Sunday, November 13, 2016

Trump Follow-Up

Most of the 2016 Word of Truth Conference Audio Is Up.  Much of the Video Is Up Too.

When I consider all the shots I've taken for supporting Trump, it's easy to understand that I don't like Trump's immorality.  I would have been fine with other Republican candidates winning the primary, but I still stuck my neck out for Trump.  A lot of people comprehend it, because they did too. Opponents want you to feel guilty for that support, attaching his immorality to your support.  I dislike it.  It isn't true.  It's really a cheap shot in my opinion.

I just watched thirty some minutes of the CBS 60 minute interview, posted at RCP, and Trump said one thing about the Supreme Court and Roe v. Wade that I've never heard anyone say -- no politician.  It says something about Trump that explains support from someone like me.  Before I mention it, Trump is someone who doesn't sit and take it from the media.  He knows what they are doing and he calls them on it.  Very few, perhaps two or three, would do what he does, and no one as good as him.

Trump was asked about who he would choose for Supreme Court justice.  Maybe you watched, but he said, someone pro-life and someone pro-second amendment.  You put those together and you have now narrowed it down to a very, very small number.  It's got to be a conservative person.  She asked, will the person overturn Roe v. Wade?  Trump said even if someone did overturn it, it would go back to the states.  She said, women couldn't get an abortion.  He said, yes they would.  She said, they couldn't get it.  He said, they'll have to go to another state.

They'll have to go to another state.  What other Republican would say something like that?  Who?  Maybe no one.  Those criticizing Trump, who can't be happy about him, I guess you can't be happy about that?  It's sad really.

Only one comment really gave me pause, and that was Mat's quotation of Proverbs 29:2.  I want to consider it for a moment.  I won't squirm at all with it, but deal with it head-on.  I think people very often take wrong Old Testament texts.  We want to take them like the people in the day would have taken them, not just use them as proof texts.  Solomon, of course wrote that Proverb, the man with 300 wives and 700 concubines.  I'm not supporting Solomon's lifestyle, but he would have been excluding himself, Mat would have to agree.  If he was thinking sinless perfection, that also puts everyone out.

The idea of "ruler" is mostly unlimited power, like a monarch, someone who has absolute authority.  If you have an unjust person in that position, people won't be happy.  It's got to be someone who will be fair, like Solomon was.  He wasn't personally righteous, but he was a fair ruler overall, as you look at it.  The "wicked" person that makes people mourn, literally, sigh, is used in various ways.  It's not always talking about someone who is "righteous," like "justified."  It is a person who isn't guilty of crimes, someone who isn't a criminal.  I think that's it in this context.  People don't want someone who will abuse his position of authority in an unfair way.

Hillary Clinton was a criminal.  She was a politician who used her position for political favor. That's not someone you want in a position of authority.  People don't get treated fairly.

I can tell you right now that the country was headed a direction where if you said you were a Christian, you would be persecuted.  If you said anything that was different than the way political correctness was going, you would get treated very badly.  Trump, I believe, will at least slow that down.  Or, we'll have a more quiet and peaceable time, a more just time, fair time, and I will rejoice in that.

Is globalism righteous?  When someone can move a job overseas and then bring the product back to sell it without punishment to the person who lost the job, is that just?  If I'm against same-sex marriage, I should be able to show it without recrimination, shouldn't I?  I could list pages of these types of questions that indicate the justice by which this election was voted.

When I supported Trump in the primary, it was because I thought he could win.  I thought he would win, and I wanted people to be prepared for that.  If you go back, you'll know I was saying that.  I was mocked by a lot of people, very few of which are now saying, you were right.  Those people joined the mainstream media and about every liberal in doing that with them.

When someone, like Jon Gleason, says I endorse Trump, he makes it sound like I'm endorsing all there is about his character.  Everyone knows that isn't true.  If someone were to say otherwise, that would be crazy.  It isn't just to treat my support as anything but what I say it is.  That is righteous in the Proverbs 29:2 sense, that is, fair.

I don't think Trump is repentant, because there is only biblical repentance, but he did say he was wrong.  He also said he regretted the failure in his marriages.  I know what he should do to repent.  I think someone can support him for president without supporting his immorality.

