Why bother coming to a political rally?
A friend asked about the effectiveness of political rallies and why we should spend our time going to them. This was specifically addressing a rally in Austin, TX on Feb. 25, 2017 for the total abolition of abortion. The following was my answer. It was later published by Abolish Abortion Texas. The principles apply to other issues as well.
For those that are not politically involved, the question of why going through the trouble of loading up your family, sometime very large families, and driving several hundred miles to attend a political rally is a legitimate one. There are several reasons why a rally can be an effective tool to positively influence your culture. This, of course, assumes a) the rally is properly run and b) the cause you believe in is, in fact, positive. While the list could be much longer here are a few reasons why it worth the effort, if those two criteria are met.
First, a rally is a visible sign of the support for any issue or bill. Any issue can be widely supported, but if there are no visible signs of that support it becomes much easier to deny that such support exists. The phrase “a picture is worth a thousand words” comes to mind. Phone calls are great, but an image leaves an impression. This truth is applied both in the positive and negative. If we claim there is wide support for an issue, and a large crowd shows up for a rally it confirms the claim. It also confirms credibility to the one making the claim. If on the other hand, we claim the support is wide, but only a few dozen people can be bothered with showing their support, the image of a few lone rangers will also be a lasting one. It then becomes much harder to be believed when making such a claim in the future. This brings us to my next reason and general rule for understanding politicians.
Modern politicians are much better at counting than reading. The details of a bill matter far less than the voting public’s support for it. If there is one thing politicians love, it is staying a politician. This means the greatest fear for most of them is a group of angry, in-district voters. Nothing communicates an angry group like images of an angry mob demanding action. The thoughts of this angry mob coming from their district is enough to keep them up at night. An important point to remember is that we need be angry and not sin (Eph 4:26). Our anger should be directed to the evil that is being allowed.
Another principle of winning at politics is controlling the public conversation. A successful rally should draw media attention. What they say about us is less relevant than that they mention us. An insignificant rally will be easy to ignore. A large, diverse group all coming together for the sake of a cause is a story. A successful rally doesn’t guarantee media coverage, but an unsuccessful one guarantees the media won’t cover it. If people aren’t talking about our issue, we aren’t winning.
Read the rest of the article here
Conflicted Elector in a Corrupt College
When running for the Presidential Elector Nominee some six months ago, I had no idea the conflict that would ensue both from without and within. To say that it has been an “educating experience” would be an understatement. I embarked on this journey with a basic understanding of the difference between a republic and a pure democracy. I knew the Constitutional Fathers set up our government as the former and not the latter. They had wisdom we lack. In my speech before the convention, I mentioned that nothing exemplified the difference between these two forms of the government more than the Electoral College. I admit, at the time, I was ignorant how deeply that held true.
Republic vs Democracy
The essence of a republic is that the authority rests in elected representatives, not in the people directly. Noah Webster defined a republic as,
“A commonwealth; a state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people. In modern usage, it differs from a democracy or democratic state, in which the people exercise the powers of sovereignty in person.”
The Electoral College was created with this mind. In the original design the Electors were chosen, either by an election or appointment, to represent the people of their district in the selection of a President. The assumption was these Electors would be 1) men most familiar with those that were capable of filling this office, 2) possess wisdom and discernment to know those who sought the office but weren’t capable, and 3) could be trusted to act in the best interest of those they represented. Alexander Hamilton said Electors would be,
“A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.”
The Electors were to be men who were selected to make this vote based on their own discernment. There is no indication that Electors were ever to be directed by the population at large on how to vote. Their votes were to be their own, made in the best interest of those they represented. That is the nature of true representation. Gary Alder writes in his concise of history of this system, “A presupposition that wise Electors who know how to nominate individuals of character, experience, virtue, and integrity underlies the whole process. The wisdom and integrity of the Electors is essential. The independence of the Electors is even more crucial. For the system to work, Electors must know how to choose—not be told who to choose.”
Today the average voter screams in opposition, “Why would they trust their Electors to make this choice on their own?” It is because the framers understood the nature of a republic. Ironically, though many of them would not have identified themselves as Christian, they understood this biblical concept of representative (covenant) heads more than most pastors do today. Representative heads act and speak on behalf of and in the best interest of those they represent. A limited analogy can be found in the family relationship. Parents are the representative heads of their kids. When parents make a decision for the family, they do so on behalf of everyone they represent. Good parents act in the best interest of their children. At times this may even be contrary to the desire of the children. In most homes, kids do not have the right to vote to eat Skittles for dinner. It is not in their best interest. The parents have a delegated authority to protect those under their jurisdiction. Hamilton, in a similar way, saw the role of the body of Electors (representatives) as a protection for the nation.
“The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue.”
Unfortunately, we no longer operate with the same wisdom and discernment as our forefathers. Where they warned of the evils they experienced which “flow from the excess of democracy,” we demand the voice of the people be heard. This difference between a republic and democracy is all but lost in public discourse by conservatives and progressives alike. Those on the left side of the aisle seem to bemoan the fact that the popular vote is ignored. Many don’t like that the representatives, Electors, even exist. They are calling for the abolishment of the Electoral College system completely. Conservatives aren’t much better. They don’t mind that the representatives in a republic exist as long as, contrary to Webster’s definition, no “power is lodged in their representatives.” They want the power in the people directly. The representatives are only there to do what the people demand. They want a democracy, not a republic. They want the power to vote for Skittles for dinner. This is evident by how they approach their legislators. They want them to do X, Y or Z because that is what “we the people” demand. The Constitutionality of it only matters when the legislators are listening to another faction of their constituency.
The Electoral College was corrupted from its original intent once states started dictating the votes of the Electors. The two biggest aggressors to the original system were from political parties and the switch to winner-take-all states. The rise of political parties, as George Washington prophetically predicted, has had a “baneful effect” on our nation. They have all but ruined our Electoral College system. Originally Electors were free from political parties and their pledges. What mattered most was the character and qualifications of the candidate, not the viability of their path to victory (primaries) or the team that any candidate represented. The Electors were also free from these statewide popular vote contests that run all but two states today. “When James Madison and Hamilton, two of the most important architects of the Electoral College, saw this strategy [statewide popular vote] being taken by some states, they protested strongly. Madison and Hamilton both made it clear this approach violated the spirit of the Constitution. Hamilton considered a pre-pledged elector to violate the spirit of Article II of the Constitution insofar as such electors could make no ‘analysis’ or ‘deliberate’ concerning the candidates. Madison agreed entirely, saying that when the Constitution was written, all of its authors assumed individual electors would be elected in their districts and it was inconceivable a ‘general ticket’ of electors dictated by a state would supplant the concept. Madison wrote,
The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted; & was exchanged for the general ticket.”
The current pledges most political parties make Electors sign after they are elected is contrary to the original intent of the Constitution. The fact that the pledge makes no mention of the biblical qualifications (I wrote about here) necessary for one to serve as President makes it an immoral pledge. Most will think I am just clinging to long forgotten principles that, quite frankly, no one cares about anymore. That may be true, but I would point to Principle 1 of the Republican Party of Texas 2016 Platform, which was passed at the same convention that elected me.
We, the 2016 Republican Party of Texas, believe in this platform and expect our elected leaders to uphold these truths through acknowledgement and action. We believe in:
“The laws of nature and nature’s God” and we support the strict adherence to the original language and intent of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitutions of the United States and of Texas.
The law of nature’s God give clear principles for electing civil leaders. The original intent of the Constitution gives a specific method that to apply those principles. The Republican party of Texas declares their #1 principle is to honor God and original intent of the Constitution. They then force Electors to make a pledge that is contrary to both. To point out this discrepancy is treasonous.
