison, three of which were in solitary confinement.  Sabina spent three years in forced labor on the Danube Canal. Birthed from their time of torture came a passion to share the stories of the persecuted church with the free world.  

Today, VOM continues to stay the course originally set by Richard and Sabina. One of the main purposes is to bring encouragement to persecuted Christians, especially by giving their testimonies a voice and sharing them with the American church.

My introduction to The Voice of The Martyrs came through a newsletter handed to me in 2003. The stories in this publication disturbed me greatly, yet I was compelled to learn more. I found in the words of these pages real people with real stories. I was being confronted with a reality that did not fit into the neat package I had unknowingly wrapped my knowledge of God in.

I would soon learn that the stories being introduced to me were only the beginning. The reality is, they represent what following Christ looks like for most of the church in the world. Richard Wurmbrand speaks of this in his book Tortured for Christ when he writes, “Persecution is not, nor ever will be, foreign to the Church on the earth.”

As I learned more about the persecuted church, I sensed a passion for those who suffer igniting within me. In 2004, I attended a Regional Conference at the Voice of the Martyrs headquarters in Oklahoma. As each speaker took the platform, I witnessed the purest form of humility and sweet surrender to Christ (see 2 Corinthians 2:14-15).

The first evening I listened as a man from Pakistan explained the hardships the Pakistani church endures, and then described the torture and eventual murder of a young Christian boy. This young man died at the hands of his torturers simply because he was a Christian. For the first time in my life I contemplated the possibility that God does not intervene in every situation and take the suffering away from His people.

That evening I went back to my hotel room and had a heart-to-heart talk with the Lord. Up until that time I had been crying out to the Lord to “Send me!” Now I was asking Him to not fulfill those prayers. The burden in my heart for those who suffer was greater than I felt I could bear. I spoke to the Lord again from the neatly-crafted package of comfort, safety, and control I wanted to create for my life. He graciously listened to me try to tell Him what to do.

Day two of the conference began with me feeling assured—certainly my talk with the Lord was successful and I had effectively canceled out all those “send me” prayers! It was then that a young man from the Middle East began to share about his work, which includes traveling great distances into hostile territories controlled by militant Islam. These are places where Christians die for their faith. He shared his family’s pleas not to do the work God had called him to.

Pictures were displayed on a screen behind him of people receiving the Bibles he delivered. Their expressions of curiosity and delight captivated me. As he spoke, he seemed puzzled by those who ask why he goes to such dangerous places. His response was simply, “Since when has the gospel been safe?”

I felt as if I were alone with the Lord in the room. This statement seared my heart, and I knew the Lord was speaking directly to me. I recalled the list of demands I called “a prayer” the night before, and heard Him say to me, “I did not create you that way.”  At that moment, I said “Yes!” to His way in all my life.   

Shortly thereafter I joined the Voice Volunteer Network, a ministry of VOM.  As area coordinator I lead area representatives from Oregon, Idaho, and Alaska. We are among over 300 area representatives and area coordinators who speak for the persecuted church in the United States. It is a joy to share the stories of our brothers and sisters who are persecuted for their faith with the American church. “Remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them; and them which suffer adversity, as being yourselves also in the body” (Hebrews 13:3).

 

When asked how we can help the persecuted church, the number one request is, “Remember us, and pray for us.”  I will never forget representing VOM at one of our regional conferences years ago. We had decorated a display table with books and a large chain-link, a visual reminder of our bond with those who suffer. A young Chinese woman named Sarah was one of the speakers at this conference. (Her testimony is shared in part in a DVD story called Sarah’s Trail of Blood.) Sarah was at the display table, and I watched as she quietly ran her hand slowly across the chains that were displayed. She looked up at me and said with tears in her eyes and deep appreciation in her voice, “Thank you for remembering us.”

The church in America can join with the body of Christ around the world to pray and remember the persecuted church on November 11th, which is the International Day of Prayer (IDOP).  This year will be the fourth year Christians have prayed for the release of Asia Bibi, a young wife and mother of two from Pakistan who was arrested by police on June 19, 2009. You can read more about Asia and other prisoners at www.prisoneralert.com.

 And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand (Revelation 8:4).

Tami

100% of the royalties for Safely Home support the persecuted church, but for each copy of Randy's novel Safely Home sold this week (October 19-26), EPM will donate a dollar from our general fund to support persecuted Christians all over the world. Partner with us to raise awareness and support for our brothers and sisters who are oppressed for their faith!

