Barney Wiget's Blog, page 7

Some Poor Polling Place Practices

Let’s talk about some approaches to voting that I believe are generally speaking not the best ways to go about this particular civic duty.

The Pessimistic Non-Voter

“It’s no use even voting. We’re just passing through this world. Politics is dirty, I don’t want its cooties on me. Let the world go to hell if it wants to, I know where I’m going. God will bring about his choice anyway.”

It’s true that faith and politics don’t “mix,” but they certainly do intersect. They intersect at points of moral issues, things that effect shalom in the world. I’m referring to justice concerns that clearly carry a moral component. These, if not directly, are indirectly mandated in the biblical narrative.

What we call “the separation of church and state” doesn’t mean the segregation of biblical moral values from public life.

If you think about it, most political issues have moral implications, and since we get our morals from God, we can hardly stay quiet when something he cares about is at stake. We vote for and work toward the kind of society that we believe God wants or we don’t.

“Yeah, but there’s a limit to what government can do. It can’t people’s hearts.” True, but it can limit their behavior when their behavior harms others.  

“We can’t legislate morality.” It’s true that laws can’t make a person moral, but they can require compliance to an agreed upon moral standard for the common good. “Thou shalt not drive away after running into thy neighbor’s bumper,” for example.

“My faith is in God, not in politics.” As it should be. But God does require us to use whatever legitimate tools at our disposal for the good of society. Politics is one of those tools. It’s not THE solution to many things. But it does address things that cannot be solved any other way. While praying, row toward shore.

“Social ills (poverty, care of widows, orphans, and immigrants, environmental stewardship…) are the responsibility of the Church. Government has its own set of obligations.” Yes, but here’s a limit to what the Church and conversely what government can do. The Church can’t stop wars, fix the immigrant crisis, climate change, health insurance issues, or racial injustice. We can and must model kingdom priorities in each of those areas, but we need local, state, and federal government to weigh in and act. Our part is to show it and share it, lobby the lobbyists, and nudge the powers toward a more just and equitable society. But many social issues can only be fixed through the political process. That’s why we have a Constitution and the legislative process.

Martin Luther King said, “The Church is not the master of the state or the servant of the state, but the conscience of it.”

Our government (maybe the best in the world) is run by flawed humans, so the most we can expect from it is the gradual progression of small steps toward a better society. Those of us who claim a friendship with God should be positioned to point the way to that society.

The Exclusive Party Platform Voter

Anyone who identifies totally with one or the other party platform and only votes with that party is, in my opinion, not thinking for themselves. I don’t entirely agree with everyone and everything anywhere. I have opinions that differ from some people in my church, my denomination, my circle of friends, my family, and with either political party. Otherwise you succumb to “group think,” which is paramount to surrendering your mind to what others believe without thinking for yourself.

That kind of voter insists that their party can do no wrong and the other party can do no right, which of course is silly. Don’t vote for a party. Vote for a candidate, the one who best aligns with your conscience, informed by God and his Word.

[For more on this see:]

The Self-centered Voter

If we only vote for candidates based on what they’ll do to benefit us and don’t consider the common good, especially those below us financially and in terms of social agency, we’re acting like the rich young ruler who wouldn’t give everything up to follow Jesus. Jesus told us to love our neighbors as much as we love ourselves. That is not to say that you have to give all your money away, but that the story should inform us about our relationship with our resources and with the poor. Paul commanded us not to steal, but to work so we’ll “have something to share with those in need.” (Ephesians 4:28)

 “Do unto those downstream as you would have those upstream do unto you,” said Wendell Berry.

Solomon wrote, “Speak up [i.e., vote on behalf of] for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.” (Proverbs 31:8-9) He doesn’t say speak up for the rich and powerful, because they can speak up for themselves, pay the best lawyers, or bribe the judge!

Often what is to your own advantage is to the disadvantage of someone else, especially those below you on the socioeconomic ladder. The politician or policy that may help you achieve the American Dream may be to others a nightmare!

“Liberty and justice for all?” Some people’s version of justice is for “just us.” The way they vote shows more concern to get their own liberty than others getting justice.

One way to look at biblical justice is when you’re willing to disadvantage yourself for the advantage of the disadvantaged. It’s going out of your way for those who are out of the way and off the grid, the least, last, lonely, and lost.

