Between Two Worlds

A Guest Post by Anthony Carter

Anthony Carter is a church planter and lead pastor of East Point Church in East Point, GA. He is the author of On Being Black and Reformed and the editor of Experiencing the Truth. Formerly he blogged at Non Nobis Domine, and currently blogs at East Point Church. He and his wife Adriane have five children.

Forty-five years ago a terrorist bomb ripped through the walls a church in Birmingham, AL, killing four young blacks girls (Denise McNair, Cynthia Wesley, Carole Robertson, and Addie Mae Collins) just getting out of Sunday School. This bomb not only ripped through the church, but it also ripped through the heart of America. It tore a wound in the fabric of our country that has been a long time healing. Since then, laws have been passed, schools have been desegregated, and in 2000 the court system finally brought to justice some of the racist men who were responsible for the demonic act. Yet, our nation still grieved for those little girls because we knew that justice still had not been done and healing could not take place. Redemption for this heinous act has been hard coming – until now. God has taken forty-five years to bring some level of redemption and healing to our hearts. Someone has said that the moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice. God’s redemptive purposes sometimes ripen slowly in our estimation, but they do ripen nonetheless. You see, with the election of Barack Obama, we will soon see two little black girls, Malia and Sasha Obama, running the hallways and playing on the lawn of the White House. Hearts that were broken with the tragic murder of little black girls in a house of worship will be somewhat mended by the playful laughter of two beautiful young black girls in the White House.

Yes, there are other issues to consider. The plague that is abortion in this country still needs to be redeemed. Apparently, God in his wise, sovereign providence has not saw fit to address that issue with the election of Obama. I say, let us continue to labor to see this scourge upon our land come to an end. However, let us not so focus on what God did not do and miss what God did. In a real sense, God has redeemed the lives and legacy of those four little black girls and in doing so brought some redemption and healing to us all. Will we accept it? Will we rejoice in God’s purposes and ways?

Yes, Roe v. Wade needs to be overturned. Abortion clinics need to be closed, boarded up, or turned into houses of refuge. It may take 45 years for this redemption. It has taken 45 years for the painful cries of little black girls to be turned to joyful laughter. Let us rejoice that God has brought this nation a bit of redemption. And let us pray that repentance for the cries of the unborn will soon follow.

Trevin Wax thinks it can, and explains how. May God make it so.

A Guest Post by Francis Beckwith

Francis J. Beckwith (Ph.D. and M.A. in philosophy from Fordham University; M.J.S. from Washington University School of Law in St. Louis) is Professor of Philosophy & Church-Studies at Baylor University. In 2008-09 he is serving on the faculty of the University of Notre Dame as the Mary Ann Remick Senior Visiting Fellow in Notre Dame's Center for Ethics & Culture. He is the author of the highly regarded work, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice (Cambridge University Press, 2007).

The last time the Republicans took a thrashing like this was November 3, 1992, the day of my 32nd birthday. It was the day a young governor from Arkansas, Bill Clinton, defeated another George Bush, and along with his victory he was able to secure sizeable majorities for his party in both houses of Congress. I recall that day vividly. Not only because of the election and the spanking the Republicans received, but also because my parents bought me a birthday cake that the bakery had inscribed on top in frosting, “Happy Birthday, Frank. Love, Bill and Hillary.” I thought the world had ended and that my conservative views would be banished to political Siberia for the rest of my time in this mortal realm. But, alas, the world did not end, for the Gingrich revolution arrived just two years later. It resulted in an historic takeover of Congress by the Republican Party for the first time since the 1950s. In politics, it’s never the end of the world, even if it seems like it.

This is not to say that Senator Barack Obama’s victory, combined with the increased margins in the House and Senate for the party that supports abortion rights, expansion of government, and increased intervention in the economy, will not make it politically difficult for conservative ideas to receive a fair hearing in the halls of power or the mainstream media. But it does mean that conservatives have an opportunity to hone, clarify, and articulate their ideas without the burden of a political leadership that has not only failed to practice them but has failed to intelligently and attractively defend the few conservative ideas they actually retained.

Like many conservatives of my generation (b. 1960), I came of age when there was a vibrancy and excitement for the works of authors such as Bill Buckley, Russell Kirk, Frederick Hayek, Edmund Burke, Adam Smith, Henry Hazlitt, Hadley Arkes, and George Gilder. Our political heroes included Washington, Lincoln, Churchill, Reagan, and Thatcher.

Sadly, this present generation is rarely put in contact with these leading lights and their works. Instead, young conservatives as well as young liberals are tutored almost exclusively by blogs and bombast, by “stars” whose command of the intellectual roots of conservatism is an inch deep and a mile wide. We’ve come from “Don’t immanentize the eschaton” to “Sean, you’re a great American.”

Even though I firmly opposed Senator Barack Obama, and had hoped that Senator John McCain would have won, I felt a deep sense of patriotic pride welling up inside of me when I fully realized that America had in fact elected a black man. So, unlike 1992, I felt relieved rather than depressed. For something great had happened and I was blessed to have witnessed it.

My parents exposed me to the importance of politics and citizenship at an early age. In the mid-1960s, they had my brother James and me watch important political events and speeches. In 1968, when I was 7-years old, I distinctly remember watching and listening to Senator Robert F. Kennedy on the evening he was assassinated in Los Angeles, and seeing my parents cry when his death was announced on our television hours later. Only months earlier, Martin Luther King Jr. had been murdered in Memphis. My parents supported the Civil Rights Movement and were diligent in making sure that my brother and I knew of Dr. King and the tragedy of his death.

As I grew older and began to develop my own political opinions, my parents exhibited a level of tolerance and openness that was exemplary. While my father and I became more conservative in our views over the years, my mother remained a moderate Democrat (as she is today). However, my conservatism, ironically, developed out of my liberalism. I was taught by my parents that one of the roles of government was to protect the “little guy” and to make sure that those not well off should be given a chance to succeed and make a decent living. But in my early twenties I began to notice that self-described liberals had no interest in protecting the littlest guy of all, the unborn, and that they often advanced policies that inhibited economic growth, and thus harmed those who most needed the wealth produced by free markets: the poor and the underprivileged. So, for me, true liberalism is conservative, for it strives to protect and nurture, indeed conserve, those people, institutions, and practices that advance the common good and thus provide a framework for human flourishing.

For conservatives, there is much work to be done. We not only have to be the loyal opposition when bad policies are proposed, we have to present our views respectfully and intelligently. For those of us who are Christians, we have to remember that the City of God is not the City of Man, that the Kingdom of God is established from the inside out and not from the top down. In other words, we cannot immanentize the eschaton.

Having said that, we have a responsibility to love our neighbors as ourselves, which may require that we support and defend policies and positions that we believe advance the common good, and with which some of our fellow citizens surely disagree. For this reason, especially on issues such as marriage and the sanctity of life, we must be artful and thoughtful in our public advocacy, assertive while not being abrasive.

Like so much of life on this side of eternity, politics must be put in perspective. It is not everything, but it is not nothing either. It has its place. For this reason, it is the better part of wisdom to end my brief comments with the oft-quoted, but not often reflected upon, words from the Book of Ecclesiastes:

For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven: a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted; a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; a time to throw away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; a time to seek, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to throw away; a time to tear, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace. (Ecclesiastes 3:1-8)

I asked Scott Klusendorf, President of Life Training Institute, to give his thoughts on how pro-life advocates should respond to yesterday’s election. Scott’s forthcoming book, The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage Culture, will be published by Crossway in March 2009.

JT: Just how bad was this election for pro-lifers? Give us the big picture.

