David Westerfield

Politics and the Gospel – Part 2

On November 10, 2008

In Christian Culture, Culture, Politics, Theology

After the election, in my own thinking, I have been working through how we as believers are to approach the preaching of the Gospel and politics. Particularly from the Reformed camp, I keep seeing two answers to this (broadly speaking, knowing there are probably more).

One answer is that we can do both Gospel-preaching and be politically active on issues such as abortion or feeding the homeless or whatever your pet issue may be, so long as the political activism does not eclipse the Gospel message. One example of this would be someone like William Wilberforce (mp3 audio biography) who fought to abolish slavery through legislation and eventually won in British Parliament (something I am extremely grateful for).

But the other camp says we should not be politically vocal at all really for the sake of the Gospel, stating that all we need in culture is pure Gospel-preaching and living and the culture will change as the Lord uses that preaching and living as He sees fit to save people and move in the core of their being on these issues. At this point, I’m leaning toward this second response, though I sway back and forth.

During the election, I leaned toward the first answer, that we can do both Gospel preaching and at the same time be publicly involved in the political process on various issues, attempting to convince others, as best we can, of the rightness of it. However, in hind sight, and after having read a blog post by Phil Johnson, as well as this one, I’m second guessing my original stance now. I just have to think to myself, “Did others, especially unbelievers, remember what my political stance was or how great Christ is?” I feel like maybe to my shame it is the former answer.

Now of course, I know that the Gospel should take priority above politics; that is a given. But I’m still navigating through this issue and swaying back and forth on what I should do next time around or even before then. I’ll confess to everyone that sometimes, I got a little bit too excited about the whole thing. I saw through the political nonsense at times, and at other points, I got caught up in the nonsense. At times it distracted me from my pursuit of Christ in prayer, the Word and studying of theology. For this, I was clearly in error.

So how involved should we be in politics as believers, if at all? I pose this question to get ideas from others. I think about Tim Keller (along with Phil Johnson’s comments) and see the amazing fruit of not going after political issues. Through pure Gospel-preaching and living, he has transformed an area of Manhattan that would not otherwise have been possible (i.e., I highly doubt anyone in Manhattan would listen to a rant about abortion, knowing of course at the same time that it is indeed morally wrong, abhorrent and murderous, that regardless, a lot of walls would go up instantly with these hearers).

But then I think about John Piper as one of my heroes of the faith and his vocal stance from the pulpit in clearly proclaiming the evils of abortion. I also think about John the Baptist in telling Herod he was in the wrong and as a result having his head cut off. Standing up for morality can be costly, but the question is, why are you doing it? So I’m really wrestling through this issue at the moment. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Thoughts on the Day After an Historic Election – James White

By David Westerfield

On November 7, 2008

In Apologetics, Christian Culture, Culture, Politics, Theology, Video

Election Results

By David Westerfield

On November 4, 2008

In Politics

R.C. Sproul on Abortion, Voting and Christianity

By David Westerfield

On October 30, 2008

In Christian Culture, Culture, Politics, Theology

“I’m reminded of the work of William Wilberforce in England. You may recall that in debate after debate after debate, and in election after election after election, Wilberforce was soundly and roundly defeated when he sought the abolition of slavery in the British Commonwealth. But if ever there was an exercise in perseverance, it was by Wilberforce. Wilberforce refused to give up. He simply would not walk away from being the conscience of the English nation. And he publicly testified that slavery was wrong and he promised to oppose it as long as he had breath in his body. And finally in the providence of God, Parliament woke up and abolished this unethical practice that was a plague on the English speaking world.

We’ve gone through the same plague in the history of America, and thanks be to God slavery has finally been abolished in America. But I believe that slavery is the second most serious ethical issue that our country has ever faced. From my perspective the number one ethical issue that this nation has ever faced is the issue of abortion. Abortion is not a matter of private choice–not for the Christian who understands anything about the sanctity of life. The first century church made it very clear in their day, explicitly stating that abortion is murder.

I’ve written over 70 books. The book that had the shortest shelf life of all of my books was my book on the case against abortion. I talked to pastor after pastor and sought to understand why they weren’t using this material (for which we also made a video series). They told me, “Well, we agree with it but we can’t do it in our church.” And I said, “Why?” They responded: “It will split the congregation.” And I said, “So be it!” A million and a half unborn babies are slaughtered wantonly in the United States of America every year in the name of women’s rights. If I know anything about the character of God after forty years of study, I know that God hates abortion. And I could never vote for a candidate who supported abortion–even if I agreed with that candidate on every other policy position. If he supported abortion I would not vote for him and I urge you to do the same.

