A Tale of Two Thieves

As we approached Holy Week, the Lord had been leading me to contemplate the story commonly known as the Thief on the Cross – a short and familiar story found here in Luke 23:39-43.

39 One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!” 40 But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.” 42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” 43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

I wanted to talk a bit about this story. But not simply to look at the story as part of the larger Easter narrative, or even to share some intellectual observations, nor as just a curious observer. No. I want to make the story personal to you and to me.

At this point, you are might be saying to yourself, “Yes, but I am neither a thief, nor am I facing a death sentence,” and in a temporal sense, you would probably be right about that.

But I would argue that one or the other of these two men, and their condition, represent all of us, in our own condition.

As we saw in the text from Luke, the story is not just about one criminal, but actually two criminals or thieves, being crucified, “one on the right and the other on the left” of Christ. The actual word used has been translated as thief, criminal, malefactor, robber, and rebel - even revolutionary.

But whatever their specific crimes, both men had been convicted of a capital crime against the Roman state and faced the most serious known method of punishment. As Matthew (27:44) and Mark (15:32) point out, both men initially mocked Jesus.

The first criminal, sometimes known as the penitent thief, was a witness to all of the humiliation and suffering endured by the one who proclaimed Himself to be the Messiah – and observed that He did not lash out, spew vile curses, act in his own defense... or, if His claims about Himself were true, attempt to save himself by calling down fire and the wrath of heaven upon his persecutors. Having seen this all – this demonic outpouring of injustice on the innocent one hanging next to him – he reached deep within his conscience to recall a long-suppressed fear of God. He came to realize his own depravity and unworthiness in the presence of the Holy Son of God.

At this point, he looks into the face of the Savior, confesses, and begs for mercy.

The tragedy of the second, unrepentant thief is that he experienced everything his compatriot experienced. He even felt the same nails that hung Christ to the cross. He heard Jesus' utterances from the cross, the same as his companion. He had witnessed the exchange between Jesus and first thief. And yet this rebel was unmoved. He was too proud. He refused to humble himself and confess either his own guilt or even Christ's innocence.

He was fatefully willing to march to his death and judgment singing (as popularized by the Frank Sinatra song) “I did it my way.”

This is all the more sad because the Scriptures say it is so simple: If you confess with your mouth “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. - Romans 10:9

But I want to take us back to the initial objection, that defensive objection, that "I am certainly not a criminal worthy of death like these two malefactors were."

Quite honestly, all of us are – or were at one time – just like one or the other of these two men. Criminals, thieves, and rebels against God: Sinners all, as Romans chapter 3, verse 23 says, All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

We are all under the condemnation of our sins against a holy God, but still having the power to humble ourselves, repent, and ask for forgiveness – or more tragically – proudly continue on our path toward the finality of death where we will face judgment and hell.

Our holy God is very generous in his terms for those who wish to be redeemed and reconciled to Him, but He does not negotiate or entertain counter-offers. As it says in John 14:6 : Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

My friend, I urge you then even this day, to consider carefully, judge yourself rightly, and humble yourself necessarily. Choose today to be like this penitent thief.

If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. - John 1:9

 

Like Sodom and Gomorrah - but with Lakes, Rocks, and Cows

With that soothing baritone voice of his and a Santa Claus-like physique, one could easily assume Minnesota DFL Governor Tim Walz was harmless.  And you'd be very wrong.

In an age of hyperbole, even by 'Minnesota nice' standards, it is hardly understatement to say he is a dangerous, tyrannical extremist.  Walz came on the scene in 2018 with a campaign giving lip service to a slogan "One Minnesota", but it didn't take him - or voters - long to realize his radical policies were extremely unpopular in outstate Minnesota and that his base of support was a handful of Democrat stronghold urban counties in the Twin Cities metro, plus Duluth and Rochester. For the most part, suburban and rural areas - the land of "mostly rocks and cows" as he so famously dismissed them - rejected his divisive talk and disastrous policy prescriptions.

Not satisfied with the typical Democrat favorite pet projects, such as expanding the already bloated welfare state, funding pork-barrel spending construction projects, and dumbing down the education system, Walz had his sights set on much more far reaching structural changes, but was held back, by a legislature that his party didn't fully control.  At least until COVID, where we got our first true glimpse of a man acquiring a taste for tyrannical power - a man who would come to be affectionately known to some as 'Timmy the Tyrant'.  Using ambiguous and arcane emergency rules, Walz assumed near marshal law status, by continuing to extend his peacetime emergency powers for well over a year beyond when any true COVID emergency may have possibly existed.

Then came the unthinkable.