I admit all of this has left me deeply troubled and conflicted as an Elector. When asking the three wisest men I know about the wisest decision I should make, I received three different answers. As an Elector, I came to conclusion I have three options under our current system. I can 1) vote for the nominee of their party under which I was elected, 2) vote for someone else and be considered a faithless elector (a term I despise), or 3) I could resign my position if the candidate turns out to be someone I can not, in good conscience, vote for. I believe under the right circumstances every option is not only valid, but can be ethically the righteous thing for a Christian to do. The question that everyone wants answered is, what will I, an Elector who is under the conviction that our nominee is not a biblically qualified candidate, do? After wavering back and forth, my conscience is finally at peace with the decision I’ve made.
Voting for the nominee of our party, Mr. Trump, is certainly what the vast majority of Republicans are urging me to do. I have yet to find anyone that has biblically answered my first article. They don’t make the case that Trump is indeed biblically qualified. I have had a few people take issue with the original intent of the Electoral College and my job as an Elector. Once presented with the evidence they usually acknowledge the validity of the original intent, but claim that has changed. The biggest beef most people have with me being so “arrogant” as to publicly state “this issue is so important that I am going to think about it” is that I signed the pledge. I have already expressed my reasons why I think the pledge is an immoral, unlawful pledge that the GOP makes Electors sign. It undermines the Bible and the Constitution. But they are 100% correct. I did, in fact, sign the pledge. It was a voluntary pledge and I willingly signed it. I was wrong in signing this pledge and not communicating to the body when I ran that my conscience would not be bound by it. I honestly did not have the convictions about the original purpose of the Electoral College or the biblical qualifications until after I was an Elector. The Bible calls this a rash oath and warns against making them. It clearly states,
“if a person swears, speaking thoughtlessly with his lips to do evil or good, whatever it is that a man may pronounce by an oath, and he is unaware of it- when he realizes it, then he shall be guilty in any of these matters. And it shall be, when he is guilty in any of these matters, that he shall confess that he has sinned in that thing.”
To be ignorant of all the details involved in an oath (pledge) does not excuse the sin of making that oath. One thing is clear, I have sinned in signing that pledge. I humbly confess that it was wrong for me to do so. I am grateful for the forgiveness I have in Christ for all my foolishness. The heart of this issue now is, does honoring the pledge cause me to sin? If it does, then I am obligated not to honor it. If it doesn’t, then I am obligated to honor it.
My second option is to be a “Faithless Elector.” A Faithless Elector is an Elector that casts his vote contrary to any party pledge or state law he may be bound by. On the surface this seems like it would be difficult to justify how being faithless could be a righteous act. Aren’t Electors elected to represent the people? Yes, they absolutely are. That only begs the question, what does it mean to represent the people? This is where our understanding or lack thereof of a representative form of government comes into play. As an elected representative head, I am to speak on behalf of and in the interest of the CD36. It is my conviction that the greatest danger to my district is not a Hillary or Trump Presidency, but it is the judgement of God. If we continue to disobey His clear commands, we can expect to receive His judgement. If being a “Faithless Elector” means standing alone on principle in the hopes that God would continue to grant patience on our district, then it is worth any political future, threats to my safety, and whatever else may come my way.
The last option I see for me is resigning from this position. The Republican Party of Texas has an immoral pledge because that is what the people want. They want a democracy. They want their popular vote across the state counted. They do not care about the authority of the office of an Elector. As long as they have someone to do what the people demand, they don’t care who it is.
I do not see how Donald Trump is biblically qualified to serve in the office of the Presidency. Of the hundreds of angry messages that I have received, not one has made a convincing case from scripture otherwise. If Trump is not qualified and my role, both morally and historically, as an elected official is to vote my conscience, then I can not and will not vote for Donald Trump for President. I believe voting for Trump would bring dishonor to God. The reality is Trump will be our President, no matter what my decision is. Many are furious that I am willing to have this discussion publicly. Personally, I wish more civil officers would be honest about their convictions. Assuming a Trump Presidency is their ultimate goal, they will get that. The problem is, that isn’t what they want. They want a democracy. They will threaten to kill anyone who challenges their power to vote for Skittles for dinner. That is evidence alone to prove that our republic is lost. The shell may remain, but in the hearts of the people and functionality of the system our republic is gone. I also believe that a pledge is a man’s word that he will follow through on something he committed to. God’s Word is clear we should all “let our ‘yes’ be ‘yes’ and our ‘no,’s ‘no.” I believe to resign is to honor the intent of the pledge as it relates to the people of my district. Since I can’t in good conscience vote for Donald Trump, and yet have sinfully made a pledge that I would, the best option I see at this time is to resign my position as an Elector. This will allow the remaining body of Electors to fill my vacancy when they convene on Dec 19 with someone that can vote for Trump. The people will get their vote. They will get their Skittles for dinner. I will sleep well at night knowing I neither gave in to their demands nor caved to my convictions. I will also mourn the loss of our republic.
 The true founding fathers were those men that established the culture and law of our land some 150 years before 1776.
 James Madison takes up this issue in Federalist# 10 http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm
 American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828 Noah Webster
 In 1792- 9 out of 15 states appointed electors by 1836 23 out of 24 states went to elected electors- The Founders’ Constitution vol 3 pp. 552-553
 The Evolution and Destruction of the Original Electoral College, Gary Alder p. 44
 Ephesians 5:22-6:4
 United States-Formation of the Union, P 125 Elridge Gerry at Constitutional Convention
 George Washington Collection, p 519
 Maine and Nebraska are currently to only states that do not have a winner take all system.
 “Founders Online: James Madison to George Hay, 23 August 1823″.
 1 Samuel 14:24-52 and Judges 11:29-40 give examples of rash oaths
 Leviticus 5:4,5
 1 Samuel 14:44,45 Israel interposed on Jonathan’s behalf. Lev 27 details how to buy back (redeem) after a vow has been made. The vow was not eternally binding. For the Christian, redemption was accomplished on cross.
 Numbers 30:2
 Twenty-one states do not have laws compelling their electors to vote for a pledged candidate. Twenty-nine states plus the District of Columbia have laws to penalize faithless electors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector
 Matthew 5:37
Biblical Voting in the Age of Trump
There are several things fascinating about this Presidential election. As someone who has virtually given up on National politics, for me to say that is not an easy statement. The effect of the Donald Trump phenomenon has influenced far more than just his candidacy for the highest office in our nation. The most important aspect that I have noticed is that Christians, who have traditionally voted Republican, have been forced to deal with an identity crisis. Can they vote for a man like Donald Trump who barely pretends to hold to the true faith? On the heels of this dilemma, they are questioning the basis for voting and the role their faith has in that decision. There is no doubt that Trump has said and done things that are too depraved to be repeated here, but so has Hillary Clinton, his opponent in this race for the White House. Isn’t she the greater evil and therefore Trump would be the better choice, the lesser evil? Is it acceptable for a Christian to vote for a man like Trump for President? This brings up the case of voting for the lesser of two evils. I have yet to meet anyone that actually believes Trump is an upstanding man of character. As for me personally, I have never been forced to wrestle with the ethical implications of my vote in any previous elections like I have in this one. This is in large part due to my role as being elected as a Republican Presidential Elector in the State of Texas. I have had to weigh what are the obligations of my personal vote in the ballot box and how do they differ from my representative vote as an Elector for the Electoral College.
Before answering these questions we must first agree on the standard we appeal to, to decide such matters. I firmly believe that the Christian must always turn to the Bible as the revealed Word of God. If the Bible says we ought not to do something, then we ought not to do it. If it commands us to do something, then we had better well do it. This should seem like an obvious statement that doesn’t need to be written, but in the world of politics the obvious sometimes isn’t. The Bible has a lot to say about civil rulers and the standard He holds both them and us to.
