Choose Your Battles…

I remember my mother telling me years ago to “choose my battles.” She was giving me advice relating to my parenting and on hindsight, I wish I would have applied her suggestion a little more specifically. As I think back to my teen years, I realize that there were things which my parents realized were not worth a fight and that they let us have our own way with some things, even though they weren’t in agreement with what we were doing. They knew that a way to alienate us as children was to tell us “no” all of the time or to constantly be nitpicking over minor things. Now that I have children that have passed from adolescence through the teen years and into adulthood, I realize the patience which my parents exercised – and also the faith. I also wonder how I should have done differently as a parent and how my children may have profited had I not made mountains of mole hills.

However, this post is not about parenting. A couple of weeks ago I read Gavin Ortlund’s book “Finding The Right Hills To Die On – The Case for Theological Triage“.

Gavin Ortlund is the pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai, CA. He has written a couple of other books as well. (“The Art Of Disagreeing – How To Keep Calm And Stay Friends In Hard Conversations” is supposed to arrive tomorrow). This was an excellent and much needed book. I didn’t agree with everything, we would agree on the fundamentals, but there were some areas which I believe he and I would perhaps choose different hills, but the principles apply none the less. (I do have a hard time with the title, grammatically it should be “Finding The Right Hills On Which To Die” – but that is not a hill on which I’ll die.)

The back cover explains the theme of the book.

Ortlund first ranks doctrines into 4 different categories: “First-rank doctrines are essential to the gospel itself. Second-rank doctrines are urgent for the health and practice of the church such that they frequently cause Christians to separate at the level of local church, denomination, and/or ministry. Third-rank doctrines are important to Christian theology, but not enough to justify separation or division among Christians. Fourth-rank doctrines are unimportant to our gospel witness and ministry collaboration.” I’m certainly not bound to his categories, but they do give much food for thought and a paradigm by which to begin.

Before going any further, I’ll insert that I’m convinced that some of the things over which Christians fight are actually not even doctrines. When the Pharisees challenged Jesus that his disciples were eating without washing their hands, Jesus pushed back and quoted Isaiah 29:13 and applied it to the Pharisees saying that they taught as Biblical doctrines those things which were actually just the commandments or traditions of men. There are many things which are presented as doctrine, which would be hard pressed to pass the litmus of genuine doctrine.

Back to the book.

I’ll share an overview of each chapter and some of the more poignant quotes from the book.

The first sentence in the introduction is “There’s an old saying (I can’t remember where I heard it): ‘There is no doctrine a fundamentalist won’t fight over, and no doctrine a liberal will fight over.'” It is a bit hyperbolic, but the caricature is certainly recognizable.

“The problem with making every error a heresy is that it ‘renders union more difficult.'” This quote comes in chapter 1, The Danger of Doctrinal Sectarianism. In seeking to identify some doctrines which unnecessarily divide, Ortlund quotes John Calvin commenting on those who have differing interpretations as to the immediate dispensation of the soul at death, “Calvin insists that such differences of opinion would not be a source of division apart from ‘unbridled contention and opinionated stubbornness.'” Also in chapter 1 quoting Martin Lloyd-Jones from his book Christian Unity – An Exposition of Ephesians 4:1-16, Jones said “the unity of the Church is a manifestation of the perfection of the Godhead.” Ortlund comments “It is striking that Jesus correlates the kind of unity that Christians should experience with the unity he has with the Father” (these thoughts come from the prayer of Jesus in John 17). “The church’s unity is essential to the advance of the gospel around us.” Again from Ortlund, “Much doctrinal separatism stems from finding our identity in our theological distinctives when we should be finding it in the gospel. As John Newton wisely warned, ‘self-righteousness can feed upon doctrines, as well as works!’.” These are all from chapter 1.