Rather than being punished by voters for his divisive, erratic, and downright ineffective leadership during the George Floyd riots, Feeding Our Future scandal, and COVID, Walz was inexplicably swept back into office and given a Democrat majority in both chambers of the legislature to back him.  They quickly conspired to seize on the opportunity for action to turn our charming land of 10,000 lakes into a diabolical landscape of 10,000 boiling cauldrons of corrosive far-left politics.

In a flurry of activity, all hell literally broke loose as the 2023 legislative session began.  Without any effective checks and balances.  Walz and his party wasted no time enacting an agenda that seemed to many of us "rocks and cows" types, too extreme for even Satan himself.

Revealing their top priority - death and destruction - the first bill from both chambers (HF1/SF1) removed virtually all abortion safeguards or restrictions and guaranteed gruesome child-killing for any or no particular reason, up until the moment of birth. Walz only too happily signed it into law.  Keep in mind that was despite denying a charge from his campaign opponent that he supported abortion up to the moment of birth and claiming that he supported maintaining current abortion laws. 1  (The bill followed nicely in the footsteps of his 2022 executive order which gave state sanction to 'abortion tourism' by refusing to cooperate with neighboring states which don't allow the grisly procedures. 2 )

Although I'm not going to take time to outline all the bad and outright evil policies and laws inflicted upon Minnesotans by Governor Walz (expensive carbon-free electricity, felon voting, and illegal alien driver's licenses immediately come to mind), we must mention his most egregious action of all, at least to this point:  Walz's 'Gender Transition' executive order.

Executive order 23-03, signed on Wednesday, March 8, leapfrogs the legislature and effectively transforms Minnesota into a sanctuary state for so-called gender transitions. The order guarantees access - and punishes denial of services - to what they euphemistically call "gender affirming healthcare services." 3  (A writer for Hot Air points out that it even goes to the lengths of protecting non-custodial parents from consequences for kidnapping a child and bringing them to Minnesota for the purposes of receiving such 'services.' 4)

Their deliberately vague and obfuscatory language deserves to be unpacked.  Completely unheard of a decade ago, the term "gender affirming healthcare services", encompasses a range of horrific practices and procedures, of which I hesitate to even mention, such as the administration of cross-sex hormones, powerful and still not fully tested puberty blocking drugs, genital mutilation surgeries, breast removals, and castration of children.  Indeed Dr. Mengele would be proud of this governor and his administration!

A boy insists he is a girl so he can shower with the cheerleaders?  Great!  A girl wants to be a boy, because the other girls in her class are mean to her?  We can make that happen!  Your 2nd grade son says he wants to be a pirate, so they surgically remove an eye from it's socket and give him a patch and amputate half his leg to fit him with a pegleg.  That is doable!  Your kindergarten daughter says she wishes she were a purple polka-dotted unicorn... well you see where this foray into fantasy land goes.

And so, we have Walz's Lt. Governor, Peggy Flanigan, out there publicly insisting that she knows "what it means to be a good parent," emphatically claiming "it is our job as grown-ups to listen and believe" whatever a child may say about who or what they are. 5   For the extremists in charge, it has nothing to do with providing wise guidance and religious direction to children through times of trouble and confusion.  Instead, she insists logic, reason, genetic science, and all that is true must be tossed aside in a dogged pursuit of the lunatic left's cause du jour.

The intent of these things is not to affirm genetic science, X and Y chromosomes, or a reality-based concept of male and female, but rather to obscure them.  This done, not in the name of truth, but in the name of politically motivated theories revolving around gender fluidity - a cause celebre of the far left LGBTQ+ABCXYZ sexual deviancy movement.

Having received both public recognition and government sanction to their unholy unions, and left unsatisfied even by the continuous positive publicity being puffed in the legacy media and pop culture, the sexual deviancy movement continues to progress into evermore sinister areas of depravity such as indoctrination, recruitment, molestation, and even mutilation of children.  In the case of minors, the innocent-sounding term, "gender-affirming care" actually cares nothing about the actual havoc raised in the lives of it's young, confused, or mentally ill victims.  There is a profitable and sexually-charged political agenda to be advanced at their expense.    

In actuality, the result is little more than the official enabling and even celebrating of an untreated mental disorder - in this case, one called gender dysphoria. 

