Dr. Brown is now defending the unbiblical notion that God saved Trump while not caring about Corey Compertore...

::::::::

Hear now my argument and listen to the pleadings of my lips. Will you speak falsely for God and speak deceitfully for him? Will you show partiality toward him? Will you plead the case for God? Will it be well with you when he searches you out? Or can you deceive him, as one deceives a man? - Job 13:7-9 (ESV)

Dr. Michael Brown continues to play a shell game when it come to the NAR dominionism he espouses and protects. On the surface, Brown tries to sound reasonable and say the right things. He does this so he can then point to it when people correctly criticize him for speaking out of the other side of his mouth. For instance, when people criticize him for defending Joseph Prince as a good brother in the Lord he says that he wrote a book on hyper-grace, which he did. The book however is rendered useless if he then defends the people teaching the error. The same is true when it comes to politics. He has written books about how Donald Trump is not his savior but then he writes as if he is. Dr. Brown proudly decided last year to forego his role as bible answer man, a service desperately needed in the body of Christ, so he could focus full time on the NAR culture wars. Today he posted on Facebook a defense of the theory that God somehow thwarted the assassination attempt on Trumps life, despite how ludicrous that is. Let us reason once more beloved through this tortured defense.

"A few days ago, a friend emailed me, asking how to respond to a statement that a family member shared with her. The statement said, "If you believe God intervened to save former President Trump, but didn't intervene to save the kids in Uvalde or Parkland or Santa Fe or Sandy Hook, then you are worshiping partisan politics, not Jesus." It took me about two seconds to respond, as the meme was basically meaningless, without scriptural or even logical significance. What was the big deal?" - Dr. Michael Brown

We must begin by understanding that Dr. Michael Brown is a full-throated NAR dominionist. He hides behind occasionally pretending he is not but in the end, he has always been an ardent supporter of President Trump, besides the scope of unchristian behavior and carnal attributes of him. He excuses them in return for carnal political dreams. This is what is known as a Faustian bargain. The medieval legend of Faust, is someone who traded his soul to the devil in return for knowledge and power. Today a Faustian bargain is when we sacrifice something of moral value for material benefit. When it comes to NAR dominionism, it is the gospel that is sacrificed for perceived religious benefits that are just thinly disguised political goals. It is all about power and greed and control. Those involved, including Dr. Brown may have convinced themselves that they are merely representing some bastardized version of "Christian values" but they conveniently discard those Christian values that do not align with the political goals of their Republican Party masters.

If we examine the quote Brown references there is obvious scriptural meaning and logical significance. Only a shill such as Brown would dismiss it out of hand because it cuts against what he stands for. Let us also not confuse what the point the quote is making. The point being made is about God intervening, not God allowing. What the cult of the NAR sells is the notion that God intervened to spare Donald Trump's life. The problem with that is it turns God's permissive will, or what He allows, into His decretive will, or what He decrees. It may seem subtle but it very insidious. The quote is correct that if we conclude God intervened here, than He chose not to when it came to Uvalde, Parkland and Sandy Hook. It turns God into this whimsical, capricious character that is infinitely more concerned about a morally bankrupt politician than He is about saving countless children gunned down by the very weapons that politician advocates for. It is an absurdity on its face. What's the big deal? Maybe Doc should spend some time with the parents who have lost their children and say that to their faces. Strange considering the Faustian bargain Brown and the NAR makes is largely around the issue of life and abortion access. So, the unborn life is paramount but the lives of little kids in school? Eh, not so much. It is this biblically vacuous position and its accompanying immorality that pushes the lost far away from the fake Jesus they sell.

"Subsequently, I learned that the statement came from a viral post on X by Pastor Zach Lambert, at present, boasting 3.7 million views and 196 thousand likes. It was also echoed in an article by Shane Claiborne, a pacifist Christian leader. The post that Lambert has pinned on his X account states, "In the last 25 years, 40 million Americans have walked away from church. Most of these folks are not rejecting Jesus. They are rejecting the use of Jesus' name for the purpose of domination and oppression. They aren't even rejecting the Bible. They are rejecting hateful, harmful, exclusionary ways of reading it. "I'm convinced that rejection like this doesn't make them unchristian"it makes them Christlike. Jesus himself famously chastised religious leaders who weaponized Scripture and elevated it above love of neighbor. He repeatedly denounced those who used the Bible to divide rather than unite, incite violence rather than make peace, and exclude rather than include. "I'm tired of pastors and Christian leaders wielding the Bible like a weapon. We need to do better. . . ." I certainly share Zach's passion to introduce people to the real Jesus as opposed to the Jesus of my political party or ideology or nationality or ethnicity or personal biases. And I want to use the Bible to bring God's true message to the Church and the world, without compromise or equivocation. So be it! But could it be that Zach, along with Shane, whose article we'll address shortly, are guilty of reading the Bible through their particular theological and ideological lens, thereby weaponizing scripture for their own cause? Could it be that this sword cuts both ways?" - Dr. Michael Brown