You might not be least or last or lost, but you can vote with their good in mind, even when it mitigates some of your own good. That’s the Jesus way. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Why don’t I criticize the other side like I do Donald Trump?

I’ve been asked this question many times. Here’s the gist of an answer.

First, because there’s already a traffic jam of Christian critiques of the other side. For instance, I am against abortion. But I seldom write about my views on it since every other pro-life Christian has already said it a thousand times. (Though I have written about the myopia of being simply “pro-birth” and nothing outside the labor room.) But by contrast, how many Christians realize the political, social, spiritual danger of Donald Trump? And if they do realize it, how many are willing to say something about it? Not that many, so somebody’s gotta.

Second, it’s my conviction that Trump is a much greater threat to the country and to the testimony of the Christian Church than those who have run and are running against him, for reasons I’ve written about repeatedly since 2015. Therefore, I post the things I do to influence anyone willing to listen, to think critically and biblically about these things.

To use an analogy, the house next to mine is on fire AND there’s a cat stuck in a tree across the street. Which do I choose to address? I obviously run to deal with the greater danger. Let someone else rescue the cat! (I know you might say, “The danger of the left is much worse than a cat in a tree!” No doubt. It’s just an analogy to make a point. Don’t dissected the cat.) Similarly…

Third, I seldom if ever have brought any public or even private critique of any of our former presidents or other former elected officials from either party. Of course, I’ve often disagreed with many of their policies and moral choices, but nothing they did rose to the level of peril to the country and the Church that Donald Trump and politicians like him do on a consistent basis. I only jumped into the fray when he descended on his gold escalator and inserted himself into the American psyche.

I’m not saying he’s the cause of all our problems, but that he has mainstreamed narcissism, indecency, persistent lying, and caustic revenge of anyone who crosses him. And what’s worse, many Christians applaud these anti-Christ behaviors and follow in his steps. And even more grievous to me is how unbelieving Americans now view Christ followers as guilty by association. I can’t tell you how many pre-Christians have told me that they assume Christian = Trumpian.

I talked to a newcomer to our church recently who told me he had been pursuing Christ for the last 5 years, but was afraid to go to church all that time lest he have to encounter the sort of bloviating evangelical Trumpian sycophants he’s seen in the news. Of course, we know that not all Christians or churches are like that, but how would they know it since over 80% of professed white evangelicals continue to avidly and adamantly support Donald Trump along with all his glaring personality liabilities and policies inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus? What are unbelievers to think when they see the flags and banners people carry to his rallies that say: “Jesus is my Savior and Trump is my President!”?

Another example from history makes my point as well. Years ago, I went to the hospital to visit a sick friend. As I typically do, I brought a book to read in case I had to wait to see him. It happened to be one by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German pastor-theologian who was hung for his involvement in the anti-Hitler movement during WWII. My friend’s father is Jewish and not a believer in Christ. He and I stood in the hall waiting to see his son when he saw the book in my hand and asked me about it. I told him a piece of the Bonhoeffer story when he said, “Wait. There were Christians that opposed Hitler? All the Nazis were Christians!”

It’s true that the majority of the German Church at the time supported the Third Reich until it was too late to change course. Hitler often used Christian language and courted the Church similarly to Trump’s disingenuous attachment to evangelicals. (Don’t anyone accuse me of equating Trump with Hitler. I’m just making a point that this is what happens when Christians blindly follow a person like him. People on the outside looking in think we’re all a bunch of lemmings, and want nothing to do with us as a result. And if you’re a follower of Jesus, that should concern you.)

Is Kamala Harris a great candidate for president? In my opinion, not particularly. I disagree with her positions on a number of things. If someone better suited than her were running against her from either party, I’d be happy to vote for them. But the only choices available to us today are Harris or Trump. And from where I sit, there’s never been a more unqualified, incompetent, conscienceless, embarrassing candidate than Donald Trump.

So yes, this IS a “lesser of evils” comparison. I make no bones about that. And, in my opinion, Harris is by far (as in from here to Mars far) the lesser evil choice in this election.

I’ve never said I am voting for her or encouraged anyone to do so. Then again, there’s still time for me to change my mind on that. All I’ve ever said is, Donald Trump is a dreadful choice. Please don’t vote for him. Stay home, leave the presidential race blank, or write someone in. (I’m available.) Or, if you want, vote for Harris. But please, please, please don’t vote for Donald Trump!

