“For God … did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly,” — 2 Peter 2:4, 5.

JESSE A. HELMS was the greatest man to enter the American political arena in the modern era. Mr. Helms was a vigorous opponent of every manifestation of leftist thought in American public life. He also picked a number of fights abroad, making enemies with almost every major communist tyrant left in the world by the end of the last century. Perhaps most important of all, Helms utilized his seat in the U.S. Senate to loudly decry the grossest forms of immorality that had begun to be accepted here at home. Outstripping every other leader of the American Right, Mr. Helms bore the contemptous lash of an increasingly apostate generation that was not even worthy to have called him a fellow. The senator of North Carolina from 1973 to 2003 died yesterday at the age of 86.

Mr. Helms was more than an influential sentator that redefined the way money influenced American politics. For many misguided Americans, Mr. Helms was as close to the spirit of Noah as they would ever encounter. In a society determined to call evil good and good evil, it was often Jesse Helms, not preachers in the church, that became the lightening rod to remind them from whence they had fallen. Mr. Helms’s stands against homosexuality and immoral art subsidized by the NEA garnered him visceral opposition from those most tenanciously bent towards unrestrained wickedness. It was because of the ferocity of this opposition that Mr. Helms was compelled to employ new methods to finance his senate campaigns. Although elected to represent North Carolinians, Mr. Helms’s causes transcended state lines. His enemies were frequently outside of North Carolina and even sometimes outside America itself. Mr. Helms’s appeals then to allies living outside the state to would-be donors to his re-election campaigns was a matter of necessity.

Jesse Helms was not a racist or even a segregationist. His early opposition to forced busing and his later disagreements with the establishment of the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday and racial quotas were complex policy positions that were more rooted in his convictions about limited government than his feelings about black people. His opponents, however, seized upon these positions during elections in order to defeat him. Mr. Helms never opposed racial integration absolutely, as was the manner of many in the South before him. What he opposed was the role that many liberals felt the federal government had to take in order to initiate it. Unlike many in the American South, those that actually knew Mr. Helms best knew least about any personal spirit of racial acrimony. More than his own words or votes in the U.S. Senate, the crass and vicious challenges Mr. Helms received from Harvey Gantt in 1990 and 1996 did more to attach this dreaded stigma of racism to his name.

The rough nature of the campaigns Mr. Helms waged has also been employed by his opponents to doubt the real character of the man. But even a superficial investigation of the television ads and statements by Mr. Helms himself reveals that “the dark side of Jesse Helms” is to a large degree a mythological construct by the Left, a caricature fantastic even for today’s American politics. Senator Helms’s television ads, even the “white hands” one in 1990 opposing racial quotas, were usually only concise, plainly-spoken advertisments that made liberal policies and their advocates unattractive. The frequent charge that they were mean-spirited or “attack ads” simply does not square with the examination of the facts.

We know very little about Mr. Helms’s theology. Like many in churches throughout the United States, it was likely superficial to a large degree. Mr. Helms usually could not speak long about religion before delving into American triumphalism. We admit that is regrettable. It is inappropriate for churches to set up voter registration tables in the Church of God, a practice Mr. Helms thought admirable. But that was a problem in many conservative evangelical circles, especially those connected with the late Jerry Falwell’s “Moral Majority” movement.  But we believe he is in heaven.  An excerpt from his memoirs suggests that Jesse Helms’s musings about God transcended its relationship to the electoral success or failure of the American political Right:

For nearly two thousand years, the Christian religion warned that among the greatest sins we can fall into are those of presumption and despair. Because I believe this, I feel a duty to reiterate, however inadequately and unworthily, the great moral and political truths that have sustained America as an independent nation for two centuries — truths that are now gravely endangered in a climate of apathy and skepticism.

A famous writer once said of Christianity that it had not been tried and found wanting; rather, it had been found difficult, and left untried. He was right, of course.” — p. xvii, Here’s Where I Stand, 2005.

The Genesis account of the life of Noah gives to us almost nothing by way of explanation of what Noah did for the 120 years from the point God told Noah He would destroy the wicked world of his day to the time Noah actually climbed aboard the ark and the deluge commenced.  However, under the inspiration of the Spirit of God, the Apostle Peter informs us in his last epistle that Noah took up preaching. This “preacher of righteousness” (2 Pet. 2:5) upheld God’s standard to a wicked generation, winning over no one except the seven other members of his own family. In a similar manner, Mr. Helms rebuked the evil of his day though America was far worse when he left the U.S. Senate in 2003 than it was in 1973.  Even on this very day, Mr. Helms is gone, but many all across the internet are still cursing the witness of Mr. Helms. While this happened to some degree with Ronald Reagan, Bill Buckley, and Jerry Falwell – other leaders of the American Right — the intensity level is heightened, we believe, with Mr. Helms.

As with the witness of Noah and Jesse Helms, so the parallel of the antediluvian people with our modern society is an easy one to make as well. The Lord Jesus tells us that before the flood, Noah’s generation continued in their disobedience right until the rain began to pour: “And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: they ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all,” (Luke 17:26, 27).  

Wonder if we are in the last days? Look at the shameful way Jesse Helms was treated by this world. The greatest leaders of America are passing off the scene at an accelerated clip. The days of Noah are here. The destruction of this nation, and perhaps even of this world, is imminent. Only one question remains: are you reconciled to God through personal union with the Lord Jesus Christ, represented in the Old Testament as the ark of safety? Know the answer to that burning question my friend, and do not allow any other concern to distract you until you know for sure.

And in the morning, rising up a great while before day, He went out, and departed into a solitary place, and there prayed. And Simon and they that were with Him followed after Him. And when they had found Him, they said unto Him, ‘All men seek for Thee.’ And He said unto them, ‘Let us go into the next towns, that I may preach there also: for therefore came I forth.’” — Mark 1:35-38

I.) “…He went out, and departed into a solitary place, and there prayed.” Notice how Jesus prepares Himself for His work. He doesn’t rush into it as many preachers today, confident of the residual knowledge they might have gained at seminary or from their years of experience in the pulpit. If Jesus felt the need to soak His sermons in prayer beforehand, we believe all preachers do. Could it be that many preachers fail just at this beginning point? Perhaps they are so busy doing “the Lord’s work” that they sharply curtail and even neglect prayer in trying to get it all done. Perhaps they are relying on the cleverness of their sermon outline or the effectiveness of certain tricks (altar calls, decision cards, special guest-speakers). The Lord Jesus employed no gimmicks. He leaned upon His Father.

