Trump Has Been Held Accountable

If you need some form of silver lining in your week, consider this: writer E. Jean Carroll, who in 2023 was found by a jury to have been sexually abused and defamed by President Donald Trump, has received the 5.6 million dollar judgment she was awarded.

The money had been held in escrow the past three years, but Carroll's lawyer confirms payment was received this week. The judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court.

This is a civil judgment, and not the jail sentence Trump deserves. But the important thing to take away from this latest development - other than the President of the United States is a rapist and his party doesn't care - is that a woman Trump abused took him to court, and won. After twice surviving impeachment and receiving an unconditional release after his felony convictions, he has finally been, in some small but notable way, held accountable.

Israel & End-Time Prophecy: A Word of Caution

There's a tendency among Christians of a certain demographic to fall into a state of panic or joyous delirium (or a mixture of the two) every time a major conflict erupts in the Middle East - which, by the way, is all the time - especially one concerning Israel - which, by the way, is all the time. Many believers have a knee-jerk reaction to any developments in this area of the world, citing them as a sign of the beginning of the end-times and the Second Coming of Jesus. 

A word of caution: if you're a Christian, no matter what you believe as it relates to eschatology, or the role Israel as a nation will play in the end times, one thing you must remember: God will never require you to approve of wrongdoing. This includes unprovoked attacks on other countries, the bombing or degrading of civilians and children, or the misuse and exploitation of the faith by political leaders of any country, be they Israeli or American, to justify - and seemingly be drunk on - going to war. 

There are many different views of the end-times within Christianity. Those that involve some role played by, or in, the Biblical holy land must keep in mind that prophecy does not work thusly: Christians have to do something, to take some action - be it politically, militarily or otherwise - to precipitate Jesus' return, or else He won't come back. This is not prophecy, but a strange attempt to force the return of Christ according to our own schedule.

In the meantime, until the heavens roll away like a scroll and Jesus does indeed return, another exhortation to my fellow believers - opposing Benjamin Netanyahu doesn't make you a bad Christian. The meaning of Genesis 12:3 is not "implicitly support the modern-day nation state of Israel." In the days recorded in Scripture, God's prophets fervently rebuked Israel's leaders for their wrongs. Support of a specific political power is not obedience to God: it's an idol. 

You're not disobeying Him by not sharing an I Stand With Israel post.

Until the end does come, focus on showing kindness, mercy, love, and sacrifice to those around you, to show them the love of our Savior.

Thoughts, re: ICE / The Shootings of Alex Pretti & Renee Good

1. If you can be shot dead for lawfully carrying a holstered gun, you do not have "the right to bear arms."

2. Kyle Rittenhouse, a civilian, crossed state lines with a semi-automatic rifle and shot three people during a bout of civil unrest, and was hailed as a hero by the far-right. He even got to meet Donald Trump.

3. If an agency is recruiting on Facebook, using a still of Mel Gibson in "The Patriot" (no, really), and those agents aren't required to have even half the training of actual police, it shouldn't be a surprise when they fire panicky bullets at civilians. (It shouldn't be a surprise, but it should always be an outrage.) "We've lowered our standards." -John Sandweg, former director of ICE 

4. I'm ashamed of myself for not speaking out this vehemently until white people were being killed. I should have wrote or said more when the immigration crackdown eliminated due process, something which in itself is a galling injustice. Rest in peace, Keith Porter, Parady La, Heber Sanchaz Dominguez, Victor Manuel Diaz, Luis Beltran Yanez-Cruz, Luis Gustavo Nunez Caceres, and Geraldo Lunas Campos. Come home - to America - soon, Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

5. The fact that there are, at the time of writing, more ICE agents in Minnesota than states that have thousands more undocumented immigrants tells me this was never about protecting people or upholding laws, but about Trump's feud with Governor Tim Walz. Attorney General Pam Bondi's extortionate letter sent to Walz, suggesting federal presence could be decreased if Walz turns over the state's voter database and other information, solidifies this. 

6. Far-right Christian interpretation of Romans 13:1 - "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God." - is, "if my guy/party makes a law, you're wrong for opposing it." If the meaning of this verse was "don't question authority even if it imposes unjust laws," it would be a sin for Christians to protest abortion in states where it's legal, and Christians would have no right to lament the imprisonment of our brothers and sisters caught smuggling Bibles into countries where there are laws against it. 

photo by Nicole Neri

Re: The Murder of Charlie Kirk

I first became aware of Charlie Kirk last year when a pro-life organization in my city announced he would be speaking at a private dinner. Having no idea who he was, I looked him up only to find a trove of controversial statements he's made, including the claim that the Civil Rights Act was "a huge mistake." 

