Cyrus Trump?

In the wake of Donald Trump’s near-nomination, some Christian voices are now being heard telling us we should accept and/or rejoice over this development because God has always used leaders who don’t acknowledge Him. The prime example being pushed is Cyrus, king of the Persian Empire during the exile of the Jews in the Old Testament.

CyrusCyrus was prophesied by name by the prophet Isaiah. The account of Cyrus’s decree to allow the Jews to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple is found in the book of Ezra.

Trump, we are assured, is the new Cyrus. Even though he doesn’t believe he has to ask God for forgiveness for anything in his life, he will become the strong arm of the Lord as he takes down the false gods of political correctness, routs the denizens of the Washington, DC, swamp, and proclaims liberty once again throughout the land.

I would laugh if I didn’t feel more like crying.

Be careful with analogies. Cyrus was not exactly an elected ruler. The Jews had to deal with whatever whim entered the minds of both Babylonian and Persian kings. It wasn’t as if they said, “Look, there’s a pagan who is at least open to the possibility of allowing us to return to our land; let’s choose him.” Therein lies the difference.

Yes, God may work through evil rulers, accomplishing His purposes without them  even realizing they are carrying out His decree. It’s a whole other matter, though, for a people who have the privilege of choosing their political leaders to make a conscious decision to pick someone whose character and policies are at odds with God’s basic commands and requirements.

When choosing leaders in the church, we are given explicit instructions to focus on character. Just check out Paul’s first letter to Timothy sometime. So when it comes to advocating a political leader, are we to say, “Well, since the government is not a church, the character of the chosen leader doesn’t matter?”

Character always matters.

Suppose, just for a moment, you are responsible for choosing someone in an organization, business, community group, whatever, and you sit down with that person to gain some insight into the type of character he possesses.

Suppose, once more, that in the course of that interview, you discover that the candidate has openly mocked a disabled person by mimicking that person’s disability. Would that commend him to you as the right person for the job?

Again, what if, as you prod further, you find out that this candidate not only goes on Twitter rampages with rude, crude insults toward those he thinks have offended him, but he actually has posted pictures of spouses of those people, making fun of their looks.

Then, to top it off, the interviewee, apparently completely oblivious to his inane rantings, tells you that someone he doesn’t like might have been an accomplice in the assassination of a president?

If you could still want to continue that interview, you might ask about his fidelity to the beliefs and goals of your organization. If the response is “Look, I can be whatever you want me to be,” you might be excused for thinking the candidate isn’t really on board with what you want to accomplish.

Would you really recommend hiring such a person? Yet that’s what we are on the verge of doing in the Republican party right now.

Everyone is now talking about unity, but Trump doesn’t think it’s all that important; he can “win, win, win” without all those people who aren’t bowing down to his lordship:

King Trump

There’s another Biblical figure who didn’t acknowledge God, yet God used him to carry out a purpose. His name was Nebuchadnezzar. His purpose? To destroy Jerusalem and take the people into captivity.

If Trump resembles any ancient king, I see him more as a Nebuchadnezzar than a Cyrus. I just pray that our exile is shorter than the seventy years the Jews received.

Duck Dynasty & Double Standards

Duck Dynasty CastLast Thursday’s post on Phil Robertson and the Duck Dynasty controversy received more “likes” than any post I’ve ever written. It’s because this whole episode has touched a nerve, particularly in the evangelical community. Ever since President Obama declared his support for homosexual marriage and the Supreme Court refused to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act, our society has begun a mad rush toward Sodom. Now along comes Phil Robertson, who gets to the root of the problem: homosexuality is sin. Denizens of progressivism nearly faint, then react with outrage—how dare anyone use that word “sin.” What century does he still live in?

Part of the outrage, at least superficially, was Robertson’s rather colorful language in describing why a man should prefer a woman over another man. Let’s be clear: he used the correct anatomical terminology. He just made homosexuality sound so . . . well . . . disgusting. In doing so, though, he merely mirrored Scriptural descriptions of homosexual acts. Yet those same progressives have no problem with raunchy actions and vile terminology on their side. As Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal noted, “It is a messed-up situation when Miley Cyrus gets a laugh and Phil Robertson gets suspended.”

I also mentioned in my previous post that media people, even at more conservative organizations like Fox News, scarcely know what to do with the controversy. That’s because so few of them agree with Robertson—and the Bible—that homosexuality is truly sinful. They kind of defend him on what they deem to be his First Amendment right of free speech and freedom of religion, but one gets the impression they still believe he’s some kind of loony anachronism for holding to those outdated views.

Yet even that defense isn’t strictly correct in this case. First Amendment protections are shields against government action; the A&E network is a private enterprise. As such, it can hire and fire as it chooses. I agree. It has that right. Those who then disagree with A&E’s choice have just as much of a right to express their disagreement.

I find this kind of funny, in a non-funny kind of way. A&E’s defenders cry out for the right of a business to make its own decisions, yet many of those same defenders of this particular private business are on the front lines of the battle to force Christian charity organizations, evangelical colleges, and Christian-owned businesses to bow to the government’s mandates via Obamacare that violate their religious beliefs. Ask Christian bakers and photographers who are sued for not wanting to participate in homosexual weddings if their right to run their business in accord with their principles is being upheld. The hypocrisy and double standard are appalling.

Gay Wedding Cakes

That’s why I ended my other post with a concern that we may be entering an era of persecution of Christians in a way never experienced before in this country. I repeat what I asked then: what will be the response of the church to this new reality? Will we stand for truth or fall in line with the tenor of the times? I know many will hold firm, but the real question is how many. When you hear someone more concerned about Robertson’s descriptive language than the moral precipice upon which we’re teetering as a nation, that person is already sliding toward accommodation with Gomorrah.

Oh, by the way, since Phil Robertson is supposed to be such an awful, hateful person who cares nothing about others, let me leave you with another of his quotes, and you decide just how hateful he is:

Phil Robertson Abortion Quote