II.) “…when they had found Him, they said unto Him, ‘All men seek for Thee.’” Jesus had gone far enough away from His disciples that they had apparently lost track of Him for a few moments. But having found Him again, they felt the need to inform Him that the people were seeking Him. What a picture this is for us that live in this time of spiritual drought. The Christian Church today is greatly weakened and desperately praying for a revival of the true religion that Christ here preached. It is almost as though we are like these poor disciples that have temporarily lost track of our Lord. In 21st century America, the Lord Jesus has withdrawn Himself and we are seeking a greater manifestation of His presence. So what should we do? Should we try to find ways to make Christianity more palatable to the multitudes? Should we try to adapt to what the people want? No, we should go and find Jesus. The disciples knew that is what they needed. When Christ would appear, all would be well. This is what we are doing when we pray for revival.

Now why exactly does the Church pray for a revival — a pouring out of God’s Spirit? It is for the same reason these disciples did in our text. We are conscious of the lost multitudes that do not know Him. “All men seek for Thee.” Of course, we know later that some of these “seekers” would find Jesus only to reject Him. But Christ’s disciples always recognize that whether they know it or not, men are seeking the Lord Jesus and what He only can do. Millions are seeking purpose for their lives. They are seeking satisfaction in something. They are enslaved by lusts and depraved desires from which Christ’s disciples know only Jesus can deliver them. People are afraid of death. They have broken relationships and broken hearts because of their sins. Christ’s disciples know that only Jesus can heal them. And we see this faith in Jesus demonstrated here in our text.

III.) “Let us go into the next towns, that I may preach there also…” The Lord Jesus is not oblivious to these concerns about the multitudes. They are His concerns formed in us by God Himself. “For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure,” Phil. 2:13. But now having found their Lord, He rises from prayer to urge His disciples to go with Him to speak truth to the people. This is always what Jesus does. When we express our anxiety about the state of our world, He bids us to come with Him and spread Truth about Himself and His Gospel. The message He gives is not an academic set of theological principles that is detached from the present needs of our day. They are exactly what the world needs at every point of human history.

IV.) “…for therefore came I forth.” Preaching is an important reason Christ came into the world. He came to die, He came to live a perfect life in our place — all these things are true. But Jesus also came to preach, saying certain things that we need to know if we are to be saved and persevere in these Last Days. We close with the words of J.C. Ryle, an Anglican bishop in the 19th century:

We ought to observe here, what infinite honour the Lord Jesus puts on the office of the preacher. It is an office which the eternal Son of God Himself undertook. He might have spent His earthly ministry in instituting and keeping up ceremonies, like Aaron. He might have ruled and reigned as a king, like David. But He chose a different calling. Until the time when He died as a sacrifice for our sins, His daily, and almost hourly work was to preach…

Let us leave the passage with a solemn resolution never to ‘despise prophesying.’ (1 Thess. 5:20). The minister we hear may not be highly gifted. The sermons that we listen to may be weak and poor. But after all, preaching is God’s grand ordinance for converting and saving souls. The faithful preacher of the Gospel is handling the very weapon which the Son of God was not ashamed to employ. This is the work of which Christ has said, ‘Therefore came I forth.’

 ”For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.” — Romans 13:3, 4

 AS THE EMOTIONAL women from the polygamist sect in El Dorado, Texas continue to hit the airwaves, many may be tempted to ask, “Has the state gone too far in imposing its will in this case? Couldn’t the polygamists and their children have been allowed to continue their way of life without this intrusion?”

We cannot forget that we have here quite possibly the largest polygamist sect in the United States. How this case is decided may largely affect the way the rest of our nation deals with this ungodly form of perversion. Are we moving towards allowing the Lawrence v. Texas case to inflict upon us its ill-conceived conclusions in the matter of polygamy? Will Americans begin to second-guess the presently held view that the First Amendment and its provision for the freedom of religion does not provide for multiple marriage partners? Even Utah has outlawed polygamy. Is that an overreach on the part of the state? 

We cannot speak to those who are easily swayed by mere emotion. For them, any rational argument can be immediately refuted by the tears of a weeping mother. But irrespective of the emotional components, the fact stands unaltered that God is against the practice of polygamy. It is a perversion of the the order established in Eden, that one man and one woman would be united in marriage. Like divorce, we know that polygamy arose soon after the fall as a common manifestation of the lustings and hardness of men’s hearts. But “in the beginning, it was not so,” and the evil of polygamy has been further revealed to us who are now in the new covenant, enjoying as we do our Lord’s further clarification of the larger subject in Matt. 19. Also, it is absolutely unthinkable that an elder or deacon of the church would have multiple wives, as Paul indicates bluntly and without comment in 1 Timothy 3, as well as Titus 1 and 2.

The first polygamist recorded in the Bible was not Jacob or David, or any other godly man in the Old Testament. It was a murderer and a thug named Lamech who took for himself two wives, as recorded in Genesis 4:19. While some in the old covenant of whom God approved did indeed live in cultures that practiced bigamy and even polygamy, it was always due to ignorance that eventually brought them great grief and continual conflict. We never saw the patriarchs attempting to go against the cultural tide to maintain the practice. Furthermore David and Solomon, who were the most prolific polygamists, are hardly monuments demonstrating the virtue of the practice since their warring progeny (in the case of David) and the massive expenses of the harem (in the case of Solomon) threatened to undo their kingdoms on at least two occassions and then finally delivered a severe blow to it in 2 Chronicles 10 from which the house of David never fully recovered.

As if that is not enough proof, Moses expressly forbids the practice of polygamy in Lev. 18:18, as well as in the case of kings in Deu. 17:17: “Neither shall he [that is, a king] multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply silver and gold for himself.” We think that sufficiently answers the matter.

