Hello Visitor   |  Login  |   Create an account!

Christians for Hitler
by David Servant

Last month's e-teaching, with the semi-incendiary title, About Time to Abort the Abortionists, elicited varied reactions. Not everyone sent me an "Amen," and so this month I'm including a few excerpts from responses that I thought you would find interesting. In most cases, I've added my own reaction to the comments I received. You'll have to keep reading to find out why I've titled this month's e-teaching Christians for Hitler. Thanks to everyone who sent their feedback. I enjoyed reading all of it. Now on to the responses...

Thank you for your articles...they are exactly what the church today needs to hear....And yes, many of us, myself included, have taken the lives of our children through abortion, but have repented and been given life through Jesus Christ. God is so merciful. -- Edythe

I wanted to start with that particular excerpt, as it reminds us that the only true and lasting solution to sin and its consequences is repentance and forgiveness through Jesus Christ. This is contained in Scripture. Yet it is also contained in Scripture that all governmental authority is given by God:

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing (Rom. 13:1-6).

This being so, here is a question: When God gives governmental authority, does He desire that those to whom He has given authority use that authority to promote righteousness or wickedness? The answer is obvious from what we've just read in Romans 13:1-6.

Now here is what we need to see: God has given governmental authority in the U.S. (and many other nations) to all the people, not just to a dictator, and not just to a few political leaders. Under the government God has given us, our political leaders are elected by us. So we have all been given authority from God. We are the government. If nothing else, we have the God-given authority to cast a vote for those who will hold political office. If we abdicate that responsibility, will God not hold us accountable? And if we use our God-granted authority to elect those who promote what God hates, do we not bear responsibility for promoting what God hates?

Very challenging and strong teaching particularly in light of forthcoming British elections. To follow the logic regarding other sin too [besides abortion] it would seem that no mainstream party is fit to govern and therefore unworthy of my vote. How would you deal with that scenario assuming somebody must lead the country? - Pastor John, in the U.K.

Great question! A similar question was posed by a pastor in India, and I think he gave a good answer to his own question in his final sentence:

I read ur article on government theft u r telling that we Christians shouldn't vote for such candidates but in India most of the politicians are criminals and idol worshipers they come for politics only for earning if we follow ur teaching we believers in country like India can not vote. What to do? Usually we vote for the less worst candidate. -- Pastor Jayakumar

I agree. Vote for the "less worst candidates"!

These questions from the U.K. and India both, I think, beg another question: If the ungodly are willing to enter the fray of politics, why are genuine Christians afraid? We often give the excuse that the political arena is no place for a Christian because it is so full of evil. Yet it was God who has given us government, and in particular, our government. He has not given us a dictatorship, but a democracy (or more technically a republic), which gives responsibility to the people to elect their representatives. God has given us a government that requires and expects participation by all the people. Shall Christians stay outside of a system that God has granted us? And are politicians required to do evil? Is there no such thing in the world as a Christian politician? Were Joseph, David and Daniel out of God's will holding influential political positions? Shall Christians also stay out of doing business since the business world is so full of evil? Just some food for thought.

When God lists deplorable things in Proverbs, a proud heart is right there along with "hands that shed innocent blood." I know that the world has been turned off by self-righteous, proud "Christians" pointing out sins, speaking the truth without a shred of love or grace and without any humility. We need to start with "God saved a wretch like me." You won't find a more pro-life person than me, but I have been disgusted by the lack of humility and gentleness that often comes from the pulpit. -- Jeannie [She also sent a link to an important new film on this issue: www.bloodmoneyfilm.com/trailer.php .]

Good reminder.

I thank God that someone has at last spoken out boldly against the terrible slaughter of innocents that goes on today, not only in The States, but in Europe, China and all over the world. The ancient Canaanites sacrificed their children to the demons, but nowhere near on the scale that it is done today, and God condemned them to extinction. The Lord's patience with us is amazing.

I understand that people's consciences are so seared that they are seeking to pass a law that, if a baby actually survives an abortion attempt, it must be left to die. It will be a criminal offence to feed it or help it in any way. That is the same as saying that the baby must be murdered by neglect, by the demand of law. -- Geoffrey, M.D., and career missionary in Thailand

Amen, brother Geoffrey. It is amazing that these things are even being discussed. Think of how insane it is to debate the question, "Is it OK to not attempt to save the life of a baby whom you've just unsuccessfully tried to murder?"

I have been pretty concerned for your direction in the last two e-teachings. My concern is not in the content, as to right or wrong, but more as in what good it will do. From reading these teachings, it seems that you have a lot of faith in the system of government that our deeply deceived country has set up. At least, that's how it appears. -- John

I do have faith in our system of government as it was originally given to us, as it is the product of very intelligent men who understood corrupt human nature, who studied failed governments of history, and who for the most part held to godly, biblical principles. They created, after sincere prayer, a document that changed the course of human history for the better all over the world and that has proven itself to produce the best form of government the world has ever seen, a constitutional republic. Beyond that, as I have already pointed out, since the Bible tells us that all governmental authority is given by God, I maintain that God has given us our system of government, one that gives some governmental authority to every citizen through the power to vote. Because of the form of government that God has given us, one election can dramatically change the current and future state of our nation for better or worse.

