Doctrine and Mission

Tag: Donald Trump

  • Why Movements Fracture: From MAGA to the Local Church

    Why Movements Fracture: From MAGA to the Local Church

    Introduction: The Inevitable Drift

    Movements rarely die all at once. They fracture.

    What begins as a unified cause—clear, compelling, and energizing—slowly splinters into competing factions. Voices that once stood shoulder to shoulder begin to turn on one another. What was once central becomes contested. What was once secondary becomes ultimate.

    You can see it in politics. You can see it in the church. And if we’re honest, you can see it in our own hearts.

    A Political Parable in Real Time

    The modern “America First” movement rallied around Donald Trump with a sense of shared purpose—border security, economic nationalism, and resistance to elite institutions.

    But unity around a figure is not the same as unity around a fully developed worldview.

    Now, fractures are visible:

    • Tucker Carlson emphasizes non-intervention and skepticism of foreign entanglements
    • Candace Owens has taken increasingly provocative and polarizing positions
    • Others remain firmly aligned with Trump’s policies and leadership

    What happened?

    The movement didn’t suddenly lose its passion—it lost its shared center of gravity. Once that center is tested (especially by real-world decisions like war, policy, or governance), underlying differences surface.

    And when those differences surface in a media-driven age, they don’t quietly diverge—they publicly collide.

    The Church Is Not Immune

    We would like to think the church is above this. It isn’t.

    Consider the rise and influence of Together for the Gospel Conference. It brought together pastors and leaders across denominational lines to stand on a shared conviction: the gospel is of first importance.

    For a time, that center held.

    But then came new pressures—particularly around social justice, race, and cultural engagement. What had been a coalition united by the gospel began to fracture over how the gospel applies to society.

    • Some emphasized justice as an implication of the gospel
    • Others warned against importing secular ideologies into the church

    And just like that, the coalition strained. Not because the gospel changed—but because agreement on the gospel did not guarantee agreement on everything else.

    From Denominations to Deacon Meetings

    This same dynamic is visible in the Southern Baptist Convention today. Internal debates—over leadership, abuse response, doctrinal boundaries, and cultural engagement—have exposed deep fault lines.

    But what’s most concerning is not what happens at the top.

    It’s what trickles down.

    Because eventually, that same spirit shows up in local churches:

    • Secondary issues become identity markers
    • Preferences become principles
    • Disagreements become divisions

    And unity begins to erode—not over the gospel, but over everything surrounding it.

    When Tertiary Issues Become Ultimate

    I saw this firsthand.

    A disagreement over parenting philosophy.
    A conviction about corporate worship—specifically, not allowing soloists.

    These are not insignificant topics. They matter. They require biblical wisdom.

    But they are not the gospel.

    And yet, they became lines of division. Not thoughtful disagreement—but relational fracture. Not charitable dialogue—but opposition.

    What causes that?

    It’s the same dynamic you see on the national stage:

    • Convictions untethered from proportion
    • Preferences elevated to doctrine
    • Disagreements treated as threats

    In other words, when we lose a clear sense of theological triage, everything starts to feel like a first-order issue.

    The Deeper Issue: Disordered Loves

    At the root of every fractured movement is not just disagreement—it’s disordered loves.

    We begin to love:

    • Being right more than being unified
    • Influence more than truth
    • Winning more than understanding

    And once that happens, division is inevitable.

    Even good convictions—rightly held—can become destructive when they are wrongly weighted.

    Recovering What Matters Most

    If movements fracture when they lose their center, then the solution is not the absence of conviction—but the recovery of proper order.

    The church must recover:

    1. The Centrality of the Gospel

    Not just in statement, but in function.

    The gospel must not only unite us doctrinally—it must govern how we treat one another.

    2. Theological Triage

    We must learn again to distinguish:

    • First-order doctrines (the gospel itself)
    • Second-order doctrines (that shape church life)
    • Third-order issues (where disagreement should not divide fellowship)

    Without this, everything becomes a hill to die on.

