Peter Witkowski Apologetics, Pain & Suffering

Erika Kirk’s Message: A Return to the Clear Gospel

My soul resonated with much of the Charlie Kirk Memorial. Erika Kirk not only joined others in proclaiming the gospel, but she also lived it out, extending love and forgiveness to her enemies. That moment proved to be a welcome correction to the evangelical gospel that had begun to be blurred by the ethic of vengeance.

A Vengeful Gospel

As world become preoccupied with COVID, some of the more political voices within evangelicalism encouraged their fellow evangelicals to make allowances for those driven by hatred and vengeance. These political voices told evangelicals not to focus on the “what” of their actions but on the “why.” These evangelicals viewed the social unrest of the pandemic to be a legitimate currency of the marginalized who lacked all other means to enact just social change. These evangelicals condemned the throwing of bricks as a sin. But they also believed those who had failed to listen to the prior just complaints of the brick throwers were complicit in their crime. The brick was the last option and not the first. In other words, hurt people hurt people and those who committed the last hurt could not be expected to peacefully cohabitate with their communities or even their churches until those who committed the first hurt confessed their sin and made restitution. Until such time, those evangelicals who had been sinned against would continue to burn with anger as the personal ethic of love and forgiveness faded ever into the background of their thought.

Such discussions swirled around the Black Lives Matter’s protest as pastors called evangelicals to reflect on why those minority communities in Minnesota, Georgia, and elsewhere had been driven to violence. Evangelicals on the other side of the political aisle encouraged then church to reflect on the circumstances that had driven the men and women of January 6 to march on the U.S. Capital. Instead of encouraging those who had been wronged to embrace the personal ethic of forgiveness, both sets of political voices encouraged the church to understand the merits of the various protestors’ vengeance. Jesus’ words in Luke 6:27 “But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you.” had begun to recede from the evangelical imagination. Though he is not an evangelical, I suspect President Trump’s words at Charlie’s memorial stilled reflected the feelings of many within the evangelicalism when he said: “I hate my opponent and I don’t want the best for them. I’m sorry…But I can’t stand my opponent.”

Erika’s Pure Gospel

In her speech, Erika Kirk directed the evangelical imagination back towards the gospel of peace. She did not ask those in attendance to empathize with her hatred for Charlie’s shooter who caused her soul to ache and her two precious children to be fatherless. She did not speak of vengeance at all. She did not hate her husband’s murderer.  

She spoke of loving and forgiving her enemies. Reflecting upon Charlie’s life she said, “Charlie passionately wanted to reach and save the Lost Boys of the West, the young men who feel like they have no direction, no purpose, no faith, and no reason to live…wasting their lives on distractions…men consumed with resentment, anger and hate. Charlie wanted to help them.” Charlie disavowed personal vengeance. Erika continued: “My husband, Charlie. He wanted to save young men, just like the one who took his life.”  

Then clinging to Charlie’s legacy and the gospel, she proclaimed, “That man. That young man. I forgive him. I forgive him because it was what Christ did…What Charlie would do. The answer to hate is not hate. The answer we know from the gospel is love and always love.  Love for our enemies and love for those who persecute us.”

She forgave not because Charlie’s shooter had made restitution, admitted to his evil, or sought reconciliation. She extended forgiveness to him because she had been forgiven.  As the apostle John notes, “In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another (1 Jn 4:10-11).”  Erika championed the love and forgiveness of Jesus which is forever and always the individual Christian’s solution to sin – even to the greatest of sins such as murder which causes the soul ache until heaven. I am thankful that Erika clearly and resolutely shared and model a gospel uncluttered by vengeance at this crucial hour.

God Centered Political Action

 This is not to say that there is not a place for justice and for conversations about political change. God ordained governments to hold sinners to account so that all might live in peace and safety. When governments fail to rule justly and when tragedies occur, righteous anger should drive Christians to engage the political process.

But righteous passion must never be divorced from the personal ethic of love and forgiveness. Evangelicals engaging in political discussions and activities should recognize that any person or group that is truly Christian or aligned with Christian principles will ultimately not lead its followers to demonize their opponents, to riot, or to make death threats but to share the gospel, to forgive sins, and to make peace both inside and outside the walls of evangelicalism. As President Trump noted of Charlie Kirk, “He did not hate his opponents. He wanted the best for them.”  In other words, holy anger produces not vengeance but men and women passionate to see the gospel of peace advance in their families, their churches, and their communities so that others may know Christ and experience the joy of following Jesus’ ethic. As the Reformer Martin Luther said, “anyone who claims to be a Christian and a child of God, not only does not start war or unrest; but he also gives help and counsel on the side of peace wherever he can.” Evangelical political action should be driven by and reflect Scriptural convictions. To quote Erika: “Pray again. Read the Bible again. Go to church next Sunday and the Sunday after that. And break free from the temptations and shackles of this world.” To put it simply, the love and forgiveness of Jesus always produce a personal ethic of love and forgiveness. James the brother of Jesus concurs writing, “But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace (Ja 3:17-18).”

Final Thoughts

Charlie’s memorial beautifully reminded evangelicalism and the world that the gospel of love and forgiveness still works. The passion for change can and must cohabitate with the ethic of love and forgiveness. For that I am thankful. May love and forgiveness ever drive and shape the evangelical church and its political engagement.

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 Church History

Lloyd-Jones, Cultural Problems, and the Power of the Gospel

The following article was published on the Credo Magazine Blog. If you have not visited the Credo website or listened to their podcast, I encourage you explore both!

