Peter Witkowski Apologetics

Abortion, Faith, and Politics: Examining Harris’ Dangerous New Claims

Over the last few months, Vice President Kamala Harris has radically reshaped the political conversation around abortion, sliding into the pulpit of orthodoxy. Throughout the course of her campaign, Vice President Harris has boldly asserted that, “One does not have to abandon their faith or deeply held beliefs to agree: The government, and certainly Donald Trump, should not be telling a woman what to do with her body.”  Notice, she does not appeal to the authority of other religious leaders, saying as, “Pastor so and so said.”  Nor does she claim that her understanding of faith is compatible with abortion, inviting other religious people to join her. Rather, she presents herself as a religious authority. In other words, her language does not convey that she hopes conservative evangelicals will find a church that aligns with her party’s platform. Rather, she is telling them and all people of faith what should be true of every church or place of worship. Namely, no Christian or religious person should object to a woman getting an abortion because to quote the Vice President  “that decision does not require anyone to abandon their faith or their beliefs.” To disagree with her is no longer to disagree with a political party or ones’ government but with the God of the universe.

My Main Concern is Not

My main concern today is not to debate the morality of abortion which is firmly fixed in my mind nor the need for Christians to oppose the practice. Abortion is murder. I lament that liberals and even a growing number of conservatives long to normalize this brutal culture of death, using duplicitous language of “healthcare.” Without reservation, I believe Christians should advocate for life across the political spectrum. Tax rates, housing prices, and issues pertaining to the quality of one’s life count for nothing if one is not alive to pay taxes or buy homes.

Neither a conservative, evangelical pastor’s opposition to nor a Democratic Presidential Candidate’s support of abortion is noteworthy.

My Main Concern

But what is and what I object to is Vice President Harris’ defense of abortion with an appeal to a governmental defined religious orthodoxy. I oppose not only to the content of her orthodoxy, but her very use of orthodoxy. In other words, I do not wish to replace the Vice President’s political forays into theological orthodoxy with those of a candidate more closely aligned with my theological convictions. For example, I acknowledge that most non-evangelicals who identify as some form of “Christian” disagree with the pro-life position. Though I hope to win those churches back to the apostolic faith of Jesus, I also believe that the government has no authority to tell those affiliated with the Sparkle Creed or any other religious creed what is or is not an acceptable tenant of their faith.

Faith Still Belongs

I am also not advocating that those with religious opinions should retreat from the public square or deny that their faiths have a shaping influence on their actions. Without question, one’s faith and worldview will have a profound effect on one’s personal and public ethic. I long for pro-life politicians to unapologetically live out their religious convictions in the public square through the creation of laws that promote life, understanding that those of liberal faiths can do the same with their convictions. I do not object to the enforcement of a public ethic (though I long for that ethic to reflect God’s righteous standards), but with proscribing that all people should conform their faith to that ethic.

The Separation of Church and State

By invoking the language of orthodoxy, Vice-President Harris is straining the bounds of the separation of church and state. To borrow the language of the hour, she is toying with the idea of establishing a leftist “Christian” or perhaps more accurately stated leftist “Religious Nationalism.”

When Thomas Jefferson coined the phrase “a wall of eternal separation” to describe the relationship between the state and the church in 1802, he had in mind the very overreach committed by the Harris Campaign. He wrote, “religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god…the legitimate powers of government reach action only and not opinions.” The state and those running the state have the right to enforce laws that reflect the ethic that flows from their religious views but possess no religious authority to bind the consciences of its citizens to the particular religious views of those in power. Politicians are not prophets.

The Biblical View

While ideas of religious freedom have a foundation in American political history and theory, they also have a biblical foundation. Except when coerced by the state, the church does not look to the state for instruction on what is or is not orthodox. Rather, the church claims a God given right to determine its own doctrine in accordance with Scripture and then to share those doctrines with both its surrounding culture and the state. “Your word is a Lamp unto my feet and light to my path (Ps 119:105).”  

When it comes to religion, the state should not inform the pastor of God’s will. The pastor should inform the state. To quote the British theologian John Stott, the church should function as the “nation’s conscience.” Operating in this vein, Nathan rebuked King David for his sexual sin and murder. Elijah condemned Ahab for his unjust grab of land. Isaiah scolded Hezekiah for his foolish foreign policy. Jesus rebuked Pilate for assuming divine authority. And Paul pleaded with Felix to embrace Jesus as his savior.