What are the qualifications for someone who desires to serve in civil office in the Bible? There are many passages in scripture that have shaped my understanding of the biblical qualifications for civil office. Here is a brief glance at a few of them.
The God of Israel said,
The Rock of Israel spoke to me:
He who rules over men must be just,
Ruling in the fear of God. ~ 2 Sam 23:3
These are the parting words of King David to the children of Israel. He gives them the minimum requirements, as evident by the must, for civil rulers. Dr. Phillip Kayser summarizes this passage well, “it appears that the absolute minimum is that he be male (‘he”), that he be subject to God’s law (“just”), and that he be a believer who rules in the fear of God. The ‘must’ indicates to me that this is God’s minimum standard.” God spoke through King David, a civil ruler, and gave an authoritative command (imperative) about what type of man a ruler must be. He must fear God and be just according to God’s law. We can also look to the qualifications Moses was given by Jethro for selecting judges that would help him rule on smaller cases.
Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. ~ Exodus 18:21
These are the same quality of men we see described in 2 Samuel. They are men who fear God and will rule justly according to God’s law. Moses repeats similar instructions to the Israelites before they are to enter the Promised Land,
Choose wise, understanding, and knowledgeable men from among your tribes, and I will make them heads over you. ~ Deut 1:13
Since to be wise starts with fearing the Lord (Prov 1:7), it becomes clear that these are consistent qualifications throughout the Bible. God has given us a standard for our civil rulers. They are to be men that fear Him and are to rule justly according His law. This has implications for both the rulers and those choosing them.
For those that disagree with this interpretation of scripture these are some common objections I hear most often. First, “doesn’t that only apply to Old Testament (theocratic) Israel?” It is a reasonable objection, but there are other passages that make it clear that this was not a one-time standard that only applied to one nation. Psalm 2 address all nations and kings of the earth.
Why do the nations rage,
And the people plot a vain thing?
The kings of the earth set themselves,
And the rulers take counsel together,
Against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying,
“Let us break Their bonds in pieces
And cast away Their cords from us.”
He who sits in the heavens shall laugh;
The Lord shall hold them in derision.
Then He shall speak to them in His wrath,
And distress them in His deep displeasure:
“Yet I have set My King
On My holy hill of Zion.”
“I will declare the decree:
The Lord has said to Me,
‘You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.
Ask of Me, and I will give You
The nations for Your inheritance,
And the ends of the earth for Your possession.
You shall break them with a rod of iron;
You shall dash them to pieces like a potter’s vessel.’”
Now therefore, be wise, O kings;
Be instructed, you judges of the earth.
Serve the Lord with fear,
And rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the Son, lest He be angry,
And you perish in the way,
When His wrath is kindled but a little.
Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him.
It is obvious with references to “nations, kings of the earth, and judges of the earth” that the plain reading of this text is the calling of ALL civil leaders to submit to Christ’s law, rule justly, and serve Him or suffer the consequences. Again Dr. Kayser writes “Psalm 2 confirms this view. It prophesies concerning the New Testament era that any Gentile ruler that casts off God’s laws (v. 3), who rejects Christ’s Lordship (vv. 1-9), who fails to serve the Lord with fear (v. 11), and who refuses to ‘kiss the Son’ will have God angry with him and Christ will dash him with His rod of iron (judgment).” Christ has absolute authority over every person, church and nation. All government is upon His shoulders (Isa 9:6) and all civil authority is delegated by and from Him (John 19:11). Consider all of the pagan nations that God judged for their disobedience and it is evident that God holds all nations and their rulers to His standard of righteousness.
A second objection is to reject that it applies to voting. The basic assumption in this objection is that Israel didn’t vote for their civil leaders therefore 2 Samuel can’t be an absolute binding standard upon voters. I believe the Bible presents a different picture, but before we turn to some examples we must first understand what exactly a vote is. We tend to think of voting only in terms of our personal experiences. However, a vote is simply the expression of who we desire to represent us in any elected position. To vote doesn’t require any set number of candidates or political parties. It only requires one person making a choice and expressing it in some recognizable action (Ex. ballot, raised hand, or voice). With that in mind, we find several examples of voting for civil office in the Bible. Here are a few.
We already looked at the passages relevant to Israel’s selection of judges under Moses. “Moreover you shall select from all the people, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens” (Exod 18:21) and “Choose wise, understanding, and knowledgeable men…” (Deut 1:13). E.C. Wines writes, “No fact can be plainer, or more certain, than that the judges, instituted at the suggestion of Jethro, were chosen by the suffrages (voting) of all Israel. The direction of Moses to the people, upon that occasion, is very explicit.”
The people clearly voted verbally for Jephthan in the book of Judges:
It came to pass after a time that the people of Ammon made war against Israel. And so it was, when the people of Ammon made war against Israel, that the elders of Gilead went to get Jephthah from the land of Tob. Then they said to Jephthah, “Come and be our commander, that we may fight against the people of Ammon.” So Jephthah said to the elders of Gilead, “Did you not hate me, and expel me from my father’s house? Why have you come to me now when you are in distress?” And the elders of Gilead said to Jephthah, “That is why we have turned again to you now, that you may go with us and fight against the people of Ammon, and be our head over all the inhabitants of Gilead.” So Jephthah said to the elders of Gilead, “If you take me back home to fight against the people of Ammon, and the Lord delivers them to me, shall I be your head?” And the elders of Gilead said to Jephthah, “The Lord will be a witness between us, if we do not do according to your words.” Then Jephthah went with the elders of Gilead, and the people made him head and commander over them; and Jephthah spoke all his words before the Lord in Mizpah. ~ Judges 11:4-11
Then there is the story of Israel choosing Saul to be their king as recorded from 1 Samuel in chapters 8-11. It concludes with this:
So all the people went to Gilgal, and there they made Saul king before the Lord in Gilgal. There they made sacrifices of peace offerings before the Lord, and there Saul and all the men of Israel rejoiced greatly. ~ 1 Samuel 11:15
The most famous of kings in the biblical record, David, is another example of a civil ruler being elected. It is noteworthy that David had been anointed by Samuel to be king years before he was willing to take the throne. He refused to take it himself. He waited until the men of Judah came to him. He waited until he was chosen by the people.
So David went up there, and his two wives also, Ahinoam the Jezreelitess, and Abigail the widow of Nabal the Carmelite. And David brought up the men who were with him, every man with his household. So they dwelt in the cities of Hebron. Then the men of Judah came, and there they anointed David king over the house of Judah. 2 Samuel 2:2-3
The last example we will look at of the people choosing their leader is King Solomon.
Then David said to all the assembly, “Now bless the Lord your God.” So all the assembly blessed the Lord God of their fathers, and bowed their heads and prostrated themselves before the Lord and the king. And they made sacrifices to the Lord and offered burnt offerings to the Lord on the next day: a thousand bulls, a thousand rams, a thousand lambs, with their drink offerings, and sacrifices in abundance for all Israel. So they ate and drank before the Lord with great gladness on that day. And they made Solomon the son of David king the second time, and anointed him before the Lord to be the leader, and Zadok to be priest. ~ 1 Chronicles 29:20-22
In each of these examples the people chose their leaders in some form or fashion. While the kings of Israel had certainly been anointed by God to serve in those positions that in no way discounts the role the people had in the selection process. For Daniel makes it clear that God always “removes and raises up kings.” The biblical example is that the people are to choose, that is vote, for their civil leaders.
The third objection to the application of these biblical qualifications for voting is that several of the kings already mentioned did not rule according this standard. In others words, they would say “we can’t look for perfectionism in our candidates because if that is the case Saul, David, and Solomon all failed the test. They were not men who feared God and ruled justly according to His law. If God raised them up to be kings than either a) God broke His own standard or b) the standard isn’t applicable.”
