Pope Leo and Secretary Hegseth on Christianity and War: Which One is Closer to Jesus?

In the last several days, the Christian faith has been appealed to as a major motivation for the War with Iran. Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth sees the war against Iran as a conflict between Islam and Christianity. In a recent briefing at the Pentagon, Hegseth quoted a verse from Psalm 144: “Blessed be the Lord, my rock, who trains my hands for war and my fingers for battle.” This is in line with his Christian Nationalism, a defective version of Christianity. I believe that this nationalism is a distortion of the gospel message because it conflates the teaching of Jesus with the goals of national or international governments. It is a heresy. It began to permeate Christendom with the “conversion” of Constantine and has reappeared at various times in history (the Crusades,[i] the Spanish Inquisition, the conquest of the Americas, Manifest Destiny, Nazi Germany, and on and on). It is a betrayal of the message that Jesus taught and demonstrated. Jesus taught love for our enemies, not hatred. He told his disciples not to take revenge against their rivals, he told Peter to put away his sword, for those who live by the sword will die by the sword. He taught that “an eye for an eye” should give way to generous love. (Matthew 5:38-42).

Pope Leo XIV waded into the public debate in his Palm Sunday mass: “Brothers and sisters, this is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war,” Leo said. “He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them.” In a special blessing at the end of Mass, Leo said he was praying especially for Christian believers in the Middle East who are “suffering the consequences of an atrocious conflict. In many cases, they cannot live fully the rites of these holy days.”

Although I strive to follow Jesus, I am not a Roman Catholic. Nevertheless, I think Leo XIV was right on in what he says about Jesus and war. Jesus never approved of war in the Gospels. Our Lord denounced the “rulers of this world” who committed great evil yet claimed it was good. We are NOT to follow their example. (Luke 22:25-26). Jesus showed his followers a better way. The early church sought to be peacemakers and denounced war as an expression of greed. For the first three centuries, up until the time of Constantine, the church was almost universally pacifistic. They affirmed they would die for their faith, but they would not kill for it.i

Some have tried to harmonize Christianity with war through Just War Theory, a series of criteria that must be met before a war is “justified”. The war against Iran utterly fails to meet these criteria: (1) freedom for the Iranian people could be a “Just Cause” but this goal was quickly abandoned; (2) “Formal Declaration” was not met because Congress never gave the legally required authorization nor did the United Nations; (3) “Civii[an Immunity” was not respected as shown by the bombing of the girls’ school in which over 150 little girls were killed; and (4) “last resort” was not followed as the United States broke off the diplomatic negotiations that Trump himself had labeled as fruitful.

Therefore, during this Holy Week, I invite those who claim the name of Jesus for war to reread the Gospels to see what it means to follow the Prince of Peace.

[i] Decades ago, Wheaton College (a conservative Christian academic institution) eliminated the Crusader as their mascot, rightfully deeming it a bad symbol for Christianity. Campus Crusade for Christ eliminated “Crusade” from their name for the same reason. Secretary Hegseth has two Crusade tattoos on his body.

Donald Trump Urges Republican Senators to Pass His “Save” Bill “for Jesus”. The Biblical Jesus Refuses to Be a Partisan Good Luck Charm.

On Monday, President Donald Trump invoked the name of Jesus Christ in a call for Republican senators to cancel their Easter break and to stay in Washington in order to try to pass his package of new voting restrictions. Speaking at a public safety roundtable in Memphis, Tennessee, Trump said the Republican-led Senate should only concentrate on passing his Save Act and shouldn’t leave the capital until they do so.

“Don’t worry about Easter, or going home. In fact, make this one for Jesus, OK?” Trump said with a chuckle. “Make this one for Jesus, that’s what I tell them. It would be a damn good thing.”

Why did Trump invoke the name of Jesus? He was not the first politician to do so, and certainly won’t be the last, but it does raise the question: Why did he do it?

