Our own worst enemy

Abraham Lincoln gave this speech when he was a young lawyer and a representative in the Illinois State Legislature. He considered his time as the inheritor of blessings from the founders, and that those inheritances were being eroded. I included the previous paragraph before the one I bolded (to give a bit of context and introduction) . Certainly, times and military prowess have changed in the nearly two hundred since Lincoln’s speech. Nevertheless, his observations are up-to-date. We are still our own worst enemy.

I am in a strait betwixt two

A political post that will likely be disliked by the majority of readers on either side. In Texas in November, we will make a choice for U. S. Senator, predicted to be either Ken Paxton or James Talarico.

Almost three years ago I wrote the following about Ken Paxton:

The Republican Party platform says, “We affirm God’s biblical design for marriage and sexual behavior between one biological man and one biological woman, which has proven to be the foundation for all great nations in Western civilization” (p. 29). For some members of the Republican party, this may only be a generic plank to show a reason for the opposition to the marriage of people of the same gender. It certainly is and should be that, but it is more than that. It affirms “God’s biblical design for marriage and sexual behavior” – which Attorney General Ken Paxton has flaunted. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God, and we could forgive him for the sin of adultery. However, after this sin he multiplied sin upon sin. Attorney General Paxton lied to his wife, lied to his supporters, lied to Texas, continued to pursue the adultery he promised to put behind him, and used his position as Attorney General of the great State of Texas in his doing so! I do not and cannot trust liars.

Recently, I compiled the following about James Talarico:

As bad, and probably worse, is the religious ignorance—and deliberate misrepresentation—from an oleaginous seminarian aspiring to be a slick politician. James Talarico is a very liberal member of a very liberal PCUSA church in Austin, Texas. He does not accept the inspiration, infallibility, and authority of the Bible. The biblical positions he presents are biblical nonsense (though probably having wide appeal among those who like to pick and choose the parts of the Bible they like and don’t like). Talarico’s bizarre “biblical” claims include: God is nonbinary, there are six biological sexes, transgender men need abortion rights, Jesus was a feminist, Mary was a revolutionary and a poster child for “bodily autonomy” (demonically using the virgin birth to promote murdering babies), the teachings of Jesus do not cover homosexuality or abortion, the Gospel of Thomas was “later omitted from the Bible,” and salvation is not only through Jesus Christ, but all faith traditions lead to salvation (though we Bible believers know Jesus said, “if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins”).[i] James Talarico cloaks his political beliefs in spiritual rhetoric. The problem is that his spiritual rhetoric is of the worst kind, departing from two thousand years of general understanding about what is the orthodox teaching of the churches from Scripture. Over and over again, James Talarico’s views, judged by the Bible, are heretical! Summed up – like others he charges with being Christian nationalists, James Talarico also wants a “Christian nation” – just so long as it implements his version of “Christian.” It is a version of Christianity that many Bible-believing Christians will not recognize. I do not and cannot trust heretics. (And in this case, the religious heretics is also a liar, as can be seen in his attempts to rehabilitate his views for the statewide race.)

Paul said he was in a strait betwixt two – dying to be with Christ or living to serve for Christ. Literally, there were only two options. He would either live or die. However, in the race for the U. S. Senate in November, there actually are more than two options. In addition to Paxton and Talarico, the following people will apparently be on the ballot for U. S. Senator from Texas, November 3, 2026: Ted Brown (Libertarian), David B. Collins (Green Party), Joshua Cain, Ronald Evans, Camencia Ford, Jade Simmons, and Hans Truelson (Independents).

We have no reason to be in a strait betwixt two. There are choices, surely (possibly? hopefully?) at least one of whom would be more in line with Christian values and principles than immoral Paxton or ungodly Talarico. We do not have to choose the lesser of two evils, but rather can chose to vote for someone else. Until we grow a backbone, we will never change. I know the tired old line about only voting for either the Democrat or Republican, because one of them is bound to win. I hate the two-party control system, but that latter assessment is probably right. If so, is it not likely a sign that we are under God’s judgment, if he should raise up one of these two sorry rascals to represent us? Then again, regardless, maybe a rascal representing rascals is absolutely appropriate! Will we believe God, humble ourselves, and repent? The admonition to the people of Israel in 2 Chronicles 7:14 was not only to humble themselves, and pray, but also to seek God’s face, and turn from their wicked ways.

