The "lesser of two evils", an anti-Biblical viewpoint

Much has been said of late about the desire to choose between the "lesser of two evils".  These two choices being discussed by many self-declared Christians are both acknowledged to be "evil" to one degree or another.  Which raises the question: Is it Biblical to choose between the lesser of two evils?  Why do I ask if it is Biblical?  Because this is the only standard by which we, as Christians, have been commanded to order our worldview.  Thus if something is anti-Biblical, it is by necessity anti-Christian.  A person may disagree with an assessment that both choices that are being considered are indeed "evil", but once that assessment has been made without self-interested excuses in the way, it is incumbent upon the Christian to refuse to choose either.  The lesser of two evils is still evil.  Nowhere in the Scriptures are we commanded, encouraged, or even permitted to choose evil.  God's Word to us is rather this, "Be holy, for I am holy."
The philosophy behind the "lesser of two evils" mentality is Pragmatism, otherwise known as Utilitarianism.  While this may be an exceedingly popular way of governing in the world today and throughout human history, the common usage of pragmatism in moral decision making in no way makes it Christian.
Let me offer some examples from recent American history, beginning with WWII, to illustrate decisions that were made with a "lesser of two evils" viewpoint.  Again, a person may disagree with one of these examples, thinking that in these difficult situations that it can be excused and not called an "evil", but the consequences of these actions weigh against that conclusion. (1) The appeasement of Hitler prior to WWII, putting off the confrontation until Germany was far stronger and making the Holocaust a possibility. (2) The alliance with Soviet Russia, and evil regime if ever there was one, during WWII, which led to 70 years of Communist domination of Eastern Europe. (3) The fire bombing of German and Japanese cities during WWII, which caused hundreds of thousands of non-combatant deaths and failed to shorten the war at great cost in material and lives on the Allied side. (4) The use of the atomic bomb on two cities to end WWII. (5) The failure to prosecute fully Nazi war crimes because those same Nazis were useful for the West in the Cold War. (6) Alliances made with brutal dictators all over Africa, Latin America, and Asia during the Cold War because they were anti-communist.  (7) Support of the Shah of Iran, leading to the revolution which set the groundwork for the anit-Western obsession of Islamic fundamentalism and the terrorism plaguing the world today. (8) Involvement in Vietnam to stop the "domino effect" of communist expansion. (9) Leaving Saddam Hussein in power in 1991, and then coming back twenty years later to remove him. (10) The U.S. government allowing and/or encouraging torture following 9/11.
The list could be longer, I could keep listing pragmatic decisions by world leaders throughout history, many of which led to more evil, not less.  These leaders may have thought that they had no choice, or that the choices before them were only evil, but such thinking will not stand up before a holy and just God's scrutiny.
For Christians, it is tempting to excuse immoral behavior by saying that the only choices available are bad ones, therefore we must choose one of them.  For all those who choose to embrace an evil choice, remember this, you will answer for all of your decisions in life, and the attitudes that led you to make those choices, while standing before Almighty God.  Far too often, Christians have embraced pragmatic morality in their pursuit of wealth, fame, and power, this has to stop.  It is time for the Church, for Christian organizations, and for individual Christians to disavow pragmatic morality.  We have been called to live holy and righteous lives, we will be judged for how we live, for we are Christ's ambassadors here on earth, our Savior never chose the "lesser of two evils".


Romans 3:8  Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just!
- The context is about sinning so that God's holiness can be more clearly seen, yet Paul's emphatic reply should be warning enough against attempting to justify an evil choice on the hope that good will come of it.

Sermon Video: The Steadfastness of Jotham - 2 Chronicles 27

In an era when fame, for any reason, at any price, is valued highly by so many, it is certainly worth our time to consider those mentioned in the Bible who aren't household names, never having achieved either fame or infamy.  Jotham, as a king of Judah, fits into that category.  Because Jotham died at only 41, his 16 years on the throne were not memorable enough to make us remember him as we have other kings of Israel and Judah, whether that be for their righteousness or their wickedness.
Jotham, unlike his father who died of leprosy as God's judgment, lived a life of steadfast devotion to God, consistently doing his best with what he had to work with during the time that was allotted to him.  It wasn't flashy, but it was a life pleasing to God, and just as importantly, devoid of the regrets that had plagued his father, grandfather, and great-grandfather.
Jotham also showed wisdom in that he retained that which he learned from his father's capable administration of the kingdom, and at the same time entirely rejected the mistake that his father made in pride of presuming to usurp priestly duties.  For anyone to emulate what was good about our upbringing, and reject that which was bad, and then go on to live a life of walking before the LORD steadfastly, surely this is a worthy life.  You may not remember Jotham, but any of us should be glad to have a life lived as honorably.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

True Repentance comes at a cost - Psalm 6

There has been much discussion of late about the "apology" of various politicians for the immoral things which they had done which have become public.  Whether or not the voters "forgive" a politician or not has absolutely nothing to do with the forgiveness that is needed from God, for this form of political "repentance" has little or nothing to do with the real thing.
To actually repent of one's sins requires a broken and contrite heart.  If one brags of sin in private, treating it as a laughing matter, and makes excuses for that same sin in public, blaming it on someone else or trying to minimize it, how can this possibly reflect a heart that is broken before a holy God?
David, as a man of God, was also a man who committed heinous sins.  In his most egregious sin, David was brought to repentance through God's grace in the sending of the prophet Nathan to warn David that his sin could not be ignored.
In Psalm 6, David writes about the foes that oppress him which he realizes are a sign of the judgment of God against his sin.  In response he writes of the anguish caused by his guilt, "I am worn out from groaning; all night long I flood my bed with weeping and drench my couch with tears.  My eyes grown weak with sorrow; they fail because of all my foes." (Psalm 6:6-7)  It is the attitude of genuine horror and revulsion at our offenses, committed against God, that is the hallmark of true repentance.  Do not be deceived, those who "repent" for public consumption will in no way fool Almighty God.  It is only by throwing ourselves upon the mercy of God and trusting in the cleansing power of the Blood of the Lamb that we can find forgiveness, cleansing, healing, and finally salvation.