Perhaps he thought it was a “cute” religious joke: senators could worship Jesus better by passing his “Save” legislation than by attending religious services back home with their families. Perhaps…but most Americans are not laughing.
Perhaps it was a nod to Christians in his MAGA base in which he tries to remind these voters of all the “good” he has done for them.
It is more likely that Trump tried to use a cheap Christian Nationalism tactic, similar to what politicians (both Republicans and Democrats) do when they end their speeches with the words, “May God bless America.” Although the phrase is a prayer, speakers frequently use it to suggest that God is already on “our side”, that we are the “good guys”, that God approves of our fallen and failing plans.

Although the Jesus of the Bible is passionate about humanity and the small things of our lives (like daily bread), Jesus does not approve of everything we do. His list of blessed people includes the poor, the hungry, those who weep and those who are hated and rejected as evil. (Luke 6:20-22). He pronounced woe upon people like me, the rich, the well fed, those who laugh and those who are well respected… (Luke 6:24-26). This makes me uncomfortable…and so it should. Apathy towards needy neighbors is really an offense against God.

Pieces of legislation in Congress should be debated and then either be approved or rejected on their own merits, not by cheap appeals to Jesus. The Jesus that I strive to serve, the Jesus of Scripture, refuses to be a good luck charm of politicians. That is taking his name in vain.

Christianity in the White House: We Need Less Spirit of Constantine and More Spirit of Jesus

On Good Friday of last week, the New York Times published an article “Christianity in the White House” written by their columnist Ruth Graham. She narrates the growing presence and influence of Christian leaders, especially evangelicals, in the White House. Her article is primarily descriptive. In this post, I first summarize the article. Then I describe some historical examples that were similar. Finally I raise questions about whether this influence is more positive or negative.

Summary of the Facts

Over two decades ago, then President George W. Bush established the White House Faith Office. During these first one hundred days of his second administration, President Trump has expanded the prominence of this Faith Office. It is now located in the White House West Wing (albeit in the basement). It is led by Trump’s spiritual adviser, Paula White-Cain and by Jennifer Korn. Their main stated purpose is to reduce hostility against Christianity and other faiths, by creating an American version of “a Church-state alliance. They point to the fact that prayers in the White House do not need to be generic, but can now be prayed in “the name of Jesus”. Nevertheless, their goals go way beyond “religious topics”. These include issues of gender and sexuality. They take pride in Trump’s executive orders that claim there are only “two sexes,” male and female.

The Faith Office has sponsored multiple briefings and listening sessions for Christian leaders. They deal with foreign relationships, trade and tariffs, education, etc. Rev. Samuel Rodriguez affirms that these sessions give Christian leaders unprecedented access to Trump’s staff.

Now we turn to the teaching of Jesus regarding secular rulers.

Jesus and “Secular Governments”

Jesus was quite aware that human governments exercise a special temptation for his followers. Many people are attracted to power. “Then the apostles began to squabble among themselves. They were arguing about which of them would be the greatest. Jesus said to them, ‘Kings of other countries use great authority over their people. Leaders of those countries want people to say good things about them. You must not be like that. The most important person among you must become like the least important person. The person who is your leader must become like your servant.’” (Luke 22:24-26)

Some observations:

Those who follow Jesus must use great discernment to distinguish between “true goodness” from the more common “fake goodness” of many rulers who claim they are doing good for their subjects…but are not.
By exposing the hypocrisy of kings and other rulers, Jesus expects his followers to rise above the idolatrous loyalty and fawning so typical of governments, because disciples of Jesus are called to serve a higher authority: the true and living God.