SK: There’s no doubt we’ve experienced a crushing defeat in the current political cycle. The executive and legislative branches of the federal government are now firmly in the hands of those deeply committed to the proposition that an entire class of human beings can be set aside to be killed simply because they are in the way of something we want. In the weeks ahead, even before the inaugural events get underway, we can expect abortion-choicers, along with their allies in the media, to declare the abortion debate over--at least politically.

They have reason to gloat. President-elect Obama, with eager support from a Democrat Congress, can easily deliver on his promises to sign the federal Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), provide federal funding for destructive embryo research (including cloning), stack the federal courts with activist judges, and craft a national health care plan that includes abortion coverage. This is all very bad.

But surrender is not an option. We have work to do.

JT: You’ve said before that FOCA could strangle pro-life efforts for decades to come. Why is it dangerous?

SK: Indeed, there’s no mistaking that FOCA is the most dangerous piece of pro-abortion legislation to date. Obama has said this would be his first objective. In its current form, FOCA creates a federally guaranteed right to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy that goes way beyond Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. Should the federal courts ever reverse or otherwise gut Roe and Doe, FOCA would enshrine abortion rights into law at the legislative level. Parental consent, informed consent, restrictions on tax-funded abortions, and physician conscience laws would be swept away, along with federal and state bans on partial-birth abortion.

JT: Do you think Obama can successfully sell FOCA to the American public?

SK: Yes. He will justify it by telling the nation that abortion is a tragic choice, but laws regulating abortion don’t work. What’s needed are social programs aimed at reducing the underlying causes that lead women to abort in the first place.

The moral logic in play here is baffling. First, if abortion does not unjustly kill an innocent human being, why is Obama worried about reducing it? But if it does unjustly kill a human being, isn’t that good reason to legislate against it? Second, laws which allow—indeed, promote—the killing of unborn human beings are unjust even if no one has abortions. Imagine a candidate who said he was personally opposed to spousal abuse while he had a 100% voting record in favor of men having a right to beat their wives. Suppose he told the public the underlying cause of spousal abuse is psychological, so instead of making it illegal for husbands to beat their wives, the solution is to provide federally funded counseling for men. It’s no stretch to say the voting public would see right through his smokescreen, even if he favored social programs to treat the underlying causes that allegedly contribute to abuse. After all, there are underlying causes for rape, murder, theft, and so on, but that in no way makes it misguided to have laws banning such actions. Moreover, Obama is just plain wrong to say that abortion control laws don’t work. Sure they do. Michael New points out that between 1992 and 2000, many states that passed modest abortion-control legislation saw their abortion rates drop by 21 percent or greater. Meanwhile, Tom McCulsky writes that states with FOCA-style laws saw their abortion rates go up while the national average went down. Nevertheless, Obama is poised to sweep all these pro-life gains away with the stroke of a pen, and the public will buy his explanation.

By the way, Obama won’t be the only one telling pro-lifers to surrender politically. Voices within Christendom will assert that evangelicals have spent too much time on politics, with little to show for it. What’s really needed, so the claim will go, is more time preaching the gospel. Well, I’m all for preaching the gospel, but why should anyone suppose that political efforts aimed at protecting human life detract from the biblical command to go make disciples? Why can’t pro-life Christians do both? Simply put, the answer to a lack of evangelical fervor for the gospel is not to withdraw our political advocacy for the weak and vulnerable; it’s to encourage Christians to do a better job presenting the gospel. We don’t have to stop advocating protections for the innocent to do that. At the same time, it’s unfair to say that because we have not achieved everything we set out to politically accomplish in the last 28 years, we have wasted our time on political distractions. Wilberforce and Lincoln suffered crushing political setbacks before their respective nations finally did away with slavery, yet no one suggests they wasted time that should have been devoted to preaching or evangelizing. Truth is, pro-lifers are simply outnumbered and underpowered. But this in no way justifies political silence in the face of evil, the likes of which we are about to witness at a whole new level. As for the claim evangelicals spend too much time on politics, I say prove it. I think Joe Carter is right:

Contrary to what many secularists claim--and many Christians believe--we evangelicals are not all that politically involved. Sure, like most Americans we talk a lot about politics, especially in an election season. But the claim that we are involved in actual political activities--lobbying, organizing, campaigning, etc.--would be difficult to support with actual evidence.

In short, the true solution to our current political defeat is to equip more pro-lifers to engage the culture, not shrink back in defeat. Quitting now is simply not an option.

JT: Given our political options will be limited in the immediate years ahead, what should Christian leaders do right now to advance the pro-life cause?

SK: Rather than giving up, we should commit ourselves to four vitally important tasks.

1. Christian leaders should purposefully preach and teach a biblical view of human value, and do it often. A few years ago, journalist Michael Kinsley wrote a piece rich in sermon material. Defending destructive research on human embryos, Kinsley wrote that “human life” is a label we confer rather than a biological fact. Embryos, because they lack an immediately exercisable capacity for self-awareness (including thoughts and feelings), need not apply. If your “faith” tells you embryos are human beings, fine. But reason can’t.

Of course, Kinsley’s view results in savage inequality. If “human life” is a label we confer, the majority subjectively defines who’s in and out. And, if humans have value only because of their immediate ability to feel or think, those humans with more thoughts and more feelings have a greater right to life than those with less.

In sharp contrast to Kinsley, the biblical worldview explains human dignity and equality: All humans have value because they bear God’s image (Genesis 1:26, 9:6, James 3:9.) At the same time, the science of embryology establishes that “human life” is not a “label we confer,” but a biological reality we discover. From fertilization forward, the unborn are unquestionably human. Hence, biblical commands against the unjust taking of human life (Exodus 23:7, Proverbs 6:16-19) apply to the unborn as they do other human beings. Like everyone else, they have the image of their creator.

As I’ve said before, pastors should make an additional point from the pulpit. The stem cell debate is not a clash between “faith” on one hand and “science/reason” on the other. It's a clash of metaphysical worldviews: Christian versus secular. Christian bioethics is not opposed to scientific progress provided that progress is tied to moral truths. Chief among those truths is that humans have value (and hence, rights) in virtue of the kind of thing they are, not some function they perform. They may differ in their respective degrees of development, talents, and accomplishments, but they are nonetheless equal because they share a common human nature that bears the image of their creator. Conversely, secular bioethics asserts that humans have value (and hence, rights) not in virtue of the kind of thing they are, but only because of some acquired property like self-awareness or sentience. Because embryos and fetuses cannot immediately exercise these properties, they have no right to life. Both views—Christian and secular—are asking the exact same question: What makes humans valuable in the first place?

Kinsley's secular bioethics grounded in materialism stumbles in telling us why anything has a value and a right to life. If his faith takes him there, fine. But reason can’t.

2. Christian leaders must not only preach about human value; they must equip their people to engage the culture. Theology gives church members a biblical foundation for their pro-life beliefs. Apologetics gives them the tools to take those biblically informed beliefs into the marketplace of ideas.

A basic pro-life case is not hard to teach.

Pro-life advocates contend that elective abortion unjustly takes the life of a defenseless human being. This simplifies the abortion controversy by focusing public attention on just one question: Is the unborn a member of the human family? If so, killing him or her to benefit others is a serious moral wrong. It treats the distinct human being, with his or her own inherent moral worth, as nothing more than a disposable instrument. Conversely, if the unborn are not human, elective abortion requires no further justification.

Pro-life advocates defend their case using science and philosophy. Scientifically, they argue that from the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings. True, they have yet to grow and mature, but they are whole human beings nonetheless. Leading embryology textbooks affirm this. For example, Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud write:

A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm . . . unites with a female gamete or oocyte . . . to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.

