Special Election Article
By Don Walton
Don is the editor of Time4Truth Magazine, is an author with a great book on prophecy
called: the Rubik's Cube of Bible Prophecy,
and he has a wonderful website which I encourage you to visit.
His views are on this election fiasco are solidly sound and
They reflect a pastoral heart and a great love for Jesus Christ.
Christians should never vote for evil, and Don explains why
in this featured article.
called: the Rubik's Cube of Bible Prophecy,
and he has a wonderful website which I encourage you to visit.
His views are on this election fiasco are solidly sound and
They reflect a pastoral heart and a great love for Jesus Christ.
Christians should never vote for evil, and Don explains why
in this featured article.
TIME4TRUTH MAGAZINE OCTOBER 2012
SPECIAL ELECTION EDITION
During this political season I've suffered heaps of verbal abuse over my public profession that I'll not be voting for either candidate in the presidential election. Most of this verbal barrage has come from my brothers and sisters in Christ over my refusal to vote for Mitt Romney, as well as over my failure to parrot the endorsement of him by the vast majority of evangelical pastors and leaders. I've been called everything from "brainless" and "not a true American citizen" to "unpatriotic" and, worst of all, a "heretic."
As a Christian, I obviously can't vote with a clear conscience for the amoral and socialist candidate Barack Obama, who is leading our nation down the road of destruction. Unfortunately, much of the dumbed down American electorate is totally unaware of the path our current president has us traveling, since the only thing they care about is cash in their pockets from the government coffers.
On the other hand, I'm also unable to vote with a clear conscience for the cultist (Mormon) candidate Mitt Romney. As I've previously explained: "If Christians are scripturally forbidden from welcoming a cultist—someone propagating a false gospel and false Christ—into their house (2 John 9-11), lest they become a "partaker of [the cultist's] evil deed," by encouraging the cultist in the propagation of their false faith, how do we with clear conscience and without violating Scripture vote a cultist into the White House? What greater way to legitimize Mormonism and encourage Mormons in the propagation of their false faith than to elect one of their own to the highest office in our land?"
Despite my stated scriptural reason for refusing to vote for Romney, I've been denigrated by my pulpit peers, questioned by parishioners, and accused of being an unreasonable dogmatist. Over and over again I've been told that "We're not voting for a pastor but for a president," as though the faith of the man in the Oval Office is irrelevant and not legitimized in people's eyes by his election to what is arguably the most powerful position in the world. Then, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, suddenly removes Mormonism from its list of religions considered to be cults.
After meeting with Romney at his home in Montreat, North Carolina, and endorsing him for the presidency, the most influential evangelical in the world removes Mormonism from his ministry's list of cults. As a result, I've already received an email from a church member asking me why I insist that Mormonism is a cult when Billy Graham doesn't. Need I say more?
In my opinion, the church's climbing in bed with political parties has not helped our country, but only imperiled it. Now, we're climbing in bed with cults and false faiths, which will also prove futile when it comes to saving America. What is far worse, however, is that this latest compromise and prostituting of ourselves will also imperil men's immortal souls. Call me what you will, but Mormonism is still a cult, no matter what Billy Graham says, and I'm still not voting for Mitt Romney!
LATTER-DAY POLITICS
If Christians are scripturally forbidden from welcoming a cultist—someone propagating a false gospel and false Christ —into their house (2 John 9-11), lest they become a "partaker of [the cultist's] evil deed," by encouraging the cultist in the propagation of their false faith, how do we with clear conscience and without violating Scripture vote a cultist into the White House? What greater way to legitimize Mormonism and encourage Mormons in the propagation of their false faith than to elect one of their own to the highest office in our land? I know, I know, I know, we're not electing a pastor but a president, but every president has, as Theodore Roosevelt said, a "bully pulpit," a terrific platform from which he asserts inordinate influence over the American people.
I also know the argument put forth by many of my brothers and sisters in Christ; namely, that a vote for Romney over Obama is the least of two evils, but what does this say about the abominable spiritual condition of our country, when the best we can offer is the least of evils? Has present-day America not been reduced to a land that no longer offers righteousness as a viable option?
As Christians, we're suppose to eschew evil, not vote for the least of evils. Furthermore, Christ's commission of us has to do with the saving of souls, not the saving of our country. Therefore, how can we do something that imperils the former in the vain hope of accomplishing the latter?
This article should in no way be seen as a veiled endorsement of Barack Obama for president, a man whose profession of Christ falls far short of possession of Christ. Though he claims to be a Christian, his convictions are contrary to the cardinal tenets of the Christian faith and his policies are as foreign to the Christ he claims to follow as darkness is to light.
Although it will probably just anger and irritate a lot of you, which I seem to have a real penchant at in these days and times, my hope for this article is to point out that America has no hope of survival if the church—the preserver (salt) of our society (see Mt. 5:13) and conscience (light) of our country (see Mt. 5:14-16)—can be easily bought by political parties for so low a price as the least of evils.
Many will protest at this point that America can't be changed if elections aren't won and the best candidates—at least the best between those today's political parties are willing to package and nominate—aren't elected to public office. But I'm reminded here of a man who changed the world, despite the fact that one of the last events of His life was to lose a public election to a common criminal by a landslide (Mt. 27:15-26). Christ lost that election for one reason, He refused to compromise the truth! How can we who truly follow Him do otherwise? How can we change America by compromising the truth in order to help politicians win elections? Are we not part of the problem rather than the solution when we're willing to compromise our convictions and sell out to political parties for so cheap a price?
It's high time that today's church remembered that it's not about winning elections and saving America, but about winning souls and the salvation of sinners! If we would get back to what Christ has commissioned us to do, it might change America. After all, America won't change until Americans are changed. Americans won't change until Christ changes them. And Christ can't change Americans until the church in America gets back to the business of sharing the gospel!
My friends, God hasn't called us to clean up the pond, but only to fish in it. Only Christ can clean it up! And He can't do that if we're politicking instead of preaching!