It's worth noting the pro-life organization at which he spoke does a wealth of positive things for new and frightened mothers - and fathers, even - in rough places, making them truly pro-life and not simply anti-abortion. This made it all the more disappointing that they would welcome Charlie Kirk, who unrepentantly made such claims as implying Jews are using money to plot a Marxist cultural coup (click here for more context), or that deaths by gun violence are "worth it" for the sake of the 2nd Amendment (click here for more context). These are not pro-life beliefs, and it was a bad look for the organization to be associated with this person.

When I found out about Kirk's murder the day before yesterday, I felt a heavy heart for his family, and for the fact that sociopolitical violence has claimed another life. But that heavy heart soon lightened as I fell prey to making my typical morbid jokes (my dark sense of humor being a coping mechanism for...well, everything) and laughing at memes that made fun of Charlie Kirk's murder. My reasoning was, "I'm still sad for his family, and he was a bigot, so it's kind of okay for me to laugh." Which, of course, is wrong.

Then, God reminded me - not audibly, but you know what I mean - of two other influential racists in American history: Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee. 

God moved me to think of these two men - who were so racist they tried to start their own country based on the principle of slave ownership being a divine right - and their reactions to the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. When the President was shot, widespread outrage gripped the nation, North and South. Jefferson Davis denounced the assassination and felt "it could not be regarded otherwise than as a great misfortune for the South," knowing Lincoln's policy of reconciliation rather than hangings for treason made him the best friend a defeated Confederacy could have at the time.

Robert E. Lee's reaction was more emotional. A cohort who was with the General at the time the news came stated that Lee "covered his face and refused to listen to details of the murder." Lee used a word to describe the assassination that recently became a buzzword in American politics - "deplorable."

God invoked these images to make this point: here were two men so brazenly racist that they saw black people as inferior to whites, mourning - genuinely - for a man of compassion, one who believed in the principle that "all men are created equal." So, if these two could be so deeply grieved for a good man, what does it say about me when I can't show as much empathy as literal slaveowners?

I made excuses for my empty mourning. I was frustrated and disappointed at fellow Christians who were praising Charlie Kirk as a pillar of righteousness, when he espoused such terrible things against Jews, minorities, and victims of gun violence. That, somehow, made it less sinful for me to delight in memes that minimized the taking of a life. Charlie Kirk was, as we all are, made in the image of God. 

I must mourn for a life snuffed out, and that a life was used to promote hideous ideologies. I must mourn that someone was so filled with hopeless rage that they took it upon themselves to kill. I must mourn that Charlie Kirk's family has been deprived of their husband and father. I must mourn that so many of my fellow believers in Christ are lionizing a man who represented the values of Christ no more than the Ku Klux Klan. And I must mourn that our President, aware of Charlie Kirk's beliefs, nonetheless called him "the most eloquent truth-teller" in recent times.

I'll mourn for all of this, with genuine grief, and will eschew the memes and morbid jokes I've made concerning Charlie Kirk's murder. These words of Jesus have floated in my head since the day of Kirk's death: "by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."

-Matthew 12:37

[Edit, 9-13-25: It occurs to me I should add a few words addressing the incredibly lopsided grief of conservatives, both in politics and private citizens, when it comes to victims of gun violence. Donald Trump did not order flags to be flown at half-staff after the murders of Democratic politician Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark in June - but did so for Charlie Kirk, whose qualification for such an honor was saying things Trump likes. Just two weeks before Kirk's death, a shooting at Annunciation Catholic Church in Minneapolis, which killed two children, Fletcher Merkel and Harper Moyski, was met by Republicans with a fraction of the grief and shock for Kirk, the usual "thoughts and prayers" cliche, which has now become little more than a meme. This lack of outrage is absolutely disgusting. And perhaps it's just as disgusting that I didn't go for my blog when these tragedies occurred.]

Photo courtesy WTSP

American Christians: Increase Your Tithing

Fellow American Christians: If you're of the theological understanding that one should tithe 10% of their income, and that tithing includes giving to individuals in need, and not just to one's local church fund, please consider this: the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" (I didn't name it) guts Medicaid and takes SNAP benefits away from thousands of people. It can only be imperative, then, that we increase our tithing to individuals.

I therefore propose that we each increase our tithing from 10% to 15%. 

20% if you voted for Donald Trump/Republican, who designed and passed the bill. 

"If our charities do not at all pinch or hamper us, I should say they are too small." -C.S. Lewis 

"If you don't want your tax dollars to help the poor, then stop saying that you want a country based on Christian values. Because you don't." -John Fugelsang

The Founding Fathers & Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill"

When I first officially joined my church, my pastor had a talk with the new members in which he stressed that he was "fireable." He reminded us he was accountable to the elders of our church, who held the right to remove him from the position of lead pastor if such a thing should become necessary. My pastor's embracing of this is, to me, among the traits of a true leader. 

President Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" includes a provision that would make it impossible to charge a president or vice-president with contempt of court when defying a judge's ruling. This would render court decisions mere suggestions. 

In our debates and musings on "what the Founding Fathers would do," none of us can reconcile those men's vision of government with the intention of Donald Trump to be immune and independent of court rulings. He has declared himself above the law, and his executive power to be free from the checks and balances that made our system of government so unique in its inception. 