There is something to rejoice with Trump.  Mainly I say I'm happy he won.  I'm happy he won.  When someone uses "rejoice," "righteous," and "repentant," those are loaded words.  All rejoicing is tempered and very focused.  He is righteous in that he is someone who will be just, certainly more just than the alternative.  If you save unborn children, that is just.  If you put in a conservative Supreme Court justice, the land will be more just by far.  Is he repentant?  He said he was wrong and he regretted.  That isn't repentance.  All of that, however, still misses the point.  We are not even electing a ruler.  He represents one branch of government, and under his leadership, we now have something we have seen very, very rarely in our lifetime, a Republican house, Senate, and Presidency. Then with a conservative Supreme Court justice, we will have a 5-4 majority again.

I'm happy.  If you want to be sad, I still don't get it.

One more thing to close.  If Hillary won, nothing would have changed for me.  I would still be and do what I've already been doing.  It would change nothing.  I'll do the same whether it was Trump or Hillary.  However, I foresee it being a little easier with Trump, maybe a lot more easy.  We don't know.  I would do the same, but it will be easier.  Quiet and peaceable.


Jon Gleason said...

Hi, Kent. Well, well, I'm famous and important, I guess, since you named me. :) But either I've been unclear or you have misunderstood, or both, so I'll try again.

To be clear, I've never once criticised your endorsement of Trump. I've never commented on it.

I've commented on Trump himself, on my own blog (which is written for Scottish believers in a Scottish church), a couple of times, in response to reports in the British media. I commented on wrong reasons to support Trump, but I never criticised your reasons for your endorsement -- I share many of them.

I do not endorse candidates in my pastoral role, at least not publicly, but I don't have any problem with others doing so. I totally understand why you made the endorsement you made. Nor do I think a political endorsement is an endorsement of all a candidate is, does, has done, or will do. It's a statement, that, on balance, your considered opinion is that this candidate is going to govern more in keeping with righteous principles than the alternative. I get all that.

But I still don't understand how this can be seen as anything other than the lesser of two evils. Nothing you've said changes that. The country still elected a man who has profited off of gambling and drunkenness and is a serial adulterer. Christians are supposed to be happy about that? The fact that Hillary Clinton's evils are far greater (and I believe they are) does not change it.

Proverbs 29:2 DOES apply. So does II Sam. 23:3, and there is no real indication that Trump has any awareness of the fear of God. So does Psalm 9:17, and Trump's campaign did not even really give lip service to God -- a nation that has forgotten God chose a forget-God candidate.

I Timothy 2 tells us to pray that we can live peaceably in godliness. That is much more likely to happen with Trump than with Clinton. Romans 13 tells us that a primary, I believe THE primary, function of government is to punish wrongdoing. Trump may have broken the law, he probably has, but Clinton did so IN OFFICE, which is much more destructive to respect for law and government. So I totally get it.

That still doesn't make this a good thing. A lesser of two evils is still not good.

Priscilla said...

I want to thank you for your articles on Trump. I have passed several of them on to some family members and friends. My husband and I saw the potential Trump win and how it could help our country pretty much from the beginning of the primaries. I have expressed it like this: the things Trump wants to do, we want done; and he seems to be a man who tells the truth.

Kent Brandenburg said...


I don't care about famous and important, as anyone would know. You commented. I answered. I would not call my support, endorsement, unmitigated, and that needs to be stated in light of your explanation, saying that Christians couldn't rejoice because of Trump's character.

I'm not saying Proverbs 29:2 means nothing, but that it's meaning should be tempered by the cultural and language gap, the meanings of words and the situation of a ruler then. Wouldn't you agree? Do we ever vote for the righteous person? John McCain is righteous. George W. Bush is righteous. Mitt Romney is righteous. All of those need interpretation, unless you want to redefine what righteous means. You are saying Trump is evil. He has stood more for our positions in many ways than anyone for a long time. Everyone right now knows that. Even a George Will knows it, who was opposed.

Kent Brandenburg said...


Thanks. I am happy about the encouragement. If I try to explain my position, it can ring very personal, but others supporting helps.

Anonymous said...

First, even if I am wrong, I am thankful that Scripture is now being discussed in this matter. You can scroll up and down the articles and comments about Trump (both here and on other blogs) and see very little (if any) Scripture. This is what happens in politics with Christians, especially when the Republicans win. When the Democrats are in power, suddenly the Scriptures shed all kinds of light on politics.