But what bearing does this have upon the state, particularly the government of Texas in this specific case? Rather than rely on any libertarian impulses or upon the modern notion of minority rights that has so often done our generation harm, it seems most instructive to us to go to the text we cited here in the beginning to discover what God’s most basic will for the state is. Romans 13:4 illustrates that the ruler is “God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon them that do evil.”

The Bible asserts the ruler’s most fundamental role to be operative here: “the avenger to execute wrath upon them that do evil.” If the state cannot act here, then pray tell, what exactly should it ever do? Polygamy is evil. It is offensive to Almighty God. And who can tell if God may not be bearing down His judgment on this wicked sect now because of the hardness of their hearts and their long resistance to the light of His Word? In fact, we are quite sure that this is exactly what is happening. 

Those that decry the measures taken with the children decry the dealings of God in providence and impugn His wisdom in declaring in such unmistakable terms that polygamy is in fact a form of perversion. And where such extreme perversion exists, children should be rescued from the chaos that must ensue. It is most certainly not just another religious viewpoint that merits shelter from the First Amendment. It is a vile manifestation of ungodliness that calls the state to action. Opposing the actions of the state of Texas means going to war with Romans 13 and the very purpose of what human governments are called upon by God to do in this world. We think it an utterly foolish and dangerous one to take.          

“Therefore since all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.” — 2 Peter 3:11-13

FORTY years ago yesterday, Martin Luther King Jr. was killed in Memphis, Tennessee. It was fitting therefore that his legacy would be discussed. In that discussion, there was a great deal of division regarding whether the situation in America has worsened or improved, from a race relations standpoint. Has King’s dream come true? We will leave it to others to answer that question. Yet what is incontrovertible is that our society possesses a total inability to arrive at a consensus on that question along with all the other most basic matters regarding the state of race relations. Civil rights leaders acknowledge the problem and point to residual racial prejudice among whites as the root cause. Critics of the modern civil rights movement point to prejudice as well, except among blacks, not whites. Yet we believe the radically different answers heard yesterday have more to do with the theology of MLK than in racial prejudice.

But before discussing that theology it must be stated that the existence of racial prejudice in 1968 and indications of its persistence in 2008 cannot be denied. However inconsistent King’s theology was with the New Testament, white Christians in the American South greatly erred in a more serious way when they aligned themselves with George Wallace and the others that thought like him. The request of one human being to be treated as another would treat himself should cause embarrassment in any true followers of the Lord Jesus. Rejecting that request on the basis of the manner in which it is made — or worse — because of unmitigated arrogance, i.e. “America is too great a nation to stand guilty of such wrongs,” is repugnant. In the earlier half of the 20th Century, Christians in the southern portions of the United States had endured great trial for boldly standing for biblical truths that were being abandoned by professing Christians in the North. Yet southern white Christians lost the opportunity to capitalize on the stands they had taken in decades past all because they could not endure to drink from the same water fountains as black people or allow their children to attend school with black children. It is impossible to calculate the degree to which the moral and spiritual decline of our nation can be directly attributed to the amount of influence lost by Bible-believing white Christians in the American South.  

It is against that backdrop that MLK enjoys iconic status in our culture. MLK did not simply force the South to reconsider its attitudes towards black people. He exposed the longtime sins of a people that were on their way to becoming the moral compass of Western civilization. Before MLK, church-goers in the northern portions of the United States and in Europe that had jettisioned historic Christian truth in favor of liberalism had to recokon with the guilt of their apostacy. Each time they were reminded of their faithful, orthodox countrymen in the American South, the extent to which they had fallen was painfully conspicuous. But when the ugliness of southern American racial prejudice was fully known, that all changed. Liberals in the North and in Europe continued to abandon God at an accelerated rate while indignantly decrying the very real sins of white southerners. Some crass liberals even went so far as to say that the white southerner’s steadfast adherance to orthodox Christianity itself was perhaps symptomatic of an underlying racial prejudice.  

That brings us to MLK’s theology. All this has been a very sad history of white southern Christians, but it doesn’t mean that their understanding of the Bible (other than areas regarding race) was all wrong and MLK’s was all correct. In fact, MLK’s theology was not even remotely accurate if compared to the New Testatment. MLK’s effectiveness might have been slightly greater among white Christians in the American South if his teachings had called them back to this, and not to a new code of ethics that southerners had rightly learned to identify with liberalism and Marxism. Even down to the present day, civil rights advocates will not tolerate criticism of this kind. It is tragic. But what has become more apparant in the forty years since MLK’s death is that the civil rights movement is tenaciously bound to liberalism and its attendant theological presuppostitions, not the Bible. And it is these unbiblical theological ideas that lead the followers of MLK to utter such sincere statements regarding the present state of race relations that strike many as excessively pessimistic.

To illustrate this, we must discuss one of the specifics of MLK’s beliefs. In two of his most famous speeches, MLK touches on seemingly biblical themes. Yet where the Scriptures refer to heaven and the world to come, MLK applies them to this present world, and even society just in America alone. In his “I Have a Dream” speech, MLK alludes to a dream of perfect social harmony where black children and white children embrace with absolutely no racial tension. This is a scene portrayed in Revelation 5, where a people of “every tribe and tongue and people and nation” are united in singing praises to the Lamb that was slain, who is Christ. But where the Bible makes it plain this is the scene in heaven where no one dies or sins, MLK encourages his audience to apply it to this present fallen world where people still very much sin and die. Again in his last “Promised Land” speech, MLK is even more careless in using an Old Testament passage that the New Testament in Hebrews 11:13 explains represented a world yet to come — the land of Caanan promised to Israel. Yet MLK applies it to life in the here and now. He suggests that death might come for him before he reached the place of perfect racial harmony with all black people, clearing maintaining that such peace is possible in this sin cursed earth.   