In chapter 2, The Danger of Doctrinal Minimalism, Ortlund shows that everything in Scripture is important. He starts with well-worn assertion “in essentials unity; in nonessentials liberty; in all things charity.” However, downplaying doctrines can also be dangerous. He now asserts 4 thoughts regarding the danger of minimizing doctrine. 1) Nonessential doctrines are significant to Scripture. 2) Nonessential doctrines are significant to church history. 3) Nonessential doctrines are significant to the Christian life. 4) Nonessential doctrines are significant to essential doctrines. He concludes chapter 4 by stating that “There is a time to fight over doctrine.”

Chapter 3 is a description of his own theological journey.

Chapter 4 takes the criterion for determining ranks of doctrine from 2 other authors, Erik Thoennes and Wayne Grudem; Ortlund reduces both of their lists and simplifies it to these 4 questions: 1) How clear is the Bible on this doctrine? 2) What is the doctrine’s importance to the gospel? 3) What is the testimony of the historical church concerning this doctrine? 4) What is the doctrine’s effect on the church today? This chapter relates to what he calls primary doctrines.

In this chapter Ortlund also explains that we must learn to recognize the difference between what must be affirmed and what must not be denied. We must distinguish what must be affirmed when someone becomes a Christian and what must be affirmed as characteristic growth in Christ over time. There must be a delineation between confused sheep and active wolves. (I think each of these can be expanded.)

Also in chapter 4 he discusses as examples the virgin birth and justification by faith alone.

In chapter 5, the focus is on wisdom and balance for secondary doctrines. He explains these as “their denial does not generally constitute a denial of the gospel. Second-rank doctrines are not essential to the gospel, but they are often important enough to justify divisions at the level of denomination, church, or ministry.” In this chapter for examples he discuses paedo-baptism and credo-baptism, spiritual gifts, and women in the ministry (complementarianism or egalitarianism). He discusses the difficulty of ranking secondary doctrines. He explains 3 reasons why they are hard to rank: 1) they don’t exist in a vacuum, 2) their interpretation often depends on context and usage, 3) doctrinal attitudes are also in play. Near the end of chapter 5, he makes this point “theological wisdom, like all forms of wisdom, is more a spiritual matter than an intellectual one.”

Chapter 6 relates to 3rd order doctrines. He lists 2 which he does not believe should be fought over (the millennium and the length of creation – and I know that he just lost some of you). Regardless of whether you consider those to be tertiary or not, there are some things that are not worth fighting over. Here is the conclusion to chapter 6: “So often, in life and theology… to avoid a fight takes a deeper and nobler strength than to engage in one… Doctrinally serious Christians must remember this…We should eagerly pursue the kind of theological conviction and strength that is willing not only to fight for the truth, but also to avoid fighting in order to promote the gospel. This is the best kind of strength.”

The book concludes with a “Call To Theological Humility.” He quotes Augustine when he was asked what it meant to do theology in the way of Christ, his explanation was “first humility, second humility, third humility.” Ortlund stated “our zeal for theology must never exceed our zeal for our actual brothers and sisters in Christ.” “The reality is that if you think for yourself, you will likely, at some point or another, hold to a different view than is socially convenient.” And so, there are 4 suggestions Ortlund gives when you have a theological disagreement: 1) be honest, 2) be tactful, 3) be gracious, 4) put your trust in the Lord.

I’ve personally wrestled through many more theological issues with brothers and sisters in Christ than I should have. Since Jesus said that it was by our love one toward another that men would know that we were His disciples, I wonder how many people have been turned away from the gospel because Christians have been so needlessly divisive over certain so called doctrines.

You won’t agree with everything in this book (I didn’t), but it should make you evaluate your approach to areas of disagreement and set a paradigm by which you’ll decide to either fight or abstain.

History Matters…

My family and I were visiting the Missouri History Museum in Forest Park a couple of months ago. There is some fascinating history regarding Mill Creek (the “Black Metropolis”) and its destruction in the 1960s for the sake of “Urban Renewal.” It also has a history of the World’s Fair in St. Louis in 1904 (Russia displayed a fur coat there made from the skins of about 10,000 Siberian Field Mice). However, my greatest take away from that day was actually something I found in the bookstore.