I believe that Proverbs 29:2 does indeed apply to our political system today, but I didn’t make that clear in my comment. My comment made it sound like we should apply it specifically to Trump as our “ruler”, but that isn’t quite what I think. But, yet, the word “ruler” that you quoted isn’t even in the passage. It says, “When the righteous are in authority” and “When the wicked beareth rule. In our government, the president isn’t a monarch, but we do still have people “in authority” who are “bearing rule”. We have three branches of government, and Trump will be the leader of one of those branches. Therefore, Trump will indeed be “in authority”, but not alone. I rejoice over the many righteous people that were elected to the Senate and the House on November 8th, but I can’t bring myself to honestly consider Trump in the “righteous” category as opposed to “wicked”. Therefore, I can’t Scripturally rejoice over Trump’s place in authority, though I will rejoice over any good thing that he does in the future as president.
If Hillary Clinton had won the election, would not Proverbs 29:2 gotten a hearty ‘AMEN’? I’m almost certain it would not have gotten dissected. That has been my concern with these elections and with politics in general. It reveals to me that we are indeed willing to put politics over Scripture when it is convenient.

I would not agree that Solomon would have been excluding himself in that verse, but even if he was, it isn’t Solomon’s writing, it is God’s. But God did say that holy men of old were used to write the Scriptures. Certainly, Solomon had a period of his life where he lived wickedly, but when he wrote the Proverbs under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he was encouraging his son to follow in his footsteps.

That said, on November 8th, it was clear that either Trump or Clinton was going to be president. I, for one am glad that it is not President-Elect Clinton. I, for one, am going to give Trump a chance hoping that he will do some of the things that he has said he will do (depending on the day). I am with you when you point out some of the good things that Trump has said. I think it is possible that Trump could be a better president than either of the Bushes were, or than McCain or Romney would have been. In one of the debates, the question was asked about overturning Roe vs. Wade. Typically, this is the cue for the Republican candidate to fumble around and say something like “well, that’s up to the Supreme Court” or something vague like “I will appoint strict constructionists…”. Trump didn’t do that. He said something to the effect of, “Well, I’m appointing pro-life justices, so I guess that’s what is going to happen.” How could I not be happy to hear that? Which candidate since Reagan has ever said anything so strongly against Roe v. Wade? None that I can remember.

(part 1)

God Bless,
Mat Dvorachek

Anonymous said...

That said, when Bill Clinton had his scandal with Ms. Lewinsky, I was among those that said, “character matters”. I still believe that. It is hypocritical to suddenly not believe that when the president has an ( R ) after his name. I will hope for the best and be very glad to be wrong, but I believe it is naïve to expect that he is going to do the things he has promised. The man changes on issues like the wind changes direction. He is already starting to hem and haw about some the strong statements that he made. Double-mindedness brings instability (James 1:8)

BTW, it wasn’t that long ago that the Republicans had control of all branches of government. They had it for 4 years under Bush. Do you remember many conservative, pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-sovereignty causes that were taken up during that time? Me neither. However, Trump is different than anything we have ever seen in a long time. The results could be disastrous. They could be very favorable. I think it will be closer to the former, but I will rejoice if I am wrong.

(I have been enjoying the messages from the conference. Wish I could be there! Maybe next year.)

God Bless,
Mat Dvorachek

Kent Brandenburg said...


I don't get "scripture now being discussed." Can you explain? I have discussed scripture as it applied to this, and you have never interacted with what I did say. Others did. They agreed. They understood. You haven't mentioned. When you say, scripture now being discussed, that it wasn't discussed before.

Anonymous said...

Dear Kent,

I think this is a great site. I have said before that it has helped me a lot. I go on for a long time about how much your writing has helped me. So, I don't want to spend much time being negative about it. I think it would give the wrong impression.

Kent, I wish I had more time to interact here. I have eight children between the ages of 3 and 14, and we have a lot of other things going on in addition to that. If I had more time, I would certainly comment here more and the vast majority of it would be encouraging.

Okay, so you asked me to explain. I just searched for every article here that references "Trump" and there are a lot more than I realized. I scrolled through fairly slowly (I could have easily missed a few), and found 1 direct reference to scripture. That's exactly the same as the number of links I found to half-naked pictures of Megan Kelly.

The reference was to I Timothy 2:1-2, which is about praying for those who are in authority. The very sentence before it says, "Scripture doesn't say who to vote for", which kinda reads like "Scripture doesn't say what kind of music to listen to." You went on to say, "If you are praying in faith for that, then you should vote for that too." From what I could find, that is your scriptural argument for this election. Like I said, I might have missed something.