And, on a more philosophical note, the provision in this bill - which soon heads to the Senate - finds the president declaring himself accountable to no one, his decisions free from resistance, his views and agendas exempt from the principles of basic American government. This provision is Trump's conscious effort to render himself untouchable, and clothe himself in far more power than he already has.

If we support this kind of autocratic action, we no longer have a right to invoke the ideals of America's Founding Fathers in our sociopolitical sermons. 

For the Sake of My Conscience, re: Donald Trump

Pope Pius XII earned a shadow on his reputation for his hesitance to publicly denounce Adolf Hitler during World War II. He was finally pressured into a public declaration that vaguely denounced bigotry and prejudice, but this was the strongest he ever condemned Hitler from his influential position. My own position in life may not be anywhere near as influential as the pope's, especially popes in times gone by, but we all have more influence over our fellow human beings than we often realize. Our words, or lack thereof, can be one of the biggest means of influence.

If I'd lived in the Jim Crow-era South, I'd have hoped in my old age I could think of those awful times and at least reflect that I spoke out against the many wrongs being praised as rights. In fifty years, when Donald Trump's role in American Christianity is discussed, I want to be able to honestly say I spoke up and denounced the idolatrous position into which many fellow Christians have placed the President. That I took no part in encouraging or propagating his words or actions, so bafflingly praised by other believers. This, then, is a public declaration for the sake of my own conscience when I think of these current times in my later years.

It should baffle me that I have to elaborate that, being a Christian, I have no admiration for a KKK-endorsed rapist. It should go unsaid, but sadly it doesn't: many American Christians (certainly not all, but far too many) have placed President Donald Trump on a pedestal as God's spokesman, and his party as the only way God's will can prevail in our country (as if His will could in some way be restrained). This is an idolatrous and blasphemous outlook, thus making a post like this necessary, to keep my fingerprints from any Christian endorsement of Donald Trump. 

The Bible tells us the best way for a Christian to show Jesus to the world is by our love and our actions. We are called to be ambassadors for Christ. This is not possible by lionizing a man found by a jury to have committed sexual battery, a man who was endorsed by the Ku Klux Klan and did nothing to disavow that endorsement, a man who pardoned criminals who committed violent acts in his name, who re-emboldened white supremacist movements in America, and who pardoned unrepentant violent criminals because they committed their acts of violence in his name. I can't show anyone the love of Christ by placing Him on equal footing with any man who does these things.

As far as sinners go, I'm among the worst - but I'm not being touted as a beacon of godliness, nor basking in such ill-founded praise. I'm not autographing Bibles or giving speeches at Liberty University. I'm not the President, and my sinful inclinations aren't influencing political policy. Furthermore, being a sinner, I must strive to repent and do better. I mustn't deny my sins with the delusion that I have no need for God's grace - as when President Trump said: "Why do I have to repent or ask forgiveness if I'm not making mistakes?" 

This concludes my feeble form of public record, my attempt to emphasize that not all Christians in America see Donald Trump as a pope-like figure, Christ's deputy on Earth, the only vessel through whom any good in America can be manifested. This is not a lament that Kamala Harris lost the election, not a pitch for Democratic policies, or for an alternative politician to worship. This is simply a plea for those outside the Church to understand that Donald Trump does not represent or embody the doctrine of Jesus Christ, despite the claims of many gravely mistaken adherents. I hope that those who read this who have qualms with Christianity have at least not been led to those negative feelings by believing the lie that this man is in any way the ambassador of our faith.

-Bud Sturguess. Amarillo, Texas. February 24, 2025.

PS To relieve certain people of their comment section duty of pointing out that Bill Clinton was a horndog who received fellatio in the Oval Office and lied about it 30 years ago, I say: yes, he did. Awful stuff. What it has to do with Donald Trump, I've no idea, but it always seems to be a go-to counterpoint when someone criticizes this golden calf.

PPS For the sake of fairness and accuracy, Donald Trump did eventually make remarks against the Ku Klux Klan and other hate groups - but it took deadly violence in Charlottesville and enormous pressure for him to do so. His actions since then, however render his remarks moot - numerous perpetrators of the January 6th Insurrection, indiscriminately pardoned by Trump, were associated with white nationalist groups.

photo by Damon Winter, New York Times

3 Common Biblical Misconceptions

Fun Bible trivia! 3 common misconceptions: 

1. Jonah was not swallowed by a whale, but by a "large fish." 

2. "Lucifer" comes from a descriptive term, not a proper name. Satan's name before his fall from heaven is unmentioned. 

3. Christians don't lose their salvation by voting for Democrats.

 

Poem/Prose: "A Sight To Behold"

Yesterday was Christmas, and the king was in one of his moods. He lashed out and struck the archbishop on the head. The archbishop smiled to himself as he escaped through the corridor. He took it in stride, because it happens every day.