While it may be hard to even fathom this depth of evil by those of us in the land of rocks and cows, it has been adopted wholesale from a political party and it's leader in St. Paul that has a central vision of sexual confusion, immorality, and mutilation.  Sadly, it's portends a legacy of broken lives, destruction, and death that targets children, who will bear the imprint for decades hereafter.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 - https://minnesotareformer.com/briefs/gov-tim-walz-does-not-support-abortion-up-to-the-moment-of-birth-contrary-to-jensen-claim/

2 - https://m.startribune.com/small-devoted-group-at-state-capitol-shares-in-gratitude-for-roe-being-overturned/600185247/

3 - https://alphanews.org/gov-walz-signs-order-making-state-a-sanctuary-for-gender-transitions/

4 - https://hotair.com/david-strom/2023/03/09/minnesota-about-to-become-a-kidnapping-sanctuary-state-n535743 

5 - https://alphanews.org/flanagan-good-parents-believe-kids-when-they-tell-us-who-they-are/

What Kind of King?

The central figure of Christmas – with all due respect to Santa Claus, Rudolph, and Frosty – has been and continues to be Jesus Christ, whose birth is marked by this universally recognized holiday. Both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures of the Bible speak of Him as the King of the Jews, King of Kings, and most importantly, “King of Kings and Lord of Lords”, a phrase magnificently set to music in George Frideric Handel's masterpiece, “Hallelujah Chorus” from the Messiah:

And He shall reign forever and ever
King of kings (Forever and ever)
And He shall reign (Hallelujah! Hallelujah!)
And He shall reign forever and ever
King of kings! and Lord of lords!
King of kings! and Lord of lords!
And He shall reign forever and ever

Let us briefly look at what kind of a King that Jesus was and is:

What kind of circumstances – Earthly princes and kings are born surrounded by the trappings of wealth and privilege, in grandiose palaces of finely cut stone and marble that are erected in the center of the seat of power, but this unassuming king was not born in luxury or attended to by the best midwives and doctors in the land. Rather, He was born in the neglected rural village of Bethlehem (as predicted centuries earlier by the Prophet Micah).

Forced to travel in her 9^th month, for purposes of the Roman census, Mary and Joseph were forced to take shelter in a stable for her to give birth. The young couple even had to use a feeding trough as a bassinet for their baby. This was not the typical king.

Luke 2:6-7 “And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.”

What kind of proclamation – The birth of a king is typically announced with much fanfare to the powerful and the mighty. His presence would be proclaimed to noblemen, princes, and princesses; to commanders, generals, and scholars; to the glitterati and the illuminatti - but not this king. We probably all recall that the first announcement of His birth was to lowly, despised, and unimportant shepherds.

Well... not exactly. You see, while the social status of shepherds suffered due the nature and hardship involved in working continually with outdoor animals, these shepherds were different. The shepherds of Bethlehem were charged with the important task of raising the special animals perfect enough to serve as sacrificial Passover lambs. In fact, it was the kind of dirty job only Mike Rowe could fully appreciate. But it also foreshadowed a somber future for the little king Jesus.

The story continues in the book of Luke:

8 And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.

9 And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.

10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

12 And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,

14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

What kind of ruler – Earthly kings 'Lord it over' their subjects. They busy themselves building cities, commanding armies, and conquering territories, as did Solomon (I Kings 9:15-22). They also erect palaces and monuments to themselves, even demanding godlike worship of themselves, as did Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. (Daniel 3:1-7)

But even though he would have been within his rights to do so, Jesus didn't wield such earthly power or claim an earthly kingship. When directly questioned before Pilate, who was himself a Roman king, Jesus responded thus to the question, “Art thou a king?”:

My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. (John 18:36-37)

Rather, this king asks for voluntary submission and then rules in the hearts of his subjects; and one day, we know not when, He will rule, reign, and restore justice to his creation:

Isaiah 9:6-7 “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever.”

This will be a wonderful day for those counted among His people, and Scripture beckons us to willingly turn and come to Him. The Bible says, now is the time for repentance, “behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.” (I Corinthians 6:2).

My friend, would you turn, repent, and join me and so many others in following Him?

 

 

Which Lives Matter?

I've been asking myself, lately, "Why are we arguing over bumper stickers?"  Given the chaos we live in today, is there really nothing else to direct our energy toward?  And why does the argument irk me so?

So yes, I deliberately waited several weeks before posting this observation, because emotions were so raw, many friends of mine were seemingly stirring this pot, and I wanted to be sure I was attuned to the Holy Spirit on the matter.

We hear one person say, "Black lives matter."  Another answers, "All lives matter!"  One group shouts, "Black lives matter!"  Another demands, "All lives matter!"

But is it really an either/or?  Why can't both be true?

