Back   828 Ministries
Original Content at

October 3, 2019

Dr. Brown Uses Machiavelli, the Talmud, & the Kitchen Sink to Defend His NAR Dominionism

By Anthony Wade

Dr. Brown tries again to pretend to not be a helpless shill for the President...


(Image by Unknown Owner)   Details   DMCA

A month ago, Dr. Michael Brown wrote the above piece about his favorite idol, President Trump. Yes Brown is a staunch gatekeeper for the NAR but he serves that master in another way as well and that is defending the indefensible president at every turn. I would say he carries the president's water but that would be an insult to water-carriers everywhere. I want to be very clear, although political matters will be discussed, this is not a political devotional. Anyone who follows this ministry knows that our position is that we are not called to shape culture but to save people out of it. We do not believe that any party or candidate deserves one ounce of conferred righteousness. Jesus was totally apolitical, and so should we be, as citizens of heaven and pilgrims through this land. The best argument one can make for casting votes one way or the other is the lesser of two evils argument but never lose sight of the fact that if you defend such, you are still defending evil.

The NAR has many facets and one of the more obvious ones is dominionism. They fully embrace the seven mountains mandate that says we must conquer seven cultural mountains to facilitate the second coming of Christ. While many actually believe this, others prefer a less controversial dominionist stance that agrees we should conquer the mountains but does not believe it will bring about the second coming, per se. Either way, we are left with pseudo-Christian leaders that leave the Gospel behind to preach the righteousness of the Republican Party and the inherent evils of their rival, the Democrats. It leads to a myopia that is saturating the current apostate church and has two stark results. One, it immediately alienates half the church and two, it gets Christians to loathe the very people who need the Gospel. I waited on writing about the above piece because Brown asked a poignant question at the end -- can we vote for Donald Trump and then just live out our Christian calling without feeling the need to defend him at every turn. I thought that was interesting to look at a month later and so let us reason through the entire article together.

"This is a perennial ethical question, one that is becoming increasingly relevant in our national elections. Do the ends justify the means? The simple answer is that it depends on what the ends are and what the means are. In the view of author Ben Howe, when it comes to evangelicals voting for Donald Trump, the answer is no, the ends do not justify the means. The losses outweigh the gains. We may have made gains in the courts and elsewhere, but we have lost our credibility as Christians. In the view of Professor Darrell Bock, it may well be that our vote for the president has done more harm (in terms of the degrading of the nation) than good (in terms of pro-life legislation, pro-Israel moves and more)." -- Dr. Michael Brown

Brown starts off by failing Christian ethics 101. The ends NEVER justify the means. God is quite capable of fulfilling His will over His creation without our compromise. When you start to try and ascribe the eternal to the carnal, you just muddy the waters. What is interesting here is the "tell." What does it say that you feel compelled to start this article off with a mea culpa? I believe deep down, true Christians know they are holding the hand of the devil when they embrace Trump. Again, before the whataboutism games start, that does not tacitly endorse anyone else. Do not think for a second however that the church supporting the most immoral president ever has not damaged the witness for Christ.

"In the view of strong Trump supporters, there's no debate to be had. The man is fighting giants. He's pushing back against so many societal evils (both nationally and internationally), not to mention taking on the left-wing media, doing his best to drain the swamp and making positive decisions today that will help the next two generations. Who cares about some mean-spirited tweets and some ill-advised words? The man has been sent from God." -- Dr. Michael Brown

These are carnal argument that have nothing to do with the cause of Christ. The other side will vehemently tell you there is no such thing as the left-wing media. They will point out to the cronies he has placed in positions they do not understand is the definition of growing the swamp, not draining it. Then the downplaying of the evil tweets of this man is breathtaking. Mean spirited? Is that all you think it is when you incite people to violence? When you have been exposed as lying over 12,000 times in your first three years? His words are not "ill advised" they are evil and we should not be caught defending evil. Then to ascribe that evil to being from God reveals a huge part of this problem. It is not enough just to vote for him or claim the lesser of two evils argument. Many in the apostate church insist on deifying the evil. It has been written that Trump is the second coming of King Cyrus, with an Elijah mantle and a Deborah anointing. Just this week he was compared to Jehu. Everyone praises the fact that he has surrounded himself with known egregious false teachers such as Paula White. He has not been sent by God.