First we have to understand the difference between the revealed will and secret will of God. God can command His people to vote one way (revealed will) and hold them accountable for that vote. He can also at the same time use their disobedience to raise up an evil king according to His (secret) will. The fact that God uses people’s voting to bring both good and bad kings to power according to His will is not a contradiction and is perfectly consistent with His nature. Having said that, I do not think that Israel disobeyed these qualifications in these examples. To fear God and rule justly does not mean to be perfect. If we look at each of these men at the time they were put into office it appears they were all qualified. Saul is said to have “the Spirit of the Lord depart” from him which necessarily means he had the Spirit early on in his administration. David was a “man after God’s own heart, who would do His will.” When Solomon came to power it was said of him that “the Lord his God was with him and exalted him exceedingly.” Each of these men sinned greatly against the Lord during their administration, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t qualified at the time they were chosen. The qualifications of being godly men who fear the Lord and are able to rule justly does not require perfection. It only requires what it states. They must have a discernable fear of God and appear to rule in light of that fear.
I now want to address the three objections to these qualifications that I consider more pragmatic in nature than interpretive. The first objection is that we don’t have anyone biblically qualified by this standard in the race for President. “If we are commanded to choose, then we must choose the least evil candidate.” There is a case to be made that we must do all that we can to stop the greatest evil. However, in that process we must still vote for qualified candidates. Remember “must” was the term scripture used. We can not use a means that God disapproves of to bring about an end that will please Him. He doesn’t honor rebellion. Furthermore, it is just not true that we don’t have anyone qualified. There are hundreds of people running for President in 2016, many of which meet these qualifications. What people generally mean when they offer this objection is that there isn’t anyone in the Republican or Democratic Parties, and therefore anyone that “has a chance at winning”, that meet these qualifications. This is absolutely correct that there isn’t anyone in either of those parties that are biblically qualified. However, I have yet to find anywhere in God’s Word a command for us to only choose men that have a path to victory.
The second objection is that a 3rd party vote is a vote for the Democratic candidate. The presumption in this objection is that Republican candidate deserves our vote and therefore if we do not vote for him, we have essentially withdrawn a vote that belongs to him. If we recall that a vote is simply the expression of who we desire to represent us in any elected position, then this becomes an illogical statement. If my choice is candidate X, then my choice doesn’t magically become candidate D by virtue of the fact that I didn’t chose candidate R. If I choose candidate X, then candidate X is my choice and only candidate X.
The third objection is that the righteous thing to do is to stop the greater evil. First, this assumes that the Democratic Party is the greater evil therefore we must do everything we can to stop Hillary Clinton from winning. I can understand this position for there is no doubt that Hillary Clinton would be an evil President, but would she really be more evil than Trump in policy? Rather than going to the talking points of the political parties and inside operatives let’s look at the biggest issues that actually matter. If we look at where they stand on the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve, murdering of unborn children, undeclared wars, the complete disregard for private property, or our national debt; the only difference between the two is in style and rhetoric. Where it matters most, they will both pursue the same wicked policies. Even if I am wrong about their policies, and one is slightly better than the other, it still would not make it an ethically righteous decision to suddenly throw off the qualifications in hope of possibly having a slightly less evil government. Theologians and philosophers refer to this as situational ethics. Situational ethics says the morally right and wrong thing to do change based on the situation. The Bible knows nothing of situational ethics, God and His Word do not change. If God tells us we must choose (vote for) a righteous man that fears Him, we are not free to attach an “unless” to the end of that command. May we boldly proclaim that “God be true and every man a liar” (Rom 3:4). We must fear God, not man… or woman!
If civil leaders are expected to rule according this standard and they are judged when they do not (Psalm 2), then what can we expect as voters when we dismiss these qualifications that God has given us? My biggest concern as a Christian is what God expects of me as revealed in the Bible. I have yet to have anyone address these passages in satisfactory way that convinces me otherwise. It seems clear to me that God both calls me to vote and directs me to only vote for men who fear Him and are just according to God’s law. He doesn’t expect or allow me to add to his qualifications and seek for perfection. He also doesn’t hold me accountable for all the sins that these qualified men commit once in office. He does, however, give me clear commands for who is qualified and expects me to be obedient with my calling as a voter. Therefore, I can not in good conscience vote for Donald Trump for President. The lingering question that remains is: what does that mean for my role as Republican Presidential Elector? That is the topic for another article.
 I acknowledge he claims to be a person of faith, but his denial of basic Christian tenets like the need for forgiveness make his claim laughable and believed by nobody. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=80&v=A3l0e6nS9oI
 For a more comprehensive list see http://fortifyingthekingdom.com/scriptural-qualifications-for-civic-office/
 For a more complete study on this subject I recommend Roots of the American Republic by E.C. Wines
 E.C. Wines, Roots of the American Republic, P18
 Daniel 2:21
 Theologians refer to the revealed/prescriptive will vs. the secret/descriptive will of God. For more information see Appendix I in The Sovereignty of God by Arthur Pink. https://books.google.com/books?id=p3OOU3wL9YIC&pg=PA152&lpg=PA152&dq=god%27s+secret+will+vs.+revealed+will&source=bl&ots=l7WglX2zw6&sig=7lTlmHAZurEUeTT5cpU_dEYvMig&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi6jLnrsZPQAhVpslQKHS–Dqo4ChDoAQhEMAc#v=onepage&q=god’s%20secret%20will%20vs.%20revealed%20will&f=false
 1 Samuel 16:14
 1 Samuel 13:14, Act 13:22
 2 Chronicles 1:1
The Light from Asia
While most Americans have their political thoughts focused on the Presidential campaigns, or are trying to forget them by pretending to care about sports they otherwise didn’t know existed before the Olympics, something very big happened over the weekend. Some 10,000 miles away in Indonesia, the most populous Muslim nation in the world, a Christian church held a conference on politics. The Christian Faith, Democracy and Prosperous Nation conference was significant for multiple reasons, but the biggest was one of the guest speakers they hosted and the speech that he gave. Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, affectionately known as Ahok, is the Governor of Jakarta. What makes Ahok unique is that he is the first ever Christian governor serving in Indonesia. While there is a lot of background information that is fascinating in how he reached this position, the short version is: God has had favor on him. God has clearly honored the 20+ years of fasting and prayer that the Christian church in Indonesia has been dedicated to. Not only is Ahok bold in his testimony, but he has proven to govern Jakarta with the wisdom and integrity that prove his faith is what guides him in governing. He has earned a reputation for being unrelenting in fighting corruption and practical when dealing with the problems facing Jakarta. I share this as both an encouragement and admonition. May we rejoice and pray for our brothers in Asia. May we be prepared for decades of fasting while being ruled by wicked. Below is an excerpt of his speech from an attendee of the event.
Speech given by Ahok:
In being in politics, my Reformed Christian faith is what influenced me. At first I did not know who Calvin was, I only knew about Pastor Stephen Tong. When I was serving as a Representative in the House Parliament in Belitung, I had plenty of opportunity to watch Stephen Tong’s sermons. I also participated in a seminar by him, there, Pastor Tong always said, “After you complete this seminar, you must all return to your own church, ok?”_ I am also not a member of the GRII church.
I read a book by Calvin in 2009, and I compared Calvin’s teachings to Pastor Tong’s, to see if pastor Tong is making stuff up or not. According to Calvin it is most difficult to serve as a public official (civil magistrate), because they are supposed to be a model in the public eye.
Initially, in my heart I did not feel encouraged to go into politics because I am a Chinese descendant in a large Chinese church that the congregation do not like and do not want to be involved in politics.
There is one Bible verse that I hold in governing:
Proverbs 29:4 (NKJV) “The king establishes the land by justice,
But he who receives bribes overthrows it.”
As a human being, I can falter, and that is why I need God at my side.
In the past, I was offered to be Governor of Babylon by way of bribes, but then my wife said “It’s up to you, do you want to be a disciple of Jesus or a disciple of Barabas?”