In other words, the church should share God’s principles with those in power. It should praise leaders when they repeal unjust laws that condemn shoplifters to life sentences. Conversely, the church should call those who pass a bill that legalizes infanticide to repentance. As Lloyd-Jones notes, “The church is here to show that according to biblical teaching, the general consensus of opinion is not the basis on which you arrive at moral decisions, either with regard to homosexuality, or with regard to divorce, or abortion, or birth control, or any one of these questions.” The state should not preach to the church. The church should preach to the state, reminding those in power to “Serve the Lord with fear (Ps. 2:11).”

For the sake of the United States and its faith community, I encourage Vice President Harris to abandon her usurpation of the pulpit, and to sit once again in the pew.

Peter Witkowski Apologetics

Presidential Anointing: Christian Identity Politics & the Need for Biblical Principles

In the days after the assassination attempt on President Trump, a whole cavalcade of B and C level Christian and political personalities and a few A listers have asserted that God has anointed President Trump to lead the United States. The argument runs something like this: “Because President Trump survived the assassination attempt on his life, God has called him to be the next U.S. president.” In other words, God has made his choice and by implication so should you.

Given the theological implications of this claim (No Christian wants to vote down God’s candidate), Christians would do well to pause and consider the merits of this statement before embracing it. Does surviving an assassination attempt prove the righteousness of one’s cause?

Does Survival=Anointing?

A quick scan of history and the Scriptures reveals that the answer to the above question must be a “No.” Though God can and does destroy the wicked and deliver the righteous, some of the most vilified men in world history have survived assassination attempts. Survival and the assumption of political power do not prove to be a sign of God’s special intervention and endorsement but a manifestation of his common grace. As Jesus noted in Matthew 5:45, God, “makes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.” Survival and even political victory are not inherently signs of God’s divine favor or special blessing. To quote the prophet Daniel, “He changes the times and seasons; he removes kings and sets up kings (Den 2:21).” And as the righteous Job lamented during the midst of his suffering, “Why do the wicked live, reach old, age, and grow mighty in power (21:7)?” Christians should thank the Lord for sparing President Trump’s life and should acknowledged that God sovereignly determines the length of every life and the course of every election. But they should not equate President Trump’s survival with God’s divine endorsement. Nor should they equate the assassination attempt with God’s divine rejection of President Trump. Both the just and the unjust can endure great hardships.

What About?

Moreover, Christians have no other means by which they can discern whether a modern political candidate has been specially anointed by God. With Christ fulfilling the Old Testament law and establishing the church, the people of God have ceased to be defined by national boundaries and earthly political systems. Today, the church consists of all nations, and it is ruled by Christ alone. As Jesus told Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world (Jn 18:36).” In other words, God no longer sends prophets to anoint kings who point to the coming reign of the Messiah and the establishment of the kingdom of God. Jesus has come. The kingdom is here!

Consequently, the New Testament contains no instructions regarding the installation of political rulers. Any loose correlation between modern political happenings and the Bible such as having blood on one’s right ear is just that – a loose correlation. It does not prove divine blessing. Consequently, the question facing Christians this election cycle (and every election cycle) is not who has been specially ordained by God but who has the character and abilities needed to rule with biblical justice.

The Importance of Principles

To determine whether one is just or unjust (i.e. who one should vote for), Christians must not look to happenstance but to the Scriptures which define justice in accordance with God’s character. Divine justice calls rulers to protect human life (Gen 9:7; Rom 13) and to promote human flourishing by providing essential services and rendering truthful judgements that produce a sense of safety from which Christians can build the kingdom of God (1 Tim 2:1-4). As the Reformer John Calvin noted, “No government can be happily established unless piety is the first concern (Institutes 1495).” In other words, those most qualified to serve are those who most align their platform, policies, and actions with the divine ethic as revealed in the Scriptures irrespective of party.