The Bible speaks to this issue and settled the matter 2000 years ago.  In the 3rd chapter of John, verse 16, it is written:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Our lives, regardless of race or ethnicity, are so valuable, that Christ gave His own life so that we might have salvation, if one but asks Him and accepts the free gift He offers us.  That said, in light of the infinite value that God Himself places on all persons, does it not follow that both statements are equally true?  Perhaps Christians need to redirect the conversation.  To what end do we waste any time arguing and cajoling others about who's got the better bumper sticker slogan?

I do wish that were the end of it.  But unfortunately, there is a caveat.

In the politically-charged times we live in, it is difficult - if not impossible - to separate the phrase "Black lives matter" from the political organization that goes by the same name.  Many of the political goals of the organization's founders and its statement of beliefs are antithetical to the Christian worldview to which I espouse.  That in itself is a topic for another day, but I urge you to do your own homework.

The use of this phrase has been transformed into a radical political purity test in many corners - a bridge too far for me.  But, despite the fact that I avoid using the phrase or acronym (BLM), I do recognize that the Scriptures have clearly spoken on the value of each individual life.

So which lives do matter?  In closing I quote the earliest song I have remembrance learning as a toddler, "Red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in His sight.  Jesus loves the little children of the world."

A response to Christianity Today

Yesterday (December 19), Christianity Today's Editor-in chief, Mark Galli launched a bombshell into the midst of the current culture wars, planting his editorial flag firmly on the top of the Democrat's impeachment hill:
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/december-web-only/trump-should-be-removed-from-office.html?fbclid=IwAR0S0-Negk1nbkaIPnSAf4BFlTYt5cXThacnyWzqSoxzGmjFF-o_yl_BeUo

I don't know Mark Galli. As editor of the neo-evangelical publication Christianity Today (CT), I accept the brother's claims that he is a Christian, with but just a twinge of a hesitation. Personally, I had long ago abandoned CT for similar reasons that I don't give credence to Sojourners, Mother Jones, the Atlantic, The New Yorker, Slate, and the New York Times - in that they are all hopelessly and unapologetically leftist in their biases. While others have questioned Galli's motives or point to his longstanding Trump opposition - I prefer to avoid that direction with a brother in Christ. However, given the editorial leanings of his publication, I certainly do question his judgement. And based on his most recent opining, it appears to me that he has been an undiscerning consumer of MSNBC's opinion hosts and the DNC's latest talking points.

So while I do not know Mr. Galli, I do know this:  the claims he made in Friday's shocking editorial are dubious, if not straight up untruthful. For starters, he needs to pull out a copy of Websters and look up the word "unambiguous".  The facts behind the most recent Democrat attempt to undo the results of the 2016 election are anything but "unambiguous", as Galli claims in his piece. In fact, the whole procedure abandoned both past precedent and due process in a blind pursuit of a predetermined and politically motivated outcome. For anyone who actually listened to portions of the Intelligence and Judicuary Committee hearings, the so-called 'unambigueous' impeachment facts are notorious only for their absence. So much so that not one firsthand witness could be found to bolster the extravagant and ever-changing Democrat claims of extortion, bribery, or even quid pro quo.  As a result, their case was left with conjecture, supposition, and opinion based primarily on hearsay, with a sprinkling of liberal law professors thrown in for good measure.

Despite everything President Trump's detractors threw up against the wall, nothing stuck, so to keep things on schedule, they were left to hastily cobble together just two bogus impeachment articles. The disingenuous obstruction of Congress article and a nebulous abuse of power charge - neither of which are actual, specific crimes, much less a high crime or misdeameanor.

Mr. Galli also disingenuously states that the President exhibited "profoundly immoral" motives (motives are something I am deliberately not speculating on in regards to Galli) to "harass and discredit" a political opponent. If Galli did not hear - along with the rest of the nation - the relevant portion of the Ukraine transcript, the Democrat's bribery, extortion, and quid pro quo charges were blown completely out of the water when Trump called their bluff and he publicly released it early on - even before chairman Schiff's show trial's basement hearings could begin.  So much so that they were forced to misrepresent its contents to try to buttress their evidenceless and weak case.  If anything there is "profoundly immoral", I suggest it is Galli's attempts to ascertain the motives of someone he does not know, on a subject he is not well informed, about a situation he is clearly misrepresenting.

Further, Galli seems to conveniently dismiss the fact that the president is duty bound to enforce anti-corruption laws domestically as well as in regards to Ukraine and morally obligated to ensure foreign aid tax monies are not used to line the pockets of corrupt politicians. If those politicians are foreigners, that means cooperating with Ukraine to root it out. And whether those politicians are vice presidents who are intending to run against him - or their flawed sons - they still do not get a grant of immunity.