Take for example the recent vacancy on our Supreme Court. Whoever fills that vacancy will be one of nine people who hold the fate of millions of unborn babies in their hands. Our president's current nominee, Elena Kagan, is pro-baby-killing. But she must be approved by Senators. Senators are elected by the citizens. So are presidents. So the citizens ultimately are responsible. We are the government, and we can't escape that fact.

Similarly, our government's current fiscal irresponsibility that is guaranteed to enslave our children and grandchildren is the result of politicians who were elected by us. Their fiscal irresponsibility is our fiscal irresponsibility. If we sanction their theft, then we are complicit with their crimes. We can repent, however, in the next elections. At the same time we can love our children and grandchildren as we should, rather than stealing their future earnings, as we are doing now, a crime of the highest order of selfishness.

David you could not be more right! Remember the old saying "well you can't legislate morality," that is not correct. We must remember that all the "laws" are no more than someone's morality. We Christians need to have it be in line with God's morality. -- Randy

I am afraid that those who consider their own pockets will reject all you have written. When I worked at ---------, I had many (I thought) Christian friends. We talked of the things of God and the fellowships and churches we went to. Some were leaders in the church and sang in choirs. When the election came and as Bill Clinton's pro choice record was no secret, these same people justified their voting for this man, as he promised more money in their pockets. Even though I tried to reason with them, even to the point of begging and pointing out the murderous crime this man approved of, they would not hear me. These so called Christians voted their pocketbooks and ignored all else that this man stood for. -- Wanda

Good point, Wanda.

Although Adolf Hitler was not technically elected as Germany's Chancellor and Führer, he rose to power with massive support from among Germany's citizenry. After his cabinet transferred power to him, a plebiscite was held, and 85% of the people voted to sustain him as supreme leader of the state, people and military. Many professing Christians and churches in Germany fully supported Hitler, knowing his anti-semetism. Surely then they bear some responsibility for the Holocaust.

Now, what is the difference between the Jewish holocaust and the modern holocaust of the unborn?

Hitler took the lives of six million Jews (not to mention a few million non-Jewish Soviets, Poles and others), while legally-operating abortionists in the U.S. have murdered fifty million babies since 1973 and will continue to murder babies at the rate of 1.3 million every year while abortion remains legal.

Hitler's victims were gassed, shot or starved. Many of the abortionists' victims are dismembered while alive and have their heads literally crushed, or have scissors shoved into their heads so their brains can be sucked from their skulls.

Professing Christians who supported Hitler might be able to claim that they didn't know about the gas chambers. Professing Christians who support pro-abortion politicians have no such excuse.

What is the difference between professing Christians who supported Hitler and those today who support pro-abortion candidates? The evidence above indicates that the latter are even more deceived than the former, and are more guilty before God. Yet how many of them would maintain that they would never have supported Hitler had they lived in his day? They think that they would have been against the merciless killing of Jews, but they are for the merciless killing of innocent babies. They are only fooling themselves.

Some claim they are against abortion while voting for pro-abortion candidates, citing other "important" issues as their excuse, as did Wanda's "Christian" friends. To cast one's vote for pro-abortion candidates, regardless of any other issue, is to vote in favor of killing babies. There is no escaping this fact.

Our efforts should be to do all we can to prevent abortions occurring, absolutely, but...let's be a church that is active and powerful so people can be transformed by the gospel and live sexually pure lives. It is a much bigger issue than making abortion illegal. Where is the church when it comes to walking alongside women who find themselves in a desperate situation or girls who grow up where all they see around them is promiscuity and no strong Christian role models (they wouldn't live in "that" neighborhood!-- or maybe they're busy picketing an abortion clinic.)

As I said, I hate abortion. I agree, it's killing a baby. Pre-emptive war... that's killing school children, babies, students, grown ups, soldiers, husbands, fathers, girls, women... yes, it's all killing. So are you trying to imply that the party that declared a pre-emptive war on false premises is moral because it strengthened limits on abortion? Because it was so against health care being available to poor people so they could receive family planning services? -- Robin, serving the Lord in Bangladesh

You've written a thought-provoking response, much of which I agree with, and part of which I quoted above. You've given a good admonition in that excerpt for the church to actually be what Christ intended, something you will see I have also written about extensively if you check out our website. Our moral responsibilities go far beyond voting morally. However, going to war to bring down a brutal, ruthless dictator who was responsible for the deaths of millions of people in his nation and region, and who was believed to have weapons of mass destruction, is nowhere close to being morally comparable to killing millions of innocent, unborn babies. (It also seems unwarranted to try to pin responsibility for that decision to go to war on one political party when 43% of all Democrats in Congress, 111 elected representatives, voted in favor of it. Many gave speeches in support of it.)

I also don't see how the healthcare debate can trump the abortion issue. It seems insane to be arguing for compassionate universal healthcare for those whom we don't kill before they make it out of their mother's wombs.

