In Part 1, I pointed out ways I believe “activism” via social media is largely pointless and even sometimes sinful. So far as I can tell, making and sharing posts on social media doesn’t do much good in actually addressing the pressing societal problems of our day.

But does that mean Christians, when grieved or outraged by current events, can only sit back in silence, saying and doing nothing?

Not at all. On the contrary, there are fruitful ways Christians can address the issues affecting our country and our world.

Not everything I am about to propose is biblically required. I do not want to bind others’ consciences wrongly. So, I will do my best to distinguish between what is scripturally mandated and what I personally think is beneficial. Nevertheless, I believe all the following options are better than venting our rage on the internet.

Recognizing our limitations

First and foremost, we need to recognize and accept the limitations we live under as finite, fallible, sinful human beings (Psalm 103:13-16, 146:3; Isaiah 64:6; 1 Corinthians 1:18-31; James 4:13-15).

We are not God. We are not all-knowing, all-powerful, or all-good. We cannot know everything about every major social issue or public crisis. We can only do so much to concretely address those issues and crises, and we will never provide an ultimate resolution. Even when we can intervene, there is always a risk our interventions will make things worse.

This is not cynicism or defeatism. This is honesty in the face of reality. If we forget we are finite, fallible, and sinful, we will grossly overestimate our ability to understand and address the problems in our world, leading to pride, poor decisions, burnout, and despair.

It’s perfectly normal to feel overwhelmed by everything going wrong around us. But if we assume, even unconsciously, we are somehow able and responsible to fix it all, we will drive ourselves over the edge. Before we do anything else, we must adopt the appropriate mindset about what we can and can’t do to address the world’s problems.

Take it to the Lord in prayer

As Christians, we understand although we are not all-knowing, all-powerful, or all-good, we worship the God who is (Isaiah 40:12-31, 43:10-13). Furthermore, we understand God has already taken action to provide the ultimate resolution for all the world’s problems.

Even though humanity has plunged the world under the curse of sin and death through our rebellion against God, the Lord has sent his eternal, divine Son into the world in human flesh as the man Jesus Christ. And after Jesus lived a perfectly righteous life, he died on the cross for our sins in our place before rising from the dead in glory, triumphing forever over sin and death (John 3:13-21; Romans 1:18-5:21; Ephesians 2:1-10; Philippians 2:5-11).

And because of what Christ has done, we are guaranteed one day Christ will return to judge sin and usher in the New Heavens and the New Earth, which will be eternally free from sin and death, where we will live forever with God, enjoying perfect peace and joy forevermore—if we simply turn from our sins and trust in Christ (2 Peter 3:8-13; Revelation 21:1-22:5).

In a world increasingly gripped by anxiety and despair, believers in Jesus Christ know there is a happy ending guaranteed. Even when we are utterly powerless to address the world’s problems, we can always encourage ourselves and others by turning attention to the saving work of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 3:15).

But even now, we can turn to the Lord for help and receive at least partial relief and deliverance. We can and should appeal to our all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good God through prayer.

Though the unbelieving world may scoff at “thoughts and prayers,” we Christians know prayer really does work—and is in fact commanded in Scripture (Philippians 4:6; 1 Thessalonians 5:16-18; James 5:13-18).

Where the rubber meets the road

The above responses—embracing an appropriate mindset, proclaiming the hope of the gospel, and prayer—are the most important and helpful steps Christians can take in responding to the major public crises and controversies of our day.

That said, there is plenty more Christians can do—but not necessarily must do—in response to serious social problems.

First, in the United States, we can vote. If you are eligible, you can register to vote, research the issues and candidates, and vote. Don’t just vote in presidential elections. Vote in other federal, state, and local elections. Voting is one of the most concrete ways you can influence public policy.

Second, we can volunteer. While the opportunities available depend on where one lives, if there’s a major social issue or ongoing crisis you care deeply about, there are usually local organizations and campaigns to which you can give your time and energy that will make a meaningful impact in your community. Above all else, you can and should serve in your own local church.

Third, we can donate. Organizations and campaigns need money, and even a little bit can go a long way. If you want to make a real difference, even a small financial donation can do a surprising amount of good. It will certainly do more good than an angry spiel on Facebook.

One more point: Given our limitations described above, we need to recognize the importance of local action. Your highest moral obligation is to your own immediate community, not to a community on the other side of the country or the other side of the world. If you try to help somewhere else but ignore your neighbor in need right down the road, your priorities need to be reoriented.

Bringing it all together

It’s easy and tempting to spend hours “doomscrolling” on the internet, consuming massive amounts of (mis)information about public affairs, and screaming into the maelstrom of meaningless noise that is social media.

But you should save yourself the exhaustion, wasted time, and potential for sin. There are vastly healthier and more productive ways to “speak up” and take action.

However, even as we strive to make a meaningful difference in the world, we must always remember ultimate salvation only comes through Jesus Christ. Even our best efforts can’t save the world. But Jesus can, and he will. He has already put his plan into motion and guaranteed its outcome. We can rest in the work of Jesus Christ and point others toward him.

There are good things we can do to address social problems and public crises, but trusting in Jesus and telling others about him is certainly the best thing we can do.

Joshua Sharp is the senior pastor of First Baptist Church in Chappell Hill, and a graduate of Southwest Baptist University in Bolivar, Mo., and Baylor University’s Truett Theological Seminary in Waco. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.

In my editorial last week, I used the analogy of a train and train tracks to discuss the relationship between doctrine and mission. I wrote: “Doctrine is like the tracks guiding our way. Mission is the fuel that propels us down the tracks.”

Several responded to my assertion “mission, not doctrine, should drive the train.” We published three of those responses by Jordan Villanueva, Scott Jones, and Kimlyn Bender. I encourage you to read them here, here, and here. The questions and cautions each writer raises are warranted and worthy of our consideration.

I am grateful for these and other responses. I do not criticize them. They enrich our understanding of the nature, role, and relationship of doctrine and mission.

I stand by what I wrote last week, but not dogmatically. I welcome the concerns raised and want to respond to some of them here.

Am I prioritizing mission over doctrine?

Pastor Cliff Holdridge asked on Facebook whether I saw particular doctrines or doctrine in general as over-prioritized.

“I purposely did not name a particular doctrine for a couple of reasons,” I responded. “My intent was for self-examination, individually and corporately, Texas Baptist and otherwise. … [I did not want] to exclude anyone from self-examination—myself included.

“Also, I didn’t name a doctrine or doctrines because I think to do so feeds into the diminishment of mission I want to avoid. As soon as I name a doctrine, there’s too likely to be debate or an argument about the doctrine, and I’ve seen too many of those debates and arguments either be fruitless or become vicious,” I continued.

“Another possible result of naming a doctrine in this context is to suggest there aren’t other doctrines people are arguing about and thereby let the people arguing about those other doctrines off the hook,” I wrote.

Also on Facebook, Pastor John Durham, while agreeing some “theological warriors” strive for right doctrine at the expense of being “gospel-carrying disciples,” pointed out others “are so passionate about mission that they have become more social in the gospel than theological in the gospel.”

This concern is similar to Jordan Villanueva’s and Kimlyn Bender’s. In general, they contend doctrine is vital and integral to mission. We don’t have one without the other. I agree.

Doctrine just as important as mission

Ed Stetzer, missiologist and dean of Biola University’s Talbot School of Theology, would also agree, I believe.

He cautioned Ascent last week to maintain the proper relationship between gospel demonstration and gospel proclamation. This is not a new topic for Stetzer, who has addressed these two sides of communicating the gospel for more than a decade.

