God is good all the time—except if Hillary might be president?

Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? 2 Cor. 6:14

I hope you’ll read my disclaimers before you read my post. Most of all, I hope you will prayerfully read my post even if you ultimately disagree with me. But first the disclaimers:

  • My ultimate concern with Donald Trump has always been the issue of LIFE. I made a vow before God on this matter that I take more seriously than my need to keep friends or anything else. That concern has not changed.
  • I hesitate at posting this not because I hesitate at any of my words, but because I am human—a person who likes to be liked, wanted, accepted. And I know the risk of a post like this means some won’t. That happened to me four years ago when I discovered Mitt Romney’s ties to the abortion industry and declared that pro-lifers should reconsider him. “You can’t say that. He’s the nominee; he’s the only chance we have now,” people told me. Thus, I began losing friends—on Facebook and in real life. Four years later I find myself in a happy place. I have friends and family, a home I love, a stability I’ve not had in ages. I have a new church I cherish. And I have a multitude of friends supporting Mr. Trump. Many support him because he is a better chance for Republican ideals, economic gain, and social issues most aligned with Christianity. I fully understand that. But I can’t.
  • This piece is not my personal “venting” about a man. My feelings are not what matter most, though certainly they are mixed in. This post is not to convince you to change your vote (the fact is, a Bible-believing Christian cannot equally justify a vote for the other three candidates placed on our ballots. My own state forbids me from writing in a candidate). I respect the right of the American people to cast their own private vote. My friendship and love for others is not contingent upon their vote or my agreement with any other aspect. In other words, you may vehemently disagree with every word in here and I can love you the same as I did before. My love is not conditional. That said, I hope you will read on.

The fire in my bones

I spoke out vocally during the primary season and made no secret of my support for Ted Cruz. I still believe he was the best man for the job, but Mr. Trump secured the nomination. That didn’t change my mind, but I chose not to speak very loudly after that because what’s done was done, and I didn’t have an option to present. Today the election fire burning in my bones is less about the selection on November 8 as it is about considering the will and permissiveness of God. Thus, I want to present two ideas in this piece. One is about our theology in this culture and the other is about morality in leadership. They are not mutually exclusive, of course, but they are also issues with some separate points. My audience is traditional, Bible-believing Christians. Anyone, of course, is welcome to read what I write, but I am addressing the church here.

We say we’re praying for the election, saying we trust God to accomplish his will, reveal what is hidden. What if this latest scandal–among many–is an answer to prayer? Do we have faith to believe that what we see and understand might be different from what God sees and understands. Do we really mean we are praying and seeking His divine will? Or does that subtext actually say, “We need to pray that people vote for Trump because Hillary is bad?”

We excuse this man’s repeated and public sins because we see him as our only hope to have a sort-of conservative in the White House, and hang on to our Supreme Court seats for the next generation. There’s some obvious truth to the Supreme Court argument, but is that enough to justify the defiance of the word of God?

And about those words. I can tell you that for every word that “Trump is God’s chosen man,” there have been words that Cruz, Rubio, and others have been. Repeatedly I see people say, “I believe the word of the Lord about Trump being God’s choice.” By whose authority do we receive the word of the Lord? A word should be confirmed by scriptural truth. To blindly receive the word of the Lord because someone well-known or respected says it is a slippery slope. We are to test the spirits. Many well-meaning people have given false words; we are human; we prophesy in part. If the sole reason we have supported Mr. Trump is “the prophet said so” then we need to look at our own theology.

But he said it a decade ago, says the argument. That he did. This one. This is not the first instance of his vulgarity, by far–it’s a pervasive pattern–and it probably isn’t the last, unless he chooses now to repent and become the different man he claims he is.. That’s the issue here. If our faith compels us to support him as our God-chosen leader, we have some questions to ponder.

While Mr. Trump issued an apology, it was not the apology of a strong leader. It lacked both contrition for the act and repentance for the sins. Trump is said to have converted to Christianity, but makes no mention of this as he apologies. In fact, it’s been others who have reported he “accepted Jesus.” (The leader who reportedly led him to the Lord is one who has publicly justified her own sinful choices, incidentally, which doesn’t mean she couldn’t have led him to the Lord, but it would be helpful to hear a confession of faith from the one proclaiming it). Trump himself previously stated he didn’t need to ask Jesus for forgiveness. Later, he backtracked some and said he hoped he wouldn’t have to ask for much. His description of who Jesus is to him was telling:

“Jesus to me is somebody I can think about for security and confidence. Somebody I can revere in terms of bravery and in terms of courage and, because I consider the Christian religion so important, somebody I can totally rely on in my own mind.”

