Some questions have arisen in the course of my recent posts on the responsibility of Christian leaders to know where the central evil in our day resides.
In a recent exchange, I said there are many, many bad Republicans, and no good Democrats. I should have made clear in saying this that I was talking about our options on the ballot, and not about the character of every last person in the electorate.
I also promised one commenter that I needed to develop further why there is a discrepancy between how I treat Christians who support Republicans and Christians who support someone like Obama. It is a difference made necessary by the hypocrisy of the Republican establishment, and the sincerity of the true blues in the back ranks who actually believe the party platform.
If you have two political parties, say, and one of them is formally and overtly dedicated to the proposition that every pregnant woman has a constitutional right to kill her baby, and that people who question this are filled with hate. And say that the other party is formally dedicated to the proposition that this practice of abortion should be outlawed. Suppose further that this second party is riddled with hypocrisy, and a bunch of the leaders would happily join forces with the murderous party if they could. But they cannot afford to show their true colors because they have a heavy constituency that is not hypocritical on this issue at all, and genuinely and sincerely wants to outlaw the killing of babies.
Now it can be morally culpable to believe the pro-life protestations of a hypocrite, but that is not nearly as culpable as supporting a man who says outright that the killing must continue. Obama says, as a matter of he thinks is principle, that a million Americans a year must continue to have their lives sacrificed on the altars of our lusts. Only he calls it rights, not lusts. Millions of evangelical Christians supported him, voted for him, and were grateful to God for his election. Their pastors and leaders who enabled them in this folly and blindness are not fit for their office. When they come to this realization, which they must do, the solution is repentance and turning back to the law of love. Christian leaders who refused to take a stand for the “least of these” are those who have abandoned their posts. “Like a muddied spring or a polluted fountain is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked” (Prov. 25:26, ESV).
Now I grant that the unctuous greasiness of the Republican establishment is a problem. It is a big problem — but it is not the same problem. And the fact that I realize it is a different problem does not make me a Republican shill. This is what I said in the comment thread below.
“On a practical level, I didn’t vote for or support Romney. I voted for McCain because of the energy that I thought Palin would bring to the pro-life issue — which is my screamer issue. I didn’t vote for George W either time. And I was investigated by the Idaho Attorney-General’s office for six months because a complaint had been filed about a comment I made in Credenda about how I would rather be ‘dead in a ditch’ than vote for Dole/Kemp. I don’t remember how I voted with Bush/Qualye the second time, and I think I might have voted for them the first time. I voted for Reagan both times, and am thinking about resuming that practice.”
This means, if I may do the math for you, that in the last five presidential elections, since 1996, I have voted for the Republican presidential candidate once, which comes out to 20% of the time. I am not what you would call a stalwart party member. But I recognize that there are many Republican candidates, on the congressional level, who understand the nature of the national follies that have us by the throat, and many of them also love Jesus. They love Jesus, and vote like it, despite being Republicans. So I rejoice in the 60-70 House members whose presence in that party makes an insurrection — as we have recently witnessed — possible. There is no such possibility in the Democratic party. If there were, I would be cheering them on too.
Most of our politicians, like most of the people generally, are professing Christians. Run a thought experiment then. Suppose that such a professing Christian were a member of your church, and yet they openly supported radically pro-abortion policies. In our church, that politician would be in the middle of a process of church discipline, and conviction would not be hard. All we would have to do is marshal their public statements, and read their policy intentions off their glossy brochures. We would play campaign clips promising to protect a woman’s right to choose the dismemberment of little black children, and then we would play the part that says “I am so-and-so, and I approved this message.” This means that Obama, Biden, Pelosi, et al. would all be excommunicated for approving, applauding, and funding crimes against humanity. They would excommunicated for their high insults to natural affection. They approve it, defend it, pay for it, celebrate it.
If you are the kind of Christian leader who voted for these ghouls, then you are the kind of leader who wouldn’t lift a finger if they started attending your church. You would be kind of honored, actually. Herod shows up at your first service, and you explain to your leadership team later that week that he and Herodias seemed to be deeply in love. You are glad that today was the first day of the rest of their life. If you are this kind of Christian leader, then all I am doing is calling you to repentance. If you don’t know how to remove yourself from a position you are disgracing, then know that the Lord of the church knows how to remove you.
Now put a Republican sleazebucket in your congregation. Every faithful pastor will tell you that it is much harder to deal with someone who will say whatever you want him to. Hypocrisy is a great sin — but it is not the same sin as open wickedness. The hypocrite takes advantage of the fact that a man cannot be convicted except on the testimony of two or three witnesses. And he also can, whenever nailed by two or three witnesses, profess a change of heart. Combine Matthew 18 with Luke 17. What happens to the Matthew 18 process when each time you establish a fault, the person grants it, seeks forgiveness, and promises to be better? So I can imagine an insincere Republican office holder being a member of my church for an extended period of time, and I would categorize him with the perennially angry husbands I have to deal with. He has problems, and he is a problem, but at least he knows enough not to publicly ask for God’s blessings on organizations that specialize in dismembering babies.
