Interpreting Trump and the Never or Anti Trumpers

There are 68 Comments

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

... also doing a whole lot of damage to "the righteous team," including pretty much destroying the whole idea that there even is a "righteous" team. All the hats are gray now. Maybe they always were, but now we're embracing that apparently rather than merely tolerating it while striving for something better.

But yes, Trump does remind me more than a little of Samson, other than the physical strength part. It's a different kind of power, but other than that, the character is quite similar.

Bert Perry's picture

It's worth noting that "we" supported the first divorcee to reach the White House, no?  A guy with pretty limited political experience, an actor and (alors!) former announcer for the Chicago Cubs.  (side note; thank God Harry Caray never went into acting)  A guy who had signed an early bill legalizing prenatal infanticide in California, and who is alleged to have dated/bedded a string of Hollywood starlets in his younger years?  Remember?

Perhaps we also ought to remember that a major group supporting him--really the same guys that started supporting Trump in the primaries, or at least some of their sons/friends--ended up with false prophecy (at least as nasty a sin as adultery, no?) by Robertson, tolerance of segregation by Helms, appallingly bad writing by Tim LeHaye (Left Behind series).....really, brothers, I think we'll do well to take Romans 3:10 seriously here, don't you think?  Let's not preach legalism, but rather repentance from sin.

And let's be honest here; I'm pretty sure somebody in Ekron or Gath made nasty jokes about the son of Manoah not being able to keep it in his pants robe.  Don't you think?   We've been here before, God is still sovereign.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Jay's picture

Ugh, ugh, ugh. 

I continue to be astounded at the amount of love and support Christians give to Trump.

As for parallels of Trump to the judges, let me say that I disagree vehemently.  I would also submit that this passage provides a closer frame of reference to our relationship with Trump than the judges do:

But the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel. And they said, "No! But there shall be a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles."

-1 Samuel 8:19‭-‬20 ESV

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Mike Harding's picture

Kent Brandenburg,

Thank you for your article.  I passed it on to several others.  My choice in the primaries was Ted Cruz. He lost. In the general election I voted for Trump over Crooked Hillary.  For the most part Trump has either kept his promises or attempted to keep them against enormous opposition and unmitigated hatred from the left. Despite his sins and personal failures which are many, his policies have been very helpful to conservatives, Christian organizations, and our economy.  I appreciate his backing of our Law Enforcement, Military, Christian Organizations, a Conservative Judiciary, a Robust Economy, Pro-Energy agenda.  I also appreciate his opposition to Radical Islam, Illegal immigration, NK and Iran, liberal judges, and the mostly corrupt major news media outlets.  Trump is not a Christian (I pray he will be one day), but for reasons I cannot explain he has been very kind and friendly to Christian organizations, Christian education, and Christian Freedom (Like Cyrus King of Persia perhaps). I have direct knowledge of this on account of my positions on various education boards and committees. In this year alone we have seen a dramatic drop in the number of murders of blacks in Detroit (I am just a few miles north of the city) and murders of police officers.  The same is true in Chicago (where I was born). 

Pastor Mike Harding

TylerR's picture

Editor

I appreciate Kent's article. It's as robust a defense of Trump you can get, without buying into the Robert "MAGA" Jeffress approach and worshipping the man, or this country. I don't personally like Trump, or respect his morality (or lack thereof). However, I broadly agree with a good deal of what he's done. I don't worship him, and but he is getting some necessary things done.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

T Howard's picture

I didn't vote for a presidential candidate in 2016... left my choice blank. Evangelical Christians are treated by republicans like African Americans are treated by democrats. Time to get off and stay off the plantation.

Joel Shaffer's picture

I find this article a mixture of truth along with a sprinkling of logical fallacies, and sadly, a batch of unholy pragmatism.   The appointment of Neil Gorsuch and the defeat of ISIS are probably Trump's biggest accomplishments this past year.  As for ISIS, the best thing that Trump did was delegate and allow his generals to make the decisions to win along with a better strategy with Syria (which was the opposite with Obama, whose Syria failure helped escalate ISIS).  I am even (mostly) fine with his tax-cut.  However, Brandenburg seems susceptible to the "false-cause" fallacy such as his view of Iran and the current uprising that is happening in that country.  He asks the question, "would they be emboldened in an Obama-like environment?  The answer to that question is a definite yes, since there were similar protests in 2011 during the Obama-like environment with "Arab Spring" in Iran.       Or the Hypothesis contrary to fact fallacy?  Making judgments that McCain, or any of the Bushes, Romney or any other Republican candidates that ran against Trump wouldn't have been able to accomplish what Trump did because they sought some measure of bi-partisanship is treating a hypothetical situation as if it were fact.