WHAT IS GOOD AND ACCEPTABLE TO THE SAVIOR
My arguments against voting for a Mormon for president remain pretty much unchallenged and even unaddressed. For instance, no one is disputing that voting a Mormon into the White House will encourage Mormons to spread their false gospel far more than showing them a little hospitality at my house, which the Scripture forbids me from doing (2 John 9-11). No one is disputing that voting a Mormon into the White House will legitimize Mormonism in the eyes of the American people, even leading many Americans to believe in the compatibility of Mormonism with Christianity, since so many Christians are going to the polls for the Mormon candidate. Although a few have attempted to pooh-pooh this notion, they've pretty much been silenced by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association's removal of Mormonism from its list of religions considered to be cults, a step taken by Billy and his son Franklin after meeting with Mitt Romney and coming out in endorsement of him for president. I, just like the vast majority of Christians—one might even argue all true Christians—loath what is occurring in this country under the current administration. However, I'm not willing to compromise the gospel and jeopardize its purity, along with men's immortal souls, for any reason, not even to change the occupant of America's Oval Office. In taking such a strong and unpopular stand, I can't help but feel I'm in illustrious company. Take for example the Apostle Paul, who boldly proclaimed that he would never imperil the preservation of the purity of the gospel by compromising for "a single minute" over anything in anyway (Galatians 2:5). The power to change America is not the ballot in the hands of voters, but the gospel in the hands of Christians. Why, then, should Christians compromise the gospel and take a chance at imperiling men's immortal souls for the sake of punching a ballot? One argument many have posed in protest of my refusal to vote for Mitt Romney is that I'm jeopardizing our religious liberties. Over and over again, I'm told that Mitt Romney, unlike Barack Obama, will at least keep our society free and open for the propagation of the gospel. Yet, the Bible tells me exactly what to do in regards to this particular issue; and it's not to vote, but to pray. In 1 Timothy 2:1-4, the Apostle Paul exhorts us to pray that God will use those “in authority," regardless of who is elected, to keep our society "quiet and peaceable" so that "all men" will have an opportunity to "come to the knowledge of the truth" and "be saved." As a Christian, I'm to pray for God to do this, not vote for Romney to do it. In Proverbs 21:2, we are taught: “The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, as rivers of water: he turneth it withersoever he will.” If we will put our faith in God and clasp our hands in prayer to Him for political leaders, God, who holds their hearts in His hand, can sway them to keep our society “quiet and peaceable.” In such a society, we will be able to practice our faith, publicly worship our Lord, and propagate our land with the gospel. "This," according to the Apostle Paul, “is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour." On the other hand, I don't think it "is good [or] acceptable" for Christians to believe that the propagation of the gospel in America is dependent upon our votes for Romney rather than our prayers to God. Jesus said to Pilate, "You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above" (John 19:11). The Apostle Paul insisted that he was the "prisoner of Christ," not of Caesar (Ephesians 3:1; Philemon 1:1). Jesus saw the Father behind Pilate and Paul saw Christ behind Caesar. Both our precious Lord and the Apostle Paul understood, even when bad things were happening, that God is in control. Neither our country nor our world is in the hands of this world's rulers. Instead, this world's rulers are all in the hands of God. Presidents, in the end, are no more than pawns used by God in the carrying out of His plans and purposes. And no president can prevent God's plans and purposes from being fulfilled. HYPOTHETICALLY SPEAKING Most people dislike the insertion of hypotheticals into serious discussions over actual issues. I can certainly understand why? Still, it seems to me that sound arguments should prove just as applicable in hypothetical situations as in actual situations. In light of this, permit me to pose a couple of hypotheticals to my present detractors. First, let’s say that the Republican nominee for president was not Mitt Romney, but the late Anton LaVey, the founder of the church of Satan. In addition, let’s say that LaVey was running on the same Republican pro-choice and anti-same-sex marriage platform as Mitt Romney. Would you still go to the polls and vote for the Republican nominee, insisting that your vote for LaVey was not a vote for Satanism? Although the same grounds that prevent me from voting for Mitt Romney would prevent me from voting for Anton LaVey, the same argument you use to justify your vote for a Mormon could be used to justify your vote for a Satanist. By the way, the Bible teaches that to worship any false god is to actually worship the god of this world (Leviticus 17:7; Deuteronomy 32:17; 2 Chronicles 7:15; Psalm 106:37; 1 Corinthians 10:20-21; Revelations 9:20). Second, let’s say our country was holding a national referendum on whether Baal or Dagon would be worshiped as the new god of America. Would you assess the situation and proceed to the polls to punch your ballot for the idol perceived to be less deplorable, believing the least deplorable of the two to be best for the country? Furthermore, if you perceived Dagon to be the least deplorable, would you accuse me of Baal worship for refusing to bend my knee to either; after all, my refusal to vote for Dagon would help deify Baal? I believe these hypothetical situations clearly expose the flawed reasoning behind the arguments that your vote for Romney is not a vote for Mormonism and that my refusal to vote for Romney is actually a vote for Obama. Obviously, neither is actually the case, which is easily proven hypothetically speaking. THE FAR GREATER EVIL Despite all of the conspiracy theories and videos to the contrary, President Obama is not a Muslim. While he may bow before Saudi kings and give deference to Islamic nations over Israel, these things are not a product of his religion, but of his worldview. In our president’s worldview, Western Civilization, and America in particular, has grown prosperous at the expense of the rest of the world. It is our wealth that is to blame for the poverty of third world countries. Instead of seeing America as blessed by God, President Obama sees America as a blight on the rest of the world, which explains why he began his presidency on an international “apology” tour. It may also explain why his wife Michelle professed to being proud of her country for the first time in her life during her husband’s successful run for the White House in 2008. Our president actually professes to be a Christian, but his professed faith falls far short of a possessed Christian orthodoxy. For instance, consider the following. Although President Obama professes to be a Christian and claims to have a “personal relationship with Jesus Christ,” he is quick to qualify his peculiar brand of Christianity as including a belief in “many paths to the same place” for all who believe in “a higher power.” The “place” that he designates as the destiny of all higher power devotees should not be misunderstood as Heaven. According to our president, he doesn't “presume to [know] what happens after [we] die.” He just believes that lives well-lived will be rewarded. Though he’s unsure of “whether [our] reward is in the here and now or the hereafter,” he’s certain that we will be rewarded for whatever faith and values we align ourselves with. While unsure of whether or not there is a Heaven to gain, Mr. Obama is sure that there is no Hell to shun. He insists that his “God would [never] consign four-fifths of the world to Hell.” According to him, a belief in Hell is “just not part of [his] religious