---

[i] I have documented all the statements by Talarico, in context, and will eventually get around to posting a fuller exposure of his heresies. If you want to see it sooner, let me know.

Cottonpickin’ hands

Do not assume you know the conclusion if you do not read the entire post.

The extent of folks rewriting history and “playing the race card” has become a wearisome but regular part of “politics as usual.” When everything is about race, eventually nothing is about race. Enter a discussion between radio host Rich Herrera and Virginia Representative Jen Kiggans about U. S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries inserting himself into a state of Virginia problem. Hakeem Jeffries lives in New York and represents New York in the U. S. House of Representatives. Herrara suggested that if Jeffries wants to be involved in Virigina politics, he should move to Virginia and run for office. He continued, “If not, get your cottonpickin’ hands off of Virginia.” Kiggans agreed with this sentiment.[i]

The condemnation was swift and brutal, with Democrats asserting that Jen Kiggans should “apologize and resign” – for something she did not even say. Elaine Luria sang a high harmony part, claiming, “The racist comments proudly endorsed today by Jen Kiggans warning House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries to ‘Get your cotton-picking hands off of Virginia’ are disgusting and beneath any elected official. I grew up in the South. I know what these racist dog whistles mean.” I did a little checking. Reperesentative Luria did grow up in the South, but that doesn’t make her any kind of expert on this subject. Her age, where she lived, that she attended a private school – and the content of what she said – makes me initially think that she does not know anything about picking cotton (or probably farming in general).

Unfortunately, Kiggans partly bought the lie. After complaining about the Democrats divisive tactics, she said, “The radio host should not have used that language and I do not — and did not — condone it. It was obvious to anyone listening that I was agreeing Hakeem Jeffries should stay out of Virginia.”

There is nothing wrong with “cottonpickin’ hands” and nothing specifically racist about the term “cottonpickin’ hands.” In the particular context, this is political theatre. If there are any racists likely involved – the real racists are the ones who apply their own prejudice in assuming that only black Americans picked cotton.

I expect the people who are most “enraged” by this actually know nothing about picking cotton (and probably could care less). Cotton was the “cash crop” of our Rusk County community. The children of all farming families picked cotton. “Cotton-pickin’ hands” was a common expression.[ii] It had nothing to do with the color of the person whose hands were picking cotton. The origin relies on the state of what the hands looked like after a day of picking cotton (often dirty, cut, and bleeding). It was a common rebuke for children. We were told, “Get your cottonpickin hands out of that,” or “Keep your cottonpickin hands off of that.” This is not to say that no one might or could use it with a racist connotation, but simply to acknowledge the fact that it is not inherently racist. Even if you believe the origins were racist – which requires accepting that prejudice that only black Americans picked cotton – it is still a silly accusation, like claiming the atheist who just told you good-bye has just turned into a theist because the origin of “good-bye” is “God be with you.”

Politicians are gonna politic, and I don’t suppose there is any cure for that! For Christians, I think we can “one another” from two directions.

• On the one hand, don’t “make a man an offender for a word” (Isaiah 29:21). If someone does not mean something offensive, don’t take it as or make it offensive.[iii]
• On the other hand, if a thing that is innocuous and allowable “make my brother to offend” (1 Corinthians 8:13), we can choose to leave it off as a matter of liberty.[iv]

Provoked partisan politicians should not be our examples. Brothers and sisters in Christ working together in love on the two suggestions above will likely come out alright in the end.