In typical Brown fashion he pays lip service to the point his opposition makes and then immediately tries to turn the tables on them. Examining the quote from Lambert we see that he correctly states statistical evidence that people are leaving the apostate church Dr. Brown defends in droves. I agree with Lambert that these people are not rejecting God or Jesus per se. They are rejecting rather the purpose driven church model that sacrifices the gospel for relevance and political expediency. They see that the mishmash of politics and false doctrine do not line up with the politicians they insist on supporting. Rejecting false teachers who use scripture to justify votes by butchering the bible is entirely Christlike. Lambert is correct that the people supported by Brown and the NAR are all about dividing us against each other. Just this week Brown wrote that he saw no way how someone who was Christian could vote Democratic. Mario Murillo and Greg Locke have taken this further to claim they are unredeemable, thus questioning the actual salvation of half the church. Brown always says that he wants to separate out faith from politics but it is a not so concealed ruse. Also, this week he wrote an article asking if Trump could be the great unifier this country needed and then all we hear is crickets when his convention speech lapsed into the same old tired attack politics. After the debate he declared Biden as being disqualified but made no mention of the thirty lies disqualifying his choice. Mind you, Brown pretends to be a Christian commentator, not a political one. So, in the ultimate form of projection, he tries to drag Lambert into his dirty arena.

"For those who don't me, as a two-time Trump voter I wrote books with titles like Donald Trump Is Not My Savior and Evangelicals at the Crossroads: Will We Pass the Trump Test? (For me, the "Trump test" was: 1) Can we unite around Jesus even if we don't agree politically? 2) Can we vote for Trump if he is our preferred candidate without taking on his negative characteristics? In my view, we failed on both counts quite dramatically.) I also wrote The Political Seduction of the Church: How Millions of American Christians Have Confused Politics with the Gospel, with a constant warning not to wrap the gospel in the American flag. All that to say I'm sensitive to the concerns raised by Zach and Shane." - Dr. Michael Brown

Please. This perfectly highlights the absolute hypocrisy Brown engages in. I am glad that he admits to voting for Trump twice but he failed to mention his continuous onslaught of encouraging people to vote for him as well. If you are just a regular churchgoing Christian trying to love the Lord and you follow Dr. Brown because you trust him based on a decades long record within the church, how does it affect you to hear him tell you this week that you basically have to vote for the three-time married and unfaithful grabber of women's genitalia? This is by definition dividing people. Writing books against the very thing you do, is not righteous at all. It is wildly inconsistent.

"At the same time, I find this viral meme both vacuous and even potentially divisive. First, had President Biden narrowly and seemingly miraculously escaped an assassination attempt, most of us would have said that God spared Biden's life. In other words, our view that God spared Trump's life was not based on partisan politics but on a sense of divine intervention. It was theological, not political." - Dr. Michael Brown

Absolute nonsense. First of all, if this had happened to the Biden, I think most would indeed say the same nice things about it not being successful as we saw with the attempt on Trump. The difference here is in the phrasing. For Biden, Brown is suggesting that he would say God spared Biden's life. The NAR would write a plethora of articles suggesting that God spared it to try and reach him and have him allegedly repent. They would frame it as God being merciful on a wretch. That is not what we are hearing from Brown and the NAR regarding Trump. In that case, God protected Trump and the clear inference being made is that He did so because somehow, He is pro-Trump, or Trump is even saved now. False prophets have released bovine excrement dreams that had Trump giving his life to Christ when is fell to the floor in Pennsylvania. Once again, please. The notion that the people who are declaring this was a miracle are not doing so theologically at all. It is entirely carnal and political. I can't tell if Brown is actively deceiving here or simply deceived himself but it matters not. Anyone who can see and hear knows full well how the political forces and the compromised church are using this assassination attempt and it has nothing to do with God. If it were Biden, it would be framed as mercy but with Trump it is framed as providence. The reason for that difference is entirely political.