makeup.” Cathleen Falsani, a religion columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times, acutely observed after interviewing Mr. Obama that his insistence “that all people of faith—Christians, Jews, Muslims, animists, everyone—know the same God” is a most “unlikely theological position for someone who places his faith squarely at the feet of Jesus.” In other words, Barrack Obama’s customized Christianity is completely incompatible with the historic Christian faith. There’s simply no way to square it with the teachings of Jesus Christ. No one familiar with the historic Christian faith can seriously consider Barack Obama a Christian. How can he possibly be a disciple of Jesus Christ when he goes around denying and denouncing Christ’s teachings? Whereas Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me” (John 14:6), Barack Obama says that there are many ways to God and it doesn't matter which one you choose. Whereas Jesus warned all who refuse to believe in Him of Hell, Barack Obama insists that unbelievers have nothing to worry about, since there is no Hell. Still, President Obama maintains that he is a follower of the Master, despite the fact that his so-called Christian convictions are contradictory to what the Master said. Is Barack Obama what he professes to be? Judge for yourself. Here's his own description of the "Christian" faith he professes. According to him it is (1) Suspicious of dogma (2) Without any monopoly on the truth (3) Nontransferable to others (4) Infused with a big healthy dose of doubt, and (5) Indulgent of and compatible with all other religions. Unlike traditional Christianity, which Mr. Obama bemoans for its “call to evangelize and proselytize,” our president's faith is strictly a personal and private affair. Although he has no qualms about parading it in public for the sake of political expediency, he would never dream of preaching it to others in hopes of converting them to Christ. Now, that I’ve exposed the pseudo faith our president professes and shown that he is no Muslim, despite all the conspiracy theories to the contrary, let me debunk another argument being frequently made against me for refusing to cast a vote against Obama by punching my presidential ballot for Romney. Many argue that voting for a Mormon is better because, unlike Muslims, there are no Mormon Jihadists; that is, Mormons trying to kill us. Though I’ve already shown this argument to be inapplicable to our president, let me go ahead and deal with it as though it were tenable. Years ago I was confronted by two Baptist pastors at a conference I was leading for misrepresenting Islam in a book I had written: The Truth About Islam. According to these two clergymen, I misrepresented Islam by making it out to be evil, when in actuality only a small percentage of Muslims were perpetrators or supporters of terrorism. I could scarcely believe my ears, Baptist pastors defending the world’s largest and fastest growing false religion. In response to their accusations, I posed a question to these two Baptist defenders of the Islamic faith. I asked them: “Let’s say we could erase all the verses in the Koran that advocate violence in the cause of Allah, which would be 123 verses to be exact, let’s say we could remove from history all of the violence perpetrated by Muslims against so-called infidels, those refusing to bow their head and bend their knee to Allah, the god of Islam, and let’s say we could remove from the headlines of today’s newspapers all the acts of terrorism being perpetrated all over the world by Islamists; in fact, let’s say that there was no terrorism associated with Islam whatsoever, neither in its past nor present, then, what would you have left?” The answer I declared to these two misguided ministers of the gospel was this: “You would still have the world’s fastest growing false religion, which is being masterfully used by the god of this world to deceive untold millions into Christless graves at the forfeiture of their immortal souls!” I then added, “I don’t know about you, but that is evil to me.” They had nothing to say. The greatest evil of Islam is not the threat posed by its terrorists to men’s temporal bodies, but the threat posed by its tenets to men’s immortal souls. Jesus once said, “Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28). Although taking someone’s temporal life is certainly a great evil, deserving of capital punishment (Genesis 9:6), deceiving one into the forfeiture of eternal life is a far greater evil, which explains the Apostle Paul’s divinely inspired tirade in Galatians 1:8-9 against all propagators of false faiths, regardless of whether they are Muslims or Mormons. Read below these strong and startling words of the Apostle Paul as translated by J. B. Phillips. “Yet I say that if I, or an angel from Heaven, were to preach to you any other Gospel than the one you have heard, may he be damned! You have heard me say it before and now I put it down in black and white—may anybody who preaches any other Gospel than the one you have already heard be a damned soul!” Those are strong words. Why was the Apostle Paul so adamant and hard in his opposition to all false faiths? Was it not because he understood what was at stake, namely, the immortal souls of men. Unlike Paul, few Christians today seem to understand how men’s immortal souls are imperiled by the evil of false faiths, which is proven by Christians support of a Mormon over a perceived Muslim for president, despite the fact that both are equally imperiling to men’s immortal souls and anathematized by the Apostle Paul in Scripture. There is no greater crime one can perpetrate against humanity than the propagation of a false faith. By the way, both presidential candidates are equally guilty of it! THE FAST APPROACHING FINAL DARK AGES In his classic work, The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon shows how Rome fell and the cross went up on the Acropolis. Why? Was it because Christians went to the polls for Caesar or because they preached Christ? When the fledgling, persecuted church stayed on task, that task being Christ's Great Commission, it conquered the most powerful empire on the face of the earth. It did so armed with nothing but the double-edged Sword of the Spirit. Granted, many will argue that it was under a Roman Emperor, Constantine, that the church conquered. However, long before Constantine, Tertullian had said of Christ's indestructible church, "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church." Despite Rome's attempt to stamp out the church, the church spread until one apologist wrote: "We are everywhere. We are in your towns and in your cities; we are in your country; we are in your army and navy; we are in your palaces; we are in the senate; we are more numerous than anyone." Constantine simply had the good sense to know: "If you can't whip them, join them." Interestingly, when he made the Christian faith the favored religion of the Roman Empire, (1) the church jumped into bed with the emperor (2) stopped growing expeditiously, and (3) was soon plunged into the darkness of the Dark Ages, a dark time when the light of the gospel was almost extinguished upon the earth. L. E. Maxwell wrote, "Mark well, O popular Christian and worldly-wise preacher, venturing how far you must go with the world in order to win the world: never had the Church so much influence over the world as when she had nothing to do with the world." Today's church, unlike the early church, thinks its influence is found at the polls, not in the pulpit. Instead of keeping itself a "chaste virgin to Christ," the one to whom it is "espoused" (2 Corinthians 11:2), it hops into bed with a political party allowing itself to be used by politicians for their political ends. Somehow it thinks that this prostituting of itself will result in its betrothed (Christ) blessing America. Go figure! Until the church in America resolves to be used by no one but Christ, we need not look for the cross to go up on the American "Acropolis." It doesn't matter how many Christians go to the polls, because the real problem in America is that so few Christians today are preaching the gospel.