Daydreaming During the Sermon

“I weathered even the worst sermons, pretty well. They had the great virtue of causing my mind to wander. Some of the best things I have ever thought of I have thought of during bad sermons.” Wendell Berry

PS This is not the case with my pastors. They are all good sermonizers. However, I observed a number of people over the years in full daydream mode while I preached. I consider it my gift to those who needed the thirty minutes a week out of their frenetic schedules to be able to stop and think. If I didn’t say it then: You’re welcome.

“Is a Christian always a better candidate that a non-Christian one?”

So, So-and-So is a Christian and the other guy or gal is not. Soooo… he must be a lock to get my (Christian) vote! Right? Here are a few brief thoughts of mine on the matter, and I’d be stoked to hear some of yours.

1) For political points a lot of politicians (and all sorts of other spiritual posers) claim to be Christian.

And while we generally speaking can’t know for certain how genuine someone’s profession of faith is, Jesus did give us a rule of thumb: “By their fruit you shall know them.” And the best description of said “fruit” might well be in Galatians 5: “Love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.” While nobody has a full crop of all of these, it’s this fruit we should all be in the process of growing!

During medieval times a lot of so-called Christians murdered Muslims in the Crusades, not to mention in our own “land of the free” we had slave-owning abusers in the southern states, most of which went to church every Sunday and said their prayers. So anyone can hold up a Bible and strike a good Christian pose for Facebook or the six o’clock news. Doesn’t make ‘em true believers.

True Christianity requires a repentant and teachable heart. Not everybody has that, even if they say they do. So, use a little discernment about politicians’ profession of faith.

2) What about a person who truly believes in Jesus? Are they automatically qualified for office?

I’m sorry to say that a lot of Christians lack an irreducible minimum of spiritual maturity, let alone moral character required for public office. They may be “saved” as we say but they’re not very “sanctified.” Of course, no one’s perfect, but there are some fundamental minimums of Christian ethics required for public office, like a commitment to truth, compassion, and integrity. These are essential for any person, Christian or not. But for someone who is leading their community or state or country, integrity is key.

They may be a card-carrying member of your preferred party, but fail to possess even the tiniest evidence that they even know where to locate their conscience. To my mind, a person like that should find something else to do for a living besides government work.

Like it or not, governors, members of congress, and presidents hold positions of moral influence among their constituents. Again, it’s not perfection but the direction of their lives that matters.

3) Okay, so does that mean that if someone believes in and are mature in Christ, they are a superior choice over someone who doesn’t follow Christ?

Wellllll, not necessarily and I’ll tell you why.

Not all genuine believers in Christ hold a worldview that is representative of Jesus and his Bible. Their Christian ethic may include personal piety but somehow evades the social implications of the kingdom of God. They don’t “smoke or chew or kiss girls who do” but the line stops there. They don’t apply their faith to anything beyond their own day-to-day life. When it comes to applying the Scripture to justice for the common good: the poor, the oppressed, the planet…it’s like they have blinders on.

From where I sit, there are a lot of American Conservative Evangelicals who promote a white nationalistic brand of Christianity of which I’m not a fan.

I think they’re blind to the link between personal ethics and social justice, which makes them in my view a high-risk, low value candidate. And if, on the other hand, their non-believer opponent has a strong commitment to those values I have no problem giving my vote to them over the Christian candidate.

4) But what about a candidate that has a real-deal relationship with God, has good moral character, and a sound biblical worldview? Are they going to be an automatically better choice for office?

I have to say that while these are all good qualities, they still don’t necessarily qualify a person for public service – and I’ll tell you why.

While I totally agree with Daniel Webster who said, “Whatever makes people good Christians, makes them good citizens,” it doesn’t necessarily make them good statesmen or stateswomen.

There’s a certain amount of expertise about how government works and an irreducible gift for leadership that a person needs in order to be a viable candidate for office, and particularly for high office. Someone might know the Bible well, lead a good Christian life, and pray like the house is on fire, but none of that necessarily equates to being qualified and competent for public office. While a true Jesus-centered biblical worldview is an absolute plus, a candidate has to possess a whole list of other capabilities, not to mention a the necessary temperament to represent the common good in the best possible way.

Martin Luther said he’d rather have a competent Turk than an incompetent Christian in political office. Sorry to say, there are a lot of Christians who are absolutely incompetent to govern and who really should keep their day jobs!