The king then took to the balcony to declare, for the fifth time this month, that he vowed to cut off the heads of all the court jesters; he claimed the jingling of the bells on their shoes were codes sent to the ambassador of Spain. He raved from his balcony for hours on end, as kings do when they go mad in old age.

Something happened in the Low Countries yesterday. A handful of peasants are weeping for Rachel and her children, for they are no more. 

What happened must be truly unspeakable - the king's decree is all anyone is talking about today, though they've heard it so many times before. 

They take Rachel and her children in stride, because it happens every day. But the king is fat, a jester himself in diamonds, as kings become when they go mad in old age. It's a sight to behold.

MLK Had a Dream - Not a Magic Spell

(EDIT, January 20, 2025: I hope this blog is re-read on the day we inaugurate a President who was literally endorsed by the Ku Klux Klan, and who did nothing to disavow that endorsement.)

Each time an act of racial injustice or controversy erupts in America, a certain type of people will look at the chaos and fury of the protests and claim, "Dr. King would not approve. They should be more like Dr. King."

We often emptily invoke MLK's name in an effort to suggest racism isn't as big a deal as people think. We make him to be the great crusader who quashed racism, that the "I Have a Dream" speech was the magic spell that cured bigotry forever. We tell ourselves these things not out of reverence for Dr. King, but so we don't have to face the fact that racism and oppression are still very real and powerful monsters. We tell ourselves racism in modern America is an invention of the liberal media, or some other such boogeyman, designed to divide us. 

So, when protests turn violent, no matter who's at fault, we use a cliche we've invented that goes: "be like Martin Luther King!" 

Yet we have no idea what we mean by that. If it simply means, "be more peaceful and you'll cure racism," our ignorance is blatant as we forget that King, a peaceful activist himself, met his end in an act of racial violence - proving racism did not end at "Free at last, free at last..."

Thoughts on War By a Man Rejected By the Navy For His Refusal To Shower Until Tampa Bay Wins Another Super Bowl

If you grew up during the 90s like I did (where mah 33-year-olds at?!), you grew up hearing and seeing "the cowboys and Arabs draw down on each other at noon" in the background noise and visuals on the news. In my experience, there was always a voice, be it on the TV or the living room, declaring that the latest scuffle between the West and the Middle East would lead to World War III. Thus far, it hasn't happened. Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm in 1990-91 were brief expulsions of Iraq from Kuwait, and when another, far bigger, all-out war began in 2003 with the US invasion of Iraq, it was far from a "world war," as a surprising number of nations refused to join the coalition. Yet, to this day, each US brush with a foreign power leads many to declare a Third World War, or a nuclear holocaust, is imminent, outdoing the bellowing doom and gloom of even the sweatiest of Baptist preachers.

As I write this, the United States and Iran are in a very tense standoff that could easily escalate to an actual war. Last week, US airstrikes in Iraq killed Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani. Iran has since vowed that its retaliation will involve military force.

Social media being the good and bad that it is, is alight with both fervent support and vehement condemnation of a war with Iran. Long before Facebook and Twitter were tools to vent our ideologies, there have been hawks who believe all war is good and right (especially the ones involving their own countries), and doves who believe all war is evil. I find it very unwise to belong to either side. Though my Christianity is itself a blanket ideology, the Bible warns of knee-jerk reactions as they relate to worldly matters - "He who answers a matter before he hears it, it is shame and folly to him" (Proverbs 18:13). Chris Rock once said as much: "anybody who makes up his mind about an issue before he hears the issue is a fool."

There are many Christians who believe the New Testament teaches outright pacifism and rejection of war. Some even go further and claim this extends to any form of violence, even self-defense. While I've never been able to glean those things from my own study of the New Testament, I do believe that the Bible condemns unjust war, just as it condemns any unjust, immoral thing from those in positions of power.
Having said that, I don't believe all war is good, but I also don't believe all war is evil.

I have a strong belief that those who aren't very knowledgeable in history have no place being politically and socially vocal, especially the more rabid among those voices, whether they be conservative, liberal, moderate, etc. (though they certainly have a right to be so brazen if they choose). I believe that the more vocal one is about their socio-political beliefs, that lustiness should be on par with their historical knowledge. Otherwise, their talking points are merely rehearsed snippets that fit their narrative, while in the context of the history surrounding whatever the issue may be, the talking point may prove completely irrelevant, or even contradict itself.