Philosophically, there is no morally significant difference between the embryo you once were and the adult you are today. As Stephen Schwarz points out using the acronym SLED, differences of size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency are not relevant in the way that abortion advocates need them to be:

Size: Yes, embryos are smaller than newborns and adults, but why is that relevant? Do we really want to say that large people are more human than small ones? Men are generally larger than women, but that doesn’t mean they deserve more rights. Size doesn’t equal value.

Level of development: True, embryos and fetuses are less developed than you and me. But again, why is this relevant? Four-year-old girls are less developed than fourteen-year-old ones. Should older children have more rights than their younger siblings? Some people say that self-awareness makes one human. But if that is true, newborns do not qualify as valuable human beings. Remember: Six-week old infants lack the immediate capacity for performing human mental functions, as do the reversibly comatose, the sleeping, and those with Alzheimer’s Disease.

Environment: Where you are has no bearing on who you are. Does your value change when you cross the street or roll over in bed? If not, how can a journey of eight inches down the birth canal suddenly change the essential nature of the unborn from non-human to human? If the unborn are not already human, merely changing their location can’t make them valuable.

Degree of Dependency: If viability makes us valuable human beings, then all those who depend on insulin or kidney medication are not valuable and we may kill them. Conjoined twins who share blood type and bodily systems also have no right to life.

In short, pro-life advocates contend that although humans differ immensely with respect to talents, accomplishments, and degrees of development, they are nonetheless equal because they share a common human nature.

Every student in the church youth group and at our local Christians schools should know how to make that basic scientific and philosophic case. Sadly, we’re no where close to making that reality. I speak in Protestant and Catholic high schools all over the United States. Over and over again, students tell me they’ve never heard a pro-life talk like mine. At each place, I speak students see pictures depicting abortion and hear a compelling case for the pro-life view. Gatekeepers such as teachers and administrators worry the kids can’t handle abortion-related content, but the gatekeepers are wrong. I’m often told by students, “Gee, I finally know how to defend what I believe. Thank you!”

3. Pro-life Christians must hold their churches and parachurch organizations to account. I rarely--very rarely, in fact--say critical things about the church. My preference is to equip Christian leaders rather than criticize them. Yet there’s no escaping the fact that if you talk to any pro-life group reaching out to students, you'll soon learn it's now axiomatic that with rare exception, campus fellowship groups want nothing to do with the pro-life movement. Generally speaking, they are too afraid they might turn people off if they get involved saving innocent human lives.

Well, leading up to my recent debate with Nadine Strossen (President of the ACLU) at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, the response of Christians to the abortion controversy did in fact turn-off at least one non-Christian, but not for reasons campus fellowship groups might expect. One of the students responsible for organizing the debate expressed her dismay that Campus Crusade would not attend the event or get behind promoting it with its members.

She asked me directly why I thought that was so. She thought for sure the Christians would show up, and she was puzzled that they didn't. Their refusal to get involved turned her off.

I didn't know what to tell her. Perhaps CC had good reasons for not attending and I hold out hope it did, though it's hard for me to imagine what those reasons might be.

As Joe Carter has suggested, one reason for the church's non-involvement is that evangelical leaders by and large aren't all that troubled by abortion. It's simply not a priority for them. It never has been. That won’t change, unless pro-life lay persons turn up the heat on Christian leaders.

Sadly, these same leaders have it all wrong. My own experience suggests that far from turning people off, a persuasive pro-life case, graciously communicated, suggests to non-believers that maybe, just maybe, the Christian worldview has something relevant to say to the key issues of our day. But when we fail to even put in an appearance at key debates, the message to non-Christians is that we simply don't care about the big stuff. And then we bemoan the fact that few people take us seriously.

Wasn't it Woody Allen who once said that "eighty percent of success is just showing up"?

4. Pro-life Christians must recruit more full-time apologists. Gregg Cunningham of the Center for Bioethical Reform once said:

There are more people working full-time to kill babies than there are working full-time to save them. That’s because killing babies is very profitable while saving them is very costly. So costly, that large numbers of Americans who say they oppose abortion are not lifting a finger to stop it. And those that do lift a finger to stop it do just enough to salve the conscience but not enough to stop the killing.

That’s a stunning indictment of our movement, and it’s easy to think, “That’s not me.” But like it or not, I can’t dispute Gregg’s point: We simply don’t have enough full-time pro-life workers, and unless we get serious about finding them our movement will remain a part-time volunteer movement incapable of taking on the heavily funded professionals from Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, the Democratic Party, and other groups who are paid handsomely to defend killing human embryos and fetuses. Churches have no problem recruiting missionaries for overseas adventures and that’s a good thing. Why not also recruit young people from our churches to study law and seek political office while others are encouraged to seek careers in pro-life apologetics. (Biola University and Trinity International University provide graduate level training in Christian apologetics and bioethics.)

Anyone who thinks we’ll never find qualified young people is mistaken. Ten years ago, an energetic Canadian college student approached me at the end of a pro-life training symposium I led in Toronto. “When I grow up, I want your job. I want to be your clone.” I was glad for her enthusiasm but had no idea just how serious she was. When she returned to the University of British Columbia (UBC), this eighteen-year-old freshman helped reorganize the campus pro-life group and in November of 1999, she and other pro-life students set up a display at UBC depicting the truth about abortion. These young pro-lifers were hardly extremists, and nothing they did was illegal. They were sensitive to set up warning signs about the graphic abortion photos on the main walkways. They offered a toll-free telephone number to students facing a crisis pregnancy. They never shouted at anyone. They patiently stood by the signs and gave solid answers to tough pro-abortion questions. In short, they were gracious witnesses against the evil of abortion. Nonetheless, their on-campus display was viciously attacked and torn down by three pro-abortion students (so much for pro-choice “tolerance”). The entire attack was caught on video. Shockingly, the Crown refused to bring criminal charges against the attackers, one of which was a Student Council Representative. Undaunted, the pro-life students led by Stephanie Gray—the student I met in Toronto—sued for damages. They also raised money to replace the destroyed signs. (The signs are large and expensive.) A short time later, the display went back up. As a result of their careful planning and courteous demeanor, large numbers of students witnessed the display and the event grabbed headlines in several Canadian publications. Upon Graduation, Stephanie launched (along with Jo Jo Ruba) The Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform and has since spoken at many post-secondary institutions such as the University of Toronto, York University, the University of Calgary, Johns Hopkins University, and George Washington University. Stephanie has debated leading abortion-choice advocates such as Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, and Dr. Jan Narveson, Philosophy professor and recipient of the Order of Canada. Oh, and did I mention she raised all her own funding to do it?

That’s exactly what we need: courageous pro-life students with tough minds and tender hearts who are groomed to be leaders.

And we must equip them to engage no matter who is in the White House.

A Guest Post by Randy Alcorn

Randy Alcorn is the founder and director of Eternal Perspective Ministries (EPM) and blogs at randyalcorn.blogspot.com. Randy is the best-selling author of over 30 books, including Heaven and The Treasure Principle, seven novels and three children’s books. The father of two married daughters, Karina and Angela, Randy lives in Gresham, Oregon, with his wife and best friend, Nanci. They are the proud grandparents of four grandsons.

The election is over. Followers of Christ, regardless of who they advocated and voted for, should pray wholeheartedly for our new president and his administration, as Scripture instructs us in First Timothy 2:1-4:

I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone—for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

1. Thoughts about Voting

Voting isn’t something you do every year or two. We cast multiple votes each day. We cast votes for heaven or hell, for grace or truth. For self-control or self-indulgence. For the Spirit or the Flesh. For abiding in Christ, or independence from Christ. For wisdom or foolishness, and for blessing or curse.

Every decision we make, every action we take—and the heart attitude with which we conduct our lives—casts a vote for one kingdom or another. Every vote counts. God tallies them. Eternity will be affected by them.