But maybe he decided sometime after that statement in June that he needed Jesus as more. Some say since he has surrounded himself with Christian leaders, it’s a sign of his purity of heart. However, that doesn’t make him a fruit-bearing Christian anymore than a twig surrounding itself with apple trees produces apples. I cannot judge the depths of Trump’s heart, but I can judge what the fruit tastes like, and it is bitter much of the time.

Trump’s sex tape apology was mixed and poorly received by many Republicans. Trump says, in part:

“I’ve never said I’m a perfect person, nor pretended to be someone that I’m not. I’ve said and done things I regret, and the words released today on this more than decade-old video are one of them. Anyone who knows me knows these words don’t reflect who I am. I said it, I was wrong, and I apologize…. I pledge to be a better man tomorrow and will never, ever let you down.

“Let’s be honest, we’re living in the real world. This is nothing more than a distraction from the important issues we’re facing today. We’re losing our jobs, we’re less safe than we were eight years ago. And Washington is totally broken. Hillary Clinton and her kind have run our country into the ground.”

In the midst of these words are some notable problems. He apologizes almost as necessity, as if to say “oh crud! I better apologize this time.” He expresses no remorse for his attitude, his demeaning comments, and his perversion. He pledges to be a better man tomorrow, implying he is not yet. He doesn’t say anything more than “I was wrong.” Wrong about saying it in an interview? Getting caught? Discussing sexually abusive comments? The lack of specificity is tantamount to a child who apologizes because he was caught and doesn’t want to be grounded.

Further disturbing in his apology, however, is his conclusion. Calling such perversion a mere “distraction” is bad enough, but to then deflect back to Clinton is inappropriate. Whatever Clinton has or has not done is irrelevant to Trump’s actions at issue here. This is not a war of who committed the worst sins (and frankly, it wasn’t Mrs. Clinton caught with her pants down anyway).

Because this happened on the brink of the Sunday night debate, I decided I should watch and give it one more chance. What I heard appalled me. Trump reiterated, numerous times, that while he “regretted” his words, “This is locker room talk. It’s just locker room talk.”  But the jock in the locker room isn’t running to be the leader of the free world, running on a platform of conservative faith values–and isn’t 59 years old, which is how old Trump was in this recording. After being pressed by Anderson Cooper about the actions he describes in the tapes, such as groping women and forcing them to kiss him, he backtracks and says he didn’t do those things. Thus, he announces himself as a 59-year-old boy who brags about sexual conquests that didn’t exist (assuming he is telling the truth).

Additionally, after the first mention of the tapes, he briefly answered with his catch-all “just locker room talk” statement, and then launched into a litany of how ISIS was doing awful things and we should be focusing on that. ISIS was the buzzword for Trump’s deflection, but dealing with ISIS and dealing with the perversion are not mutually exclusive. It is inappropriate to hold ISIS up as a reason to ignore the continued patterns of perversion.

But Trump is not alone in his deflective defense. Many others have joined him. One popular defense says, “We must defeat Hillary no matter what.” This tactic says we are deciding to overlook all the red flags about Trump in order to defeat someone we know better is actually worse. Believers, this argument says we don’t trust God enough to believe that He would or could allow Clinton into office. Worst of all it says that God Himself could compromise His own standard for the sake of defeating Clinton.

Another defense says, “we are all sinners who need Jesus.” This statement is true. The implied result is not. As believers we are all sinners who have repented and turned from our sins. We would all call a pattern of pervasive sin an “unrepentant lifestyle.” Except when Trump is the issue. Yes, these tapes were a decade ago, but these tapes are not an isolated incident. There have been incidents in the past few weeks back to well before these tapes. Time and again, Trump is perpetuating deep offenses and degrading comments.

