Sarah Sanders: God “wanted Trump to be president”

Sanders

Press Secretary Sanders made this statement in an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network.  Michelle Boorstein has it covered at The Washington Post.  Here is a taste of her piece:

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders told a Christian television station Wednesday that God “wanted Donald Trump to become president” so he could support “a lot of the things that people of faith really care about.”

The early, abbreviated transcript provided by the conservative evangelical station CBN, the Christian Broadcasting Network, didn’t include specifics from Sanders. However, many in a devoted segment of Trump’s base have said they consider any drawbacks of his presidency worth it because the president regularly speaks about their priorities and picked two Supreme Court justices believed to oppose abortion. On Monday, Trump lauded proposed state-level legislation meant to bring more teaching of the Bible in public schools.

“Does it kind of blow your mind that someone like Donald Trump, who is sitting in the Oval Office, I know you can list the accomplishments, but at the same time just from a spiritual perspective there are a lot of Christians who believe that for such a time as this –” said David Brody of CBN, trailing off, according to the transcript.

Sanders replied: “I think God calls all of us to fill different roles at different times, and I think that he wanted Donald Trump to become president and that’s why he’s there. And I think he has done a tremendous job in supporting a lot of the things that people of faith really care about.”

Read the rest here.

I am willing to stand by Sanders on this claim, as long as she is open to the possibility that God made Trump president to expose the political idolatry of American evangelicals.

As for now, we see through a glass darkly.

32 thoughts on “Sarah Sanders: God “wanted Trump to be president”

  1. In God’s sovereign providence, Trump became president through the voting choices of the American people. That does not mean that he was elected as a savior of the American nation or people.He is not the reincarnation of Cyrus or any other pagan ruler. Who knows why God allowed Trump to be president? To punish us?

    Like

  2. James, what are you having such a hard time understanding? God is sovereign and raises and lowers kings and kingdoms. And yes, the secret will of God is unknown to his creatures. Sanders is right that he wanted trump to be president because he is but she’s wrong to venture why. She’s attempting to read providence which any good Calvinist knows is verboten. But with a dad like hers she comes by it honestly enough. Not sure what Fea’s explanation is other than he’s not Calvinist, though I must say I like his attempt better than hers.

    Like

    • Steve,
      At the risk of coming across as a post-modernist Christian, which I hope I am not, I am more convinced of God’s directive interaction ipon governmental entities in Old Testament times. In this dispensation, I see things more tied to I Tim. 2:1-3.
      James

      Like

  3. That’s Sarah HUCKABEE Sanders, daughter of one of the pre-Trump “God’s Anointed Choice for Our Next President” of the Week.

    Like

  4. Just because Sanders said God wanted Trump to be president, doesn’t mean it is true. She is expressing an opinion, not a fact. If it was a fact she could provide proof that God said this and I doubt very much that she has any proof. So, in essence, it is just more political God-talk – a useful tool used by many of the Trump evangelicals.

    Like

    • Sheridan,

      Faith is one realm while facts and proofs do not always fall into the same category. I will allow that there are overlapping areas, however. I reckon that Mrs. Sanders understands that and was simply expressing her faith conviction.

      I would guess that DEM politicians would not speak in religious venues if they did not believe that at least some of their listeners had the same convictions.

      James

      Like

      • And Court Christians who’ve taken the Mark of the Trump have no problem with persecuting everyone else. All depends whether Caesar is “Gooble! Gobble! ONE OF US!”

        “There is no Right, there is no Wrong. There is only POWER.”
        — Lord Voldemort

        Like

        • Unicorn,

          Please tell us the victims of Trump’s persecution. I ask you to seriously consider the definition of the verb “persecute” before you answer.
          James

          Like

          • “persecute:” 1) subject (someone) to hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of their race or political or religious beliefs. 2) harass or annoy (someone) persistently.

            synonyms: oppress, abuse, victimize, ill-treat, mistreat, maltreat, discriminate against, punish, inflict pain/suffering on, tyrannize, afflict, torment, torture, martyr

            It might be difficult to process this, but a great deal of Trump’s rivals (as well as the GOP’s rivals) are Christians, and Trump is a vicious person. When you persecute liberal Christianity, you are persecuting liberal Christians, and when you persecute liberal Christians, you are persecuting Christians. It doesn’t matter that you have tried to redefine their Christianity out of existence; rejecting someone who sees themselves as Christian because they are not Christian enough, or aren’t Christian in the right way by your judgment, and then denying them their rights, dignity, or humanity is a clear form of persecution.

            Also, it seems like maliciously deceiving a large portion of a demographic in order to take advantage of them and lead them into ruin for the sake of your own personal power and family legacy is also a type of persecution; it’s like leading someone to their funeral pyre with sweet lies–even if they don’t realize it until they’re burning, they have been mislead.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Justin,
              Which liberal Christians has Trump persecuted? Please be specific.

              Which demographic groups has Trump attempted to lead to ruin or to place upon a funeral pyre?