You can still talk to parents and kids in your neighborhood about the value of unborn children, and offer support and help as needed. You can go to city streets and homeless shelters and offer your service. Your ballot may not have made a difference, but your vote to love your neighbor will. God won’t overlook it, as He won’t overlook a single cup of water given to little ones in His name.

Our next chance to vote is right here and right now, whether we spend time with God, pray for His help, read His Word, serve our family, help the poor, give to help the dying and needy in the Sudan, entertain this thought, speak these words, watch this television program, or click on this internet site.

The key to change and influence in this world is not, and never has been, politics. It is faithfulness to Jesus. In the end, which will never end, acts of faithfulness—many of them quiet, some seen only by God—are the votes that will count, bringing the eternal results that will matter. “For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do” (Ephesians 2:10).

2. The Promises of God as We Look to the Future

Circumstances change: “Do not boast about tomorrow, for you do not know what a day may bring forth.” (Proverbs 27:1)
Our Savior does not change: “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.” (Hebrews 13:8)

Only by trusting in Christ and His promise of the world to come can we find peace:

Trust God; don't worry; be at peace. Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. . . . Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid. (John 14:1-3, 27)

No matter what direction our earthly country may be going, it is our never-ending heavenly country that we should represent:

All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth. People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them. (Hebrews 11:13-16)

America may or may not unravel in coming decades, but God’s kingdom certainly won’t. People of the world don't need America; they need Jesus. While living in the wreckage of this sin-stained earth, let’s realize the world's main problem is that it's inhabited by people like us, sinners in need of redemption. These thirsty people need us to reach out our hands and extend to them, as cold water, the love of Jesus.

As Romans 8 tells us, this world under the curse groans as in the pains of childbirth, awaiting our Redeemer and our resurrection, on the coattails of which it too will rise.

3. Final Thoughts about Abortion

This election, like all those before it, did not end the abortion discussion, any more than American elections in the nineteenth century ended the discussion of whether Africans were fully human and deserving of civil rights. The real issue was hidden under the words, and it was far bigger than those who supported and opposed it.

The election is over. But the righteous cause of the unborn is not over. The indictment against people who shed innocent blood is not over. The command of God is not over: “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves; defend the rights of the poor and needy” (Proverbs 31:8-9).

You and I can each defend ourselves in this national debate. The children can’t. We are the only voice they have.

Who is more poor and needy, more incapable of speaking up for themselves than these unborn children, created in the image of God? Who in our country has been stripped of legal protection and is being killed at the rate of over one million per year? There are many other issues, of course, but what issue is more important and horrific than the killing of children? And who will speak up for them if not us?

Candidates and elections and presidents will come and go, but this issue will not leave us as long as we live. And we will surely face it, when all is said and done, at the judgment seat of Christ. May we not wait until then to discover how serious it really is.

What can we do about it? Be encouraged that the most direct and personal ways we can help unborn children and their mothers are still fully available to us. See Fifty Ways to Help Unborn Children and Their Mothers.

My entire small book Why Prolife? is online in PDF form. It’s downloadable at no charge, and we sell the physical book for $3.00 per copy (its retail price was 11.99 until we got the publishing rights ourselves), and offer even larger discounted price when you buy more than one copy. It’s endorsed by Democrats for Life, Feminists for Life, a rabbi, and a priest, and an actress, among others. Feel free to use it, or portions of it, however you wish.

All of us can speak up, in conversations, in online forums and elsewhere. I’ve responded recently online to Christians who have been defending the pro-legal-abortion position. (I’ve been struck with what a poor job we as Christian leaders have done instructing the body of Christ in the biblical worldview and the doctrine of human life, from its earliest stages, as created by God.) Here are some of the brief portions in Why Prolife? that I’ve shared with them when they raised each of these issues below, using the standard prochoice rhetoric (feel free to copy and paste and use them and other portions of the book wherever you wish):

• Pro-Woman or Pro-Child? (The myth that we must be one or the other, not both)
• Personally Opposed to Abortion, but Pro-Choice?
• Is the Unborn Part of a Woman’s Body?
• Is Abortion Really a Woman’s Rights Issue?
• Do We Have a Right to Choose What We Do With Our Bodies?
• Does Abortion Harm a Woman’s Physical and Mental Health?

I confess that for the last few weeks I could hardly wait for this election to be over. But I especially can’t wait for our Lord to bring to us a New Earth, without war, racism, and hatred, without lies, suffering, evil, holocausts, the exploitation of women, and the killing of children. Justice and love are surely coming. May we be already be on their side before they arrive:
Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away. He who was seated on the throne said, "I am making everything new!" (Revelation 21:3-5).

A Guest Post by Eric C. Redmond

Eric C. Redmond is the author of Where Are All the Brothers? Straight Answers to Men's Questions About the Church (Crossway, 2008). He most recently served as the 2007-2008 Second Vice-President of the Southern Baptist Convention. He has previously posted other thoughts on the election at his blog, A Man from Issachar. He and his wife, Pamela, are adoptive parents who have five children in their home and two children in heaven.

Let us then continue to honor the good appointment of God, which may be easily done, provided we impute to ourselves whatever evil may accompany it. Hence he teaches us here the end for which magistrates are instituted by the Lord; the happy effects of which would always appear, were not so noble and salutary an institution marred through our fault. At the same time, princes do never so far abuse their power, by harassing the good and innocent, that they do not retain in their tyranny some kind of just government: there can then be no tyranny which does not in some respects assist in consolidating the society of men.
John Calvin, commentary on Romans 13:3.

A Note of Thanks

First, allow me to express my thanks to Justin for inviting me to contribute to his blog on the day after what might go down in history as the most significant Presidential election in the United States in our lifetime. I have found Justin to be a kind and discerning brother, for whom I give many thanks. I also am grateful for his passion for demonstrating the mercy of Christ to the unborn and the orphan—a passion we share in experience.

My Post-Obama-Election Dilemma

I am not and never have been a fan of John McCain, his proposed policies, his inconsistent record on many issues, his poor choice for a running mate, his thoughtless economic plan, or of his very negative campaigning against Barak Obama. It was hard for me to bear the thought of voting for him. It was equally hard for me to bear the thought of siding with a campaign for "change" that would passively allow each state to choose whether it would change the definition and legal institution of marriage, and that would not actively seek to change (read "work for the overturning of") Roe. v. Wade. For me, neither candidate represented change or progress for the country, except on the issue of the country's readiness to be led by a candidate of color.
How I wish that the first time there was a probable opportunity for an African American candidate to reach the White House I could have cast my vote for such a candidate without any reservation. However, I am pro-life, and President-Elect Obama is the most anti-life senator to come to power in my lifetime. I also am pro-conservative justices (who limit legislating from the bench). I am pro-marriage— that is, pro-heterosexual marriage. In the end, I could not overlook these issues as I approached Election Day. But the temptation to justify voting for Obama was strong, for I did not want to be against the side of history—of an African American finally making it to the Oval Office.

However, if I have not learned anything else from the recent happenings at my (soon to be former) church, it is these two things: First, it is not virtuous to side with the majority because one does not wish to stand out among friends, or because one is unwilling to examine all information on an issue, or because one wants to dispense dislikes toward current leadership, in spite of righteous reasons to vote against the majority—in fact, under some circumstances, it can be a horrendous evil. Second, even if one is seeking to be consistent in humility and holiness individually, to abstain from voting on any matter is to allow the majority to speak for you. That same majority, with a victory, might make trouble for the greater populous by means of the evil(s) of which you sought to distance yourself by abstaining from voting.