Finally, the most prevailing defense against him indefensible goes like this, “Well, they haven’t been in a locker room if they think that talk is shocking. I have heard worse in____.” “What about the popularity of Fifty Shades of Grey, which was much worse?” “If you think that is bad, how about Bill Clinton…” And all of those have only one answer: They are not the issue at hand. They are real and legitimate issues, but guess what? That talk is not okay in the locker room either. There is always worse somewhere, but the Oval Office should be some of the best. No Christian should be filing his or her mind with porn anyway, but maybe the popularity of that porn novel explains our tolerance for open perversion. And Bill Clinton isn’t actually running for president, so that comparison isn’t about this. Whatever his wife has done or not also isn’t the issue. Her issues are reasons to reconsider voting or endorsing her. These false equivalency arguments are just that, false. The issue at hand is the issue at hand.

Sometimes trusting God and leaning not to our own understanding means doing what’s right even when the obvious cost is high. We cannot claim we trust God is we are paralyzed with fear over Clinton being our president.

Resurgent author Erick Erickson writes in a compelling piece that while Clinton would be bad for America, Trump would be bad for the church. You can read his piece here, but sufficient to say, I agree with him. He asserts:

More importantly, while I think Hillary Clinton will do long term damage to the country, I believe Donald Trump will do far more damage to the church, which must be my chief priority. A Clinton Administration may see the church besieged from the outside, but a Trump Administration will see the church poisoned from within.

Read his whole piece for the details, but the facts he lays out are troubling. Detailing the justification Christians are making for Trump, Erickson notes:

So many pastors who email me to beg me to reconsider and so many others who write do so because they think this is the last best chance to get this nation right. They think we will turn a corner after which we cannot turn back. While I concede they may be right, what I see is a level of desperation causing them to place their trust in one strong man instead of God. And, in truth, I do not concede they are right, but have concluded we are already past the point of redemption when the best either party can do is offer up Clinton or Trump. We are beyond the point of looking to five black robed masters to save us from ourselves when we put up either a Clinton or a Trump. The seriousness and virtue of the voter is in the grave already and my Christian brethren for Trump yearn for an idolized past that never existed in a future that is not theirs, but God’s, to shape.” (Emphasis added).

Lastly, for those who compare Trump to Cyrus, God never asked his people to support Cyrus’s cause, only to accept him as their ruler. God never asks his people to choose between the lesser of two evils. God uses all men, from pharaoh to Trump. And he can do so without making Christians endorse the person’s sins. God did not tell the Jews to throw open the gates of Jerusalem for Nebuchadnezzar. God did that himself. God shut the door of the ark and brought the rain and dried again the land. God raises us from the dust of the earth and he stitched us together in our mothers’ wombs. He holds the entire universe in the palm of his hand. God can see us through all things if we aren’t so busy pretending his will and exercising pretended divine authority. His will be done. If God wants Trump in the White House, he does not need my vote or a violation of my conscience to get Trump there. To think otherwise is to think God is not God.

On being unequally yoked

To endorse a person is to be yoked with him. I would argue that there is a line between the average Christian just trying to make a tough choice and a leader charged with standing for truth and righteousness actually yoking him or herself with a man who practices unrighteousness. Is this not an unequal yoking?

Our fawning love affair with Trump is like a woman trying some evangelism dating because she’s getting older and hasn’t found the right man among her Christian group. She meets a guy she really likes and decides since he says he believes in God and talks to Him sometimes, he will grow in his faith and be a man of God. Perhaps he will. But he is not then ready to be her Christian husband prepared to lead his family. The woman, we all recognize, is deceived and just wants the man she thinks is the best chance she has, so she compromises while justifying herself it will work out. Instead, she spends years unequally yoked, bonded to a marriage that produces no fruit. And her husband? Why does he need to pursue Jesus more deeply? His wife married him after all, and she loves Jesus, so he’s obviously good enough to remain on his complacent laurels.

Erickson notes our fears are similar. Christians are equating Clinton in office as their own destruction:

They seemingly argue that if the nation falls, the church falls and for the church to rise the country must rise. But Christ has already risen so the true church is in no danger of falling. The gates of hell shall not prevail.

Leadership apart from Christianity

If Trump were not enmeshed in the religious side of things and endorsed by a rousing round of Evangelicals, there would still be valid concerns about his leadership abilities. A leader has to be the front man (or woman) the model for others. In my job we are sometimes charged with doing minutiae that is really not related to our job. It’s time consuming and, frankly, annoying. You know the first person to start working at it? My boss. He starts, does the most work, and takes the fall as the leader if upper level management is displeased. He faces it head on. He is a pleasure to work for because he leads us by example. We never have to wonder if he will back us if we do things correctly, and help us if we do them incorrectly. We also never have to worry he will do something wildly inappropriate that would put us all under a lens. This is what good leaders do; they lead with integrity and strength. They don’t yell, blast pomposity, or insult other leaders they think do a worse job. They focus on their jobs and the people they are charged with leading. My boss and I share some differing political views, but I could much easier vote for him as our president because he leads well.