    3. Charity in Disagreement

    Conviction and charity are not enemies.

    You can hold a strong view on parenting, worship, or culture—and still refuse to divide the body over it.

    Conclusion: A More Excellent Way

    Fracturing may be inevitable in human movements—but it is not inevitable in a faithful church.

    Because the church is not ultimately held together by shared preferences, cultural alignment, or even ministry philosophy.

    It is held together by Christ.

    And where Christ is central, secondary things can remain secondary.

    But where Christ is displaced—even subtly—everything else begins to compete for first place.

    And when everything is ultimate, unity becomes impossible.

  • Does the U.S.–Israel Airstrike Fulfill Ezekiel 38?

    Does the U.S.–Israel Airstrike Fulfill Ezekiel 38?

    An Amillennial Analysis in a Time of Conflict

    In recent days the world has watched in shock as the United States and Israel launched coordinated airstrikes against Iran, a campaign that has struck key military and strategic sites in Tehran and other Iranian cities. These strikes — part of a broader conflict involving Iranian retaliation, regional escalation, and geopolitical tension — have dominated headlines. 

    Because of this, many Christians have asked a familiar eschatological question: “Is this the fulfillment of Ezekiel 38?”After all, that prophecy explicitly names Persia — which corresponds to modern Iran — among the nations allied with Gog in an end‑times coalition against Israel. 

    No wonder so many Christians are feeling anxious: a prophecy that mentions Persia being involved in a great conflict against Israel sounds eerily close to current headlines.

    The Dispensational Position: “Yes — Possibly”

    In dispensational premillennialism, passages like Ezekiel 38–39 are understood as future, literal, end‑times events. In that framework:

    • Israel is interpreted as a literal nation in the land.
    • Gog and Magog are seen as identifiable nations or leaders assembling a coalition to attack Israel in the last days.
    • Persia is naturally identified with Iran because of the linguistic and geographical continuity between ancient Persiaand modern Iran. 

    From that vantage point, any major military confrontation involving Israel and Iran — especially one with U.S. involvement — feels like it could be moving us toward the fulfillment of Ezekiel’s prophecy.

    That’s why it’s common to see livestreams, blog posts, and social‑media threads pointing to headlines about Iranian targets, airspace control, missile strikes, and Tehran explosions as “signs” of Ezekiel 38 being fulfilled. 

    What Most Biblical Scholars Say

    Before we go further, it’s important to note something: most biblical scholars — including those who do not hold to dispensational premillennialism — do not see current events as a straightforward fulfillment of Ezekiel 38.

    Scholars point out that biblical prophecy uses symbolic language, theological imagery, and ancient Near Eastern motifs that are not easily — and often should not be — mapped directly onto modern state‑level conflicts. Ezekiel’s list of nations (Magog, Persia, Cush, Put, Gomer, etc.) may indeed correspond to broad geographical regions in antiquity, but that doesn’t automatically mean the text is a news bulletin about today’s geopolitics. Many theologians emphasize that identifying ancient names with modern nations is speculative and not a reliable hermeneutical method for end‑times prediction. 

    The Amillennial Perspective

    From an amillennial standpoint — which reads eschatological prophecy inaugurated already/not‑yet rather than as a step‑by‑step military forecast — the idea that a U.S.–Israel airstrike against Iran fulfills Ezekiel 38 has several problems:

    1. The Identity of “Israel”:
    Amillennial theologians understand the people of God in Ezekiel not as the modern nation‑state of Israel but as the covenant people of God — the Church — encompassing both Jews and Gentiles united in Christ. Thus, references to Israel’s future in Ezekiel are spiritual and theological rather than geographical‑political.

    2. The Nature of “Gog and Magog”:
    Rather than a future literal alliance of nations strictly identifiable on a 21st‑century map, “Gog” and “Magog” are often read as symbolic of the forces of evil and worldly powers opposed to God throughout history. The imagery points us to spiritual opposition — culminating in Christ’s victory — not to specific military campaigns.