---

[i] And so do I. There is far too much outside meddling in the internal politics and policies of states. And it is not just a Democrat problem. Republicans do it too. Additionally, heating this up as a race issue exposes the weak overall position of the opposers of the Virginia Supreme Court ruling.
[ii] “Picking cotton” (as opposed to pulling the bolls) consisted of picking the cotton out of the boll as opposed to pulling the boll off the plant, with sharp hard edges often scraping and cutting the picker’s hands and fingers. “Cottonpickin hands” usually developed some calluses over time. In explaining the terminology, Michael Schwarz wrote, “The slang adjective ‘cottonpickin’ means ‘damned’ or ‘confounded.’ No sane person in 2026 believes that it has anything to do with the enslaved people who harvested the cash crop of the antebellum South.” I think Schwarz makes two mistakes. First, in seeming to accept that only enslaved people picked cotton in the antebellum South. Second, in relying solely on Dictionary.com for his definition. As someone who grew up regularly hearing the expression, and accepting that it is a euphemism, I do not think people necessarily meant “damned” or “confounded.” Probably more often it was considered an intensifier of dirty or defiled. Another colloquial saying derived from cotton-picking culture is “fair to middling” – a quality grading of cotton (middling being the average). This became a general expression for something that was average, sort of okay but not that great – and also for how a person feels. Another more general farm colloquialism meaning roughly the same as “cotton-pickin’ hands” is “pea-pickin hands.”
[iii] “Just because you are offended doesn’t mean that you’ve been wronged,” Keith Foskey
[iv] In this, I mean things that we are at liberty to do or not do (such as eating meat, in the context of 1 Corinthians 8). When it comes to obeying God, we must obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29) – regardless of who might be offended. Let us carefully judge our motives in all things.

Ask your politician

MAYBE YOU CAN USE THIS TODAY!

I ran across a writing by a man named Tyson Zahner. I don’t know him. However, he developed some questions to in order to “tell when a politician is using Scripture faithfully vs. using Jesus to sell you something.” I think the questions are useful. Some of this idea developed out of his hearing Texas candidate James Talarico on the Joe Rogan podcast turning “the incarnation of Christ into a campaign ad for abortion.” (If you have the stomach for it, you can listen to Talarico on Joe Rogan Experience on YouTube. He claimed Mary “gave consent” to God at the Annunciation and that becomes a model for bodily autonomy; i.e. choosing abortion. He also said Jesus never mentioned abortion or homosexuality.) Though this started with Talarico, you can apply the questions to any politician on any side of the aisle (and those straddling the middle). I share Zahner’s questions in my own words (I can understand and hopefully present them better than way) because I think they can be helpful to Christians trying to cut through the noise. Don’t just run with one question alone; all five together will help a pretty clear picture to emerge out of the fog.

1. Is this position consistent with what the Christians have generally held for centuries, or has it just conveniently appeared more recently?

2. Does the position take into account the full counsel of Scripture, or just cherry-pick a verse or two while ignoring the context in which it sits (and the broader context of the whole of inspired Scripture)?

3. Is Scripture used to arrive at a conclusion, or twisted to fit a conclusion already held?

4. Does the argument hold up when applied consistently? For example, someone says, “Jesus never mentioned abortion” as if that settles the issue. So then will he apply that principle and say, “Jesus never mentioned sex trafficking” – and that makes sex trafficking okay. (I think it is easy to see the supposed logic crumbles under its own weight.)

5. Does the presenter of the position invite honest debate, or rather merely throw up Jesus as a shield to shut down disagreement?

Apply those to James Talarico and the answers indicate he is biblically wrong on abortion and homosexuality. Apply those to the positions of John Cornyn, Ken Paxton, Wesley Hunt, and Jasmine Crockett to see what you get. Apply those to Paula White, the President’s leader of the White House Faith Office. Apply them to any and all claiming the Bible approves their brand of politics. Apply them to you and me. Tyson Zahner has created and asked some helpful questions that work across the board.

And...

Just to be clear on Talarico, he is a very liberal Christian who does not accept the inspiration, infallibility, and authority of the Bible. The biblical positions I have heard him present are biblical nonsense.

An extremely troubling politician

A sitting Senator from Virginia has recently stated that he finds it “extremely troubling” for anyone to teach or believe that that our rights come from God rather than from our laws or our government. I find it “extremely troubling” that we have a Senator who finds that “extremely troubling.” The simple fact of the matter is that if our rights come from the government, the government can take away our rights. (If it is theirs to give, it is theirs to take away.) Since our rights proceed from our Creator God, then it becomes the governments duty not to give or take away, but simply protect what God has given.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

God Bless the USA Bible

This post is not a recommendation of the Bible views of Tim Wildsmith. However, his review of the God Bless the USA Bible is timely and interesting because of the political circumstances. The reviews are not political, but rather talk about the binding and print quality of this particular Bible.

An open letter to the Texas Republican Party chairman

I interrupt the regularly scheduled blog post to bring you this important political message. I received no response, and so am posting here as promised.