"And so the debate continues, ceaselessly and endlessly, driven by the media and social media. How, then, do we sort this out? Do the ends justify the means? Was it justifiable for evangelicals, who so prize morality and integrity, to elect such an unevangelical leader to take up their cause? There is an interesting anecdote in the Talmud that discusses a related ethical dilemma. A person came to a rabbinic leader named Rabba and presented his problem: "The ruler of my village came to me and said, 'Kill that person, and if you do not then I will kill you.' Can I follow his order so that I will be able to save myself?" Rabba responded: "Allow yourself to be killed, but you may not kill another. Who says that your blood is redder than his? Perhaps his blood is redder than yours." And what, exactly, does this mean? As explained by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, "On a simple level, Rabba's argument is that we cannot tell whose life is more valuable, so we will not allow you to save your life at the expense of another." Based on this logic, the Talmud states that various laws can be broken to save your life, such as the Sabbath or the dietary laws. In other words, if someone puts a gun to the head of an Orthodox Jew and says, "Eat pork, or we will kill you," it's permissible for him to eat pork. But if someone puts that gun to his head and says, "Kill someone else," or, "Engage in sexual immorality" or "Worship an idol or we will kill you," then he must say no, even if it costs him his life. So, when it comes to Jewish law, these three commandments (against idol worship, forbidden sexual acts and murder) "are so severe that a person should give up his life rather than perform the forbidden acts." Many Christians have given their lives for similar principles, such as, "You can kill me, but I will not deny Jesus." In such a case, the ends (here, saving your life) do not justify the means (here, denying the Lord). But what if the ends are noble (saving other lives) but the means are anything but noble (lying, breaking some laws and being nasty)? What then?" -- Dr. Michael Brown

Realizing that the bible will not support this foolishness, Brown turns to the Talmud to try and prop up his politics. Look at the depths Brown will sink to in order to feel right about a decision he knows he is fundamentally wrong about. He turns to a non-biblical story that basically says to save your life it is ok to compromise your faith unless it is dealing with the big three offenses. And then he mangles it completely to present a false choice. That a noble goal is worth compromising by lying, breaking the law, and being nasty. First of all, the nobility is assumed. Secondly, even if the cause is somehow righteous that means it is ok to break the law? I do not think Brown has really thought this one out because he is so desperate to try and make his unbiblical political theology appear pious. If you think that was bad, now he will construct a ridiculous strawman scenario that has no relevance:

'Consider this illustration. You get an emergency call from a friend. You have in your possession the antidote to a deadly snake bite, but it must be applied within one hour or the victim will die. Your friend is frantic on the phone. Ten children, playing in a schoolyard, have been bitten by a venomous snake, but no one in the community has the antidote. Thankfully, you have it, but you live 45 minutes away and there is road construction on the main highway. The only way you can deliver the antidote on time is by violating the relevant traffic laws, getting out of your car and screaming at others to get out of your way, and, to overcome one last hurdle, telling a blatant lie. But you arrive on time, and the children are saved. Would anyone question for a split second that the ends justified the means? Not a chance. You would be viewed as a hero (or heroin) and everyone would recognize that you did what you had to do to save lives. When it comes to voting for Donald Trump, many evangelicals would say, "It's a similar situation. We were--and are--facing existential threats as a nation. Our very liberties are at stake. The lives of innocent babies are at stake. The make-up of the courts for the next 30-40 years is at stake. And on an international level, Christians were--and are--facing potential genocide, especially in the Middle East. Israel could be facing a nuclear Iran. Do you think babies in the womb or persecuted Christians in Syria or Israeli Jews care if Trump can sometimes be a brute? Wake up!"' -- Dr. Michael Brown

