Last night I watched a presidential debate for the first time this year. And I was reminded with shocking clarity that even the best form of government is terribly broken, and even the best major political party is unreliable.

For a nominally-informed civilian like myself, I find it overwhelming at times to evaluate all the different policies on immigration, budget reform, and international relations (for example) and conclude which one is the best — the candidates each present their positions quite convincingly and in some cases tear down the others. And when the debate does degenerate into raw (and at times juvenile or even vulgar) argument, it makes the whole process even more distasteful.

Additionally, there is the unknown of whether these candidates could even fulfill their promises if given the chance. I have more confidence in some than others, but all of them face an America divided at the deepest of levels. Then there are all the stories posted to Facebook that accuse this candidate and then another of indecent, deceptive, and immoral campaigning techniques. And to make it worse, an unfortunate common sense analysis of these stories is that it is what it is — it's politics.

The vainglorious attitude of some of the candidates, the necessary self-elevation of the others, the increasing division within both major political parties (no longer liberalism vs. conservatism, but now liberalism vs. socialism vs. populism vs. conservatism), and the significance of the stakes this time regarding abortion, marriage, national security, judicial practice, religious freedom, and national debt further complicate this presidential race.

Now, I happen to believe that a Democratic Republic is the best form of modern government, and I also believe that America has represented the best model of that. Furthermore, by biblical conviction, I hold to a similar worldview as many conservatives in the Republican Party, and I believe there are some candidates who are valid and promising, and one of them will have my vote.

However, I'm convinced that what we need is not the continuation of a Democratic Republic or the election of a conservative Republican candidate (although I hope both happen). Neither that system nor any of those candidates can be the kind of savior we desperately require.

We need an omniscient, omnipotent, gracious King. We need one Leader who knows all things absolutely and has all power unquestionably, but who is loving and merciful unwaveringly. We need Him to rule over all, for all eternity. Nothing less than that will do. That is not just America's hope; that is the only hope for our entire planet.

And that is the very hope that is at the center of what we Christians believe. We believe that the King came to earth once before, not to establish an earthly kingdom, but to deliver us from our spiritual tyrant (Hebrews 2:14-18). And having died on a cross for the sin of the world and having been raised from the dead to prove His victory, we are persuaded that He is awaiting the set time to reclaim Earth as His rightful domain (Ephesians 1:20-23). And He will come, and He will reign in power and excellence, in goodness and grace, in righteousness and truth, in joy and glory forever and ever. Our only hope is You, King Jesus!

So, what a blessed foretaste to turn off the debate, get into bed, wake up the next morning ... and gather with the body of Christ on the Lord's Day! "Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God" (Psalm 20:7). I hope my candidate wins the White House, but I know my King will win the world! That confidence is a needed anchor as the political climate changes and as the global storm clouds gather.

The 2016 presidential election is shaping up to be monumentally confusing and impacting — and I don't think that surprises any of us. But don't allow the uncertainties and perplexities of this process to excuse your ignorance and justify your non-participation. Instead, let me encourage you to thinkingly inform yourself of the candidates and issues in order to take advantage of our God-given and government-given right to be "salt and light" (Matthew 5:13-16) in the election process.

To help you do so, let me strongly recommend two resources:

First, listen or read Al Mohler's episode of "The Briefing" on Tuesday, January 26. In this 20-minute podcast, Mohler thoughtfully analyzes the presidential race from a Christian worldview, interestingly explains the non-traditional political philosophies underlying the two front-running candidates, and helpfully guides the Christian voter in biblical principles that should inform his/her decision.

​Second, read this article by Joel C. Rosenberg. It's a personal, not political, blog entry, and it is a bit outdated now (published November 24, 2015). However, it is a fairly helpful (albeit not exhaustive) overview of the most promising conservative and evangelical candidates.

While the last two posts on this blog have been of a more political nature, there is no intention to make this a political blog. Rather, I hope this venue will continue to serve as a "ministry of grace" (Ephesians 4:29)—biblically, thoughtful, carefully, and graciously addressing many different areas that concern the follower of Jesus. Undeniably, some of those areas right now are of a political nature.

At the end of "The Briefing" episode mentioned above, Mohler helps frame these issues in their proper place within the broader Christian worldview. He writes,

Finally, Christians have to always remember the balance—that politics is important, but it’s never ultimate. Politics can’t deliver us, no matter who is elected. And that means that we have to put this into a perspective, a proper biblical perspective, where we understand the urgency and the importance of voting rightly, and we take responsibility as Christians citizens to do that which is right according to the Christian worldview, according to our own biblical principles, our own Christian reasoning. But we also understand that we can never fall for political promises of the Right or the Left...that will promise us more than politics can deliver.

We indeed await the perfect government of Jesus Christ (Isaiah 9:6-7), but until then we represent Him as best we can, even in our political responsibilities.

When I first drafted this post, rumor had it that a key conversation that would arise in the 2016 Indiana General Assembly would be about whether or not sexual orientation and gender identity should be added to the state civil rights law as protected classes.

​That is indeed a growing conversation, and some are already helpfully suggesting certain parameters for this debate. Currently two bills have been introduced in our State House — Senate Bill 35 and House Bill 1079 — that would prohibit men from accessing women's restrooms and locker rooms throughout our state.

Not only would I earnestly support these legislative considerations, but I would also strongly argue against the broader issue of making sexual orientation and gender identity protected classes under the civil rights law in Indiana. Consider three arguments:

First, making sexual orientation a protected class will open the door for the government to punish, for example, a religious business owner who does not want to participate in a homosexual wedding ceremony. In the future, it is very likely that this would then pave the way to penalizing churches and pastors who only support marriage between one man and one woman. This would elevate sexual behavior above religious freedom.