Remember that when the Israelites were going along with throwing their babies into the fiery lap of Molech, they were doing so because it was the respected and acceptable thing to do. If you can’t identify that kind of outrage in the moment — as opposed to the outrages of a century ago — you are not qualified to shepherd the people of God.
So I grant to my challengers the point that after we have dealt with the overt ministerial failures — those who voted for the open embrace of evil — we are not done. We have a lot of work remaining. Do not think for a moment that I am satisfied with some kind of generic white bread Republicanism. Not even close.
Think of it as political triage. The fact that I want to deal with what is on fire does not mean that I don’t care about the things that are smoldering. I do have a problem with those firefighters who point to the existence of smoldering things as a compelling reason to not fight the fire.
Hmm! Lucid. Logical. Concise. Easy enough for even a PhD to understand. So then what’s the over/under for how many posts it will take until someone hops on here and accuses you of racism or advancing a hate filled ministry?
Please remind me what Republicans have done to eliminate abortion. Is not their sitting on their hands the same as an admitted supporter of abortion? I’d say they are in the closet. I prefer to at least know what we are dealing with out in the open. Your Church sounds like a real place for weary sinners, NOT.
Amen. There are degrees of wickedness, and recognizing this does not mean ignoring the fact that two different sins are both still sins, while one might miss the mark by a greater latitude than the other. Outright running on the promise to keep the infanticide a flowin’ is even worse than what the Republicans do, which is often playing to pro-life sentiments without the intention of running any political risk incurred toward ending this atrocity.
Doug, the republican party as a whole lost my support and gained my contempt and suspicion when during the first 4 years of Bush’s term, while they controlled the whole of our elected government, they did not use the opportunity to at least attempt to add an amendment to our constitution that protected babies from being butchered at will. They proved themselves all to be hypocrites. Certainly the bloodthirsty members of the democrat party may have successfully filibustered, but people who truly hold convictions do not shirk their responsibility in the face of the possibility of defeat.
Absolutely John. Amen and amen.
“of little black children”?! What is this, just in case the abortion charge doesn’t stick, the really unforgivable sin, racism, can kick in?
Doug, I appreciate that you attempted to respond to the questions I raised. Unfortunately, you changed the issues before you addressed them. The issue is not the hypocrisy vs. outright support of abortion–though I think you missed the argument there as well. All the recent GOP candidates, including the one you voted for, were not simply hypocrites on abortion. They all had a clearly stated position of supporting the continuation of abortion in cases where it wasn’t politically convenient to be pro-life. And the one you voted for clearly stated that if elected he would do just as Obama promised… Read more »
Tim, in case you are unaware the majority of abortion murder committed in this nation is against black babies.
http://www.abort73.com/abortion/abortion_and_race/
Kimberley — the article you linked to says 30-35%, not “a majority.” But if it were 0% or 100%, how is it important to Douglas’ argument? Why did he say it?
For me, this contributes to the furthering of personal discernment on this site. I believe I get where Mitch is coming from. It doesn’t exactly grab my heart to hear a republican politician give lip service with absolutely no intention of making a legitimate difference. We are splitting serious hairs here. Without impugning any contributors, I think actions matter. Watch what they do, not what they say.
As someone who opposes much of right-wing republican ideology (perpetual warmongering, disdain for the most modest environmental protection, the military-industrial NSA machine, corporate welfare, and the naive cart-blanche support of Israel), I must say that my biblical conviction about abortion and how we as bible-believing Christians should oppose it could not have been elucidated any clearer than this. Dr. Wilson, as much as I may not like everything you say, I applaud you here without reservation.
Spurgeon on viewing the zeitgeist then and now: // If confessors, Reformers, martyrs and Covenanters had been indifferent to the name and faith of Jesus, where would have been the churches of today? Must we not play the man as they did? If we do not, are we not censuring our fathers? // It is very pretty, is it not, to read of Luther and his brave deeds? Everybody admires Luther. Yes, yes, but you do not want anyone else to do the same today. When you go to the Zoological Gardens you all admire the bear, but you do… Read more »
I vote in presidential elections, foremost for the unborn, and also as a finger in the dike against the relentless underlying ideology of today’s left that requires it to insists upon abortion. Its progressive root holds that the state, through wise rulers given enough power and resources, can fix societal ills with bold government programs, even if the solutions must be forced on a populace too ignorant and foolish to know what is truly good for them. Somewhere in the early seventies in the Democratic party this progressivism took unto itself the new “morality” of the cultural revolution, adding to… Read more »
To the best of documented information, what is the racial breakdown of abortions?
Robert, from the CDC, as of 2009 (the most recent completed report I could find): Of the reported areas – which include DC, New York (with weird reporting), New York State, and separately NYC (23 areas did not report with information that met the race/etnicity requirements of the CFC. They are: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) <blockqoute> White (non-hispanic) – 37.7% of Total abortions in the 29 reporting areas</blockquote> <blockqoute>Black – 32.5% of Total abortions in the 29 reporting… Read more »
Stupid formatting.
For clarification sake (and partially to come along Doug’s side) there is a big difference between stirring a pot and lifting the lid for everyone to get a whiff.