Another point that Sunday’s debate causes me to add on the subject of leadership is this: Trump asserted, addressing the sex tapes and his comments, “They’re just words.” Considering my own career, I am horrified. Professionally speaking, those “just words” can easily get someone fired for sexual harassment. Those types of comments to women or about women can actually be illegal, in addition to being immoral and assaulting. They are not “just words.” And putting faith aside as a factor, words such as these and the 17 years of recordings to shock jock Howard Stern, further propagating sexual deviance, are enough to get some people fired or sued.

But what about Hillary?

“But what about Hillary?” is not an appropriate response to our concerns with Trump. In a court of law, when someone is accused and his counsel tries to talk abut another criminal, the opposing counsel objects. “Sustained!” the judge says, “Irrelevant. Counsel, keep your arguments to the case at hand.”

Ask yourself if Trump were before you as nether Democrat or Republican, but simply a man running for office about whom you knew all you know now, would he be a viable option for you in that anonymous presentation? Is he only viable because of the opposition?

In the book of Job, Job is dealt what seems to as an unfair hand. His life is pulled out from under him—under God’s permissive will. God allowed Satan to do what he did, and his friends can’t see the reasoning so they have to make some theology up to fit their paradigm. They offer justification for Job’s suffering that is well-intended but unbiblical. Understanding a confusing situation is not a prerequisite to seeing God’s hand in it.

“God is good,” we say, chanting back in unison, “all the time.” (“And all the time, God is good! Amen!”) We say it when we find a parking space up close on a rainy day, get a promotion or when we pass a test by one point. We say it when things go well for us. Sometimes, those with deeper understanding of the Lord, say it when things don’t go well. I have had friends with cancer say “God is good” and mean it. They know something not every Christian knows: God is good, but His good may not look like our good.

Our perception is earthly perception. It is flawed. I think of the most tragic and painful events of my life, events that even caused me to question God. Had I not been orphaned, dumped again, tossed aside, I would not have the parents I have now. Was God good when I was abandoned? Was He good when I was “unadopted”? Or is He only good now that I have parents? Was the same God not God in it all?

What if we vote apart from our fears and Clinton becomes our president? What if our religious liberties truly erode, our taxes skyrocket—and abortion becomes more widespread (heaven forbid) than it is now? What horror just the last point would bring.

But what if, in the midst of that, the church then realized its calling, and the true believers rose up out of apathy and silence en masse this time? What if we thrived and became the mighty remnant of the Lord, filled with signs, wonders, miracles, power, hope? What if multitudes came to the saving grace of the true Jesus because of the state of the nation and our witness? What if the entire face of the nation changed in a way like that? What if a declined national climate, even persecution, brought the revival we say we want at any cost?

A fact few note when fighting for pro-life issues is that under Barack Obama’s administration, there have been more restrictions on abortion than anytime since Roe v. Wade. The reason certainly isn’t our pro-abortion president. The reason is the army of people who got either awakened or just plain scared by his leadership and fought back. Now, hear me clearly: In no way am I suggesting he was the best choice for LIFE. He was not. But God used his election to lower the abortion rate. Never have I seen such a powerful prayer movement against abortion, coupled with action by believers to end the atrocities. When it was obvious the government wasn’t going to take the lead from the executive branch, the church stepped up to the legislative branch.

Listen, folks, I get it. I really do. If anyone understands the gravity of the Supreme Court seats, it is I. I wept when Justice Scalia died because I knew in that moment what it meant for us on issues of Christian conservatism. After Trump was nominated, I prayed more. I asked God if I was to vote for him, and my covenant with God made that answer pretty clear. But neither did I wish to tear him down. In the back of my mind I had a light hope that he would be elected and at least I would still be able to afford to pay my taxes, get rid of the Obamacare mandate—and have more conservative justices. I wanted it to be okay. This is the reason I have said very little since he secured the nomination. I conceded inwardly that he was probably the best chance, though I could note endorse, or even vote, for him.

