Jerusalem II

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

Today is the 70th anniversary of the modern state of Israel's coming into existence, an event of immense significance in our understanding of God's rule in the end-times.

Today, after 70 years, the Trump Administration moved the American embassy to Jerusalem.

There is predictable protest and rioting by Palestinians, with scores of deaths.  There is predictable rejoicing by Israeli nationalists, and by American "Evangelicals" who interpret Jesus' teachings as supporting Israeli nationalism.

The dedication speech of the American ambassador to Israel stressed that today's great event was brought about entirely by President Donald J. Trump.

The Trump administration also brought in two of their strongest "evangelical" supporters to give a "Christian" blessing to the great event.  The preacher who gave the invocation (pastor of the largest Baptist church in Dallas), thanked God for bringing about the great event by giving America Donald J. Trump as president.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also gave Trump personal credit, thanks, and praise, on Israel's behalf.

I wrote about this matter last December (which is why I've entitled this post "Jerusalem II"), when Trump first announced that the embassy would move to Jerusalem:

"...I'm greatly put on guard when a world-leader who's established himself as a "man of lawlessness" (II Thessalonians 2:3) postures, for his own self-glorification, about the status of Jerusalem, the city of the Great King."  (https://cross-purposes.blogspot.com/2017_12_06_archive.html)

That concern is confirmed by the excessive glorification of Trump in today's ceremonies.

And that concern has been heightened in the interim.  Trump has, of course, continuingly shown himself a man of satan's character, lies and murder, as Jesus said in John 8:44 (the latter of which Jesus defines as bad-mouthing and hating others, Matthew 5:21-22).  But I've also been thinking, as recently as last week, about Trump's character as a covenant-breaker.

I'm always surprised that American "evangelicals," especially those who blindly support "God's chosen people," don't understand that the Jews' standing with God is based on His covenant with Abraham.  Or that God takes covenant so seriously He decrees judgement on covenant-breakers: even those who do it to get out of what they perceive as "a really horrible deal for America."

Listening to the effusive praise today at the great event in Jerusalem, it was clear that Israel's ruling faction and their American "evangelical" allies consider Trump "God's Man" for Israel, and the Jews' greatest friend.  Thinking of Trump's character,  I had to think of Daniel 9.

That chapter is usually considered prophecy of end-time events and the restoration of Israel.  It prophesies a man who is a key figure of ungodliness in the end-times,, "one who makes desolate," who will enter into "a firm covenant" with the Jews for seven years, but break it after three-and-a-half years (v. 27).

Jesus twice referenced Daniel's "one who makes desolate" (Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14: Luke  21:20's warning of Jerusalem's "desolation" may also allude to Daniel 9:27)  He seems to want us to pay special heed to Daniel's prophecy.  Christians who have usually consider that "the one who makes desolate" is probably the end-time personage we call "antiChrist:" about whom, of course, Christians have come up with thousands of theories.


I have to wonder if the time for theories is past, and we should look at the reality before us.  Not that God's given me new light (or even a new theory) about anti-Christ, in today's events in Jerusalem.  Rather that we should know what scripture has always said: that he will be a man who embodies the spirit of satan, as Jesus embodied the Spirit of God.

So we have always known (or should have known) that he will be especially distinguished by the spirit of lies and murderous hatred, as Jesus says satan is.  That anti-Christ will be a man of overweening pride, satan's own original sin: and a completely self-willed man, in rebellion against any authority over him, as satan is.

I don't have any special light from God about who antiChrist is; or even whether he's currently alive and operative on the world's stage.  But if Daniel 9:27 indeed speaks of antiChrist, one of his signal prophetic acts will be making a covenant of friendship with Israel, and subsequently breaking that covenant.

My thought on this significant day is simply that we should closely watch any world-leader who manifests satan's character, and vaunts himself on his professed friendship for Israel.  That we should closely, spiritually, watch and discern current world-leaders and events  Amen !

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

House of Representatives' Chaplain

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

Another recent news-story:

Speaker Paul Ryan evidently asked the House' Chaplain to resign.  When his letter of resignation became public, we could all read that Chaplain Pat Conroy began his letter, "As you have requested..."