I know that abortion is not the number one issue in this campaign because it has become acceptable. Just like slavery became acceptable. But it cannot be acceptable to ethical people. The people of God have to rise up and say ‘NO’! We are not asking the state to be the church but we must say to the state, “Please be the state. God ordained you to protect, maintain, and preserve the sanctity of life, and you are not doing it.” So that has to be on your mind when you walk into that voting booth.”

Taken from this article: http://www.ligonier.org/blog/2008/10/pr … -text.html

R.C. Sproul on the Redistribution of Wealth, Voting and Christianity

By David Westerfield

On October 30, 2008

In Business, Christian Culture, Culture, Economics, Politics, Theology

“We have an income tax structure today that is inherently unjust. We almost never hear anybody discuss this injustice. But when God set up a system of taxation, He did things differently. God said I’m going to impose a tax on my people and it’s going to be ten percent from everybody: The rich man and the poor man are not going to pay the same amount. The rich man’s going to pay much more than the poor man, but they’re both going to pay the same percentage. They’re both going to have the same responsibility. That way the rich man can’t use his power to exploit the poor man, saying, “I’m going to pay five percent, but you’re going to pay fifty percent.” The rich weren’t allowed to do that. Nor were the poor allowed to say, “We’re going to pay five percent and the rich are going to pay fifty percent because they can afford it.” What that is ladies and gentlemen is the politics of envy that legalizes theft. Anytime you vote a tax on somebody else that is not a tax on yourself, you’re stealing from your brother. And though the whole world does it and though it’s common practice in the United States of America, a Christian shouldn’t be caught dead voting to fill his own pocketbook at the expense of someone else. Isn’t that plain? Isn’t that clear? And until we get some kind of flat tax, we’re going to have a politicized economy, we’re going to have class warfare, and we’re going to have the whole nation’s rule being determined by the rush for economic advantage at the polls. Don’t do it. Even if that means sacrificing some benefit you might receive from the federal government. Don’t ask other people at the point of a gun to give you from their pockets what you don’t have. That’s sin.

It is, of course, the American way. But we Christians should not be involved in that sort of thing. Rather we should be voting for what is right, what is ethical. And our consciences on that score need to be informed by the Word of God, not by our wallets. And so I plead with you: When you enter the voting booth, don’t leave your Christianity in the parking lot. And be bold to speak on these issues, even if it means somebody picks up a rock and throws it in your head. Because it is through tribulation that we enter the Kingdom of God. I pray for you, beloved, and for our nation in these days to come.”

Taken from this excellent article: http://www.ligonier.org/blog/2008/10/pr … -text.html

Hannity Makes Case Against Obama Based Merely on His Experience

By David Westerfield

On October 27, 2008

In Politics, Video

2001 Obama Redistribution of Wealth Commentary

By David Westerfield

On October 27, 2008

In Politics, Video

So what do you think he’s going to do? Has he changed from these radical economic positions? I doubt it.

And get this …

Intolerant Tolerance – Obama Campaign Labels Interviewer “Unprofessional”

By David Westerfield

On October 25, 2008

In Politics, Video

My question is … Then why in the world is a majority of the media free to pound on McCain and Palin in their “unprofessional,” hard-question interviews, that I haven’t heard McCain or Palin complain about doing? McCain went on The View! Come on, Biden. Can’t you handle the questions? You see, the problem is never with the Obama campaign, from their point of view at least, it’s always the other person’s or groups fault. In this case, the Obama campaign deems the questions ridiculous and won’t answer them, when it’s clear they are not trick questions, just straight to the point. And now, in response, they will silence the press from digging in and conducting what I see as a hard-hitting interview. Relativism, in all its forms, is ethically and morally bankrupt and simply cannot sustain its own assertions. This is just one more example of that. Modern liberalism touts freedom of speech and rights and blah blah blah all day long … and then keeps the free press from doing an interview. Amazing.