Further, Galli's political philosophy lacks thoughtful consideration at best, and is utterly hypocritical at worst. We participate in a system where we almost always are presented with a binary choice in selecting our political representaves and president. In essence, since Jesus himself is not on the ticket, every election provides a series of choices between the lesser of two evils.

It is certainly not, as Galli posits, an affront to our creator to choose and support the candidate which best defends our Constitutional liberties to life, property, and freedom to worship (even when that person speaks using biting, sarcastic, and even embarrassingly hurtful language at times). In a display of hyperbolic absurdity, Galli goes even further when he makes the claim that our "loyalty to the Creator of the Ten Commandments" itself is to be questioned if we don't throw in with Pelosi and the Democrats and support the president's removal by any means possible.  Leaving us - I can only presume - the fiendish choice of either risking our very soul by lending support to Trump on the one hand or choosing the diabolical Democrat agenda of partial birth abortion and infanticide, unfettered homosexuality and sexual perversion in our schools, libraries, & society, radical environmental extremism, and the cherry on top of the ice cream - revisionist judges who will rewrite the Constitution to suit the latest whims of the far left.

Additionally, as someone I read has previously pointed out, CT does not hesitate to hold high the noble and remarkable achievements of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, despite his well known moral failings - and rightly so. But yet, it now claims it to be incumbent on today's evangelicals to ignore the unprecedented achievements in the protection of the preborn, religious liberty, and appointment of originalist judges - and instead excoriate and abandon President Trump because of his very similar moral failings. While such a stance might help us gain acceptance in secular socialist and post-modern circles, it will ultimately lead to our own (and countless children's) demise.

Finally, I want to quickly note that in an apparent attempt to give some credence to his ill-thought-out opinion, he several times invokes the name of the founder of his rudderless publication, the Rev. Billy Graham. Huge mistake there! Alas, this tactic almost immediately blew up in his face, when a clearly perturbed Franklin Graham fired back by not only postulating that his father would have been displeased with Galli's words, but also revealing for the first time that his father had actually voted for and had been a silent Trump supporter.  The elder Graham believed "that Donald J. Trump was the man for this hour in history for our nation."

I am very disappointed in the publication which presumptuously calls itself Christianity Today. Opinions are one thing, but facts, they continue to be in short supply these days.

2016 Election eve thoughts - What is a follower of Christ to do?

It was just over a year ago in this very forum that we discussed the unique national mood we faced this election cycle and how we were in the midst of an historic political revolt against the establishment – the best hope in decades for an refreshingly conservative, anti-establishment candidate to assume the presidency.

As I lightheartedly noted at the time, the Democrat’s options were limited to a choice between a communist outsider (Sanders) and a criminal insider (Clinton).  Whether the nomination was honestly obtained or not – as we would come to question thanks to Wikileaks – the Clinton machine ultimately prevailed, Sanders and his supporters dropped their opposition and capitulated, and Democrats proceeded in lockstep to circle their wagons around one of the most dishonest and unprincipled presidential candidates of modern times.

Republicans would not be so easily herded… starting with far more choices from both the establishment and anti-establishment wings of the party.  However, the field eventually narrowed down to just three choices:   Cruz, Kasich, and Trump.  In a tricky anti-establishment year, the flamboyant and controversial Donald Trump was left the last man standing.  While perhaps not a true conservative, nonetheless, Trump’s positions on border security and immigration (illegal and otherwise), the economy, and his approach to international aid, trade and treaties resonated with a constituency that had long been dismissed, if not ignored, by the party.  Those who identify with the Republicans found themselves with the maverick Donald Trump, a highly unconventional candidate, as their standard bearer.

The establishment itself split in their support of Trump, with some of the most duplicitous of them (Mitt Romney comes immediately to mind) publicly refusing to do what they had always told the dutiful conservative voters to do – put our differences behind us and unite behind the eventual nominee.  Their disdain for the rank and file in the party was apparently so great, their elitist sensibilities so offended, their lust for power so threatened by this party outsider, that they preferred a Hillary Clinton presidency over the  anti-establishmentarian, drain the Washington D.C. swamp, Donald Trump.

For the rest of us, this is one of those years where a lot of people will ultimately hold their nose and cast their vote.  Both candidates are flawed, seriously so.  Trump has already been confronted with various inappropriate and explicit comments he had made over the years.   Then late in the campaign, he faced accusations and possible civil suits from several women relating to alleged disgusting sexual misconduct. 