SPECIAL ELECTION EDITION
During this political season I've suffered heaps of verbal abuse over my public profession that I'll not be voting for either candidate in the presidential election. Most of this verbal barrage has come from my brothers and sisters in Christ over my refusal to vote for Mitt Romney, as well as over my failure to parrot the endorsement of him by the vast majority of evangelical pastors and leaders. I've been called everything from "brainless" and "not a true American citizen" to "unpatriotic" and, worst of all, a "heretic."
As a Christian, I obviously can't vote with a clear conscience for the amoral and socialist candidate Barack Obama, who is leading our nation down the road of destruction. Unfortunately, much of the dumbed down American electorate is totally unaware of the path our current president has us traveling, since the only thing they care about is cash in their pockets from the government coffers.
On the other hand, I'm also unable to vote with a clear conscience for the cultist (Mormon) candidate Mitt Romney. As I've previously explained: "If Christians are scripturally forbidden from welcoming a cultist—someone propagating a false gospel and false Christ—into their house (2 John 9-11), lest they become a "partaker of [the cultist's] evil deed," by encouraging the cultist in the propagation of their false faith, how do we with clear conscience and without violating Scripture vote a cultist into the White House? What greater way to legitimize Mormonism and encourage Mormons in the propagation of their false faith than to elect one of their own to the highest office in our land?"
Despite my stated scriptural reason for refusing to vote for Romney, I've been denigrated by my pulpit peers, questioned by parishioners, and accused of being an unreasonable dogmatist. Over and over again I've been told that "We're not voting for a pastor but for a president," as though the faith of the man in the Oval Office is irrelevant and not legitimized in people's eyes by his election to what is arguably the most powerful position in the world. Then, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, suddenly removes Mormonism from its list of religions considered to be cults.
After meeting with Romney at his home in Montreat, North Carolina, and endorsing him for the presidency, the most influential evangelical in the world removes Mormonism from his ministry's list of cults. As a result, I've already received an email from a church member asking me why I insist that Mormonism is a cult when Billy Graham doesn't. Need I say more?
In my opinion, the church's climbing in bed with political parties has not helped our country, but only imperiled it. Now, we're climbing in bed with cults and false faiths, which will also prove futile when it comes to saving America. What is far worse, however, is that this latest compromise and prostituting of ourselves will also imperil men's immortal souls. Call me what you will, but Mormonism is still a cult, no matter what Billy Graham says, and I'm still not voting for Mitt Romney!
LATTER-DAY POLITICS
If Christians are scripturally forbidden from welcoming a cultist—someone propagating a false gospel and false Christ —into their house (2 John 9-11), lest they become a "partaker of [the cultist's] evil deed," by encouraging the cultist in the propagation of their false faith, how do we with clear conscience and without violating Scripture vote a cultist into the White House? What greater way to legitimize Mormonism and encourage Mormons in the propagation of their false faith than to elect one of their own to the highest office in our land? I know, I know, I know, we're not electing a pastor but a president, but every president has, as Theodore Roosevelt said, a "bully pulpit," a terrific platform from which he asserts inordinate influence over the American people.
I also know the argument put forth by many of my brothers and sisters in Christ; namely, that a vote for Romney over Obama is the least of two evils, but what does this say about the abominable spiritual condition of our country, when the best we can offer is the least of evils? Has present-day America not been reduced to a land that no longer offers righteousness as a viable option?
As Christians, we're suppose to eschew evil, not vote for the least of evils. Furthermore, Christ's commission of us has to do with the saving of souls, not the saving of our country. Therefore, how can we do something that imperils the former in the vain hope of accomplishing the latter?
This article should in no way be seen as a veiled endorsement of Barack Obama for president, a man whose profession of Christ falls far short of possession of Christ. Though he claims to be a Christian, his convictions are contrary to the cardinal tenets of the Christian faith and his policies are as foreign to the Christ he claims to follow as darkness is to light.
Although it will probably just anger and irritate a lot of you, which I seem to have a real penchant at in these days and times, my hope for this article is to point out that America has no hope of survival if the church—the preserver (salt) of our society (see Mt. 5:13) and conscience (light) of our country (see Mt. 5:14-16)—can be easily bought by political parties for so low a price as the least of evils.
Many will protest at this point that America can't be changed if elections aren't won and the best candidates—at least the best between those today's political parties are willing to package and nominate—aren't elected to public office. But I'm reminded here of a man who changed the world, despite the fact that one of the last events of His life was to lose a public election to a common criminal by a landslide (Mt. 27:15-26). Christ lost that election for one reason, He refused to compromise the truth! How can we who truly follow Him do otherwise? How can we change America by compromising the truth in order to help politicians win elections? Are we not part of the problem rather than the solution when we're willing to compromise our convictions and sell out to political parties for so cheap a price?
It's high time that today's church remembered that it's not about winning elections and saving America, but about winning souls and the salvation of sinners! If we would get back to what Christ has commissioned us to do, it might change America. After all, America won't change until Americans are changed. Americans won't change until Christ changes them. And Christ can't change Americans until the church in America gets back to the business of sharing the gospel!
My friends, God hasn't called us to clean up the pond, but only to fish in it. Only Christ can clean it up! And He can't do that if we're politicking instead of preaching!