Election 2012, Part 1: Racial Issues, Helping the Poor and Financial Responsibility

I have postponed writing about this election because I feel at a loss as to what to say or how best to say it. Reluctantly, now that the election is only four weeks away, I’ve decided to give it a try. (I may regret it, and you may too.) This will be part one of several, each on different issues. I’m not sure how many blogs there will be, only that they will mercifully stop before the election.

Honestly, I am deeply concerned about this election, but not excited about it. I have very little faith in politics. Republican and Democratic administrations have combined together in the last forty years to establish a staggering track record of economic, personal and moral irresponsibility. They’ve proven themselves poor stewards of our country. And in many ways we have proven ourselves poor citizens and stewards.

Trust me, there will be something in this series of blogs to offend everyone—Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, supporters of both President Obama and Mitt Romney.

As I’ve said before, I have no desire to try to be either conservative or liberal (see Conservative, Liberal or Christian?). I just want to follow Christ. Doing so sometimes causes me to be conservative (such as conserving the right to life) and sometimes liberal (such as liberating us from racial and gender injustices).

When I was an eighth grader, my father was a tavern owner, we didn’t attend church and I knew nothing of Christ. Martin Luther King was assassinated in April 1968. The month after King was killed, I went door to door, with friends and a teacher, passing out literature in support of Robert F. Kennedy’s bid for the presidency, particularly because of his emphasis on racial equality. Only two months after King’s death, in June 1968, RFK was murdered. I was devastated, knowing nothing of creation and sin, curse and fall, or the redemptive work of Christ, only that two heroes had been slain. I believed in King’s and Kennedy’s advocacy of racial equality and civil rights, and could not understand people who hated what was right.

Back then I was unaware of the much longer history of the Republican Party being the party of minorities. The following is drawn from the article “When Did the GOP Get So White? The Republicans’ Loss of Diversity.”

The first popularly elected African-American senator was a Republican, Ed Brooke from Massachusetts, in 1966. Likewise the first Asian-American senator, Hawaii’s Hiram Fong, who was first elected in the Eisenhower era. The first Native-American senator was Charles Curtis—who went on to be Herbert Hoover’s vice president. The first Hispanic senator, Octaviano Larrazolo, also was a Republican. Ditto the first woman popularly elected to the Senate, Maine’s Margaret Chase Smith.

The Republican Party was the party that gave hope and inspiration to minorities—and there was a coalition at first,” says Ed Brooke, now 92 and living with his wife, Anne, in Miami. “My father was a Republican. My mother was a Republican. They wouldn't dare be a Democrat. The Democrats were a party opposed to civil rights. The South was all Democratic conservatives. And the African-American community considered them the enemy.

…Every single one of the 23 African-American members of Congress before 1900 was a Republican. They wouldn’t have dreamed of being anything other than members of the Party of Lincoln—Democrats were the party of the Confederate South.  Frederick Douglass summed up the sentiment when he said, “I am a Republican, a black, dyed-in-the-wool Republican, and I never intend to belong to any other party than the party of freedom.” This legacy echoed for generations.

The Republican Party today should continue to expand its racial borders and seek to recover what made it the party of Lincoln. On the other hand, I think the Democratic Party should be careful not to try to “buy” minorities through offers of financial incentives. Both parties should seek to win minorities over, as with people of every color, by sound and responsible philosophies and policies.  

As for government helping the poor, Psalm 72 begins with a prayer for kings, which today might apply to our political leaders: "Give the king your justice, O God, and your righteousness to a king's son. May he judge your people with righteousness, and your poor with justice. May the mountains yield prosperity for the people, and the hills, in righteousness. May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the needy, and crush the oppressor.”

I am in favor of the U.S. government using tax revenues to help some of the poor. However, I am not in favor of government giving tax revenues to all of the poor.  To understand why not, here’s an excerpt from my book Money, Possessions and Eternity:

Are We Helping or Subsidizing the Poor?

The worst thing we can do to the poor is ignore them. The next worst thing is to subsidize them—that is, to help them only enough to keep them alive, but not enough to assist them in developing the means by which they might move out of poverty. The poor are frequently lumped together into one group, as if they’re all the same. They aren’t.

Neither Scripture nor experience indicate that all poor people are poor for the same reasons. Consequently, they cannot be truly helped by the same means.