Or what about Brandenburg's view that Trump cannot be racist/white supremacist because his son-in-law and daughter are practicing Jews?  How about the "Honor-by-association" fallacy, as if one's relationship somehow nullifies the many racist statements/actions that Trump has done?  Does it matter that Trump re-tweeted racist fake crime statistics to strike fear in his alt-right supporters and then refused to apologize for it?   Or what about encouraging the roughing up of a BLM protester at his MAGA rally? Or if you go back several decades earlier, the justice department sued his company for discriminating against minorities or how he took out full-page ads against the central park 5-encouraging mob-mentality justice/execution of minority teens.  And then when DNA evidence proved their innocence a decade later which allowed them to sue the state for unlawfully convicting them, he still considers them guilty.  Or taking way too long to disavow white supremacists, whether it was in the Charlottesville protests or the many white supremacists such as David Duke who wholeheartedly supported him.  Or how he stereotyped the Pakistani Muslim Khizar Khan's wife for not speaking at the democratic convention, implying that she wasn't allowed to speak due to her Islamic faith.  I could go on and on with more examples if you'd like.  And if it were only a few of these instances, I would be giving him the benefit of the doubt, but his history is checkered with too many instances to not suspect racism.   

But sadly, Brandenburg's pragmatism where the "end justifies the means"  baffles me.  He writes, "Others have tried to get along and just take the hits, to remain in good standing, and they haven't come close to getting done what Trump has been able to accomplish in just a short period of time.  He should be judged by these accomplishments, not by the style by which he has done them.  Most wish he could use a different style, but in this present environment, we have to look past the style.  The combat is what is needed in this climate."

What is communicated by this statement is that morals really don't matter when it comes to politics as long as the conservative side wins.      Although the mainstream press has been caught  telling several lies about him, that doesn't excuse his constant pattern of lying either  Or his sophomoric attacks through twitter.  Remember that Trump now claims to be a follower of Christ.  Shouldn't I Peter 2:12 apply to him as well?  I'd be interested in how Brandenburg would advise a member of his church who was involved in politics.  Would he be fine with a plethora of sins  committed like Trump has done in order to win and to maintain power for conservatives?  

By the way, I could not bring myself to vote for Hillary either.  I felt the choice I was making at the ballot box last year was between a Mafia Crime boss (Hillary Clinton) and someone who carries himself like a dictator from a third-world country.   

 

Jay's picture

Here's one:

I understand you believe Trump is working to defend your point of view, but I really don't understand how any Christian can believe that a thrice-married adulterer who lies as easily as he breathes furthers your cause. You may win a few battles but your association with such a person tarnishes your faith and Christianity as a whole to non-believers. I say this, not as a liberal, but as a life-long conservative.

and

If you want to adopt a Machiavellian political approach for temporary, short lived political gains, that is your right as a citizen, but it taints you. The world looks at you and sees a disparity between what your profess and who you support politically. It's not surprising that young people are turned off politics and Christianity when they see the two vulgarly welded together. The backlash against Trump will be severe. Democrats have already won races they generally would have no chance to win. Your position in the long run will be weaker because of your support for Trump.

I've always wondered what the backlash will be like when Trump leaves office (whenever that is).  I expect that whichever Progressive/Democrat wins the Presidency next will make President Obama look like Reagan.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Bert Perry's picture

Not arguing that Trump hasn't said some [edited] stupid things, but the flip side is that he's not the guy credibly accused of rape, as was his predecessor Bill Clinton.  Nor did he admit illegal drug use (not just dope) in his autobiographies as did Obama.

the big diference, IMO, between these guys is that the media are putting their finger on the scales with Trump, being far more willing to use anonymous sources (or nonexistent in many cases) to beat on a Republican, and moreover being willing to actually change the question in "Factcheck" articles to claim that a Republican's claims were false.