But Speaker Ryan (a Catholic) has since denied that he asked Conroy (a Catholic priest) to resign.  Ryan's chief-of-staff has since denied that he told Father Conroy the House needed a non-Catholic Chaplain.  Some protestant Republicans in the House  (mostly from the South) have since withdrawn their comments that the House needs a Chaplain with children, who can "connect" with members.

Father Conroy has since withdrawn his resignation.  He became convinced his ouster was a veiled attack on his religion.

But Father Conroy also said that after his prayer for the House during the Republican budget-push a few months ago, Ryan had told him, "Padre, you got to stay out of politics."  Among other things, Conroy had prayed God to give House-members a purpose "...that there are not winners and losers under new tax laws, but benefits balanced and shared by all Americans.”

Ryan has also denied that he (a chief author of the Republicans' budget) had asked for Father Conroy's resignation because he was politically offended by that prayer, though many members of the House (in both parties) are convinced that was the issue for Ryan.

Among them, a southern Republican member I heard on NPR.  I missed his name, and can't quote him verbatim: but his angry point was that when you start telling a man what he should or shouldn't pray when he's talking to God, you've gone too far.  Bless that member's heart !

All the allegations, denials, walk-backs, "spin," hypocrisy (especially by Republican champions of "religious liberty" who really aren't), hints of religious prejudice, etc., etc.: par for the course.

Maybe the spiritual needs of the current "conservative" House of Representatives are 'way greater than a Chaplain can handle.

I'd suggest the "spiritual needs" of the current House of Representatives House require an exorcist.

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

Demons

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              


Reading the book of Mark, we were talking about a time Jesus made a demon leave a possessed man.

Someone asked," What do you imagine we would call demons these days ?"

I immediately, forcefully, said, "Demons."

The question seemed to presuppose that what people in Jesus' time thought were evil spirits were actually what we now know are pyschological phenomema of some kind.

That idea is not completely off-base.  Scientific research has found out a great deal more than was known 2000 years ago about such things as mental illness, personality disorders, and abberant pychological states.

All of those are real phenomena; oftentimes, they are kinds of harm that human beings do to themselves.  The Bible is about reality, and about how God saves men even (especially) from themselves: so it doesn't seem at all "Biblical" to claim that pyschological and mental disease don't exist.  They absolutely do.

And because there are so many kinds of pyschological and mental harm human beings can do themselves (and each other), the most critical skill in diagnosis is distinguishing one from another.  That's where we come back to Jesus.

When Jesus cast out demons or taught about demons, He treated them as non-corporeal beings under satan's spiritual command, who afflicted, and even inhabited, human beings.  Believing in Jesus means believing Jesus knew what He was talking about...especially when He was talking about spiritual realities.

I have no doubt He also knew everything about mental and psychological disease that scientific researchers have learned in the last 2000 years, or ever will learn.  When He diagnosed people as having a demon problem, it wasn't because He mistook their symptoms for some other kind of mental and psychological problem.

Jesus' diagnosis was infallible.  Diagnosis is always a bit iffier for us.  That's why I think one of the charismata God gave Christians is "distinguishing of spirits" (I Corinthians 12:10).  The Spirit of God is the only One able to diagnosis demons as infallibly as Jesus.

Failure to seek the Spirit throws us into one of two errors.  One is that there's no such things as demons, and man has (only) psychological and mental disorders.  The other, that all of man's non-physical disorders are caused by demons.  Either un-Spiritual attitude blinds us to reality.

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

Speaking in Tongues: The Value of Controversy

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

Satan is, and has to be, a controversialist.  He's chosen to put himself in the position of denying everything God says and does; so he's endlessly busy spreading his "alternative facts" and contrarian viewpoints.

He's still telling the children of Eve the same lie he told Eve, that disobeying God will make life better and greater...not result in death, as God says.  "Has God indeed said...?" (Genesis 3:1).  And he's still arguing (and we still hear those he's deceived by his argument, saying) that Jesus was not really a flesh and blood human being, not God's Son, not the Messiah, and that God didn't literally raise Him from the dead.

