Howard Owens

#me-too wouldn’t have been possible without Jesus Christ

Howard Owens — Thu, 13 Aug 2026 20:51:11 +0000

For some reason, Harvey Weinstein came to mind today—and in this context.

Two millennia ago, Harvey Weinstein would have been celebrated as a great man of Rome. His conduct would have been expected, applauded as the act of a great man exercising his power. And it was legally protected.

I could write a sentence saying that he “violated” people and those people were his “victims,” but that’s not language that would have had any meaning in ancient Rome. The victims he violated would not have been seen as victims, and if they complained, protested, or accused such a great man of wrongdoing, they would have been punished.

For 4,000 years before the first century, the arc of the universe did not bend toward justice. Humanity made no moral progress. In every culture, save one, the law protected the powerful. If you weren’t powerful or part of the elite class, you were property.

In Rome in particular, if an actress, servant, or lower-class woman tried to publicly accuse a powerful senator or patron, she would be the one destroyed by the legal system.

She would be branded with infamia (loss of legal standing and public repute), while the powerful man would use his influence, legal advocates, and political network to crush her.

The concept of consent did not exist. Adultery was a crime, but more as an affront to the honor and status of the male spouse. Although the woman might be disgraced and considered “damaged goods,” that was viewed as more of a loss to the man in society’s eyes than it was to her.

So what happened 2,000 years ago that changed the moral arc of the universe from a negative to a positive?

Jesus Christ.

In Christ’s time, as in the four millennia before his birth, the concepts we now take for granted—such as human dignity, human moral worth, and equality—did not exist.

Utility was valued over dignity.

Unwanted infants were exposed on hillsides to die; slavery was not merely an economic reality, but an unquestioned necessary default; and public violence—whether human sacrifice in the some Ancient Near East cultures or gladiatorial slaughter in Rome—was treated as necessary to appease the gods, legitimate entertainment or good for maintaining civic order.

Might made right. The strong dominating the weak was seen as the natural law of the cosmos. As Aristotle famously argued, some people were “slaves by nature.” Mercy was not considered a virtue; in classical Roman culture, misericordia (pity/compassion) was often viewed as a character flaw—an irrational emotion that compromised justice and strength. (This might sound familiar to those who have heard the contemporary trope, “empathy is a sin.”)

Moral obligation was almost exclusively bounded by tribe, bloodline, or city-state.

After Jesus, humanity did not stop being cruel, but we changed how we measure and define cruelty.

Individuals gained a sanctity they lacked before as creatures made in God’s image. Power was inverted by the Cross and the Jesus ethic of servitude toward all. Love became less tribal because Jesus taught us to love those different from us, to love our enemies, and to pray for those who persecute us. He said not to resist an evil person, but to take the slap with grace, go the extra mile, and surrender your cloak when your enemy asks.

Without Jesus, progressive Hollywood would have lacked the language to call out and condemn the Harvey Weinsteins in their midst. There would not have been a #MeToo movement. The concept that a young, nameless, hopeful actress could name Weinstein’s crime would have been unthinkable. That foundational conviction that a powerful, wealthy titan can be brought low because he harmed the vulnerable is entirely downstream of the Christian moral revolution.

But if Jesus were just another great moral teacher, it’s unlikely we would be talking about Him today. He was a laborer from a backwater province in a region valued less for what it could produce than its place along the trade routes passing through it.

At the time, the largest city Jesus could walk to, Jerusalem, was not significant on the global Roman Empire scale.

Jesus wasn’t credentialed and held no formal degree. Neither did His disciples.

If He were just another itinerant rabbi, it’s unlikely anyone would have written down His words, chronicled His life, or taken the time to retell what He taught.

We still talk about Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Buddha, and Confucius not just because they had something valuable to say, but because what they said largely conformed to the expectations of their age.

Not so with Jesus. He subverted expectations, so he became despised by the powerful—the very gatekeepers of any man’s legacy.

Except for one thing, He would be just another footnote in history as an aspiring but failed Messiah.

That one thing—the one thing that explains not only his impact, but the fact that his teaching was preserved and spread throughout the known world at the time (even at the risk of death for those who proclaimed his name as a name above all names)—is his resurrection.

Without the Resurrection as a real historical fact, there’s nothing else to explain his impact or the rapid spread of his teaching.

Which brings us, as this discussion often does, to what C.S. Lewis said: You can call Jesus a liar, a lunatic, or Lord, but the one thing you can’t call him is just a great moral teacher. He was much more than that.

See less

The vanity of posting the 10 Commandments in public schools

Howard Owens — Sat, 08 Aug 2026 15:23:09 +0000

Required posting of the 10 Commandments on schoolhouse walls violates the Third Commandment.

Do not take the Lord’s name in vain.

Vain in Hebrew is lashav, which means worthless, false, deceitful, or something that is, or a statement that is groundless.

Vain is something that holds no value.

