Overcomplicating a Simple Issue on Sinful Voting - Responding to Defend and Confirm (Part 2)

Alright, well welcome to part two of this response video to the Defend and Confirm podcast on whether or not

Christians can legitimately vote Democrat. Now if you remember from the first episode, I told you that actually I was interviewed by this guy right here,

Russell, on this exact topic, and he recently told me they decided not to put up the interview.

I thought that conversation went very well, but I figured we could still do some kind of interaction with my beliefs and their beliefs.

Unfortunately, this is not ideal. These kind of monologue type response videos, it's not the best way that we could do this.

I would prefer to have much more interaction, much more conversation, much more give and take. Unfortunately, that wasn't in the cards this time, so let's continue.

They're still in the midst of giving us the tools. They're unpacking how to do life together in the church, if you know what

I mean, Begida style. Things that are necessary for salvation, but these are things that are necessary for practical unity.

That's right, yeah. And then finally, the third level issue, we just call these matters of indifference, although I don't like using that phrase because it tends to communicate like they're not important at all.

It worked great in the 18th century. They understood that. Oh, in light of modernism and all that? Well, the term indifference has changed in meaning.

Okay, okay, gotcha. Yeah, so we're not saying that they don't matter. No, we're just saying that there's a lot of room for disagreement.

Matters of conscience. So in this category, we have your view on the millennium, right?

Are we in it? All millennial, post -millennial, those kinds of things, but there's also issues of like should

Christians drink alcohol? Sure. Right? Should they smoke? Should they smoke? Should they just kind of...

What about coffee? Should we celebrate these holidays? Should Christians drink coffee? What is your judgment on global warming? Exactly. So literally all kinds of stuff.

Yeah, that's right. Okay, so let's stop right there because this is important because I would agree with a lot of what they just said there.

So issues of alcohol, issues of the millennium, issues of what do you believe about global warming.

All, yes, I would put those in the category of Christian liberties so you have a freedom of conscience on what you believe about those things.

But that being said, you don't have Christian liberty based on what you do about those things.

So in other words, if I were to say I believe in global warming and because global warming is real and such a threat, we need to shut down the coal industry.

We need to shut down all, anything that I think we need to shut down. No one can drive a car, this and that, and you start to implement all of these ridiculous tyrannical policies because of what you believe on something.

That's a non -starter. You don't have the Christian liberty to force other people to act based on your shenanigans, right?

Based on your nonsense. The millennium is the same thing. The millennium is the same thing. What you don't have the ability to do is say, well, you know,

Christians shouldn't be engaged in the culture at all because we're going to hell in the handbasket, right? Because my millennial theology thinks so.

You don't have the liberty to control me with your nonsense. You can do whatever you want. You can't control me though with that nonsense.

And that's kind of where I think that's important for the Democratic Party because while you might, like I might not excommunicate someone who doesn't understand that progressive tax rates are a demonstration of partiality, but I absolutely can discipline them when they start taking actions to take my stuff, right?

Like if you think that the Bible thinks that you have some kind of a right to my stuff the way Tim Keller teaches, that's one thing.

But the minute you start to go and act on that and sort of say, okay, government, can you start taking that stuff that I have a right to?

At that point, you're now sinning against me. You have no longer have that right. That's not a freedom of conscience issue anymore.

That's a matter of sin. That's a matter of covetousness that's led to stealing. And so you got to be careful because you can accept these premises that he's saying here.

Yes, what you believe about global warming is potentially up to Christian conscience. But once you start enacting policies that start to affect me, that start to control me, that are unbiblical, they're not biblical policies, that's when you've crossed the line.

That's when it's time to go to war. That's when it's like, okay, now it's time to go Matthew 18 on you. And a vote for the

Democratic Party involves a lot of that kind of thing. Because when you vote for the party to start stealing from me, that you've sinned against me.

That vote is a sin against me. So you see what I'm saying? So like, you have to, we have to make sure that, okay, those are maybe freedom of conscience issues, but the minute you cross the line, it's over.

In fact, in the conversation I did with Russell, I made a point like this. It was about doctrine. And I said, look, if I'm a pastor, because he was trying, again, he was trying to catch me in an inconsistency.

It didn't work. It didn't work. Maybe that's why he didn't put up the interview, because his traps didn't work. But anyway, he tried to catch me in inconsistency about like, well, you would put up with someone who had like semi -Pelagian beliefs in your church, right?

And I said, yes, I definitely would. But the minute he starts to try to convince some of my flock of semi -Pelagianism, he's going to be confronted.

And if he doesn't stop, he's going to be out on the street faster than a bag of dirt. That doesn't make any sense.

