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.