Historical Examples of Church/State Alliances

Throughout history there have been numerous examples of an alliance or “marriage” between secular rulers and religious leaders or causes that are perceived as “useful” for those rulers. The classic example is the “Holy” Roman Empire. Early in the fourth century A.D. there was a power vacuum in the Empire. four Roman generals began fighting and vying for the position of emperor. At that time, Christians and churches were expanding rapidly throughout the empire in spite of being frequently being persecuted. Although they were almost universally pacifistic and refused to take up the sword, their moral support could be useful to the generals. According to tradition, General Constantine had a vision in the night in which he saw a cross in the sky together with the words “with this cross you will conquer”. Although this vision is widely regarded today as mythical, Constantine defeated his rivals and became emperor. He changed the Church’s status from “illegal” to “tolerated”. A few decades later, Christianity became the official religion in the empire. Although there were some positive results of this alliance such as the creation of “sacred music” and Christian art, there were other devastating consequences. Freedom of religion was eliminated as the people of the empire were forced to accept Christianity or at least to go through the motions. Many followers of Jesus abandoned their Biblically based pacifism. They became Roman soldiers and did not heed the Biblical warning that “those who live by the sword will die by the sword”. The tragic truth is that the empire distorted Christianity more than the church positively influenced the Empire. The fall of the Roman Empire was largely due to its own inner corruption rather than as a result of foreign attacks. This corruption seeped into the church as well. Powerful clerical posts were sold to the highest bidder. Luther was correct in denouncing these moral failures of the papacy.

Two more recent examples merit some mention. During the 15^th and 16^th centuries, weak Popes made deals with monarchs in Spain. The Spanish Inquisition emerged. This permitted the monarchs to punish Jews in their lands and to wage war against the Moors with “God’s blessing”. Later, they and their Portuguese counterparts waged savage wars upon the indigenous inhabitants of the Americas. This was truly a continent-wide holocaust executed in the name of the God of the Conquistadores. Valiant voices of protests emerged, like Bartolome de las Casas.

In the twentieth century, Hitler was enabled to carry out his horrific attempt to make Germany great again by the acquiescence of the state church. Millions of Jews, Polish, gypsies and thousands of others made in God’s image “disappeared” and were massacred, all in the name of God and his chosen Aryan race. (God’s blessing appeared on the belt buckles of the German soldiers.) Here again people (like Bonhoeffer) arose to protest against this idolatrous alliance.

Concerns About Our Contemporary Situation in the United States

In light of lessons learned from history, I have questions about the presence and “access” of some Christian leaders in the White House.

It is well known that President Trump boasts about his transactional relationships (“I give you something, you give me something”.) These religious leaders gave Trump political support during the elections of 2016, 2020, and 2024, and partially due to their support, 80% of white evangelicals voted for Trump. What did they get in return? Invitations to go to the White House and to offer up prayers in the name of Jesus do not come close to “do justice and to walk humbly with your God”.
Paula White claimed she had received messages from God (prophecies) that Trump would win the 2020 election. Trump did not win that election. This makes her a false prophet. This is quite serious, as sincere Christians might believe, and act upon, her false prophecy.
Franklin Graham heads up the international Christian ministry, Samaritan’s Purse. His father was the famous evangelist, Billy Graham. Franklin was an outspoken supporter of Trump since 2015. In the Musk/Trump gutting of USAID a few months ago, Samaritan’s Purse received an exemption, and as a result, continued to receive millions of dollars. It seems to me like a transaction based on favoritism. Was it?
Trump has a difficult relationship with the truth. He frequently wanders far from it. Christian leaders in the White House could perform a valuable ministry to him if they had the courage to confront his lies. A very big lie has to do with the war in Ukraine. We all know that Putin started the war by invading Ukraine. But now, in his “peace talks”, the Trump administration claims Putin to be a “great man” and that it was Ukraine that started the war. Paula White and Franklin Graham, have you confronted Trump about this lie?

Jesus told his disciples, “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.” (Matthew 5:13).

An Exhortation from the Word of God for Donald Trump…, and for Us

“Do not think more highly of yourselves than you should.” So wrote the Apostle Paul (Romans 12:3) around 55 AD to the followers of Jesus in the city of Rome. Although most Christians in the first century were poor and without much social power, this was not universally true. Rome was the capital of the Empire, and the Roman Empire was the most powerful empire of its day. It ruled the world with violence, arrogance and pride. Their citizens generally looked down upon their neighbors and considered others to be inferior human beings. It is tragically true that arrogance is contagious and that some of the Christians in Rome had also been infected with this pride. Therefore, the apostle exhorted them to re-evaluate themselves more carefully, more soberly, and more humbly. It shouldn’t be so difficult to acknowledge this pride, personally or nationally, but it is.