I think we’re all raised to believe that the Third Commandment means don’t use God’s name as a cuss. But it means more than that. It means bearing or invoking God’s name in ways that are trivial, in ways that skirt the sacred and elevate the profane.

The 10 Commandments (properly, in Hebrew, the 10 words) are God’s word. They represent God. The intent of such government mandates to post them is, clearly, to represent God, which, in that manner, also turns them into an idol.

In modern America, the drive to post the 10 Commandments is always politically motivated; thus, it’s appropriating God’s sacred identity and his authority to prop up a partisan agenda.

It’s using state power to promote ideology masquerading as Christian virtue.

It reduces sacred words to civic decoration.

Treating God’s words as tools in a culture war trivializes the text. Such mandates do not honor the Commandments. It takes what belongs to God and drafts it into civil governance.

Posting the 10 Commandments doesn’t honor God. It celebrates human ambition and vanity.

Paul’s message for gullible Christians

Howard Owens — Mon, 13 Jul 2026 17:41:06 +0000

This morning’s study: 2 Timothy 3:1-9.

This passage opens by discussing the “terrible times of the last days” and describes the kind of man we should avoid, as well as how the deceiver feeds on the spiritual weakness of the unthoughtful and unprepared.

To help us understand the last days, let’s look at Hebrews 1:2: “…in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son…”

And 1 John 2:18: “Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.”

From Hebrews, we connect the last days to the coming of Jesus. From John, we see that from the beginning (and Jesus taught this, too) we are to find among us false teachers and liars.

We make a mistake if we read “last days” as a bounded period of time within the present age (in Biblical terms, the present age is the time between the incarnation and the second coming). These are all the last days.

So when we read about the man we should “have nothing to do with,” we aren’t reading (as John makes clear in his discussion of antichrists) that we should be watchful for a singular historical figure.

We should watch for anyone who meets the criteria Paul lays out for us: lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, unforgiving, slanderous, lacking self-control, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God. Such might claim to love God but deny God’s power. “These are men of depraved minds,” Paul says.

They take advantage of the gullible, those who never come to the knowledge of the truth. They are fooled by false wonders and signs, like those performed by Jannes and Jambres in the court of the Pharaoh, who wished to deceive even with Moses standing there.

So a sign of the gullible is those who support and excuse the kind of narcissist Paul describes.

Paul’s warning applies to us all. We must be on guard in our social circles, within our churches, and, most assuredly, when evaluating civic and political leaders, so that we are not taken in by those who use God to promote their own ambitions.

The polytheism of universalism

Howard Owens — Fri, 10 Jul 2026 19:24:01 +0000

Polytheism was the universalism of the ANE. All gods are equally good at getting whatever you want from your god.

Israel was told to reject the gods of the nations because they had no power and could not bring about human flourishing. Only Yahweh, and Yahweh alone, could make the rain fall and plants grow.

Polytheism is cosmic anarchy – each one of us doing what is right in our own eyes.

It is the way of oppression. When there is no right and wrong, there is only wrong.

In the ANE, there was child sacrifice, temple prostitution and kings who claimed divinity, killing whom they desired.

In the modern world, Babylon is a conspiracy of self-interest, with each person of ambition grabbing what they can for themselves with little regard for who starves, who is abused, who dies too soon, who can’t get enough to eat or who is poisoned by foul water or dirty air.

And universalism wants to bless this mess, to bless injustice and the oppressors.

Universalism says the creator has no power over his creation. Rather than a God of love who loves his creation so that he wants to put it back to good order, he holds out no promise, no hope for the victims of disorder. The oppressors will ultimately win by receiving the same crowns in heaven as the sat upon, and the spat upon. For the universalist, the meek don’t inherit the earth. Their kingdom never comes. God’s will is never done. He has no power to wipe away every tear.

God tried to turn Israel away from polytheism. The universalists embrace it.

Paul’s transformation from ‘violent man’ to pacifist

Howard Owens — Fri, 03 Jul 2026 15:24:09 +0000

My knowledge of the literature on Christian nonviolent resistance is far from comprehensive, but I’ve yet to find a reference to 1 Timothy 1:13 as a verse supporting the doctrine.

“Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief.”

This is an incredible verse. Paul lumps his violence (Acts 7:58–8:3; Acts 9:1–2; Acts 22:4–5; Acts 26:9–11) in with blasphemy and persecution. He isn’t saying “I was a persecutor of the Church” and letting it go at that. He’s listing these three actions as sins of rebellion against God in their own right.

In the original Greek, the word we’re looking at is “hybristes.” That is the root of our word “hubris”; here it doesn’t just mean “big ego.” It referred to a person who actively uses power and position to shame, mistreat and bully others.

Paul admits that his religious zeal was actually fueled by a proud, overbearing desire to dominate and hurt others.

Yet, God showed him mercy.

God showed Cain mercy. He gave the killer of Abel a mark so that he would be protected against retribution. God could have just taken Cain’s life as punishment, but he allowed him to live and flourish.