A person may be poor for any one or a combination of the following ten reasons: insufficient natural resources; adverse climate; lack of knowledge or skill; lack of needed technology; catastrophes, such as earthquakes or floods; exploitation and oppression; personal laziness; wasteful self-indulgence; religion or worldview; and personal choices by some to identify with and serve the poor.

So when we say, “This is what we should do to help the poor,” it’s like saying, “This is what we should do to cure sickness.” To be effective, cures must be sought and applied for specific diseases, not for “sickness” in general.

If people are poor because their homes and businesses have been wiped out in a flood, the solution may be to give them the money, materials, and assistance to rebuild their homes and reestablish their businesses. And to work alongside them in rebuilding, as many churches did after Hurricane Katrina.

If they’re poor because of insufficient natural resources or adverse climate, we can share the knowledge, skills, and technology necessary to help them make the best of their situation. If this is impossible, we could help them relocate.

If people are poor due to oppression or injustice in our nation, then we can do what we can to remove or mitigate the oppression.

A person may also be poor because of self-indulgence. “He who loves pleasure will become poor” (Proverbs 21:17). Someone may make a decent income but waste it on drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, expensive convenience foods, costly recreation, or gambling (including lotteries). Some people manage to meet their family’s needs on very low incomes. Others make several times as much money, but are always in a financial crisis, because they’re living irresponsibly.

I’ve seen people who perpetually have no money to buy groceries for their family, who are on food stamps, but own nice cars, smart phones, computers and expensive home entertainment centers. The government may consider this poverty, but it certainly is not. Such a person needs only to make wise spending decisions in order to feed his family, then learn to live within his means.

I know personally people whose lives have been utterly ruined because tax-funded social programs taught them they could get by without even trying to work. I know others who have been greatly helped by tax-funded programs to get back on their feet and assume a responsible role in society, to the extent that their health permits.

Finally, a person may be poor due to laziness. God’s Word explicitly says that the result of laziness will be poverty (Proverbs 24:30-34). “Lazy hands make a man poor, but diligent hands bring wealth” (Proverbs 10:4). “A sluggard does not plow in season; so at harvest time he looks but finds nothing’ (Proverbs 20:4). “The fool folds his hands and ruins himself” (Ecclesiastes 4:5). Ultimately, the lazy man is poor by choice.

We shouldn’t rescue lazy people from their poverty. Every act of provision removes their incentive to be responsible for themselves. Paul commands the Thessalonian church to stop taking care of the lazy and reminds them of the rule he issued when present with them: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat” (2 Thessalonians 3:10). In other words, it’s a sin to feed the lazy. The point is not to let people starve; the point is that people who are faced with starvation will be motivated to work and support themselves as God intended. As it says in Proverbs 16:26, “The laborer’s appetite works for him; his hunger drives him on.”

Any system that feeds the lazy is a corrupt system. It does them and the rest of society a grave disservice.

Of course, someone can be unemployed without being lazy! We need to help the unemployed, but all the while we need to help them find work. When employment isn’t to be found, we need to provide it however we can. Franklin Roosevelt had the government pay people to work, not pay them not to work.

If money steadily comes in to the able-bodied person who isn’t working, then money becomes disassociated from work. Such people come to believe that society owes them provision—which further encourages laziness and the destruction of self and family. A nation, social service organization, church, party or individual that subsidizes the lazy spawns laziness. Rather than eliminating poverty, they perpetuate it.

The question is not simply, “What shall we do for the poor?” but “Which poor?” The truly poor should be helped. But they must be helped thoughtfully and carefully, according to the fundamental reasons for their poverty and according to their long-range best interests.

Okay, this is Randy live again, not from the book. :) You must answer, which candidate, Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, strikes you as being able to both care for the poor who truly need help, and able to implement policies that stop giving tax monies to able-bodied people who are lazy and unmotivated.

Some words on financial responsibility: In my opinion, we are in deep trouble as a nation due to the extent of our national debt. Scripture says, “The borrower is servant to the lender” (Proverbs 22:7). This means among other things that we are in servitude to China and Japan, both of whom we owe over one trillion dollars.

We are passing this debt on to our children and grandchildren, and we desperately need someone in the White House who will keep his promises to halt the debt spiral. Four years ago President Obama promised he would cut it in half, but it has continued to rise. However, both Republicans and Democrats are guilty. The debt was held in best control under the Clinton Administration, whereas under both George Bush and Barack Obama it has skyrocketed.

Who strikes you as being more financially responsible, Barack Obama or Mitt Romney? Try to figure out the philosophies that each is embracing, and what effect you think their differing philosophies would have on our national debt and the future servitude of our nation and its children.  