Stetzer, who is not part of Ascent, said the tendency for centrist groups like Ascent is to lean more and more into demonstrating the gospel over proclaiming the gospel, not because centrists believe proclamation isn’t important—they don’t believe that—but because demonstration tends to encounter less resistance.

In a world that rejects the exclusivity of the gospel while welcoming the inclusivity of good deeds, Stetzer exhorted Ascent to remain vigilant about proclaiming the gospel as much as they demonstrate the gospel.

Stetzer’s point relates to the relationship between doctrine and mission. Like proclamation and demonstration are both needed for a whole communication of the gospel, doctrine and mission are equal parts of the gospel.

I agree that doctrine and mission don’t compete; they complement each other.

Doctrine matters

I also agree with my discussion partners that the substance of our doctrine matters. What we believe matters. We cannot be indifferent about doctrine.

In fact, the substance of our belief matters so much, it’s easy to get bogged down here in all the details of the substance and the differences in our beliefs about the details. So, I will focus on the simple and yet voluminous declaration “Jesus is Lord.”

A follower of Jesus—and my discussion of mission is directed to followers of Jesus—doesn’t believe just anything. A follower of Jesus believes Jesus is Lord, not anyone or anything else. Believing Jesus is Lord encapsulates many other beliefs from and about the Bible, the Trinity, sin, salvation, and more.

For the belief that Jesus is Lord to accomplish its purpose in this world—and that by itself is a loaded statement—involves more than intellectual assent. It involves the ordering of one’s life. It involves call. It involves mission. And not just any call or any mission. It involves Jesus’ call to us to deny ourselves, to take up our cross, and to follow him.

Our doctrine matters immensely. This is what I mean by comparing our doctrine to the tracks that set the train’s course. And I don’t disagree with my discussion partners who say doctrine is more than the tracks. As they say, doctrine also propels the train.

‘Where the rubber meets the road’

If you’re one to read the subheadings, you saw I’ve mixed metaphors a bit, but “where the wheel meets the rail” is not a common expression. Regardless, the point is the same.

Any discussion we have about our doctrine and mission must bear fruit for God’s kingdom. Our doctrine and mission require it. These days cry out for it.

As war rages in Ukraine, Iran, and across the Middle East, not to mention too many other places across the globe that have fallen out of the news—if they were ever in the news—our world needs to know where true peace is. True peace is not found in any government or dispensed by any leader in this world. Our doctrine tells us that.

Our mission is to proclaim and demonstrate Jesus is the author and source of peace, true peace.

As millions suffer from starvation, disease, brutality, hopelessness, and the like, our world needs to know where life and sustenance are found. This world and all it offers are temporary. Life, true and everlasting life, are only in Jesus. Our mission is to proclaim and demonstrate this isn’t just true for us in our own minds; this is true for the world.

I’m grateful Jordan Villanueva, Scott Jones, Cliff Holdridge, John Durham, and Kimlyn Bender spoke into this discussion. They enriched it. Even more, I’m grateful they don’t just know where the rubber meets the road but are actively engaged right there communicating the good news this world needs these and all days.

Eric Black is the executive director, publisher, and editor of the Baptist Standard. He can be reached at eric.black@baptiststandard.com. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Other responses to Eric Black’s March 12 editorial on mission and doctrine are available here and here.

While I appreciated Eric Black’s most recent editorial, “Mission, not doctrine, should drive the train,” I have some strong reservations as well.

While I agree for some persons “doctrine”—that is to say, fighting about intricacies of doctrine—can become a particular kind of unhealthy preoccupation, I have watched Baptists set aside doctrinal interest for so long and so widely that it has been disheartening.

We Baptists in the U.S. simply have no vibrant doctrinal tradition today with but a few exceptions, and I attribute our ideological capture in no small part to this loss of doctrinal reflection.

National idolatry

Many Baptists on one side have fallen into forms of egregious nationalism that can only happen when a true understanding of the Lordship of Christ has been lost. In short, there is no true resistance to this idolatrous domestication of the gospel without doctrinal reflection and a rich doctrinal understanding of Christology.

For these Baptists, the danger lies in forgetting the First Commandment (Exodus 20:3), and that the lessons of history are not kind for those who confuse their allegiances.

For an earlier example, and while not making any direct comparison, it was those in Germany who emphasized “life” over “doctrine” who most easily fell under the spell of National Socialism. Karl Barth criticized them for this and their disparagement of doctrine.

It was those who thought doctrine important who most incisively resisted the capture of the churches by National Socialism and its ideology and idolization of the nation. You do not get the Barmen Declaration from persons who think doctrine is peripheral to the church’s mission.

Herrmann Göhring, when campaigning for the National Socialists before they came to power, had a motto he often shared at political rallies, “In heaven only God, on earth only Germany!” For Christians, this motto is not corrected by substituting another nation or movement or person for “Germany.”

If Paul were here today, he would wonder when the church came to think its hope lies in Caesar rather than Christ.

Mission now is unfortunately primarily defined as a political cultural battle for many of these Baptists, rather than as a calling that transcends political affiliations and the nation itself.

Lack of definition

Many Baptists on the other side have no doctrine at all, as far as I can see, except vapid appeals to congregational autonomy, often used in order to vote against 2,000 years of church teaching on marriage and sexual practice, in effect cutting themselves off from the universal church of today and the past in this regard.

They treat Jesus as a moral exemplar of a form of modern progressive politics and uphold a “soul competency” that, as Baptist Winthrop Hudson said long ago, has the effect of “making every man’s hat his own church.”

Paul would not know what to make of so much of these Baptists’ positions except that they do not teach “what I have taught in all the churches” (1 Corinthians 4:17; cf. 1:1-2).

Paul certainly did not think the church in Corinth had “autonomy” to determine to live any way it wanted, that Jesus was just a teacher of open-minded moral permissiveness and a generic benevolence to others, and that each Christian had the “competency” to decide whether or not to visit prostitutes (1 Corinthians 6) or pagan temple services (1 Corinthians 8-10).

For these Baptists, our Baptist principles have become little more than justifications for moral liberation and ecumenical indifference, and mission is little more than social activism that is amorphously defined, often performative, and weakly linked to Christian doctrinal substance.

Clear and articulated confession

There is another way.

Doctrine is, at its best, the articulation of our confession of Jesus as Lord, and all that entails —that Christ is the only Lord we are to confess and follow, the Lord who stands over our desires, our possessions, and all other familial and national allegiances, our only Lord in life and in death who claims our whole selves and our churches and calls us to sacrificial love not only for our neighbors, but also for our enemies.

Yes, doctrinal minutiae can lead to scurrilous infighting, but confession and doctrine at their best are clarifying, motivating, and themselves a form of worship and mission/witness to the world.

Doctrine is the articulation of our understanding of the God we worship, the form of life to which we as the church are called, and the foundation and specific nature of our witness. Doctrine at its best drives us to the proclamation of the gospel for the world and to service for social betterment and justice within it.

To try to separate worship, doctrine, and mission, is impossible. The New Testament witnesses would not understand it. Any reading of the New Testament shows that the worship, confession/doctrine, and mission of the church are three parts of one reality.

Mission and doctrine need each other

Yes, the church’s worship and mission are preeminent, and doctrinal reflection follows upon these. But doctrine also forms them, and it is irreplaceable and unavoidable, as the earliest church found out, evident even in 1 John with its emphasis on love (for example, 4:2-3).

Doctrine and mission (and worship) should not be pitted against each other at all. In truth, they flow together and cannot be separated.