So I made two very difficult choices: First, I chose to vote rather than stay home. Second, I voted for lives of the unborn rather than for approval from the vast majority of my own ethnic community. The latter choice took the risk of being reproached for the name of Christ, for I only voted for life because of the fear of my Lord (cf. Ex. 1:15-2:12). I know such a choice risks invoking the ire or dismissal of the overwhelming majority of the African American community. Yet, on a most historic Election Day, I could not allow my personal pro-life stance to crumble under the weight of being perceived as a traitor to the African American cause for victory, for that goes against all godly wisdom:


I cast my vote in the hopes of rescuing those being taken to the slaughter. I could not vote in such a way that I would have ignored the blood flowing from fertility clinics, for I know that the Almighty would repay my cowardice. My hope in his word is that he will remember me and graciously and provide for my life, repaying me with mercy.

In contrast, I do not think a recession can be said to be taking people to death unjustly, especially when many in Maryland voted to throw their lots in with bringing slots to my state; (the correlation of the recession to the slots-vote should be obvious to the righteous). I think our soldiers voluntarily sign up to defend our freedom at the risk of their own lives. Lack of health insurance coverage for all makes life very hard for many, but it does not lead to a denial of all medical care for any one class of people. (N.B. I have two members in my home with medical pre-conditions, and I am about to begin paying health insurance out of pocket because we cannot afford a break in coverage when my current job ends. I understand the value of health insurance and the stress of keeping up with the rising costs of such coverage.) So the economy, the war in Iraq, and universal health insurance became secondary issues for me—albeit very important ones —because righteousness was not at stake. Even so, the righteous should not now overlook these issues while loving their fellow man.

My Duty to Christ and the King

The question for me at this time is this: Can I continue to live Soli Deo Gloria under a President whose moral judgment already is questionable before he takes the oath of office? Yes I can, for I can be obedient to Scripture, praying for the one in authority (I Tim. 2:1-8), honoring the one in authority (1 Pet. 2:13-18), submitting to the one in authority (Rom. 13:1-7; Tit. 3:1), and seeking righteousness for the entire citizenry (Prov. 14:34). These I will seek to do by grace. I will "honor the good appointment of God."

Moreover, I can follow the admonition and example of Calvin, who, in the quote above, preached that believers should impute to themselves the ills of government and recognize the common grace given to mankind through human governing authorities. For example, in our day, it is not the governmental regulation that slaughters the innocent; it is the people who chose to end the lives of their children, and the willing executioners who kill for the sake of the monetary gain afforded by the abortion industry. The government only allows this sin to receive legal permission and protection. Nevertheless, that same government provides many laws that allow me to worship in freedom, preach the Gospel freely, vote in an election, and write blog posts like this one without fear of censorship or death. I readily can recognize the retention of "some kind of just government" under President Obama's rule.

My Dilemma Resolved

My humble proposal of an attempt to be Christocentric rather than Afrocentric will not be received with approval by many African Americans that I know. I hope to live long enough to witness another African American become a candidate for President of the United States of America—a candidate who is pro-life and pro-righteousness. Yet my hope may ring hollow to many other African Americans who are celebrating a Democratic victory that happens to seem pro-African American. To the celebrants, I might be labeled as sore loser seeking to justify his reasons for siding with conservative white America rather than with Black America.
In writing elsewhere about "how I have wrestled through the Christian version of the Uncle Tom epithet" (with respect to my embracing of Reformed Theology), I have penned this thought:

If a person would allow himself to be pigeonholed into becoming a person of a nationalistic or ethno-centric thought out of the fear of being viewed as an Oreo or Uncle Tom, then Reformed Theology is not for that person. But neither is the Gospel, for the Gospel calls each of us to stand against an ethnic-centered philosophy of one's own race, for such a philosophy is naturally conformed to this present world and is in need of redemption. If you cannot stand against your own culture where it does not square with the Scriptures, you are the one who is ashamed of Christ, and such shame has nothing to with philosophical or ontological Blackness; it only has to do with your view of the majesty of the God who calls you to deny yourself in order to follow Christ. ("Sovereign in a Sweet Home, Schooling, and Solace," in Glory Road: Our Journey Into Reformed Christianity, ed. Anthony Carter [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, Wheaton, forthcoming])

I am fairly certain that if J. C. Watts had been the Republican nominee for President, and if he had been running against Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee, the great majority of African Americans would have found reason to vote for the wife of the "first Black President" and her liberal ideals rather than for Watts and his conservative ideals. In doing so, such a vote would indicate that the great majority of African Americans have feelings about the type of African American who would be deemed worthy their votes for the seat at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue—who would be worthy of African Americans' approval as their choice for their representative in the White House. Seemingly, for the Black Nationalist and the liberal, not every African American would qualify to wear an honor for which our ancestors were stolen, enslaved, whipped, lynched, dehumanized, and killed. Likewise, it is my opinion that my ancestors experienced such suffering and injustices so that it would be possible for any African American to reach the Oval Office, but not so that every African American, regardless of qualifications, could reach the Oval Office. Those who fought for civil rights for African Americans were doing so out of a moral impetus to see African Americans treated humanely—as human beings rather than like chattel or as 3/5ths-human. I think the best way to honor their work and lives when the office of Commander in Chief is within reach would be to continue that moral quest. That quest is continued by finding a candidate who seeks to see African Americans, even those in the womb, treated humanely—as people rather than as cattle for our labor and experimentation or as a 3/5th-human fetus.

I have asked some friends to weigh in on the election, and will be posting their thoughts today.

With Ohio being called for Senator Obama, it appears that he will be our next President.

It's very easy to forget--especially for those of us who are on the younger side--that it was only a little over 40 years ago that there were Jim Crow laws in the US. Just a generation ago, many African Americans were segregated from whites in public schools, transportation, restrooms, and restaurants.

Tonight, the United States has elected a biracial man to serve as its leader.

It would be an understatement to call this a watershed cultural moment in our country's history.

No matter who you voted for--or whether you voted at all--it's important to remember that, as President, Barack Obama will have God-given authority to govern us, and that we should view him as a servant of God (Rom. 13:1, 4) to whom we should be subject (Rom. 13:1, 5; 1 Pet. 2:13-14).

• We are to pray for Barack Obama (1 Tim. 2:1-2).
• We are to thank God for Barack Obama (1 Tim. 2:1-2).
• We are to respect Barack Obama (Rom. 13:7).
• We are to honor Barack Obama (Rom. 13:7; 1 Pet. 2:17).

There are many qualifications to add to these exhortations--for example, see this excellent post by John Piper--but it's still important to remember that these are requirements for all Bible-believing Christians.

John Podhoretz:

America, it appears, is on the verge of electing a black man as its president. It cannot be gainsaid; the enormity of this single cultural moment dwarfs almost any other in my lifetime. Its positive social impact is incalculable; it was only eight years ago that Al Gore traveled to Harlem to kiss Al Sharpton’s ring, which was only seven years after Sharpton had provoked a riot on 125th street that led to a fire that killed seven people. Sharpton was, at that point, by default the most important black politician in America. Obama’s ascension to the White House, if it does nothing else, may at last bring down the curtain on race hucksters like Sharpton, whose power has always been rooted in the political alienation of inner-city blacks.

Update: Jim Manzi: "There are about 1,460 days until the next Presidential election, and I assume that I will spend approximately the next 1,459 of them opposing Barack Obama. But I’m spending today proud abut what my country has overcome." Read the whole thing.

Al Mohler on how we should pray:

1. We should pray that God will bless America with leaders better than we deserve. Democratic systems inevitably reflect the electorate's decisions, and these decisions reveal underlying worldviews. And, truth be told, all we can expect from democracy is the government we deserve. We must pray for a government and for leaders better than we deserve. May God grant us mercy as he reigns and rules over all things, including this election.