I don't know why you'd put a bag of dirt on the street. But yeah, absolutely. Yeah, I'd put up with him believing that, but the minute he starts to convince and entice others into his semi -Pelagian nonsense, he's gone.

He's gone. I'm not going to, I'm not going to put up with it. I'm not going to put up with it. And so the minute your beliefs cross into action, that's inappropriate.

It's go time. It's Matthew 18 time. It's time to go to war. It's just that simple. What kinds of stuff?

So these first two, the first one, non -negotiable. Second one, negotiable, but there should be, you know, there's going to have to be some level of separation, right?

We're going to build a fence and that's going to let us be good neighbors. And we're going to shake hands over that fence often. The third level is, there should just be an abundance of freedom and grace and patience and kindness and gentleness towards people with whom we may disagree on these tertiary matters.

Yeah. I like to think of it as always, sometimes, never. Okay. Do you ever wear Henley shirts?

That's so big. There's three buttons right here. So you always unbutton the top one, because if you button the top one, you just look like a nerd.

Yeah. You sometimes unbutton two. Especially if you're like - It's a little warm. You're trying to impress the ladies.

I was going to say something else. Okay. You never unbutton all three. Okay. Because we know what that looks like. Unless you're Persian.

Unless you're showing off your gold chain. That's right. So always, sometimes, never. You should always be unified around these first principles, these first ideas.

Sometimes you can find unity in the second, and then you should never exclude brothers and sisters on the basis of this third category.

Okay. So what's the danger of getting these things confused? Let's say I find something that we would both consider category three.

So something of indifference that's not related to these salvific or practical unity issues. Yeah. What if I elevate that to a salvific issue?

Yeah. So the main, there's a lot of dangers with that. And if you want to - I promise you that my interaction with Russell was way more interesting than this.

Listen, no offense to these guys. They actually do a really good job in general, but you can see that this needs a little bit of counter punches.

It definitely does. This little agreement party is not the way to handle an issue like this, in my opinion, because this is a very contentious issue, but these two guys are not very contentious with each other.

Viewers, if you want to study this more in depth, I'd encourage you to go read through First Corinthians chapters eight through 11?

No, eight through 10. But the main issue is that most likely you're going to end up making something a gospel issue that is not a gospel issue, and then you will therefore yourself corrupt the gospel.

Be adding to the gospel. Yeah, that's right. Which we all know, it's no longer the gospel. Yeah, that's right. So, for example, let's work through an example.

Let's do it. Let's bet this example won't be related to voting Democrat. I knew a family that had very strong opinions about giving massages.

They thought Christians should never go to get a massage. There's spiritual activity stuff going on there.

My conscience, I thought I had a strong conscience about it. That means I thought, well, that lady may think she's adjusting my chakra, but I know that there's no such thing as a chakra, so just rub my back.

You can say the same thing about yoga. Yeah, that's right. And so that family thought that I was compromising the gospel by doing that.

Now, they were very kind towards me in that way, but they ended up judging me for that, and I ended up judging them.

I thought, well, how silly, how dumb is that? You have to... There's no such thing as a chakra. And so not only can they lead to gospel issues, but they can also lead us to judging one another and thinking less of one another, which is...

That's the seed of bitterness, the seed of resentment. That's where this disunity begins, when we disagree on these tertiary matters.

And rather than saying, along with Paul, well, I'm not your master, I know that God will judge you for this.

We take that judgment in our own hands. Yeah, we see Paul model this quite well, helpfully, with the brothers who believed that it was wrong to eat meat sacrificed to idols.

Yeah, that's right. Paul recognized that's not real. There's no such thing as these demons. And yet he was kind and gentle towards these weaker brothers and guarded their conscience and tried not to tread all over it.

It's a good example of what we're talking about. So the third tool that you're going to need in your toolbox to assemble a correct view of...

Wait, remind us what the first two are. Unity? A right understanding of unity, why we're trying to preserve unity, what it is.

The second one that we just talked about was a healthy understanding of the freedom of the Christian conscience. So theological triage.

Exactly. The third one is understanding the categories of what I will call jagged line versus straight line issues.

So you're getting this from Robert Benet, a Lutheran theologian. Benny? I think it's Benny. Well, I think it's

Benet. I like Benny. Never heard of him. Yeah, a Lutheran guy who wrote a book. Yeah, that's right. A very good book.

It's called Good and Bad Ways to Think About Religion and Politics. Would you recommend that our viewers read it?