This, of course, does not mean we must agree on everything, but there are some things that lie at the heart of our confession, and without them, we will be lost.

At the center, of course, is the confession that “Jesus is Lord,” and this confession itself will make no sense at all without a doctrine of the Trinity and of Christ such that we are not idolators in giving worship to Jesus. Indeed, the Great Commission naturally leads to questions of the very relation of the Father and Son and Spirit as the name in which the church baptizes its converts.

Doctrinal indifference is of course nothing new. Dorothy Sayers, the close friend of C.S. Lewis, once said: “The cry today is: ‘Away with the tedious complexities of dogma—let us have the simple spirit of worship; just worship, no matter of what!’ The only drawback to this demand for a generalized and undirected worship is the practical difficulty of arousing any sort of enthusiasm for the worship of nothing in particular.”

Rich theological reflection needed

In my 20-plus years of teaching undergraduates and graduates, I have watched a lot of Baptists leave the fold for more doctrinally rich traditions. This has saddened me, but I fear many of them simply do not find any real and rich theological reflection in some of their Baptist churches.

We Baptists have to do a better job articulating our rich tradition of convictions.

Doctrinal indifference and amnesia will not serve us well, least of all when we forget we worship and serve but one Lord—and not Caesar—and we are called to a particular mission and task of witness—which is not simply to be kind to people or to change the world through politics. Our calling is for so much more than this.

Kimlyn Bender is Foy Valentine Chair in Christian Theology and Ethics at Baylor University’s Truett Theological Seminary. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Other responses to Eric Black’s March 12 editorial on mission and doctrine are available here and here.

In his editorial on March 11, 2026, Eric Black reflected on his experience at the Ascent Conference and called Baptists to allow mission, not doctrine, to be what compels us forward together.

This reminded me of the article the Baptist Standard published about the report to the Baptist General Convention of Texas Executive Board by Texas Baptists Executive Director Julio Guarneri.

Guarneri called Texas Baptists to unite around our mission rather than making doctrinal conformity the basis for cooperation.

Guarneri referenced an article by Gary Ledbetter, correspondent for the Southern Baptist Texan, celebrating the commitment of the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention to the doctrine of inerrancy, which, in Ledbetter’s opinion, distinguishes that state convention from Texas Baptists.

Perhaps some of the most compelling questions for local Baptist church pastors are these: When it comes to fulfilling the Great Commission and the Great Commandment, who is my neighbor, with whom shall I cooperate, and why?

There is a lot at stake for a lot of people in how local pastors like me answer these questions. I think Black and Guarneri are both correct. They are saying the right things, and I appreciate it and support this vision. But is it time to choose a side? Who are we willing to work with to accomplish our mission?

Differing sides

I have been told by Southern Baptists in Texas and beyond, if I do not embrace the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, they are hesitant, even unwilling, to cooperate with me. I am willing to cooperate with them to accomplish larger purposes, but they are unwilling to accept me.

Texas Baptists have parted ways with churches who did not embrace the stance of Texas Baptists regarding LGBTQ issues and inclusion. These were churches that were contributing in many ways to the mission of Texas Baptists, who agreed on many essential doctrinal points, except for the specific issues that got them disfellowshipped.

Now the issue drawing attention among Southern Baptists and Texas Baptists is the role of women in the leadership of the church. For Southern Baptists who embrace the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, this is a settled issue, based on their complementarian theology. Those who disagree are suspected of rejecting the authority of Scripture and denying inerrancy.

Texas Baptists appear to want to have it both ways, saying this is a local church issue and that the Texas Baptist tent is big enough for everyone. As a result, I think Texas Baptists have allowed a contentious spirit to persist.

I am being called to unity around our mission while countless blogs and articles contain heated exchanges, and people address the convention floor at the annual gathering publicly denouncing and trying to out-maneuver the other group.

Unity and our history

I believe the call to unity based on our shared mission, while noble/right/good, will not accomplish what is hoped. It never has. The history of Baptists demonstrates we will divide ourselves based on our beliefs and use those beliefs to determine with whom we will cooperate.

Therefore, perhaps it is time for Texas Baptists to end the internal discord, choose a side, bravely face the fallout, and then go forward to accomplish the mission.

Unintended immoral outcome

Further, I believe at some point this call to unity and mission may become immoral by allowing intolerable conditions to exist among Texas Baptists.

Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in his Letter from Birmingham Jail about his dismay with white Christian moderates holding him accountable for disrupting the peace and unity when a better way forward could be available in time. Unity and peace were more important than civil rights when those rights would work themselves out in the courts over time.

Dr. King seems to say it was easy for the white Christian moderates to call him to patience and tolerance, because they were not experiencing what he was experiencing in America. For many people of color, the status quo was intolerable and Dr. King could not continue to do nothing while his people suffered. It was time for action.

I do not embrace the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, because I do not want to make complementarian theology a basis for our cooperation. I am also not threatened by women serving as pastors, or by the churches where they serve. I am willing to accomplish our shared mission by cooperating with these folks and with those who disagree with me.

Am I being asked to endure the insinuations I am a liberal and more just to preserve unity among Texas Baptists? Are women who believe they are called to be pastors being asked to endure the name-calling, the exclusion, the insinuations, and much more for the sake of unity among Texas Baptists?

Further, it appears those who embrace the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 are being asked to set aside what they see as an essential element of unity and cooperation—the authority of Scripture—to preserve the peace and the unity of Texas Baptists. At what point does this call to preserve the status quo become not just unacceptable, but immoral?

Sufficient peace for unity

I suspect those who disagree with me about the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 will be hesitant to cooperate with me because my slippery slope theology and moderate big tent approach might land me in heresy, if it hasn’t already. I can see how this might feel unacceptable and intolerable for them.

I also wonder how welcome women feel when they are asked by Texas Baptists to endure the hurtful remarks, prejudice, and exclusion for the sake of unity and mission.

I think it is unlikely Baptists in Texas or beyond are going to set aside doctrinal issues for the sake of a shared mission, because so many feel threatened by those who believe differently, and if that sense of threat continues, there will not be peace enough to focus on unity and mission.

To use Black’s train analogy, my fear is the train has jumped the tracks or soon will. If our doctrines are the tracks and our mission drives the train, then perhaps the tracks need to be repaired, so those who want to get on the train may do so without fear.

Scott Jones is pastor of First Baptist Church in Rockport and a member of the Baptist Standard board of directors. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Other responses to Eric Black’s March 12 editorial on mission and doctrine are available here and here.

Recently, there has been a lot of conversation about the supposed tension between doctrine and mission. Illustrations such as a train have been used to describe the relationship between the two in order to argue that mission should drive the train rather than doctrine.

I think it is fair to read these conversations alongside the recent momentum a particular missional network called the Ascent Movement has experienced that has begun to intersect with the denominational tribe I am a part of.

I also think a charitable reading of these recent conversations and events would interpret them not as intending to diminish doctrine, but rather desiring to reframe the relationship between doctrine and mission due to a perceived abuse of one or both in the past.

My hope is to bring clarity to the conversation.

As someone who teaches doctrine in the classroom and in the church, I would like to provide some important clarifications to make sure we don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Allow me to expound upon the framing of the relationship between doctrine and mission that has been historically described as doctrinally informed mission.

Definition of terms

It is important to define terms for the sake of clarity. Here, I define doctrine as the teaching of theology in an ecclesial setting. I define theology as what we think or say about what God has revealed of himself.