There are times in history where going to war was the right thing to do - even if the soldiers sent to fight it were sent by rich men safe behind desks in palaces. I believe Britain going to war with Germany over the latter's invasion of Belgium to get to France, violating Belgian neutrality, was the right thing to do. However, I believe Britain's violation of Greece's neutrality later that same war, was the wrong thing to do. I can cite the folly of the "ally system" in hurling Europe into such a senseless chaos. In not relegating myself to anti or pro war dogmas, I can see right and wrong even in single wars as a whole - and can see hidden motives in otherwise "good" motives.
I also recognize times when those men safe in palaces who sent soldiers to fight were in the wrong. I believe it was wrong for Leopoldo Galtieri to dispatch thousands of Argentine conscripts to invade the Falkland Islands, all to take his troubled nation's attention off of his own regime's corruption and incompetence (a time-tested way to win over your nation; just a tip, in case you ever find yourself a president or dictator and your economy is going down the toilet). Therefore, Britain's retaliation, sending its military task force to rid the islands of the Argentine invaders, who were going house to house and holding British citizens at gunpoint, was the right thing to do.
One must always look at each war individually, if you can find and count them all, and look at the reasons, the results, the maneuvers, the leaders, and a slew of other factors before making their judgment. Being all for or all against war limits one's ability to do this, and the ability to be objective. No matter how loud we talk, facts remain facts, even if they don't fit our agendas upon closer inspection.

So, believing one must be historically and contextually knowledgeable about the war one chooses to defend or oppose, and believing war as an institution is neither wholly good nor wholly evil, my position on a possible war between the United States and Iran is:

I don't know what my position is. I haven't yet made up my mind.

Among the reasons is my minimal knowledge of the Iranian influence in Iraq. I know it's been "a thing" for some time now, but I have little information or facts on which to base my opposition or support - unless I choose to base them on the same three-sentence snippets from social media posts. I'm actually ashamed to say that before last week, I had no idea who Qasem Soleimani was. I know, I missed the Qasem Soleimani bandwagon. He was a household name. Posters of his face adorned the walls of every teenage girl in Iran. But alas, I'm ignorant. If I had more knowledge of Soleimani and his history, and of Iran-Iraq affairs beyond 2003, only then could I invoke a pro or anti reaction. But, as it is, I need time to glean more information before I can declare the war - if it comes to that - to be a right or wrong move. And, only as events unfold, events I cannot predict, can I declare certain actions during that war to be good or bad.

As for the idea of "supporting the troops," I find it to be a dangerously nationalistic idea, just as dangerous as supporting all war. If I disagree with the troops' mission, how can I support the soldiers who voluntarily join the military who fights it? Doing such would be akin to opposing nude dancing while declaring that I support the strippers. If I support the war, I support the troops. If I'm against the war, I cannot logically claim I support the troops.

If one rejects the impulsive reactions borne of pro-war or anti-war ideologies, one must accept that they may wrestle with the right or wrong of some wars for years after they're over. For example, the Iraq War has been over for nearly a decade, and I'm still undecided on whether or not I believe going to Iraq was the right thing for the US to do. I also have to admit my bias, in that I have a brother who served two tours there, and several friends who did as well, and I'm afraid any denunciation would be a betrayal to them. The silver lining however is that by rejecting strict ideological blankets, I can see my own bias, and acknowledge how it might affect my judgment, which allows me to keep quiet or disqualify myself from making a judgment or even forming an opinion. (Despite our society being more opinionated than ever, and having the means to compulsively voice our thoughts to thousands at a time, remember this: it's okay not to have an opinion.)

I believe the Vietnam War was utterly pointless. But in saying so, I have the cringing feeling inside that I'm calling the service of those fought the war to be pointless. I don't want such gall as to preach to a veteran, who knows more about life and death than I can fathom, about my self-professed knowledge of history and my precious ideology - even if that veteran agrees with me.
Speaking of the soldiers who do the actual fighting, if I do find myself in support of a certain war, I must have no delusion that those on the fields and in the trenches are singing patriotic songs at night and shouting "For George, Queen and Country!" before an assault. Even if one supports a war effort, one would be foolish to forget that the soldiers who fight it are often scared, miserable, hungry, and wondering just what the war they're fighting is all about. Their opinion on the war, be it pro or con, will always, as my personal rule, outweigh any thoughts of yours or mine. My advice to anyone who does support all war, other than "stop it!," is to keep in mind that the soldiers who are fighting in your place aren't always as gung-ho about the situation as you are. No matter how well-worded our quotes from MSNBC or Fox News may be.

The shortest war story ever written was penned by an anonymous American Civil War veteran. It is only three sentences: "A bunch of us went to Gettysburg. Some of us never came back. If you weren't there, you'll never understand."

PS Go Tampa Bay. There's always next year. #BucsNation

"I was traveling with my family in the Mideast late one night
The hotel hall was quiet, the kids were out like little lights
Then the street was filled with jeeps
There was an explosion to the right
They chanted Death To America!
I was feeling like a fight..."
-Neil Young

Thoughts on President Trump's Impeachment

Everyone at least twenty-one years old upon reading this has the distinction of being alive during the impeachments of two United States Presidents - Bill Clinton in 1998, and last week, Donald Trump. In 1998, one would have had to look back one hundred-thirty years for the most recent, and first ever, impeachment of a President, when Andrew Johnson was given the dubious distinction in 1868.
We should probably address that word "impeach" - we shouldn't have to, but there are legions of politically vocal people who still don't understand what it means to be impeached. Impeachment is the act of bringing formal charges against an official; it does not mean removal from office. The Senate can vote to acquit or convict, and in the case of conviction, removal from office is the result. Neither Johnson's nor Clinton's case resulted in their removal.