The Apostle Peter makes clear in the text we cited in the beginning that this is not the hope of the Christian. The true believer recognizes that this world is perishing and ripe for judgment. Yet because there is a new heavens and a new earth that is to be revealed any moment with Christ’s return, the Christian is to live in light of that imminent reality. ”Therefore since all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? (2 Peter 3:11). Martin Luther King Jr’s theology, on the other hand, encourages people to hope in something that might yet be acheived in this world. There is no acknowledgement in MLK’s theology of how the fall of man might render it impossible for man to live in ultimate racial harmony. Unlike Revelation 5 where God is the focal point and harbinger of peace, MLK points to a kind of humanistic utopia that is manufactured and sustained by mankind alone. If God is involved in MLK’s dream at all, He is there on the periphery, not as the focal point and the reason for the peace.

These distinctions are not trivial. They strike at the very heart of what the Christian hopes for and what the New Testament asserts is possible in this fallen world. Is it any wonder, then, that MLK’s followers are disappointed? Even if greater progress is acheived regarding race relations in America, the theological presupposition of MLK is that we should work for and expect perfect racial harmony in this world. How different is the Apostle Peter’s hope: “Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.” (2 Peter 3:13). Peter knew this is a place where unrighteousness dwells, there is no hope of things getting much better here. Neither did John: “We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one,” (1 John 5:19). So that is why the hope MLK held out to his followers was never possible. It is a hope that is totally foreign to the one the New Testament urges followers of the Lord Jesus to embrace. That message is this: the world cannot be saved through activism, but through the death and perfect life of the Lord Jesus Christ, one can be saved out of the world when its assured destruction comes. The Gospel offers no hope to save the world, only that through Christ you can be saved out of it.                            

“But you, beloved, remember the words which were spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ: how they told you that there would be mockers in the last time who would walk according to their own ungodly lusts. These are sensual persons, who cause divisions, not having the Spirit.” — Jude 17-19

JEREMIAH WRIGHT has evoked almost the universal disgust of political pundits of every ideological stripe. While conservatives are most appalled by his anti-American tirades, liberals wince at his heated rhetoric against the Clintons and his general penchant for far-flung, leftist conspiracy theories. The “Reverend” Wright, from a purely political perspective, is nothing more than a sizeable liability for Mr. Barack Obama. Since the media coverage has mostly covered the affair from that angle, we think the biblical significance of this man’s ministry and the overall phenomenon of “Reverend” Wright has been largely missed. It is unfortunate that the American public has become so biblically illiterate that it can no longer articulate in convincing terms why a Jeremiah Wright is theologically wrong.  

The less than patriotic utterances of Mr. Obama’s longtime pastor and confidant should hardly be the primary impetus for the present outrage. What this whole situation in fact reveals is that, for too many blacks in this nation, this is their concept of authentic Christian teaching. When that is taken into account, it is enlightening as to how many blacks make the transition to Islam with relative ease. Islam, fundamentally, is a religion that is driven by hate and human lust. Our text explains how–and more importantly why–such teachers can turn the doctrine of the meek and mild Jesus into something virtually unrecognizable to us.

I.) “…they [the apostles] told you that there would be mockers in the last time who walk according to their own ungodly lusts.” Lust in the Bible encompasses far more than inappropriate sexual desire. Particularly when the plural form of the word is used, as it is here, the Bible is speaking regarding corrupt or unholy desires that emanate from our sinful, fallen nature.

Most prominently here Jude is referring to “ungodly” lusts–corrupt desires that are especially against and unlike the Being and character of God. So we might conclude that the dominating characteristics of these mockers is that they are wholly unlike God. They are not merely living their lives according to ordinary lusts. These are ungodly lusts. Now in a very real sense all lusts are ungodly. Yet Jude probably adds this description to underscore the fact that the lusts of these mockers are most conspicuous for their being in extreme variance with the One true God.

No lust is more “ungodly” than a malice that is held against another individual human being simply because he is the member of another race. Men are never more unlike the Lord Jesus when they hate an entire segment of people–souls created in the image of God–and to do so in a blanket way for no other reason than that of the color of another’s skin. “In Christ, there is neither Jew nor Gentile.” In the heart of the Lord Jesus, the multitudes of every race draw out compassion, as He sees only sheep that have no shepherd. And in the purpose of Christ, the final, grand revelation and anticipation of His heart is that a people of every tribe, tongue, and nation would be gathered with Him where He is, (Rev. 5:9, John 17:24). To miss that is to be totally unlike God in a very fundamental way.

So we have in some measure a picture of how truly ungodly–how totally unlike God–one of these mockers like Jeremiah Wright demonstrates himself to be when he can look at all kinds of white people and pray, “God damn America!” It is clear evidence of a heart subsumed in lust of the most carnal nature, the passion of racial bigotry. And when the totality of his ministry is considered, we believe that it is unquestionably manifest that “Reverend” Wright walks according to these ungodly lusts of prejudice and racial hatred. Jude says these lusts so control these mockers that they literally walk according to them. The lusts determine the direction that their feet travel and where they will end up. It is all determined by this malice that is pent up and coming to expression by the words of their mouths.

II.) But as if this is not enough, Jude then says that these false teachers are marked by something else. They are “sensual” or “worldly”. These are not heavenly minded people whose spiritual gaze is set upon another world. Their minds are captivated by the things of earth–the things they can touch, feel, and that stimulates their nerve-endings. The flesh is what motivates them. So what stirs them up is politics, questions regarding societal issues, and conspiracies that relate to the objects of their intense bigotry. The great, eternal matters of how sinful man can be made right with God–the message of the cross that is entrusted to every bonified Gospel minister–these things don’t get them going. They are of secondary importance if they are mentioned at all.

III.) “…who cause divisions…” Division and strife always accompanies lust. The Apostle James teaches this elsewhere, “Where do wars and fights come from among you? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure that war in your members?” (James 4:1). We will not here take the time to speculate as to why there is this connection with lust to conflict with other human beings, but the Bible here again affirms that such a connection exists.

IV.) “…not having the Spirit.” What more terrible condemnation could be made regarding a teacher claiming to be sent by God! To not have the Spirit of God means that “the glory has departed.” The Spirit of God–if He ever was present at all–is no longer. And such a ministry by such a teacher is nothing more than a ministry of death. For where the Spirit is absent, there is no life. There is only the flesh remaining with all its corrupt passions and lusts. 