… Well, I hope this helps you in the days to come as we choose the person to lead our country into the next four years. If you’ve read any of my posts for the last decade you know that I heartily endorse almost anyone over Donald Trump. But that’s up to you and your own conscience.

Which Party is the “Christian” one?

Of course, neither party existed in Jesus’ time and neither one purely represents him or his Kingdom. “God doesn’t ride on the backs of donkeys or elephants!”

Each party brings something Christian-ish to the table:

Among other things Republicans tend to have a pro-birth, traditional family, and religious liberty ethic* (See below)Among other things Democrats often lean toward more compassion for the poor and a high priority for racial and environmental justice

And as C.S. Lewis wrote, “The demon inherent in every political party is at all times ready enough to disguise himself as the Holy Ghost.” It’s dangerous to consecrate a candidate or party. No one person or group of people perfectly represents the priorities of the Kingdom of God. 

Though the cause of the Northern states was morally superior to the Southern states agenda at least on the issue of slavery, Abraham Lincoln admitted, “I can’t say that God is on our side… I pray that we will be on His side.”

I’ve heard people that are so wedded to their party, that they’ve never voted or will they ever vote for a candidate outside their party. This makes no sense to me. Those people, in my opinion are letting someone else do their thinking for them. They insist that their party can do no wrong and the other party can do no right, which of course is silly. I don’t vote for a party. I vote for a candidate, the one who best aligns with my hopefully biblically informed Spirit-filled conscience.

If you think yours is the “Christian party,” I beg you to reconsider by thinking back to where you first picked up that notion, and lay it down for good. If you follow Jesus and believe in the Bible, I challenge you to look through the lens of Scripture and ask the Spirit to lead you in your voting. Don’t let your party’s pundits or your favorite news commentators do your thinking for you. Begin today thinking for yourself.

* (See above) It seems clear to me that none of which are actual values of Donald Trump.

On abortion he’s flip-flopped a bunch of times. In 1999 he said he was “very pro-choice.” He only claimed to be “pro-life” while campaigning and courting the evangelical vote. He then said he’d support punishing women who have abortions. Then just last week he suggested he might support allowing abortions up to 24 weeks. And then went quickly back to saying he’d vote against it! (I have a headache.)  

As for “traditional family” values, well what can I say? Thrice married, cheated on his 1st wife with Marla Maples, at least 26 women have accused him of sexual misconduct, bragged he could “grab women by the p—y” because “when you’re a star they let you do it,” during his marriage to Melania he had an affair with an adult porn star, he was found guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records to cover up a $130,000 hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels. “Family values”? Not so much. (I have a stomach ache.)

“Religious liberty” for whom? In 2017 he promised to enact a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” He claimed there were “good people on both sides” when in Charlottesville racists chanted “Jews will not replace us!” Later he said, “If I’m president, Christianity will have power.” I won’t even comment on his claim to be “a very proud Christian.” It’s my opinion that his disingenuous claim to protect religious liberty means promoting white Christian Nationalism, and only as a ploy to gain the support of gullible Christians. (I have heartburn.)

Donald Trump is neither a true conservative nor a traditional Republican. The sooner his supporters realize this, the better.

All that said, vote your conscience and not for your party. Your party is not the “Christian” one.

HOW I DECIDE WHO TO VOTE FOR

I posted this prior to the 2020 election. I credit David French for some of these thoughts.

One: I vote for the person who most broadly shares my values.

(No one agrees with me entirely nor I them, so I say “broadly.” There will always be things I don’t support in my support of a candidate, but he or she will have to hold my values for the most part. And I make every effort to develop those values that are most parallel with Scripture.)

Two: I vote for the person who has a character commensurate with the office.

(No one’s perfect, but the position the candidate is running for determines the “character quotient.” If you’re running for dogcatcher, I don’t care if you’re a really good person as much as a really good catcher of dogs. But if you’re running for the biggest bully pulpit in the world and will be put in a position to make decisions with millions of lives on the line, you have to have a working conscience and a modicum of character.

Lincoln said, “If you want to test a man’s character, give him power.” Problem with that is then it’s too late. It’s closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. Character counts. Morality matters.)

Three: I vote for the person I think is most apt do the greatest good and least damage to the country.