The United States is the richest, most powerful nation the world has ever known. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to equate might with right, or wealth with justice. The Bible frequently points out that wealth and power have been accumulated through violence and oppression (James 2:6). Politicians, whether they are Republicans or Democrats, proclaim that the United States is the best country in the world. This might make us feel good…, but it is not true. Our European ancestors acquired this land stewarded by indigenous nations through warfare and broken treaties. They wickedly enslaved Africans and became rich off of the labor of the slaves. Waves of immigrants came to out country seeking the “American Dream” and a better life for their children. Some saw their dreams come true, but others were grossly mistreated. In the Mexican American war, we acquired half of Mexico’s territory. Abraham Lincoln denounced this war as most unjust. I could go on and on, but this is enough to reveal some of our national faults.

Donald Trump, soon you will be sworn in as our 47^th president. Many will say that you are the most powerful man in the world…and maybe they are right. But do not think more highly of yourself that you should. You also will have to give account to God for your actions. Even presidents must bend the knee before the King of Kings. God does not ask you to enable the rich to become richer. He has other criteria. He told a Jewish king the message “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.” (Proverbs 31:8-9). Mr. Trump, I suggest that God will use similar criteria for you.

The Evangelical Pro-life Movement: Its early history, Its Biblical basis?, and its role in the upcoming election (Part 2)

Evangelicals claim that their main convictions on all issues are (and should be) shaped by the Bible. It is appropriate, therefore, to explore the most relevant Biblical passages regarding the value of humanity and in particular, abortion. These texts come from the Hebrew Scriptures which are shared by the three largest monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam).

Jews, Christians, and Muslims agree that “Every human being is created in the image of God, and therefore, has immense value” (Genesis 1:26-27). Being created in God’s image is precisely the reason why people’s lives are to be protected from the threat of murder (Genesis 9:6). This foundational truth is repeated and emphasized in the Ten Commandments: “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13) and in numerous additional passages in the Hebrew, Christian, and Islamic Scriptures. Nevertheless, they are not limited to their religious communities. They have influenced contemporary legislation prohibiting murder in every country in the world.

Today, there is an almost universal consensus regarding basic human rights and against murder. There is no such agreement regarding abortion. When does a fetus acquire the basic legal right to life? Theologians and ethicists generally land at three possible moments: at conception, at viability (about the beginning of the third trimester), or at birth. Sadly, the Bible does not directly address the topic of the human rights of a fetus. Nevertheless, here are two Biblical texts that provide some insights: Psalm 139:13-15 and Exodus 21:22-23.

Psalm 139:13-15

¹³For you created my inmost being;
    you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
¹⁴I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
    your works are wonderful,
    I know that full well.
¹⁵My frame was not hidden from you
    when I was made in the secret place,
    when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. (NIV=New International Version of the Bible)

This passage is the most cited by the Christian pro-life movement. The entire psalm emphasizes that God knows us very well. God is all knowing and omnipresent. God knew the psalmist (and us, by implication) when we were in our mother’s womb (verse 13). Pro-lifers conclude that the fetus, who is known by God, must have full legal rights. It is not quite so simple. Every verse needs to be interpreted in its context. This passage utilizes Hebrew parallelism, where a second phrase repeats and clarifies a first phrase. In the passage before us, “in the depths of the earth” (verse 15) clarifies that God knows us not merely when we were fetuses, but God also knows us from the creation of the world. This cannot mean that my individual human rights began at creation. The psalmist’s purpose was not to address the legal status of the fetus, but he wrote to emphasize the foreknowledge of God. We should respect his purpose and not force his words to mean something the psalmist did not intend.