This in turn makes theology, and doctrine for that matter, more about self-disclosure rather than self-discovery, because it is God who self-discloses himself to us rather than us discovering aspects of him independently.

This also makes theology relational. Theology is better understood as relational knowledge affecting the head, heart, and hands of the theologian, rather than a mastery of data.

This is an important caveat, because what we do (mission) is informed by who God is, and we only can know who he is by being in relationship with him. Therefore, communion must precede commission.

With that being said, I define mission as the shared responsibility of the church to glorify God by making disciples of all nations.

It is important to highlight the joint nature of mission among the churches. I don’t think it is any coincidence when one looks at the etymology of commission, they would notice the prefix of “com” inferring the communal essence of this mission.

Doctrinally Informed Mission

1. Doctrine informs the “who” of the mission

Our doctrine informs our mission by giving necessary context to the “who”? There are two components to this question.

First, who is the Commissioner? Our Trinitarian doctrine clarifies that all important question. If we do not have a firm grasp on who he is who has sent us, then the mission is doomed from the start.

Ecclesiology also brings affirmation to who the mission belongs to. The mission belongs to both the universal church and also to the local churches.

There is a direct parallel to the communal nature to the Commissioner in his triunity reflected in the carrying out of the mission by the communion of congregations. Baptists have historically understood this aspect of mission in a unique way compared to other denominational groups.

2. Doctrine informs the “what” of the mission

Our doctrine informs our mission by answering the question as it pertains to “what” it is. What are we commissioned to do?

This question can be answered by hamartiology (doctrine of sin) and soteriology (doctrine of salvation) providing context to what the good news actually is.

I do not think it is any coincidence that teaching (doctrine) takes a primary role in the Great Commission mandate in Matthew 28.

In his work, Historical Theology: An Introduction, Geoffrey W. Bromiley states theological systems are the wineskins that hold the wine of the gospel.

Baptists, while leaving room for theological diversity as it pertains to certain soteriological frameworks, have been abundantly clear: Missionary efforts rest upon a spiritual necessity of the regenerate life. This doctrinal distinction differentiates us from other denominational groups that have subjugated the mission to merely meeting earthly needs.

3. Doctrine informs the “how” of the mission

Our doctrine informs our mission by providing tangible visualizations about how the responsibility is to be carried out.

Both Christology and pneumatology (doctrine of the Spirit) can provide insight to the methods of carrying out the mission.

Examining the life and works of Christ gives the epitome of what it looks like to live incarnationally. Reflecting upon the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5 also provides valuable metrics to measure the “how” of missiology.

Our theology should inform our methodology. Baptists have historically walked this line via cooperative missional endeavors that today look like institutional agencies such as the International Mission Board and North American Mission Board.

4. Doctrine informs the “why” of the mission

Our doctrine informs our mission by reminding us why we are sent in the first place. It is to bring glory to God, so all of creation might be restored into a right relationship with its Creator.

Again, if theology is relational in nature, then it only makes sense for the purpose behind the Great Commission is so the relationship would be restored once again.

It has been inferred that only mission can lead to worship. That doctrine can’t lead to an experience of being overcome by emotion. When I read Scripture, especially the Pauline letters, I find over and over again, Paul expounding on doctrinal issues and then breaking out in a prayer or hymn in the middle of his letter. Theology leads to doxology.

Conclusion

Doctrine and mission are not adversarial but actually complementary toward one another. These recent conversations about the supposed tension between them can be misinterpreted as doctrine is something to eliminate.

Calvin is attributed with the statement, “Ambiguity is the fortress of heretics.” A lack of clarity on doctrinal issues can also be the home of shallow theology. The nondenominational domination that neglects a robust theological system for the sake of “ecumenical unity” has left the state of the broader church in a dangerous situation.

To utilize another illustration to supplement the train illustration previously mentioned, a Christian, church, or denominational group failing to consider the weightiness of a teased-out theological system is like a boat risking shallow waters. The possibility of the boat running ashore, though not certain, is likely.

The reality is, the Ascent Movement is not devoid of doctrine as much as it is claimed to be. I find it difficult to believe doctrine is not operative in this movement when the types of recognition given at the gathering reveal an underlying anthropological framework. The issue doesn’t appear to be doctrine and theology but rather which doctrine and theology.

If my assumption is correct, then it would appear the mission of recent organizational developments are doctrinally driven.

I guess doctrine moves the train more than we might realize. And that’s OK, because historically there isn’t a tension between mission and doctrine. The two complement one another and inform each other for the glory of God and the good of the church.

Jordan Villanueva is instructor of Christian studies and assistant to the president for Hispanic relations at Howard Payne University. This article is adapted and republished from Villanueva’s blog by permission. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.

The U.S.-Israeli war with Iran compels us as Christians to answer two important questions: Is this current war a justified war? Is war ever justified?

The question of justifiable warfare is an age-old question philosophers and theologians have wrestled with dating back to the days of Augustine (A.D. 354-430), who is credited as being the first formal advocate of just war theory. Augustine articulated a rationale for when war could be morally permissible.

The most systematic exposition of the theory was outlined by Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274).

The modern expression for principles “before, during, and after” a “just war” center around three Latin phrases: Jus ad Bellum (“right to war”), Jus in Bello (“justice in war”), and Jus post Bellum (“justice after war”).

The following six principles apply to a permissible Jus ad Bellum rationale for initiating a war according to just war theory.

Six principles of just war

1. Just cause: Before military action is taken there must be a legitimate cause for engagement. The only justifiable reasons for military engagement are self-defense, the defense of others, and intervention in cases of extreme human rights violations.

2. Legitimate authority: War may only be declared by official governments. According to just war theory, it is not permissible for private citizens or insurgent groups to declare war.

3. Right intention: Establishing a just peace must be the only military objective for war. Its intention is never for territorial gain or retribution.

4. Last resort: Before war is initiated, all peaceful avenues must have been thoroughly explored. All negotiation attempts, such as diplomacy, legal recourse, and economic sanctions, must be fully exhausted before war is initiated.

5. Reasonable chance of success: Without reasonable expectations of achieving just objectives, military engagement should never be executed.

6. Proportionality: The anticipated benefits of war must be carefully balanced against the proportionate harm and destruction that may be caused. The protection of innocent civilian life must be of highest priority in any military engagement.

Arguments for and against

Attempting to objectively apply these six principles of just war theory to the current U.S.-Israeli war with Iran, the following arguments, both for and against, are proposed:

1. Just cause

Arguments for: Both Washington and Jerusalem have asserted military action was a preemptive step to neutralize imminent threats of possible nuclear armament or deployment by Iran.

Arguments against: The Islamic Republic and many international observers contend the conflict initiated by the U.S. and Israel constitutes an unlawful, unprovoked, and preemptive attack. Critics assert the decapitation of Iran’s senior leadership and reported casualties in civilian-populated areas have resulted in an ever-evolving cycle of retaliation.

2. Legitimate authority

Arguments for: Both the U.S. and Israel took military action authorized by legitimate governments. However, significant constitutional questions continue within the U.S. regarding the necessity of congressional authorization under the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

Arguments against: International legal observers question whether this war meets the stringent requirements for self-defense as codified in Article 51, Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter. The killing of a national sovereign leader and the legitimacy of preemptive force without a clearly demonstrated imminent threat calls into question the legality of this war.

3. Right intention

Arguments for: The stated objectives of the U.S. and Israel center on the neutralization of imminent terrorist threats and the permanent prevention of Iranian nuclear weaponization.