Again, we've been there before, repeatedly, and let's pray that a new Stalin, Castro, Pol Pot, or Mao does not come up for the Democrats to try to elect--or that if one does, that even the left realizes this isn't a good idea.  

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Joel Shaffer's picture

In light of Trump's recent comments "why are we having all these people from ..................countries,"  are those who agree with this article still defending the notion like Kent Brandenburg that "this combat is needed in this climate?"

TylerR's picture

Editor

I recently stumbled across the entire archive of William F. Buckley's Firing Line program (33 years worth!) on YouTube. This is journalism. This is substance. These are serious people. Is it too much to hope that our country can ever return to this kind of discourse? We've gone from Buckley interrogating Reagan shortly before his first election, to his discussion with Margaret Thatcher about the failures of British socialism ... to President Trump's tweets. Tellingly, Firing Line spent most of its time on public television, because it was too "boring" for network television.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

Nah, Tyler, those guys are the elites, the establishment. We are smarter now. We now know that the lowest of the low are the source of true wisdom, especially when they all get angry at the same time...   because crowds getting angry all at the same time consistently accomplish things of lasting value for the good of all society, especially crowds that get all their info from Twitter or TV.

I'm sure history is full of examples to prove that. As if we need history anymore.

Jim's picture

I once had a very vulgar manager:

  • I didn't choose him ... assigned to him
  • He was very vulgar in small group settings. Eg:
    • "I could just bang her ..."
    • "You see the t*ts on her ..."
    • Plus the standard vulgarities
  • When in other settings he could be very professional. Plus he was smart and experienced
  • He was very good to me (double promoted during my time with him)
  • Along the way I was known to some as "[his name]'s boy"
  • After he was let go (for reasons not related to his crudities), the wind was out of my sails for a while
  • [later I had another mentor who promoted me. After a reorg and 2 mergers my career languished for the final 5 years. Good money and the same title ... but sidetracked]

As an aside .... I only had one manager in all my time whom I would characterize as vulgar. My last manager was a lesbo - she was the worst manager of all! (I had a male homosexual manager for a while - he was 2nd worst)

Trump is the vulgar executive (in my view)

Adam Blumer's picture

Joel, two reputed Republicans (Tom Cotton, a very good guy, is one) in the meeting either outright lied or have said they do not recall President Trump making those specific comments in the meeting. Sen. Durbin, a Democrat who is well known for twisting facts on occasion, is the one saying the president said these words. And the president has denied doing so. So I don't think anybody, except the liberal media (of course), can make any claim to know what the president said in the meeting unless he or she was there. Trump has said he didn't use those words, and since this has happened before, I agree with him that future meetings should be recorded so the truth can be known. Certain Democrats and of course the media are not beyond outright lying about details to fit their agenda of smearing him. Now I would not be surprised if Trump said something like that, but the truth is that we don't know for sure what he said. And we really have no reason to think that he did this...unless we'd rather believe people at CNN, at the Washington Post (who have been guilty of untruths at times), and this Democrat, who has a reputation for bending the truth as well.

Related: http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/12/politics/senators-trump-comment-tom-cotton...

 

GregH's picture

The way you know if Trump is lying is if his lips are moving. Yes he is lying here. Yes, the two Republicans are lying to cover him though they chose their words carefully to try to cover themselves ("I don't recall" is a copout and an attempt to avoid lying but I call it a lie.) No, Durbin is not lying.

Democrats are not bigger liars than Republicans. Nor is the media in the business of lying. Yes I believe CNN and the WP over Trump. Yes, I believe Democrats over Trump. With his track record there is simply no reason to believe that he is not lying here, and I cannot imagine anyone thinking otherwise unless they drink an awful lot of Trump Koolaid.

Regardless, the focus should not be on the word he used. We are not in grade school. The problem with what he said is that it belies his racist sentiments.