Of course, “Reverend” Wright’s church is very boisterous during its services. We would like to say something at this point to our brethren that have lost the courage or the will to speak critically regarding the Charismatic/Pentecostal movement: are we fearful to say that even Jeremiah Wright’s church lacks the presence of the Spirit? If overt, outward displays of emotion are the best indicators of the presence of the Spirit of God, then certainly it follows that the Spirit is there in that place. But our text is clearly not teaching that. Many charismatics claim they only have the Spirit of God, and that all others that do not practice “the gifts” don’t have Him. We that believe that the gifts of tongues, prophecy, healing via human instruments, etc., have ceased from the Church are frequently accused of pride by charismatics that would divide with us in a blink of an eye over such secondary questions. While we we say they are mistaken in their doctrinal understanding, many of them would simply write us off as spiritually dead or haughty. How do we respond to that kind of spiritual arrogance? 

Like Jude we believe that false teachers that walk according to their lusts and cause division clearly manifest the absence of the Spirit though we readily admit there are spirits among them. ”Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world”(1 John 4:1). Is it unloving to insist the teachings of charismatics be brought to the touchstone of Scripture with the very real possibility that they might be proven false prophets? Is it more loving to disobey Scripture and believe every spirit at first until the fruit of the man’s ministry is so apparently bad that no testing is required?

These are surely questions that must be answered if the Church is to “convict those that contradict” and serve as the “pillar and ground of the Truth.” It is manifest that we have not carried out these duties well in recent decades. May we not fail our generation altogether in this regard because of our spiritual laziness.                       

“Then Moses and the children of Israel sang this song to the LORD, and spoke, saying: ‘I will sing to the LORD, for He has triumphed gloriously! The horse and its rider He has thrown into the sea… And Miriam answered them: ‘Sing to the LORD, for He has triumphed gloriously! The horse and its rider He has thrown into the sea!’” — Exodus 15:1, 21

WE HAVE NO INTENTION to here repress originality or to encourage mimicry. Like everyone else, we too appreciate when a fresh perspective is given on a topic or when a new arrangement of a piece of music improves upon an older one. Creativity in the mind of man is a blessed thing when it is able to spark in us a fresh appreciation for some old thing or even for an altogether new thing with which we have never been familiarized.

But in today’s culture, there is a high premium placed upon originality that perhaps exceeds the one commonly given to truth. A bizarre cult figure in our society can gain followers simply because what he teaches is fresh and new, even if it bears little relationship to what the Bible teaches. Yet Americans thought a crime was committed when one of its major presidential candidates used the same words from another man’s speech. Americans are accustomed to witnessing a pop song rocket to the top of the charts and mesmerize millions for weeks until it is flung aside in the same manner that a fickle three year-old tires of a new toy. Americans are like the Athenian philosophers that gathered on Mars Hill in the first century: they consider the proliferation of old thinking a bore and a sin. Meanwhile, they will spend a great deal of time grasping new things that they fully know they will become tired of and throw away later (Acts 17:21).

The Scriptures provide a proper balance in this area of truth and originality, and it is somewhere different to where we are as a culture. In our text, Moses and Israel have just witnessed the stunning defeat of their greatest adversary, Ramses, Pharaoh of Egypt. Their expression of thanksgiving and praise are here recorded in this fifteenth chapter. What is striking is the similarity of Moses’ theme versus that of Miriam’s. It is identical in its chief aspects. Miriam unapologetically lifts statements from Moses and makes them her own.

Shouldn’t Miriam have made some attempt to find different words to express the joy she and the women felt on this occasion? Did they not have another perspective that might need to have been expressed apart from the men? If these words were set to music, that still doesn’t answer our question as to why there is no attempt to compose different songs on this occasion. This chapter tells us that Moses and the children of Israel sang these songs, and that then Miriam and the women added instruments and sang the same words. The Spirit could have simply stated the content of Moses’ song and added that all Israel went repeating the song. But no. Instead we have this specific reference to Miriam and the women taking up the same words in their own way.

Certain words are conducive to repetition when they are set to meter. This is acknowledged. This is a very pragmatic explanation that has a degree of merit. Yet we also suggest that Miriam demonstrated real humility by recognizing that she could not have chosen better words on this occasion. Moses had been inspired by the Spirit of God to speak the words of our text, and any deviation from them would have not been an improvement. That reality is acknowledged by Miriam and the women, and it transcends any need for them to be original and “reinvent the wheel.”

Contrast this with the horrible way Miriam behaves in Numbers 12. Miriam and Aaron have had enough of the leadership of Moses. These, his siblings, feel they have leadership abilities to contribute as well. And they advance this thinking in light of the fact that Moses seems to have demonstrated poor judgment in his choosing a wife, or so they think. So the submissive Miriam from the Red Sea triumph gives way to the subversive Miriam of the wilderness. Many today would tell us that Miriam had become a liberated woman, “she had found her voice.” But what does God do?  Where does this get her with Him? Numbers 12:9 tells us that God’s anger was aroused. He struck her with leprosy and Moses had to plead for her healing. We have every reason to believe that God was pleased when Miriam humbly spoke truth that Moses had already spoken minutes earlier, though it may not strike us as being a very creative thing to do. Yet God prefers a self-effacing obedience to a proud attempt to assert individuality through rebellion.  

In a similar way it is unfortunate when people alter or reject altogether Christian teaching for no other reason than the fact that it has been believed before. “Been there, done that” is a miserable attitude to bring to the worship and understanding of a Being that is ”the same today, yesterday, and forever.” We would caution our brethren that are so fond of quoting C.S. Lewis because this spirit was so rife within him. He couldn’t bear accepting the Bible at face-value. In another day, leaders of Princeton seminary opposed this spirit when it was commonly said by them, “Nothing new comes out of Princeton.” Absent from that attitude is this now prevailing arrogance that says, “We are different and special. We must not do it the way it was done before.” This pride has engendered contemporary divisions over music and dress in the church. It turns people away from the unchangeable reality of who God is and distracts them into obsessing over their own navels. And so we say that often a tell-tale sign of this pride is the contempt for what is perceived to be passé.

May God help us to observe the direction of the prophet: “Stand in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, where the good way is, and walk in it; then you will find rest for your souls,” (Jeremiah 6:16).                     

“I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them… O My people! Those who lead you cause you to err, and destroy the way of your paths.” Isaiah 3:4, 12b

IF GOD IS ALL-POWERFUL then why was Mike Huckabee finally defeated in his quest for the GOP nomination this past Tuesday? This might be a question on the minds of some. Many of our regular readers have been noticeably absent of late, and we are aware that many of them are no doubt discouraged to see no miracle from heaven to stave off Mr. McCain’s victory.

This is when our theology counts. Most sincere believers that supported Mr. Huckabee might have concluded that God wanted Mr. Huckabee to be president, but He could not violate the freewill of an American electorate to make it happen. Unbelievers, as always, push God out of the equation and interpret events solely on the basis of secondary causes. What God “wanted” doesn’t matter. He probably doesn’t exist or wouldn’t care even if He did. Unbelievers have suggested that Mr. Huckabee did not have enough money, he didn’t possess the qualifications regarding national security that the president would need, and perhaps he was simply too religious. The reality is that all these speculations are false in the light of Scripture.

 A mystery woven into the very fabric of the Bible is its continual double assertion that God is both the sovereign ruler of the world at all times and yet He holds human beings accountable for their actions. The Bible does not seek to balance these two truths, it simply teaches both without reservation.  Arminianism has historically sought to dispel the mystery by denying the first truth. Hyper-Calvinism has sought to do the same by denying the second. But those that are true to the Bible maintain both truths without compromise, and that is how the Huckabee defeat must be viewed.

God did not want Mr. Huckabee to be the president of this country at this time. If He had, it would have most certainly have happened. Mr. Huckabee amazingly catapulted to the first tier of presidential contenders in December with almost no money. God could have given him money if he had needed more. Mr. Huckabee did not lose because of his inexperience. If foreign policy was the concern of most Americans, Mr. Obama would certainly not be taken seriously today on the Democratic side. Additionally, Mr. Huckabee’s standing as a governor rather than a senator should have given him an advantage in that area according to conventional wisdom. Ultimately, Mr. Huckabee lost because it pleased God to advance him to a certain extent and no further. To argue with that is to redefine God’s role as Governor over the world and deny the clear teaching of a host of biblical texts such as Isaiah 45:7, Daniel 2:21, 4:35, Ephesians 1:11, etc, etc.

It is our opinion that one of the many reasons Mike Huckabee may have lost the race Tuesday was because of the unreasonable and wicked manner in which our current president, George W. Bush, has been opposed. This has been especially true over the last two years. The internet and twenty-four hour news cycle has given outlets to people that were not available until fairly recently. So we think no president has been so slandered, maligned, and disrespected in our nation’s history. In fact, no leader in the history of the world may have had so many words of contempt stated about him. We do not agree with the president in the way he has approached every issue, but the first amendment does not nullify God’s higher law in Acts 23:5: “You shall not speak evil of the ruler of your people.” Even though many spoke shamefully of Mr. Clinton, their offenses were at least committed in light of that president’s very real sin and public shame which he refused to properly acknowledge. Much of the venom directed towards Mr. Bush on the other hand is regarding his virtues more than his faults. That is troubling. 

For that reason, America may be in for the weakest, most ineffective president yet. If Scripture and past providences are a sure guide (and they are), God is obviously longsuffering. That is comforting. During the reign of Edward VI, the great Protestant stalwarts of England sought to spread Reformation truth to a fairly unwilling English public that preferred to keep their superstitions. Edward, a man that had been carefully raised by godly courtiers, might have been the best king the English ever had. Instead he died at an early age and was replaced with the brutal Mary Tudor. ”Bloody Mary” then snuffed out the lives of many of England’s greatest leaders while almost ruining the nation in the process. Horrified at seeing great men of God burned at the stake, the English people more readily received the Reformation, and God relented in His judgment. Elizabeth was crowned.

The point is that our nation may have provoked God in its rebellious and impudent treatment of the current president, much in the way that England provoked Him to prematurely remove Edward VI. Why should God give us a Mike Huckabee? He would be hated more than President Bush. We must pray that God will restore His religion to this land and that we will humble ourselves, repenting of our greatest sins. Perhaps then we will treat our rulers with more respect and God will give to us a president of that caliber. But until then, we must pray.         

“Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things. The things which you learned and received and heard and saw in me, these do, and the God of peace will be with you.” Philippians 4:8, 9.

VERSE eight of our text here has often been memorized by children and quoted in pulpits for centuries. Yet to the disadvantage of many believers, this practice has often led to a distortion to the real promise and wonder of what the Apostle Paul (and the Holy Spirit) originally intended to communicate in this passage. To be sure, we must have more memorization. But it must be realized that when snippets of the Bible are committed to memory, lifting one or two well-worn verses from the whole, there is a danger of doing violence to a larger organism. God placed each thought of Scripture in a sacred sequence that must be acknowledged. Passages and even whole books of the Bible are organic entities that, when taken together — encompass the totality of God’s mind towards human beings in this fallen world. It is our belief that the divine imperative of this eighth verse has been allowed to overshadow the true sweetness of the text which is contained in the ninth verse.

It is with this in mind therefore that we take up this text. First, there is the familiar directive of the eighth verse stated. Secondly, in the ninth verse a model or pattern is advanced to the reader. Thirdly there is this gracious promise of blessing that proceeds obedience to the directive that we think has wrongly fallen into obscurity.

I.) “…meditate on these things.”It should be no surprise to the Christian that God is not indifferent to his thought-life. God knows and sees all things, including the innermost recesses of the human heart. It was the great error of the Pharisees who stumbled because they believed that God was only concerned about actions and the performance of external duties. When God makes His case to our subsequent generations as to why He destroyed mankind in Noah’s day, He cites their corrupted thoughts–not so much their actions–as the chief provocation. “Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually,” (Gen. 6:5). When brought under the rule of Christ, the Apostle Paul elsewhere conjures up the image of the Roman conqueor when he summarizes a portion of his apostolic duties to the Corinthians in 2 Cor. 10:5, “…casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ…”

“But why does God care about what I think?” is a question often asked at this point. But it is usually posed in order to evade the pointed reality that He does. The Bible does not consider it so important to defend or provide justification for God’s intrusion into the hidden chambers of our minds. It simply asserts the fact. We are given a few hints (see Proverbs 4:23), yet in the main we are left to assume that further questions about the matter are either of diminished importance or wholly inappropriate coming from finite creatures.