(Sometimes I can’t in good conscience vote for a candidate on his or her merits, but I can be convinced to vote against a candidate who will do the more damage. David speaks of a “throne that brings on misery by its decrees” Psalm 94:20. I’m speaking of damage not only to the economy, but to the national psyche, to the reputation of the Church, to our country’s place in the world, to justice, to the environment…)

Four: I vote for the person who is able and willing to do the most good for the “common good,” and not just for me and my tribe.

(I always lean toward the one most disposed toward the most vulnerable and most apt to alleviate as much of their suffering as possible. If we only vote for candidates based on what they’ll do to benefit us and don’t consider the common good, especially those below us financially and in terms of social agency, we’re acting like the rich young ruler who wouldn’t give everything up to follow Jesus. Jesus told us to love our neighbors as much as we love ourselves.)

Five: I vote outside partisan confines.

(I don’t just go down the ticket and check all the boxes for Republican or Democratic candidates. That would amount to letting other people do my thinking for me. In other words, I am an independent voter, unwedded to a party. No party perfectly represents the priorities of the God’s vision for the best society. C.S. Lewis said, “The demon inherent in every political party is at all times ready enough to disguise himself as the Holy Ghost.” I don’t vote for a party but for a candidate, the one who best aligns with my conscience, which hopefully is informed by God and the Bible.)

Does this sound like voting for the lesser evil? Yes. Everybody has some evil in them. Some more than others. Solzhenitsyn said: “The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either—but right through every human heart—and through all human hearts. And even in the best of all hearts, there remains… an un-uprooted small corner of evil.”

I hope this helps at least a little as you go to vote in November.

Do you have other tips or guidelines you use when voting?

Moral versus Moralistic

There are people with Christian morals and then there are moralistic Christians. What’s the difference and which are you?

People with Christian morals are humble, just, and compassionateMoralistic Christians are proud, corrupt, and indifferentPeople with Christian morals traffic in servanthood, peace, and impartialityMoralistic Christians are self-righteously superior, power abusers, and bigoted

Who was it that gave Jesus the hardest time and turned him over to be killed? Those with morals or the moralistic? It was those who knew the Bible the best (its contents, not its heart) that signed off on his execution. Moralism murdered Jesus and has murdered millions since.

Some of the worst wickedness in the world can found in the heart of the moralistic religious person. In her famous novel, To Kill a Mockingbird, Harper Lee wrote, “Sometimes the Bible in the hand of one man is worse than a whisky bottle in the hand of (another).”

Under the banner of the cross, 4th century Emperor Constantine fomented brutal crusades against Muslims in the Holy Land. 12th century Catholic Inquisitors tortured Protestant “heretics,” Jews, and Muslims. Anabaptists were persecuted by both Protestants and Catholics in the 16th and 17th centuries, because they were irked by their interpretation of Scripture and how they lived the Christ-shaped life. Some of Hitler’s most loyal supporters during the Holocaust were members of the German Christian church. Most of the abusive slave owners in our own southern states were Bible-toting, church-going, hymn-singing folk.

Which is worse, irreligious humanism or inhuman religion? Christian missionary E. Stanley Jones quoting Shakespeare commented, ‘”Lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds’ and religion corrupted is most evil-smelling.”

Is Christ or Christianity (or most other religions for that matter) at fault? Should we downplay morality or avoid it altogether because of these perversions of the true version? Can one be moral without becoming moralistic?

Fundamentals versus Fundamentalism

Another term for moralism is fundamentalism. Someone said, “You know if you’re a fundamentalist if the only two colors in your box of crayons are black and white!” Christian fundamentalists redact most of the nuance from their Bibles and their love for their neighbors. They know a lot about God, but aren’t very well acquainted with him. A.W. Tozer said that “fundamentalism is just orthodoxy without the Holy Ghost!”

The fundamentals of Christianity are to a fundamentalist the sum total of the faith rather than what (Who) those fundamentals point to. “Fundamentalists,” says David French, “are on a search for heretics rather than a quest for converts.”

Fundamentalists tend to be angry people. Kevin Williamson said, “Anger makes you stupid, self-righteous anger makes you stupid and dangerous.” That’s pretty hard to deny after what we all saw on January 6, 2021. Apparently, Islam isn’t the only religion with its violent fundamentalists!