WHAT IS GOOD AND ACCEPTABLE TO THE SAVIOR
My arguments against voting for a Mormon for president remain pretty much unchallenged and even unaddressed. For instance, no one is disputing that voting a Mormon into the White House will encourage Mormons to spread their false gospel far more than showing them a little hospitality at my house, which the Scripture forbids me from doing (2 John 9-11). No one is disputing that voting a Mormon into the White House will legitimize Mormonism in the eyes of the American people, even leading many Americans to believe in the compatibility of Mormonism with Christianity, since so many Christians are going to the polls for the Mormon candidate. Although a few have attempted to pooh-pooh this notion, they've pretty much been silenced by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association's removal of Mormonism from its list of religions considered to be cults, a step taken by Billy and his son Franklin after meeting with Mitt Romney and coming out in endorsement of him for president. I, just like the vast majority of Christians—one might even argue all true Christians—loath what is occurring in this country under the current administration. However, I'm not willing to compromise the gospel and jeopardize its purity, along with men's immortal souls, for any reason, not even to change the occupant of America's Oval Office. In taking such a strong and unpopular stand, I can't help but feel I'm in illustrious company. Take for example the Apostle Paul, who boldly proclaimed that he would never imperil the preservation of the purity of the gospel by compromising for "a single minute" over anything in anyway (Galatians 2:5). The power to change America is not the ballot in the hands of voters, but the gospel in the hands of Christians. Why, then, should Christians compromise the gospel and take a chance at imperiling men's immortal souls for the sake of punching a ballot? One argument many have posed in protest of my refusal to vote for Mitt Romney is that I'm jeopardizing our religious liberties. Over and over again, I'm told that Mitt Romney, unlike Barack Obama, will at least keep our society free and open for the propagation of the gospel. Yet, the Bible tells me exactly what to do in regards to this particular issue; and it's not to vote, but to pray. In 1 Timothy 2:1-4, the Apostle Paul exhorts us to pray that God will use those “in authority," regardless of who is elected, to keep our society "quiet and peaceable" so that "all men" will have an opportunity to "come to the knowledge of the truth" and "be saved." As a Christian, I'm to pray for God to do this, not vote for Romney to do it. In Proverbs 21:2, we are taught: “The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, as rivers of water: he turneth it withersoever he will.” If we will put our faith in God and clasp our hands in prayer to Him for political leaders, God, who holds their hearts in His hand, can sway them to keep our society “quiet and peaceable.” In such a society, we will be able to practice our faith, publicly worship our Lord, and propagate our land with the gospel. "This," according to the Apostle Paul, “is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour." On the other hand, I don't think it "is good [or] acceptable" for Christians to believe that the propagation of the gospel in America is dependent upon our votes for Romney rather than our prayers to God. Jesus said to Pilate, "You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above" (John 19:11). The Apostle Paul insisted that he was the "prisoner of Christ," not of Caesar (Ephesians 3:1; Philemon 1:1). Jesus saw the Father behind Pilate and Paul saw Christ behind Caesar. Both our precious Lord and the Apostle Paul understood, even when bad things were happening, that God is in control. Neither our country nor our world is in the hands of this world's rulers. Instead, this world's rulers are all in the hands of God. Presidents, in the end, are no more than pawns used by God in the carrying out of His plans and purposes. And no president can prevent God's plans and purposes from being fulfilled. HYPOTHETICALLY SPEAKING Most people dislike the insertion of hypotheticals into serious discussions over actual issues. I can certainly understand why? Still, it seems to me that sound arguments should prove just as applicable in hypothetical situations as in actual situations. In light of this, permit me to pose a couple of hypotheticals to my present detractors. First, let’s say that the Republican nominee for president was not Mitt Romney, but the late Anton LaVey, the founder of the church of Satan. In addition, let’s say that LaVey was running on the same Republican pro-choice and anti-same-sex marriage platform as Mitt Romney. Would you still go to the polls and vote for the Republican nominee, insisting that your vote for LaVey was not a vote for Satanism? Although the same grounds that prevent me from voting for Mitt Romney would prevent me from voting for Anton LaVey, the same argument you use to justify your vote for a Mormon could be used to justify your vote for a Satanist. By the way, the Bible teaches that to worship any false god is to actually worship the god of this world (Leviticus 17:7; Deuteronomy 32:17; 2 Chronicles 7:15; Psalm 106:37; 1 Corinthians 10:20-21; Revelations 9:20). Second, let’s say our country was holding a national referendum on whether Baal or Dagon would be worshiped as the new god of America. Would you assess the situation and proceed to the polls to punch your ballot for the idol perceived to be less deplorable, believing the least deplorable of the two to be best for the country? Furthermore, if you perceived Dagon to be the least deplorable, would you accuse me of Baal worship for refusing to bend my knee to either; after all, my refusal to vote for Dagon would help deify Baal? I believe these hypothetical situations clearly expose the flawed reasoning behind the arguments that your vote for Romney is not a vote for Mormonism and that my refusal to vote for Romney is actually a vote for Obama. Obviously, neither is actually the case, which is easily proven hypothetically speaking. THE FAR GREATER EVIL Despite all of the conspiracy theories and videos to the contrary, President Obama is not a Muslim. While he may bow before Saudi kings and give deference to Islamic nations over Israel, these things are not a product of his religion, but of his worldview. In our president’s worldview, Western Civilization, and America in particular, has grown prosperous at the expense of the rest of the world. It is our wealth that is to blame for the poverty of third world countries. Instead of seeing America as blessed by God, President Obama sees America as a blight on the rest of the world, which explains why he began his presidency on an international “apology” tour. It may also explain why his wife Michelle professed to being proud of her country for the first time in her life during her husband’s successful run for the White House in 2008. Our president actually professes to be a Christian, but his professed faith falls far short of a possessed Christian orthodoxy. For instance, consider the following. Although President Obama professes to be a Christian and claims to have a “personal relationship with Jesus Christ,” he is quick to qualify his peculiar brand of Christianity as including a belief in “many paths to the same place” for all who believe in “a higher power.” The “place” that he designates as the destiny of all higher power devotees should not be misunderstood as Heaven. According to our president, he doesn't “presume to [know] what happens after [we] die.” He just believes that lives well-lived will be rewarded. Though he’s unsure of “whether [our] reward is in the here and now or the hereafter,” he’s certain that we will be rewarded for whatever faith and values we align ourselves with. While unsure of whether or not there is a Heaven to gain, Mr. Obama is sure that there is no Hell to shun. He insists that his “God would [never] consign four-fifths of the world to Hell.” According to him, a belief in Hell is “just not part of [his] religious