Tim H, I said what I did about black children because Panned Parenthood was founded with a racial agenda, and black children are disproportionally targeted. It is the affirmative action of death.
Mitch, I am not really changing the subject because this is what I have been talking about all along. But your comments have jogged something that is likely to produce an additional post ere long. On the candidate I voted for, the issue is not finding a candidate with a pure heart. I know that McCain is every bit as bad as you say, and no pretending. I could vote for a libertarian candidate who was not personally pro-life, but who would cut radically off all abortion funding. And if through some weird circumstances, Obama picked a pro-life veep candidate,… Read more »
Well, there’s the answer for those ministers who voted for Obama. “The issue isn’t finding a candidate with a pure heart.” I thought the issue was the qualification of ministers who vote for known evildoers, but since you acknowledge McCain as one and haven’t called for the disqualification of any ministers who who supported him or the other known-evildoing Republicans, I’m still wondering where the evil threshold is that Christians can support.
Mitch, ministers who voted for Obama because that was the best way to overthrow abortion would not be sinning, but would have been making a mistake. But I don’t know of anybody in that category. The others were sinning in such a way as to disqualify them from the ministry.
I don’t think there is any politician in America who publicly “celebrates” abortion, as Mr. Wilson put it. They all claim to be against the act but differ on whether it is a criminal act. The slogan some time ago was “safe, legal … and rare.” I think. Good slogan. Because, although your choice of words insinuates it, abortions are never coerced. It is the mother willingly killing her child. This is a slap to the whole society. An understandable (though not from you) response would be to blame the woman and her doctor and a viable strategy then would be… Read more »
Vishwanath, sorry that this is your perception. But our ministries here have been far more involved in the kind of practical help for such women than we have been on the political side. It would be tedious and unseemly for me to itemize the sorts of things we have been doing, but I could do it if you insisted. In the meantime, please consider whether you have fallen for one of the pro-aborts’ talking points, i.e. that pro-lifers just care about the legislation, and not the people involved. That is a slander that just couldn’t work if once you met… Read more »
Vishwanath, Contrary to what you believe, many, many women are coerced. Not violently dragged to the clinic, of course, but coerced with phrases like, “You will be a terrible mother, you’re not ready.”. “It’s selfish of you to want to keep it, you’re ruining my life/your life/our plans/your career.” “I can’t see us staying together if you keep it.” “There’s no way you can handle this — you have no money, no place to live– what kind of life is that for a baby?” I’m not making these up, and these are the mild, tame ones. You can… Read more »
Mitch, I am dissatisfied and disgusted with the GOP, too, but I have a slightly different perspective on the “fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me” thing. What if we had actually listened to George Washington in his farewell address and not ever established parties? Had that been the case, we would obviously evaluate each candidate individually and not by a party line or by a party’s history of failure. I still vote for some Republicans for this reason. I think a large reason why GOP candidates like those of the last two presidential elections… Read more »
Dear Mr. Wilson, I really would like to get a taste of what programs your church has for the poor. That would cast a whole different light on your blog (my sole source of information about you, barring some screeds by leftwing partisans). I would be particularly interested in how you make your educational methods available to those unable to afford any but free government schooling. Your observation of falling into leftwing talking points is understandable but not really applicable in my case. I find leftists tedious – primarily because of their inability to process arguments contrary to their blinkered view. Your… Read more »
Vishwanath, this is one of our ministries here — http://www.sabbath-house.com/ Nancy and I started our local crisis pregnancy center many years ago — it is now independent and part of the CareNet network. We have personally helped to place children for adoption, and a number of saints in our community have adopted children out of circumstances of distress. At Logos School here in Moscow, we have a whole school bus full of children who attend through funded (and unfunded) scholarships. We work hard to make it happen. We have a community here of truly generous saints, and I am extremely… Read more »
Doug, it sounds to me like Mitch is looking for a simple statement of the standard you are using to support your assertion that some ministers who voted for Obama are disqualified from serving in the ministry, while others who voted for, say, McCain, are not disqualified from ministry.
I know I have heard Pastor Wilson distinguish between those who voted for President Obama the first time and those who voted for him the second time. Accepting the premise that you might have thought Obama’s policies would be different then they turned out to actually be. In this way it would not have been a sin to vote for Obama or McCain the first time and may or may not have been a ministry disqualifying sin to vote for McCain the second time depending on what President McCain’s policies would have been.
Why isn’t it possible for Doug to raise the point that a shepherd of a local church who is so naive or willfully blind or compromised that he continues to support civil rulers who are proud of their pro-abortion stance, that these men are about as useful to the flock as a shepherd who wants to let the lion come into the flock for visiting hours with the lambs? This doesn’t require that Doug be able to answer every single hypothetical or ethically sticky question that people can put conjure, or that Doug be ready to provide on the spot… Read more »
John Barry, thanks. In my original post on this, I made a point of saying that there were other ways for a man to disqualify himself in the voting booth, and I believe that this could be done while voting Republican. I simply wanted to start with the obvious examples — where the politicians avow their support for wickedness.