For her part, Clinton has a 30 year history of scandal, including the more recent suspicious non-prosecution of her 109 felony violations of the Foreign Espionage Act for recklessly storing classified documents on an unprotected private server.  In addition, there is the bribery and corruption charges relating to using donations made to The Clinton Family Foundation to buy access and favors from the State Department.  Even if these somehow go away, you can bet that these will not be the last legal issues she will face if elected.  It is highly likely that the historic nature of a Hillary Clinton Presidency would not be that she would be the first woman so elected, but rather that she be the first President facing felony charges while serving in office.

For these and other issues, many Evangelicals have been tempted to sit this one out, to somehow keep themselves unsullied by all this sleaze.  Some cite their conscience, saying they could not possibly vote for anyone with such low morals.  Others want to send some kind of political message to the party, to the government, to the supposed ruling class that we need better candidates.  I will say that these “excuses”, for lack of a better term, all fall short under scrutiny, but for now, I will save the arguing against these specific positions for another time.

The problem is, we are uniquely a self-governing people who have a 200+ year tradition and privilege of selecting our own leaders from among us.  Almost exactly 200 years ago, founding father and the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Jay, wrote “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers.”   He continued that, “it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” (Letter to John Murray (12 October 1816) as published in The Life of John Jay (1833) by William Jay, Vol. 2, p. 376) Unfortunately for us, the candidates who were the most outspoken in their Christian faith did not prevail through the primary process and quite honestly, it is often exceedingly difficult to see much in the way of Christ-likeness in either party’s candidate.  Yet the yoke of such duty remains upon us.

Even though the system has been distorted and abused over time, we still have a long history of free and (for the most part) fair elections.  Although many see the future of Christian’s public participation in society increasingly at risk, we still have the privilege and responsibility to participate in the process.  If we as Christians take a pass on this important election, we engage in dereliction of duty and basically embark in unilateral disarmament allowing those whose ethics and worldview are not informed by Scriptures to determine the direction of our country.

But now, we are down to just two choices – only two candidates have any chance of becoming the next president of the United States. 

So what are we, as Christians who are called to a higher standard, to be in, but not of the world, supposed to do when our choice is essentially limited to two candidates, both morally flawed.  Since we may not personally like either of the choices presented to us, what do we base our decision on?  How are we then to decide?

In one word:  Issues.

Make no mistake, the differences between the two candidates on the issues is absolutely monumental.  And only one of them will lead us and shape the course of the debate.  Only one of two very different views about the proper scope of government and vision for the country’s future ill prevail for the next 4 or possibly 8 years.  One of the two – Trump or Clinton – will be setting the national agenda.

As Bible translator, Theologian, and Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies, Wayne Grudem, recently wrote:

This election is more than a choice between two candidates. Americans are making a choice between two very different political parties, two very different views of government, two very different Supreme Courts, and two very different futures for our country. One of them is much more consistent with biblical teachings than the other.

There are enormous differences between the candidates and the two parties, differences that I still think have great significance. The differences concern not only the Supreme Court but also religious freedom, abortion, gender identity regulations, rebuilding our military, protecting us from radical Islamic terrorism, securing our borders, supporting Israel, reducing taxes and regulations so the economy will grow and create jobs, increasing school choice, reforming health care, allowing wise use of all forms of energy, reducing racial animosities and many other issues. These differences will determine the kind of nation we leave for our children and grandchildren.

This is a link containing Dr. Grudem’s initial comments:  http://townhall.com/columnists/waynegrudem/2016/10/09/trumps-moral-character-and-the-election-n2229846

I especially appreciate Grudem’s perspective, since he clearly struggled with his response(s) toward this election over the course of three articles written for TownHall.com.   It is quite evident that he wrestled over this 'issues versus character' argument.  For the entire article, as well as links to his follow-up thinking by Grudem, click here:  http://townhall.com/columnists/waynegrudem/2016/07/28/why-voting-for-donald-trump-is-a-morally-good-choice-n2199564

There is simply too much at stake to take a pass or register a meaningless protest vote for a candidate equally flawed, but not facing the level of scrutiny applied to the major candidates.  If we refuse to do our part as citizens, to weigh in on the direction of our country, we risk cutting off our nose to spite our face.  We risk losing the freedom to meaningfully speak out in the future.

Grudem continues far more eloquently than do I, writing “If all the Christians in the country decide not to vote for either candidate, our rulers will then be chosen entirely by non-Christians, many of whom will increasingly use the immense power of government to promote evil, silence Christians, and oppose Christian values in every area of life. This is the opposite of what Paul told us to pray for in 1 Timothy 2:2.”

“I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. 3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior” (1 Tim. 2:1-3).