Dear Chairman Rinaldi,

Our family received a postal mail correspondence from you as a representative of the Republican Party of Texas, stating “The Republican Party of Texas stands with Ken Paxton because he stands with us.”

[Personal information redacted.] Yes, we certainly can argue that Attorney Paxton is better than the Democratic alternative. He has done some good things as Attorney General. However, I am unwilling to settle for the lesser of two evils. Mr. Paxton has shamed the Republican Party of Texas, and brought us into disrepute for our moral inconsistency – saying one thing and doing another. For my part I am not only a fiscal conservative, but a moral conservative as well. The Republican Party of Texas platform is both fiscally and morally conservative.

I think you may be correct that the impeachment process is politically motivated. However, it does not logically follow that this means Ken Paxton should continue in the office of Attorney General. He needs to go. The second-best way for him to go would be for the voters who voted him in to vote him out. The best and less painful way would be for him to go voluntarily, either by resigning or not running again. Neither of these two options seem likely, based on the actions of Mr. Paxton and support of the state Republican Party chairman.

The Party platform says, “We affirm God’s biblical design for marriage and sexual behavior between one biological man and one biological woman, which has proven to be the foundation for all great nations in Western civilization” (p. 29).

For you, perhaps, and for some members of the party, this may only be a generic plank to show a reason for the opposition to the marriage of people of the same gender. It certainly is and should be that, but it is more than that. It affirms “God’s biblical design for marriage and sexual behavior” – which Attorney General Paxton has flaunted. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God, and we could forgive him for the sin of adultery. However, after this sin he multiplied sin upon sin. Attorney General Paxton lied to his wife, lied to his supporters, lied to Texas, continued to pursue the adultery he promised to put behind him, and used his position as Attorney General of the great State of Texas in doing so! I do not and cannot trust liars.

I intend to share this letter as an “open letter” to my church, my Facebook friends, and on my blog. Before doing so, I will give you an opportunity to respond. Is there any reason to believe that these things that Mr. Paxton did (mentioned in the previous paragraph) are not so? I will not support Ken Paxton simply because he is better than the Democratic alternative. He needs to support this plank of the State Party platform by living it. If not, we need a better Republican alternative.

Thanks for reading and considering my opinion. May you have a blessed day.

Facts of the day

Special fact of the day: Kentaji Brown Jackson makes judicial history.       

During the 2020 presidential primary, Joe Biden made a promise (at a debate in February 2020) to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court if he had the opportunity. He has delivered on that promise. On Thursday April 7, 2022, Senators of the United States voted 53-47 to confirm Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Jackson will be the first Black woman ever to sit in this Court.[i] She obviously is well schooled in law. I disagree with her judicial philosophy, which appears to be mainly of the “living Constitution” school where one creates things like the right to abortion that is not dealt with in the Constitution.

Mad fact of the day: the first black woman judge and defining women.

Ketanji Brown Jackson sidestepped a question from Senator Marsha Blackburn about defining what is a woman, with her now infamous “I’m not a biologist” comment.[ii] Despite this, Ketanji Brown Jackson knows that she is a woman. President Joe Biden knows that Ketanji Brown Jackson is a woman. 100 senators know that Ketanji Brown Jackson is a woman. The public who voted for Biden because of this promise knows that Ketanji Brown Jackson is a woman. Yes, even the radical left who pretend they cannot define what a woman is knows that Ketanji Brown Jackson is a woman.

Despite their deafening dissimulation on the definition of a woman, even transgender allies and “trans” women and really know what a woman is. When a man claims he is a woman trapped in a man’s body, what does he usually do? He takes female hormones. He has his male genitalia removed and replaced with simulated female genitalia. He gets augmentation mammoplasty, as well as other surgeries such as facial feminization, chondrolaryngoplasty (to reduce the Adam’s apple), and voice feminization surgery. He wears feminine clothing and changes his name from one that sounds masculine to one that sounds feminine. Bruce Jenner becomes Caitlyn Jenner. Richard Levine becomes Rachel Levine. They say that they do not know what a woman is, yet know how to try to appear like other women. Everybody pretends they are women while calling them “trans” women, a tacit admission that they really are not women.