But the problem of the contrarian...or better, rebel...mindset is that it is completely controlled by the one it rebels against.  He's infinitely subtle about it: but satan's chosen position can never really be more subtle than an angry child reflexively shouting "It is NOT !!"  to everything his parent says.  We've all seen wise parents turn rebellious outbursts to their purpose.

God turns controversy to His purposes.  Controversy is always about what IS and what is not.  My observation is that God uses the controversies raised by satan's denials to call to our attention what He truly says and does.

Satan's not above manufacturing false ones, to put us off the track; but every real controversy is ultimately about Truth.  Every real controversy arises from satan's questioning what's true: "Has God indeed said...?"  And every controversy, if we perceive it and pursue it rightly, is a way that God affirms His Truth.

That's not to say even real controversies can't put us off the track, and play into satan's hand.  Many people simply hate disagreement, and are easily persuaded to walk away from controversy.  If anyone (it doesn't matter who) disagrees (it doesn't matter why) with anything, they want no part of the matter..."too controversial," and unpleasant.

But when Truth is under attack, I'd question how much "love of Truth" is evidenced by anyone who walks away.  We are told to "...always [be] ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you..." (I Peter 3:15).  If our hope is not in the truth of what God says, and if we are not willing to defend that truth...what claim do we have to being Christians ?

Peter goes on to say that our defense must be "...with gentleness and reverence."  This is the other main way we play into satan's hand in controversy.  We can easily fall into the trap of coming to love...even identify with...the controversy, more than Truth.  When we do, we become, like satan, "controversialists."  And, like satan, our desire in controversy becomes not defending Truth, but destroying others.

All that seems necessary prologue in talking about "speaking in tongues."  The charismata, "grace gifts," "spiritual gifts," have been controversial in our time.  I consider the controversy means God is spotlighting the charismata to our attention: and that all who love Truth will dig into scripture to see what He says about them.

Looking at what scripture says about tongues is the point of my following post.

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

Politics: America, 2018

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

The excuse I hear, and have heard ever since Donald Trump came on the scene, is that "all politicians lie," and/or "politicians always lie."

Like all generalizations, there's a bit of truth in those statements.

Even the best politicians stretch the truth a bit, or bend it slightly (or greatly) to their advantage.  They always have.

But the attitude of those generalizations, that politics today is the same as it's always been, is hugely false.  Maybe Donald Trump's continual blatant falsehoods are the traditional New York real-estate developer standard, and all the denizens of that sub-culture know everyone's lying, and expects everyone to lie, and thinks lying is no big deal.  That is not the traditional standard of American politics.

Nobody has to think back very far to realize that.  Republicans lambasted Bill Clinton for lying about his relations with Monica Lewinsky: it served their political purposes.  Democrats lambasted George Bush for lying about "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq: it served their political purposes.

Before Donald Trump, both parties recognized the standard of truth, and believed that truth mattered to voters.  Both parties believed they could fatally harm their opponents with voters by catching their opponents in a lie...if they could avoid being caught in their own.

Richard Nixon was tripped up by his lies.  Even Ronald Reagan had to publically crawfish that he was kept in the dark by underlings like Oliver North, and didn't intentionally lie to Americans about his administration's dirty tricks.

So it's absolute self-deception to believe our politics are the same as they've always been, and Trump is just another lying politician of the kind we're used to.

He's not.  Trump recognizes no standard of truth.  His own counter-factual pronouncements are all he believes: and he himself doesn't really believe them.  He admitted (or bragged) that he "made up" trade-figures when he was arguing with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, so he clearly understands there's a difference between his own bullshit and truth.

But most of all, it's not the same old politics because many Americans voters no longer care that they are being lied to.  Very many are willing to obstinately argue that Trump's manifest, hourly lies aren't really untrue...and even if they are, so what ?  By them, Trump is "making America great again."

Where in our newly-amoral politics are Christians...followers of The One Who said "I AM...The Truth"... ?  Very often, Christians are among those most obstinately arguing for, and making excuses for, Trump's lies.

There are consequences: God judges those who lie, and those who love lies.  He harshly judges those who love lies while claiming they love Jesus.