2. We should pray that Americans will be motivated to fulfill the responsibilities of citizenship, yet also that we will be stripped of an unhealthy and idolatrous confidence in the power of government to save us. God has given us the gift of rulers and governments in order to restrain evil, uphold righteousness, and provide for civil order. No human ruler can save. No government official or office holder can heal the human heart, solve the sin problem, or accomplish final justice. These powers belong to God and God alone.

3. We must pray that Americans will vote by conscience, not merely on the basis of celebrity or emotion. Christian citizens must vote to uphold righteousness and contend for righteous and just laws. But, at the same time, we must repent of moralism and the tacit assumption that better laws would produce better people.

4. We must pray that Americans will vote to defend the least among us -- and especially those who have no vote. This starts, but does not end, with concern for the unborn and for the recovery of respect for the dignity and sanctity of every single human life at every stage of development, from conception until natural death.

5. We should pray that God will prick the conscience of the nation on issues of morality, righteousness, and respect for marriage as the central institution of human civilization. So much ground appears to have been lost on these issues. We need to pray that much ground can be regained.

6. We should pray that God will protect these candidates and their families. They have been through an arduous ordeal and now face the deadline of the vote. They are physically exhausted and now face the judgment of the people. They are public figures, but they are also flesh and blood human beings, who are fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, sons, and daughters. Their families have withstood much. We should pray for their marriages and their children. May God protect them.

7. We should pray that the election is conducted with honor, civility, respect, and justice. We must pray that we do not face another round of litigation after an election. This brings democracy into disrepute. May there be a clear winner, not a contested result.

8. We must pray that Americans will be prepared to accept the results of the election with respect and kindness. This will be no time for rancor, condemnations, and conspiracy theories. Instead, we must pray that God will settle the hearts of the people. May Christians be ready to respond with prayer, respect for office, and a gentle spirit. Others will be watching.

9. We should pray that this election would lead to even greater opportunities to preach the Gospel, and that the freedom of the church will be respected, honored, and protected.

10. We must pray for the church, praying that the church of the Lord Jesus Christ would be strengthened in the truth, grounded in the faith, and empowered for witness and ministry. May the church, the sign of the coming kingdom, be faithful to declare the Gospel -- knowing that this is the only message that will save.

(Bold highlights mine.)

Read the whole thing.

A Guest Post by Thabiti Anyabwile

Thabiti Anyabwile is Senior Pastor of First Baptist Church in Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands, and blogs at Pure Church. He is the author of three books: The Faithful Preacher, The Decline of African American Theology, and What Is a Healthy Church Member? He lives with his wife and three children in Grand Cayman.

I remember as a middle-schooler watching the film, “The Day After.” It was, at the time (the height of the Cold War), a rather alarming film about the prospect of nuclear war. We watched with rapt attention as mushroom clouds, frantic citizens, traffic jams, blinding light, and nuclear fallout destroyed “life as we knew it.”

It strikes me that many Christians have been watching this election like middle-schoolers fearfully paralyzed at their first look at nuclear realities. Our fear of nuclear destruction was warranted. The Christian anxiety about this election is not.

So it’s the day after the election, and your candidate didn’t win. Aside from the natural nauseating post-game let-down feeling, what are you to think and feel? Here are a few quick thoughts:

1. Remember that President Barack Obama is not just the first African-American president, he is also the 44th white President. There will no doubt be many associations made between his skin color, assumptions about his race, and a host of successes or failures during his presidency. But let us Christians avoid such errors. Let us avoid saddling this one man with the responsibility of representing a “race” of people, or saddling the people with this one man’s failures or achievements. Let us be good theologians and attribute all that President Obama is to either his fallen nature or to the work of grace in his life. We may all celebrate in his achievement, and we may all recognize in him things fundamental to human nature—not to “race.” His presidency is as much a testament to the progress of all Americans as it is a proud moment for African Americans.

2. Keep working on the issues you care most passionately about. There is no reason to think that President Barack Obama can overthrow the will and work of God in the world. So what if he is the most pro-choice/pro-abortion candidate in history? Isn’t God still the most pro-life God in all creation? The man in the presidency has changed; our Lord has not. So we keep laboring in the cause of justice knowing that the Sovereign Lord is just as likely (maybe more likely!) for His glory to do with a President Obama—who so clearly opposes his will in many areas—greater things on the abortion front than He might do with a professing Christian president. God may yet bring to Himself more glory in prevailing on the abortion issue by making the most sizeable and godward progress during the administration of one who is so decidedly against His will! That would be just like Him: raise the opposition to demonstrate more His glory. Put your hope in the living God!

3. Pray for those in authority over you. No really; pray for him. Consider that when Paul instructs the church to pray for those in authority he then directly connects such prayer with the ability of the church to “live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness” (1 Tim. 2:1-2). One wonders how much of the peace- and godliness- and holiness-destroying circumstances in our country stem from the absence of prayer for those in authority. Our prayer meetings are empty. Our pastoral and personal prayers are self-centered. We barely feel the urging emphasis of Paul when he assigns “first of all” importance to “requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving” on behalf of our leaders. Can there be any wonder that our leaders so often serve themselves and not the people? And can any man stand against the will and power of God when the Lord’s people really pray for them? No they cannot. Really; they cannot. Pray for President Obama with the full assurance of faith.

So, it’s the day after the election. Things have changed, in some obvious and more subtle ways. But Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever! God’s election of you, if you’re a Christian, has not changed. His purpose to conform you to Christ has not changed. You really have won all that matters for eternity. That’s not to downplay the importance of some issues discussed in this election. But really, if McCain had won, how would your day today be in reality any different than your day yesterday? The laws today would be the same laws yesterday. Your work would still be before you. You haven’t lost any ground yet. Perhaps you’ve been given greater incentive to pray, reminded of what matters eternally, and in those things shone a more fruitful path forward. The Lord omnipotent reigns. Rejoice in full assurance!

The Gospel Coalition recently relaunched their website, and it looks excellent. Here's more information about the upcoming conference, April 21-23, 2009, in Chicago.

The theme of this Conference gets to the heart of the book of Second Timothy. As Paul is mentoring a young Timothy, he is communicating the great privilege of proclaiming the gospel to the world. In an age bereft of courageous leadership, declining biblical literacy, and rising cultural accommodation, a prophetic voice from the center is needed, a voice that faithfully speaks the ancient text to our contemporary context. This Conference seeks a renewal of faithful preaching that is rooted in the Scriptures and centered on the gospel.

The best of gospel-faithful ministry is not only taught, it is also caught. This was the practice of the Apostle Paul -- the great missionary of the early church -- who not only had much to say regarding what constitutes gospel-faithful ministry, but also had much to show of what it looked like in an individual life and in the life of the church. We see these two foci coming together harmoniously in Paul's letter to the church in Corinth:

Therefore I urge you to imitate me. For this reason I am sending to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church (1 Corinthians 4:16-17; cf. 11:1; Philippians 3:17).

On 21-23 April 2009, The Gospel Coalition will hold its second National Conference on the theme, "Entrusted with the Gospel: Living the Vision of Second Timothy." During these meetings we will seek to imitate Paul's dual practice of show and tell.

The Plenary Sessions -- led by John Piper, Phil Ryken, Mark Driscoll, K. Edward Copeland, Bryan Chapell, and Ligon Duncan -- will expound the book of Second Timothy. It is through these expositions that we hope to model the sort of preaching through Scripture of which the church is in need, while teaching the glories of this gospel of the blessed God that has been entrusted to the care of the church. Tim Keller and Don Carson will each give addresses that seek to situate gospel-faithful ministry in the currents of the twenty-first century, and Ajith Fernando will discuss the global challenges and priorities of gospel-faithful mission for the next Christendom. There will also be several workshops devoted to the faithful appropriation of text (Scripture) to context (contemporary issues).

