Christianity Today: Trump Should Be Removed

No no, you do not get off that easy. Trying to redirect again. First deal with your intentional mishandling of xlsdraw's posts.

 

You are backtracking and avoiding.

Here is what a Godly man said to King David:

2 Samuel 12:1-14 And the Lord sent Nathan to David. He came to him and said to him, “There were two men in a certain city, the one rich and the other poor. The rich man had very many flocks and herds, but the poor man had nothing but one little ewe lamb, which he had bought. And he brought it up, and it grew up with him and with his children. It used to eat of his morsel and drink from his cup and lie in his arms, and it was like a daughter to him. Now there came a traveler to the rich man, and he was unwilling to take one of his own flock or herd to prepare for the guest who had come to him, but he took the poor man’s lamb and prepared it for the man who had come to him.” Then David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man, and he said to Nathan, “As the Lord lives, the man who has done this deserves to die, and he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.” Nathan said to David, “You are the man! Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you out of the hand of Saul. And I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your arms and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah. And if this were too little, I would add to you as much more. Why have you despised the word of the Lord, to do what is evil in his sight? You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and have taken his wife to be your wife and have killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.’ Thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house. And I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. For you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel and before the sun.’” David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die. Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord, the child who is born to you shall die.”

Notice that King David repented and still suffered for his sin.

Now, please share about President Trumps repentance and reconciliation. I welcome it.

 

Nope.

Perhaps to proud to admit you missed the first line of the post which made it specific to rebuking sin and not removal?

Do you think it inappropriate that a confessed believer (Trump claims to believe) to present the sinful bluster?


If you do, as a pastor, leader, ordained of God what is your responsibility?

Is it just to your own “holy huddle” as a noted preacher once called assemblies, or is it to defend the faith and openly remark concerning those who have publicly and published sinfulness?

 

There used to be the most dishonest poster on this board but a while back he was banned. You have now taken up his mantel. I am calling you out. You need to repent of your dishonest posting.

 

And yet xlsdraw has agreed with all of my posts on this matter. So no I am not wrong. The pride is yours.

 

Rev, why are you refusing to address the issue and now you are just accusing me?
You don't have to agree with my position regarding Donald Trump, but it seems you cannot extend the same favor to me.
I see the role of the Christian community in correcting Christian leaders differently than you do. I believe it is appropriate and right for the body of Christ to correct and call Christian leaders to repentance when they are publicly doing wrong.
I will not speak for what you believe. How should Christians who are public leaders be addressed when the whole world sees them sinning?

 

Dishonest?

Didn’t I read about scarecrow use on this thread?

As a preacher, leader, are you not responsible to proclaim repentance to both believer and heathen?

Yet, on this thread, what have you displayed?

 

That the two of you need to repent

 

Whoa, hold up:

YOU need to back and read it:

The Prodigal Who Didn’t Come Home

notice CT didn't call for any popular vote or Senatorial removal. All they did was to say "gee, shucks, Clinton should have shown true remorse", and they didn't go on to slam Clinton supporters. Anything but:

At this writing, we expect Clinton to hang tough, to remain the comeback kid he is known to be. He has played that role well in the past, and we see little evidence that he will try a fresh approach. As we pass through a period of increasingly intense political struggle, we cannot help thinking what a difference true contrition could have made.

 

Rev, your statement is dishonest.
This entire thread is about the CT article calling in Donald Trump to repent and be removed from office. This is what I have consistently addressed. I accept you view President Trump and his actions differently. That's fine. But, CT has voiced what Christians around the world have voiced about President Trump and his behavior. The evidence is overwhelming that President Trump, as a Christian in leadership, needs to repent. He has been told. Now, it is for him to act. God will work what He wills to do with President Trump. I am content to sit back and watch. The world will see what God does and we Christians will see what God does with us.

 

Here is what the editorial said about Bill Clinton:

Is it unjust to say something similar about our present President.

 

A good article that attempts to mediate differences in the Christian community.

Evangelical elites versus evangelical deplorables: An attempt at mediation

CP CURRENT PAGE:VOICES | Thursday, December 26, 2019

Evangelical elites versus evangelical deplorables: An attempt at mediation

Evangelical elites versus evangelical deplorables: An attempt at mediation

By Michael Brown, CP Op-Ed Contributor| Thursday, December 26, 2019

I have no desire to minimize the growing divide that exists between pro-Trump and anti-Trump evangelicals, nor is it my desire here to take sides. Instead, I want to do my best to improve the communication, since, for the most part, we are likes ships passing each other in the night, reacting to each other more than responding to each other.

Worse still, this dispute is being played out before a watching world, and it is making for a juicy, Christmas-season news cycle.

On Christmas Eve, the Drudge Report, which is read by multiplied tens of millions, featured headlines such as: “Christian mag raises issue of ‘unconditional loyalty;’” and, “Editor Quits Amid Evangelical Civil War;” and, “PAPER: God did not elect Trump, people did . . .”. Then, relating more broadly to the Trump era as a whole, there was, “In the age of Trump, it's OK to be (deeply) conflicted.”