No single factor affecting the issues we face in the coming years so heavily swings the scales in favor of voting for Donald Trump than the Supreme Court.  The High Court has been systematically expanding its own role in our system of government since the 1930’s and with few exceptions, has been expanding the role of the Federal government at the expense of individual and state’s rights.  With the death of the brilliant originalist Justice Antonin Scalia earlier this year, the Supreme Court, and therefore the future of our country hangs in the balance by the appointment of his replacement in the next president’s term.

In fact, given the age and relative health of most of the current justices, many believe the next president will very likely pick 3 or 4 Justices to the High Court.  Those picks will undoubtedly affect the balance of the current court which is at present comprised of 4 liberal judicial activists and 4 moderately conservative and/or originalists justices.  The judges so appointed to the court will likely serve 30 to 40 years and not step down until our grandchildren and great grandchildren are of voting age.

In a follow-up to his original article, after noting the danger of a Clinton appointee replacing Justice Scalia, Grudem confirms my view, noting the far-reaching judicial consequences of having still another Clinton in the White House:

A President Clinton could possibly nominate three or four justices to the Supreme Court, locking in a far left activist judiciary for perhaps 30 or more years. She could also add dozens of activist judges to federal district courts and courts of appeals, the courts where 99% of federal lawsuits are decided. Judicial tyranny of the type we have seen when abortion rights and same-sex marriage were forced on the nation would gain a permanent triumph.

The nation would no longer be ruled by the people and their elected representatives, but by unelected, unaccountable, activist judges who would dictate from the bench about whatever they were pleased to decree. And there would be nothing in our system of government that anyone could do to stop them.

For the entirety of Grudem’s most recent comments, click here:  http://townhall.com/columnists/waynegrudem/2016/10/19/if-you-dont-like-either-candidate-then-vote-for-trumps-policies-n2234187

Grudem continues:

If Trump would appoint a replacement for Scalia from his list of 11, and probably one or two other Supreme Court justices, then we could see a 5-4 or even 6-3 majority of conservative justices on the Supreme Court. The results for the nation would be overwhelmingly good.  Such a Supreme Court would finally return control of the nation to the people and their elected representatives, removing it from dictatorial judges who repeatedly make law from the bench.

Both candidates have told us what kind of judges they would appoint to the courts.  We must seriously ask ourselves, “Would the Constitution, and therefore our country, be best served if Hillary Clinton’s secular left worldview prevails on the Supreme Court, or if Donald Trump’s list of conservative, originalist judges are picked to serve on the Supreme Court?”  “Will the cause of Christ, or even just this nation, best flourish with judges dedicated to studying and discerning the original intent of the text of the Constitution, or by those who hold the Constitutional text in contempt and view the court as but a means to promote secular humanism and socialism by imposing leftist political agendas on an otherwise unwilling population?”

I understand this is not an easy election cycle.

God has in the past and can in the future use flawed, even fatally so, leaders to achieve His ultimate purposes, but according to His grace, we in this country as self-governing citizens, also have a part to play.  But if we refuse to do our part, we must consider carefully if we are we cooperating with or opposing those purposes.

Some of you may agree, others disagree with my conclusion.  Nonetheless, what is at stake is very clear.  Either way, please leave your comments below.

Small thoughts about a big problem

This was going to be a March blog post, then my belated April blog post, and now it is the first day of July.  Essentially, this post has now been in the works - subject to writer's block - since late-March.

Many of you know by now that I spent two weeks in Greece a couple months ago, working with the hordes of refugees and immigrants flooding into Europe through Turkey.  I won't flatter myself by assuming that many of you have been waiting to read a post about my experience, nonetheless, it was always my intention to do so.  I think the problem was, I kept waiting for a grand solution to this immense problem, that exceptionally profound thought to come to me, or at least something deemed worthy of my friends who read my occasional musings.

Since I am still waiting for such profundity to strike me some three months later, I thought I'd just better go ahead and post something anyway.

In late February and early March, I went on a mission trip sponsored by the Mountain Lake Christian and Missionary Alliance church - the church the Niessen family has been attending since the early 80's.  Mom and Dad went there and my brother and I attended until we moved off on our own - so it is what I consider my 'home' church. Our group went out through Greater Europe Missions (GEM) and under the auspices of the Greek Evangelical organization EuroRelief to assist with the ongoing humanitarian work on the Greek island of Lesvos.