Yeah, I think it's a useful book. I think most of what's useful from it was picked up by and sort of expanded by Jonathan Lehman in How the

Nations Rage. Both authors use the same category. Caleb Murrell actually has an article on Nine Marks where he kind of says like, hey, you don't have to read the book.

Just read this article. So I would recommend, maybe we'll link that in the description. I would too. Yeah, because this, I mean, this is the golden nugget from both of those books.

That's right. Yeah. So what do I mean by jagged... You can see these guys are big Nine Marks fans. And in my conversation with Russell, I think the reason why it didn't go as well as he was hoping for him is, honestly, that's what

I think. I don't think it went as well as he was hoping on his side, is because I started with a Nine Marks belief, because I said

Jonathan Lehman believes that it's a sin to vote Democrat. Jonathan Lehman believes that some parties are so evil that it's a sin to vote for them.

And so if you agree with both of those Nine Marks positions, those Jonathan Lehman positions, it's very difficult to then argue, but you shouldn't excommunicate people for sinning in this way.

It's a very hard case to make. And I would argue that it's probably impossible. I'm not going to say it's definitely impossible, but I'm going to say it's probably impossible.

Because all I have to say is, man, how much do you have to hate somebody to let them continue in sin as if they're not sinning?

Because church discipline starts with confrontation. Confrontation. Confrontation. And so if you're not going to confront them for their sin, that's a really bad position to be in as a brother, especially as a pastor.

If you believe that it's a sin to vote Democrat, which you ought to because the entire party is evil, from top to bottom, all their positions are evil, then you need to confront people for that sin, all the way to excommunication if they don't stop.

There's no reason to not do that. There's nothing in the Bible that suggests that it's not one of those things that you should do.

Anyway. A good line and straight line issues. Well, first straight line issues.

A straight line issue is one where we take a biblical or theological principle that is very clear in scripture and directly reason from that to our present circumstances.

And how we apply that. Exactly. So, easy example, abortion. God's word says that murder is sin.

Murder is evil. Abortion, well, it's just a sort of, it's a kind of murder. It's the murdering of an unborn child.

Murder is evil. Abortion is murder. You can draw a straight line between those two points. Very simple straight line.

I can reason from there that I should be opposed to abortion. All Christians should. Okay. A straight line issue.

Not only should you not be opposed to abortion, but you definitely should be living your life in such a way that that opposition can be demonstrated by your works.

And those works can't contradict other laws of God. That's the key. So it's like, yes, you have to be opposed to abortion up here in the brain.

By the same time, your faith needs to be demonstrated by your works. And so if you live your life in such a way that it's like, well, it's, but you say you're opposed to abortion, but then you are trying to empower those who seek to make it a fundamental human right to commit abortion.

That's a weird one. You're going to need to defend that. These issues are strong because of their proximity to direct, clear biblical truths.

That's right. And this puts them in the category of what we talked about earlier of first importance. These are primary issues.

We should bind Christians' consciences over this. You can't be a Christian and be pro -abortion.

And so this is an issue that's straight line. There's no agree to disagree. That's right. Okay. Jagged line issues, on the other hand, tend to have a multi -step process of reasoning.

They tend to take a clear biblical or theological principle, and from that, infer to another principle.

Yeah. And then from that principle, infer to another principle, and then apply that to our present circumstances.

And so there can be any number of inferences. I've heard this, but what this sounds like is that if you can justify your sin in a complex way, then maybe we can't excommunicate you for it.

This is what the Revoice Conference is all about. It's all about complex justifications for sin. And I know that they wouldn't characterize it that way, but let's hear what they have to say.

That's what it sounds like, because what we're about to get most likely is a very convoluted argument for why

I can still vote for pro -abortion candidates and not be sinning. Steps within this reasoning to get to, well, who do

I vote for? Or what policy should I support? Right. Or how should I feel about this issue?

So the anti -abortion movement is a good example. So it's a straight line conclusion that we should be opposed to abortion.

But it's a little bit more complicated when we say, okay, exactly which strategy for ending abortion is the right strategy for Christians to throw their weight behind?

Yeah, that's right. Do we go after the Supreme Court? Do we just nominate pro -life judges? Or do we ignore the

Supreme Court and fight for a state autonomy and have our states become sanctuary states and sanctuary cities where abortion's illegal and we fight the federal government?

Incrementalism. So I really hate how he characterized that, because both of those are actually legitimate choices.

Yeah, the Supreme Court could work. I don't really think it will, to be perfectly honest with you. But yeah, state autonomy movements could work as well.

But that's not what we're talking about here when we're talking about Democrats, right? That's not what we're talking about at all. We're talking about voting for people who want to make abortion a fundamental human right because they're great on welfare.

