I do not always agree with Doug Wilson, but was impressed by this sermon aimed at the Governor and Legislature of the State of Idaho. My friend Pastor Jeff Durbin commented, “Truly one of the best and most succinct messages I have heard about the unavoidable and necessary element of Christian involvement in political discourse. Unless issues of morality can be separated from ‘State’ we have an obligation to proclaim the truth of God into current political discourse. Abortion is murder and that is why we tell ‘Caesar’: No. Obamacare is theft, injustice, and unwise – that is why we tell the ‘State’: No.”

Its clear that no one who believes the Bible (a Christian), the Torah (a Jew) or the Quran (a Muslim) can ever participate in the current administration’s Presidential inauguration. Dr. Al Mohler says it very well here.

At a Ligonier Conference earlier this year, Robert Godfrey, and Sinclair Ferguson answered the question, “Is it a sin for a Christian to vote for a Mormon or a Roman Catholic for President of the United States?”

Is it a Sin to Vote for a Mormon or Roman Catholic? from Ligonier on Vimeo.

HT: DS

How do the people of the United States of America elect a President?

The answer: Its a bit complicated… (repost)

Primary Elections Explained

How the Electoral College Works

The Trouble with the Electoral College

(Note: “National Service” refers to a program of compulsory military service.)

HT:KDY

Tim Challies reminds us of something very important, especially when it comes to politics and societal change (original source here):

A few years ago I read Paul Chamberlain’s Talking About Good and Bad Without Getting Ugly, a book that proposes ways that Christians can talk about difficult issues—issues like abortion, homosexual marriage, euthanasia—in a pluralistic society. The final chapter is a case study that features William Wilberforce as an example of a man who used his Christian convictions to bring about widespread cultural change. Wilberforce was a driving force behind the abolition of slavery within the British Empire. The results of his efforts are seen and celebrated in Western society to this day.

There was one aspect of his strategy to abolish slavery that I found both a challenge and encouragement. Wilberforce was a realistic man; he knew that the kind of change he longed for required the British people to adopt a whole new mindset and would therefore take time and patience. They had to be led to see that slavery was an afront to the God-given value of human beings. They had to see that the conditions of slavery were an abomination to a nation that claimed to be Christian. They had a lot to learn and such lessons would take time.

Because of the distance the people had to come, Wilberforce was willing to accept incremental improvements. For example, at one point he supported a bill, passed on a trial basis, that would regulate the number of slaves that were permitted to be transported on a single ship. Slaves had previously been laid in rows on benches, chained on their sides with the front of one pressed against the back of the next. This proposed legislation demanded immediate improvements but implictly and explicitly supported the continuance of slavery. Still, Wilberforce saw it as a step in the right direction and for that reason he was willing to support it. Another time he voted for a bill that required plantation owners to register all of their slaves. While this bill also supported slavery, Wilberforce understood that a slave registry would keep plantation owners from adding to their number of slaves by buying them from illegal smugglers.

Wilberforce saw these incremental changes as accomplishing two goals. First, they improved the living and working conditions of slaves. While slavery continued, at least the slaves were afforded a greater amount of dignity, even if it had to be measured in small increments. Second, he believed that affording slaves greater rights set the Empire on a slippery slope. Having acknowledged the humanness of the slaves, people had to admit that slaves were something more than animals. The British Parliament had given approval to bills that Wilberforce knew would eventually but inevitably lead to nothing short of abolition. And of course his beliefs proved to be correct. The incremental changes he lobbied for proved to be the starting point for the eventual abolition of slavery.

Chamberlain points out that this same strategy has been used by those opposed to the dignity of life. Abortion is a prime example. What was first allowed as a concession to protect the physical health of a woman soon became a measure to protect her mental health. Mental health is far less objective than physical health and soon abortion was widespread. From there it was only a small step to societal acceptance.

As I read about Wilberforce I wondered if, put in the position of a parliamentarian, I could support legislation that supported abortion or euthenasia or homosexual marriage, even if that legislation seemed to be a step in the right direction. Would doing this be merely pragmatic? Or would it be sinful to tacitly support something so wrong, even while believing that it would lead to a more biblical end?