David McCullough died on August 7, 2022. I thought I had all of his books but was joyfully surprised when I saw the small book entitled “History Matters” by David McCullough in the museum gift shop. This book is a posthumous publication by McCullough’s daughter and research assistant. It is a collection of writings, speeches, and interviews regarding his own life – and it is good!

I’ve read McCullough’s books (several more than once) and his historical narratives are on par with Shelby Foote (the two of them are unmatched in my opinion). He is a master at immersing you into the reality of history. But this little book immerses you into the life of David McCullough himself. From now one, whenever I read a McCullough book, it will be colored by a better understanding of the author himself. His view of history is exemplary.

What is quoted here are remarks that McCullough made when he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Forgive the long quote, but perhaps it will whet your appetite. The following sentences also express McCullough’s philosophy of history.

“History shows us how to behave. History teaches, reinforces what we believe in, what we stand for, and what we ought to be willing to stand up for. History is – or should be – the bedrock of patriotism, not the chest-pounding kind of patriotism but the real thing, love of country.

“At their core, the lessons of history are largely lessons in appreciation. Everything we have, all our great institutions, hospitals, universities, libraries, cities, our laws, our music, art, poetry, our freedoms, everything exists because somebody went before us and did the hard work, provided the creative energy, provided the money, provided the belief. Do we disregard that?

“Indifference to history isn’t just ignorant, it’s rude. It’s a form of ingratitude. (Emphasis mine.)

“What history teaches, it teaches mainly by example. It inspires courage and tolerance. It encourages a sense of humor. It is an aid to navigation in perilous times. We are living now in an era of momentous change, of huge transitions in all aspects of life – nationwide and worldwide – and this creates great pressures and tensions. But history shows that times of change are the times when we are most likely to learn. This nation was founded on change. We should embrace the possibilities in these exciting times and hold to a steady course, because we have a sense of navigation, a sense of what we’ve been through in times past and who we are.”

This book is relatively short by McCullough standards, only 169 pages. It is divided into 4 sections: 1) “Why History?” 2) “Figures In A Landscape.” 3) “Influences.” 4) “On Writing.”

Part 1 expresses the value of history. Part 2 gives excerpts of four different historical figures and their impact on their time and culture. Part 3 is a list of tributes to people who influenced McCullough. In Part 4, McCullough gives personal tips on writing (this is worth the book itself).

Regarding writing, a few thoughts gleaned: 1) Enjoy it. 2) Research. 3) Read – and with variety. 4) Go to the place of which you’re writing. 5) Use your senses. 6) Write the kind of book you’d like to read. 7) Write every day. 8) Write on a subject you like, don’t write on subjects that don’t appeal to you. 9) Write to be heard, not just seen (especially in a day of audio books). 10) Reread what you have written.

My appreciation for David McCullough multiplied through reading this book. My understanding of my need for the knowledge of history was reiterated. My love for history grew exponentially in reading McCullough’s thoughts – these which were posthumously published by his daughter.

Book Review on “Righteous Strife.”

This book was a Christmas gift from my son and daughter-in-law (they know me well). 20 years ago, I read everything I could get my hands on that was related to the Civil War. Life, ministry, education, and other literary interests have reduced reading in that category over the last several years. However, I still read something that relates to the Civil War on occasion. This book was excellent and I would recommend it to anyone who is interested in the Civil War, especially if you are in to more than just the battles.

The author, Richard Carwardine, shows how there were different religious factions which sought to influence Lincoln’s decisions and directions relating to the Union and slavery. Specifically, Carwardine delineated the following (in his own words):

~ “Radical Religious Nationalists. Abolitionists, black and white, who from the outset saw the war as the opportunity and means of cleaning the nation of its most terrible sin. They included those inspired by a Christian vision of a redeemed post war nation founded on racial freedom and equality.”

~ “Antislavery Religious Nationalists. Those who before the war had subordinated their deep dislike of slavery to the political integrity of the Union and the interests of the South. They came – at varying speeds – to see and welcome the opportunity for wartime emancipation.”