"Second, many of us hold to a view of divine sovereignty that would suggest His activity in any seemingly extraordinary, life-saving event. (Or, conversely, we would see this in any seemingly extraordinary life-taking event, such as a terrorist being struck by lightning just before he was about to detonate a bomb.)" - Dr. Michael Brown

Ok, let's test this. Just last night First Baptist Dallas church burned to the ground. This is pastored by the ridiculous NAR dominionist Robert Jeffress. Thankfully it appears no one was hurt. So, I guess according to this logic from Brown, this was an act of divine sovereignty by God and we can further speculate that it must have been because of his wildly unbiblical positions of advocating for Trump and the GOP, right? I mean God did not spare this church whatsoever. This is the same tortured logic that people like Jeffress made when Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans. The NAR idiots blamed it on God declaring judgment against the sinful city. Except that same hurricane devastated very Christian areas in Mississippi as well. Does God miss like that? This is the convenience of bad theology. If something happens, we agree with then we assign it automatically to the sovereignty of God because it confirms our carnal bias. If we disagree with the event, we dismiss it out of hand as not having come from God at all. We instead assign it to the activity of the devil somehow to again, confirm our bias. We cannot just be happy that the bullet missed. We have to assign supernatural significance to it as if God Himself moved Trump's head at the last second. Except the same hail of bullets took the life of Corey Compertore, who bravery saved his family and from all reports was a God-fearing churchgoer. So, according to this fake theology, God spared Trump because He supports him politically, but Corey's life, eh, not so much. It is a morally and theologically bankrupt position to hold.

"Third, we agonize over the fact that God does not intervene more, recognizing that for every life that was saved, many others were not. Why was one person miraculously healed in answer to prayer while others died? Why did one family member emerge unscathed from an accident while the rest of the family died? Ultimately, we don't have answers for these questions, other than holding to Deuteronomy 29:29: "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law." But we do know that, since God has given us free will, with the rarest of exceptions, He does not stop us from doing wrong things, as horrific as those consequences may be. That He intervenes at all, showing mercy or acting for His own purposes, is His prerogative alone. Why didn't He spare the life of the courageous firefighter who shielded his wife and kids, taking a bullet that was meant for Trump? Only God knows." - Dr. Michael Brown

While I agree, God always has the prerogative, it is not intellectually or biblically accurate to simply ascribe events you like to Him and then say, oh well, we just can't know when it comes to things like Corey Compertore. God does know. The reality is that the America church has created this fake God that is infinitely involved in every bit of minutia in our lives. They do so because that is a much more marketable God. Once again, we cannot simply be thankful that the shooter missed. Instead, the NAR has political goals and core to achieving the power and riches they want is bringing out the Evangelical vote. It remains so disingenuous to ascribe God's direct involvement for Trump not being assassinated and in the same breath say when it comes to Mr. Compertore that it is just God's prerogative.

"But that doesn't mean He didn't save Trump's life, and perhaps, because of this intervention, Trump will be a changed man for the good of America, resulting in blessing for millions of people. How can we say this will not happen? According to Shane (who was once on my radio show for some friendly interaction), because God is love, "we can be sure that God did not save Donald Trump but not the person killed by mistake. God did not save Trump, for that matter, but not the kids at Sandy Hook or Uvalde. God did not save some of the Israeli hostages but not the others. God does not want thousands of kids in Gaza to die." While I certainly appreciate these sentiments, they have no scriptural or even logical basis. In fact, using this same logic, you could argue that God is not love because He did not save all these others." - Dr. Michael Brown

Talk about no scriptural basis or logical basis. This nonsense is often put forth by false teachers. That because God could technically something, the inference they want to make is somehow supported. This is the tired old "God used a donkey" logic. Just because God used a donkey, once in 6000 years, that does not mean you get to make an ass of yourself today. Of course, God COULD have intervened with the assassination attempt but that does not mean He did. Of course, this event COULD have made Trump think about his mortality and become a changed man. The assumption that this would be a blessing for millions of people and America however is pure NAR fiction. You notice Brown does not even discuss how Trumps' dark convention speech dispels this fiction. What Shane is intimating is infinitely closer to being biblical than the "God can, therefore He must have" position. Shane is essentially making a cogent and biblical argument that we do not serve a God that is capricious in His dispensing of judgment. That it is biblically moronic to say that God destroyed New Orleans because of their liberal sin while also destroying Biloxi, Mississippi known for being conservative. Let me try it this way. I agree we can say that we ultimately cannot know why God did not intervene with Mr. Compertore but we should apply that same logic when it comes to Trump. We do not know. The problem is that Brown and his NAR masters are pretending we do. Or wildly speculating. Or saying, hey He could have. It is about being consistent and not using tragic events to further your politics in the name of God.