Chamberlain suggests that this principle, which we see in the life of Wilberforce, is the hardest to accept. He writes, “In their zeal to achieve a specific goal, whether banning abortion on demand, eliminating poverty or improving labor laws, some today operate with an ‘all or nothing’ mentality. Anything less than accomplishing one’s full goal all at once is viewed as an unacceptable compromise, as giving tacit approval to an unjust practice.”

But I think Chamberlain also helps uncover the solution. We need to be careful, when pondering this kind of a choice, that we do not make a decision based on two alternatives, only one of which is real. Wilberforce knew that he did not have the opportunity to vote for or against slavery. Instead, he was given the opportunity to decide between the status quo and a slight improvement on it. He voted for the improvement. While we might say that in doing so he also voted for slavery, and there may even be some truth to this, the fact is that this vote was not, in reality, for or against slavery. He kept focused on what was immediately attainable, but with his eyes gazing longingly at a future target of complete abolition.

Might we do the same with abortion, euthenasia and the cheapening of marriage? I know of politicians who have refused to vote for incremental change, stating that nothing but the end result would be worth their support. Is it possible that these people missed a golden opportunity to enact at least some level of change that may have proven beneficial? I can’t say and really only God knows for sure. But it is certainly possible that these people were too fixated on the final goal, not realizing that this was simply not attainable. Not yet.

One lesson Chamberlain wants us to learn from Wilberforce’s life is that change, especially change that effects all of society, comes in increments. This is true whether the change is for good or for ill. Those who promote abortion, euthenasia or homosexual marriage seem to realize this and have been effective in their strategy of bringing about change. Perhaps as Christians we have been too focused on the final result and have not been able to know a good thing when we see it.

Not everyone agrees with this approach however. Dr. R. C. Sproul, Jr. responded to this article by writing the following:

To my many pro-life friends – My friend Tim Challies has on his blog written a piece in defense of incrementalism. In the comments section I responded to a commenter, Jefe, who in turn likewise praises said incrementalism with these words- Jefe, What you suggest pro-life folks may need to consider is what we have been doing for decades now. How familiar are you with the faithful labors of your local crisis pregnancy center? Contraception, likewise, has been virtually ubiquitous for decades. You are simply parroting pro-abortion talking points from thirty years ago. Worse still, you just traded the lives of babies. Would you push for legislation that affirms the legitimacy of murdering babies on the weekends, but disallows the murder of babies on weekdays? I’m afraid my friend Tim’s article here unintentionally exposes the folly of both the slavery/abortion equation and incrementalism.

Wilberforce, for all the wonderful ways God used Him, is not our role-model. Jesus is, who tells us to serve the least of these. Jesus left the 99 to rescue the 1. I will not trade a single baby to save millions.

I’d encourage you to take a look at the article, to help you understand how our brothers think on the issue. Tim Challies is an influential man. I am grateful for much that he does, and I do consider him a friend. But this was less than encouraging.

From Fox News: College grads playing the role of lovers scorned by President Obama have scored a smash YouTube hit with a parody of Gotye’s “Somebody That I Used to Know.” The video, which was tracking toward 400,000 hits Friday morning, faithfully covers the original, only under the title, “Obama That I Used to Know.” The clever parody intersperses some of the president’s more soaring lines from the 2008 campaign with laments about the current state of the economy for America’s 20-somethings.

“Now and then I think of that Election Day November,” the song begins. “When you won, I felt so happy I could die.”

Hum along if you know the tune, but it continues: “You can get addicted to a certain kind of message — like this is change we can believe in, yes we can. But college ended had to pay my rent. At least you’re the first gay president. But the change I got is that I moved in with my mother.”

And the chorus: “Because you won and then you cut me off. Now your speeches never soar as high as unemployment. You took ObamaCare so far, but you left me like a dog strapped on Romney’s car.”

Co-creators Justin Monticello and Ryan Newbrough told Fox News they supported the president in 2008, but were reflecting the disillusionment some in their generation are experiencing.

“As the makers of a parody video on YouTube, it’s a little tough to speak to everybody, but I think … it wasn’t unnatural to be kind of attracted to the message that he had,” Monticello said. “And I just think that there are some things he hadn’t delivered on that he promised to do, and that’s why some people are feeling disillusioned.”

Here’s the original video:

Here’s the parody: