These Words Shall Be On Your Heart

On Friday, my kids and I visited a local museum. It was the last weekend for their dinosaur exhibit. One section of the display had a timeline showing the different periods in which different dinosaurs lived -- like the Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous periods, etc. And of course, the timelines were labeled in tens of millions of years.

My eight-year-old, as she read it, unashamedly said aloud, "149 million years? Why are scientists so ridiculous? Don't they know that God can create everything just like that?" I noticed a couple of men standing nearby who began to snicker and whisper to one another. I couldn't hear what they said. Nevertheless, I was a proud dad.

I took out my phone, down to its last 1% of power, pulled up my ESV Bible app (shameless plug), and showed Annie 2 Peter 3:1-7. There Peter says, "For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly."

I told her, "See, Peter says that they deliberately overlook the facts, that the earth was created by the word of God. In Peter's first letter, he said that Jesus is, 'A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense,' and that people stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do" (1 Peter 2:8). I also made a point to tell her that there are good scientists who see God in all that He has created, and they look at science through the Bible rather than looking at the Bible through a bias of naturalism, though most are blinded by their desires. Then my phone died.

God created all things, that much my daughter knew (and as I've written about and spoken about before, it didn't happen over billions of years). I wanted to show her that the Bible also tells us why there are people who don't believe God created all things. They deliberately overlook the facts, and they stumble on the rock of Christ Jesus, as they were destined to do.

This is how I teach my children, infusing the word of God in all that we do. Where'd I get that idea from? The Bible: "And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down and when you rise. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates" (Deuteronomy 6:6-9).

Wherever you go, the word of God goes with you. In all that you do, teach your children the word of God: How does God's word apply to this? How does it apply to that? Well, let me show you. What we as a family read about in the devotions we do every morning, we then apply to what we encounter throughout the day, being thankful for all things and giving God the glory.

Sermons With No Bible

So according to this passage in Deuteronomy, if we are to --

• write God's word on our hearts
• teach it to our children
• talk about it in and out of our homes
• consider it in our work or leisure
• apply it when we walk out the door
• through it filter every thing we do and look at 

then how on earth could we ever find any reason not to use the word of God?

Yet in the recent controversy surrounding Andy Stanley's apologetic preaching method for reaching unbelievers, that's exactly what's being done. Arguments and excuses are being made for times when it is okay to exclude the word of God -- deliberately, intentionally, and strategically leaving it out.

Stanley thinks we need a more grown-up faith, and that grown-up faith is not based on a biblical foundation. When we were kids, songs like Jesus Loves Me were great songs: "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so." But as adults, that's silliness.

For Stanley, this is not about style or a pastor's personal conviction in how he reaches a certain audience. This is being presented like: "Here's why people leave the church: because of the Bible. Here's why you walked away from the faith: because of the Bible. Here's why you need to come to Jesus: and it's NOT because of the Bible. The Bible is not the foundation of the Christian faith."

"This is where our trouble began." Andy Stanley, referencing the song Jesus Loves Me.

Andy Stanley is the pastor of North Point Community Church based out of Atlanta, GA. North Point has their main campus, plus five other campuses, plus several satellite churches, all reaching nearly 40,000 people each Sunday. That's not including the number of people watching online and receiving Andy's teaching through other means: books, seminars, video conferences, Bible study apps, etc.

In other words, a lot of people hear this message emphatically reducing the importance of the Bible. I see it affect people and churches in my area. Though I'm pastoring a small church in Kansas, I hear Andy Stanley's name come up all the time. Stanley is more passionate about making sure people know the Bible is not needed for you to be a Christian than he is about telling people what it says.

Two weeks ago, at the ERLC national conference in Nashville, TN, Dr. Russell Moore had a sit-down interview with Stanley in which Stanley said that sometimes he preaches sermons without ever quoting the Bible. He was rather proud of the fact. This came as a shock to some. I wasn't surprised. I've listened to enough of Stanley's sermons to hear an entire message go by without any Scripture.

In some sense, I'm grateful he said it. I've tried to warn others about Stanley's preaching and they don't believe me when I say he actively wants to reduce Bible use and uses it very little himself. Stanley has been saying for some time that he wishes pastors would stop saying, "The Bible says." At the ERLC conference, he said that if he were an evangelical pope, he would make pastors take the spotlight off the Bible and put it on the resurrection. The following Sunday, in a sermon entitled The Bible Told Me So, he doubled-down on his hermeneutic by saying Christianity is about an event, not a book.

The absurdity and the confusion of that statement is that you don't even know about the event without the book. The Old Testament predicted it, the New Testament recalls it and expounds on its significance. The eyewitnesses to the resurrection did not believe the resurrection without the Scriptures. They were there, they saw it, and they didn't believe their own eyes. 

I talked about this on the podcast Friday and mentioned the story of the two disciples who were walking to Emmaus. Jesus, having just stepped out of the grave that morning, started walking with them, but they didn't recognize him. When Jesus asked them what they were talking about, Cleopas said, "Are you the only visitor in Jerusalem who doesn't know what's been going on?" And they told him about Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified and buried and some women went to the tomb and found it empty and saw angels who said he was alive.

Jesus response to them was this: "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself (Luke 24:13-27). Before he showed them he was Jesus who was alive, he showed them the Scriptures!

When the Apostle Paul made his apologetic case for the resurrection, he did so "in accordance with the Scriptures" (1 Corinthians 15:3-5). The Scriptures said it would happen, then it happened, the disciples were shown how the Scriptures said it was going to happen, then they were shown that it did happen, then the Scriptures written by those who saw what the Scriptures said would happen continued to say that it happened, according to the Scriptures! You cannot separate the event from the book. Even the disciples neither knew about nor understood the event without the book.

Yet Stanley is purposefully trying to reach unbelievers without the book that speaks of the glory, power, and majesty of God (and presenting a very misleading version of church history in the process). There's a saying that goes, "What you reach them with is what you reach them to." If you reach unbelievers with a form of Christianity that contains no Bible, they will accept a form of Christianity that contains no Bible, which is no Christianity at all.

Impotent Apologetics

Dr. David Prince of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary wrote about Stanley's sermon and pointed out that his arguments are just repackaged liberalism. Driving the point home, Dr. Prince mentioned Luke 16:31 where Jesus said, "If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead."

A minister from Indiana contended with Dr. Prince saying, "The Scripture he uses to proof-text his point has been ripped out of its context and misapplied. It is taken from Jesus' parable about the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31). The audience Jesus was addressing in that parable is Jews, for whom the Hebrew Scriptures (Moses and the Prophets) were already considered authoritative."

That doesn't matter. Guess what? Unbelievers have Moses and the Prophets too, regardless of whether or not they've heard them and accept them as authoritative. This isn't the local phone book we're talking about here. This is the word of God. It applies to absolutely everyone. The law of the land still has authority over you whether or not you know what it is. Likewise, the law of God has authority over you whether or not you know what it is.

The Bible says it's the responsibility of the church to be a pillar and buttress of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15); presenting the word of God to the world (pillar) and defending against those who try to malign it (buttress). Paul said, "How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in Him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, 'How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!'" (Romans 10:14-15)

Yet Stanley wants to reduce the importance of the Bible in the calling to go preach the Bible. His defenders say that isn't so. As that Indiana minister said, "I'm convinced that [Stanley's] critics are either not listening to him very closely, or they are intentionally misrepresenting him." He concluded his article by stating, "The point of all of this is that Stanley is making an apologetic case." Oh, I'm aware that's what Stanley is trying to do. It's just that his apologetics are really, really bad.

One of the main illustrations that came out of Stanley's sermon was this: "Christianity does not exist because of the Bible anymore than you exist because of your birth certificate. Your birth certificate documents something that happened. And if you lost your birth certificate, the good news is: you do not go out of existence."

Dr. Prince points out, "This logic minimizes the uniqueness of the Word of God and is right out of the classic theological liberal playbook. Liberals have historically asserted, 'The Bible is not the Word of God, it is merely a witness to the Word of God.'" (Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think Stanley referred to the Bible as the Word of God a single time in the same sermon in which he was diminishing its importance.)

The Bible is not mere history. This is the powerful word of God. How did all things come into existence? By the word of God, right? God said "Let there be" and there was. Get this: the same word that brought all things into existence is the same word that brings about saving faith. Someone shared the word of God with you, and you believed it, and you have faith.

James 1:18 says, "Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth." Romans 10:17 says, "Faith comes by hearing and hearing through the word of Christ." No one is brought to faith but by the word of God. The Bible says so.

Stanley doesn't get that, which is why he's trying to bring people to the faith without the Bible. His defenders are always quick to fill in the blanks that Stanley leaves blank: "What Stanley really means is this! What Stanley is really trying to do is this!" I'm convinced his praisers are either not listening to him very closely, or they are intentionally misrepresenting him. (Zoinks!)

The defense of the Christian faith without the Bible is powerless apologetics. Stanley openly and proudly admits he is out to "take the spotlight off of the Bible." If Stanley's church sees anyone won to the faith, it is a very, very weak faith, if it's the Christian faith at all.

Faith Like a Child

The disciples asked Jesus, "Who is greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven?" Jesus called a child to him and put the boy before the disciples. He said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 18:2-4).

In his sermon The Bible Told Me So, Stanley says that Jesus Loves Me is a precious song, and we should teach children, "Yes, Jesus loves me, the Bible tells me so." But that kind of theology is not for adults. You need a grown-up faith in which, according to Stanley, the Bible is not foundational. It's great for kids, but bad for adults. That's a great big load of manure.

"I hate manure."

People, I must tell you, because I love you and I care for you: Have nothing to do with Stanley's garbage. It is dangerous. It will keep a person from the Kingdom of heaven. No one is above the word of God. We must humble ourselves and be like children. Or as Peter put it, "Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation -- if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good" (1 Peter 2:2-3).

Woe to the person who wants less of the word of God. Without it, they cannot be sanctified, and therefore they have never been justified. They will "accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions" (2 Timothy 4:3); teachers like Andy Stanley, who is all about less Bible. Woe more-so to the teacher who will withhold the word of God that rescues from death and gives life.

Andy Stanley, if by some weird chance you happen to read my blog, repent of your nonsense. Apologize to your congregation. Tell them you were wrong. If there is any kind of humility about yourself, resign from your position as pastor until you can understand that the Bible is the word of God, and it is only through that word that anyone is saved -- washed clean from their iniquity and clothed in the righteousness of Christ, in whom we have the forgiveness of sins.

In 1 Timothy 6:3-5, it says, "If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth."

Just as I teach my children the word of God, I also teach it to my congregation. They are children, too. They are the children of God (1 John 3:1-3). How can I expect children to have the word of God written on their hearts if I won't tell it to them? When the devil comes whispering, "Did God really say," as he did to Eve, I want my children -- in my home and in my congregation -- to know what God really said. Likewise, I also listen to men who preach the word of God because I am a child who needs to be fed this pure spiritual milk, too.

The Bible is our response to everything. In it are the words to eternal life. The word of God should be withheld from no one -- no believer, and especially no unbeliever. Don't dumb it down, don't leave it out. It is only by the word of God that men are saved, brought from death to life in Christ. Romans 1:16 says, "I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to all who believe."

The Bible tells us why people leave the church, and it isn't because of a Sunday school song. It's because it might become plain to all of us that they were never of us to begin with (1 John 2:19). Examine yourselves to see that you are in the faith (2 Corinthians 13:5).

You know, there's something Andy Stanley said I happen to agree with. There are people who have left the church because they were told, "The Bible says so." The Bible says they stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

"How can a young man keep his way pure? By guarding it according to your word. With my whole heart I seek you; let me not wander from your commandments! I have stored up your word in my heart, that I might not sin against you." Psalm 119:9-11

Gambling With Donald Trump: Why He Is Not Some Higher Moral Choice

The election is about two months away. It is an election of the Liberals: Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Gary Johnson, or Jill Stein. Pick your poison. "But wait! Don't forget about Darrell Castle of the Constitution party!" Right, the conspiracy theorist who backs the birther movement and believes 9/11 was an inside job.

I haven't said much about Donald Trump in a while. The conservatives have chosen, and they've chosen a non-conservative. How a casino mogul, strip-club owner, porn mag pusher, thrice married, adulterous, racist, arrogant, obscene, godless bully qualifies as conservative just goes to show that liberals aren't the only ones running gleefully toward the abyss.

Since I last wrote anything about Trump, there was a 5,300 word article by Systematic Theology author Wayne Grudem about how voting for Trump is a morally good choice. Grudem acknowledged that Trump was not a man of good character, but that shouldn't matter. We need to defend the unborn and protect religious freedom. (A pastor by the name of Justin Bullington provided my favorite response to the article.)

Several other theologians and pastors have stumped for Trump. This morning, Eric Metaxas, author of perhaps the most extensive biography on Dietrich Bonhoeffer (which I have and enjoyed, edit: but has its problems), offered a string of arguments on Twitter about why a Christian should vote for Trump. The following is Metaxas' plea. Each bullet-point is its own tweet:

• I'm not voting for Trump because he's a paragon of virtue, but because electing HRC [Hillary Rodham Clinton] will forever end true Religious Liberty in America.
• Let's put it another way: A Vote for Trump is not a Thumbs up for "Trump". It's a vote against what HRC will do that is forever UNDOABLE.
• We've had so much Religious Liberty in America for so long most of us hardly even know what it is or when it's being gravely threatened.
• You cannot undo Supreme Court Justices who think biblical values are divisive, bigoted, and un-American. They're lifetime appointments.
• Defending the unborn doesn't mean electing someone perfect on that issue, but electing the better candidate on that issue. And that's easy.
• If you care less about the unborn than about your "witness" or "conscience" in voting for someone you think boorish, I beg you to reconsider.
• Wilberforce often worked w/people on the other side of the aisle -- sometimes despicable people -- if it could help the suffering Africans.
• Bonhoeffer did not like getting involved in the plot to kill Hitler, but for the sake of the suffering Jews, he did what he thought he must.
• Bonhoeffer even thought what he was doing might be sinful, but he knew doing nothing was the greater sin. And he cast himself on God's mercy.
• Many friends sat out voting for McCain and Romney, giving us eight years of unconstitutional over-reach, secularist legislation, and more.
• This is not a time for being so "heavenly-minded" we are no "earthly good." Not to act is to act. Not to vote is to vote. Please reconsider.

As with Grudem's appeal, there are three main issues being argued for here: a vote for life, a vote for religious liberty, and a vote for conservative Supreme Court justices. Metaxas was able to say it in much fewer words.

Also like Grudem, Metaxas took some shots at those who are not voting for Trump. The very title of Grudem's article implies that not voting for Trump is morally wrong. So in Grudem's eyes, I am doing something immoral because I am not going to vote for Donald Trump. Likewise, Metaxas believes I selfishly care less about the unborn than I do my own "witness" or my "conscience."

What's worse though -- I shuddered at reading it -- is he's actually asking people to sin and vote for Trump; though it "might be sinful." The ethics of Bonhoeffer aside, the Bible says not to "do anything that causes your brother to stumble. The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating does not come from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin" (Romans 14:21-23). His whole appeal disregards the principles given in Romans 14.

This idea that voting for Trump will save the unborn, preserve religious liberty, and result in conservative Supreme Court justices is nothing more than wishful-thinking. There is zero evidence to believe any of these things will ever happen. Really, how long have politics been around? Have we forgotten how all of this works? Ronald Reagan once joked, "It's been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first." (In case you don't get the joke, the first oldest profession is said to be prostitution.)

You judge a candidate more by their record than by the words they're spewing to appease constituents at a rally. Though Trump has never held public office, he still has a history. And when you look into that history, there's more reason to believe he's a Trojan Horse than a preservative in the life of America.

The Big Gamble

In the March 5, 2016 edition of World, there was an article written by Jamie Dean entitled The Big Gamble that took a look at Trump's history with Atlantic City. He made lots of fantastic promises. He promised he would "make Atlantic City great." On April 2, 1990, he walked out on the iconic Boardwalk to Survivor's Eye of the Tiger, like he's done at rallies now. People flocked to see him, all hyped up on the big promises he brought to the Vegas of the East.

By 2009, he had declared bankruptcy on his casino enterprise for a fourth time. He once owned several casinos, and one building still bears his namesake with TRUMP written in big, red letters. But all he owns now is a small portion of the Taj Mahal. The Taj and all its debt was bought out by a billionaire friend after the company went into bankruptcy in 2014.

Once the largest casino complex in the world -- with "gold doorknobs, marble countertops, $14 million worth of chandeliers, and bell hops wearing $1,500 turbans" -- all the money spent on the Taj Mahal has been unsustainable, and efforts to revive the business have failed. At one of last year's presidential debates, Trump thumped, "I had the good sense to leave Atlantic City. I left Atlantic City before it totally cratered. And I made a lot of money in Atlantic City, and I'm very proud of it."

According to Dean, "Those left behind weren't as proud. Indeed, Trump's company left local contractors, vendors, and low-level investors with pennies on the dollar when his enterprises declared bankruptcy. 'He had stiffed hundreds of local businesses and left them with financial claims that they would never recover,' Steven Perskie, a former state lawmaker, told NJ Advance Media last fall."

About 30 percent of Atlantic City residents now live below the poverty line, more than double the national average. "The town is $400 million in debt," Dean reported. "New Jersey legislators are considering a state takeover of the famed city. The casinos aren't immune. Along Pacific Avenue, four of the former gambling giants sit shuttered and empty, like monuments to a bet lost on high stakes."

Ladies and gentlemen, Donald Trump's America.

Well that went well...

In addition to his Atlantic City record, Trump is a long-time friend of the Clinton's. He and his son, Donald Trump Jr., gave money to then-Senator Hillary Clinton in 2002, 05, 06, and 07. It's been shown many times how Trump has given at least $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Hillary attended Trump's wedding to Melania in 2005. Overall, he's given many more dollars to baby-killing democrats than he ever gave to republicans.