Unlike some of my #NeverTrump friends, I did not get angry with my pro-life leader friends who joined his national advisement team. Advising and endorsing are different. I would advise a Satanist to turn to Jesus and fill her with reasons why, though I would never endorse her worship. I believed, perhaps, even though he really wasn’t equipped for the job, as a businessman, he was smart enough to surround himself with those who were. Like many, I supported his VP choice in Mike Pence, one of the most pro-life leaders in our nation whose work as governor I know well, though I could not turn my endorsement for Pence into one for the double ticket. What I am trying to emphasize here is that I have not been hostile in these months; I have prayed and been open to Trump being our president. I have actively looked for the best. But it’s not there.

Mr. Trump is a man created by God whom Jesus adores with every iota of who He is. Jesus is love and loves Trump as much as he loves Billy Graham–and you and me. That’s the gospel, folks. His death was for both and all of us in between. Trump is not beyond redemption, salvation, or hope. He is not beyond repentance for his decades of sexual perversion, often publicly detailed. Whether the tapes that broke this story or his 17 years of talking to Howard Stern about sexual escapades and things I would not mention even in this blog, it’s clear there are issues. At no time has Trump offered repentance to the people he claims to be equipped to lead. But if one claims to be a Christian and is endorsed by people of faith, linked, locked, yoked to faith leaders and catering to people of faith, then there should be fruit. No, we are not electing a Sunday school teacher or pope, but we are electing a leader of a nation that is mired in issues of racism, sexual perversion, and other problems, which are furthered by Trump, out of his own mouth in recent weeks and months.

We say “I’m not Democrat or Republican; I’m about Jesus.” Jesus died on a cross to show the goodness of God. Is it so far beyond us to think that maybe this is the turning point for our nation and it’s not the pretty one we hoped? Do I know God’s plan exactly? That answer is obvious. But I know God’s character. God doesn’t have to stoop and settle, nor should his people.

I spent years as a part of ministries that taught me something I retained deep within me: Voting is a prophetic act. It is my duty to vote, but my vote is first and foremost before the Lord. I am making a statement to God of what I am doing with the honor He has given me to vote. I live in this world, but I live under the law of God. I can neither vote for Clinton nor Trump and the reasons are similar. The differences, however, are that one is claiming to represent people of faith, and is endorsed by leaders who name the name of Jesus. When you add Jesus into the mix, the implications are serious. Jesus asks us to be hot or cold—and has harsh words for being lukewarm.

I posit that God will do more with a sincere and seeking church subjected to a corrupt government than He will with a compromised church under a so-so government. My idealistic self hopes for a Pollyanna dream, like Trump and Pence switching places and Clinton defeated. But that likely won’t happen, as much as I can dream. So my Christian self has to ask, “do I trust the Lord enough that I believe even if publicly proclaiming his name and fighting against innocent bloodshed becomes illegal I can declare He is good and we are in his will?”

The Bible is filled, absolutely filled, with God moving mightily in the face of persecution. We have it so good in our nation that we seem to think a threat to our liberty can’t be the will of God. Can God use Trump, Clinton or anyone else? Absolutely. Absolutely without question. But His ability to use someone in spite of His desire is no the same as His endorsement. For what fellowship has light with darkness?

Advertisements

The kangaroos have left the zoo: Supreme Court chooses bloodshed again

Today was the kind of day where food pictures were making me angry. Sometimes there’s a heaviness in the land that can’t be dismissed by hamburgers and heart emojis. Sometimes we have to stop and cry out in repentance, cry out for mercy, and stop pretending it’s all going to be okay when we have refused to take up our call to make it so. Today was that day.

It was Saturday night as I was processing with a friend about the pending Supreme Court decision. I had been telling people it was unusual of me to not have a feeling of which way it would go. With all the big SCOTUS decisions the past few years, I wasn’t always happy, but I was never surprised. Often the questions the justices ask in the oral arguments give us an inkling of where the ruling will go, and that was the case here. As I processed with a friend, I suddenly knew what was going to happen. It made sense. Not sense to a pro-life mind, of course, but sense as I put myself on that bench with their questions and views. They didn’t see proof the law had benefited women, so it would be an “undue burden.” I had 36 hours to prepare myself mentally. It always helps, but it never lessens the blow when you see the words. “Supreme Court strikes down Texas law.” That was all it took. I inhaled sharply. That was it.