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

Being Misunderstood

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

Nothing infuriates me more than being misunderstood.

I know that "understanding" is the other person's job.  If I say what I mean as clearly as I can, that's all that I can do, or be expected to do.  I can't "understand" for someone else.  

My problem (and it is my problem) is thinking that if I explain things again, in a slightly different way, the person I'm talking to will be able to "get it."  And if they don't, maybe another try, from a different angle, will get across to them what I'm saying.  In library-school terms, I tend to "re-package" information to make it "accessible" to the "consumer."

But I know that amounts to trying to make another person understand, which isn't in my control.  And it always has something of manipulation to it, when you try to make another person's cognitive processes work the way you want them to.

That kind of "manipulation" isn't always a bad thing.  Anyone who teaches (formally or informally) is manipulating another person's cognitive processes, to a desired end.  It's the process we call "learning," and human society could not exist without it.

And anyone who has ever tried to teach another person something, formally or informally, knows that there are people who simply don't will to, or even consciously will NOT to, learn.  Many times the frustration of talking to people who "don't get it" is that they clearly don't want to understand, or want to "understand" only in their own terms.

Yesterday in Sunday School we were talking (after watching a rather "pious," in the not-best sense, Max Lucado film about the resurrection) about forgiveness.  That isn't it wonderful God forgives us; and doesn't He command us to forgive each other; and how many times did Jesus say we should forgive others ?

My thought was that forgiving people who do wrong is one thing: but that there are people who are wrong.  That forgiveness is redemptive toward those who recognize right and wrong, and can see that they've done wrong; but wasted toward those who vest their identity in wrong character.

In John 8 Jesus confronted some of "...those...who had believed Him," telling them they were children of the devil, because they wanted to lie and murder, just like their father.  In II Thessalonians 2 God says He eventually writes off those who persist in refusing to "...receive the love of the truth so as to be saved:" and at that point Himself sends them a "deluding influence" ("strong delusion," KJV) so they will believe a lie.  

Obviously none of us manifest Jesus' "seamless" Character (Lucado talked at great length about how Jesus' seamless garment was like His Character)...but people unmistakably show what they are by whether they love truth, or love lies.

One gal in the class disagreed, as she has before, by saying people had certainly fooled her before.  Which is true, for any of us.  People have certainly fooled me before.

But it seemed to miss my point, which was that everyone is unmistakably of one character or the other.  The way God sees it is that human beings are either of the spirit of truth, or that of lies.  We have to say God sees it rightly...and we have to see it the way He does.  That simple.

It also seems simple to do.  We have the Holy Spirit, Whom Jesus called "the Spirit of Truth:" we only need to listen to Him to see it as God sees it.  And to hear what He says, we only need to ask Him.

What I replied to my sister was something like "The Holy Spirit doesn't get fooled."  I didn't mean it that way, but thought later she may have taken that as a put-down: that she wasn't spiritual enough.  She may have even taken it as "I'm spiritual, and you're not," and been offended.  I don't know.

I doubt she's one of those people who choose to misunderstand, because they don't want to hear what you're saying: but I think she misunderstood.  She was talking about person-to-person perception, and I wasn't.  There can only be understanding when two people are talking about the same thing.

Nonetheless, it was frustrating to be misunderstood.  Quite apart from the fact I felt like I was saying something important about how God sees things, and how we must see things, it was frustrating on a person-to-person level.

Frustrating that I said what I meant as clearly as I could, and it evidently didn't get across to people.  Frustrating that people will "understand" my words the way they choose to, and I can't do anything about it.

Frustrating that my sister may have been offended because of the way she "understood" my words, and if so, there's nothing I can do about that either.  If offended, I hope she'll remember that our context was God's command we forgive each other.

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

Living Parables

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

I've been thinking again about Hosea's prophecy:  How God gave His word to the people in a parable that Hosea lived before them.

It gives me new light on something I've long noticed, listening to the daily news.

It has often happened (just to cite the most notable instance) that some person in a news-story is grief-stricken.  In our society, it's often the parent of a murder-victim.  It has amazed me how often, even weeping, a grieving parent will say, "I have to forgive him," or "I am going to forgive him," about the murderer.