makeup.” Cathleen Falsani, a religion columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times, acutely observed after interviewing Mr. Obama that his insistence “that all people of faith—Christians, Jews, Muslims, animists, everyone—know the same God” is a most “unlikely theological position for someone who places his faith squarely at the feet of Jesus.” In other words, Barrack Obama’s customized Christianity is completely incompatible with the historic Christian faith. There’s simply no way to square it with the teachings of Jesus Christ. No one familiar with the historic Christian faith can seriously consider Barack Obama a Christian. How can he possibly be a disciple of Jesus Christ when he goes around denying and denouncing Christ’s teachings? Whereas Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me” (John 14:6), Barack Obama says that there are many ways to God and it doesn't matter which one you choose. Whereas Jesus warned all who refuse to believe in Him of Hell, Barack Obama insists that unbelievers have nothing to worry about, since there is no Hell. Still, President Obama maintains that he is a follower of the Master, despite the fact that his so-called Christian convictions are contradictory to what the Master said. Is Barack Obama what he professes to be? Judge for yourself. Here's his own description of the "Christian" faith he professes. According to him it is (1) Suspicious of dogma (2) Without any monopoly on the truth (3) Nontransferable to others (4) Infused with a big healthy dose of doubt, and (5) Indulgent of and compatible with all other religions. Unlike traditional Christianity, which Mr. Obama bemoans for its “call to evangelize and proselytize,” our president's faith is strictly a personal and private affair. Although he has no qualms about parading it in public for the sake of political expediency, he would never dream of preaching it to others in hopes of converting them to Christ. Now, that I’ve exposed the pseudo faith our president professes and shown that he is no Muslim, despite all the conspiracy theories to the contrary, let me debunk another argument being frequently made against me for refusing to cast a vote against Obama by punching my presidential ballot for Romney. Many argue that voting for a Mormon is better because, unlike Muslims, there are no Mormon Jihadists; that is, Mormons trying to kill us. Though I’ve already shown this argument to be inapplicable to our president, let me go ahead and deal with it as though it were tenable. Years ago I was confronted by two Baptist pastors at a conference I was leading for misrepresenting Islam in a book I had written: The Truth About Islam. According to these two clergymen, I misrepresented Islam by making it out to be evil, when in actuality only a small percentage of Muslims were perpetrators or supporters of terrorism. I could scarcely believe my ears, Baptist pastors defending the world’s largest and fastest growing false religion. In response to their accusations, I posed a question to these two Baptist defenders of the Islamic faith. I asked them: “Let’s say we could erase all the verses in the Koran that advocate violence in the cause of Allah, which would be 123 verses to be exact, let’s say we could remove from history all of the violence perpetrated by Muslims against so-called infidels, those refusing to bow their head and bend their knee to Allah, the god of Islam, and let’s say we could remove from the headlines of today’s newspapers all the acts of terrorism being perpetrated all over the world by Islamists; in fact, let’s say that there was no terrorism associated with Islam whatsoever, neither in its past nor present, then, what would you have left?” The answer I declared to these two misguided ministers of the gospel was this: “You would still have the world’s fastest growing false religion, which is being masterfully used by the god of this world to deceive untold millions into Christless graves at the forfeiture of their immortal souls!” I then added, “I don’t know about you, but that is evil to me.” They had nothing to say. The greatest evil of Islam is not the threat posed by its terrorists to men’s temporal bodies, but the threat posed by its tenets to men’s immortal souls. Jesus once said, “Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28). Although taking someone’s temporal life is certainly a great evil, deserving of capital punishment (Genesis 9:6), deceiving one into the forfeiture of eternal life is a far greater evil, which explains the Apostle Paul’s divinely inspired tirade in Galatians 1:8-9 against all propagators of false faiths, regardless of whether they are Muslims or Mormons. Read below these strong and startling words of the Apostle Paul as translated by J. B. Phillips. “Yet I say that if I, or an angel from Heaven, were to preach to you any other Gospel than the one you have heard, may he be damned! You have heard me say it before and now I put it down in black and white—may anybody who preaches any other Gospel than the one you have already heard be a damned soul!” Those are strong words. Why was the Apostle Paul so adamant and hard in his opposition to all false faiths? Was it not because he understood what was at stake, namely, the immortal souls of men. Unlike Paul, few Christians today seem to understand how men’s immortal souls are imperiled by the evil of false faiths, which is proven by Christians support of a Mormon over a perceived Muslim for president, despite the fact that both are equally imperiling to men’s immortal souls and anathematized by the Apostle Paul in Scripture. There is no greater crime one can perpetrate against humanity than the propagation of a false faith. By the way, both presidential candidates are equally guilty of it! THE FAST APPROACHING FINAL DARK AGES In his classic work, The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon shows how Rome fell and the cross went up on the Acropolis. Why? Was it because Christians went to the polls for Caesar or because they preached Christ? When the fledgling, persecuted church stayed on task, that task being Christ's Great Commission, it conquered the most powerful empire on the face of the earth. It did so armed with nothing but the double-edged Sword of the Spirit. Granted, many will argue that it was under a Roman Emperor, Constantine, that the church conquered. However, long before Constantine, Tertullian had said of Christ's indestructible church, "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church." Despite Rome's attempt to stamp out the church, the church spread until one apologist wrote: "We are everywhere. We are in your towns and in your cities; we are in your country; we are in your army and navy; we are in your palaces; we are in the senate; we are more numerous than anyone." Constantine simply had the good sense to know: "If you can't whip them, join them." Interestingly, when he made the Christian faith the favored religion of the Roman Empire, (1) the church jumped into bed with the emperor (2) stopped growing expeditiously, and (3) was soon plunged into the darkness of the Dark Ages, a dark time when the light of the gospel was almost extinguished upon the earth. L. E. Maxwell wrote, "Mark well, O popular Christian and worldly-wise preacher, venturing how far you must go with the world in order to win the world: never had the Church so much influence over the world as when she had nothing to do with the world." Today's church, unlike the early church, thinks its influence is found at the polls, not in the pulpit. Instead of keeping itself a "chaste virgin to Christ," the one to whom it is "espoused" (2 Corinthians 11:2), it hops into bed with a political party allowing itself to be used by politicians for their political ends. Somehow it thinks that this prostituting of itself will result in its betrothed (Christ) blessing America. Go figure! Until the church in America resolves to be used by no one but Christ, we need not look for the cross to go up on the American "Acropolis." It doesn't matter how many Christians go to the polls, because the real problem in America is that so few Christians today are preaching the gospel.