President Richard Nixon was not impeached - he resigned from office in 1974, before articles of impeachment could be formally brought against him (though they were certainly far in the works). Again, this shouldn't have to be explained, but the internet's abundance of politically passionate people who know talking points but not history make it necessary before I express my thoughts on another impeachment.

Speaking of Nixon and history, in hindsight we know that behind the scenes he was cracking under pressure. Those closest to him at the time say he was drinking more, behaving erratically, was paranoid, and losing his composure. Nixon was not the most socially comfortable of individuals, but even for an awkward loner like him, his behavior in the White House was disconcerting for the likes of Alexander Haig and Henry Kissinger. The oft-parodied moment in which Nixon asked Kissinger to get on his knees and pray with him in the Oval Office is where I see the difference between Nixon and Trump - desperation.

Though it's easy for a showman like Trump, who was a television and media veteran long before he entered the White House, to put on a show of total confidence, I don't believe his arrogant defiance of the charges against him, and those who drafted them, is a mask. Trump is a natural celebrity, whereas Nixon, for all the power and publicity of his political career, never adjusted to the spotlight. Trump relishes it.

Nixon made grandiose excuses for his actions, and for his obstruction - "national security," "political containment," "executive privilege," etc. He was also strategic enough to let his aides and speechwriters do most of the PR. Trump however has taken to Twitter, because of course he has, and other outlets to lash out at his opponents. Granted, there was no Twitter in the 1970s, but more camera-ready Presidents had taken to television in moments of controversy - John F. Kennedy addressing and defending the admittance of two black students to the University of Alabama, and even the less charming Lyndon Johnson was almost a TV staple during the Vietnam War. If Donald Trump had been President during the Nixon era, he would have been in every American's living room via television (and in an age where there were three channels, all of which were taken up when the President had a speech to make).

Americans would have missed every episode of The Mary Tyler Moore Show thanks to Trump's plethora of TV interruptions.

You may be asking yourself why I'm comparing Nixon and Trump when the former wasn't even impeached. The reason is because Nixon's scandal was perhaps the most detrimental to the American public and its government until 2019. Bill Clinton's affair with an intern and subsequent perjury were heavy matters, but somehow it was business as usual outside of the scandal. Issues within and without the United States were handled with as much vigor as if there had been no trouble at home. For all the seriousness of Clinton's perjury, the sexual overtones and the jokes of it made by endless comedians almost made it feel like a TMZ farce. Which is a shame, given the severity of that situation, but it's not the only political scandal whose implications were unfortunately reduced to comedy (re: the rash of "Epstein didn't kill himself" memes).

In this case, it's not necessarily President Trump's actions involving Ukraine that have consumed the nation, but rather the man himself. He's been on every thinking American's mind at least twice a day from the moment he announced his candidacy and the endless array of controversies and scandals that followed, even before he was elected. Trump is a scandal in himself; everything he does, says, touches, immediately receives notoriety or infamy, like a morbid version of King Midas. Even if one adores him, they can't deny that he is the single most controversial person in the world today, and has been so for over five years. Donald Trump the man is the biggest Presidential scandal since Watergate, overshadowing even Reagan's Contra affair in the 1980s.

The biggest, and most important difference, I see between Nixon and Trump is that Nixon had a moral compass. He didn't seem to use it much, but he had one, and much like having a conscience but not using it, doing wrong while knowing it's wrong can eventually get to a person. Nixon's crumbling and downfall showed this. He would even later admit, albeit not to the degree disappointed Americans wanted, that he made mistakes and misled the nation.

Nixon's resignation was another act of cracking under pressure. In order for him to do so, his psyche had to be manipulated by the closest members of his staff and inner circle so that he would believe the resignation was his decision - as if to say, "you didn't break up with me - I broke up with you."  Such was the state of Nixon's mind at the time, he had to be cajoled into believing it wasn't really the Senate that was taking him out of office, it was him and him alone.

Trump, meanwhile, doesn't need to be manipulated. He truly seems to believe he's done no wrong, and further, doesn't seem to be able to comprehend why he's in trouble in the first place. Whether it's demagoguery or just an inflated ego I'm not sure. But actions speak louder than even the most mealy mouthed of Tweets, and Trump either doesn't comprehend intellectually why he's in this situation, or he genuinely believes he is above the law. To him, the impeachment is a witch hunt, a conspiracy, the act of desperate losers to spite with pettiness what he has literally called "the most successful Presidency" of all time.