    3. The Purpose of the Prophecy:
    Ezekiel 38–39, in the amillennial reading, echoes the broader biblical motif: God will deliver His people and defeat all enemies. The prophecy reassures readers of divine sovereignty over chaos and conflict, not that a specific modern war automatically completes a timetable of events.

    4. Persia = Iran Doesn’t Change the Hermeneutic:
    Yes — and this is part of why people are reacting emotionally — ancient Persia is geographically analogous to modern Iran. Ezekiel uses the name Persia because that was the historical designation of the region. But recognizing that historical connection doesn’t prove that Iran’s current conflict with Israel is the prophetic fulfillment Ezekiel envisioned, because the literary and theological context of the prophecy matters far more than a loose geographical link.

    So, What Should Christians Think?

    An amillennial perspective urges caution against news‑driven eschatology — reading daily headlines as prophecy checkboxes — and instead invites us to see Ezekiel 38 not as a coded prediction of modern geopolitics, but as a theological assurance:

    God will confront His enemies and preserve His people.

    Our hope isn’t in tracking military campaigns on the evening news — but in Christ’s victory over sin, death, and all hostile powers, a victory already inaugurated in His resurrection and assured at His return.

  • The Trump and Elon Feud and SBC Cooperation

    What Two Billionaires Can Teach Us About the Need for Unity in the Church

    In recent weeks, headlines have spotlighted a public unraveling of the once-curious alliance between Donald Trump and Elon Musk. Once praised by Trump and courted by Musk, the relationship has devolved into social media barbs and personal insults. Trump has labeled Musk “a BS artist,” while Musk has increasingly distanced himself from Trump’s brand of politics. Their high-profile “breakup” is just another example of the culture of fragmentation that defines our age.

    Social media makes it easy to sever ties. A disagreement? Block. A moment of offense? Unfollow. A different worldview? Cancel. Our tools have discipled us in the habits of disunity—removing nuance and patience in favor of fast takes and instant tribalism. This is the air we breathe, and whether we admit it or not, it’s shaping our institutions—including the church.

    The SBC: A Big Tent in a Divided Age

    The Southern Baptist Convention is a diverse body. Theologically, ethnically, generationally, and geographically, we bring a lot of differences to the table. And in recent years, those differences have grown sharper. Social issues, political alignments, leadership conflicts, and theological emphasis have all contributed to rising tensions. Many are tempted to throw up their hands and walk away—to treat the church like social media: if you don’t like what you see, just “block” the whole convention.

    But the SBC isn’t Twitter. It’s not a platform built on clout or algorithms. It’s a people united by a common confession and a Great Commission. What makes the SBC work—at its best—is not uniformity, but cooperation. We voluntarily link arms to plant churches, send missionaries, train pastors, and preach the gospel to a lost and dying world. That mission is too important to walk away from.

    Unity Without Compromise

    Our culture is confused about unity. It either means total agreement or total silence. But biblical unity is something different. It’s grounded in truth and expressed in love. As Paul wrote to the Philippians, we are to be “of one mind, striving side by side for the faith of the gospel” (Phil. 1:27). Not identical minds, but a shared direction.

    We don’t need to agree on everything to cooperate in gospel work. But we do need clarity about what matters most. That’s why our confession of faith matters. That’s why doctrinal integrity must never be sacrificed on the altar of pragmatism or politics. And that’s why we must resist the cultural impulse to divide every time there’s friction. The kingdom is bigger than our tribes, and the gospel is stronger than our algorithms.

    Conclusion: Hold the Line Together

    Trump and Musk may go their separate ways, each with their own platforms and followings. But the church cannot afford to mimic their model of fragmentation. If we become just another reflection of the world’s division, we lose our witness.

    As Southern Baptists head into another convention season, let us remember: we are not bound together by personalities or platforms, but by doctrine and mission. Let the world feud. Let the church be different.