In summary of these three areas, as you look at the presidential candidates, ask yourself, are both committed to racial equality? Is one less likely than the other to engage in racial baiting, thereby fueling racism? Is one more likely to help the honest poor in the most constructive ways, but not undiscerningly distribute tax monies in the worst and most destructive ways? Will one more wisely steward tax revenues, reward hard work and promote financial responsibility?

As the Knight said in Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade, “Choose wisely.” And as he also said, in this nine second clip:

      

 

Enjoying Rest, Now and in the Life to Come

When God created the world, he rested on the seventh day (Genesis 2:2). That’s the basis for the biblical Sabbath, when all people and animals rested (Exodus 20:9-11). God set aside days and weeks of rest, and he even rested the earth itself every seventh year (Leviticus 25:4-5). This is the rest we can anticipate on the New Earth—times of joyful praise and relaxed fellowship.

Our lives in Heaven will include rest (Hebrews 4:1-11). “‘Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.’ ‘Yes,’ says the Spirit, ‘they will rest from their labor, for their deeds will follow them’ ” (Revelation 14:13).

Eden is a picture of rest—work that’s meaningful and enjoyable, abundant food, a beautiful environment, unhindered friendship with God and other people and animals. Even with Eden’s restful perfection, one day was set aside for special rest and worship. Work will be refreshing on the New Earth, yet regular rest will be built into our lives.

Part of our inability to appreciate Heaven as a place of rest relates to our failure to enter into a weekly day of rest now. By rarely turning attention from our responsibilities, we fail to anticipate our coming deliverance from the Curse to a full rest.

“Make every effort to enter that rest” (Hebrews 4:11). It’s ironic that it takes such effort to set aside time for rest, but it does. For me, and for many of us, it’s difficult to guard our schedules, but it’s worth it. The day of rest points us to Heaven and to Jesus, who said, “Come to me, all you who are weary...and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28).

What feels better than putting your head on the pillow after a hard day’s work? (How about what it will feel like after a hard life’s work?) It’s good to sit back and have a glass of iced tea, feel the sun on your face, or tilt back in your recliner and close your eyes. It’s good to have nothing to do but read a good book or take your dog for a walk or listen to your favorite music and tell God how grateful you are for his kindness. Rest is good. So good that God built it into his creation and his law.

Some people thrive on social interaction; others are exhausted by it. Some love solitude; others don’t. On the New Earth, we’ll likely all welcome the lively company of others but also crave times of restful solitude. We’ll enjoy both.

We catch glimpses of being able to enjoy both work and rest at once. I used to feel this when body, mind, and the beauty around me sometimes “kicked in” on a ten-mile run. I’ve experienced the same thing bicycling, when I’ve felt I could ride forever and the pedaling I was doing was part of a great rest. I can be working intently at something I love yet find the work restful and refreshing.

God rested on the seventh day, before sin entered the world. He prescribed rest for sinless Adam and Eve, and he prescribed it for those under the curse of sin. Regular rest will be part of the life to come in the new universe. (Wouldn’t it be wise to learn how to rest now?)

      

photo credit: photo 1  |  photo 2

The Hardest Lesson

When I was seventeen years old and had known Christ for less than two years, I experienced what I believe was a mir­acle. Driving at fifty miles an hour, I was about to crash. All I could see in front of me, top to bottom and side to side, was the yellow of a school bus, which pulled in front of me from a side road, but which I didn’t see until a split second before impact.

But the impact never happened. My tiny Hillman Minx car should have smashed into that bus. I still can’t explain why it didn’t, and why instead my car ended up slowing to a stop in a cauliflower field, undamaged.

I was deeply grateful, of course, and am to this day. God was faithful, God was gracious, God saved my life. All that is true.

But I soon discovered things don’t always turn out that way for God’s children.

A few months later my good friend Greg Coffey, who had come to faith in Christ just a year before, had a terrible accident. Smart and athletic and with a promising future, Greg was swinging on a big tree branch, over a fence. The branch broke, and he was impaled upon a metal fence post. I sat on the floor outside intensive care, begging God to save Greg’s life.

When a nurse let me into his room, I saw my friend fighting for his life. I was convinced it could not be God’s will for him to die. He was growing closer to God every day, studying God’s Word, sharing his faith. Greg had a bright future in God’s service. I knew God would heal him. I couldn’t have been more certain; I’ve never had greater faith.