How do I know what to believe? Intervarsity, Human Sexuality, and the authority of Scripture

There isn't an issue more talked (argued) about in recent American culture than human sexuality.  Many in our culture have arrived at conclusions that in previous generations would have been considered very radical.  It is one thing for non-believers, i.e. the Lost, to change their beliefs, this is to be expected as human wisdom changes over time.  It is quite another for a Christian, a self-acknowledged disciple of Jesus Christ, to change what he/she believes about an issue of moral significance.  That this has happened, for many Christians, raises an important question: On what basis is the change in moral understanding being made?
For Christians, the answer should only be: Because that is what we understand the Word of God to be teaching.  It is entirely possible for Christians to come to a new understanding of Holy Scripture, for better or worse, Church history is full of examples of both.  What is not acceptable is for a Christians to arrive at a moral position in opposition to the teachings of Scripture, or without concern for what Scripture teaches.  In other words, a moral understanding based upon emotion, feelings, logic, philosophy, science, or any other basis that circumvents or ignores the revelation of Scripture is an act of rebellion against the authority of God.
This devotion to the teachings of Scripture applies in every moral question and controversy, not just human sexuality, from the Christian attitude to war, to gambling and alcoholism and everything else.  What is important, is the attitude of submission to the revealed will of God.  If we lack that willingness to submit, we will find a way to ignore the teachings of Scripture.
Recently Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, the largest evangelical Christian organization on college campuses with chapters at 667 colleges and 1,300 staff members, released a position paper entitled, A Theological Summary of Human Sexuality.  In light of the moral position that Intervarsity is taking on such an issue of significance, the organization has asked its employees to voluntarily quit their jobs if they are unable to accept it and live by it.  This is the same commitment to an organization's mission and statement of faith expected of employees at Christian colleges, charities, and churches throughout the world.  In other words, it would be no news at all if not for the current debate ongoing in America on the issue of human sexuality.
What is more important, over the long-haul, than the particular conclusions of those who put together Intervarsity's statement, is the way in which they came to those conclusions.  The statement itself is full of references to Scripture that demonstrate a desire to be obedient to the original intention of the text and the Church's understanding of the text throughout its history, as well as a desire to follow the whole council of God and not cherry pick it.  Putting references into a statement regarding a moral position does not make one necessarily right, we all know the danger of proof-texting, but it illustrates that Intervarsity's motivation in this endeavor was to be ruled by the authority of Scripture.  This is, and must be, the way in which individual Christians, Christian organizations, and the Church itself operates.  If we ever deviate from this path, and for those who already have, the consequences we will face will be the judgment of God against us for putting our own will above that of God as revealed in holy Scripture.  For those who do not value the authority of Scripture, what I am saying is a moot point, but it has been the belief of the Church, since the beginning, including that of Jesus himself throughout the Gospels, that the Word of God is binding upon us.
Intervarsity will likely receive much negative press for their decision, and will also likely be kicked off some college campuses in an ironic appeal to tolerance.  Whether one agrees with the conclusions reached by Intervarsity or not, whether one agrees with their decision regarding their staff members in light of those conclusions or not, the most important thing in this whole episode will be that a Christian organization decided to follow Scripture, after much study and contemplation of it, instead of the culture in which they operate.  For the Church, this is the path forward, this is how we act as salt and light in our world, by being steadfast in our commitment to let the Word of God rule in our hearts in all things.

The Church in a Post-Christian society

Much discussion has occurred in recent years, and will continue to occur, regarding what the Church's response should be to the growing number of non-committed, agnostic, and atheist young people in the Western World.  One of the motivations behind the conscious decision made by Pastor Andy Stanley eight years ago to change his approach to evangelism is his desire to make a greater impact upon a post-Christian America.  While it remains to be seen if we truly are entering into an era of post-Christian society, after all a majority of Americans still self-identify (I know the accuracy of such things is debatable) as Christian and trends can run both ways, but given that a significant portion of Millenials and other young people have a negative view of the Church, Scripture, and God, it behooves us to consider whether or not we ought to change our ministry approach in response.  Those churches which have embraced a seeker-friendly attitude are one such attempted response.

Let me, however, offer a counter-point and word of caution.  If indeed our society continues in its current direction of removing the sacred and the divine in the process known as secularization, does it really seem wise for the Church to imitate them by downplaying Scripture, prayer, or worship?  Shouldn't we maintain our emphasis on the exalted nature of our worship services so as to provide a contrast to the secular world?  Aren't we showing the world what it is missing as God's Creation when we continue to hold high not only the authority of Scripture, but the sacred qualities of prayer and worship?  For a church to downplay its religious symbols and to make worship more approachable for the Lost by putting the Bible and God in a lesser role, is not making them more appealing to those who need God, but removing from them the one element that society without God cannot imitate, the presence of the Holy Spirit in our midst.
It is absolutely legitimate to hold a rally or have a special gathering that is seeker-friendly, but this cannot be what we allow our worship service to devolve into.  Why are we in the house of the Lord on his day?  To lift his name, to worship the Almighty, and to be molded and shaped as his disciples.  The Lost are absolutely welcome to join us, to observe our worship, and hear the Word of the LORD preached, but it would be a mistake for us to remove from our worship the things that make them uncomfortable.  The Lost should feel welcome in our midst, but they shouldn't feel comfortable, for the wrath of God abides on them until they repent; seeker-friendly can't change that fact, and the Church should never try to hide it.