From Newsgroup: alt.politics.usa

Does God want Messiah Trump on the Cross?

Evangelical holy war: Why some Christians think Trump will end the world Matthew Burkholder, University of Toronto
Wed, March 18, 2026 at 2:04 p.m. EDT
6 min read
Add Yahoo as a preferred source to see more of our stories on Google.
Add Yahoo on Google

Soldiers in the United States Armed Forces have lodged more than 100 complaints with the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) stating
that their commanders are using extremist religious rhetoric to describe
the U.S.-Israel war against Iran.

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 oanointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to Earth.o

In a recent interview with Democracy Now!, the MRFFAs president, Mikey Weinstein, said the foundation was oinundatedo with calls from soldiers indicating that commanders across the armed forces owere euphorico because
the war would serve as a way to obring their version of weaponized Jesus back.o

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 oreligious fanatic lunatics.o Secretary of
Defense Pete Hegseth said: oCrazy regimes like Iran, hell-bent on prophetic Islamic delusions, cannot have nuclear weapons.o

Meanwhile, American televangelist John Hagee recently claimed that Russia, Turkey, owhatAs left of Irano and ogroups of Islamicso would soon invade Israel and be destroyed by God.
American evangelicalism

During my PhD in Christian theology, IAve asked why some American
evangelical religious movements, which have gained increasing visibility
and power through President Donald TrumpAs MAGA politics shaped heavily by white Christian nationalism, embrace violent interpretations of what theologians refer to as oeschatologyo (a theology of end times).

Read more: When war looks like prophecy: How U.S. aend timeA narratives
frame the war with Iran

While the term oevangelical Christiano 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 JesusAs 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.

Read more: As Iran war expands, some conservative Christians interpret the conflict through biblical prophecies

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 GodAs final act in history, with Trump seen as the dominating and aggressive man who can help usher in GodAs violent judgment of his enemies. Interpretations of JesusAs death and violence

ItAs relevant to consider how some Christian beliefs about JesusAs death correlate with a willingness to support or justify violence.

Protestant Evangelical theologians, such as J. I. Packer and John Stott,
argue that JesusAs death primarily opaid the penaltyo for human sin. They emphasize that GodAs holiness requires a payment for this sin. In this framework, God orchestrates the violent death of Jesus to satisfy GodAs
penal justice to forgive humanity.

Non-evangelical Christians, on the other hand, like 19th-century Congregationalist Horace Bushnell and contemporary Mennonite theologian J. Denny Weaver, understand the death of Jesus as an example of GodAs love.

In this interpretation, Jesus doesnAt endure violence to pay a debt to God. Instead, the death of Jesus is more akin to that of a martyrAs 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 oon that cross, as Jesus died, the wrath of God was satisfiedo to othe love of God was magnified.o Ultimately, the authors rejected the proposal.

But the conflict demonstrates that Christians are passionate about their different interpretations of JesusAs 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 JesusAs 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 oinsidero 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:

oYou 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.o

Piper was quickly labelled owokeo and pushing an oirresponsibleo theology
by Trump supporters. American theologan Russell Moore noted years ago:

oMultiple pastors tell me, essentially, the same story about quoting
the Sermon on the Mount, parenthetically, in their preaching u aturn the
other cheekA u to have someone come up after to say, aWhere did you get
those liberal talking points?Ao

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 u 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.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2