IS AMERICA GOING UP IN SMOKE?
Ever since the days of ancient Babylon, which was the first great Gentile world power, every Gentile superpower has served as the Babylon of its day. For instance, Peter called Rome, the great Gentile world power of his day, "Babylon" in 1 Peter 5:13. As today's only remaining superpower, America serves as the "Babylon" of our present-day world. Throughout the years many prophecy pundits have taught that America does not appear in Bible prophecy. In light of our country's current critical condition, the possibility of our imminent demise and subsequent disappearance from any end-time scenario does appear to be a most plausible probability. However, it is also possible that America does appear in Bible prophecy, but does so figuratively and under a different name. Take for example the book of Revelation's "MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH" (17:5). Revelation's predicted "Babylon the Great" is simply the end-time Gentile world power. If we are living in the last days, then, America alone fits this bill. According to Revelation, this end- time Gentile superpower will be smugly sitting with a false sense of invulnerability when sudden destruction befalls her (18:7-17). As the smoke of her destruction rises, the whole world is aghast at the vulnerability of this once perceived impregnable "great city" (18:18). Furthermore, all of this is predicted to take place "in one hour" (18:10, 17). Who can keep from thinking about the events of 9/11 when reading the book of Revelation's description of the fall of this world's final Gentile superpower? The pieces of this prophecy and the events of that fateful day of infamy fit together perfectly. And who can deny that our country's current crisis and sense of insecurity is traceable back to the day when nineteen young box-cutter wielding Muslim terrorists shattered America's pompous air of impregnability?
In His Word, God warns that irrational fear and specious intimidation are sure signs of a people under His judgment. For instance, in Deuteronomy 32:30, the Bible explains the irrational fear of a thousand running from one and of ten thousand running from two as a consequence of a people being abandoned by their God. Is this the explanation for America's unfounded fright of Osama bin Laden, a man who hid for years in caves and an Afghan compound afraid to use a cellphone? How else do we explain the terror and trepidation caused in this world's only remaining superpower by nineteen box-cutter armed Muslims? Is all of this indicative of the fact that God has abandoned a God-abandoning America?
Another interesting truth from Scripture in regards to divine retribution is how God uses human rulers to bring His judgment upon peoples and nations. For instance, God used Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon, to judge the ancient kingdom of Judah (Jeremiah 27:1-8). In addition to bringing judgment upon a rebellious people through the human instrumentality of a foreign ruler, God also uses human rulers to bring divine retribution upon their own people and nation. For example, God used Egypt's hard-hearted Pharaoh to bring ancient Egypt to ruin (Exodus 7:3-5). In light of this, could the current hard-hearted occupant of the Oval Office actually be God's human instrument for bringing divine retribution upon America; and, if so, does this assure his reelection come November?
In His Word, God warns that irrational fear and specious intimidation are sure signs of a people under His judgment. For instance, in Deuteronomy 32:30, the Bible explains the irrational fear of a thousand running from one and of ten thousand running from two as a consequence of a people being abandoned by their God. Is this the explanation for America's unfounded fright of Osama bin Laden, a man who hid for years in caves and an Afghan compound afraid to use a cellphone? How else do we explain the terror and trepidation caused in this world's only remaining superpower by nineteen box-cutter armed Muslims? Is all of this indicative of the fact that God has abandoned a God-abandoning America?
Another interesting truth from Scripture in regards to divine retribution is how God uses human rulers to bring His judgment upon peoples and nations. For instance, God used Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon, to judge the ancient kingdom of Judah (Jeremiah 27:1-8). In addition to bringing judgment upon a rebellious people through the human instrumentality of a foreign ruler, God also uses human rulers to bring divine retribution upon their own people and nation. For example, God used Egypt's hard-hearted Pharaoh to bring ancient Egypt to ruin (Exodus 7:3-5). In light of this, could the current hard-hearted occupant of the Oval Office actually be God's human instrument for bringing divine retribution upon America; and, if so, does this assure his reelection come November?
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
PROPHETS & POLITICIANS
Since Iʼve constantly being criticized by all sides in this political season for my refusal to parrot the "correct" political lines, I felt compelled to remind everyone, who may have forgotten, that Iʼm a preacher, not a politician. Hereʼs an article I wrote sometime back that explains the difference between the two.
Years ago, Mike Huckabee, a former Southern Baptist pastor, exchanged the "pastorium" for the Governor's Mansion in Arkansas. He traded his pulpit and sermons for political office and stump speeches. Now, I canʼt say that he sinned in doing so, since I donʼt know his heart nor God's specific call upon his life, but I can say that he, like everyone else who has stepped down from the pulpit into politics, has been soiled by it.
Although Huckabee now has his own television show on Fox and is a New York Times bestselling author, one can't help but ask what price this preacher has paid for his celebrity? Is he guilty of a Faustian selling of his soul for the price of political clout? Permit me to illustrate why such a question is not gratuitous.
During a past run for the Republican presidential nomination, Mike Huckabee was asked, during a 2007 CNN/You Tube debate, “With the death penalty, what would Jesus do?” Huckabee answered, “Jesus was too smart to run for public office. Thatʼs what Jesus would do.” Although his answer won him the biggest laugh of the night, I found it to be no laughing matter.