It’s one thing to have an in-house dispute behind closed doors. All families do that.

It’s another thing to air our dirty laundry for outsiders to see.

Yet, both sides believe it’s important to make our statements openly and publicly, feeling that if we do not, our integrity is at stake.

Of course, we will always have our differences. And sometimes it’s even necessary to divide and separate. Yet in the current evangelical war over Trump, there seems to be little effort for either side to understand the other.

Like it or not, there are fine, genuine Christians on each side of the debate, yet we seem quicker to condemn each other than to communicate with each other.

The polarization is growing by the minute, especially as things trickle down on the popular level to the world of social media.

Christianity Today has now published two articles, one by editor-in-chief Mark Galli and the other by president Timothy Dalrymple. This has triggered a flood of individual and even corporate replies, with each side feeling deeply insulted or misunderstood by the other.

I, too, have responded to each CT article (see here and here). And I personally oppose the president’s impeachment and removal. So, I’m more against the CT articles than for them.

At the same time, I am appalled at the deepening divide.

President Trump responded to Galli’s article by referring to CT as “far left,” which is certainly an exaggeration. But then Galli, who describes himself as “center-right,” referred to Trump-supporting evangelicals during a CNN interview as “far right.” This is also an exaggeration.

But all this is downright polite when compared to the mudslinging on the ground, where post after post accuses either Trump-proponents or Trump-opponents of being unsaved or unChristian or unspiritual or of the devil. People are lashing out rather than listening, not even attempting to understand each other’s concerns.

Even my attempt here at mediation will be met with derision by many, as if I’m calling for moral compromise or lacking in conviction. (If that’s your reaction, I would dare say it might reveal more about you than about me.)

This conflict feels like a battle between the evangelical elites and the evangelical deplorables, with each side claiming the higher moral and spiritual ground. May I at least attempt to mediate some of the dispute by pointing out blind spots on each side?

When evangelical Trump proponents hear criticism of the president from his evangelical opponents, let alone calls for his removal, their immediate response is, “So you would have preferred Hillary Clinton? Or you would prefer one of the current crop of Democratic candidates? You’d rather have abortion and socialism and LGBT activism?”

But I don’t know a single evangelical opponent of the president who wants any of these things.

Rather, they’re saying, “We can find a better Republican candidate, a better conservative. We can find someone who shares our values without embarrassing us and degrading us as a nation.”

That distinction is rarely heard by the Trump proponents.

But there’s a reason for that, and this is what the opponents normally miss.

The proponents do not believe there is another candidate who can defeat the Democrats or, if elected, would have the backbone that Trump has. In their minds, it’s either Trump or a radical Democrat, and they cannot fathom how any God-fearing Christian would want the latter.

That distinction is rarely heard by the Trump opponents.

When it comes to character issues, the supporters hear the critics saying, “We think Donald Trump is a terrible person who is destroying the nation with his nasty tweets and mean behavior. And to the extent evangelicals support him, we are destroying our witness.”

In response, the supporters say, “How can you be so shortsighted? We are fighting an existential battle for the soul of our nation, standing at the precipice of freedom or bondage, hope or destruction, for the generations to come. And you’re getting upset about a few tweets? Trump is sacrificially helping America on so many fronts, and he’s one of the first presidents we’ve had who keeps his word. In my view, that’s real character. The other things are superficial and not worthy of our attention.”

But what the supporters fail to hear from the critics is that: 1) We evangelicals have been famous for shouting, “Character counts!” Just look at what some of our top leaders said during the Bill Clinton campaigns. Our mantra was, “We will not and cannot cast our vote for an immoral, ungodly candidate!” Yet now, it seems, we have cast our lot with a man with many, glaring moral deficiencies. Do we not see how hypocritical this makes us look in the eyes of the nation?

2) The critics are not so upset that the supporters voted for Trump. Rather, the critics are disturbed by the proponents’ wholesale support of him and their defense of him at any cost. “Criticize Trump,” some proponents are quick to say, “and we’ll question your salvation.”

3) The critics believe that whatever ground we have gained through Trump’s many fine appointees to the courts and other legislative acts, we have lost even more ground through turning hearts against the Gospel and allowing our nation as a whole to degenerate into crassness and rudeness and cruelty.

Conversely, what the critics fail to understand is that the supporters are looking at a bigger picture as well, akin to a general fighting off an invading army that was poised to kill our men, rape our women, and sell our children into slavery. (I’m painting a graphic picture to make a point. I’m not saying the Democrats want to do all this.)

 

He is not a leader in the church though. Again, you are mixing two different things.

 

He is a Christian who is a leader. He is representing Christ to the world. I couldn't care less about whether he is hired by a 503c non-profit we call a church or not. He represents Christ before the world and Christians should not stay silent when a person is not representing Christ in a Godly fashion. Our testimony is more important than our political gain.

 

What error? If your boss is a Christian and acting immorally will you stay silent because your job is more important than correcting a brother or sister in Christ?
Let's up that to President of the United States. Will you remain silent while your commander-in-chief is acting immorally?