Arguments against: Critics argue the stated objectives of both the U.S. and Israel are unclear, constantly changing, and most confusing. Is this engagement about the elimination of nuclear threats, the destruction of missile capabilities, the annihilation of the Iranian Navy, or the neutralization of regional proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis?

A focused “right intention” for war must be clearly articulated, and this is not the case with this current war.

4. Last resort

Arguments for: Proponents assert recent attempts at diplomacy had failed or at best had reached a hopeless impasse. Military action was only taken after prolonged strategic restraint.

Arguments against: Opponents counter the diplomatic track remained a viable option and productive talks were ongoing. Steps such as more rigorous international oversight and monitoring of Iran’s missile and nuclear enrichment sites had yet to be fully explored.

5. Reasonable chance of success

Arguments for: Initial assessments indicate U.S. and Israeli military actions have severely incapacitated Iranian ballistic and naval capabilities. Such success in the early days of the campaign supports a reasonable outlook for continued success throughout the remaining operation.

Arguments against: Strategically, Iran’s retaliation throughout the region has escalated to some 20 countries, compromised vital shipping lanes, and created the potential deployment of ground troops. These developments suggest the prospect of “success” remains tenuous and uncertain.

6. Proportionality

Arguments for: Proponents argue the initial military action was limited in its scope and focused in its execution with only strategic targets identified. A larger offensive was justified only in order to neutralize Iran’s retaliatory capacity.

Arguments against: Critics counter the magnitude of the campaign, which included the targeting of Iran’s senior leadership, exceeded the measures necessary to eliminate any threat of imminent attack.

The initial military action inevitably precipitated broader geopolitical and economic instability, including significant shocks to global oil markets, rising gas prices, and jolts to national and international stock markets.

Mounting civilian casualties, including 168 girls killed in an attack on an elementary school in Minab, Iran, and 13 U.S. military casualties to date, calls into question a proper proportionality of this war.

A Christian response

Whichever side of the debate one embraces regarding the current U.S. and Israeli war with Iran, as Christians, we believe war must always be perceived and evaluated through a biblical, theological, ethical, and moral lens. We believe war should never be a purely political undertaking. And hasn’t history repeatedly shown us that not all wars are justified wars?

As believers, we have a solemn duty to do our “due diligence” in evaluating any rationale for war from a Christian perspective. We have a solemn duty to be good and engaged citizens by letting our decision makers know of our biblically informed positions.

We have a solemn duty to be the “salt of the earth and the light of the world” as influencers in our nation and especially in our nation’s involvement in any war. We have a solemn duty to protect all human life, because we believe allhumans are created in the image of God and all humans are precious and valued by God.

As Christians, we contend war is always evil because of its cost to human lives.

Is war ever justified? Is this current war justified? Perhaps a case can be made that war may become a “necessaryevil.” Is this war with Iran necessary, or is it a necessary (or unnecessary) evil?

Questions about war and its consequences can be argued, discussed, and debated as they have been for thousands of years. But in light of this current conflict in the Middle East, it behooves all believers to pray for peace throughout the Middle East and other war-torn regions around the globe.

Call to pray

As 1 Timothy 2:1-4 exhorts us:

“I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people—for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (NIV).

And as Matthew 5:9 reminds us: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God” (NIV).

As this current U.S.-Israeli war continues, may we all continue to pray for peace in the Middle East and for our decision makers to become peacemakers and not peace-breakers. This is an appropriate Christian response to this war and all wars.

Jim Lemons is director of the Master of Arts in Theological Studies program and professor of theological studies in the Graduate School of Ministry at Dallas Baptist University. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.

I’m going to start with a question that may or may not have anything to do with this editorial.

When was the last time you were moved to tears in worship?

…

It’s OK if you don’t make it any further than this. It’s OK if this question stops you.

…

I want to ask you another question.

When was the last time you couldn’t sing in worship through the tears?

I don’t mean you came into the worship service heartbroken and disappointed. I don’t mean tears of grief or pain.

I mean when was the last time the wonder, the marvel, the majesty, the grace of Jesus so filled you, so stunned you, so overwhelmed you in the middle of a worship song that you couldn’t sing, that you couldn’t see the worship leaders or the words through the tears of joy, of gratitude?

…

It’s OK if you don’t make it any further than this. It’s OK if you stop here.

…

I’m really trying to get back to the headline of this editorial, but I’m stuck here. Not because it’s been too long since worship brought me to tears. But because I still can’t think about worship yesterday morning without needing to blink a lot.

I don’t even remember what songs we sang. All I remember is the wonder, the marvel, the majesty, the grace, and the joy of the Lord Jesus overwhelming me.

Mission is like that. Doctrine isn’t.

Mission needs to drive the train, not doctrine.

Yet, how wrapped up are we in the pursuit of right and pure doctrine?

We are whitewashed tombs full of dead bones.

Lord, have mercy on us.

The place of doctrine

Doctrine is driving the train for too many of us, and it shows.

It shows in our bitter disputes. It shows in how we talk to and about each other. It shows in what we’re against. It shows in how it’s easier for us to rail against what we’re against than it is for us to be about what we’re for.

In fact, our obsession with right doctrine has become what we are for.

Our obsession with right doctrine is driving some things, but not the right things. Our obsession with right doctrine is driving us apart. It is driving people out of the church. It is driving people away from the church. It is driving people away from God.

Thankfully, the Spirit is greater and is driving many to Jesus and to following him.

Don’t misunderstand me. Don’t accuse me of not caring about doctrine. Right doctrine is important to our mission. Scripture makes clear what we believe is very important, but what we believe is not to be our driving force. Mission is to be our driving force.

If our life is like a train—and our lives are much more than trains—but if our life is like a train, doctrine is like the tracks guiding our way. Mission is the fuel that propels us down the tracks.

No track in the world will move a dead train.

More than right doctrine, we need to hold doctrine in the right place.

The place of mission

Just like we need right doctrine, we need to pursue the right mission.

What is the right mission? Jesus makes this easy for us.

“Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to follow all I commanded you” (Matthew 28:18-19).

It seems we don’t understand the mission. I say this because so few of us who call this the Great Commission are actually doing it. Maybe that’s because we think it’s only the Great Commission and don’t believe it’s our Great Commission.

Or maybe we do believe it’s our Great Commission, but we aren’t clear on what Jesus commanded us to do. That’s a cop out, because Jesus made that easy, too.

Jesus said the greatest command is: “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ Upon these two commandments hang the whole Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 22:37-40).

We know the command, but knowing it doesn’t make it easy to do.

If we’ll quit denying who our neighbor is, if we’ll quit lying about how completely we love God—as if God doesn’t know the truth—we can spend our best time and energy doing our mission instead of obsessing over fruitless distractions.

If we’ll let go of our need to be right, to be in charge, to be in control, to be in power, and give ourselves to Jesus and the mission he gave us, we’ll spend our lives moving down the track instead of being derailed or rusting in some siding somewhere.

Doctrine is our foundation. Mission is our fuel. We’re meant to go somewhere.

The joy of the mission

When I have remembered this, when I have given myself more to Jesus than to trying to be right and do everything right, I have found joy.

And it’s a small step from that joy to wonder, to marveling over the incredible grace of Jesus, that he would entrust me with creation’s greatest treasure, his good news.

When was the last time you were moved to tears in worship?

…

Sometimes, those tears are conviction.

The difference between conviction and guilt is the difference between joy and shame. Guilt fuels the train into shame. Conviction drives the train into joy.

I’ve spent a lot of time in my life and work analyzing right and wrong. It’s really not a joyful track.