"For Shane, the big lesson is that, "There is no place for political violence in America from any quarter, but especially for any of us who choose to follow Jesus." He gets my hearty amen to that statement, for sure. He adds, "If our theology does not make us more loving, then we should question our theology." Once again, I absolutely concur. But that actually makes me question whether these kinds of memes and articles express God's love for Christian conservatives or Trump voters or Republicans or whoever the people may be who believe that God spared Trump's life. Are Zach and Shane being equally divisive in the name of love?" - Dr. Michael Brown

Except the theology of Dr. Brown does not make us more loving unless we vote as he outlines. Remember, he cannot understand how you can vote for someone other than Trump. To posit that speaking the truth about the bastardization of the assassination attempt is divisive is again projection. If Christian conservatives, Trump voters, or Republicans are twisting God into this caricature than it must be rebuked according to the bible. Read the key verses where we find Job making some very pointed arguments against his detractors who were trying to use God. God does not need us to speak deceitfully for Him and if you claim you do not know about Corey than by default you do not know about Trump. God does not need our carnal partiality that is designed to prop up our politics. You might be able to deceive man but you will not deceive God. Look at the people who say Lord Lord on the last day. These are churched people who spent their churchianity lying to themselves and deceiving man but in the end, Jesus says I never knew you.

"Shane also states, "Any theology that puts God, rather than sinful human beings, behind a gun or a bomb is bad theology." Once again, however, he overstates his case in his understandable zeal to come against a pseudo-Christian, hyper-nationalistic, violence-exalting mentality. And he fails to realize that God is with the policeman who pulls the trigger to stop a crazed murderer from slaughtering a child in a playground. Or that God is with the sniper who takes out a radical Islamic terrorist who is about to execute peaceful Christians. As the Word says, "For the one in authority is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer" (Romans 13:4)." - Dr. Michael Brown

That is just a horrific misuse of that scripture. Because it only applies to the causes Brown thinks are righteous. Just a few verses earlier, we see Paul saying that we should not resist authorities because all authority is from God. That would mean that currently, Joe Biden is God's chosen governing authority and we should not be resisting him. During COVID we saw multitudes of NAR churches openly defy state orders to not gather and they did so pretending the cause was biblical. Brown would agree with those leaders as his boss Steven Strang did. The police officer who killed George Floyd was not accompanied by God. I can list never ending examples of abuses and wrongful deaths from people who were "law." The sniper who takes out someone is not by default righteous. He may be according to our laws but war has two sides. Not everything is as clear as World War II for example. There were snipers in Iraq in 1992 and during the second Iraq War. I am sure the people of Iraq might disagree with Dr. Brown's reflexive righteousness argument. He is again making a political distinction and applying it to God by misusing scripture. Governing authorities do not just apply to our country, where we think everything is exceptional. God created all of mankind, not just America. The points Shane makes are correct. The hyper-nationalistic, violence exalting, pseudo-Christians are the NAR that Brown is a gatekeeper of.

"But let me not end here. Instead, I extend a personal invitation to Shane and Zach to each join me for a full-length interview on The Line of Fire. Let's have a civil, honoring dialogue on our perspectives and, hopefully, bring more heat than light. What do you say?" - Dr. Michael Brown

I hope they say no. Dr. Brown has proven to not be a good-faith actor in this debate and this article only proves that. God did not stop the assassination attempt and then allow Mr. Compertore to die. That God is not supported by scripture. What is undeniably true is that in His permissive will, He allowed both. That is not His decretive will however. Donald Trump did not emerge born again, as is being inferred throughout Charisma News, who Brown writes for. I understand that Dr. Brown does not understand the Faustian bargain he has entered into. He has traded in being the bible answer man and voice of moral clarity for supporting a man who had sex with a porn star while cheating on his third wife who was home with their new born son. He answers only to his political masters and everyone who disagrees is dismissed out of hand as being hyper-critics or some other blather. He wants to debate Shane and Zach to try the same thing he tried with Justin Peters, Jim Osman, Holly Pivec, and Dr. Doug Geivett before. It would be wiser to state your position as Brown has and let people discern because all he will do is muddy the waters in dissent. Expressing love for Republicans, Trump voters and conservatives does not start by lying to them that God supernaturally intervened to edge his head slightly in one direction while not caring at all that the very same bullet might take the life of one of His followers who was protecting his family. While it may be plausible that God did sovereignly intervene, it does not mean He did. Brown and the NAR do not present the possibility of sovereignty, they infer the absolute sense that it occurred and then return to the "we can't know" side of the argument to not have to deal with messiness of Corey Compertore. The "oh well, so sad about Corey" while declaring God miraculously saved Trump presents an unbiblical God that impulsively saves your political savior while killing a faithful follower of God. Brown has sold his reputation for thirty pieces of political silver and this convenient theology is merely the mechanism to try and convince people he is right.

He is not.

Reverend Anthony Wade - July 20, 2024

Authors Bio:
Credentialed Minister of the Gospel for the Assemblies of God. Owner and founder of 828 ministries. Vice President for Goodwill Industries. Always remember that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.