“A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him, saying, ‘You are mad; you are not like us.’”

---

[i] Both the Executive and Legislative Branches of the the United States have a voice in the composition of the U. S. Supreme Court. The President nominates a person to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. The Senate, by a simple majority, votes to confirm the nominee.
[ii] Senator Marsha Blackburn: “Can you provide a definition for the word woman?” Nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson: “No. I can’t. Not in this context. I’m not a biologist.”

Daylight Savings Time

👎

Daylight Saving debate: Winners — and losers — of ending biannual time changes

“Permanent daylight saving time has been most often supported by chambers of commerce and golf lobbyists, including business groups who want to maximize the hours per day that American consumers spend buying things.”

Florida pusher Marco Rubio claims that there is “strong science behind it that is now showing and making people aware of the harm that clock switching has.” What he does not tell us is that, yes, the science shows that the clock switching is bad. However, what science further shows is that year-round standard time -- not Daylight Savings Time -- is what best aligns with human circadian biology and the natural order of the sun, as well as providing health and safety benefits.

Progressive and Conservative

...in politics and in Christianity

At “The Gospel Coalition,” Trevin Wax, in 3 Surprises from New Research on ‘Progressive’ and ‘Conservative’ Christians, highlights a new book – One Faith No Longer: the Transformation of Christianity in Red and Blue America. The authors are George Yancey and Ashlee Quosigk, published this year (2021) by the New York University Press. Looks very interesting. Here are some excerpts from the book, interspersed with a few comments.

“Based on this research we highlight here that progressive Christians emphasize political values relating to social justice issues as they determine who is part of their in-group; they tend to be less concerned about theological agreement. Conservative Christians, however, do not put strong emphasis on political agreement in order to determine if you are one of them—their major concern is whether you agree with them on core theological points. The bottom line we seek to illuminate in this book is that progressive and conservative Christians use entirely different factors for determining their social identity and moral values.” (page 4)

Yancey and Quosigk “argue that the ways in which these two groups deal with questions of meaning are so different that it is time to regard them as distinct religious groups rather than as subgroups under the same religious umbrella.” (page 4)

“...the divide between theologically progressive and conservative Christians is so great that one can realistically think of them as completely different religious groups.” (page 5)

They begin in the “Introduction” contrasting two sons of prominent Southern Baptist preachers – Franklin Graham (Billy Graham) and Jonathan Merritt (James Merritt). How different Christians construct their social identities “help them to determine whom to include and whom to exclude as part of their social circles.” (page 3)

In their definitions of conservative and progressive Christians, the authors use theological rather than political criteria. Conservative Christians believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and that Jesus is the only way of salvation. Progressive Christians reject the Bible as the inerrant word of God and deny that Jesus is the only way of salvation.

“A substantial part of how progressive Christians identify themselves is by exposing clearly what they are not—namely, conservative Christians.” (page 17)

Because of their approach, progressives easily accept non-Christians (members of diverse religious and non-religious groups such as Muslims and atheists) in their political circles if those non-Christians are politically progressive, while at the same time being very intolerant of conservative Christians!

Political quips and quotes

The posting of quotes by human authors does not constitute agreement with either the quotes or their sources. (I try to confirm the sources that I give, but may miss on occasion; please verify if possible.)

“I don’t approve of political jokes...I’ve seen too many of them get elected.”

“Life is hard, but it’s harder when you’re stupid.” -- Senator John Neely Kennedy, Louisiana

“I don’t know why we have to give money to countries that hate us; looks like they should be able to hate us for free.” -- Senator John Neely Kennedy, Louisiana

“Name three things that don’t hang themselves — Christmas ornaments, drywall, and Jeffrey Epstein.” -- Senator John Neely Kennedy, Louisiana

“There is no credit to being a comedian, when you have the whole Government working for you. All you have to do is report the facts. I don’t even have to exaggerate.” -- Will Rogers

“Instead of politicians, let the monkeys govern the countries; at least they will steal only the bananas!” -- Mehmet Murat ildan

“British politics, as the world knows, is a joke. Yet it’s rarely funny.” -- Steven Patrick Morrissey

“The difference between a politician and a statesman is that a politician thinks about the next election while the statesman think about the next generation.” -- James Freeman Clarke

“Divide and rule, the politician cries; Unite and lead, is watchword of the wise.” -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

“If we can but prevent the government from wasting the labours of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy.” -- Thomas Jefferson

If contempt of Congress is a crime, how will the average American citizen stay out of jail?