During the last two days covering the Ascent Summit, I’ve been reminded how joyful it is to let mission drive the train, yes, on the rails of right doctrine.

My hope for you is you will encounter a similar place and time of the Lord’s presence and voice, that the wonder, the marvel, the majesty, the grace of Jesus will so fill you, stun you, overwhelm you … even to tears.

Eric Black is the executive director, publisher and editor of the Baptist Standard. He can be reached at eric.black@baptiststandard.com. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.

I am willing to bet many of you, like me, are often grieved and outraged by the stories we see on the news. And sadly, some truly shocking and horrible stories about current affairs often come even from within the nations we call home, whether you live in the United States or elsewhere.

My purpose in writing is not to tell you what to believe or how to feel about any particular public controversies raging at the moment. No, my purpose in writing is to encourage Christian readers to respond in a godly, beneficial way when grieved or outraged by current events.

Specifically, in this two-part series, I will warn against the perils of “internet activism,” and then I will advocate for what I believe are better ways to address the often-devastating travesties that seem to constantly fill our news.

The folly of fighting on Facebook

I was 16 years old when I got my first social media account—Facebook. It took me about a week before I got into a pointless, heated argument with a complete stranger about politics and theology.

You’d think after such an inauspicious beginning, I’d learn my lesson and adopt a healthier approach to social media. Unfortunately, you’d be wrong. For most of my later teenage years and early to mid-20s, I regularly made incendiary, ill-advised posts on Facebook and other social media platforms, issuing fiery declarations about theology, politics, and more.

In the process, I damaged or even destroyed some relationships that were important to me, accomplished almost nothing positive, and generally made a fool of myself while often sinning against God and others with my unrestrained speech.

It wasn’t until I became a pastor that I recognized how much I needed to change and followed through on making those changes.

When I had church members upset with me over what I thought were innocuous social media posts, I realized I needed to completely change my approach to platforms like Facebook, drastically cutting down my time on those sites and almost never using them to discuss controversial topics.

I would strongly encourage Christians to embrace this same approach: Drastically cut down your time on social media, and the internet more broadly, while also rarely or never using such avenues to publicly address controversies.

Bringing the Bible to bear

The internet and social media didn’t exist when the Bible was written. So, one might think Scripture doesn’t have much to say about how we use them. But the stuff we post or share on social media is simply another form of speech, just like talking and writing. And the Bible has plenty to say about how Christians speak.

Scripture warns against speaking rashly and prematurely (Proverbs 18:13). God says how dangerous our tongues are and commands us to exercise the utmost restraint in using them (James 3:5-12). Bearing false witness is an egregious sin (Exodus 20:16). We will give an account to God for every careless word we speak (Matthew 12:36).

Over and over, God’s word warns us against the myriad dangers of using our words carelessly, angrily, falsely, or maliciously, and God’s word commands us instead to speak words that are true and edifying (See: Proverbs 15:1-2, 4, 7; 16:13, 23-24; 17:27-28; 18:2, 4, 6-7, 13, 17; Psalm 141:3; Ecclesiastes 5:2-4; Ephesians 4:29; Colossians 4:6).

However, when it comes to biblical commands about our speech, you’ll notice one command conspicuously absent—a command to have or use social media. You may wonder why this even bears pointing out, but the absence of such a command is important.

Simply put, Christians are under no obligation to have social media accounts or address current events using them. When we stand before God on the last day, none of us are at any risk of being held accountable for not being active on Facebook, Instagram, or other social media.

In other words, while there are various ways you can sin on social media, it is impossible to sin by simply not havingsocial media at all or by not saying things on social media.

While there are times when we as Christians are required by God to “speak up,” (1 Peter 3:15), nowhere does God mandate a particular medium for doing so. The Lord simply does not command us to use social media, any more than he commands us to write books or record podcasts, for example.

The pointlessness of ‘social media activism’

It’s one thing to use social media to stay in touch with friends or post pictures from your family vacation. But using social media as an avenue to weigh in on public controversies carries an incredible risk of sin. Do the potential “rewards” of addressing controversy on social media make the risks worth it?

I don’t think so.

I genuinely can’t recall the last time I actually changed somebody’s mind in an argument on the internet. I can’t remember having ever brought important facts to light on social media that made a real-life difference for other people. No laws have been changed, and no lives have been saved because of anything I’ve ever posted on Twitter, Facebook, or elsewhere.

Call me a cynic, but I am increasingly convinced that, for most people, most of what we say on social media—at least when it comes to public controversies—accomplishes nothing positive. There may be occasional exceptions, but when I look back over the past 15 years of my own life, I don’t see any significant positive fruit from my own arguments and jeremiads on social media.

I worry that “social media activism” really only serves to make us feel better about ourselves and let us flaunt our self-righteousness before others. And Jesus warns against practicing our righteousness before others in order to be seen by them (Matthew 6:1).

So much of what I foolishly thought was “bold and prophetic” speech on social media in my younger years was really just empty virtue-signaling, rash words, and sometimes even bearing false witness. Honestly, I struggle to see there’s anything to be gained by being an “activist” on the internet, but I see more clearly than ever how much there is to lose.

However, that doesn’t mean Christians can’t make a real, positive difference in our society when travesty and tragedy strike.

Joshua Sharp is the senior pastor of First Baptist Church in Chappell Hill, and a graduate of Southwest Baptist University in Bolivar, Mo., and Baylor University’s Truett Theological Seminary in Waco. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.

I am responding to Jack Goodyear’s opinion article “Sharia law and championing religious liberty” published Feb. 24 in the Baptist Standard.

Many people agree we should treat our neighbors with dignity, no matter their background or beliefs. That value is important in a diverse country.

But the article’s discussion of Sharia and its connection to American law leaves out key differences that matter when we talk about religious liberty and how our legal system works.

Sharia and religious liberty

The title “Sharia law and championing religious liberty” suggests Sharia naturally supports the same kind of religious freedom Americans enjoy. In places where Sharia is used as the basis for civil law, that is not the case.

In those places, there is no separation between religion and government, and laws come directly from religious texts. This is very different from the U.S. Constitution, which protects freedom of conscience and prevents the government from establishing any religion.

Xenophobia

The article also uses the word “xenophobic” to describe concerns about Sharia. But disagreeing with a legal system based on study, observation, or personal experience is not the same as fearing or disliking foreigners.

Calling all criticism “xenophobia” shuts down honest discussion.

If preferring your own country’s legal system makes you xenophobic, then every nation would fall under that label. Using the term this way creates more heat than light and makes it harder for people to talk openly about real differences.

Sharia as legal tradition

Another problem is the article describes Sharia only as a personal spiritual path. It is true that many Muslims in the United States practice Sharia privately through prayer, fasting, charity, and other religious duties. But Sharia is also a full legal tradition.

In countries where Sharia is used as civil law, it governs testimony in court, inheritance, marriage, divorce, contracts, and religious conversion. These are not just spiritual ideas. They are legal rules that affect people’s daily lives.

Classical Islamic jurisprudence includes rulings such as a woman’s testimony counting as half of a man’s, sons receiving twice the inheritance of daughters, bans on leaving the faith, and husbands being able to divorce their wives unilaterally.

These rules come from the legal tradition itself, not from extremist groups. They reflect a system built on different assumptions about authority, gender, and the role of religion in public life.

Parallel legal systems

Because of these differences, it is reasonable, not hateful, to ask whether any religious legal system can fit within a secular constitutional framework like that of the United States. This question is not about denying Muslims the right to practice their faith. They should have the same religious freedom as everyone else.