              As far as your supposition that Trump is a “vicious” person, you are entitled to your opinion. I personally have been around enough people from his part of the country to understand that their outward gruff expression is a common way of communication and not a sign of actual viciousness. I personally don’t behave that way and don’t especially like being around it, but I do understand how it differs from elemental mean-spiritedness.
              James

              Like

      • James, I don’t know for sure that, long term, persecuting Christians is the worst thing that could be done with them.
        Allowing them to compromise, entertaining their “leader’s” ambitious, letting them believe they have a genuine ear of a leader they influence, now that can have an impact of disorienting a significant portion of the church for years. The church grows when persecuted.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Jeff,

          There is no easy answer. I agree with you that the Church can become flabby if it is complacently “fat, dumb, and happy.” On the other hand, none of us wants to be thrown into a gulag. In the Western World at our time, Christians are not welcome in all quarters and often do suffer from externally imposed hardships.
          James

          Like

          • Leaders of large numbers of Christians have become unequally yoked. Many Christians are in effect unequally yoked. There are consequences of doing so. That is why the scriptures tells to not do this.
            These leaders are accountable.

            Like

            • Jeff,
              Unequal yoking has to be seen on a case by case and a degree by degree basis. When you use the expression, Jeff, I assume you are speaking of Paul’s guidance in II Corinthians 6:14-28. This passage is not especially linked to the earlier autobiographical passage in Chapter 6 and might well be linked to 7:12 where Paul makes a reference to the man who had been censured by Paul in his first epistle to the Corinthians. If that is the case, the Apostle is citing sin within a specific local congregation.

              You apparently want to use the passage to deride any contact between Christians and unbelieving politicians. I respect your convictions on that but I am not sure you can squeeze that interpretation out of II Cor. 6.
              James

              Like

              • No. I am not opposed to any and all contact with or even support of non Christian politicians. There are signs of being unequally yoked and consequences when those Christians doing so seem to feel they must overlook or devise explanations for the behaviors of that politician.
                There is a not so subtle difference between supporting specific policies, explaining why those are biblically sound policies, and grasping onto the political person himself. Becoming steadfastly loyal to a non Christian person across the board. Yoked.

                Like

                • Jeff,

                  Thanks for the clarification.

                  Please allow me to take its step further by asking you a question. Candidate Hillary Clinton had the steadfast loyalty of many African-American church congregations and clerics. (I don’t know why she felt obliged to occasionally switch into that affected, Southern preacher, vocal cadence when she spoke in the churches. Her skill at doing that did not match that of other white politicians and was risible.). More importantly, however, in her theology and her life, Hillary was definitely no model of Christian orthodoxy or orthopraxy. Accordingly, Jeff, would you have advised the African-American pastors not to have been “steadfastly loyal” to her as she campaigned? Were these clerics unequally yoked with her?

                  James

                  Like

  5. For those of us who believe in the sovereignty of God, there is a theological understanding that everything that happens is, by definition, part of God’s sovereign plan. But most of us still make some manner of distinction between aspects of God’s will. For example, some might differentiate between what might be called God’s desired will (what He would desire for us) and His permissive will (what He allows to happen). That is just one such model of understanding. The Bible itself seems to make it clear that some manner of distinctions are in order. So too does our reason, since it is apparent that evil exists, and without some manner of distinction here we would otherwise make God the author of that evil.

    To me it seems apparent that faith requires that we need to approach our assessment of these aspects of God’s will with some measure of humility where it is not explicitly detailed in the Bible. Much in the course of human events does not fall into that category of explicit clarity. And all too often we fall prey to the human temptation to equate what God wants with what we ourselves want. As John points out here, we now see through a glass darkly, and we should not presume more than we should. I am also reminded here of the Bible passage which observes that all of our ways are pure in our own sight, but the Lord weighs the motives.

    As a Christian, I really struggle with other Christians who seem to think that they completely know the mind of God, and know what He does or doesn’t want in all cases, and — lo and behold — it seems to match up perfectly with what they themselves want. Over the past couple of years there has been more than the usual amount of this going on, as so many have reshaped and recast faith into the image of partisan politics. This can’t end well.

    Liked by 1 person

    • As a Christian, I really struggle with other Christians who seem to think that they completely know the mind of God, and know what He does or doesn’t want in all cases, and — lo and behold — it seems to match up perfectly with what they themselves want.

      “A fanatic is someone who does what God would do — if God only knew What Was Really Going On.”
      — can’t remember the source, but it’s a good line

      “When God hates the exact same people you do, it’s a sign you have created a god in your own image.”
      — paraphrase of some quote from memory (again, can’t remember the source)

      Liked by 1 person

    • Rick,
      Have you read about the Democrats having a controversy over the use of the word “God?” It happened at their covention in 2016 and is again being discussed in the matter of oaths for public office.
      James

      Like

      • Good–I hope they take the God-talk out of their platform so that we break down the illusion that America should be a religious institution with a monotheistic theological commitment. I am for keeping the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of the world separate. The political structures of power corrupt the spirituality of the Church. Didn’t we learn anything from the Reformation?

        Like

        • Justin,
          You are running two separate concepts together. The first is separation of church and state———something with which we all agree. The second concept is overt hostility to traditional religion and morality.
          James

          Like

          • “You are running two separate concepts together. The first is separation of church and state———something with which we all agree. The second concept is overt hostility to traditional religion and morality.”

            You agree with the separation of church and state but endorse the claim that Trump is President of the United States because it is the will of God to restore the nation’s Christian values through him?

            Also, there is no hostility in what I wrote towards religion or morality, just the morality and religion that you justify because you see it as traditional. What is familiar to you is not inherently right for the world.

            Like

            • Justin,
              Restoration of a semblance of Judeo-Christian morality to the country is not the same as establishing a state church. If Trump is the man to do that, more power to him. I’d accept the same policies from most any other politician.

              As far as your definition of traditional Judeo-Christian morality, Justin, I would be curious to learn your position and the basis for it.
              James

              Like

Comments are closed.