I have observed for years that when it comes to the election of Republicans, we tend to use a different standard than we otherwise do. It's concerning to me, because I know that the devil just wants to get a foothold in our thinking somewhere, anywhere he can.

Kent, I'm on your side. I support you. I'm just giving a little challenge in the same way I hope a friend would challenge me.


Kent Brandenburg said...


I know we're on the same side, and I know I can come across like we're not, because I talk to my friends that way. :-D I'm treating Jon strong here too, but it's how I am. If you were in my presence, you would see that we were being strong and friendly, but it doesn't always show up here.

Here's the article:

Scripture doesn't say the name of the person we're going to vote for. Donald Trump's name isn't in the Bible -- that's what I was saying. You decide it using principles and "quiet" and "peaceable" was a major one for me. I wanted him to win because he could and then we would be quiet and peaceable. If I could have a moral guy, who tells the truth, of course, I would want that. If he can't win over Hillary, not a good situation though.

Priscilla said...

Just a few observations I've made about Trump.

I know he has lived like you would expect from an unsaved man, but I don't think he's been as unrestrained as Bill Clinton, by any means. It almost looks to me like his conscience may be awakening and he has regrets. He knew things would come out about himself if he ran for president, yet he ran for president anyway. He certainly has exposed a level of corruption in our government and the media that we all needed to know about.

Praying for God's work in his life, the gospel to be explained well to him and his family. I have actually heard him say, as if he was surprised, that he thought God was helping him in this presidential race. He at least acknowledges God, whereas people like Krauthammer doesn't even think God exists (according to a documentary on his life.)

Placing our faith in politics is always misplaced faith. I trust what God may be doing in this age of wickedness, like He did using Cyrus to allow Jews to return to Israel. He called Cyrus His shepherd. I trust God; what He may be doing to restrain high level wickedness.


Hi sir,
I was wrong. I thought Mrs. Clinton would trounce Mr. Trump. I underestimated his level of support, especially with Christians. I also underestimated how terrible a candidate she was.

i would like to comment more but am blessed to be on a 3 week rv tour through the American SW. Maybe on some down time.

Jon Gleason said...

Hi, Kent. I said above either I've been unclear or you've misunderstood. I think I can identify where part of the lack of clarity arose.

First, though, I want to say that I never commented once about Trump after he clinched the nomination, until after the election. My reason was because you made a well-taken point in a comment on my blog months ago that led me to a conclusion -- I should not say anything that would discourage people from voting for a person that, in all probability, they should have been voting for. I don't believe that was true during the nomination process, but it was clearly true once he had the nomination.

Second, my reason for believing that people should probably vote for Trump was very similar to yours. For me, there were two particular passages. The first was I Timothy 2. I do not trust Trump to protect us to live a quiet and peaceable life in godliness, but I am sure Clinton would have done much to disrupt that. There was clear blue water between them on religious liberty. The second was Romans 13. If the rulers are to uphold the law and punish wrongdoers, you want someone who respects the law. I would not be surprised at all to learn of proof that Trump has broken the law -- but Hillary has done so in office, which is much more egregious.

Thus, I did not want to write something that would discourage people.

Above, I joked about "being important." I don't think I've ever been "important" enough for anyone to call me out by name on their blog before. :) I suppose it's a compliment.

On to the "lack of clarity". I said in my earlier comment, to which you were responding, that it is a bad thing to "endorse" Trump, in regard to his morals. You took that as a condemnation of your endorsement and an assumption that you were endorsing his morals. It wasn't meant that way, but I completely understand why you took it that way.

What I meant is that it is bad for a nation to decide that a person with these kinds of morals is fit for public office. When a nation decides to choose between a man like Trump, and a person who is even worse, like Hillary, what can the godly do? Make the best decision you can. But the nation should never put two people like that up for office.

Trump is under the wrath of God. He's made a fortune off of the drunkenness of his hotel guests, and other vices. The Scripture is pretty clear about that kind of thing.

It is a sad and tragic thing when a nation can't find and choose a person with even semi-respectable morals to propound good government. As my dad used to say, if a man will cheat on his marriage vows, he'll cheat on his constitutional vows, if he'll break his promises to his wife, he'll break his promises to voters.