We could now examine in detail the categories of thought that Paul here enumerates as well-pleasing to God. But that is not our intention here. Suffice it to say that God as the ultimate moral Judge of the universe lays claims to our thoughts, expressing the reality that the thoughts themselves lie within His scope of consciousness as an omniscient Being.

II.) More briefly, we have the model or pattern of this that is advanced to the reader: “The things which you learned and received and heard and saw in me, these do…”Now the spotlight moves to the human author of our text, the Apostle Paul. The apostle is bold to advance himself as the pattern for keeping the directive just given. Since the apostle was inspired by the Holy Spirit to pen these words to the Philippians, we must conclude that this is in fact simply holy boldness, and in no way prompted by arrogance or defect in Paul’s own estimation of his spirituality. God Himself desired the Philippians (and all subsequent Christians in every age of the Church to whom these writings would come) to look to this man Paul as a model of obedience to this directive.

But how can we do this if we can’t read the apostle mind? How do we know his thoughts were pure? First, we can assume that anything written by an author of Scripture is instantly witnessed as fact by the Spirit of God, who is searcher of the hearts. The Spirit would not have permitted Paul to pen verse nine if in fact unclean and lustful thoughts dominated his waking moments. Secondly, the text anticipates the nature of this difficulty as Paul immediately transitions into discussing outward actions that the Philippians could hear and see in verse nine. The great master-builder of the Church points to his teachings, which is a powerful, albeit indirect, assertion that the message of the Gospel cannot for long retain its vitality and freshness in the cluttered mind of a person whose affections are tethered to sinful and licentious thoughts. “For out of the abundance of his heart, the mouth speaks,” (Luke 6:45).

III.) “…and the God of peace will be with you.” Here is the sweetness of the entire text. Insisting that one’s each and every thought be brought under the sway of the sceptre of Christ is a difficulty that exceeds our natural ability. But the promise of the text is that those that so keep their minds will be blessed with the presence of “the God of peace.”

Notice the apostle accentuates God’s role here as the purveyor of peace. This is not a coincidence. We know that one who’s mind is troubled by lust and unclean thoughts does not have a good conscience. A man that looks at pornography on the internet or fantasizes about sinful behavior usually lives in constant fear of the exposure of such thoughts. A man that broods over wrongs done to him, meditating on the sins of others lives a life of constant mental upheaval. A woman that persists in slander or gossip, meditating constantly upon the faults of others propagates strife wherever she goes. These are everyday examples of how the failure maintain a pure thought-life robs a human being of the peace that God so graciously promises to restore in our text.

But make no mistake: meditating on the categories of thought the apostle enumerates in verse eight requires much more than resolve or a religious habit of mind. It requires nothing less than the continual presence of this God of peace. The grace offered here in verse nine is indispensable. Jesus Christ, in His Person as “Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Isa. 9:12) must rule and reign in our hearts, taking residence there if we are to achieve anything that remotely looks like success in this area.

The natural man that is in rebellion against God will look at obedience to this text as an intellectual straitjacket. But in reality, unclean thoughts are what are truly repressive in the mind and heart of a soul made in the image of God. Man’s mind and heart were intended for God, and to the extent that they cannot fulfill this purpose is to the extent that that man is enslaved.

A true slave is that one that is in love with his chains. Does that describe you? If you consider your dirty thoughts to be the symbol of your freedom, you are very confused. You are like the slave that cannot bear to be unchained. Christ, the great Liberator, has come to deliver not only from the penalty of sin, but from its binding power. Those who call upon Him will know Him in this way. “God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities,” (Acts 3:26).  

“…not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise…” 1 Corinthians 1:26, 27

WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY, JR. was the founder of National Review magazine and was also, humanly speaking, the grandfather of modern conservative political thought. Buckley was instrumental in the years leading up to the recovery of freedom in the West during the 1980’s, and continued to exert an enormous influence on conservative political leaders for the remainder of the twentieth century. He ardently opposed some of the central threats of his generation: communism, liberalism, and statism. He died on Wednesday.

Though he would have dismissed the teaching that supports it, Buckley was a testament to God’s common grace in the world. Mr. Buckley emerged from college at a point in human history when historic Christianity was being increasingly rejected by the elites in our culture. With his first book, God and Man at Yale, the bright, young student forced many to seriously reflect upon the effects liberalism had taken on what was then thought to be the premier, conservative university in America. From that point, WFB (as he is often affectionately called in the pages of his magazine) continued to call Western culture to do essentially the same thing. He was instrumental in shaping the thinking of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, and supplied much of the intellectual framework from which they operated and did great good. Buckley may be best remembered as exemplifying the goodness of God towards man by striving with him, effectively causing Western society to give pause on the way towards its self-destruction.

Yet despite all the good he achieved, Buckley never really understood who God truly was. He was enamored with the defense and vitality of human institutions in every aspect of society, and sadly he found Romanism all too ready to cater to this sentiment in the realm of religion. The pomp and pagentry of orthodox Catholicism lured Buckley to revere and trust the Church of Rome with his soul despite the apparent vaccuum it caused there. Buckley’s restless soul sought satisfaction in Bach, skiing, sailing, economics, word studies, and even novel writing in his later years. People that knew Buckley were always struck at the variety (and intensity) of his interests in things other than politics. If Buckley had taken the theology of Augustine more seriously, he might have realized that he was searching in vain for what the God of Augustine alone could be for him.

That is not to say that Buckley was openly hostile towards conservative Protestants or even evangelicals per se. To the contrary, Buckley seemed to adopt the Vatican II perspective of Protestants as “separated brethren” while holding firmly to the distinctives of Rome, even those most detestable ones reaffirmed at the Council of Trent. Buckley seemed to believe that the issues of the Reformation had either been rendered moot through the course of time or were insignificant relative to the new challenge of liberalism. For those reasons perhaps, National Review’s predominantly Catholic staff did have a few Protestants and they consistently downplayed the historic issues surrounding the Reformation.