That's what we're talking about. Stupidity like that. So he made it seem like it's a very reasonable take.

Well, there could be different strategies. Yeah, there could be different strategies. But one of those strategies is not vote in the ones that are trying to accomplish the abortions.

That's stupid. That's really stupid. This is why a conversation like this that's so contentious needs an opponent on the other side here.

It needs someone that can actually keep you honest, Russell, with what you're saying. You're characterizing this in a very incorrect kind of a way.

Because if someone were saying, yeah, yeah, yeah, it's a sin to vote for the states' rights approach, that would be something that I would think would be overly divisive, overly divisive in my opinion.

I'd be glad to talk about that, but that's not really what the issue is here. That's a fantasy that you've created. That's very annoying, the way that you've done that.

But let's see. Maybe you make up for yourself, because you guys are good interviewers, so maybe that's not where it ends up.

Outright revolution and civil war, I mean, yeah. There's all kinds of different judgments that you can then infer out from, often using other biblical principles.

Sure. Let me use an example that's right in line with what we're talking about today, which is voting.

Okay, good. Abortion is evil. Straight line, right? It's murder. It's murder. It's wrong.

This candidate, who's running, claims to be pro -life, yet in 1992, voted to approve a bill that had funding in it for Planned Parenthood.

Well, there's a lot going on there. You have no idea why that guy might have voted that way for that bill back that long ago, right?

So, that's just a big ball. That's a very legitimate reason to not vote for that guy, whether he's

Republican or something else, because I would agree with that. You see, my case has never been, you must vote

Republican. I think there are a lot of legitimate reasons to not vote Republican.

Let me say that again for all of you naysayers in the back. There are many legitimate reasons to not vote

Republican, but the Republican Party has redeeming qualities, okay?

There are no legitimate reasons to vote Democrat as a Christian, none.

There are none. There are minor redeeming qualities that have no impact on anything.

So yes, he enunciated a great case where you might not want to vote for a Republican who claims to be pro -life, and yet consistently funds

Planned Parenthood. That is so frustrating. It is a completely whacked out thing from my perspective.

I can't even fathom how you could justify that. It doesn't matter what other kind of funding were in there. It doesn't matter what other kind of reasons, whatever favors you were trying to do for people.

It doesn't matter. That's ridiculous to me. That's ridiculous to me. People think I'm like this sold -out

Republican. It's just not the case at all. It's not the case at all. I find that preposterous. So yeah, you made a great case that a

Christian ought not to be forced to vote for Republican. I agree.

So, well done. It's a lot of inferences that you have to work with. It's morally complex.

Very complex. Now, that's not saying that there's not a right answer. That's correct. Yeah. So, then another example might be the government in China outlawing

Christian gatherings. Okay. It's a very straight line. This is wrong. Yeah, absolutely. So, God's word commands us to gather, commands us to assemble, and to obey

God rather than earthly authorities when they command us to disobey God. Right.

Yet, if you look at the limitations on gatherings during this COVID -19 pandemic and say, well,

I've reasoned that it's now time for us to be civilly disobedient, that's more complicated.

Because there's all kinds of nuance to that. There's different laws in different cities and different states. It's not more complicated.

It isn't. It isn't. It's just that one doesn't affect us in any way, and this one does.

And so, we're actually risking our skin a little bit here. We can say all day long that the people in China ought to be civilly disobedient because God requires them to worship.

It doesn't affect our skin in any way. This one does. It's not more complicated. It's the same exact issue.

I know that's popular to say it's more complicated. It's not. The government doesn't have the right to do it here any more than they had the right to do it there.

The government doesn't have the right to do it for these reasons any more than it had the right to do it for those reasons over there.

We just like to pretend like it's nuance so that we have wiggle room, we have ways to wiggle out of our responsibility.

I reject that notion. I absolutely reject that notion. I'm not saying this is easy, right?

I'm not saying it's easy to obey Christ all the time. But his commandments are simple. His commandments are easy.

The reason why these brothers are trying to overcomplicate this is because this is affecting their lives and their congregations and their context directly.

It's not more complicated. I reject that completely. So the whole point of this is, is straight line issues, we bind consciences.

Those are issues of first importance. These jagged line issues, we can't bind consciences on because we need to recognize that every time we infer in our reasoning, we take a step away from a clear biblical text.

We're increasing, we're injecting an opportunity, a risk that we may be wrong.

Do you remember, did you have TV when you were growing up, the old ones where like the knob went click, click, click, click, click, and you, yeah, yeah.

So, you know, if, if like we're on 10, right? Every level of inference that you get away from that straight line issue for every jagged line that you add, you're just going to click, click, click, click down your conviction, your rhetoric, your everything, the way that you talk about it.