At the end, I did not become governor of Babylon, but I did become the Governor of Jakarta.
In 2012, actually, I wanted to return to Babylon. But God showed me His will, I felt several times God strongly showing me what I should do. One of them when I read the book by Calvin it says, our duty is to become a showcase, showing the transformation of reformation of God to the society, showing the glory of God through our actions and Jakarta is a good showcase in Indonesia, as the capital, Jakarta is a big city, the city is right for God to display His work.
The Bible also speaks about the official task of the civil magistrate is to provide social justice for the people and not social assistance.
I agree when Pastor Tong said that the foundation of a democratic government that is true, is what John Calvin speaks about. Real democracy is applied with the foundation of the law of love and justice from God’s Word.
In the Book by Calvin, when beggars beg for money to the church, they are not given money, but they are sent to work. That is social justice, not social assistance. Social justice means self-responsibility. People who are lacking must be helped, but we also have to remain firm.
I also once said _ “You who are poor need to realize your position” _. In the “Rusun case” (where Ahok provided government apartment housing to homeless so they don’t live in the streets – a program to clean up the city), if you are caught selling your housing to someone else, it will definitely upset me and you will be expelled from the program, we must be firm. It does not mean that if you are poor and you do not know your place, you demand and blackmail the State for assistance in the name of human rights. Point number 5 of “Pancasila” (the Indonesian Ideology) speaks about social justice, not social assistance. Social assistance will only damage people and make them unproductive.
Paul (in the Bible) also said, “He who does not work, does not eat.”
Democracy without True faith, will be anarchist and chauvinist.
There is this story about my son who was going to face an exam in high school.
I asked, “What subject is the exam tomorrow?”
My son answered, “Bahasa Indonesia” language.
“Then now, you should study Physics instead of Language,” I said.
“Papa, the exam on language, how is it you tell me to study physics?”
“If your teacher did not tell you what subject is the exam tomorrow, what would you study?”
“I will learn everything, language, physics, mathematics, etc. to be ready.”_
“If in school, we always know what the exam is tomorrow so we can prepare and can learn. You can be smart in school, yes. But because we already know what we will face during the exam. Then how can we be smart in life? Life is like an exam, the difference is, we do not know what exam God gives us tomorrow, we do not know what problems we face. Every moment of our life is a test, without knowing what subject. That is why we should be thankful we have the Bible. The Bible is what we have to hold on to prepare for “exams” in life. That is why I read my Bible every morning, to prepare for life exams.”
Many times God has made it clear His will to me through God’s Word. Spiritual experiences can be in various forms, and each person is different. I used to struggle when finished my bachelor’s degree, I wanted to be a pastor and further into theological school. But my dad in Belitung was very broke, I am the oldest son . I wrestled and asked the Lord if I should become a minister or a businessman. One day, while at a church youth event, on the event handout, there is a verse written:
1 Timothy 5: 8 (NKJV) “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”
After reading it I felt that rhema of God, I immediately decided to return to Belitung to be a businessman. I want to be a businessman whose characteristics is just like a pastor.
*Question and answer session*
Q: Why did you choose the path of political party and not the independent path?
A: I want to mention, I believe in God’s providence.
Through the independent path, if I win, I will immediately become a superhero in Indonesia. If I win this way then I will destroy all political parties. I’ll be the first man in Indonesia who could win an election without political parties. I will be a great man. Wiranto and Surya Paloh, said to me, “If no party support you, and you win, it is finished for all political parties.”
Politics is perception. If Ahok can not go forward because of KPU (the election committee), people would say _ “Too bad, if Ahok move forward, we will have an advanced Jakarta.” Pillar of our democracy is the political parties. We should correct the way of the political parties and not do away with the political parties.
My vision is in accordance with my Christian faith: my goal is the building up of people (reconstruction of society). I was struggling for this, and this time the Lord answered through President Jokowi. Mr.Jokowi really know me. When I met with him, he asked, “Have you understood the risk of not being selected if you are going through an independent path?” I answered, “My wife and I believe, if I do not selected, it means this is the end , our task of our service to the community, we end our service honorably.” Then Mr.Jokowi answered with a very smooth, very meaningful way, “Mr. Governor, my wife had four months of stress when I wanted to be president.” More or less, what he is saying is, “Don’t listen to your wife in this case.”
Finally I decided to take the path of political parties, and many people were disappointed, they judge I am inconsistent. I also wrestled, like David in the Psalms, I also pray to God in my quiet times. I said to God, “I’m embarrassed God, just yesterday I confidently said in front of the crowd that I will progress to go through independent path, but now I actually joined a political party. People are saying I am inconsistent.” And the Lord spoke to me, God answered when I read Isaiah 60. I feel the verses were addressed to me,
Isiah 60:1-4 (NKJV)
For your light has come!
And the glory of the Lord is risen upon you.
2 For behold, the darkness shall cover the earth,
And deep darkness the people;
But the Lord will arise over you,
And His glory will be seen upon you.
3 The Gentiles shall come to your light,
And kings to the brightness of your rising.
4 “Lift up your eyes all around, and see:
They all gather together, they come to you;
Your sons shall come from afar,
And your daughters shall be nursed at your side.
I told God, “I feel like I’m buying rice and is exchanged with a potato, Lord ”
But the Lord answered me Isaiah 60:17-22
“Instead of bronze I will bring gold,
Instead of iron I will bring silver,
Instead of wood, bronze,
And instead of stones, iron.
I will also make your officers peace,
And your magistrates righteousness.
18 Violence shall no longer be heard in your land,
Neither wasting nor destruction within your borders;
But you shall call your walls Salvation,
And your gates Praise.
19 “The sun shall no longer be your light by day,
Nor for brightness shall the moon give light to you;
But the Lord will be to you an everlasting light,
And your God your glory.
20 Your sun shall no longer go down,
Nor shall your moon withdraw itself;
For the Lord will be your everlasting light,
And the days of your mourning shall be ended.
21 Also your people shall all be righteous;
They shall inherit the land forever,
The branch of My planting,
The work of My hands,
That I may be glorified.
22 A little one shall become a thousand,
And a small one a strong nation.
I, the Lord, will hasten it in its time.”
I am even more firmly that it is the right thing to go through political party path. Political parties have been willing to support me with my condition and little money etc. By using this path, I just finished a peacemaker. If I use an independent path, going feud between political parties, others will blame other political parties who supported me. God also reminded me to be humble. If I go forward as a candidate by an independent path, then I have a higher position in the public eye compared to other candidates who weresubmitted from political parties. But now, if I go ahead with a political party, then my position is equal to candidates of other political parties, it is fair. God wants to remind me not to rely on my own ability. Now I do not care about people trying to tell me I was being inconsistent, etc., which I believe my purpose of running is according to my Christian faith. God is the one guiding me.
<End of Ahok speech>
I hope you were encouraged as I was by these words from Ahok.
Faux Resistance from Texas
In the wake of the recent Supreme Court rulings, I have noticed a lot of buzz about the government leaders in Texas, Governor Abbot and Attorney General Paxton. I have heard of their courage for standing up in defiance of our overlords in Washington. As one who has been paying attention to what happens in Austin, I do not believe this is the case, at least not yet. Their language has changed a little (not nearly enough), but their policy has not. The courage to defend the people of Texas against the wicked tyrant known as the Supreme Court apparently didn’t get the memo that now is the time. Paxton’s own words right after the Court’s ruling on Obergefell v. Hodges, the same sex “marriage” case, betray the rumors about Texas. In his opinion (found here) he wrote,
“The United States Supreme Court again ignored the text and spirit of the Constitution to manufacture a right that simply does not exist. In so doing, the Court weakened itself and weakened the rule of law..” and
“Pursuant to the Court’s flawed ruling, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas issued an injunction against the enforcement of Texas marriage laws that define marriage as one man and one woman and therefore those laws currently are enjoined from being enforced by county clerks and justices of the peace. There is not, however, a court order in place in Texas to issue any particular license whatsoever – only the flawed direction by the U.S. Supreme Court on Constitutionality and applicable state laws.”
