for JT's blog

I dropped this in the meta at JT's blog and I liked it enough to store it here for future reference.

Aside from all the praise here, Justin, I think the point of Dr. Piper's video was exactly to waylay extremism in considering the election.

You know: people have a variety of hopes hanging in the balance in this election. I think it is hard for us white people to really get how publicly liberating it is for our black brothers and sisters to have a credible, eloquent, and in many ways admirable man from their cultural community this close to being president of the United States; I think the same holds true for Governor Palin's candidacy for a different demographic in spite of the backlash against her from some quarters.

But I think Dr. Piper's message was that our hope is not in this election. You know: our hope is not in Dinner tonight, but we will all have dinner. In the same way, our hope is not in this election and we should still have the election. We simply cannot veer into the mad rhetoric of what my wife calls "doggie brains" -- that is, we can't see what is happening right now as the only thing which has happened, or is happening, or will happen.

Let me suggest something here: I want you to imagine whatever it is you think is the worst scenarion for the outcome of tomorrow's election. To me, the worst outcome would be a blindside victory by Nader, but that's another story.

Now, on Wednesday, that's the world we have. You voted your conscience, as did everyone who voted, and now the electoral college has to confirm the voting and we have the worst possible president with the worst possible Legislative branch possible.

How does that change the scope of your life as a disciple of Christ?

Listen: even if FOCA becomes law on Nov 5th, how does that change the mission of the church?

Here's my thing: Freakishly-tall Friel was going over this on 29 October with his sidekick "Brainiac", and listening to him something struck me: the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness,self-control; against such things there is no law.

That is to say this: in a country where abortion on-demand is simply the rule, should the church try to overcome the government, or should it seek to overcome sin by the work of the Cross? Should is save by the power of the ballot box, or by the power of the Gospel?

It seems to me that all of us here know abortion is wrong. It's not advanced moral calculus: killing babies is wrong. But how many of us who are frankly very worried about the law regarding abortion have given the Gospel in both word and deed to a woman who perceived her need was abortion and not Christ?

I am sure there is one or two out there. What if we sacrificed ourselves for the sake of ending this horror? What if we each took one woman who was going to have an abortion into our home and blessed her with grace at a high cost to ourselves, and sought to either reconcile her to the babiy's father or find her a godly husband to redeem her from her worldly, secular trap?

It will only take a million households, and there is no law against that kind of voting -- against such things there is no law.

What if we lived as if we believed in sacrifice rather than earthly authoritarianism? Would any candidate matter?

This is where we really get after the sovereignty of God: when we live the way He has said to live, not out of some stupid attempt to earn from Him the kind of country we want to live in, but because He has already done so much. This is where we fill up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, people [Col 1:24]. Not in the voting booth, but in the lives of those who are seeking salvation by killing their babies.

Now go vote. Thank you.