According to some complaints, American military commanders have told their troops the attack on Iran is a holy war, and that U.S. President Donald Trump was “anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to Earth.”
In a recent interview with Democracy Now!, the MRFF’s president, Mikey Weinstein, said the foundation was “inundated” with calls from soldiers indicating that commanders across the armed forces “were euphoric” because the war would serve as a way to “bring their version of weaponized Jesus back.”
The comments are among other violent religious rhetoric to come from U.S. officials. The U.S. ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, caused a diplomatic row when he suggested Israel had a biblical claim to take over much of the Middle East.
The language also comes as some American officials have sought to characterize the Iranian government as fanatical. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Iran was run by “religious fanatic lunatics.” Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said: “Crazy regimes like Iran, hell-bent on prophetic Islamic delusions, cannot have nuclear weapons.”
Meanwhile, American televangelist John Hagee recently claimed that Russia, Turkey, “what’s left of Iran” and “groups of Islamics” would soon invade Israel and be destroyed by God.
American evangelicalism
During my PhD in Christian theology, I’ve asked why some American evangelical religious movements, which have gained increasing visibility and power through President Donald Trump’s MAGA politics shaped heavily by white Christian nationalism, embrace violent interpretations of what theologians refer to as “eschatology” (a theology of end times).
While the term “evangelical Christian” is notoriously difficult to define, historian David Bebbington, who focused on these movements in the United Kingdom, delineated four broad charactersitics: a strong belief in the Bible, the death of Jesus for sins, a conversion experience and social activism.
My own research specialization is how modern Protestant Christians, including evangelical Christians, understand the significance of Jesus’s death, also referred to as the atonement, and its relationship to the end times.
Seeking Armageddon
Rhetoric about wars being religious, and Trump being divinely anointed and about to cause Armageddon, is deeply disturbing and has catalyzed condemnation from Christians in the U.S. and beyond advocating non-violent and diplomatic foreign policy.
Violent U.S. religious rhetoric being amplified with the U.S.-Israel war against Iran is associated with beliefs that once Israel is restored as a nation and the temple in Jerusalem is rebuilt, Jesus will return and judge humanity.
Christians adhering to these views read the Biblical Book of Revelation, with its vivid symbolic apocalyptic language, as making literal claims about history. They maintain their inspired and authoritative Biblical interpretation allows them to know that conflicts in the Middle East initiate God’s final act in history, with Trump seen as the dominating and aggressive man who can help usher in God’s violent judgment of his enemies.
Interpretations of Jesus’s death and violence
It’s relevant to consider how some Christian beliefs about Jesus’s death correlate with a willingness to support or justify violence.
Protestant Evangelical theologians, such asJ. I. Packer and John Stott, argue that Jesus’s death primarily “paid the penalty” for human sin. They emphasize that God’s holiness requires a payment for this sin. In this framework, God orchestrates the violent death of Jesus to satisfy God’s penal justice to forgive humanity.
Non-evangelical Christians, on the other hand, like 19th-century CongregationalistHorace Bushnell and contemporary Mennonite theologianJ. Denny Weaver, understand the death of Jesus as an example of God’s love.
In this interpretation, Jesus doesn’t endure violence to pay a debt to God. Instead, the death of Jesus is more akin to that of a martyr’s tragic death. These theologians reject violence as a condition for forgiveness.
A 2012 debate in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) about a hymn demonstrates this tension, with a proposed change of hymn lyrics from “on that cross, as Jesus died, the wrath of God was satisfied” to “the love of God was magnified.” Ultimately, the authors rejected the proposal.
But the conflict demonstrates that Christians are passionate about their different interpretations of Jesus’s death.
Divine violence in atonement
Researchers have shown that penal atonement beliefs predict a negative association with a sense of responsibility for reducing pain and suffering in the world. This is not surprising when violence is incorporated as redemptive into theological frameworks.
I make a connection in my PhD dissertation between accepting divine violence in the atonement and divine violence in eschatology. Of course, this topic is far more complex and nuanced. Nonetheless, Christians are always going through a process of interpretation and negotiation when it comes to sacred texts.
For example, is Jesus the warrior Christ of Revelation 19 riding a warhorse to go into battle against his enemies or the teacher of peace in Matthew 21 who commands his followers to love their enemies just as God perfectly does?
Biblical interpretation and political beliefs
For those who see violence as a tool for redemption, they are more apt to subvert Jesus’s nonviolent teaching with images found in the Biblical book of Revelation. For those who see violence as incompatible with Christian ethics, they will interpret this allegorically, and with humility, paying attention to signs of God not just in their own lives and “insider” group. These two approaches will also inform political beliefs as well.
Consider a recent social media post by Reformed Baptist theologian and pastor John Piper. The post simply quotes Leviticus 19:34:
“You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.”
Piper was quickly labelled “woke” and pushing an “irresponsible” theology by Trump supporters. American theologan Russell Moore noted years ago:
“Multiple pastors tell me, essentially, the same story about quoting the Sermon on the Mount, parenthetically, in their preaching — ‘turn the other cheek’ — to have someone come up after to say, ‘Where did you get those liberal talking points?’”
A more responsible evangelical theology
I argue Christians should not believe in a God of violent death, but life. Violent atonement and eschatology portrays a God who is not above revenge and a God who leaves most of humanity hopeless.
We are left asking a series of disturbing questions if God is indeed about to end the world with violence. Why does the tone of this theology resemble the tone of empire, which crushes enemies instead of building bridges with them? Why does Jesus, as One Person of the One God, expect his followers to love their enemies — if God the Father ultimately does not?
All Christians in the U.S. and beyond need to reject violent theology as incompatible with the love of God that was magnified on the cross.
Matthew Burkholder, PhD Candidate, Theological Studies, University of Toronto
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.