For most of his life, Trump has been pro-abortion and a supporter of partial-birth abortion. In April, the Washington Post did a break-down of Trump's record on abortion, and noted that he took five different positions over the course of three days. That's very, very significant. It shows us that Trump does not know what it means to be pro-life.

When Trump is pressed on his presumably pro-life ethic, he has no idea how to answer because his ethics aren't what he says they are. Have those on the side of life ever asked him hard questions on his moral position? In that confab with evangelical leaders back in July, did they ever actually press him to clearly state his values asking tough questions, or did they merely hear him say "I'm pro-life," and accept it as though lip-service is the tell-tale sign of the heart?

"But Pastor, the Bible says out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks!" Sure, with evil. In Matthew 12:34, Jesus said, "You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks." Elsewhere the Bible says, "Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive. The venom of asps is under their lips" (Romans 3:13). Trump's character is evident and testable. He is not an honest man.

If the value of life is so important to Grudem and Metaxas the way they say it isn't as important to me, then why are they merely taking Trump at his word and insisting that other Christians do the same, rather than demanding hard evidence that he values life the way he claims he does? Why is the burden of proof on me, the voter, and not on Donald Trump, the candidate? "But Pastor, he gave a list of nominees he would appoint to the Supreme Court, and it's a pro-lifer's dream panel!" Yes, that's called appeasing his constituency. That's not hard evidence.

Trump has done nothing to show he's pro-life except say that he is. When you listen to all the words around that claim, he has no idea what it means to be pro-life; therefore, he can make no significant strides to protect life. Think about it: Ronald Regan, George Bush Sr., and George W. Bush all had a history of being pro-life, and yet Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land. Bush Jr.'s Chief Justice appointment, John Roberts, is the reason why Obamacare is the law of the land. What makes you think Trump is going to do more and make better decisions than they did?

Trump is so bad at understanding anything about being pro-life, he still thinks Planned Parenthood does good work -- and said this in the summer that Planned Parenthood was being exposed by David Daleiden as harvesting human organs for profit.

Absent from the Republican National Convention in July was any mention of fighting for the unborn. Donald Trump said more about fighting for LGBTQ issues than he did about the sanctity of human life, which was nothing. We have no reason to believe Trump's appointment as president will make any kind of dent in the slaughter of the unborn. We have every reason to believe he would be just another liberal president. Or worse.

How About Not Gambling At All?

Since based on Trump's record and his character there's no good reason to vote for him, that then leaves the debate up to this: "Well, at least Trump is not Hillary Clinton, and Hillary's America would be worse!" Really? I'm not convinced. Like I said, pick your poison: will it be strychnine or cyanide? Both of them are deadly choices for America in their own ways.

"So we should just vote for no one then?" Why not? To borrow from Bullington: What if the best thing for this nation is for Christians to stand with integrity and show the world that they won't vote for any 'ol lawless demagogue simply because they have an "R" by their name? Contrary to Metaxas' appeal, there is no such thing as being "so 'heavenly minded' we are no 'earthly good.'" That is a lie from the pit of hell.

Paul said to the Colossians, "If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the thing that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God. Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ" (Colossians 3:1-3, 23-24).

He said to the Philippians, "Brothers, join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us. For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things. But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like His glorious body, by the power that enables Him even to subject all things to Himself" (Philippians 3:17-21).

There are more ways to change this country than voting for President of the United States. Continue to stand forth with the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is the gospel that has the power to transform and save lives. Be hated by the world not because you're a Trumpkin but because you're a Christian. "Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived" (2 Timothy 3:12-13).

If you're shilling for Donald Trump, you are being deceived. You've got to understand he is using you, just like he used Atlantic City. When it's no longer profitable for him, he'll drop you in a gutter. His record confirms it. You don't have to do a lot of digging to realize he already thinks very little of you.

Remember though, there will be other matters on the November 8 ballot than who will be President. Know what's on your state's ballot, who the candidates are, and where they stand on the issues. I don't vote for anyone who's not pro-life. I believe all persons are made in the image of God and that I am to judge righteously, speaking up for the mute and defending the rights of the destitute (Proverbs 31:8-9). Life is the first unalienable right in the Declaration of Independence. If a candidate won't defend life, they won't be principled on any other issue.

I'll be making check-marks on November 8 (or filling in circles or pressing a touch-screen or whatever my district will be doing). But I won't make any mark for President of the United States. Maybe I'll write-in a name. That's a fair protest, too.