It is clear the Attorney General believes the Court has stepped outside of the confines of the law in this case. That should be enough for him to defy their ruling. He doesn’t though. The best he can do is to recommend those that may be forced to issue licenses or perform weddings to refuse on the basis of personal religious conviction. That and get a good lawyer.
“It is important to note that any clerk who wishes to defend their religious objections and who chooses not to issue licenses may well face litigation and/or a fine. But, numerous lawyers stand ready to assist clerks defending their religious belief.”
The proper action would have been for him to employ interposition as defined in the “lesser magistrate doctrine.” For those unfamiliar with this doctrine I recommend Matt Trewhella’s article. He explains,
“The lesser magistrate doctrine states that when a higher-ranking civil authority makes unjust or immoral laws, policies, or court opinions, the lower or lesser-ranking civil authority has the God-given right and duty not to obey the higher authority. If necessary, the lower authority may even actively resist the superior authority.
The interposition of the lower magistrates is not subjective or lawless. There are only three reasons for open defiance to the higher civil authority. First, they are to oppose and resist any laws or edicts from the higher authority that contravene — violate, oppose, or contradict — the law or Word of God. Second, they are to protect the person and property of those who reside within their jurisdiction from any unjust or immoral laws or actions by the higher authority. Third, they are not to implement any laws or decrees made by the higher authority that violate the U.S. Constitution or their state constitution–and if necessary, resist them.”
The recent ruling of the Supreme Court in this particular case violate every one of these principles. The lower magistrates in Texas know it. They are not prepared or willing to do what they ought. As Matt plainly stated they should “refuse to implement any federal court opinion that tramples the state’s constitution and imposes homosexual marriage upon the people. Unfortunately, all of the governors who have had their state’s constitutions trampled have hidden behind the common lie of the lower authorities, namely: ‘A federal court has ruled; we must obey.”
So where does this all leave us? We live in a unique time in our country. Many of the issues that the progressives and “conservative” statists have been cooperatively working on for decades are finally coming to fruition. This has culminated into an obnoxious amount of influence that a handful of people hold over the rest of this nation. All of this leads us to ask, how long will the people take it? When will the people rise up? And, what exactly can they do about it? To be able to accurately identify when the people have reached their maximum level of allowable tyranny, we need to understand the first thing they do when they are upset. We need to look for a marker. They will first turn to the politicians they elected. Some will call, some will write, and the serious ones make their way to the offices of their magistrates. They demand to be heard and expect their rulers to change things. We can know that enough people are starting to do this, when the language of the politicians change. If he thinks enough people are upset enough to change politicians, his actions will match his new found language. He will rise up with the people.
When the government leaders in Texas become lesser magistrates standing up to National Government, then we will know they mean business. When they defiantly stand up to the rulings of the SCOTUS and nullifying laws that contradict the Texas Constitution, then all the buzz will be newsworthy. When they start interposing on behalf of their lower magistrates and citizens, then we can know the people and their officials have had enough. Until then it is all sound bites, press releases, and meaningless bills intended to quiet the noise. In other words, business as usual.
Criminalization of the Creation
It is in this light, that I ask you to vote in favor of moving this legislation out of this committee and to the House floor. I ask you to do the right thing so you can stand with a clean conscience knowing that you have set aside political posturing in order allow those citizens that in this state to find relief in that which God has created for our good. Thank you!
Tyranny in the Name of Safety
Loving the Kids: School Bonds or Bondage
We have officially entered into a change of seasons. If you are like me you can appreciate almost everything that comes with fall; from the cooler weather, to the anticipation of the holidays, or to thosebeloved November elections….hey, I said almost. As much as I hate to admit it even the political cycle seems to return every fall. Sadly, it doesn’t matter who wins for nothing seems to change. After some reflection about what difference any investment of my precious time was making, I decided this year to pay closer attention to local politics. For me, this meant focusing my attention on what was happening from Liberty to Austin, TX. Changing Washington is beyond me and probably beyond changing outside of an act of Providence. It is in this mindset that I recently stumbled across the wickedness of a school bond that will be on our local ballot in November. This bond is not only fiscally ignorant, but morally evil. Lest you think I am being too harsh in my opinion of this bond allow me to make my case.
First we need to ask, “what exactly is a bond?” According to Wikipedia, “a bond is an instrument of indebtedness of the bond issuer to the holders. Thus a bond is a form of loan: the holder of the bond is the lender (creditor), the issuer of the bond is the borrower (debtor), and the coupon is the interest.” In short, a bond is a loan or new debt. In this case, the bond being sought after is the school district seeking to borrow money they do not have on behalf of the citizens upon the promise of future taxation. Allow that statement to sink in for a minute. The fact that most school districts regularly take advantage of bond debt should not cloud our understanding to the dangerous nature of taking on new debt. Any household, business or community that wants to financially survive would be wise to consider the full implications of taking a loan before making their decision. A few questions to ask might include: what do we need so urgently that we must take a loan to get? What is it going to cost us? Do we have the ability to repay this loan? What happens if we can’t afford to repay it? For Dayton ISD the urgent “needs” include 6 lighted tennis courts, concrete parking for buses, a new auditorium, a new practice gym, and a roof for the rodeo arena, etc. This particular loan for the citizens of the small rural community of Dayton, TX is to the tune of $87 million. Once the interest is accounted for the total debt climbs up to neighborhood of $150 million. Apparently the “community advisors” for Dayton ISD either didn’t ask these questions or came up with answers not based in reality. Either way, they were led to the conclusion that this was indeed a wise decision for the community to get this loan. One has to wonder if these folks would make the same decision on a personal level if it was exclusively their money being spent. Would they personally take a loan to pay for lighted tennis courts? Not likely. So why do they think this community should? One answer they give is because of the “projected future growth”. What happens in the likely scenario that the projected growth doesn’t reach their expectations? Will the debt be forgiven? No! The taxpayers and businesses of this rural community will be faced with a financial train wreck that is unavoidable. They’ll be forced to split the bill.
Aside from being an unwise decision it is also an immoral one. While the Bible does allow for debt under certain circumstances, it is always to be done God’s way. This means following the restrictions and limitations He has put in place when taking on debt. Taking a loan is a voluntary act of submission that shouldn’t be taken lightly. As Proverbs 22 states, “the borrower is the servant to the lender.” To voluntarily take on debt is to make oneself a servant or slave to the debt and debt holder. Paul said to the slave “if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.” The inspired Word of God is clear that when there is a choice between economic freedom or slavery we ought to choose freedom. God never expects His people to go into debt for their desires. Extreme debt should only to be taken on in an extreme need. I am confident in my assertion that tennis courts do not fall into the category of extreme need, but are rather a desire. Another limitation on debt is: it must be a voluntary act. It can never be forced on people that don’t want it. How anyone could think that God would be pleased with people forcing their neighbors to take a loan is beyond me. The fact that a local pastor would advocate such a position reveals his poor understanding of scripture. To forcibly take something from your neighbor that he is unwilling to give is theft. It is a violation of the 8th commandment. For any group of people to vote to take other people’s money for their own purposes is simply theft by mob. It is disregarding Christ’s command to “love our neighbor as ourselves” Sure it may be legal, but it is against God’s law and therefore is wrong. The legality of abortion never made it the right thing to do. This debt is not being sought on behalf of the school board, but instead on behalf of the taxpayers and their children. Remember our description from earlier, “the bond loan being asked is the school district borrowing money they do not have on behalf of the citizens upon the promise of future taxation.”