The nation’s two-party system

The nation’s (United States) two-party system illustrated by Stephan Pastis in Pearls Before Swine.

Be found faithful

Just read a few days ago: How transactional faith led evangelicals to embrace transactional politics – “Small wonder, then, that some evangelicals just adapted this transactional model of faith to politics: We’ll give you votes if you’ll do what we want. That’s a shrewd enough business proposition.” Wingfield also references Michael Gerson in This is a massive failure of character among Republicans — with evangelicals out in front.

It is well for conservatives, evangelicals, fundamentalists, and biblicists of every stripe to read such articles with humility and an eye to someone seeing either specks or beams in our eyes that we have missed. (And I believe there are some.) Are we following our Lord better and closer than we are following our politics? God, help us to do so.

Nevertheless, I find it ludicrous when liberals write pretending that they think morals matter to them but not to conservatives. Really? Perhaps we Americans have descended into a morass where morals do not really matter that much to either major party – as long as their candidates will hand them the outcome they desire! Should anyone be as stupid as suggesting a vote for a moral third party candidate (or maybe not voting at all), each side of the two-party system rushes in to tell us we are wasting out votes and to vote for their side. Then they ease back into supporting their own immorality while lecturing the other side on morality.

May we who are Christians never muddy our faith and practice to suit political practicalities and priorities. “Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.”

Straight Party

As long as I have been voting, our state’s general elections offered the ability to vote “straight party.”[i] Straight party voting gives voters the option of completing their entire ballot with a single mark – a mark that votes for every candidate running for a specific party (e.g. Democrat, Green, Libertarian, Republican, etc.). This year we did not have that option. In 2017, the Texas state legislature passed HB25, ending the practice of straight party voting – beginning with the 2020 election. Governor Greg Abbott signed a bill into law June 2, 2017.

From the standpoint of politics, straight-party voting in Texas apparently favored the Democrats. At the least, both the Republican and Democratic parties thought so. First, the Republican Party is the majority in Congress and hold the governor’s seat, so they are most responsible for passing the bill. Second, since the Democratic Party sued over the change in March 2020, they must have thought straight-party voting helped their cause.[ii] In September 2020, with less than 3 weeks to the start of early voting, a federal judge blocked Texas from eliminating straight-party voting. Whatever the ins and outs of the suit and its outcome, we did not have straight-party voting on the ballot.

As a practical matter, straight-party voting helps “down-ballot” candidates – candidates whom voters often do not know and might not vote for otherwise. Ideally, the elimination of straight-party voting would force voters to make choices that are more informed on the down-ballot races. More likely, they will make ill-informed choices or just simply not vote for them at all. Straight-party voting may also expedite the voting process, making a quick one-stop experience rather than wading through each selection individually.

As a matter of principle, I do not like straight-party voting. A position is no better than the person who holds it. While party alignment reflects something about principles, voters should give serious thought to the beliefs, experience, and qualifications of each individual candidate. In practice, even if I knew ahead of time that I would be voting for candidates who all belonged to one party, I never chose to vote for the party, but selected each candidate individually.[iii]

Christians who are “all in” for a “straight party” probably are neither careful voters nor careful Christians. Christian culture is created in Christ and is prescribed in the New Testament. Though times change and cultures differ, the Christian culture is unique and exists independently of world cultures. Christian culture is neither Jewish nor Gentile (Romans 10:12, 1 Corinthians 10:32, Colossians 3:11). “Christian politics” is neither Democrat nor Republican, but seeks consistently to follow biblical principles, and will dissent from parties or candidates when they diverge from biblical principles. The culture of gathering believers – which exists outside of and independently from world governments, cultures, and standards – is universal and permanent, having neither command to change nor necessity to conform. We must be “all in” for Jesus Christ and his word.

---

[i] Also known as “straight-ticket” voting. Apparently, most states don’t offer this option. According to one article I read, Texas was one of only eight states that still have straight-party voting. And then there were seven.

[ii] That they waited three years to sue seems suspiciously more like wanting to throw the November 2020 process into a kink.

[iii] Very seldom have I voted for all candidates of one party, and probably in most elections there has been some office for which I did not choose any of the candidates.

A Demon’s Guide to the Election

A Demon’s Guide to the Election: How C.S. Lewis addressed national division

“...we will not serve this moment or any righteous cause well unless we keep certain things straight. We must not confuse the end with means. We must not confuse the King of Heaven and earth with the princes of this world. We must not confuse the potential of politics with the hope of resurrection.”

Why some Christians will vote for Donald Trump

Many people seem to wonder about why some Christians will vote for Donald Trump. If those same people also wonder why some Christians will vote for Joe Biden, their amazement is probably legitimate. If not, it is likely just politics as usual. 

In the linked article, Baptist pastor Kent Brandenburg gives Three Reasons Christians should vote for Trump. Perhaps this will help those who wish to understand.

• If you pray 1 Timothy 2:1-4, you should vote for Donald Trump, since he will defend religious liberty.
• If you sigh and cry over the abomination of abortion, you must vote for Donald Trump.
• If you value free speech and oppose communist Antifa thugs Burning, Looting, and Murdering (BLM), then you must vote for Donald Trump.

Pondering the Implications of the 2020 Election

Contrasting thoughts from John Piper and Wayne Grudem.

John Piper explains why he will not support either presidential candidate on Nov 3rd in Policies, Persons, and Paths to Ruin.

“May I suggest to pastors that in the quietness of your study you do this? Imagine that America collapses. First anarchy, then tyranny — from the right or the left. Imagine that religious freedom is gone. What remains for Christians is fines, prison, exile, and martyrdom. Then ask yourself this: Has my preaching been developing real, radical Christians? Christians who can sing on the scaffold, ‘Let goods and kindred go, This mortal life also; The body they may kill: God’s truth abideth still; His kingdom is forever.’”

Wayne Grudem gives a respectful response to his friend John Piper about voting for Trump.

“As is characteristic of Piper’s personal humility, he allows that ‘you need not be sinning if you weigh matters differently,’ and adds, ‘my way need not be yours.’...Piper’s argument fails to recognize that people can decide not to imitate the sins of a leader, but they cannot do that with laws. Laws require obedience. But millions of people have seen and decided not to imitate Trump’s character flaws. The most frequent comment I hear from Trump supporters is something like, ‘I don’t like his insulting tweets or his personality,  but I’m supporting him anyway because he has brought about good laws and policies.’”

The Ethics of Voting

Some interesting thoughts on politics from Jonathan Leeman, an elder at Cheverly Baptist Church, (currently meeting outdoors in Greenbelt, Maryland) and author of recently posted “The DC Mayor Doesn’t Get to Define Church.” The following is excerpted from “What Makes a Vote Moral or Immoral? The Ethics of Voting.”

“When you vote in a democratic system, you’re actually participating in the role of the “governing authorities” that Paul and Peter describe. Your job is to align your objectives with the purposes which God gives to the government in Scriptures, such as “punish[ing] those who do evil and praise[ing] those who do good” (1 Peter 2:13–14; see also, Gen. 9:5–6; Rom. 13:1–7; etc.).

“Therefore, your vote requires you to make a moral evaluation about what’s good and what’s evil, or wise and unwise (see Prov. 8:15–16), and then to act on behalf of your evaluation. You are morally responsible for this evaluation and act of judgment.

“Suppose then candidate Jack says he believes in positions a, b, c, d, and e, while candidate Jill supports issues l, m, n, o, and p. When I cast a ballot for Jack, I am giving Jack the agency—that is, the power or ability—he needs for turning a, b, c, d, and e into law over and against l, m, n, o, and p. If Jack is elected and succeeds in writing a, b, c, d, and e into law, I become morally culpable for those laws, at least in some measure, by the simple formula of cause and effect with my vote as the first cause. Our votes create the requisite agency. We’re handing Jack or Jill the sword of state…

“Suppose you believe issue e is wicked, yet vote for Jack because you really care about a, b, c, and d. Still, you cannot discount what your vote does. It gives Jack agency to pursue a, b, c, d, and e, and you remain morally responsible for that. There’s no way to absolve yourself of moral responsibility for the one thing you don’t like and to keep it for the four things you do like.”

Pro-Life Neo-Evangelicals raise the White Flag

In the name of “pro-life,” a group of evangelicals has run up the white flag. On their home page they claim to support the sanctity of human life from beginning to end – but cut off the beginning in the race to the end.

As pro-life evangelicals, we disagree with Vice President Biden and the Democratic platform on the issue of abortion. But we believe a biblically shaped commitment to the sanctity of human life compels us to a consistent ethic of life that affirms the sanctity of human life from beginning to end…For these reasons, we believe that on balance, Joe Biden’s policies are more consistent with the biblically shaped ethic of life than those of Donald Trump. Therefore, even as we continue to urge different policies on abortion, we urge evangelicals to elect Joe Biden as president.

They assert, “Poverty, lack of accessible health care services, smoking, racism and climate change are all pro-life issues.” Certainly none of this is unimportant, but surely the vacuity of thought resounds in the insertion of smoking as a problem comparable to abortion. The murdered baby will never have the opportunity to choose to smoke or reject it. The murdered baby will never know wealth or poverty, racism or the lack thereof, or whether climate change is all it is cracked up to be. Accessible health care? Instead, give the babe in the womb accessible death care!

Joe Biden on abortion, at the 2019 Democratic National Committee gala in Atlanta, Georgia, said, “I support Roe. I support a woman’s right to choose under that Constitutional guaranteed provision.” At the New Hampshire Democratic Debate on February 7, 2020, David Muir asked Joe Biden, “Would there be a litmus test on abortion?” (That is, would he only appoint judges who support abortion, Roe v. Wade, etc.) Jo Biden answered, “Yes.” As a senator, Kamala Harris co-sponsored the Women’s Health Protection Act, which would prevent states from enacting certain restrictions on access to abortion. While running for President, Harris promised that she would require that states would have to go through her Justice Department for approval of abortion-related laws. She also co-sponsored the EACH Woman Act, which would undo the Hyde Amendment, an amendment that bans federal funding of abortion. (Harris’s positions are directly aligned with the Democratic Party Platform, which states, “We will repeal the Hyde Amendment, and protect and codify Roe v. Wade.”)

Fellow Christian, your dislike of Trump resonates with me. Disliking Trump does not justify supporting Biden and the pro-death Democrats. Why not fight for better politics, a third party that stands for real Christian values? No, we won’t get there this year. Probably not four years from now either. We won’t ever get there as long as we keep settling for the choice of one of two very poor options!

Fact is, “Pro-Life Evangelicals for Abortion,” er, I mean Biden – if you do not support life in the beginning, you do not support it to the end, because in a Biden/Harris/DNC scenario the beginning is the end.

Notes: In 2019, abortion was the leading cause of death worldwide. It is the leading cause of death in the United States as well (in latest counts, over 600,000 abortions annually per CDC, or 800,000 abortions annually per Guttmacher). Are “Pro-Life Evangelicals for Biden” willing to sacrifice the lives of hundreds of thousands of unborn babies annually, because they prefer the other policies of the Democrats? Apparently so, even though other parties oppose (or at least do not promote) abortion while differing on the best ways to achieve some of the other issues. Republicans also want good health care for all Americans. You may not prefer the way they go about it, but they are not trying to kill us all. Libertarians favor a free market health care system, and are not promoting death. The current administration’s economic policies (at least before the pandemic) promoted prosperity and helped alleviate poverty. President Trump has repeatedly repudiated white supremacy while continually being smeared with it. He promoted and signed into law the First Step Act, reforming criminal justice laws that seem to affect blacks disproportionately. Further, he promoted and signed a bill providing secure funding for Historically Black Colleges and Universities. AND I am not aware of any political party that is promoting cigarette smoking! Ultimately, this so-called “Pro-Life Evangelicals for Biden” movement is likely just another expression of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Like COVID-19, it has many random symptoms.

Strange fact check

Fact check: Popular wolf photo in meme about protective women is actually of 3 male wolves

This seems a strange USA Today fact check. Perhaps they fell prey to a sudden rush of gender acknowledgement. USA Today did not say how they actually made the determination that it was 3 male wolves. Today, with people, you have to ask them how they self-identify in order to make such a determination! However, in the end I decided that this must fall into USA Today’s “See, we told you that every fact check is not about Trump” category.