The real issue is whether any religious code—Islamic, Christian, or otherwise—should be allowed to run alongside or override American civil law.

The U.S. legal system is built on the idea that laws apply equally to all citizens, regardless of their religion. Allowing a parallel legal system based on religious rules would challenge that equality and create conflicts the U.S. Constitution is designed to prevent.

Misleading analogy

The article also compares concerns about Sharia to accusing Christians of wanting to stone children. This analogy is misleading.

Christians in America may be criticized for their moral beliefs, but those beliefs do not function as a separate legal system. Christians are not trying to enforce biblical punishments through civil law.

Sharia, however, includes detailed legal rulings used as state law in several countries. That difference matters when we talk about law, government, and constitutional principles. Mixing up moral beliefs with legal systems makes it harder to understand the real issues.

Love, respect, and honesty

Treating our neighbors with love and respect does not mean agreeing with everything they believe or practice. It means recognizing their dignity while also being honest about real differences.

Respect does not require pretending all legal or ethical systems are the same. In fact, real respect involves clarity.

When people raise concerns about the legal side of Sharia, they are not necessarily attacking individuals. They are examining a legal tradition and asking whether it fits with the principles of a secular, pluralistic country.

Primary sources on Sharia

Anyone writing about this topic should take time to study primary sources—the Qur’an, the hadith, and the classical schools of Islamic law—as well as the experiences of people who have lived under Sharia‑based legal systems.

Many people who express concerns are drawing from firsthand accounts of limits on speech, religion, gender equality, or due process in countries where Sharia influences the law. These voices deserve to be heard, not dismissed.

After studying these sources and listening to these experiences, many conclude Sharia as a legal system does not align with the U.S. Constitution or with Texas law. This is not an insult to Islam or to Muslims. It is simply an acknowledgment that different legal traditions are built on different foundations.

Just as we would not expect American law to be imposed on countries with Islamic legal systems, we should not assume those systems naturally fit within ours.

The conversation about Sharia and American law should be grounded in honesty, respect, and a commitment to understanding, not in slogans or accusations. Only then can we treat our neighbors with dignity while also protecting the constitutional principles that allow people of all faiths to live freely in this country.

David McConkey is a retired pastor and missionary, having served in New Mexico, Cyprus, the United Kingdom, and Israel. He is a member of First Baptist Church in McKinney. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.

It never occurred to me as a child, when we sang “I’m in the Lord’s Army,” that that might be used to describe the U.S. military.

It never occurred to me when I was being taught dispensationalism as a child and teenager that that interpretation of Revelation would ever be official U.S. military doctrine. Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins didn’t seem to envision that possibility either in their Left Behind saga.

If recent reports are true, some in the U.S. military are being told they are essentially the army of the Lord and will usher in the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

However true these reports may be, whether the reported comments are official doctrine or not, just the idea such an interpretation might be communicated by ranking military personnel to their subordinates raises concerns worthy of consideration.

What’s being reported

According to reports circulated the last few days, U.S. military personnel have been told the U.S./Israeli military campaign against Iran is a “signal fire … to cause Armageddon and mark [Jesus Christ’s] return to Earth.”

It is unclear if the reported statements were made by a single commander or were made more broadly.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation, which is no friend of President Trump, claims to have received these reports from service members. As of March 2, the MRFF reported more than 110 complaints.

“The MRFF is keeping the complainants anonymous to prevent retribution by the Defense Department,” according to Jonathan Larsen, who covers the MRFF.

At the time of this writing, other outlets are trying to corroborate these reports. Some have contacted the U.S. Department of Defense and are awaiting replies.

If the reports are accurate, they raise real-time concerns. If the reports are inaccurate or simply untrue, we should still consider the hypothetical concerns they raise for biblical interpretation, religious liberty, and the separation of church and state.

Biblical interpretation

Of the possible interpretations of the book of Revelation—and there is more than one possible interpretation—the dispensationalist reading informs what was reportedly said.

According to the MRFF’s and Larsen’s report of an email, an anonymous non-commissioned officer said his commander said not to be afraid about “combat operations in Iran,” that troops were to be told “this was ‘all part of God’s divine plan.’”

The commander then reportedly said, “President Trump has been anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to Earth.”

According to a dispensationalist reading of Revelation, Armageddon is a future battle tied to Jesus’ return. Other interpreters believe Armageddon—and most or all of Revelation—refers to past events, such as the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome in A.D. 70.

Regardless how a person interprets Revelation, there is nothing in any of the apocalyptic passages in the Bible to support the presumption our president and our military are God’s instrument to inaugurate Jesus’ return.

We ought to be concerned by such a hubristic assertion. And if a U.S. military commander really did instruct other officers to disseminate that claim, we ought to be concerned about how our military is being motivated to go into battle.

Religious liberty

Likewise, if a particular dispensationalist reading of Revelation is used to justify military action, a different interpretation might be designated unapproved.

What happens when the military or government decides what constitutes an approved reading of Scripture? We already know if we know our history. When the government determines the approved interpretation of Scripture, some Christians will be punished for understanding Scripture differently.

We should be concerned if a single interpretation of Scripture is elevated to the level of or privileged as official doctrine. It’s a small step from there to designating other interpretations as invalid, unpatriotic, or worse.

Furthermore, patriotism is not a legitimate criterion for proper biblical interpretation. Inasmuch as patriotism is loyalty to an earthly system, Scripture shapes patriotism. Never the other way.

Separation of church and state

From the beginning of the Protestant Reformation through the American colonial period, Europe was rocked by repeated wars between Christians. Millions of people were killed. The Enlightenment was, in large part, an effort to end religious wars by limiting the power of religion to start them.

The United States was founded in large part on those Enlightenment principles, religious liberty and the avoidance of religious war being primary among them.

If a U.S. military commander told subordinates the campaign against Iran is to cause Armageddon in service of Jesus’ return, that would be to blatantly return the United States to the kind of religious war we have tried to avoid, with mixed success, for centuries.

Indeed, to claim the U.S president and military are actively fulfilling apocalyptic Scripture takes the current abandonment of separation of church and state to a new level. If U.S. military personnel really have been told they are fulfilling Revelation, then we’ve blown past “In God we trust.”

If the reports are true, the U.S. military is no longer simply referring to a generic “God.” Instead, it is identifying a named president as “anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire … to cause Armageddon and mark [Jesus’] return to Earth” (emphasis added, because Jesus is much more specific than the “God” of America’s civil religion).

Testing our principles

It may turn out the reports aren’t true, or they’re inaccurate, or they’re overblown. Even if any of that proves to be true, it’s a worthy exercise to examine our principles against their distortions.

If our principles really are grounded in Scripture, we must be cleared-eyed about them and embody them rightly.

Obedience to Christ is at the core of our principles and calls for repentance and faithfulness to him, whatever the time may be.

Eric Black is the executive director, publisher and editor of the Baptist Standard. He can be reached at eric.black@baptiststandard.com. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.

This year is our 140th anniversary as the Baptist General Convention of Texas. Those leaders and churches who first established the BGCT did so for the purpose of cooperating in evangelism, missions, benevolence, and Christian education.

Part of our legacy as Texas Baptists has to do with what we call institutions. By that we mean universities, seminaries, colleges, academies, hospitals, human care agencies, and others. Currently, Texas Baptists collaborate with 30 institutions and ministries.

This includes 15 educational institutions, five hospitals, four human care agencies, two financial services organizations, one news publication, two missions organizations, one ethics ministry, and one global Baptist body. This is in addition to Baptist encampments in Texas and local associations.