In my articles entitled Government Theft and About Time to Abort the Abortionists, I made no mention of political parties, because, like you, I see moral flaws in all of the parties. I wrote last month, for example, "We cannot vote for political candidates (regardless of their political party) who are in favor of accumulating a national debt so immense that it will inevitably be passed on to our children and grandchildren, which amounts to stealing the future earnings of our own offspring." In my personal opinion, our citizenry (not just their respective political leaders of various parties) share responsibility for the immense national debt that our grandchildren will inherit. And my personal opinion is that the resolution to go to war in Iraq should have been voted down on the grounds that we simply could not afford it. Our grandchildren will be paying for it.

All of this is to say that my goal in both articles was to remind Christians of two major moral issues---the sin of stealing the future earnings of our offspring and the sin of abortion--- that we can do something about by means of our God-given rights as citizens who hold some governmental authority. Again, we are the government.

Jesus was not involved in politics, so we should follow His example. Neither was Peter, Paul, James, John, or Jude. There is no instruction in the epistles for believers to be involved in politics. We have a higher calling to preach the gospel. -- a paraphrase of several responses

Jesus never drove a car, kissed His wife, or wrote an email. The reason is not because those things are morally wrong. Rather, Jesus had no opportunity to do those things. Should we, who do have the opportunity to do those things, follow Jesus' example and not do them? Are we to think that Jesus, Peter, John or Paul, had they lived under a God-given political system which would have offered them the opportunity to vote for political leaders, would not have voted or would have voted for candidates who were in favor of killing babies and stealing the future earnings of their grandchildren?

Paul admonished believers in his day---none of whom held any political authority---to pray for those who held political authority, and for a moral reason: "That we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity" (1 Tim. 2:1-2). Paul apparently believed that believers' prayers could affect political leaders to the end that they might make morally-wise decisions. In that light, we should pray for ourselves, as we all hold some political power, but we should also live our lives in consistency with those prayers, exercising our political authority wisely---since we are the government. If Paul's readers had possessed the right to determine who held political office by their votes, can you imagine Paul writing to them and saying, "Pray for those in authority, but don't bother voting, or if you do vote, don't be concerned with being guided by moral principles"?

Jesus, who publicly called Herod Antipas a "fox" (Luke 13:32), and John the Baptist, who rebuked the same Herod for his illegitimate marriage (Matt. 14:4), obviously had some things to say about at least one political leader of their day. Had either been given the opportunity to vote Herod out and vote a better man in, what would they have done?

Indeed, it goes without saying that our calling to spread the gospel is a much higher moral responsibility than our responsibility to vote following moral principle. It goes without saying that the eternal ramifications of the latter far exceed those of the former. Yet the decisions of earthly governments can affect eternity for multitudes of people, as everyone knows who is trying to spread the gospel in nations like North Korea, Eritrea, and Saudi Arabia.

Moreover, if I witness someone being murdered as I'm walking along the road, my calling to spread the gospel does not exempt me from responsibility to do what I can do to save the one I see being murdered. The Christian who walks by on the other side and says to himself, "I have a higher calling to preach the gospel, and besides, the gospel is really the true solution to the problem of murder, so I won't entangle myself in any lesser solution," is failing to obey the fundamental commandment to love his neighbor as himself.

You are becoming much too political and I don't like the trend. I'm stopping my monthly sponsorship of the three orphans that I support through your ministry. --- Paraphrase

Should Christians be silent on moral issues if they also happen to be political issues? Where is that idea found in the Bible?

The three e-teachings I've written this year that have focused on two great moral issues---which also happen to be political issues---represent only a tiny fraction of what the ministry of Heaven's Family is all about. But everything we do revolves around moral principle and obedience to God's commandments, which is why we care for orphans and widows and so many others among "the least of these" around the world, and why I have recently written against government theft and abortion.

To stop supporting some orphans because you don't like what I've written is to punish the wrong people. When you support an orphan through Heaven's Family's Orphan's Tear division, you don't support "our ministry." Rather, you give us the opportunity to support your ministry, as we take nothing from your monthly sponsorship gift for any administration. It all goes to the orphanage where your sponsored child lives. If you want to punish us, you should sponsor more orphans, as you will create more work for our staff with less funding to pay them!

A worried woman went to her gynecologist and said: "Doctor, I have a serious problem and desperately need your help! My baby is not even one year old and I'm pregnant again. I don't want kids so close together."

So the doctor said: "OK, and what do you want me to do?"

She replied: "I want you to end my pregnancy, and I'm counting on your help with this."

The doctor thought for a while, and after some silence, he said to her: "I think I have a better solution for your problem. It's less dangerous for you too."

She smiled, thinking that he was going to accept her request.

Then he continued: "In order for you not to have to take care of two babies at the same time, let's kill the one in your arms. That way, you could rest some before the other one is born. If we're going to kill one of them, it doesn't matter which one it is. And there would be no risk for your body if you chose the one in your arms."

The lady was horrified and said: "No doctor! How terrible! It's a crime to kill a child!"

"I agree," the doctor replied. "But you seemed to be OK with it, so I thought maybe that was the best solution."

She got his point. There is no difference in killing a child who has already been born and one who is still in the womb. The crime is the same! -- Mark



To view our copyright policy, click here. © 2014 by David Servant