Joel Shaffer's picture

Adam Blumer wrote:

Joel, two reputed Republicans (Tom Cotton, a very good guy, is one) in the meeting either outright lied or have said they do not recall President Trump making those specific comments in the meeting. Sen. Durbin, a Democrat who is well known for twisting facts on occasion, is the one saying the president said these words. And the president has denied doing so. So I don't think anybody, except the liberal media (of course), can make any claim to know what the president said in the meeting unless he or she was there. Trump has said he didn't use those words, and since this has happened before, I agree with him that future meetings should be recorded so the truth can be known. Certain Democrats and of course the media are not beyond outright lying about details to fit their agenda of smearing him. Now I would not be surprised if Trump said something like that, but the truth is that we don't know for sure what he said. And we really have no reason to think that he did this...unless we'd rather believe people at CNN, at the Washington Post (who have been guilty of untruths at times), and this Democrat, who has a reputation for bending the truth as well.

Related: http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/12/politics/senators-trump-comment-tom-cotton...

Republican Lindsey Graham (who was sitting right next to Trump) allegedly said that what is being reported by the press is basically is "basically accurate."   https://www.postandcourier.com/politics/lindsey-graham-i-said-my-piece-t... According to Durban, Graham called Trump out for saying this as soon as Trump said it.  Graham has came out and said that he appreciated Durban's statements.   Yes there is a chance that liberals such as Durban and the Washington Post lied, but Trump's pathological lying history is just as bad or even worse than the mainstream media. The difference is I have seen the MSM actually post corrections to different stories that weren't true about Trump. When has Trump said something not true, but then corrected himself?  Rarely does it happen.    In fact, when the video came out about Trump where he bragged about grabbing women's body parts, he made it a point to apologize to the nation for his comments. He knew that he might lose the evangelical vote.  But now he has stated that the video was fake news.  He knows his base (including fundamentalist and evangelicals) refuse to show any discernment and will back him no matter what he does.  

When I continually see that Christian conservatives who are so quick to believe Trump and other conservatives but are so quick to judge the mainstream media, liberals, and progressives as liars, I wonder if we really believe that everyone has the sin nature?  Because we are functionally acting as if the conservatives are somehow immune to the culture of deceit and misuse of power that pollutes everyone of us. 

Adam Blumer's picture

If this was Obama and two Democrats said he didn't make those remarks and two Republicans said he did, we wouldn't even be having this conversation because the MSM wouldn't have made it a lead story for two or three straight days. It's realistically a draw. Two say Trump made the comments; two say he didn't. 

Investigate Tom Cotton. I challenge you. He doesn't lie and is probably one of the strongest conservatives watching our back. If he isn't aware that those comments were said, I would believe him. Durban and Trump both have problems with the truth. I wouldn't say that about Cotton. As for Lindsay Graham, um, he's got a lot to gain to side with Durban (and has been a bit slimy in the past), so again...we have a draw. And NOBODY except the guys in the meeting can testify to what was said. So with the testimonies split, nobody really knows. If this was a legal trial, the jury would have a tough time. But who needs a jury when some folks have all knowledge (even though they don't)?

I'm not a Trump Koolaid drinker. The man is seriously flawed, but he has been doing some very good things. I just hate to see injustice in this situation. I don't have all knowledge, and that's my point. I hope they do record the meetings from now on to remove all doubt 

GregH, wow. Seriously? Not sure we even live on the same planet, but I'll check. God bless you.

 

GregH's picture

Adam Blumer wrote:
 

GregH, wow. Seriously? Not sure we even live on the same planet, but I'll check. God bless you.

I am reasonably sure that we you are right. We are not even on the same planet. I would say that about most of evangelicalism. Your post gave away your bias that Democrats are less honest than Republicans (absurd) and that the WaPo and CNN are liars (also absurd). Of course CNN does not get every story right but that does not make them liars. If they are liars, they can't be in the business they are in.

On the flip side we have Trump who lies every time he opens his mouth and those lies are easy to prove (I believe there are hundreds of easily proven lies in his first year). We also have Perdue, a disgrace from my home state who is determined to defend Trump at all costs and in this case is parsing words to (as usual) try to defend him. I have written Perdue multiple times about his disgusting behavior. I don't know Cotton but I find his words interesting. He "can't recall"... Whatever...

Yes, I will trust Durbin over Perdue and anyone over Trump. Yes, I will take CNN over FoxNews which if you watch online is starting to look like some kind of nasty cross between  David Cloud and the National Enquirer.

Bert Perry's picture

Is it more obscene that President Trump allegedly referred to some (unnamed) countries in a vulgar way, or the foreign policy over the past 50 years that's funded the dictators of those places, helping to make President Trump's comment not only vulgar, but arguably factual?