What about the children? Do we not have a moral obligation to our children? Yes, actually we do and this bondage is not it. The Bible states that “a good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children.” Those that are pushing for this debt are literally leaving an inheritance of economic slavery to the kids all while doing it in the name of “for the kids.” Shouldn’t we love our children? Of course, but one has to ask, “what does that look like?” Romans 13:8 says we are to “owe nothing to any man, but to love one another.” Here is a two fold instruction. First owe nothing (i.e; avoid debt) with the exception of love. What is love? The passage continues, “for he that loves another, has fulfilled the Law.” To love is to keep God’s law in regards to your neighbor or your children. To break God’s law by forcing debt upon them, robbing their inheritance, stealing their future income, and inheriting to them an economic slavery is anything but love. It is in fact a wicked act.
Will the people of this community consider this debt in light of God’s Word? I truly hope so, but if their pastors don’t know better they probably don’t either. We will try our best to change minds, but chances are things will remain the same until people return to God’s Word as the true source of all knowledge and wisdom. I look forward to that season with a greater anticipation than I do towards fall.
 2003-2013 has shown decrease in population by 1.8 %
 As a Christian I base all morality on the Bible
 Proverbs 22:7
 1 Corinthians 7:21
 Matthew 22:39
 Proverbs 13:22
Disqualified Civil Rulers
The last few months have been an awakening of sorts for me in a variety of ways. In early January, the primary election season in Texas began to kick into second gear. It was at this point I began to become awakened to how much, dare I say it, evil was in my midst. As a Christian, I knew I was to be a light to the world. What was new to me, however, was the realm in which I was entering into, to shine my light. I was venturing into the realm of politics. Fully aware of the adage “politics is dirty”, I knew there was truth to it. What I did not know was the source, depth, and acceptance of this “dirtiness”. I say “dirtiness” but that actually is not the right word. Dirt doesn’t sin. It isn’t incompetent, dishonest or corrupt in practice. Many of those in or seeking places of power are much worse. They are, in fact, engaged in evil.
Lest you think I am over exaggerating, allow me to explain. Evil is, by definition, that which is immoral or wicked. In other words, evil is that which is contrary to righteousness, justice or truth. Now evil can be manifested in a variety of forms and degrees. It can be diabolical, which leads to mass murder and such. We immediately conjure up images in our heads of Stalin, Hitler or even millions of aborted fetuses. This type of evil is usually obvious to spot or rather it should be. But there is a much more subtle form of evil, the kind that masks itself under the guise of good. This is the form employed far more frequently in my local political scene. The corruption, lawlessness, and depravity that are seemingly on every level to one degree or another are nothing short of well… evil. “This is politics”, you say, “of course there is corruption in politics.” Yes, but the most surprising and offensive part of this corruption is that it is coming from the very people who claim to be “unashamed of their Christian faith” or even “the conscience” of their party, and on and on, ad nauseam.
Here are just a few examples though plenty more could be listed.
– The County Clerk requiring filings that the law does not require. I’m not sure if it’s incompetence or otherwise, but it took under 30 minutes of research to discover the law. Upon bringing this to the clerk’s attention, she persisted in “adding to” the law by continuing to require more than the law states.
– Republican Party Chairman intimidating my wife and kids at the polling places because she was promoting his opponent. She was harshly warned of a supposed rule (not a violation of any law) that had been continuously broken by all the other candidates while she was complying with the rule 100%. It was a passive aggressive intimidation move, plain and simple.
– US Senatorial Candidate and current US Representative, Steve Stockman, using manipulative polling, deceitful surveys, fake newspapers, crony endorsements, and several possible ethics violations all in his quest for another office. This is documented here and here and here.
– A grassroots organization claiming to be the “conscience of the party” and the group standing up for “principles” decides to honor their endorsement of Rep. Stockman. They did so even after becoming aware of his shenanigans and sleazy political schemes. Apparently their “principles” include overlooking deception for a good old fashion back-scratching session. After all, the ends always justify the means, right?
I know this to be the “standard operating procedures” for political campaigning, but that does not make it right. Not only do these candidates reveal their hypocrisy, but they have actually disqualified themselves, Biblically, from the very offices they are seeking. The Bible gives specific instructions when electing men as civil magistrates. According to Exodus 18:21 it says you shall “look for able men from all the people, men who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe, and place such men over the people as chiefs of the thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens.” Note these simple requirements carefully.
1. Able men (competence)
2. Godly men (righteous character)
3. Trustworthiness (honesty)
4. Men who hate a bribe (i.e. not for sale)
We could stop right here and have enough to condemn most of the candidates that are seeking political office. However, the Bible has much more to say about our civil rulers. When giving a clear explanation of the purpose for civil government and its rulers, Paul refers to civil rulers as “a minister of God to you for good.” Civil rulers (i.e. legislators, judges, etc) are ministers. There is an important principle here that we need to understand. We expect a certain quality of character in our ministers. We should expect the same in our civil rulers for they are also ministers of a different jurisdiction. We don’t though. We expect them to cheat, lie, steal, and everything else that is contrary to righteousness. What we ought to expect of them are the same qualifications that the Bible expects of ministers and deacons. We should expect them to be above reproach, temperate, prudent, respectable, dignified, not double-tongued or greedy and so forth. God has a certain standard for men that serve in this ministerial role of civil ruler, however small or large. Notice the qualifications are focused far more on character and worldview than on pedigree or privilege. We should do the same.
While I don’t expect any candidates to remove themselves from any races or even offices, there is one thing we can do. We can start raising the standards on the quality of men we are willing to put in positions of power. We can find those candidates that are qualified and offer them our support. We can dedicate our time, money, and energies to getting these men in office. We can and must have the courage to call out those that have disqualified themselves. We must be willing to call evil, “evil.” We must refuse to vote for the “lesser of two evils” just because they are our friends, in our party, or benefit us the most. We must stop sacrificing our principles on the altar of pragmatism.
This may lead some to the all too common conclusion that “Christians shouldn’t be involved in politics.” This is the wrong conclusion. What we must remember is that light is far more powerful than the darkness. Light overcomes darkness. What we need are more brave men willing to step down into darkness in order to expose it. We must be willing to get our hands dirty and keep our souls clean before God and men.
Preserving Life, Obeying Law
It was several months when I first ventured out into one of the most hostile places in the country. I had no idea what I was in for. I generally do not go seek after confrontation. It was, however, inevitable at this place. It was only a matter of time before I would be challenged on everything I believe. I knew it would not be easy. I knew there would be some opposition to my presence. I had no clue as to how much… or by whom. To be honest, the only reason I was even there was due to some mixture of obligation and peer pressure. That would change very soon. This is an issue that until recently, I confess, I hadn’t thought much about. I am speaking of the ever polemic discussion on abortion. There can be no better example of how one’s worldview matters than at the doors of an abortion center. (I refuse to call them clinics.)
It is to be expected in a culture that hates God for there to be a great chasm between how the unbelievers and Christians will respond to this topic. This is no surprise. We would expect those that have no respect for the Author of life to have very little respect for life itself. There are plenty of these people that frequent the abortuaries around the country. Many hate God. They will tell you so with an evil smirk on their face. They are not the focus of this post. Ours is an examination of the Christian culture. It is introspective. How are we, as Christians, to think about this issue? What are we to do? More importantly, how does the Bible present the issue of abortion? I suspect most Christians are like I was, and think very little about this issue. Now having been involved in this ministry and discussing my experience with many professed Christians, I have noticed some common attitudes towards abortion. Most would agree with me, in principle, that abortion is wrong. They might even agree that abortion is murder. However after I press the issue a bit, I am likely to get a response that will fall into one of two categories.