~ “Conservative Religious Nationalists. Champions of an undying Union founded on the principles and compromise of 1787. As they saw it, the nation’s hope lay not in an unconstitutional emancipation agenda, to which the South would never yield, but rather in a return to the ‘Union as it was,’ on the rocks of the ‘Constitution as it is.'”

The book also brought back to the forefront of my mind things about Lincoln of which I had not thought on in years. We often hear of the Gettysburg address as well as some of his pithy quotes; however two other documents accentuate how deeply he was wrestling with the reality of God’s involvement and man’s participation in the great struggle.

After his death, a personal memorandum called “meditations on the divine will” was found among Lincoln’s papers. The date is uncertain, but it is presumed to have been written around the fall of 1862 and evidently was never intended for public dissemination. It therefore reflects his internal dialogue:

“The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be, wrong. God cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God’s purpose is something different from the purpose of either party; and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect his purpose. I am almost ready to say that this is probably true; that God wills this contest, and wills that it shall not end yet. By his mere quiet power on the minds of the now contestants, he could have either saved or destroyed the Union without a human contest. Yet the contest began. And, having begun, he could give the final victory to either side any day. Yet the contest proceeds.”

Later on, even when the war was almost at an end (and a victory proclamation could be only a few weeks away), part of the text of the 2nd inaugural address (March 4, 1865) continues to reflect his questions about the will of God and man’s responsibility.

“Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. ‘Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.’ If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said ‘the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.’

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.“

I make no assumptions about the relationship of Abraham Lincoln with God through Jesus Christ. There is scant and insufficient evidence for any certainty of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ (and the purported evidence is untrustworthy). What is clear to me is that, though he was pressured by several different religious nationalists factions, Lincoln did not fit neatly into any of their boxes. He recognized himself as having finite understanding while acknowledging the infinite mind, will, and purposes of Almighty God. He did not view himself as a savior, but simply as one living in the divine will.

Carwardine’s book, Righteous Strife, is a good addition to anyone’s library who is interested in Lincoln’s spiritual life. It also contributes to the meditations of those who in their finite minds still grapple with the infinite mind of God.

A couple of other notes about Righteous Strife: 1) I’m not sure I agree with some of the connections that the author makes in the epilogue regarding the religious factions of the Civil War era and today’s religious nationalists. 2) His glossary of terms in the back is excellent. It contains in paragraph form, many religious and political terms from the Civil War context.

All the counsel of God

The apostle Paul told the Ephesian elders that he had not shrunk back from declaring to them all the counsel of God (Acts 20:27). He told Timothy, who was pastoring the church in Ephesus, that “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof for correction, for instruction in righteousness…” (2nd Timothy 3:16). When Jesus was tempted by Satan in the wilderness, He quoted Deuteronomy 8:3 to Satan and told him “it is written, man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4). There are a multitude of verses throughout the Bible expressing the value and necessity of the Word of God in a believer’s life; to reference each one in this article would turn it into a dissertation in practical sanctification.

I’ve often wondered “how many believers actually have heard all the counsel of God?” Some older believers have undoubtedly heard all the counsel of God, but I would venture a pretty experienced pastoral guess that many, if not most Christians have never been all the way through the Bible, either on their own or in church. Why is this? I think there are 3 primary reasons that a professing Christian could go through life and never know all the counsel of God.

First, some preachers do not preach expositionally. This article is not intended to be a full explanation of expositional preaching, but expositional preaching is systematic, verse by verse, explanation and application of the various books of the Bible. Many pastors and denominations do not use this method of preaching. It would be nearly impossible to preach all the counsel of God using as a primary method any other form of preaching than exposition.

When I think of Paul’s phrase in Acts 20:27, the words that he used indicate that he had been assertive to deliver the entire message of God’s purpose and will to them. Generally, Paul’s statement here is recognized as a precedent for systematic and comprehensive preaching/teaching. It would be difficult to declare all the counsel of God by any other way.