An Obama spokesperson issued this statement about the interview:

“There’s nothing wrong with tough questions, but reporters have the very important job of sharing the truth with the public — not misleading the American people with false information. Senator Biden handled the interview well; however, the anchor was completely unprofessional. Senator Biden’s wife is not running for elected office, and there are many other stations in the Orlando television market that would gladly conduct a respectful and factual interview with her.”

“This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election.”

“Eddie Van Halen” Shreds it Up

By David Westerfield

On October 24, 2008

In Entertainment, Funny, Music, Video

On the “Bush is Pro-Life and Abortions Have Still Continued” Argument

By David Westerfield

On October 23, 2008

In Christian Culture, Culture, Politics

This line of thought keeps rearing its head on several different fronts, and I’m hearing it more and more from evangelicals who are in favor of Obama. I’m assuming this is supposed to lead me to the conclusion that, “Therefore, as an evangelical, I can now vote for Obama, seeing as how Bush has gotten nothing done on this front.” My question is, “And Obama will, given his radical pro-abortion decisions in the recent past, and his own commitment to sign the Freedom of Choice Act?” This is quite a bit of ambulance-chasing-trial-lawyer-style rationalization to me on the abortion issue, not taking into account the severely immoral nature of what is actually taking place when someone has an abortion, as well as Obama’s own radical positions on the subject, based not only on his words, but his votes while in Illinois. Some seem content to ignore that factual, documented information though.

You see, changing legislation that was ruled by the Supreme Court over 30 years ago is a little more difficult than merely getting a President elected who is pro-life. The President is just one piece of the puzzle; a big piece yes, but not the whole thing, as this argument seems to not take into account.

You have a society who democratically elects officials, and the culture itself needs its mind changed on this issue (and yes the attitudes of many pro-lifers in using ad hominems to try and convince their opponents is appalling and won’t change anyone’s mind). The culture needs to see abortion not as a rights issue but as a right and wrong issue. Rights talk on all kinds of issues is ruining the moral civility of this land.

You also need congressional officials that are decidedly pro-life, who are elected by the people. You also must have court cases that go through the normal court proceedings and get into the hands of the Supreme Court who can then make a decision on the matter.

Then we have Supreme Court justices, some of whom are retiring from their positions in the next few years, two of whom have already been replaced by two conservative justices during Bush’s Presidency.

So here we have the President, Congress, the Supreme Court, and the will of the people that must work together to change the laws on abortion. And to be honest, if people will actually stop for two seconds and look at what Bush has actually done in the past eight years on this issue, they will see he has done a fair amount of work by 1) as mentioned, appointing two conservative justices who are pro-life, and 2) simply not signing bills into law (like the Freedom of Choice Act) that would further expand abortion rights way beyond what they currently are, like a certain Barack Obama will do “first thing” if he is elected (his own words).

There are one and possibly even two Supreme Court slots that will be opening up within the next few years. Who do you think will get appointed if Obama is President, given his record? There is a lot at stake in the next few years on this issue: either a continued back-sliding toward even greater numbers of abortions and other “rights,” or progress made in trying to reverse this cultural slide toward a cesspool of immorality beyond what we can imagine. However, by the time these things are approved, our society will have become greatly calloused to them, just as we are for the most part to abortion. Lord, please have mercy on us.

So please don’t tell me Bush has done nothing on this front. That’s just not true. And yes, electing a pro-life President does matter. However, that’s not all we’re concerned about in the fight against pro-abortion legislation. One man in power for four or eight years can’t change the course of law or people’s minds on the matter necessarily. There are many components to our government and society. It literally will take an act of Congress, and not only that, but an act of the entire government and the society working together, in concert, to get these laws changed.

We really must feel the weight of how depraved abortion is and not stand for it as a fundamental human right anymore. What else will become a right if something as depraved and grotesque as abortion is just a norm in our society? This will simply lead to moral anarchy. We have approved, by law, the blatant murdering of our sons and daughters. If that doesn’t offend you, I don’t know what will. It is the shedding of innocent blood. It is detestable. However, many seem content to just ignore it, not think about it … or in the case of this argument, rationalize and explain it away.

In my estimation, this argument is a cop-out from dealing with the actual issue, putting it on the back burner in the place of other issues that we think are more important. To read a good commentary on this whole subject, check out Mohler’s piece he wrote recently: http://www.almohler.com/blog_read.php?id=2630 .