Nixon made his accusations, too - Watergate was a witch hunt, and in his increasing paranoia, a huge conspiracy calculated solely against him. But his actions showed that he understood the gravity of his actions. Whereas Trump simply doesn't appear to comprehend them.

Since his election, I'd always surmised that if Donald Trump were to ever face impeachment, were to actually be impeached, or simply land in a situation he couldn't get out of, he would resign from office. I wasn't alone in expecting him to immediately, or inevitably, land in trouble. The reason I expected him to resign and bolt was the memory of how his once-hit reality show The Apprentice reached its end - the same day NBC announced it was canceling the show, Trump announced he was leaving the show. Again a case of "you didn't break up with me - I broke up with you." But unlike Nixon, Trump probably didn't need to be manipulated into thinking it. He seemed to truly believe it.

If revelations of using campaign funds as hush money to a porn star mistress didn't budge Trump, neither will this impeachment, or the circumstances that caused it. I should have known from the Stormy Daniels affair, or from the recordings of Trump boasting that he'd sexually assaulted women, that nothing seems to affect this man's outlook, nor that of his more dogmatic supporters. Granted, I don't know the man. Not that that matters, as I certainly never knew Nixon, Clinton, or Andrew Johnson; but in those cases, we have the lessons and evidence of history to give us a glimpse into their minds during their respective troubles.

With Trump, all I can do is analyze what I see, and what the man himself says. And I see and hear a man devoid of both the ability to see himself in any negative light, and of the wherewithal to understand he's breached serious protocol. To Trump, the protocol either doesn't exist - "a sham" - or it simply doesn't apply to him. Other politicians in hot water may have stated such ridiculous things in their own crises, but inside, they knew better. President Trump does not.

In the legal battle that follows, that mindset will either be his downfall, or it will somehow rescue him.

"Last night, 
I saw the fire spreading to the palace door
The silent majority
Weren't keeping quiet anymore."
-John Fogerty

President Trump - God's Instrument of Rebuke?

Depending on who you ask, someone will always say the current President is God's way of "rebuking" America. If you asked a disaffected conservative, they would say Barack Obama and the ill-advised involvement in the Syrian civil war were God's rebuke. If you asked a wary liberal, they would say George W. Bush and the meltdown of the economy were God's rebuke.

I myself am neither liberal nor conservative: that's at least one idol with which I don't struggle. Being that a Christian's views should be based on Scripture, there are some things, in worldly eyes, about which I'd be called "conservative," while other views I have might be seen as "liberal." I believe dogmatically following the man-made conservative or liberal way on any issue, without discretion, is extremely unwise. And you know you're being dogmatic when the religious zealot calls you dogmatic. Chris Rock once said, "Anyone who makes up his mind about an issue before he hears the issue is a fool." The word of God agrees: "He who answers a matter before he hears it, it is folly and shame to him" (Proverbs 18:13).

There's nothing wrong with calling one's self a liberal or a conservative. But it's when we turn these things to idols that blur and distort our view of Christ that they become stumbling blocks to we who are called to be His servants.

There are many American Christians who have been deceived into thinking that Christianity and conservatism are mutually inclusive; who think voting Republican is a fruit of the Spirit; who think the Gospel was written by the five evangelists: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Tucker Carlson. These are the idolaters who, I believe, God is rebuking by putting Donald Trump in the office of President of the United States.
Before I'm strangled with a red necktie, note that I do not believe it is "conservatives" God is rebuking, and not "Republicans." Rather, I believe the Trump Administration is God's way of chastening those who worship these things. Those who would do what's best for the red elephant before sacrificing of themselves for the Gospel. Those who look away from, shrug off, or make excuses for the racism, xenophobia, hatred, unfairness, and un-Christlike "values" inherent in many of their political beliefs and talking points, be they obvious or subtle, all for the sake of their red idol. These are the people who I believe are being rebuked with the administration's ineptitude and disregard for the sanctity of human life. They have attached themselves to ungodly ideas, and they must choose to let go, or put them above what is right and good.

(Keep in mind this isn't just possible for idolatrous conservatives - those who worship liberalism could very well find themselves rebuked by an Oprah Winfrey presidency.)

Why would a Donald Trump presidency be a blow from God?

I believe God has shown us, 'this man is all of your hypocrisy, your empty use of My name, and the harm you do; this is what you serve, more than you serve Me.' There is already a cringe-fest of embarrassment which America, more specifically its conservative bases, has suffered and will continue to suffer during President Trump's time in office, and the year-plus of the campaign rhetoric of the mogul and those working in his administration. These things will be a sore blemish to the GOP for the next fifty years or more. President Trump's wild, unproven accusations and ignorant claims, his blatant attempts at deceit, his inability to handle criticisms with Twitter tantrums, and unscrupulous ties and conflicts of interest are a blueprint for how not to govern with the best interests of the American people at heart. Those who call themselves Christians, and lean toward "the right," who recognize the folly, ineptitude, and moral corruption of this regime and its ideologies, will refuse conservatism as their savior. They may remain "conservatives," but they will refuse to serve it as an idol. They will say, much as I've said often in my own wanderings from God, "what have I done? I've got to get back to my Father's arms." "Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it" (Hebrews 12:11).
They will, much like me with each of my idols which God has destroyed, despise it and be glad their hearts are fettered to Christ and not to lifeless isms and ologies. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28).