Speaking of January 6, one particularly dangerous yet popular subset of fundamentalism is Christian Nationalism. This is patriotism gone wild mixed with “Christianity lite” (i.e., a superficial, unthinking, lukewarm version of the faith). It’s dangerous because, as N.T. Wright says, it “seeks a kingdom without a cross [and] pursues a victory without mercy. It acclaims God’s love of power rather than the power of God’s love.”

In the mid-20th century C.S. Lewis spoke of what he called a “pernicious” type of patriotism. He reminded his own England that not all versions of patriotism are created equal. “On the lunatic fringe, he said, “it may shade off into that popular racialism (racism) which Christianity and science equally forbid.” That’s the fringe that we must do everything we can to keep it from seeping into our faith. This is the “yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees” that Jesus warned us about (Matthew 16:6).

This doesn’t mean true faith involves no “fundamentals” (essential beliefs and behaviors). It depends, of course, on what fundamentals one holds. Christ in you, living his life through you, are fundamentals that can’t be taken too seriously. Love of God and people can never become anything but fundamental to real Christianity.

The morals or the fundamentals that Jesus taught are not the problem. The fault lies in those of us who insist on making them idols we possess for pride’s sake. It’s when we become obsessed with being right over doing right, with precepts over people, when looking good to people preempts being good and godly people.

Fundamentalism is not the result of taking faith too seriously as some assume. So they lower the temperature to lukewarm. Its cure is just the opposite, to take it with supreme seriousness. Yes, zeal without knowledge or wisdom can be dangerous. But a knowledgeable and wise zeal can rock the world!  The great missionary, C.T. Studd said when asked if he would leave everything and everyone behind to live and probably die in the middle of unreached Africa: “If Jesus Christ be God and died for me, then no sacrifice can be too great for me to make for Him.”

Give everything over to Jesus––your pride, any addiction ou might have to being right, especially your need to be more right than others. Lay down ay self-induced, self-promotional moralism. Don’t allow your morals or your faith’s fundamentals to become trophies on display. Rather, regard them as internal incentives for and evidences of Jesus living his life in and through you for his glory and the good of others.

[Hey, check out “How to Know if You’re a Legalist” Part 1 of 4 is here.]

Barney’s Newest Book

Guess what?

I’ve written another book (my 4th, but who’s counting?). It should be available as an eBook in the next couple months. It’s called Missional, Merciful, Worshipful Christians and Their Churches: A Study of Luke Chapter Ten

OK, I know the title’s long, but really the book isn’t. At least not compared to War and Peace. If you’ll forgive me saying, I think it’s pretty good and could be beneficial to those who read it, not to mention their churches and pastors.

I’m particularly excited about giving all the profits away to YWAM (Youth with a Mission) located in the Tenderloin neighborhood of San Francisco. It’s a ministry with whom I’ve been associated for many years and have a number of friends there. They do great work and need the money more than I do. (See the link in Comments.)

Since this is just a teaser, I’ll leave it at that for now and will circle back to ya’ll next time.

Townhall Trump

A piece of the transcript from last Tuesday night’s Town Hall Meeting in Flint, Michigan. Nothing is doctored. It’s Donald Trump’s word-for-word response to one of the questions he was asked from the audience.

A man named Isaiah: “And my question to you, sir, is what do you see as the major threats to the future of Michigan manufacturing autoworking jobs? And what will you do to eliminate those threats, sir?”

Trump: “OK, so I’ll get into another little bit of a long answer, because when you say major threat to me, we have one really major threat that’s called nuclear weapons. We call it we have other countries that are hostile to us. They don’t have to be hostile to us. I always say if you have a smart president, you’ll never have a problem with China, Russia or any of them. OK, I got along great with Putin. I got along great with President Xi. I got along great with Kim Jong Un of North Korea. Everybody said, oh, you can’t get along with them. He liked me. I got along great with him.

[It’s a good thing he warned Isaiah that his “answer” was going to be long since he was asked about the auto industry and went off on the topic of nuclear weapons. Strap on your seat belt, Isaiah. It’s gonna be a wild ride!]

“And he has a lot of nuclear force. But you essentially have five countries and you’re going to have more whether you like it or not. You’re going to have more. It’s a single biggest threat to the world, not only Michigan, to the world. And you’re not going to care so much about making cars if that stuff starts happening. And we have people that are not good at negotiation. The war should have never happened.