The latter is far more obscene in my view.  Sorry, I've been in a couple of countries that might charitably be described in that way (East Germany for starters), and the foreign policy on both sides of the aisle that leads to this is far more obscene than any Anglo-Saxon word.  

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

GregH's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

Is it more obscene that President Trump allegedly referred to some (unnamed) countries in a vulgar way, or the foreign policy over the past 50 years that's funded the dictators of those places, helping to make President Trump's comment not only vulgar, but arguably factual?

The latter is far more obscene in my view.  Sorry, I've been in a couple of countries that might charitably be described in that way (East Germany for starters), and the foreign policy on both sides of the aisle that leads to this is far more obscene than any Anglo-Saxon word.  

It has nothing to do with the actual word he used. That is a smokescreen. It is rather about the fact that the tenor of his speech tells a lot of about how he views people of color. It is also about the fact that he is lying and it is about the fact that his defenders continue to defend him no matter how indefensible, demonstrating their moral depravity. 

Bert Perry's picture

Greg. with all due respect, the witnesses are divided as to whether the statement was actually made, and whether it was made in such a way that could even be construed to be racist in intent.  

Plus, if you want somebody who hates people of color, can we talk about a full on supporter of an organization that kills over 100,000 black babies annually?  Can we talk about a guy who prevented urban police from putting urban criminals in jail, costing the lives of yet more black people?  Can we talk about a guy who didn't take the threat posed by MS-13 seriously, costing the lives of hundreds of hispanics (and others caught in the crossfire)?

Can we talk about the guy whose inaction allowed ISIS to massacre thousands of brown-skinned Syrians, allowed the Taliban to reconquer most of Afghanistan, etc..?

I guess we can't.  Gotta get all worked up about one side's interpretation of an Anglo-Saxon word, because obviously words, not actions, are what matters here, right?

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Jay's picture

Sen. Lindsey Graham did not deny Friday that President Donald Trump called certain nations "s---hole" countries, adding that he "said [his] piece" in response to the president's "comments" at a meeting with lawmakers.

The South Carolina Republican did not rebut an account from Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., of a Thursday meeting on bipartisan immigration legislation that both attended. On Friday, Durbin said that Trump "repeatedly" said "hate-filled things" at the meeting and called African nations "s---hole" countries.

Durbin added that Graham spoke up in response to Trump's comments and said it took courage to do so.

From Aaron's article.  It seems to me that if Dick Durban reported it, and Lindsay Graham rebuked Trump somehow, then something off-color (at a minimum) was said.  Having been aware of Donald Trump since I was a kid and he was a gambling mogul in Atlantic City, it would fit right in with what I know of his character.

I am increasingly sick to death and dismayed by all the constant back and forth between 'sides' over whose fault it is.  I don't care if it's the media, or the GOP or the Democrats or Little Bo Peep.  I absolutely despise the way it's tearing Christians apart.  I hate the way it puts Christians at each others' throats over temporary politics for a kingdom that isn't going to last anyway.

We can spend massive amounts of time, as believers, by demonizing the liberals / progressives / Democrats / Sith Lords, or we can be the kind of people that God calls us to be, admit when 'our side' screws up, and move on.  But it's so much more interesting to throw rotten eggs and stinky garbage back in at our enemies than it is to live the kinds of quiet and peacable lives that we are called to do in 1 Timothy 2:

I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people—for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time. And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a true and faithful teacher of the Gentiles.

Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing.

Brothers, do that.  Don't get sucked into the garbage compactor of angry tit for tat and disputing every possible fact that might help 'their' side in the endless blame-gaming.  Be the Christian God wants you to be.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

GregH's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

Greg. with all due respect, the witnesses are divided as to whether the statement was actually made, and whether it was made in such a way that could even be construed to be racist in intent.  

Plus, if you want somebody who hates people of color, can we talk about a full on supporter of an organization that kills over 100,000 black babies annually?  Can we talk about a guy who prevented urban police from putting urban criminals in jail, costing the lives of yet more black people?  Can we talk about a guy who didn't take the threat posed by MS-13 seriously, costing the lives of hundreds of hispanics (and others caught in the crossfire)?

