--Global warming/climate change: Did God create an earth with such beneficial energy sources as coal, oil and natural gas, but also booby-trap them so that by using them, we would destroy the earth? Or did He create an earth with self-correcting mechanisms and long-term cycles of gradual warming and cooling? (Gen. 1:28, 31; 1 Tim. 4:4-5, 6:17; Gen. 9:11; Ps. 104:9; Jer. 5:22; Isa. 45:18). [Note: I list the alleged threat of catastrophic global warming as an issue here because it is one of the primary rationales behind the push by Democrats for ever-increasing government control of our lives. For more information see the Cornwall Alliance or chapter 41 of my Christian Ethics.]
The NAR position on immigration revolves around Romans 13, which they conveniently abandon when it comes to adhering to COVID restrictions. This Christian hypocrisy is not lost on the world and damages our collective witness for Christ. When we spend all of our credibility capital on matters of this world, why would anyone listen to us when it comes to the Gospel? The fact that Israel built walls does not mean that all wall building is now deemed righteous. How can a pastor preach about border security and not address the separation of mothers from their children? What about people seeking asylum? It saddens me that Christians are so swift to condemn people from poor countries simply because they won the "where were you born" lottery by being born in America. If you honestly believe Jesus would support walls and dividing families into cages then I suggest you re-read the Gospel accounts. As for the matter of climate change, look at the deceitful manner in which Grudem couches the argument. God did not booby trap the environment. Man is destroying it, led by the Republican Party who cares more about money than God's creation. The overarching point of course has nothing to do with climate. It has to do with money. Why in the world would God want to waste a second in preaching about a world the bible already assures us is passing away? He wouldn't. Grudem presented this laundry list of pet GOP issues as things Christians should agree on but that is absurd. This is again the damage the NAR does to the body of Christ. When you preach one side is right and the other wrong your starting position alienates half the church. They are not wrong. They simply disagree. Grudem actually lists other sermon topics that Christians might disagree on such as tax rates, economic growth, poverty, regulation, school choice, Israel, guns, and foreign policy. This is clearly from a carnal perspective. Should there be any disagreement between Christians when it comes to helping the poor? Then there are things here that I cannot believe Grudem thinks belong behind the pulpit rather than the Gospel. School choice? Seriously? Do you think God is pro-vouchers? Are you insane? You think God dislikes regulating businesses who destroy His creation? You think He is pro-gun? This is just horrible. Read the Pauline letters that spell out church organization and the role of a pastor. Is any of this there? Of course not. Grudem now addresses voting outside the two-party system:
"What about a Write-in Vote for President? The ability to vote is a stewardship given to us by God, and essential to that stewardship is a responsibility to affect the outcome of an election. By placing us in a country that has a democratic form of government and not a dictatorship or monarchy, we each have a small role as part of the "governing authority" that God has placed over our nation. "We the people" are in fact the human rulers of our nation. By voting, we play a role in governing. By voting, we are acting as "God's servant" for the "good" of the people as a whole (see Rom. 13:4). But voting for a write-in candidate or third-party candidate will not fulfill that stewardship because it will have no effect whatsoever on the outcome of this election. It has the same impact on the outcome as staying home and not voting. Therefore I consider it to be a misuse of our stewardship. It seems to me like putting an empty envelope in the offering plate when it passes you in church--it is going through the motions but accomplishing nothing. Another illustration that comes to mind is hiding your talent in the ground (Matt. 25:25).
The only choice available to us is a choice between two complete packages:
Package 1: Donald Trump and his policies.
Package 2: Joe Biden and his policies.
Both choices come as whole packages, and they are the only choices we have at the present time. Consider this teaching from Proverbs: "Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in your power to do it" (Prov. 3:27)." - Wayne Grudem
The ability to vote is not given to us by God. This is the warped thinking of the dominionist mind. They believe that God wants them to assist rule this pagan nation. Now, I am not against voting. We have a civic, secular responsibility to do so. It just has nothing to do with God. Whoever is president next year - God will still be on the throne. He is not cataloguing your voting record to determine if you are saved or not. Yet to hear dominionists speak they actually believe the opposite! Look at this warped logic Grudem is using. According to him, Christians cannot vote for a third-party candidate or write someone in! So if you have a Mormon and a liberal Christian, you cannot vote for Jesus. You cannot vote for a third-party candidate that actually shares our faith. You MUST according to Grudem, discern the lesser of the two evils presented. If it were left there that would be problematic enough. Grudem however defends that lesser evil. He brags about voting for it. He writes long articles demanding you need to embrace his lesser evil. One could make a more cogent biblical article for not voting for anything evil, no matter how "lesser" we have determined it to be. Grudem concludes:
"Conclusion - If you believe that God is calling you to teach about some political issues, you also have an opportunity to model how Christians can respect each other even when we have political differences. You can model a respectful and thoughtful tone. You might even consider giving opportunity for a responsible spokesman to express views different from yours. And it's up to you whether you mention the Democratic and Republican parties by name, or whether you speak in general about "Party A" and "Party B," or whether you just speak purely about issues without mentioning any political party. How many issues should you speak about? I cannot decide that for you. But I don't think the answer is zero." - Wayne Grudem
1
1
1