And those who don't - those who stubbornly refuse to see any evils done by this administration, their sight being blinded by the red insignia they worship - will be seen by history as the uncaring and ignorant, as pitifully deceived, their actions an embarrassing scar on the already weary face of America. These are the ones who made excuses for the recorded conversations in which Donald Trump bragged about sexually assaulting women. These are the ones who shrugged off his refusal to rebuff the endorsement of the Ku Klux Klan. Those who lauded him as brilliant for not paying his taxes, while bemoaning the fact that their own taxes support the "welfare moms" they despise. Who praised him as a Christian, yet ignored the fact his own casinos include strip clubs. Those who claimed they were voting "pro-life" when they voted for a man who doesn't care for the lives of refugees and immigrants. In idolatry they did all of these things.
It's not just "secular" eyes who will look at them in embarrassment and pity - it's the eyes of future followers of Christ. Christians of future generations will cite the current idolaters' actions as examples of what is not Christlike. Today's idolatrous conservatives will be synonymous with hypocrisy and worldliness. They will be bywords among believers and non-believers alike.

Even if, by some miracle, President Trump somehow becomes another Roosevelt (either/or), the fact will remain that so many who proclaimed Christ and His instruction blinded their eyes to scandals, lies, and follies, all for the sake of their golden calf. The end does not justify the means in our idolatry.

A rational question would be, "What about all of the people being affected by Trump's actions? Immigrants, refugees, minorities, the less fortunate? They weren't 'worshiping the red elephant.' Why would God put Trump in power as a rebuke to idolaters, but allow others to suffer, too?"
I would point to the prophet Jeremiah, who prophesied at a time when Judah was engaged in idol worship to the point of sacrificing their own children in fires to false gods. This was a detestable thing, which God would punish by allowing Judah to fall into the hands of the invading Babylonians. Jeremiah was faithful to God, obedient to the point of mocking, imprisonment, and other hardship, all to proclaim God's word. But Jeremiah also suffered as a result of the Babylonians' invasion: not only did it break his heart to see Jerusalem destroyed, but he himself was eventually taken from the land he loved, forced into exile in Egypt, though he hadn't bowed the knee to the false gods his countrymen had served.

God places in power all those who have it. I often said when Donald Trump's inauguration neared that if the Christians of the early Church could pray for Nero, if the Protestants of England could pray for Queen Mary, then I can pray for President Trump. This is a good and holy thing, as the apostle Paul instructs that "supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence" (1 Timothy 2:1-2). There are those who embrace these words when a Republican is in office, yet curse the life of the other guy; those who demanded respect for Bush as "my President," but cursed Obama for his crime of being a black Democrat. The same are hypocrites, and I don't want to fall into that sin and curse President Trump as being beyond redemption. To do so would be an insult to Jesus' sacrifice on the cross.

I don't care what hashtag is trending - Donald Trump is my President. "You shall not revile God, nor curse a ruler of your people" (Exodus 22:28).

When instructing us to pray for our leaders and not to revile them, Scripture does not, however, teach us to agree or embrace their every decision or decree, especially should they go against the holy word of God. Scripture does not teach us to remain silent about a leader's wrongdoings or when he or she speaks against what is right and good. And we're not called to pretend things aren't going terribly wrong. It's entirely possible to believe and trust in a God who works amazing miracles, and still be a realist.

I believe an essential task for American Christians today is to proclaim Christ in a way that separates His truth from "Republican Christianity," from the idols of conservatism and miscellaneous other ideologies of man and not of God. The world ignorantly draws its caricature of Christianity from those who claim Christ but bow down to the red elephant, whose strength to proclaim Christ depends on who's in political office, who receive their gospel from Breitbart, whose savior is Senator Combover, R-Oklahoma, who vows to put the Ten Commandments back on the schoolhouse walls.

The world's view of Christianity is drawn from those who think Jesus and Fox News are inseparable. Brothers and sisters in Christ, we must shatter this illusion. What is the best way to show Jesus to others? It's not by debates, nor by funding Creationism research rather than assistance for single parents. Not even video footage of the Resurrection would prove Jesus to anyone - the only way to show Him to another is to love them. "Walk in wisdom toward those who are outside, redeeming the time" (Colossians 4:5). Let our every word and comment on social topics be sprinkled with the salt of grace and patience, but also with the starkness of truth, and let our every thought and deed be linked to the Scripture. We are to be God's image bearers on Earth - may that image not be marred in unbelieving eyes by the idols of Fox & Friends, InfoWars, or even on the other side of the spectrum by NPR and the Huffington Post.