Two days later Greg died.

I was stunned, in disbelief. How could this happen?

Couldn’t the same God who kept me from smashing into that school bus have kept that tree limb from breaking, kept Greg from falling on that metal post? If God appointed angels to preserve my life, why didn’t he appoint angels to preserve Greg’s life?

Sometimes we make the foolish assumption that our heavenly Father has no right to insist that we trust him unless he makes his infinite wisdom completely understandable to us. What we call the problem of evil is often the problem of our finite and fallen under­standing. It was the hardest lesson I’d ever had to learn.

Gregory Boyd writes, “It’s very difficult to see how some of the more horrendous episodes of evil in this world contribute to a higher good.” His conclusion is, therefore, that they don’t.

I agree “it’s very difficult to see.” It may well be impossible to see. But the question isn’t whether we can see it but whether God can do things we cannot see.

Not only Scripture but human experience sometimes testifies to the surprising good God can bring out of evil and suffering. God calls upon us to trust that he’ll work all evil and suffering in our lives for good. We can learn to trust God in the worst of circumstances, even for what we cannot currently see—indeed, that’s the very nature of biblical faith (see Hebrews 11:8, 13, 27, 32–39).

We’re not positioned to know how much suffering is required to accomplish the best eternal purposes, nor how much it might hinder those purposes for God to make himself obvious.

Is it possible that all past, present, and future suffering is some­how necessary for God to accomplish the greater good his people will enjoy for all eternity? If you think this cannot be the case, why? If you’re certain it can’t be, have you never been wrong?

Philosopher Thomas Morris writes,

Many times... people don’t have a clue as to what exactly they would do about the most pressing problems of their own city if they were mayor, or concerning the greatest difficulty fac­ing their state if they were governor. They would probably be quite hesitant if asked how, precisely, they would solve the greatest national crises if they were president, but they have no hesitation whatsoever in venturing to declare how they would solve what may be the single most troubling cosmic religious problem if they were God.

We who have not formed galaxies and quasars and fashioned worlds shouldn’t be so quick to tell God how to run his universe.

In our times of suffering, God doesn’t give answers as much as he gives himself. And already, in the Bible, he has revealed more than enough of himself to give us solid reasons for faith—yet not enough to make our faith unnecessary.

      

Shouldn’t we care about other social injustices besides abortion?

It bothers me when there is so much talk about abortion. I’m prolife, but what about all the innocent children killed in war, those who die of malnutrition, those who are being abused, etc.? Shouldn’t Christians be just as concerned about these living children?

(I’m including the 9-minute video answer to this question at the bottom of my post. However, the transcript has been edited and added to, so feel free to watch the video but I’d encourage you to start by reading the written version.)

This is a good question. However, I admit I’ve been asked something similar so often that I cringe a bit when I see it, and here’s why: I think people are creating an artificial distinction because they feel that whenever you talk about one social evil and injustice, you are obligated to list every other one. I don’t agree with that. And I don’t appreciate the fact that this is seldom done with other injustices, but is routinely done with abortion. (Though I’ve often spoken about other injustices, whenever I address abortion I get multiple comments from people asking why I’m not addressing other problems.)

When I see people concerned about the horrors of child abuse, or the selling of children into sexual slavery, it never occurs to me to say, “Now, wait a minute! Why aren’t you talking about abortion?”

Certainly it’s okay for different people to have certain burdens on their heart. Of course, I hope those people are concerned about abortion too. But do I expect them to talk as much about abortion as they do about sex trafficking? No, of course not. What about people who are concerned about malnutrition and childhood diseases? What about hunger? What about poverty in underdeveloped countries? Do I go to the relief organizations and say, “Well, wait a minute! You didn’t say anything about abortion!” No. I don’t assume someone’s a hypocrite just because they’re talking about one group of needy children and not another. Good for them that they’re speaking up for whomever God has laid on their hearts. Now, sometimes these groups are somehow justifying abortion, or have policies that are promoting abortion. Sometimes they support Planned Parenthood, a group which makes 51% of its income from performing abortions. In those cases, it needs to be addressed. But I would never criticize someone for speaking up more for some needy people than others.

It reminds me of a time several years ago when some of us were standing outside an abortion clinic holding signs that said “Choose life” and “Abortion Kills Children.” A female reporter and a cameraman from one of the local news stations came up to me and she said, “You’re standing out here and opposing abortion. But what are you doing for children who have already been born?”