The explosion of the German V1 rocket shook the spine of the historic Westminster Chapel, jolting the congregation to its feet. Seconds earlier, the rumble of the rocket’s engine had forced the pastor, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones, to pause his prayer. But as the plaster dust from the ceiling settled on top of his pulpit and black robe, Lloyd-Jones returned to his conversation with God.

At its conclusion, he allowed Mrs. Marsh to dust off both his robe and the pulpit. He also encouraged those perturbed by the blast to sit underneath the gallery for protection. He then proceeded on with the service with no more regard for the rockets. This brief picture of the Doctor’s preaching ministry encapsulated the Welsh Pastor’s understanding of how ministers should relate to the world of politics and culture. Lloyd-Jones believed God had commissioned pastors within the context of the local church to preach the gospel. It alone could cure sin and deliver men and women from the fear of death.

The Difference Between Sin and Sins

Throughout his career, Lloyd-Jones faced calls to address the political and social concerns of his day which encompassed everything from birth control to nuclear warfare. Though he carried around many firm political opinions within the folds of his black suits, he resolutely refused to share his political perspective on Sunday because he thought the fundamental problem facing humanity was ‘sin’ and not ‘sins.’

Though he carried around many firm political opinions, he resolutely refused to share his political perspective on Sunday because he thought the fundamental problem facing humanity was ‘sin’ and not ‘sins.’

The Doctor understood the term “sin” to encompass the effects of the fall, men and women’s separation from God and the ensuing pollution of their souls. Though restrained somewhat by God’s common grace, unredeemed men and women walked about the world in spiritual ignorance, lacking the ability to understand God and to do good. Because of the fall, men and women committed ‘sins,’ particular expressions of evil in time and space.

In the Doctor’s mind, political and social institutions such as the U.N, the English Parliament, and the trade unions dealt with sins as they sought to end wars, pass just laws, and advocate for fair wages. Though such endeavors were not inherently bad and deserved the support of individual Christians, the Doctor believed they would always prove inadequate. They treated only the symptoms of the sin and not sin itself. Despite the efforts of the philosophers and the politicians, sin remained fully entrenched in the human heart, pumping out sins that would continue to wreck both the individual and the institutions he or she occupied. To make matters worse, the Devil also avidly stirred humans towards sins and blinded them to truth. Humanity faced a spiritual pandemic it could not cure.

The Doctor concluded, “If any man could have saved us, the incarnation would not have taken place.”

Sin’s Antidote: The Gospel of Jesus

To save the world from sins, pastors had to move past sins and deal with the root problem, sin. Thankfully, God had designed the Church to proclaim the gospel specifically for this purpose. The Doctor noted:

That is the business of the gospel, not to be spending its time in treating the symptoms but to tell the world about the one and only remedy that can cure the disease which is the cause of all our local and particular problems.

When men and women responded to the good news of salvation, they gained liberation from sin and could overcome the sins in their hearts through the power of the gospel. The Doctor regularly witnessed transformation as he preached the Word. Drunks abandoned their liquor bottles, young widows found comfort in the midst of tears, and discouraged pastors found the hope needed to reascend their pulpit stairs. Lloyd-Jones believed such responses were normal because every human event from the death of Winston Churchill to the Cold War could be explained through the Bible’s redemptive narrative that chronicled the creation, fall, redemption, and new creation of humanity. By the power of the Holy Spirit, the “unique message of the Church,” transformed the human heart which could in-turn transform political and social institutions.

To change the world, pastors did not have to march in protests or speak at political rallies. In fact, the Doctor disliked the “pastor politician.” Lloyd-Jones believed the pastor politician’s constant denunciation of communism and other groups resulted in the “shutting of the evangelistic door upon that section.” Rather to improve the world, pastors needed only to walk in the footsteps of Jesus and the apostles and preach the gospel. The Word of God changed lives.

A Word of Caution

Despite the efforts of the philosophers and the politicians, sin remained fully entrenched in the human heart, pumping out sins that would continue to wreck both the individual and the institutions he or she occupied.

But even at this juncture, the Doctor’s optimism remained muted. Though he believed in, advocated for, and dreamed of revival, the Welsh pastor did not believe any pastor, denomination, or revivalist could usher in an era of perfect social harmony or world peace. Lloyd-Jones believed humanity would devolve until Christ returned. He wrote, “The Apocalypse alone can cure the world’s ills.” For this reason, even the inspiring movements of faith that came out of the First and Second Great Awakenings proved fleeting. The local church could not Christianize the world. The recreation of the world was the special purview of Jesus.

Until Christ returned to judge the living and the dead, the world would continue to know of divorce, wars, and every other social ill. Christians could expect to be marginalized and to experience persecution. But even in this world of gloom, Christians did not have to fear their neighbors, society, political institutions, or anything else under heaven. Their salvation and eternal destiny remained secure. The Doctor said,

Let your hurricanes come one after the other, and all together it will make no difference. Let men set off all their bombs in the whole universe at the same time, this inheritance remains solid, durable, everlasting, eternal.

Though tomorrow might fail the Christian, eternity would far surpass the believer’s expectations.

Conclusion

Prudence demands that historians, pastors, and the average reader should not attempt to insert Lloyd-Jones into twenty-first century discussions about the Black Lives Matter movement, the Coronavirus pandemic, or the storming of the U.S. Capital by rioters. We have no special insights into what the Doctor would have thought about such things.

But of this we can be sure. The man who preached Christ while bombs fell out of the sky would never abandon the gospel and devote his pulpit to the advancement of social causes. The Scriptures spoke to the needs of every age. As the Doctor noted, the gospel, “alone deals with our fundamental need.” Jesus saves.