No other state convention relates to that many institutions. In fact, there are many national Baptist conventions that do not either. That makes Texas Baptists a very unique convention.

We believe these institutions and ministries are key partners in living out the Great Commandment and the Great Commission.

Historic scope of collaboration

Through Christian higher education, theological education, healing ministries, hospital chaplaincy, the care of vulnerable children and senior adults, the sharing of information, and engagement in missions, we are loving God, loving our neighbor, and making disciples.

Some of the institutions with which we cooperate are older than 140 years, such as Baylor University and Buckner International. Others were started by the BGCT.

Did you know Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary was started under the auspices of the BGCT in 1908?

During the first few years of the 20th century, San Marcos Baptist Academy (1907); Wayland Literary and Technical Institute, now Wayland Baptist University (1910); and the College of Marshall, now East Texas Baptist University (1912) were established. Many others were established during the rest of the 20th century.

See Leon McBeth’s Texas Baptists: A Sesquicentennial History to learn more about these and other Texas Baptist institutions.

Most, if not all, of the institutions Texas Baptists relate to have grown and matured in multiple ways. They have developed excellence in their mission and work. They have developed donors and grown their campuses. This evolution over the decades has led to multiple developments in the way the BGCT relates to them.

Collaborative relationships

The BGCT does not control nor own any of these institutions. They each have their own governing board. In some cases, the BGCT elects a simple majority of the institution’s trustees. In other cases, messengers elect a small minority.

Financial support from Texas Baptists varies according to the nature of the relationship and agreement. In some cases, the support consists of scholarships or advertising. In other cases, there is no financial support. And yet in others, the BGCT is the recipient of financial benefit.

That is another way in which Texas Baptists is different from many other state conventions. Our relationships are based on agreements between the organizations to collaborate for the sake of God’s kingdom. The Great Commandment and the Great Commission advance as we cooperate together.

When churches give through the Texas Baptists Cooperative Program, they get to have a part in these great ministries of evangelism, missions, benevolence, and education. We get to do more together for the glory of God.

That’s our legacy—140 years of loving God, loving people, and making disciples through education, human care, information, finances, and missions. Thank you for being a part of that.

Julio Guarneri is executive director of the Baptist General Convention of Texas, known as Texas Baptists. Baptist Standard is the news publication referenced in paragraph three.

In my last opinion piece, I mentioned a concept—intellectual hospitality—that might be unfamiliar to some readers. I want to unpack the concept here and explain why I think it is relevant for our current political, social, theological, and evangelistic context.

Defining intellectual hospitality

Intellectual hospitality has been used by a wide range of writers to describe a disposition that welcomes others into our own mental and spiritual world. Such a disposition looks upon the narratives, questions, and convictions of others with openness and curiosity rather than suspicion and fear.

It recognizes we will disagree with the ways others interpret their experiences and construct their mental frameworks, but it sees these disagreements as opportunities to learn and grow.

To be clear, I use the term in an informal way, not intending to endorse or disavow the ways more disciplined writers construe this kind of hospitality. Nevertheless, I think the concept could be a helpful one as we try to engage a pluralistic society in a more wholesome and productive manner.

The utility of intellectual hospitality

The roots of my interest in intellectual hospitality run deep. I grew up as a culture warrior, but I also grew up with a temper and with a painful awareness my anger over political and moral issues put a strain on my relationships.

I knew I needed better models for handling conflict than I had, but I also knew I needed an intellectually defensible framework for guiding my conduct in public discourse.

So many people in my family and church took a combative approach to disagreement, and doing something different would bring me into conflict with these early shapers of my identity.

Many people in the same situation turn to civility as a descriptor of healthy public discourse, and it is not hard to understand why.

In his book Love Your Enemies, as well as in his Trinity Forum lectures, Harvard University economist Arthur Brooks argues civility is too low a standard for the Christian. For Brooks, treating others with anything less than the love Jesus demands is a betrayal of our faith and a danger to democracy.

I admit, sometimes Brooks rubs me the wrong way. Sometimes, I just want to give full vent to the rage that, in my own mind, is so well-deserved, and I don’t want some do-gooder egghead looking over my shoulder and judging my every word.

But whether I like it or not, Brooks is right. Even in the arena of intellectual combat, we are called to live out the high calling of God. Just as material hospitality has always been an essential part of the Christian ethic, so also welcoming the intellectual stranger and treating them the way we would want to be treated should be second nature to us.

Defending intellectual hospitality

Can we defend such a posture theologically? After all, as I observed in my last essay, Jesus’ rhetoric was often harsh by modern standards, and Paul could get pretty salty, too (see, for example, Galatians 3:1; 5:12).

Moreover, Brooks does not adequately address those instances where a person, an institution, or an ideology is completely eaten up with evil, and 2 Peter and 1 John are just two of the biblical books that condemn in the strongest terms those who distort the Christian faith.

Nevertheless, I am convinced we can defend the practice of intellectual hospitality on theological grounds.

First, all humans are created in the image of God. This means, among other things, all humans have the intellectual, emotional, and spiritual capacities to relate to God and to other people, to think critically about issues of importance, and to evaluate differing alternatives in terms of their conformity to the standards of righteousness and justice.

Doubtless, these capacities vary widely from person to person, which is why we must always practice discernment, a skill the Bible repeatedly recommends. Nevertheless, the fact God has made us in his image also means we are meant to figure out life together. We cannot do that if we do not listen to one another.

Second, humility is one of the most important virtues we can cultivate. In the intellectual arena, humility does not mean denying our own giftedness or de-emphasizing our own convictions. Sometimes, we are right, and retreating from what we know to be true only hurts our witness for Christ and our participation in the democratic process.

Rather, humility means properly assessing our knowledge vis-à-vis those with whom we are in dialogue. It means recognizing we are not the final authority in all truth, and our story is not the paradigmatic story for every human on earth.

Humility means being open to the expertise of others. It also means being sympathetic with their experiences as they describe their journey through a fallen and confusing world.

Intellectual habits matter

If you find all this talk about respecting others and listening with curiosity a little off-putting, please understand, I get where you are coming from.

Moreover, as a South African friend of mine observed more than 25 years ago, we Americans can be a little too sensitive to criticism and a little too quick to condemn good-faith efforts at constructive feedback.

Furthermore, I have some misgivings about my role in promoting intellectual hospitality. Those who know me well know I am not even close to a perfect representative of what I promote. There are still instances where my frustrations with those who can’t seem to “get with the program,” from my point of view, boil over.

Still, I am convinced we need a new approach to bearing witness in the public square. Whether we have access to the most influential platforms available in our society or only have the ear of those we love the most, we can all examine the habits that form our discourse.

Doing so will push some of us to be more courageous in speaking on behalf of the truth, but my guess is, some of us will need to recalibrate how we come to terms with and respond to disagreement. And some of us may even need to decide ahead of time that we are going to talk less and listen more.

The radical pluralism that characterizes our society and the substantive disagreements it produces do not mitigate the need for intellectual hospitality. They intensify that need.

We cannot afford to expend precious political and relational capital on things that do not matter. People need to know, when we clinch our fists and angrily demand action, it is for a good reason.

Most of all, we need to rebuild the trust our neighbors once had for those most publicly devoted to Christ, reminding them we really are committed to pursuing the truth and promoting the welfare of all.

Wade Berry is pastor of Second Baptist Church in Ranger and has been resident fellow in New Testament and Greek at B.H. Carroll Theological Seminary. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.