Register here. Each attendee will also receive a free copy of the ESV Study Bible.

Andy Naselli:

Dr. Mike Bullmore delivered the annual Rom lectures on October 7-9, 2008 at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School on “The Heart of Preaching and the Preacher’s Heart.” Q & A followed each of his three outstanding lectures:

Session 1: The Functional Centrality of the Gospel in Preaching | 42:56
Session 1: Q & A (beginning with responses from an M.Div. student, a Ph.D. student, and Pastor Lee Eclov) | 58:32

Session 2: The Five Greatest Heart Challenges in Preaching | 41:18
Session 2: Q & A (beginning with responses from Andy Naselli and Dr. Dick Averbeck) | 42:24

Session 3: A Passion for the Gospel (Philippians 1) | 38:15
Session 3: Q & A | 36:03

Andrew Wilson lists "five interrelated and durable myths about the 1929-39 Depression":

1. Herbert Hoover, elected president in 1928, was a doctrinaire, laissez-faire, look-the-other way Republican who clung to the idea that markets were basically self-correcting.
2. The stock market crash in October 1929 precipitated the Great Depression.
3. Where the market had failed, the government stepped in to protect ordinary people.
4. Greed caused the stock market to overshoot and then crash.
5. Enlightened government pulled the nation out of the worst downturn in its history and came to the rescue of capitalism through rigorous regulation and government oversight.

Read the whole thing.

Nate Silver, the creator of FiveThirtyEight.com, has an online article at Newsweek on how to watch the poll results tonight.

The "big three" states to watch are Virginia (polls close at 7 PM EST), Pennsylvania (polls close at 8 PM EST), and Colorado (polls close at 9 PM EST).

Here is the hour-by-hour breakdown of when polls close--along with some of the more important comments by Silver. Of course, for all the details you'll need to read the whole thing.

6 PM EST. Polls close in portions of Indiana and Kentucky.

7 PM EST. Polls close in Virginia and Georgia, as well as most of Florida and most of New Hampshire. ("Virginia, for my money, is the most important state in this election. If John McCain loses it, his path to victory is exceptionally narrow—he would need to pull out an upset in Pennsylvania, while holding on to Florida and Ohio, and avoiding a sweep out West.")

7:30 PM EST. Polls close in Ohio and North Carolina.

8 PM EST. Polls close in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Missouri. ("Pennsylvania in particular is the one to watch. If Barack Obama holds onto Pennsylvania—the only state where John McCain seems to have been closing the gap over the last week of the campaign—then winning virtually any red state [Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Colorado, Missouri] would probably clinch the election for him."

9 PM EST. Polls close in Colorado, New Mexico, Wisconsin and Minnesota. ("Colorado, meanwhile, is the last of what I'd characterize as this year's "Big Three" states [the others are Pennsylvania and Virginia]. If Pennsylvania and Virginia have split their votes [and Obama hasn't picked up Ohio or Florida], then Obama probably wins if he wins Colorado, and loses if he doesn't."

10 PM EST. Polls close in Nevada, Iowa, Montana and New York. ("This is the earliest point at which the race might be officially called for Barack Obama—there just aren't enough electoral votes out there, even if he's swept every swing state, to get him to 270 until New York's 31 come in.")

The Associated Press predicts: "The morning after: Half of us will be disappointed."

Tullian Tchividjian shares some of the things he's learned from his grandfather, Billy Graham:

1) Humility: Daddy Bill has always been keenly aware that God is God, and he is not. He has always been conscious of his smallness and God’s bigness, his imperfection and God’s perfection.

2) A love for the Gospel: Daddy Bill has always had a deep sense of his own sin, which has led him to a deep love for his Savior. He has always exemplified the sweet reality that you can never know Christ as a Great Savior until you first know yourself to be a great sinner. God’s amazing grace still amazes him — and that amazes me!

3) Faithfulness: Although he has had the opportunity to do many things, he has never wavered concerning God’s call on his life to be an evangelist. He knows he’s not a scholar or a theologian; he’s never tried to be. He has always remained true to God’s calling.

4) Never show favoritism: I have been with Daddy Bill in numerous places with numerous people, and I have never, ever seen him show favoritism. He treats all people the same, whether they are rich or poor, weak or powerful, socially significant or socially insignificant.

5) Be real: Daddy Bill is normal! He gets mad; he gets sad; he’s fun to be around. His favorite restaurant is Morrison’s Cafeteria. His favorite movie is “Crocodile Dundee.” His favorite drink is orange juice, and he loves catfish. He’s just another man with all of the limitations and idiosyncrasies that the rest of us have — and I love him for it!

Billy Graham turns 90 on Friday. If he's impacted your life and you want to leave a comment at Tullian's post, he's going to collect them and share them with his grandpa.

Condolences today to Barack Obama, whose grandmother Madelyn Dunham died from a battle with cancer--the day before the biggest political day of his life and the opportunity to become the first black president of the United States.

Hadley Arkes:

As you may recall, in my talk the other night I drew, as an analogy, the complaint made by the historian J. G. Randall over the performance of Lincoln and Douglas during their famous debates in 1858. His complaint was about the unwarranted prominence that these two men were willing to give to that vexing moral issue of slavery. His condemnation ran in this way:

With all the problems that might have been put before the people as proper matter for their consideration in choosing a senator--choice of government servants, immigration, the tariff, international policy, promotion of education, west ward extension of railroads, the opening of new lands for homesteads, protection against greedy exploitation of those lands . . . encouragement to settlers . . . improving the condition of factory workers, and alleviating those agrarian grievances that were to plague the coming decades--with such issues facing the country, those two candidates for the Senate talked as if there were only one issue.

That complaint, read today, is bound to strike readers as churlish, even oafish. And yet why? Is it wrong because we have come to regard that issue now, in our own day, as one we happen to care about? Or is it because there was truly something more fundamental in that question of just who were those beings who were the objects of concern in all of these other issues?

Read the whole thing.

Today, on Way of the Master Radio.

Update: Direct link here.

Derek Keefe:

The Board of Emergent Village announced a new direction for the network last Thursday, which includes the decision "to streamline, decentralize, and reduce expenses by discontinuing the role of National Coordinator."

This move comes in response to feedback from more than 2,000 friends of Emergent given in a survey sent out this past summer. Thursday's announcement reports that "nearly everyone [survey respondents] agreed that emergent is a grass-roots relational network" and that friends of Emergent are wary of "institutionalization"--becoming "another large nonprofit religious organization building a big budget and staff."

Jones will continue in his role of National Coordinator on a part-time basis through the end of the year and will, according the announcement, "stay actively involved as a passionate participant in this conversation and friendship."

A few weeks ago the BBC ran an article on the digitization of Codex Sinaiticus, one of the oldest complete codices (books) of the Bible.

But there's a problem, as Wheaton's Nicholas Perrin points out: "You cannot position yourself as one of the most reputable and responsible news organizations in the world and at the same time go public with a piece like this one."

Perrin writes, "When confronted with nonsense calculated to tweak the noses of the orthodox, the best way to respond is with a measure of facts patiently sifted through the grid of common sense." To see him do just that, read the whole thing.

I'm closing the comments on the previous post (a video of John Piper sharing his heart for this election). Thanks to many of you for the thoughtful comments.

In the video Piper mentioned that he thinks it would be unbiblical for Sarah Palin to become Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. However, he didn't explain the biblical rationale for his position. So on Sunday DG posted a new entry by Piper: Why a Woman Shouldn't Run for Vice President, but Wise People May Still Vote for Her. I encourage you to read it. (More below on an important clarification in this new piece.)

This morning Piper posted A Prayer for This Election--which I would also encourage you to read (and pray!).