Yet when forced to seriously deal with biblical theology, Buckley’s magazine regularly cast it as austere and cold. It often indirectly asserted that the Calvinism of Geneva repressed and crushed individuality. The Genesis account of creation is repudiated by all the editors of NR because this has become the position of Rome. In 1970, Buckley complied a number of essays that he felt defined what conservatism was. Despite Augustine’s tremendous influence on Luther and Calvin, one of these essays on modern Gnosticism casually proclaimed Augustine’s worldview as defunct by the end of the Middle Ages, an absurd notion. However, we don’t think the essay would have been selected if Buckley had not been intrigued by the argument.

The presence of all these things tragically indicate the truth of 1 Corinthians 1:26, 27: “not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise…” If there was anyone that could legitimately hold to the claim of being wise and noble according to the flesh, we think Bill Buckley would fit the bill. That makes his passing doubly sad.

He no doubt now understands where he went awry. Man possesses an eternal soul, and Buckley no doubt was very surprised Wednesday as he opened his eyes in eternity. He would be surprised to discover a host of liberals, communists, and patriotic conservatives alike damned forever under the wrath of God. He would have painfully discovered the proper importance of Paul and Luther’s teaching that salvation is not through a human institution but through personal union with Jesus Christ. He would have discovered many of the popes to have their claim as vicar of Christ to be utterly false. And perhaps most shocking of all, he would have laid eyes upon the granduer of the only true God that Romanism could not have prepared him for.

What are you trusting in? Do you know the God of the Bible in a saving, intimate way or do you simply believe your external association with the church will gain you favor with God? You do not have to be a Roman Catholic to have such a misplaced faith! Unless your full faith is in the blood and righteousness of Christ — His life and death meriting your justification before God — you cannot be saved. As the only Mediator between God and men, Jesus stands ready to grant pardon and forgiveness to all who come to Him in repentance and faith. That treasury of merit exists only through Him and because of Him, not because of past saints or through human priests. Do not allow those that would make their boast concerning you in the flesh deceive you regarding the simplicity of the message of the cross.

“Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life.” — Galatians 6:7, 8

THE APOSTLE Paul has been speaking in this entire book about the serious errors held by some among the Galatian churches regarding the matter of justification before God. Those that held these errors, the Judiazers, contended that it was not enough for Gentile, Galatian believers to only believe upon the crucified Christ to be right with God. They also needed to become kosher Jews, maintaining the various strictures of the old Mosaic law, especially the rite of circumcision. Having exposed the fallacy of these ideas by proclaiming afresh the incompatibility of a works-based religion with the true Gospel, Paul now lays down in our text a warning and two realities that must hold true in God’s world. Ironically, these realities might seem at first to contradict all that Paul has labored to explain in this book. But we will show that they do not.

I.) ”Do not be deceived…” Here a pointed command instructs the reader to take note of something that is to follow that the apostle was concerned may later very well become a matter of dispute. If Paul was not concerned that his next point might become a matter of uncertainty, there would be no need for him to preface it here with a specific command for the reader to consciously avoid deception. Paul is telling his readers, “Now don’t be fooled about this…”

Because the apostle Paul was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, failure to obey this command is a sin. Deliberately allowing oneself to become deceived about this next matter is itself a violation of God’s commandment. It is a refusal to allow one’s thought to be guided by the God to Whom wisdom alone belongs.

II.) “God is not mocked.” God cannot be duped. While man may often think he has one over on God, or that he can prosper without God, reality must set in sooner or later. There would be no need to affirm this fact if there weren’t men that seemed from all appearance sake to be in fact mocking God. Those contending for a works-based religion no doubt seemed to hold their own despite the serious danger Paul insisted they were in. Perhaps they seemed to have surrounded themselves with a sizable following that gave the impression that their arguments still had merit. Despite the arguments Paul laid out in this epistle, the Galatian believers might still be tempted to think the Judiazers had weathered the storm when they continue to teach and gain influence. Paul almost seems to anticipate that his opponents will not be convinced and will continue on the fight. He reminds them here that it is God, not Paul, that they are mocking. And God will not permit this.

In a similar way, nations also can appear to mock God with great success. Nations can prosper and, in a sense, appear to thumb their noses at God. They can turn their backs on His Truth, despise those that remind them of Bible doctrines, and appear to lose nothing in the process. But nations, as well as individuals, will eventually be forced to negotiate the reality of what they have done. God is not fooled. The words He has spoken must come home to roost.

III.) “…for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.” But isn’t the essence of the Gospel about man not reaping the consequences for the sin he has sown!? How can Paul believe justification by faith alone through Christ alone and now state this principle?

Here the apostle reaches for an agricultural image to illustrate his point. The reality for these Judiazers is that their doctrine brought on them the full penalty of the Law of God. They trusted in the Law. They ridiculed Paul’s Gospel of free grace. But for sinners, the Law unmixed with mercy can only assure them final destruction. Without the grace that comes from the cross of the Lord Jesus, a man can only expect to be justly condemned for his failures. What he sows, he will then reap. That is the way of the law. And that is what awaited Paul’s opponents.

At the present time we also think about what our nation is sowing by choosing national leaders that are clearly unsuited for the tasks ahead. Not only that, but the American people seem to be consciously doing so with the knowledge that wiser leaders are available, though considered undesirable for the very reasons that qualify them. We shudder to think how Mr. Huckabee’s witness during this campaign is being rejected in favor of other candidates that seem less religious.

We hope the number of Republicans supporting Mr. McCain in the last few weeks purely because of the disdain they have for Mr. Huckabee’s piety is few. However it does seem to have been a factor in the votes of some. God is not mocked in these events. Americans are not so much choosing a president as they are failing a significant test. God will ultimately give us the president that pleases Him. Although we pray for mercy in light of these developments we know that God’s order cannot be finally disrupted. For what is true with men could also be said of us,  “…for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.”