Yeah. Because you may be right. Yeah. Your reasoning may be correct. Well, knowing you, you're certainly right.

And that's the danger. That's the danger, right? You always think you are. That's right. But every step away from clear biblical principles and teachings is a chance that you took a wrong turn.

That's right. And so the really, this leads us to our fourth tool. Okay. So first tool was understanding the importance of unity.

The second tool was understanding the freedom of the Christian conscience. This third one was the distinction between straight line and jagged line issues, not making a category error and blurring those.

The fourth one is having a biblical understanding of the deceptiveness of sin. It is a mark of Christian understanding and humility to recognize that when you get to these jagged line issues, you need to tread more carefully and more cautiously, especially as a pastor, because you don't want to confuse your flock into thinking that when you say something very clear from scripture,

God's word says murder is evil, that that has the same weight and the same certainty as when you say, vote for proposition, fill in the blank.

Stop right there. Just stop right there. So number one,

I reject the notion that some of the issues he's called jagged issues are jagged issues. I reject that completely.

And I believe that in our conversation, we took a few of those that he claimed were more jagged line type issues.

And I rejected his, you know, his assertion that they were, I said that they're actually quite much more clear than you're trying to make them seem here.

Right. But then like, like, again, you see how he characterizes this, which pastor is saying, you must vote like this.

You must, it's a, it's a biblical command. You must vote number one, and you must vote for this, this person, this thing.

That's not what we're saying. That's not what most of us are saying. I'll say that I'll say most of us aren't saying that most people that I have commiserated with that have agreed with me that you should excommunicate

Democrats are not saying, and you must vote for Donald Trump and Republicans.

What we're saying though, is that you have legitimate options. You have freedom of conscience in this for many things, but one thing you do not have the freedom of conscience for is to vote for an abjectly evil party platform.

You don't have that right. In fact, Jonathan Lehman agrees with me on that. Jonathan Lehman agrees with me on that.

He thinks that if you vote for the KKK party, that that's a sin that you should be excommunicated for if you don't repent, because the

KKK party exists primarily to do evil. I agree. I agree. Jonathan Lehman thinks if you vote for the

Nazi party, likewise, that party exists primarily to do evil. And so you should be excommunicated for voting for the

Nazi party. If you don't repent. I agree completely. Now if you look at the democratic party platform, you show you tell me where the complexity is, the moral jagged line complexity is.

You can't find it. The big one people say is, well, they care for the poor. No, they don't. No they don't.

Not biblically. They don't. They care for the poor. The way Judas Iscariot cared for the poor.

In other words, they don't. They don't care for the poor. They care for the poor because they're stealing from people.

That's why they care for the poor. Yeah, sure. The poor might get a little bit, but they're taking, they're skimming off the top.

They don't care for the poor. Judas didn't care for the poor, neither did the Democrats. So let's not, let's not pretend like we're talking about like this complex moral reasoning.

No, the democratic party exists primarily to do evil. Even Jonathan Lehman, as squishy as he is, has had to say, absolutely,

I think that pretty much in every case, if you're voting for the democratic party, that's a sin. That's the whole case.

It's open and shut at this point. This is why they probably didn't post the video of us because once you agree with Jonathan Lehman there, there is nothing to stop you from accepting

Matthew 18 in the instance of the sin of voting Democrat. Jonathan Lehman thinks it's a sin to vote

Democrat. Let me say that again for the naysayers in the back. Jonathan Lehman of Nine Marks Ministry thinks it's a sin to vote

Democrat, but for some God only knows what reason he doesn't want to actually confront you of that sin.

He wants to leave you to your own devices in that sin. That's mean, man.

That's pretty twisted. That's pretty twisted. I wouldn't do that to you.

If you're about to sin in your vote, I'm going to plead with you not to. I am not a pastor.

I have no authority to excommunicate people. There's not much I can do about it, but I will confront you with your sin.

If you're planning on sinning in your vote, the upcoming next week, I beg you to stop.

Jonathan Lehman might not care enough about you to tell you to not do it. Russell and Sean might not care about you enough to tell you to not do it, but I do.

Don't do this wicked thing. You don't have to vote for Donald Trump.

You don't have to vote at all. But you must not try to vote to empower a party that exists primarily to accomplish evil ends.

They're at war with Christ and his people. They cannot win that war. They cannot win that war, but they are at war.

I urge you to not try to empower them. That's a sin, and that's a sin that you will be held accountable for.

In any case, if you want me to continue and finish this, I'm about a little over halfway through.