The first, and most common, response I noticed was the need to allow for exceptions. They would always preface this with an agreement that abortion was wrong. That would be quickly followed by a plea that “we can’t be so firm in all cases.” It is always in the name of compassion. The most common reason for allowing an exception is the case of rape. It seems so uncompassionate and cold to force a rape victim to have her assailant’s child. We, rightly, look at these women who have gone through some traumatic experience with sympathy. We want them to heal quickly. We want them to move past this violation that has been forced upon them. We can’t understand how they can heal with the constant reminder of a child. We feel compassion as to how these children will be raised. This leads us to another common reason for allowing exceptions. We think it is compassionate and wise to consider what kind of childhood the baby would have. We assume that if a mother is considering an abortion, she isn’t ready to be a parent. If she isn’t ready, what kind of mother would she make if she did have the baby? It isn’t fair for the child to grow up in a family that doesn’t want him, is it? We think of all the cases of physical abuse, emotional abuse, poverty, etc. We don’t want to see children live that kind of life, so we allow for exceptions in our own heart. It is the compassionate thing to do, we think. There is one argument for exceptions that doesn’t even have a hint of compassion. It is the case that we should allow for exceptions because the children will probably end up dependant on the state. Since the state can’t afford many more dependants, we need to allow for abortions to save the state and those funding it. This is by far the most offensive reason I have heard. Sadly, I have heard it though.
The second type of response is generally an excuse from being involved. These are the people that agree abortion is murder. They know it is wrong. This is a large majority of the Christian culture. They know it is wrong, but it remains distant. They remain silent. There is no reason for them to get involved because they personally would never have an abortion. They are against it, but it doesn’t really affect them. They think they have done their duty when they voted for a “pro-life” candidate for political office. They stand in support of Crisis Pregnancy Centers. Perhaps they even send them a nice donation once a year. They fool themselves into thinking that they are involved in the fight. I can sympathize with this position. Whatever the reason may be, we provide excuses from being personally involved in any significant way. We vote Republican and assume our duty is over. We may rationalize why we aren’t doing more, but the truth is we don’t want to do any more.
This is the sad state of our Christian culture. We have come to a point where we are so self-centered that we just don’t care about an issue unless it invades our personal life. We stand ready to be bold and make a statement to the world in defense of Chick-fil-A, but too busy to be bothered by the slaughtering of innocent babies. I think it is safe to say, we have blindly wandered down the path to destruction. We have allowed our friends, our culture and, yes, even our pastors to determine what is and what isn’t worth fighting for. They ignore abortion and we don’t mind. If we want to live a life blessed by God, we MUST return to the Bible. We must return to the Law of God. We must examine what God’s Law has to say about abortion.
As it turns out, the Bible has much to say about the issue of abortion. We will only look at four principles that can help guide us. They should help us to start thinking more Biblically. The 1st principle can be found in the Ten Commandments. In Exodus 20:13, we find the sixth commandment,. “You shall not murder.” It seems clear enough. God is against murder. It is wrong to murder according to His standard of righteousness and justice. No Christian I know would advocate in favor of murder, but this only begs the question. Is abortion murder? Thankfully, God gives us examples on how to apply the Sixth Commandment.
“When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”
Here God gives a law covering the case of accidental abortion (murder). A pregnant mother and her baby are unintentionally harmed by a man, who was in the midst of a fight. He is held liable. RJ Rushdoony points out several important implications of this text. “First….the text cites, not a case of deliberate abortion but a case of accidental abortion. If the penalty for even an accidental case is so severe, it is obvious that a deliberately induced abortion is very strongly forbidden. Second, the penalty for even an accidental abortion is death. If a man…unintentionally bumps a pregnant woman and causes her to abort, must suffer the death penalty, how much more so any person who intentionally induces an abortion? Third, even if no injury results to either the mother or the fetus, the man in the case is liable to a fine and, in fact, must be fined. Clearly, the law strongly protects the pregnant woman and her fetus. Fourth, since even a mother bird with eggs or young is covered by law (Deut. 22:6-7), clearly any tampering with the fact of birth is a serious matter: to destroy life is forbidden except where required or permitted by God’s law.” This law makes it clear that to harm an unborn baby is an assault on the baby. Anyone who inflicts such harm is guilty of a crime. They must be punished in proportion to their crime. The Bible is clear that abortion is indeed murder, for the same penalty is required for a case of accidental abortion as that for intentional murder. Both are capital crimes. This is the 2nd principle: abortion is murder.
The first, and most obvious, application of this law is that God’s forbids us to participate in the practice of abortion. He condemns all forms of abortion, even the accident. The Christian who goes to get an abortion does so in rebellion to God and His Word.
The second application is that God expects His people to actively oppose abortion in their midst. In order to understand the full weight and duty of this second application, we must understand a crucial principle for applying God’s Law. It is the two-fold nature of the law. “The proper meaning of the law involves both the negative and the positive application.” Where a sinful act is forbidden, the opposite righteous act is required. For example, God not only gave laws of restriction between the Israelites, but He gave laws requiring an innocent bystander to get involved when he could render aid, even when it meant helping his enemy.
“If you meet your enemy’s ox or his donkey going astray, you shall bring it back to him. If you see the donkey of one who hates you lying down under its burden, you shall refrain from leaving him with it; you shall rescue it with him.”
It was a sin for the Israelite to pretend he didn’t see. He wasn’t given the authority to ignore it. God required that he actively pursue righteousness. In short, he was obligated to help. Jesus reiterated this with the parable of the Good Samaritan. God’s law commands that we not only “not do the negative”, but we must also “do the opposing positive.” This is an important truth that has been lost in our day. Men in the past understood this. Calvin once said that we aren’t “satisfying God’s Law by merely abstaining for doing injury to others. The opposite affirmation is also to be understood; else it would not be… consistent.” Or as the Westminster divines put it in the Westminster Larger Catechism;
“That as, where a duty is commanded, the contrary sin is forbidden; and, where a sin is forbidden, the contrary duty is commanded…”
It is not enough to avoid the sin of abortion. The duty to preserve and defend life is also commanded. This is the 4th principle. We haven’t fulfilled our obligation to the law if haven’t done all that is in our power to protect innocent life. Solomon in the book of Proverbs puts it this way:
“Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter. If you say, ‘Behold, we did not know this,’ does not He who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not He who keeps watch over your soul know it, and will He not repay man according to his work?”
As one pastor notes, “We are commanded to do what is necessary and what is Biblical to “rescue” and “deliver” them from their oppressors. If the civil government or we as citizens, stand by in apathy or fear when the defenseless are being harmed and do nothing, when we can do something, we too are guilty of breaking the 6th Commandment, being accomplices to their oppression and violence. He Who weighs the heart and Who will render to all what is due them on Judgement Day accepts no excuses.”
An understanding of these 4 principles should be enough for us to examine our hearts and see if we are closer to the culture than we are to Biblical law.
1. You shall not murder.
2. Abortion is murder.
3. The Law requires a 2-fold application, forbid the negative and commanded positive.
4. The 6th Commandment requires that we preserve life.
If we want to walk down the blessed path of obedience to God’s law, then we have to ask ourselves some tough questions. What have we personally done to preserve life? Why are we so silent on this issue? Why don’t we care more about this? How are we going to change? I’ll close with one suggestion. Pray about how God wants to use you to preserve life. He does want to. He has commanded it of us. If we are to be blessed we must obey, even if it means being uncomfortable.
Blessed are those whose way is blameless, who walk in the law of the Lord!” Psalm 119:1
 Exodus 21:22-25, ESV
 RJ Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law Vol. 1, p263-264
 Exodus 23:4,5 ESV
 Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law Vol. 1, p219
 Westminster Larger Catechism, Q99, principle 4
 Proverb 24:11-12, ESV
 Morecraft, Authentic Christianity Vol. 4, p640-641