I've even heard stories where a parent has befriended the murderer, visiting him in prison, advocating for him at parole-hearings, "adopting" him on his release from prison: loving the murderer of their child.

We all know how powerful was the Christian witness of the Amish community, after their daughters were slaughtered in their school-house.  Because it was a high-profile mass-murder, the news went around the world.how they grieved for, and supported, and comforted the family of the man who murdered their children.

But even in "secular" mass shootings, we hear the grief-stricken speak forgiveness.  Even in the many less news-worthy individual shootings, or other devastating crimes against people, it's amazing how many of the deeply-grieved say they forgive.

Forgiveness is not always as definitive a "Christian witness" as it was by the Amish.  Some forgivers reference their Christian faith; some don't.  There's not always a reason given.  No doubt some forgive for other reasons than Jesus' teaching and Example.  I've heard Moslem victims of car-bombings say they forgive the bomber.

It's always seemed to me that doesn't matter.  The spirit of forgiveness is "out there," operating in people's hearts.  The spirit of forgiveness is Jesus' spirit.  More than whether people acknowledge Him, the point is that He is "at work" among us, as He said He'd be, whether or not we acknowledge Him.

It is, for us individually, the choice between life and death that we acknowledge Him...fully, continually, devotedly.  But He is present and manifest and ruling among men, whether or not we choose to see Him.  Being able to see Him present and working is one joy of acknowledging Him.

When we do, we see Him enacting living parables around us, among us, of His Word to us.  His salvation, in Hosea.  His forgiveness, in grieving parents.

Praise You, Father !!  Thank you, our beloved King.

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

"Not That Kind of Christian"

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

My daughter sometimes re-posts on facebook things she's seen on a website called "I'm Not That Kind of Christian."

Usually those posts spotlight a telling contrast between what Jesus taught, and the teachings of today's Christian "leaders" who toady to "conservative" politicians.  One I especially remember paired Jesus' words on how we should treat "enemies" with a quote of Franklin Graham's obsequious praise for the current president's threatening to "incinerate" every North Korean.

That group's name reminded me of the discomfort many of us felt some years ago, when Fred Phelps' followers' were continually keeping themselves in the news, with their "God Hates Fags" signs, and demonstrating at the funerals of soldiers who died (they claimed) because God was punishing America for allowing same-sex marriage.

If a passage came up in Bible study calling homosexuality sin, my friends would agree it's so, but usually feel they needed to reference Phelps group, and quickly add, "But I'm not that kind of Christian."  If we're honestly trying to follow scripture's teachings, we're put in the position of having to differentiate ourselves from the "Christians" who use God's words to justify their anger, hatred, and violence.

When people doing the works of satan perversely call themselves "Christian," we're right to separate ourselves from them.  Our identity as Christians is Christ's Identity.  He only gives it to those who do His works.

I've been wholeheartedly "pro-life" for 50 years now.  Ronald Reagan converted me.  I was a convinced Goldwater conservative after reading "The Conscience of a Conservative" in the early '60s: so when Goldwater's greatest spokesman became Governor of California, I was eager to see how a real conservative would change government.

One of the first changes Reagan made was to California's anti-abortion law.  With his encouragement, Republican legislators enacted America's most "permissive" abortion statute, and Reagan signed it into law.  The number of legal abortions in California skyrocketed.

It was quintessential conservative doctrine, that government's interference in citizens lives should be severely limited.  And what greater individual "right" could there be, where government's "intrusion" was more illegitimate, than in the individual's decision to have, or not have, a child ?  (The later Roe v. Wade decision for a "right" to abort was also based on that conservative principle.)

At the time (1967), I really didn't know what abortion was.  I had to look it up.  When I found out what it meant, my reaction was (the same as John Brown's the first time he saw a slave) "That's wrong."  I haven't changed that view.  And my contempt for conservatism probably dates to that time as well.  Contempt is the only right reaction to any doctrine that justifies evil.