I pray that Trump will govern well, but it is a tragedy that the nation couldn't find someone of integrity and decency to fight against the progressivist internationalist cabal. It's a blight on the nation that they had to choose someone who believes crass speech is ok, who is pugnacious, etc, etc. It's representative of the spiritual and moral decline of the nation that they could find no one to choose who would follow Biblical nationalism and righteous government who is also decent.

Kent Brandenburg said...


I don't really disagree with anything that you've written. Most of it I would support a lot. I appreciate your writing.

Kent Brandenburg said...


Someone wrote me to say that he thought I wasn't respecting you enough in how I wrote. I didn't think so, but in case I wasn't, I hope you feel respected. Just because I disagree and combat to a certain extent doesn't mean I don't like a person. It's like my dad would tell me when I was a young person, you should be concerned when the coach stops screaming at you, because you know he doesn't have any plans for you. I wasn't screaming, but hopefully you get the point.

Yes, I made not much of a biblical argument, but I made one. It's just that I don't think there is much on voting in the Bible, since voting for a political candidate isn't in the Bible. Since we are to pray for quiet and peaceable life, then that seems to be the exact concern we want. I believed Trump would win and I believed that would be the best possibility between Hillary and him. I wanted that. I pushed for it, and in a more combative way because that's the way it is right now.

I have made other scriptural arguments, for instance, on the conscience, which people treat like I said nothing, and I wrote two posts on it. Is that disrespectful to me. I don't care, but people should care who say they care. If they care, they can't stop caring, even for me.


Kent Brandenburg said...


Consider what the Jerusalem post is saying.

They are pretty positive. I guess many could find negativity in that.

Kent Brandenburg said...


I hope you're right. I was strong here, because there was incredible intimidation when it came to voting for Trump. I threw it right back, and I think people really didn't notice almost at all the attempt at intimidating against Trump, because of push-back from people as myself. It seems about par for the course, but I wanted to help create space for a Trump voter, to help them look at it in the right way.

Kent Brandenburg said...

John Gardner,

It's nice you have admitted that particular wrong. If Hillary had won, think about the following.

Scalia vacancy on the court.

Liberal justices Breyer and Ginsberg are 78 and 83.

Moderate Kennedy is 80.

Trump could replace 2 or 3 others and affect the Supreme Court for the next 23 years. Trump is independent enough that he might give the best conservative justices we've ever seen. I say, might, yes, but I think he will, based on how I see things shaping up. Look at his chief of staff and chief adviser. These should be happy signals for conservatives.

Priscilla said...

Thank you for what you do, Kent. I appreciate it a lot. It's always good to be challenged to think biblically in order to be more effective for the Lord Jesus Christ.

Anonymous said...

Hi Kent,

Quite honestly, in discussions like these (especially those in writing), I try to always give the benefit of the doubt when it comes to tone. I think it is all too easy to use tone as an excuse to not consider the content. I guess now that you mention it, I didn’t feel much respect coming my way, but I’m not concerned about it. That seems to be a theme in my life recently, and I believe the Lord is using it because he wants me to be more like David in Psalm 131. I certainly hold nothing against you, and have much appreciation for you and your work.

In Christ,
Mat D. (Romans 1:16)

kddlporter said...

Sorry, but simply cannot leave that stand. The high society pictures of Hilary Clinton (Bill a Georgetown grad) to his left, and of Donald Trump (Loyola University) to his right, with archbishop Dolan in the middle says it all.

Donald who lives in the 3 floor penthouse topping out on the 66th floor....trapped in marble & gold, in blatant Louis XIV style.....Louis XIV of the Edict of Nantes fame & 'faithfulness'. Not saying he's the antichrist, so spare the 'pity'.....but you can't get much more blatantly, & knowingly, sold out to that spirit than that. 3 heavens? 66th floor? Louis XIV?

Isaiah 14. But, praise God ...Revelation 17-19 KJV & Psalm 12.

I praise the Lord that I voted for neither which equals 0 + 0 = 0 BTW. Now that I'm separated & I understand more daily what that really means...I intend by the grace of God and all that in me is to remain so. Don't be deceived.

Kent Brandenburg said...


I agree that anything that has gold all over it is evil. It may as well been the 666th floor.

I'm more of a negative, which tops, or bottoms, your zeroes, which are positive compared to my negativity.

Thank you.