[Just a wild guess, but I assume he’s leapt from what he was supposed to be talking about (cars) to nuclear weapons, and now to the Ukraine war? Or maybe it’s the war in Gaza? Sudan, Syria, Ethiopia? Not sure.]

“President Biden, I want to be nice. He was so nice to me yesterday. But, you know, in one way, I sort of wish the call wasn’t made because I do feel he’s so, so nice.

[Ok, so Biden was nice, but what call was he talking about and why did he wish it wasn’t made? Unclear, at least to me.]

I’m so sorry about what happened and all that. But I have to lay it out. We have very important the same with Kamala today. She could not have been nicer. But the fact is, the fact is we have to have people that are respected by the opponent to by the other side, by other countries that have this.

“Even Pakistan has nuclear war. We have we have countries. India has a lot of nuclear force. We have countries that have tremendous nuclear power. And when I hear these people talking about global warming, that’s the global warming you have to worry about. Not that the ocean is going to rise in 400 years, an eighth of an inch and you have more seafront property. Right. If that happens, I said, is that good or bad? I said, isn’t that a good thing? If I have a little property on the ocean, I have a little bit more property. I have a little bit more ocean.

[Ok, now my head officially hurts. He jumps from Biden and Harris back to nuclear war and then to global warming, which he says is a “good thing”? The ocean is going to rise an 1/8th of an inch in 400 years? I think his info on that might be a tad off. But let’s let that slide for now. Is it just me, but how does the ocean’s rise INCREASE the size of his ocean front property? But then he jumps from “seafront property” to sounding like he actually believes he has “property on the ocean,” i.e., he owns some of it? I guess if anyone can own some sea, or think he does, it would be him!]

“But the fact is that it’s a it’s a tremendous problem. And we are closer to World War three today than we’ve ever been. And the difference is and I say this a lot. This isn’t army tanks going back and forth and shooting at each other. This is obliteration, the power of these weapons. And I’m the one that revived it. And I hated to do it. But, you know, we had stuff that was 48 years old. They didn’t even know if it worked. We have incredible stuff. So does Russia. China has much less, but they’re going to catch up over four or five years. It’s the single biggest threat by far to civilization. And nobody talks about it.”

[Does he mean that nobody talks about the threat of nuclear war? ‘Cuz I think I might have heard a few people talking about it recently.

And they say Biden has no idea what he’s saying and Harris has no policies! I know he claims it’s brilliance and not rambling, but if you can help me follow his word salad and draw semi-logical lines between topics, I’d appreciate it.

To be fair, Trump did mention cars once: “…you’re not going to care so much about making cars if that stuff starts happening.” I wonder how Isaiah felt about the “answer” he got.

So, what do you think?]

King Saul and Donald Trump: A Comparison

[You’re so very welcome to share your thoughts, but please read the post before rushing a response to the title.]

Give us a king! We don’t care what it costs.

About a thousand years before Jesus, the Israelites adamantly pled for a king so they could “be like other nations and have someone to fight their battles” (1 Samuel 8:19-20). Samuel warned them the only king they needed was God, but at their insistence, they got what they wanted. (Not always a good thing. And Saul definitely turned out to be not a good thing.)

Those from Saul’s old neighborhood were shocked that he would even be considered king material. When they heard he prophesied alongside others, they were incredulous: “Is Saul also among the prophets?” Not the man they had grown up with. They knew he was not suited to lead anyone anywhere anytime. Yes, it’s true we’re told that God had “changed his heart,” but the change didn’t seem to take root or last beyond inauguration day!

They wanted him to fight their battles, yet were some who knew better, “How can this fellow save us?” These were well aware of his character (rather, lack thereof) and knew he wasn’t the man for the job, any job really, except looking good on a poster.  

His own son, Jonathan, knew his father was incapable of leading the country anywhere good and said, “My father has made trouble for the whole country.” After which, Saul determined to kill his own son! Fortunately, he was talked out of it.

With that backstory, let’s draw some parallels between Saul and Donald Trump.

Character doesn’t count

Billy Graham said, “When wealth is lost, nothing is lost; when health is lost, something is lost; when character is lost, all is lost.”

Like Trump, Saul despised his rivals. He became livid when they sang about David’s exploits as being more impressive than his own (tens of thousands vs thousands). Both the Sauls and the Trumps of the world live for accolades and crowd size! If the truth about the size of Trump’s crowd doesn’t actually reflect the magnitude of his gargantuan ego, he just lies about it enough times until his sycophants believe it.