Can we talk about the guy whose inaction allowed ISIS to massacre thousands of brown-skinned Syrians, allowed the Taliban to reconquer most of Afghanistan, etc..?

I guess we can't.  Gotta get all worked up about one side's interpretation of an Anglo-Saxon word, because obviously words, not actions, are what matters here, right?

Nope, not going to make this Obama. That is absurd. I am talking about the current occupant of the White House: his lying, his racism, his morality. And the morality of those that refuse to condemn him..

By the way, agree or disagree with Obama, he is an honorable man and represented the US well. If given a choice, I would take him any day over what we have now.

Bert Perry's picture

Anglo-saxon word: big deal to you.  Hundreds of thousands dead, meh.

Count me pretty glad not to subscribe to that kind of moral logic.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

GregH's picture

You claim to be some kind of logic expert Bert. Perhaps you should look up strawman fallacy. I specifically said a few few posts ago it was not about the word. And no, you won't admit you are wrong--you never do. 

Joel Shaffer's picture

Adam,

Investigate Tom Cotton. I challenge you. He doesn't lie and is probably one of the strongest conservatives watching our back.

I took your advise and checked out Tom Cotton.  What I found out is that he lies alot just like every other politician.  He is definitely not the honest politician that you are making him out to be.  For instance, when running against his democratic opponent, Mark Pryor, for senate, he stated that Pryor "continues to insist that the Affordable Care Act has been an amazing success."  In 2013, Pryor did say that the ACA was an "amazing success," for a particular hospital, but several times after corrected himself by saying that it needed mending, and stating that he was only talking about one hospital.  Or how about the many lies he told about Obama?  He stated that Obama hijacked the farm bill and turned it into the food stamps bill.   Food stamps has always been a vital part of the Farm bill since the Nixon administration going back to 1973.  Again, someone who is willing to lie about the otherside to further their agenda.  He also lied about the Dream Act saying that "it will be the single biggest amnesty in the history of the United States, even bigger than the 1986 amnesty."  In 1986, 2.7 illegal immigrants were given amnesty, whereas only 1.5 million immigrants are eligible with the Dream act.  Cotton is calculating another 1.8 million stating that they would, in turn sponsor a parent who is in the country illegally.  However, Cotton knows good and well that there has been legislation passed 20 years ago that made sponsoring a parent illegal.  Do you want more illustrations of Tom Cotton Lying?  There are more.  

By the way, I don't see conservatives or liberals, or libertarians being on "my side" when it comes to politics.  As a disclosure, if you were to pigeonhole me politically, I would be a pro-life libertarian who has often voted Republican (not this election).  Much of my reasoning comes down to my belief about the doctrine of sin.  That whoever is in power, they are just as susceptible to lying, deception, and misuse of power as those who are across the aisle because of the sin nature that all of us possess.  To demonize the other without seeing the possibility of demons among themselves, puts them at risk of functionally watering down the doctrine of sin.   You may not be naive about Trump, but you might be about Tom Cotton.  He has every reason to lie for Trump because he is considered the conservative most likely to succeed Trump, but without the sophomoric rants.   Trump has already shown that he will use bully-tactics to keep the Republicans in line because he knows that much of base aren't as concerned about values and civility, but they mostly care about winning, staying in power, and draining the swamp.  Even establishment Republicans like Graham are afraid of him.  By the way, I have called out several of my Christian friends that vote democratic that they are compromising the doctrine of sin when they believe that only conservatives/Republicans are more capable of lying, deception, abuse of power, and etc.....

Ironically, Trump-supporting Christian evangelicals are the ones who could curb Trump's antics because their voice matters to him.  Do you remember how quickly he was to apologize about his video where he bragged about his sexual antics?    Several of his Trump-supporting evangelicals were beginning to distance themselves from him and  suddenly Trump came across quite contrite.  Even his Twitter rants got better.  But when it blew over, he went right back to his old self.  If Trump-supporting evangelicals don't want to be rightly accused of entering into a faustian bargain in order to gain power and influence as they try to drain the swamp, they have to stop overlooking and justifying Trump's lack of character and call him out when he sins.  They need to stop justifying his unholy "combat-tactics."  

In the meantime, I will not hold my breath that Trump-supporting Christians will actually hold him accountable. But I will continue to pray for Trump and his administration and I will also pray for his supporters as well.     

Pages