Voting By Principle

When entering the voter’s booth, Christians should seek to support the most just candidate on the ballot, prioritizing scriptural commands especially with regards to matters of life and death. For example, Christians should prefer a prolife candidate with bad tax policy over a prochoice politician with good tax policy. The rate at which one pays his or her taxes and the government’s ability to maintain roads matters little when one is dead.

At times, Christians will arrive at elections where all the candidates advocate for platforms that run counter to Scripture. They will have to choose between the lesser of two evils (I recommend Andrew Walker’s article at the American Reformer on this subject). But even when faced which such unfortunate choices, Christians should still cling to their Scriptural principles, preferring the candidate who places some limits on abortion as opposed to one who advocates for infanticide.  In short, one’s anointing – or perhaps better stated, qualifications – for political leadership can (for the Christian) never be divorced from the scriptural principles of righteousness and justice.  

The Danger of Identity Politics

The question of whether a Christian should vote for President Trump is ultimately a question of biblical principles: does his candidacy best align with the ethic of Scripture in comparison to his opponents? Any attempt to circumvent that question and its resulting answer with supernatural claims of divine endorsement derived from sovereign happenstance should be rejected. Such appeals prove to be little more than repacked identity politics – a scheme in which candidates are selected not upon their merits but upon their existence: black, white, homosexual, cisgender, survived an assassination attempt, etc. Christians should not embrace such unverifiable supernatural claims nor fall prey to the cult of personality. Rather, the followers of Jesus should build their political theology upon the certain revelation of the Scriptures.

May God give us the grace and wisdom needed to faithfully engage this election and every election with the biblical truth.  

Peter Witkowski Apologetics

Why I Support The Law Amendment: Missions, Lloyd-Jones and the Danger of Pragmatism

Without question, the Law Amendment and its call to restrict the office of pastor to qualified men has capture the attention of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). Pastors, SBC entity presidents, and even Dr. Mohler of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary have published videos, blogs, and essays in defense of or in opposition to this amendment. Though the vote on the amendment can rightly be viewed as a referendum on whether the SBC will permit women to serve as pastors, it also represents an even more basic and existential question: will the convention be defined by the Scriptures or by pragmatism?

What About Missions?

Most who oppose the amendment do not do so for hermeneutical or Scriptural reasons. Like the amendments’ supporter, they recognize that 1 Timothy 3, Titus 1 and the Scriptures in general limit the office of pastor or elder to qualified men. The line, “I’m a complementarian but oppose the Law Amendment because….” has been used by many. The issue is not what does the Bible say but whether obedience to the Bible on secondary issues will prove too costly.

Most oppose the amendment because they fear such actions will dampen if not outright extinguish the SBC’s heart for missions. They view the Law Amendment as an attack on both the financial and the human resources needed to evangelize our nation and the world. Only with the help of churches who employ women pastors can the SBC hope to fulfill the great commission.

But such concern should not be seen as the exclusive domain of those opposed to the Law Amendment. Those in favor of the amendment also possess a passion for missions and fear that getting the amendment wrong could hurt missions. The disagreement over the amendment turns out not to be over whether or not to do missions but over how to best do missions. In other words, is the gospel best advanced by associations bound together by shared doctrinal convictions and a heart for biblical fidelity even if said group is small? Or is the gospel best advanced by large associations united by minimal convictions that can be remolded and even jettisoned for the sake of greater results? Scriptural authority or pragmatism?

What Can the 20th Century Teach Us?

While this discussion may prove novel to this generation of SBCers, it is not a new development. During the twentieth century, our evangelical brothers and sisters in England faced a similar dilemma. Seeking to evangelize the rapidly secularizing culture of post WW2 Britain, men such as John Stott encouraged evangelicals to embrace those who held doctrines at odds with traditional evangelical convictions for the sake of missions. The argument then as it is today consisted of a call to expand the circle of cooperation for the purpose of reaching the world…to look the other way when discussing things such as women pastors and the inerrancy of Scripture so that the busy coal miner, the over worked mom, and the poor youth could be won for the gospel. Pragmatism for the sake of salvations.