I said, “Well, we opened our home to a teenage girl who had been kicked out of her home. She lived with us and we supported her financially and helped her place her child up for adoption. And since you asked, a significant portion of our monthly income goes to helping the poor and needy in other parts of the world. In fact, we give away all the royalties from my books.” (BTW, I would say of the seven million dollars or so that has been given away by our ministry in the last number of years, probably two million has gone to help children and their families in poverty, as well as to orphanages and helping street orphans and victims of sexual abuse.)

As I was explaining those things, she signaled the cameraman to turn off the camera. Obviously she was interested in moving on to talk to someone else. But I continued and said, “Actually, standing here next to me is Rick Norquist.” I called him over and explained that at the time he and his wife Janet had adopted something like nineteen children, a number of whom had Down Syndrome and several were very hard to place children.

I didn’t actually say the words to the interviewer, but I was thinking, “So how many of these children have you adopted, or how much of your income are you giving away to help needy children?” But by this time the reporter had moved on to spring the question on someone else, who she hoped would have to admit that they really don’t do anything to help children once they are born.

I find there is a common preconceived notion that prolife people don’t care about already born children. In fact, people concerned about abortion are often the very same people who open their homes to provide foster care, adopt, and give financially to help the impoverished and the needy.

Often I hear things like, “You’re talking about abortion, but what about children killed in war?” I do believe there is such a thing as just war, with World War II being a prominent example. Were children killed in that war? Tragically, yes. But I believe this world would be a far worse place today if Americans and others had not fought in that war.

But I also believe that when there is just war, great care should be taken to keep that war just and to protect innocent children. When children are casualties and greater care could have been taken to prevent that, it is heartbreaking.

So to those who believe insufficient efforts are being taken by American forces to protect children in Iraq and Afghanistan—by all means, speak up about this. I have never once gone to your websites and asked you why you never say anything about protecting the children we’re killing by abortion. Yet every time I say something about the unborn, those people ask me why I’m not addressing war.

What people usually are doing when they bring up the other concerns is minimizing the issue of abortion. When people say, “What about this issue?” my response is, “Well, I’m concerned about that, too. But that wasn’t what we were talking about. We were talking about abortion. You say you are prolife, what are you doing to help innocent, unborn children? Are you voting for candidates who support abortion? If so, why? Would you also vote for people who support sex trafficking?”

Here’s what Scripture says about the shedding of innocent blood, which is what I want to bring to the attention of all the people who are continuously making those comments (some of whom are sincere, and some of whom are just trying to change the subject away from the killing of preborn children). Leviticus 18:21 says, “Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.”

Molech was a false God, an idol. To offer sacrifices to him, they literally would light a fire inside the metallic false god until his arms were white hot, and lay live babies, screaming in agony, upon them.

What does that tell you about Satan and his hatred of children? He is the father of lies and a murderer from the beginning. God’s Word is full of Scriptures about the shedding of innocent blood. Here’s another: “Do this so that innocent blood will not be shed in your land, which the LORD your God is giving you as your inheritance, and so that you will not be guilty of bloodshed” (Deuteronomy 19:10).

I think there is nothing worse in God’s sight than the killing of innocent children, including the unborn. They have no chance against the adults armed with metallic instruments that tear them apart. Scripture says, “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves. Defend the rights of the poor and needy” (Proverbs 31:9).

That is why we speak up on behalf of children who are dying from abortion. I don’t apologize for that. Should we speak up for children who are born? Absolutely. But that should not keep us from speaking up for the smallest of these children—who Christ called, “the least of these, his brethren” which is by no means limited to unborn children, but certainly includes them.

And to the many social justice Christians who advocate for all the needy except unborn children, may I suggest that you also occasionally try speaking up for that one group of innocent people that will make you unpopular instead of cool? Try speaking up for those who rock stars and Hollywood will never speak up for. It’s not trendy to speak up for the unborn, but God loves these little children who He created in his image. And if God loves them, shouldn’t we?

      

The Wonders of God's Creation and Man's Creation, in Time Lapse

This short time lapse video shows the wonder of God’s creation and man’s creation. But remember, God is the Creator; man is what Tolkien called the sub-creator. Our creativity is derived from His, from being made in the image of the Creator. So you can look at beautiful architecture and glorify God for it. Even if you discovered it was designed by an atheist and built by agnostics or cultists, it is still beautiful, and it speaks of the wonders of the sovereign and patient Giver of those gifts.

For those reading by email, go to the blog to see the video.