I’m so grateful for the religious freedom that has been a hallmark of our country (and our state), but am alarmed at how diligently some are attacking it. I want my life and ministry to always be marked by respect and graciousness toward those with whom I disagree, and I always want this nation/state to be a place in which those individuals can exercise their civil and religious freedoms. I simply ask for the same in return.

I make a careful distinction between the "homosexual agenda" as a very clear worldview and mission, and many homosexual individuals who simply desire the same freedom and peace that I do. From what I can tell, that homosexual agenda is bent on taking away the freedom that Christians, in particular, have had to practice their faith—both individually in our business decisions and corporately in our church communities.

I strongly believe that mutually enjoying religious freedom means that a Christian business owner (e.g., photographer, baker, florist, etc.) should broadly and indiscriminately serve his community through his business. However, for that Christian business owner, a marriage ceremony is more than a community event; it is a worship service of a most special spiritual significance (Genesis 2:24; Mark 10:6-9; Ephesians 5:22-33). It would be an absolute denial of religious freedom to force him to participate in a homosexual wedding ceremony against his conscience in this matter! I believe it would be as uncivil and inconsiderate as, for example, forcing a Muslim photographer to take pictures at a baptismal service where participants publicly express allegiance to our God and Savior Jesus Christ.

Second, and most germane to bills mentioned above, it has been well-documented that some sexual predators have abused the proposed allowance (i.e., allowing transgender individuals to access the bathroom of their choice) in order to gain access to women and children in a particularly vulnerable locations (e.g., private restrooms and locker rooms). Being a concerned son, brother to three sisters, husband, and father of three children, as well as a pastor over many people that I love dearly and desire to protect in any way I can, and a fellow human that desires to take up the cause of the defenseless (Psalm 82:3)—I believe passing a law that requires such an allowance would unnecessarily jeopardize many innocent people throughout our schools and communities. To substantiate that this is more than a personal concern, but a documented danger, consider these articles:

• http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/23/a-rape-survivor-speaks-out-about-transgender-bathrooms/
• http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/02/public-schools-force-kids-into-transgender-wars/

Third, the very basic meanings of these two phrases, “sexual orientation” (i.e., who someone wants to have sex with) and “gender identity” (i.e., what sex someone wants to be), reveal that there is no ending to the allowances that may have to be extended once that path is taken. Admittedly, my Bible-informed Christian beliefs compel me to agree with God that the only right (and thus able to contribute to human flourishing) sexual relationship is between a man and woman in the context of marriage. However, this does not deny that some sexual aberrations are far greater than others. If a man wants to have sex with a child, should he then also be protected? If a man wants to have sex with multiple women, should he be given legal standing in that freedom? If a woman wants to be intimate with an animal, should allowance be granted?

For these reasons, I support SB 35 and HB 1079, and I strongly encourage our Indiana leaders to not include matters of sexual orientation and gender identity in our state's civil rights protection. And I hope that you will think carefully and lend your voice freely to this conversation. And, may I add, don't just Tweet or post about your opinion—participate in the process, engage your elected officials, vote your conscience, and practice the privileges of living in a democracy!

Marriage looks to be redefined constitutionally, and religious liberty looks to be under serious attack. Just a couple years ago, in 2013, the Defense of Marriage act was struck down by a 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. This has become known as the Windsor decision, a decision made without any involvement by the Solicitor General, the person appointed to represent the federal government of the United States before the Supreme Court of the United States (i.e., basically the president’s attorney).

Yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments in the case known as Obergefell v. Hodges, which is basically four lawsuits combined into one, originating from a Cincinnati lawsuit, in which homosexual couples are suing their state for not recognizing their marriage. The decision in this case will eventually determine the legal definition of marriage in the fifty states. And again, as in the Windsor decision, one justice, Justice Anthony Kennedy, is likely to be the swing vote.

Kevin DeYoung, a godly leader within evangelicalism, recently wrote, “I’m concerned that many younger Christians—ironically, often those passionate about societal transformation and social justice—do not see the connection between a traditional view of marriage and human flourishing. Many Christians…[have this] mantra...: personally opposed, but publicly none of my business. I want Christians...to see why this issue matters and why—if and when same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land--the integrity of the family [i.e., human flourishing] will be weakened and the freedom of the church will be threatened.”

Yesterday, during the oral arguments, the threat to religious freedom became immediately and painfully apparent. This time, the Solicitor General, Donald Verrili, did speak on behalf of the administration and President Obama and bluntly announced that the rights of a religious school to operate on the basis of its own religious faith will survive only as an “accommodation” on a state by state basis, and only until the federal government passes its own legislation.

Justice Samuel Alito asked Verrilli about the right of religious institutions to maintain tax-exempt status, citing the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the Internal Revenue Service to strip Bob Jones University because of that school’s policy against interracial dating and interracial marriage (NOTE: a moral blight that the university has since rescinded). Justice Alito referenced that ruling and asked, “Would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage?”

Solicitor General Verrilli responded, “You know, I—I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I—I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is—it is going to be an issue.”

Albert Mohler, another godly well-respected leader within evangelicalism, wrote soon thereafter, “We will soon find out just how tolerant those who preached tolerance for same-sex marriage will turn out to be, now that they are ascendant in the culture. Meanwhile, even as we were repeatedly told that warnings about threats to religious liberty were overblown, the truth came out before the Supreme Court yesterday. Take the Solicitor General at his word. ‘It’s going to be an issue.’”