When Reagan ran for President a decade later, I thought maybe he'd had a change of heart.  He said he was "pro-life" then.  But in his 8 years of popularity and power, he did nothing to actually change abortion law.  It seemed clear he talked "pro-life," as his faction of "conservatives" have talked it ever since, primarily as a vote-getting tactic with the "Christian conservative" movement that was created to elect him (over that arch-nonChristian, Jimmy Carter).

My hatred of the politicians' hypocrisy, and that of "Christian leaders," has grown in the 40 years since Reagan.  So it's become increasingly necessary...and I'm increasingly glad...to distinguish between following Jesus, and following "Christian conservative" politicians and preachers.  Anyone whose intent is to follow Jesus is forced to distinguish himself from those whose "Christianity" amounts to supporting liars (like the current president) and murderers (like the N.R.A.).

I'm not that kind of Christian.  Nobody who is a Christian is.

In our time, it's become necessary to distinguish ourselves from those who claim Christ's Identity, while doing the works of satan.  We can best draw that distinction by doing the works of Jesus.  One of His works was calling out the hypocrisy of "religious leaders" who were leading His sheep to destruction. Let us all do the works of Jesus.

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

Mass Murder Again

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

With every mass-murder, it seems increasingly clear there is no hope of this country changing its course.

Every murder is followed by the same debate, between the same irreconcilable "pro-gun" and "anti-gun" factions.  Whatever other issues come into the debate, its spirit is political.

The deepest kind of political, because any American debate about "rights" is political, and the N.R.A. has framed the debate as being about "rights."  The uselessness of the debate is that the N.R.A. has defined "rights" as having guns.

Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom of God.  He didn't say much about politics, the human construct by which mankind tries to assert its rule.  Nowhere is the spirit of "politics" more blatant than in societies like America's, whose faith is that "the people rule," Greek demos kratia. Jesus's contrary message is that God rules.

Jesus also didn't say much about "rights."  Unless giving up everything to which He was "entitled," even His human life, said everything about "rights."

Jesus does talk about murder.  He says that everyone angry with his brother (such as most people engaging in America's gun-debate) is guilty of murder (Matthew 5:21-2).  I John 3:15 makes Jesus' teaching even more explicit: "Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer."

Jesus also says murderers act in the character of their father, satan (John 8:44).

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

The Turn-About of Disobedience

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

As my long-time teacher Derek Prince pointed out, the word "authority" comes from the word "author," which means "the person by whom a thing is created."  Even leaving aside His complete wisdom, His infinite love, and all else He IS that makes Him the Only One Who should ever rule, God's absolute authority in all things is His as absolute Author or all things.

So His decision that men should have kings to rule among them is unquestionable, as is His choice of the men who will rule.  His command is that we respect and obey those He puts in authority, in respect and obedience to His Sole authority to make those choices.

An interesting thing has happened among us in recent years.  When God placed Barack Obama in authority in America, there were very many people (including very many Christians) who treated him with complete contempt.  In our recent history, no American president has been more violently hated, or had more lies told about him.

Of course God's choice of the "kings" He gives us owes nothing to the personalities of the men.  But it's interesting that those who most reviled and hated Obama were those most instrumental in "choosing" (as they thought) the current president, who was one of their kind.

The current president has certainly made that faction's characteristic spirit a large part of how he rules.  America has never had a president who ruled with more contempt, hatred, and lies than this one "chosen" by those Americans most given to lies and hatred.

I don't entirely subscribe to the saying that "people get the kind of leaders they deserve."  It doesn't seem completely accurate, or fair, to blame the ruled for rulers like Hitler, Nero, Stalin, and others.  But in the reality that God authored, there will certainly always be a moral equity between what people do, and the consequences of their actions.

It all comes down, ultimately and completely, to God's authority.  And the most important point is that He commands those He sets in authority, His authority, to rule in His Character, as "ministers [servants] of God" (Romans 13:4, 5).  He commands that they rule in His moral Character, for good to those who do good, and "bring[ing] wrath" on evil-doers.

The kind of rule God commands of those to whom He gives His authority could not be farther from that of America's current ruler.  I will not say that the lovers of lies and hatred who (believe they) "chose" him "got the kind of leader they deserve:" but there's a God-ordained moral equity in their being ruled in the spirit they love.