As I think about the ministry of preaching and teaching to which God has called me, the systematic and comprehensive proclamation of all of God’s Word is a lifelong ministry task. I have preached an overview of every book of the Bible and I have preached verse by verse through at least 25 books of the Bible (of 66) in a little more than 20 years of pastoral ministry; this type of preaching has typically been 3 times a week. If the Lord gives me another 20 or 25 years of ministry, it could take that much time to preach/teach substantively through all the counsel of God.

Expecting to preach all the counsel of God without using a systematic approach is about the same as trying to paint the exterior of a house with 2 inch brush while blindfolded and expecting to cover everything.

Secondly, lack of faithful attendance to church in which the Bible is preached will deprive many of the opportunity to hear all the counsel of God. Even with many churches now making their services available through either livestream or recordings, the digital statistics are quite clear that the numbers of those who are missing services are not watching them online. Digital technicians have a pretty accurate number of how many people are listening or watching, and the number is not anywhere near those who are not there. In a decades long ministry at a church, I’ll only have enough time to preach verse by verse through a particular book once. Furthermore, only one third of the messages I preach are going to be on Sunday morning; two thirds of the messages I preach to declare all the counsel of God are preached on either Sunday or Wednesday night. Even if someone attended every Sunday morning service, they are still not hearing all the counsel of God. Most believers go through life and never hear a full explanation and application of many parts of the life of Christ, or the epistles, or the Psalms, or the prophets, or the book the Revelation! Such a lack leaves one only partially prepared for spiritual battles, only partially equipped for ministry, only partially partaking of the things provided for life and godliness.

Thirdly, most Christians have never read through their Bible. The Ponce Foundation recently did a study that concluded that only 30% of Christians claim to have read through the Bible! Believers should not depend solely on their pastor to feed them spiritually. The ubiquity of the Bible, both printed and digital, has removed any excuse for a believer’s neglect of God’s Word. Depending on listening speed, the average time of listening through the Bible is between 35 and 70 hours. I recently calculated that I spend about 8 hours in a year sitting at one particular stoplight in my area. I spend about an hour a day in my car alone, my calculations are that I could listen to the Bible 7 times through in a given year, just in my car (depending on listening speed).

Several years ago, I read my Bible out-loud to myself in 8 weeks, by reading 2 and 1/2 hours a day. While that kind of time commitment may seem impossible for most people, the average American watches around 3 hours of television a day.

Many, if not most, professing Christians never hear or read all the counsel of God. It may be that their pastor is not preaching and teaching systematically through the Bible, it may be that they do not faithfully attend services in order to hear all the counsel of God declared, or it may be that they never read through the Bible themselves. There is not an excuse for this neglect of God’s Word.

I understand that practically there may be small gaps in someone’s Biblical diet, but it ought to be the painful exception, not the standard. If there is a gap in your Bible intake, let me challenge you to ask the Spirit of God why that is, and then ask Him to motivate you by the grace of God to “live by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God!” To live by every word of God, you need to hear or read all the Words of God!

I hope that you are one of the 30% that has read through your Bible; I hope that you are one who faithfully hears the declaration of God’s Word from the pulpit in your local church. The Word of God is living and life-giving! It is powerful and transformative! It is the wisdom for life as the mind of God on every subject! It extends God’s grace through His Spirit! You need it! Don’t neglect it!

Supporting … Nebuchadnezzar?

I have mostly avoided political commentary in my writings for the last 7 or 8 years.

In a practical sense, I realized the futility of dealing with people’s logic (or lack thereof) after I wrote an article expressing concerns about Donald Trump in a couple of articles in 2016. Amazingly, I was presumed to be and accused of doing all I could to see Hillary Clinton elected to the presidency (this is the logical fallacy of bifurcation, which is presuming that there are only 2 choices).