To me, Governor Huckabeeʼs answer did a horrible disservice to the Word of God, since the Bible clearly teaches that if a man “sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed” (Genesis 9:6). By opting for a laugh from the debateʼs audience rather than informing it that Jesus was already on record as having spoken clearly on the subject, this former pastor now turned politician did what most politicians would, but what no true preacher of the Gospel ever should. While Mr. Huckabeeʼs response to this political hot potato was politically expedient, it was spiritually unedifying.
There is simply no way for a preacher to become a politician, at least not a successful politician, without being soiled by it. As it has been aptly observed, “Politics is a dirty business.” The political stump speech and the pulpit sermon are worlds apart, and no one can go from one to the other without being drastically changed. The world of the prophet—not a false prophet, but the true prophet of God—and that of the politician—not a true statesman, but your typical modern-day politician—are worlds apart. They are mutually exclusive and in many ways diametrically opposed to one another. For instance, consider the following:
(1) The preacher is someone who deals in truth, no matter how unpopular it makes him. A politician is someone who for political expediencyʼs sake deals in lies, never coming any closer to the truth than a half-truth.
(2) The preacher tells the congregation the truths that they need to hear, no matter how much it jeopardizes his pulpit or his pastorate. The politician is someone who tells the electorate the lies that they want to hear in order to secure for himself political office.
(3) Whereas the preacherʼs sermons are based on the eternal and never-changing Word of God, the politicianʼs stump speeches are based on the latest in a never-ending line of ever-changing public opinion polls.
(4) To the preacher, compromise is a vice for which he must answer to God. To the politician, compromise is a virtue without which it is impossible to govern.
(5) The preacher must always sacrifice pragmatism for principle, never believing that the ends justify the means. On the other hand, the politician frequently sacrifices principle for pragmatism, always believing that the ends justify the means.
According to Matthew 27:15-26, one of the last events in the life of our Lord was His losing of a public election by a landslide to a common criminal. The reason for our Lordʼs unpopularity was His uncompromising stand for unpopular truth. In spite of the fact that such a stand for the truth cost Him a public election, not to mention His life, no one has ever made a bigger difference in this world than our Lord. Like his Master and unlike most modern-day politicians, the true preacher of Jesus Christ understands that itʼs not winning elections that changes the world, but itʼs standing up for the truth.
Swapping the pulpit sermon for the political stump speech? God forbid! Compromising the truth in order to win an election? Never! Soiled by dirty politics rather than sanctified by Christ for His use in the world today? Donʼt be preposterous!
© 2012 Don Walton used with permission
Time4Truth Magazine
Years ago, Mike Huckabee, a former Southern Baptist pastor, exchanged the "pastorium" for the Governor's Mansion in Arkansas. He traded his pulpit and sermons for political office and stump speeches. Now, I canʼt say that he sinned in doing so, since I donʼt know his heart nor God's specific call upon his life, but I can say that he, like everyone else who has stepped down from the pulpit into politics, has been soiled by it.
Although Huckabee now has his own television show on Fox and is a New York Times bestselling author, one can't help but ask what price this preacher has paid for his celebrity? Is he guilty of a Faustian selling of his soul for the price of political clout? Permit me to illustrate why such a question is not gratuitous.
During a past run for the Republican presidential nomination, Mike Huckabee was asked, during a 2007 CNN/You Tube debate, “With the death penalty, what would Jesus do?” Huckabee answered, “Jesus was too smart to run for public office. Thatʼs what Jesus would do.” Although his answer won him the biggest laugh of the night, I found it to be no laughing matter.
To me, Governor Huckabeeʼs answer did a horrible disservice to the Word of God, since the Bible clearly teaches that if a man “sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed” (Genesis 9:6). By opting for a laugh from the debateʼs audience rather than informing it that Jesus was already on record as having spoken clearly on the subject, this former pastor now turned politician did what most politicians would, but what no true preacher of the Gospel ever should. While Mr. Huckabeeʼs response to this political hot potato was politically expedient, it was spiritually unedifying.
There is simply no way for a preacher to become a politician, at least not a successful politician, without being soiled by it. As it has been aptly observed, “Politics is a dirty business.” The political stump speech and the pulpit sermon are worlds apart, and no one can go from one to the other without being drastically changed. The world of the prophet—not a false prophet, but the true prophet of God—and that of the politician—not a true statesman, but your typical modern-day politician—are worlds apart. They are mutually exclusive and in many ways diametrically opposed to one another. For instance, consider the following:
(1) The preacher is someone who deals in truth, no matter how unpopular it makes him. A politician is someone who for political expediencyʼs sake deals in lies, never coming any closer to the truth than a half-truth.
(2) The preacher tells the congregation the truths that they need to hear, no matter how much it jeopardizes his pulpit or his pastorate. The politician is someone who tells the electorate the lies that they want to hear in order to secure for himself political office.
(3) Whereas the preacherʼs sermons are based on the eternal and never-changing Word of God, the politicianʼs stump speeches are based on the latest in a never-ending line of ever-changing public opinion polls.
(4) To the preacher, compromise is a vice for which he must answer to God. To the politician, compromise is a virtue without which it is impossible to govern.
(5) The preacher must always sacrifice pragmatism for principle, never believing that the ends justify the means. On the other hand, the politician frequently sacrifices principle for pragmatism, always believing that the ends justify the means.
According to Matthew 27:15-26, one of the last events in the life of our Lord was His losing of a public election by a landslide to a common criminal. The reason for our Lordʼs unpopularity was His uncompromising stand for unpopular truth. In spite of the fact that such a stand for the truth cost Him a public election, not to mention His life, no one has ever made a bigger difference in this world than our Lord. Like his Master and unlike most modern-day politicians, the true preacher of Jesus Christ understands that itʼs not winning elections that changes the world, but itʼs standing up for the truth.
Swapping the pulpit sermon for the political stump speech? God forbid! Compromising the truth in order to win an election? Never! Soiled by dirty politics rather than sanctified by Christ for His use in the world today? Donʼt be preposterous!
© 2012 Don Walton used with permission
Time4Truth Magazine