Exodus 21:22-23

²²When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shallbe fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. ²³If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life. (RSV=Revised Standard Version of the Bible)

There are some diverse meanings of these two verses. The more accepted scenario is that there is fight between a couple of men. A bystanding pregnant woman is accidentally hurt. The result is that she miscarriages and her fetus dies, but there is no additional harm caused to her. The punishment is a fine to be determined by judges in discussion with the husband. If the woman were to die (verse 23), then capital punishment could be considered. In this scenario, the woman has full human legal rights, but the fetus does not.

A second scenario describes a situation where the woman gives birth prematurely, but the baby and the mother are both ok. Punishment would be a monetary fine. If there were additional harm to the woman (or to her baby), the penalty could be greater (a life for a life).

I wish there wasn’t so much ambiguity on this passage. The first scenario suggests that a fetus does not have the same legal status as a born person. In the second scenario, the fetus does not die, so little light is shed on the abortion debate. Where Scripture is not dogmatic, we should not be dogmatic. A bit of humility would be most welcome for this vital debate. I hope that pro-lifers would be more compassionate and that pro-choice advocates would be less flippant about abortions. We need respectful discussion on such a serious topic.

The Evangelical Pro-Life Movement: Its early history, its Biblical basis?, and its role in the upcoming election (Part 1)

In my posts this week, I will address the Evangelical Pro-Life Movement. Today I will look at its early history. In Part 2, I will analyze some pertinent Biblical passages and in Part 3 I will explore the role abortion politics might play in the upcoming election.

History – We all know that the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision took place in 1973 and essentially legalized abortions during the first two trimesters all across the country. Prior to that, states had their own policies. In my state of Ohio which prohibited abortions, those women who wanted an abortion would usually go to New York. Although most evangelicals are today in the pro-life camp, that was not the situation in the 1960s and 1970s.

In 1968 the evangelical flagship magazine Christianity Today (CT) co-sponsored a conference with the Christian Medical Society to analyze the ethical aspects regarding abortion. The final resolution illustrates a lack of consensus. “Whether the performance of an induced abortion is sinful we are not agreed, but about the necessity of it and permissibility for it under certain circumstances we are in accord.”

Carl Henry, the founder and first editor of Christianity Today (and one of my professors at Trinity) stated, “a woman’s body is not the domain and property of others”. The second editor of CT was Harold Lindsell. He also took a somewhat pro-choice position. He affirmed, “if there are compelling psychiatric reasons from a Christian point of view, mercy and prudence may favor a therapeutic abortion.”

The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) is not only the largest Protestant denomination in the United States, it is also one of the most conservative. Therefore, a look at the history of its stance on abortion reveals some surprises. At their 1971 Convention, the SBC delegates passed a resolution calling for the national legalization of abortion. They reaffirmed this pro-choice position in their 1974 and 1976 conventions.

W.A. Criswell was the pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas (the largest SBC congregation). Shortly after the Roe decision was announced, Criswell issued the following statement. “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person, and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.”

James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family who later became a staunch anti-abortionist, admitted in 1973 that the Holy Scriptures did not address the issue of abortion and therefore it was acceptable for a sincere evangelical Christian to believe that “a developing embryo or fetus was not regarded as a full human being.”

Francis Schaeffer and other leaders of the Religious Right, tried to enlist Billy Graham in their antiabortion crusade in the late 1970s, but Graham, the most famous evangelical of the last century, turned them down. Graham affirmed, “I’m for morality, but morality goes beyond sex to human freedom and social justice…. Evangelists cannot be closely identified with any particular party or person. We have to stand in the middle to preach to all people, right and left.” (I believe that his son, Franklin Graham, should have listened to his father’s words of wisdom).

The quotes mentioned above should not be interpreted as necessarily justifying either a pro-choice or a pro-life position. Here they illustrate that followers of Jesus can and do disagree on important issues, including abortion. In Part 2, we will explore the most pertinent Biblical passages.