What has impacted my thinking and alleviated political concern even more – in a spiritual sense, was the death of of my sister-in-law. As a result of watching her approach and enter eternity at the young age of 42 coupled with my own growth in the understanding of Scripture, the reality of my ultimate citizenship in heaven occupies my thinking much more than my earthly citizenship (though I’m still profoundly grateful to be a citizen of the United States of America).

I still vote about 4 times every 4 years, between primaries and general elections. However, I pray for the president, vice president, cabinet, congress, military, and my state leaders – almost every day. Praying for human government certainly provides me more peace than whoever does or may occupy the seats of government. The Scripture is clear that praying leads to internal peace (Philippians 4:6-7).

Personally, I have a certain set of criteria by which I evaluate the person or party for which I will vote. Categorized, these are in order: 1) Biblical/Spiritual/Moral issues, 2) Freedom/Liberty/Constitutional issues, 3) Economical/Practical/Personal issues. Admittedly, these will vary and are going to be interpreted differently by each individual.

I am not a Christian nationalist, yet I still love America as my previous article explains. https://levideatrick.com/2013/03/10/why-i-love-america-and-what-i-love-more/. I’m bothered by nominal Christians who show more devotion to the United States than to the Kingdom of Christ, to a president or candidate more than to the King of Kings, to a political party more than to their local church, and to the U.S. founding documents more than to the Bible.

However, we still live on this earth and in this country and we are Biblically expected to seek to influence it by prayer, preaching the gospel, and participation. As it relates to that participation, one of the vexing questions for Christians has always been, “do you vote for a person who has major moral/character flaws?” This leads to the title of this article “Supporting … Nebuchadnezzar?”

Nebuchadnezzar was the king which conquered Judah. The first deportation of Jews to Babylon (including the prophet Daniel) was in 606 B.C. When Jehoiachin revolted, Nebuchadnezzar crushed it and deported a second group of Jews (including the prophet Ezekiel) in 597 B.C. Finally, in 586 B.C., Nebuchadnezzar completely destroyed Jerusalem and took a third group of Jews to Jerusalem. This is the Nebuchadnezzar who was so furious when his wise men could not tell him his dream or its meaning that he was ready to execute them all (Daniel chapter 2). This is the king who built a 90′ statue of himself and commanded his people to fall down and worship it. When the three Hebrew young men refused, he threw them into the furnace where they were miraculously preserved by God (Daniel chapter 3). This man, though having received an explicit and divine warning about his own pride, he still walked on the ramparts of his palace overlooking Babylon admiring the kingdom which he had built. He was stricken with lycanthropy (believing he was an animal) and wondered around in that insanity for 7 years before returning to his senses and acknowledging the God of heaven (Daniel chapter 4). He was a cruel conqueror, who killed the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes, and then put out Zedekiah’s eyes so that the last thing he ever saw was the execution of his own sons (2nd Kings 25). It is reported that 9 out of 10 bricks discovered by archeologists in Babylon have the name Nebuchadnezzar stamped on them. This man was characterized by anger, cruelty, and pride.

Yet, we have a fascinating instruction given to the exiled Jews from the prophet Jeremiah. The prophet Jeremiah never went into exile in Babylon (he did end up going to Egypt), but he did send a letter to the exiled Jewish captives there and he gave them the following inspired instruction “Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, unto all that are carried away captives, whom I have caused to be carried away from Jerusalem unto Babylon; build ye houses, and dwell in them; and plant gardens, and eat the fruit of them; take ye wives, and beget sons and daughters; and take wives for your sons, and give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear sons and daughters; that ye may be increased there, and not diminished. And seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captives, and pray unto the LORD for it: for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace.” (Jeremiah 29:4-7).

It was God’s design for His people, though in a foreign land because of their own wickedness, that they would still prosper in their existence until He brought them back to their own land. He told them to build houses and to plant gardens out of which they would live and eat. He told them to continue the normal customs of marriage and the replenishing of homes with more children so that when the 70 years of captivity were completed that they had not diminished as a people. He then told them to “seek the peace of the city” (Babylon) and also to “pray unto Jehovah for it.” This is the city were the prophet Daniel was captive, yet he rose in the ranks of government and served both Chaldean and Medo-Persian Kings. This is the city where Nebuchadnezzar reigned supreme! Get that, the exiled Hebrews were instructed to seek the peace (also meaning welfare) of Babylon. They were also instructed to intercede before God on behalf of Babylon. When Babylon prospered in peace, they would also be living in peace.