Now to be fair, the entire law was not struck down. Only the two parts in question in this case—hospital admitting privileges for abortionists and ambulatory care center requirements for the surgery itself—were struck. But it was about more than that. It was the biggest challenge to abortion in many years; it was the first real indicator that this nation might take a hard look at the crime of child sacrifice again. In 1973 when Roe was decided, we didn’t have the knowledge and technology we have today. Back then people didn’t get 4D sonograms where they could see their babies’ faces in the womb a few months into pregnancy. There was still some mystery in pregnancy. But now we can see through the uterine veil, and yet we still destroy what’s inside it.

In this case we have decided that being an enlightened and progressive society means not making it difficult for women to kill their babies, nor to inconvenience the abortion clinics too much to get it done. As usual I have a few observations and opinions, so here goes.

  • I’ve noted for years that safety regulations like those struck down are standard for most surgical procedures. Abortion is a surgical procedure. Arguing that it is a safe one is irrelevant. Appendectomies are safe. Hip replacements are safe. Hysterectomies are safe. Just because the surgery might be one with a high success rate doesn’t mean it’s not a risk. If I were a supporter of abortion and thought I needed one, I would consider myself a fool to entrust my entire reproductive system to a doctor who would not even be able to admit me to the hospital if I had complications, whose office did not even have the right sized doorway to get me through it if I were needing to be moved in an emergency. It is a terrifying reality that the abortion industry has so manipulated women into thinking an abortion is as simple as getting your teeth cleaned. It is a risky procedure. Granted, not many women die having abortions (though all their babies do), but many have had terrible complications, sometimes resulting in emergency surgery for those complications. What a travesty of justice for everyone to say having safety regulations in place is an “undue burden.” If all medicine were run like abortion, we’d have a land filled with maimed and dead people. Striking down such safety regulations is like saying it’s an undue burden to have to swallow penicillin four times a day. Why the heck would you not want as much safety as possible in a procedure that affects your uterus, for Pete’s sake? It’s astounding to me how afraid people are to regulate a medical procedure with risks.
  • Justice Kennedy has proven he is not a conservative anymore. Whatever happened to shift him, we may never know, but his track record for a season now has been to side with the liberal justices. We have believed that we had a 5-4 conservative court, prior to Scalia’s death. In fact, we now have a 5-3 liberal court, and what hangs in the balance does not bode well for the future of this nation.
  • Scalia’s death did not affect this ruling. Had he lived and voted, the ruling would have been 5-4 rather than 5-3. In some ways that helps me digest it, knowing his death did not impact this, but it’s still a bad ruling that glorifies abortion above life and health.

Beyond these facts, here’s what really concerns me: This is bigger than two parts of a law that became a political game. Spiritually, it’s a disaster. The shedding of innocent blood is a big, big deal to God. If you have never read the Bible for the phrase “shedding of innocent blood” and considered abortion as one of the main ways that happens, I challenge you to do so, but be prepared to have your spiritual life shaken—as it should be, for this is vital to God. One of my favorite authors, John Ensor, has this to say in his book Innocent Blood:

God always presents the shedding of innocent blood to his people as a matter of the highest priority. It comes to us in a way that knocks us off stride (or ought to). It messes with our schedules. It is arresting. It interrupts our normal patterns, at least temporarily. When life-saving actions are required to prevent the shedding of innocent blood, it falls particularly upon us, who believe, to suffer the imposition and take whatever preventive steps are necessary, lest innocent blood be shed and bloodguilt stain us all.

Bloodguilt? Seriously? Yes. Very seriously. God didn’t change his views in light of current culture. Ensor says:

“Bloodguilt” is a blunt, almost vulgar term. It hits rudely, like a slap in the face. It is God’s chosen term to arouse godly fear and compel decisive action. It is a word of awakening, forcing us to recognize an unbreakable linkage: God’s image is debased and his wrath justly incited every time a person made in God’s image is unjustly destroyed. There is no debasing of God’s image without consequences.

Bloodguilt requires God’s vengeance and vindication. It stands as an indictment against the sin of shedding innocent blood, but it is also a promise, of sorts, to victims. These are they who cried out to God and received no immediate answer. To them, it may have seemed either that God did not care or was powerless to intervene. Psalm 9:11-12 reminds us that neither of these options is true—this is a false choice: “Sing praises to the Lord, who sits enthroned in Zion! Tell among the peoples his deeds! For he who avenges blood is mindful of them; he does not forget the cry of the afflicted.” … And while he has his own reasons for delaying avenging wrath, he will not pardon it—he still has ample time to repay, and there is no statute of limitations.