OK, imagine this scenario! There are aliens landing soon in Central Park and they are going to eat all the humans they can find but you have to only ray-gun that can kill them! Now can you see why its ok to embrace the epitome of immorality? No? Hmmm. How desperate does Brown have to be to come up with this utterly stupid analogy? Even if we play along, the "existential" threats are merely the carnal opinions of man. It was a 7-2 GOP court that gave us Roe Vs. Wade as settled law and another Republican court affirmed it decades later. Dr. Brown and the church are like Charlie Brown wanting to kick that football of abortion into history but Lucy holds the ball and pulls it back at the last minute because Lucy never intends to eliminate Roe. She only promises you she will. As for Israel, Brown is parroting political talking points devoid of the truth. The actual truth is we had Iran in a deal where we could expect no nuclear development for ten years with inspections and the whole world on our side. Now no one is on our side and Iran is no longer bound to a deal that we walked away from. It is not that Trump can be a brute, as Brown tries to continually downplay the president.

"Others would say, "Those, indeed, are weighty issues, issues of great importance. But what of the fact that we have lost our credibility as Christians by defending Trump at every turn? What of the fact that he has stirred up so much dissension and hatred, turning people away from the Lord? Is it worth it?" These are the questions that everyone must answer, especially those of us who are evangelical followers of Jesus." -- Dr. Michael Brown

This is closer to the real point we should be looking at. Dr, Brown has given you carnal reason after carnal reason to improve in his eyes, our carnal existence in this carnal world. Our responsibility however is not to this world but to the Gospel. So even if Brown's idol accomplishes all of the carnal dreams and goals he has, what was sacrificed to achieve it? what damage has been wrought unto the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Trump has successfully divided the nation and if your "gospel" starts with all democrats cannot consider themselves Christian, then you have tossed them out as well. I have seen such absurdities from pastors! So if I do not endorse the thrice married, twice divorced, genital grabbing curse tweeting liar that is Trump, I have disqualified myself from salvation? Beloved the lost can easily spot that for the hypocrisy it obviously is. Even those in your camp know what you were willing to compromise to defend the president. Why would they believe you as well?

"But to me, there is a simple way forward. If we believe Trump is the best candidate for president after weighing all the pros and cons, we vote accordingly, making clear this is just a vote. Then, by our actions, our words and the overall course of our lives, we show ourselves to be faithful witnesses for Jesus, feeling no need to defend the president at every turn. Can it be done successfully? That's the big question of the hour." -- Dr. Michael Brown

I think this article proves that the answer is a resounding no. at every turn Brown felt compelled to defend Trump and his advocacy for him. He was so desperate that he turned to the Talmud and when that did not assuage the holy spirit conviction he must have been feeling, he made up the silly analogy of snake venom, which is only ironic wen we consider what a snake oil salesman Dr. Brown has become. What he says here however is the way forward. If you pray and believe any candidate is the best and you vote for him or her -- more power to you! But leave it there. Do not go out of your way to defend your carnal vote and consign all other votes to being somehow less "Christian" than yours. Brown asked the big question here and I feel it was asked more of him. Could he really just be satisfied he had voted as he felt led without feeling the need to defend Trump at every turn? Let's see how he did:

Donald Trump The Champion of Religious Freedom.

Why Does Separation of Church and State only go one way?

Would Paul be Politically Active if he were an American Citizen Today?

I Lost An Old Friend Because of my Support for Trump.

The Demonization of the Democratic Party.

These are just five of the articles Dr. Brown has written since the ends justify the means piece linked above. It sure does not sound like he was able to just walk away from defending his idol. Mind you, there were probably ten other political articles during this time as well but not about Trump per se. More about the overall NAR dominionist position Brown now champions. Within this same time period how many did he write about Jesus? The Gospel? The cause of Christ? Zero. That is what it looks like to be a gatekeeper and not a minister of the Gospel.

Please remember, this is not an exercise in defending the other side or any side other than Christ. God is far more concerned about our means then our ends. He handles the ends. We need to get away from the politics of this world and anything else that becomes an idol and obscures the only cause we have been truly called to. The Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Reverend Anthony Wade -- October 3, 2019

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.