The king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, was even called “my servant” by Jehovah in Jeremiah 25:9 and 27:6. Nebuchadnezzar was not being commended for his spiritual life here, but rather it was an acknowledgment that God was using Nebuchadnezzar as a tool to accomplish His divine purposes.

So what is the application of these thoughts?

First: people of genuine faith should acknowledge that we are pilgrims in this land. Our eternal home and citizenship is in heaven. Just like the people of Israel were inhabitants in Babylon for a period of time, so we are inhabitants of this earth and this country only for a screenshot of time in the overall design of God.

Second: we, in simile to the people of Israel in Babylon should seek the welfare of the place where we are existing as human citizens, especially by praying for that place. I give little weight to the political polemics of a so-called “believer” who gives no evidence of praying for their leaders as God has commanded. I was preaching in a church several years ago and asked the congregation if they prayed for their president (Biden); I wasn’t really expecting a verbal response but one man blurted out proudly, “No!” He was therefore publicly confessing (and without repentance) disobedience to the Bible.

Third: the Scripture is clear that human government is ordained of God and that He is ultimately the One Who sets human leaders in place. They are His servants ordained by Him. They are His tools used to accomplish his purpose. No matter what one may feel or think about the previous election, the election was not stolen from God. God was not watching election returns and wondering what was going to happen in the United States. No matter who “wins” the election this fall, God is still in control. If your preferred candidate loses, that was the will of God and ask yourself what it is that God wants you to learn; the same is true if your candidate wins.

Fourth: who it is that represents Nebuchadnezzar in your mind is a matter of individual soul liberty. Frankly, I can see any of the three candidates that are currently running for the presidency as being like Nebuchadnezzar in one or several ways each. Above, I delineated my list of issues which determine my vote. No candidate is going to fit those perfectly (he would be unelectable). And so I have to determine which person and party is going to best support my belief system as calibrated to the Bible. I have to determine which candidate is most likely to accomplish the “peace” or “welfare” of this country in which I and my family are pilgrims. Choosing your Nebuchadnezzar does not necessarily mean that you think he is an ideal man (I doubt that many of the Hebrew people in Babylon thought much of Nebuchadnezzar). You have to be guided by your conscience. There have been times when a relative or a friend has told me the person, proposition or party for which they were voting and it simply baffled my brain. But, it is their right and their prerogative – I hope they were doing it with a Biblically calibrated conscience. I’ve also talked with people that I know have wrestled Biblically and logically through some kind of an issue and have come down on a different side than I have; in their mind they are following the instruction of God as closely as possible.

The voting philosophies of people are often logically confusing. I’ve known people who have attempted to separate politics and morality. I’ve known some who have voted for a particular party because that has been the family tradition for generations. I’ve known people who simply don’t vote. I knew a man years ago who explained his conundrum to me that “for my job, I’m better off voting for … but, as a Christian I know I should vote for…” I’ve known people that have switched parties during primaries in order to vote for (or against) another person. I’ve heard the assertion that “voting for a 3rd party is the same as voting for or against the other candidate.” Bullying and intimidation are rampant in heated elections; if you think this is something new then you haven’t read much history. Read of some of the pamphlets that were written of Adams and Jefferson, read of men burned in effigy, read of a divided nation over the election of Lincoln, read of Tammany Hall in New York, read of the Pendergast machine in Kansas City that launched Truman into politics; I could go on ad nauseam.

Here’s the conclusion, you must vote your principles and your conscience. Paul made it clear in 1st Corinthians 8-10 that some people’s conscience will permit one thing while another’s conscience will not. It is the beauty of liberty.