Indeed, Ecclesiastes 8:11 says, Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.” And in Revelation, Jesus says of Jezebel, “And I gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, and she did not repent. Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds” (Rev. 2:20-21).

We are fools who do not understand the ways of God if we think His mercy means no judgment will come. His mercy gives us time to repent, to turn and save ourselves and others, but God would not be a just God if He did not bring justice to those who are oppressed, and of all the people who need justice, no one is more innocent or helpless than a child who cannot speak. All these babies can do is squirm and try to get away from the vacuum that has come to suck them from the womb. And as that child shrinks back, to no avail, Jesus weeps and aches. He must avenge these innocent ones. Or He’d be a liar. If I may, I’d like to leave you with one more Ensor quotation to explain why we can reconcile the love and mercy of God with the justice and vengeance of the shedding of innocent blood:

Love is moral in nature. If this is still hard to grasp, consider this: If I come across a man raping a woman, I cannot love them both in the same way: in that circumstance, love to the woman will look like rescue while love to the man may look like violence. This is because love is inherently moral in character.

Suppose I approach the terrorized woman and her brutal assailant and say, “I love you both equally and must express that love in the same fashion. God does not want you to violate this woman, but please do not think he is angry: because God is love, he does not get angry. Isn’t that amazing!”

The woman would denounce my faith as cowardly, irrational, and evil. So would you. Love must love righteousness and hate evil. Love must be passionately committed to right over wrong. It must pick sides. It must fight for the weak and the innocent and oppose the violent and the wicked. Therefore, I must scream my lungs out, push the man off of her, shout for a neighbor to call the police—do something. If the rapist turns on me with his knife and I lose my life in the process of defending the woman, what will they say? There is no greater love than to risk your life for another (cf. John 15:13).

You see, if the unborn baby is a person that God created, whom He knew before He formed him or her, then His love for that person must also be expressed by dealing with those who would destroy him or her. It would be unloving for the Lord to not deal with that.

We have been silent too long. We have let abortion be a back burner issue, a political issue. We have cared too much about who we might offend, rather than caring about offending God Himself who will not be mocked.

On January 22, 1973, this nation turned on God in a blatant and despicable way as it sanctioned the shedding of innocent blood on a national level. On June 27, 2016, this nation had the opportunity to reverse some of that course by offering a token of restraint, a voice that says “anything goes is not okay.” Today’s decision would not have reversed abortion, though the many shuttered clinics would have saved lives. Don’t let the back-alley abortion lies fool you. And frankly, to not put common sense and ordinary safety standards on abortion clinics doesn’t make them much better than back alley abortions anyway.

The bottom line, however, is that bloodshed sanctioned on the national level has far more harsh consequences than the individual choice of one person to kill her child. Remember this: people are eternal, but nations are not. A nation that kills its own and refuses to regulate any part of that process in the name of progress has actually become a nation of barbarians who have chosen being their own god while acting like Satan.

Is it too late? Of course not! But it’s time to get serious, Church. It’s time to stop sidestepping an issue that God has under the spotlight. Joel 2 says it far better than I could begin to when he writes:

“Now, therefore,” says the Lord,
“Turn to Me with all your heart,
With fasting, with weeping, and with mourning.”
13 So rend your heart, and not your garments;
Return to the Lord your God,
For He is gracious and merciful,
Slow to anger, and of great kindness;
And He relents from doing harm.
14 Who knows if He will turn and relent…

15 Blow the trumpet in Zion,
Consecrate a fast,
Call a sacred assembly;
16 Gather the people,
Sanctify the congregation,
Assemble the elders,
Gather the children and nursing babes;
Let the bridegroom go out from his chamber,
And the bride from her dressing room.
17 Let the priests, who minister to the Lord,
Weep between the porch and the altar;
Let them say, “Spare Your people, O Lord…

In short, stop your ordinary lives and pray. Churches, pray. Cancel the tea and call a prayer meeting. For real.

This is serious stuff. It’s not a political issue, and while good laws and righteous politicians help the cause, it is our responsibility as a church to take up our mantle and do the job with which God has entrusted us