Dr. David Martyn Lloyd-Jones who pastored Westminster Chapel during those tumultuous years shared Stott’s passion for evangelism. But the Welsh doctor disagreed with his fellow evangelical’s methodology. He feared that big tent pragmatism as represented by the ecumenical movement of his day would not foster but rather frustrate missions. According to Lloyd-Jones, missions was, “highly doctrinal.” Given that salvation depended upon a person’s acceptance of the Scriptures as God’s word, the deity of Jesus, and his substitutionary atonement and resurrection, the Welsh pastor believed that the church’s ability to reach the lost depended on the church’s faithful proclamation of and adherence to the Scriptures. He wrote, “If you want to help others you must know your doctrine.” Lloyd-Jones also noted in a sermon on Philippians 4:3 that, “If the church is not right…she grieves the Holy Spirit, and if she grieves the Holy Spirit, she loses her power and she cannot be a missionary Church.” Or as he stated a touch more positively elsewhere, “Do not be concerned about numbers. If we stand for God’s truth, we can be certain that God will honor and bless us.” If a church embraced women preachers or pastors (an act which the Scriptures “prohibits:) it would not enrich by starve its missional output. For Lloyd-Jones, doctrinal purity was not a missional suppressant or limitation but there very means by which the church would fan missions into flame. He concluded, “The real understanding of doctrine leads to a heart’s longing and desire and prayer for the salvation of the lost.”

Is this A Matter of Faith?

For the sake of Christian charity, one must admit that the discussions around the Law Amendment as did the ones in twentieth century England prove secondary and not primary. It is a discussion among brothers and sisters and not one of enemies. The open defense of women pastors does not negate one’s hope in the justifying power of Jesus’s blood. Nor do such positions necessarily arise from duplicity. The SBC would do well to embrace the charity that Lloyd-Jones extended to his opponents and assert with him that, “We do not impute wrong motives to them. We grant them that they are as sincere as we are and as honest as we are, and that they believe the gospel as we believe it.” Christians can disagree about over such things.    

Does Ecclesiology Matter?

But they cannot disagree about ecclesiology and hope to effectively evangelize the lost. As Lloyd-Jones noted, “If we want revival we must start by considering this doctrine of the nature of the Christian church.” Expanding upon this idea, Lloyd-Jones proclaimed, “You can be a Christian and yet defective in your doctrine, but our concern and our endeavor is to have true doctrine presented in its fullness because we believe that it is only as this is believed and preached and propagated that men and women are going to be converted and added to the church. When a church has gone wrong in doctrine, she has ceased to be a converting influence.” In other words, the success of missions depended upon an affirmation of the essentials of the faith and upon a biblical ecclesiology. Without such supports, missions would slowly die. And any denomination that either willfully or passively adopted an ecclesiology that runs counter to the Scriptures and that willfully dilutes its adherence to its doctrinal statement will not increase but rather destroy its missional output.

Moreover, such changes to secondary or even tertiary doctrines will (if unchallenged) undermine more than missions. They will eventually reach the central tenants of the gospel and destroy the very institutions they claim to be saving.  Lloyd-Jones observed, “Every part because it belongs to every other part…if you make what appears to be a minor change somewhere on the circumference it will soon have its effect even upon the center.” If Christians accept that the rejection of the Scriptures can lead to more conversions, then no doctrine will prove essential or uneditable. Given enough time, uncontested, evangelical pragmatism will hollow out even the most cherished of doctrines of the SBC.

What Happened in England?

Though some followed Lloyd-Jones’s advice and have continued to thrive, most British denominations and their evangelical cohorts rejected the Welsh pastor’s appeals and embraced the big tent pragmatism of their day. Unfortunately, that choice has proved costly. If researchers’ predictions hold true, most of England’s historic denominations will disappear by 2050. Even Stott’s beloved Anglican church is on pace to disappear around 2060.  In other words, Lloyd-Jones has been vindicated: missions cannot thrive apart from sound doctrine and ecclesiology.

What Will We Do?

Now we must decide. As the messengers gather in Indianapolis, they will undoubtedly speak to the question of women pastors. But in so doing, they will also speak to the essence of the convention. They will determine if the SBC is primarily a doctrinal people or a pragmatic people. To borrow from Lloyd-Jones, “The ultimate question facing us these days is whether our faith is in men and their power to organize, or in the truth of God in Christ Jesus and the power of the Holy Spirit.” May we choose wisely. May we Christ Jesus and the power of the Holy Spirit. May we choose the Law Amendment.