When Faith Battles Faith
Having focused on apocalyptic literature in the Bible in my doctoral studies, I find myself alarmed by Secretary of Defense’s director, Peter Hegseth, spreading the idea that the attack on Iran is part of Biblical prophecy. Both history and faith tell us that such a stance will likely lead to disaster.
First, let’s consider what history teaches us. Apocalyptic literature speaks about the end of the world, sometimes called “the last days.” This type of literature arises when a faith community sees the future as so bleak that they see no hope other than God ending history itself. While there are examples of apocalyptic ideas in the New Testament gospels, the book of Daniel in the Hebrew Bible and Revelation in the New Testament, the majority of apocalyptic literature written between the second century BCE and the first century CE didn’t make it into the Bible.
One of the reasons apocalyptic literature has traditionally been viewed with suspicion is that it often leads to disastrous choices. In the decades after the life of Jesus, Jewish Zealots decided that the Messiah and the end of the world couldn’t come until the Jews revolted against the Romans. The Zealots revolted twice and, guess what, the Messiah didn’t arrive. Instead, Jerusalem was destroyed.
What Secretary Hegseth ignores is this: there has been a group in every century that has believed that it knew that the end of the world was just around the corner. Some people in St. Paul’s churches were so convinced that Jesus was returning shortly that they quit their jobs. Paul’s advice—if people don’t work, don’t feed them. He also said that no one knows when the end will come. Another group in the early Church went to a mountain top and waited—again, nothing happened.
One of my favorite stories in this vein concerns a Christian community in South Korea which had a pastor who prophesied that the end of the world would occur within days. The next week, after the end was supposed to come, he showed up at church and began to preach. According to the story, members of his congregation stormed the stage and beat him up. People don’t like to be fooled.
Now let’s consider the argument of faith against Hegseth’s idea that attacking Iran is some fulfillment of scripture. As I read the thinking of those who are telling troops that attacking Iran is God’s will, I see the influence of an interpretation of scripture, called dispensationalism, that most Biblical scholars believe distorts the message of the Bible. Taking passages out of context, this distorted view leads to dangerous decisions. Attacking Iran on the belief that this is God’s will is one such dangerous decision.
From Judaism’s suspicion of apocalyptic material to Jesus’ and St. Paul’s clear message that the end of history is known only to God, faith leaders in the early Church focused more appropriately on what became known as the “Just War Theory.” St. Augustine was one of those leaders who believed that war was such a danger for people of faith that it could only be approved in certain highly-restricted circumstances.
One aspect of the Just War Theory should make us pause given Trump’s current actions against Iran, Venezuela, and soon, if we are to believe Trump, in Cuba. That is, a war is not just or legitimate unless one’s country is being attacked. In other words, the only war that is approved is a defensive war. A clear example of an approved war is Ukraine’s resistance against Russian aggression.
Just War Theory doesn’t preclude opposing evil in the world. From supporting beleaguered groups in a country to working with other nations to exert pressure on another government, evil should be fought. But the Just War Theory does raise a major question for Americans. In what way does Iran pose a threat to our country? We are the clear aggressors, and it is no wonder that Pope Leo is joined by the majority of Americans who oppose Trump’s attack. It’s easy for Trump to justify his thirst for power and global control by saying he’s a white knight who is attacking evil around the world. Putin, Xi Jinping, and Netanyahu say the same.
In other words, the attack on Iran pits people of faith against other people of faith. But this is not just some cozy theological debate. The Middle East is one of the most volatile areas in the world, as everyone knows who has been paying attention to the last hundred years. Trump hopes for regime change in Iran, the same justification he made for the attack on Venezuela and the likely justification he’ll make for attacking Cuba.
Trump’s actions not only destabilize the Middle East in ways no one can predict, but they move the world closer to a nuclear war. Such an end to human history won’t be God’s will. It will our mistake in playing God.