For those of you who are interested in a brief update on what led up to the humanitarian crisis, here's a short synopsis.  With the ongoing Syrian civil war enjoined by upwards of a dozen different groups and factions fighting each other, Syrian refugees began to flee war-torn areas and to make their way to Europe.  When Russia joined the effort on behalf of the Syrian government, it only added to the tumult.  The mass migration of refugees snowballed as they were soon joined by Iraqis, Afghans, Pakistanis, Africans, a few Asians (and strangely, even some Cubans) etc. - people who for the most part simply seeking a better life for themselves in Europe. Many of these people made their way to Turkey, following the path of least resistance into Europe by a dangerous, but short, crossing of the narrower parts (2 - 4 miles) of the Mytiline straits - that body of water that separates the Turkish mainland from the Greek island - and arrived en masse to the island of Lesvos.

The problem was, that however kind and generous the Greek people were, a relatively small island such as Lesvos, with a population of around 80,000, simply could not keep up with and provide support for the estimated 500,000 refugees and immigrants (2015 estimate) flooding onto their shores annually.  And it wasn't that much easier for mainland Greece as thousands of people poured into the port of Piraeus in Athens via ferries hoping to make their way north through the countryside toward the Albanian, Macedonian, Bulgarian borders.  You must understand that the overwhelming majority of these people did not wish to remain in economically depressed Greece.  Rather,they preferred the job opportunities - and the promise of generous social welfare benefits - offered by the more economically prosperous countries of the E.U. in northern Europe.

To compound the issue, as the flow of mostly Muslim asylum seekers continued to increase, the countries neighboring the Greek mainland understandably began to shut down their shared borders to maintain some semblance of sanity and sovereignty for their own homelands.  This left Greece to absorb the brunt of the economic impact and to sort out the dealing with the hundreds of thousands of potential asylum seekers and economic immigrants.

At this point, I can safely say that I still don't and probably never will have any of the big geo-political answers I assumed I would when I returned home with firsthand knowledge of the situation.  Some suggest the humane thing is to simply open up the borders and let them in without limits.  Then, I believe it was Ben Carson who suggested the answer is maintaining militarily enforced "safe zones" within Syria - but as long as Russia remains an active participant at the behest of the Bashar al-Assad, such a solution involves grave risks of military confrontation between superpowers.  Still others say simply "send them back to Turkey!" - but that solution presupposes unprecedented cooperation between traditional enemies Greece and Turkey  In addition, from a Christian point of view, that keeps the refugees fleeing the Muslim world largely locked up and outside the reach of Christian Evangelism.  And as to those who say the U.S. and our European allies should open up the gates to any and all... well, we see how well the lack of proper immigration enforcement, sane screening processes, and the lack of cultural assimilation processes has done to Belgium, the U.K, and our own southern border.

So having said all that, since the brightest minds in the world have yet to agree on a solution, I probably needn't feel too bad about not having one either.  I have no false illusions now that there are any easy answers.  Ultimately, war has caused human suffering throughout human history and continues to do so in the 21st century.  The Bible informs us that that will continue until Christ's reign.

Did we make a profound impact toward solving the global crisis?  Certainly not.  But we did help a few people who crossed our paths by meeting their immediate physical needs  And each of us in our own way were able to point some toward Christ - and that is no small thing.  Personally, it was a great to be privileged to serve in Christ's name for those two weeks.  Thank you to all of you who supported me through your prayers and financial support.

The Good News

We live in a world that seems to be dominated by bad news – terrorism, violence, disease, crime, oppression, injustice, perversion, cruelty, incivility, crassness, politics, etc..  It all can become overwhelming at times.  Or, to keep it from getting to us we sometimes just hunker down and tune it all out.

Some have gone so far as to say there is no hope for this world.

The Bible acknowledges the condition of this world without sugar-coating the effects of sin on the created order.  However, in contrast to those who say there is no hope, it provides us the way – a Savior – who is the Good News.  For us self-important moderns caught up in the busyness our own lives, pre-occupied with work, focused on getting ahead financially; it is a refreshingly simple – in fact many would argue that it is too simple.  Yet Christ Himself said we must humble ourselves as little children in order to come into His kingdom.

During this season, take some time to observe a child’s wide-eyed wonder.  Try to enjoy Christmas from the perspective of a child.  And take a little time to read once again that ancient story of Good News that is as relevant as ever for this troubled modern world:

The Gospel of Luke, Chapter 2 (King James Version)

¹  And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.

² (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

³ And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

⁴ And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)

⁵ To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

⁶ And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.

⁷ And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

⁸ And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.

⁹ And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.

¹⁰ And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

¹¹ For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

¹² And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

¹³ And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,

¹⁴ Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

¹⁵ And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us.

¹⁶ And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.

¹⁷ And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child.

¹⁸ And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds.

¹⁹ But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.

²⁰ And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.

²¹ And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called Jesus, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.