Howard Thurman wrote: “A man’s horizon may become so completely dominated by the intense character of his hatred that there remains no creative residue in his mind and spirit to give to great ideas to great concepts. He becomes lopsided.”

Eventually, God said, “I regret that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions.”

Hold on to power whatever it takes

In his scathing rebuke, Samuel said to Saul: “Rebellion is like the sin of divination, and arrogance like the evil of idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has rejected you as king.” At which time Saul, attempting to hold on to his reign, grabbed the hem of the prophet’s robe and said, “please honor me before the elders of my people and before Israel.”

Remind you of someone lusting for the devotion of his fans and trying to hold onto power, in spite of all the evidence that he lost an election?

Once when facing a massive army of Philistines, Saul watched as his troops began to abandon him and hide in caves, in pits, and cisterns by the hundreds. (I’m still waiting for Trump’s devotees to leap from the train that’s headed to disaster.)

Samuel had told him to wait for him, but when he was a little late arriving, Saul went ahead and offered the obligatory sacrifice under the guise of seeking God’s direction. Samuel showed up and rebuked him, removing his family’s future reign over Israel.

Seems a little severe, doesn’t it, especially when you compare his sin with David’s? David’s sin (murder and wife stealing) was much worse, and he didn’t lose the throne over it. But David was a man “after God’s heart,” while Saul was only after Israel’s heart. He was all about image, prestige, and the things that impress people. David repented when confronted, Saul made excuses.

Again, does this bring anyone in particular to mind?

I told you he’s religious!

Speaking of David, he sought God to please him. Saul just used God to help him achieve his own goals. To David, God was the goal. Saul’s God was simply a good luck charm.

Russell Moore said: “I have watched as some evangelicals who gave stern speeches about ‘character’ in office during the Clinton administration, now minimize the spewing of profanities in campaign speeches, race-baiting and courting white supremacists, boasting of adulterous affairs, debauching public morality and justice through the casino and pornography industries… In some sectors of evangelical America, it seems the only disqualifying character flaw is the failure to hate the right people with the right amount of anger.”

Why did Saul feel compelled to make the offering before going into battle in the first place? His “spiritual” act was just that, an act. He watched his army abandoning him in droves and wanted to recover their allegiance. They were leaving him because they saw he was a phony. His offering was him just using God as a prop, to give the impression that he was on God’s side and that God was on his.  

Reminds me of how Donald Trump courts evangelicals for their vote. He holds up a Bible in front of a church, pretending to be a man of faith when he’s just trying to hold on to power. He’s a narcissist, using religion to get religious people to say he’s religious, even though in their hearts they know otherwise. His devotion to the book or the God of the book is not even a matter of debate.

Jesus said the Pharisees “appear(ed) to people as righteous but on the inside (were) full of hypocrisy and wickedness.” But Donald Trump, photo op with a Bible in hand notwithstanding, doesn’t appear to any honest person to be righteous on the outside or on the inside.

He’s a tough guy

Like those who wanted Saul “to fight their battles,” many of Trump’s minions say that one of their top excuses for backing him is they want someone to protect them from all that threatens them.

Yes, during his tenure Saul won many battles and saved the Israelites from their enemies on a number of occasions. But at what cost to the nation? Similarly, the price our country and the Church has paid spiritually, socially, and politically for a Trump presidency is the worst deal we’ve ever made!

Trump, like Saul is an empty suit. There’s nothing on the inside. It’s all for show. Ironically, when Saul loaned David his suit of armor, it didn’t fit. Nothing that sociopathic Saul had would fit the honorable future King David. When Samuel finally gave Saul the boot, he said, “The Lord has sought out a man after his own heart,” which was something Saul couldn’t imagine, let alone embody. The only thing his heart was after was himself. If you’re not convinced of the comparison I’m suggesting, listen to any speech of Trump’s in the last ten years and count the number of times he claims to be the best, the smartest, the toughest…

Lastly, before you point it out––I’m aware there is no “David” on the ballot this year. Actually, there never has been. But there is a Saul. And I for one sincerely hope you’ll see through his hypocrisy and incompetence, and admit to yourself the danger of putting him back in the world’s most powerful and important office.