In the following, I'm going to express some reluctant qualms about what Piper said in the initial video. Everything I say, however, should be understood beneath the banner of my enormous appreciation for Piper in countless ways. One of the things I learned during my time in Minneapolis with him is that he invites criticism and believes in the serious (and at times spirited!) exchange of arguments in the marketplace of ideas. I hope everyone will understand the spirit, then, with which I write these thoughts.

I also think that folks should keep in mind the medium. Blogs and videos are great--but one of their virtues (conciseness) can also be one of their drawbacks, as you can't say everything. Piper was not giving a comprehensive theology of voting and political engagement--so that should be kept in mind when viewing the video and when reading my comments.

Piper on the "Unusual Challenges" and "Complicating Factors" of This Election

In the video Piper prefaced the discussion by framing it as an election that presents us with "unusual challenges," and then he cited three "complicating factors":

1. Sarah Palin is a woman, and biblically, a woman should not be the Commander in Chief.
2. Barack Obama is black, and it would be "thrilling" and "amazing"--"a golden opportunity"--to have a black President.
3. Abortion is evil, and Barack Obama is the most extreme abortion-rights proponent in Congress. ("Abortion is an evil the scope of which and depths of which very few people in our culture feel. The magnitude of it’s just horrific. . . . 12 million black babies dead since 1973. I don’t think Barack Obama will touch that with a ten foot pole. And he should. . . . He’s the most radical abortion proponent in the United States Congress, and that’s tragic.")

Piper then went on to talk about the prophetic perspective, the sovereignty of God, and the gospel.

A Complicating Factor, or an Absolute Deal Breaker?

The first part left many--including me--confused and disappointed. We found it hard to square putting abortion into the category of a complicating factor--alongside race and gender--when previously Piper has powerfully and prophetically placed it into the category of an absolute deal breaker. In this video Piper offered no pastoral guidance as to how to prioritize these complicating factors--and it left many confused (with more than one person wondering, incorrectly, if he was encouraging a vote for Obama).

One-Issue Politics

Many of us have been influenced by Piper's 1995 article, One-Issue Politics, One-Issue Marriage, and the Humane Society. In it he explains that "No endorsement of any single issue qualifies a person to hold public office. . . . [But] Everybody knows a single issue that for them would disqualify a candidate for office" (my emphasis).

Here's the thesis: "I believe that the endorsement of the right to kill unborn children disqualifies a person from any position of public office." Piper ends by saying that his conviction is "never to vote for a person who endorses such an evil—even if he could balance the budget tomorrow and end all taxation."

In the blog post on Sunday, Piper not only explains his biblical case against a woman as president, but also makes clear that the issues of womanhood and abortion are on different levels :

. . . a person with my view may very well vote for a woman to be President if the man running against her holds views and espouses policies that may, as far as we can see, do more harm to more people than we think would be done by electing a woman President and thus exalting a flawed pattern of womanhood. In my view, defending abortion is far worse sin for a man than serving as Vice President is for a woman.

While I still wish that Piper had reiterated his point about abortion-rights as a disqualifier for office, I am thankful that he made the above point, which clarifies that he does not see the abortion issue as morally equivalent to issues related to race and gender.

God's Sovereignty . . . and Means

Piper, in the video, argues that we need a "big healthy dose" of the sovereignty of God with regard to this election.

Piper has influenced me greatly in this area; largely through his careful biblical-theological work, I am a passionate proponent of God's absolute sovereignty over all things. And surely politics is included in "all things." God removes kings; God sets up kings (Dan. 2:21). God does all that he pleases (Ps. 115:3), and he "works all things according to the counsel of his will" (Eph. 1:11). Even though a king (or a president) appears to be the most powerful person in the land, "The king's heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever he will" (Prov. 21:1). Amen and amen.

Theologically, we need to make at least two distinctions. One is between God's secret will (everything that will come to pass) and God's revealed will (what he tells us to do in his Word). The second important point is that God not only ordains ends but also commands and ordains means.

Where am I going with this?

(1) The fact that God ordains all things (i.e., his secret will) has a limited effect on our decision making. It can't prescribe how we act, but it can prevent us from having the wrong perspective (e.g., anxiety, fear, despair, misplaced trust, etc.). But in terms of interpreting events, the main way to read providence is backwards (as John Flavel wrote: "Some providences, like Hebrew letters, must be read backward").

(2) The fact that God ordains means ensures that our actions have significance. The ordained outcome can never be seen as an excuse for complacency or fatalism.

Now I don't think that Piper would disagree with the above theologically. But there may be a difference between us regarding how this works out practically with respect to politics.

For example, he says that the "prophetic perspective" speaks in this way: "I will always be pursuing his [God's] kingdom first, and let the political chips fall where they will" (my emphasis). But to my ears, a comment like this does not sound like a robust theology of means. It could be taken to sound a bit fatalistic.

Piper also says, God is "gonna get elected the one he wants elected, and if it's the person we think is hurtful, then we need to be hurt!" I agree that whoever is elected as president (and to all other political positions) on Tuesday is the person that God ordained to be in that position--and that that person might be a partial manifestation of God's already/not-yet judgment against us.

But again I fear that the phrasing of this could sound like fatalism. A few years ago I asked Piper about praying for persecution, and he responded, "I can’t help but think that a good heart would long for anyone who is being hurt not to be hurt anymore. In fact, I think our churches should labor to relieve suffering in the world, especially eternal suffering" (Suffering and the Sovereignty of God, p. 224). I think this is the right perspective to have. But I didn't hear that in this video.

To be fair, Piper does say that we should vote and be engaged (though in a way that is not all-consuming). But there is really no guidance or encouragement for political persuasion and engagement. Without pastors building a positive vision of what this could look like--only telling us the dangers and the attitudes we should avoid--should we be surprised that there are few Wilberforce-like figures today, engaging in risk-taking sacrifice for the cause of justice?

Agreement

Now with all of that said, you may be surprised to hear me say that I really do resonate with Piper's underlying point. Politics can easily become a source of idolatry. We are dual citizens with a higher allegiance to the City of God. If our candidate loses, we should not grieve as the world grieves. And yes, there will be something enormously significant, historic, and amazing if we elect our first black president.

But . . .

But I want to plead with fellow evangelicals to recognize that this is a watershed election with regard to abortion. Barack Obama has promised to make signing the Freedom of Choice Act his first order of business in the White House--and with a Democratic Congress, he will be able to make this happen.

The Knights of Columbus recently catalogued the many small successes achieved in the pro-life political process since 1973:

• The Hyde Amendment, which restricts federal funding for abortions;

• The federal law banning partial birth abortions, which was finally upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in April 2007;

• The “Mexico City Policy,” which has barred the use of federal taxpayers’ money to pay for abortions in other countries;

• Laws in 44 states that preserve a parental role when children under 18 seek abortions;

• Laws in 40 states that restrict late-term abortions;

• Laws in 46 states that protect the right of conscience for individual health care providers;

• Laws in 27 states that protect the right of conscience for institutions;

• Laws in 38 states that ban partial birth abortions;

• Laws in 33 states that require counseling before having an abortion;

• And laws in 16 states that provide for ultrasounds before an abortion.

With a stroke of the pen, all of these would be gone.

I am under no illusions that electing John McCain will necessarily lead to the overturning of Roe v. Wade. But I do believe that McCain would be a good pro-life president, I know that McCain would veto the radical FOCA, and I know that Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate to ever run for president.

I believe evangelicals should care deeply--though not idolatrously--about this election, and that they should do what they can to stop, or at least slow, the slaughter of the innocent. Voting is one of the things you can do. I encourage you to do it, and to do so with a view toward the weakest and most defenseless members of the human race--3,700 of whom are being killed every single day in the United States.