And Paul’s sins deserved death, but God, as he does for all of us, showed him mercy on the Road to Damascus.

Paul was transformed from a man of violence to a man of peace.

We see in Acts that Paul turns from violence to nonviolent resistance, even to the point of taking a beating or a stoning without retaliation. (Acts 16:35–40; Acts 21:37–22:21; Acts 23:1–5; Acts 9:23–25; Acts 14:5–7, 19–20; Acts 17:5–15)

This is a sharp rebuke of today’s theobros, those Christian men who try to weaponize Christianity to support the use of violence. Paul is explicitly calling out those who would try to justify the use of violence in the name of Jesus.

Let’s not hope for national leaders like Samson

Howard Owens — Sat, 25 Apr 2026 22:54:01 +0000

I’ve come across MAGA Christians who love to compare Donald Trump to Samson, the manly warrior, in their view. Christian nationalists have an interesting fixation on Samson as some sort of role model. The man who did not faithfully fulfill his calling to begin delivering Israel from the Philistines was haunted by his own insecurities, driven more by personal grievances than by divine blessing, blurring the line between justice and revenge. A tragic figure whose greatest strength became his greatest liability, enabling his worst impulses.

Many commentators have suggested Samson is perhaps more of a terrorist, rather than displaying the wisdom of a judge acting in God’s spirit.

In the end, Samson kills himself and many Philistines in a temple in Gaza. This may be a partial fulfillment of his calling, but it does not bring lasting deliverance; generations later, David still has to confront and finally break Philistine power. If there is any benefit to God in his act of vengeance, it is that God’s name is vindicated in the destruction of Dagon’s Temple.

The biblical narrative doesn’t conceal any of Samson’s faults, consistent with scripture’s fealty to a witness to people’s full humanity. There is no gloss because the ultimate story is about God’s glory in the midst of man’s folly. Far from a hero, especially a warrior to exemplify, Samson is fatally flawed, doomed by his own hubris and lack of faithfulness. He’s hardly a role model and certainly not anybody we would want our national leaders to emulate.

War by God’s Will or Ours

Howard Owens — Thu, 12 Mar 2026 22:30:05 +0000

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. (DoD photo by U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Madelyn Keech, https://www.flickr.com/photos/secdef/54674702251; Public Domain).

The war passages in the Hebrew Bible are among the most difficult in scripture.

Copan argues that the Old Testament’s warfare texts must be read in their ancient Near Eastern context, where hyperbolic battle language, divine judgment on deeply corrupt cultures, and God’s long–suffering patience all complicate any quick charge that God is violating our modern sense of moral order.1

The most important context starts in the Garden of Eden, where humanity first turns on God, choosing instead to decide good and bad apart from fellowship with its creator.2 The sets up the rest of story, as God works through history to redeem his creation.

Many centuries later, after much travail, Israel is called to be a kingdom of priests who might demonstrate God’s glory to all the nations, that he alone should be obeyed and followed, but Israel repeatedly fails, showing us time and again that when we stop following God, our own schemes often fail. (Exodus 19:5–6, Deuteronomy 4:5–8, Deuteronomy 6:4–5, 13–15, Deuteronomy 26:18–19, Judges 2:10–15, Deuteronomy 28:15, 25, Jeremiah 2:17–19)

The war passages act in the Torah as an archetype for God’s final judgment.3 When God calls his people to war — always as the smaller force — often God commands kings and generals to reduce the number of men going into battle4 — it is against an idolatrous and corrupt people. There is great evil in the land, such as temple prostitution and child sacrifice. (Deuteronomy 9:4–5, Deuteronomy 18:9–14, Judges 7:2–7, Deuteronomy 20:1–9, Deuteronomy 23:17, Leviticus 18:21; 20:1–5, Deuteronomy 18:9–10)

Israel was to trust in God, not in its own strategy or the nation’s own strength.

As Psalm 20:7 reads, “Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God.”

Rebellious kings
When kings pursue their own war plans, the Biblical witness shows it didn’t go well for Israel.

In 1 Samuel 13, when Samuel is late, Saul loses patience. performed a burnt offering himself rather than waiting for the prophet—an act he justified by military pressure and fear that the Philistines would attack. Samuel condemned this as disobedience, declaring that Saul’s kingdom would not endure because he “did not keep the LORD’s command.” This sets the pattern: human initiative in place of divine direction results in the forfeiture of blessing.

In 1 Kings 22, Ahab decided to retake Ramoth Gilead from Aram based on his own reasoning, and though he consulted prophets, he deliberately avoided the one prophet he knew would speak against him. The outcome? Ahab was killed in battle.

In 2 Chronicles 35, when Josiah did not listen to God’s command delivered through Necho of Egypt, Josiah died in battle, shot through the heart by archers.

Each genuine “Yahweh war” was always initiated by the LORD and never Israel; when Israel initiated war without divine approval, the consequences provoked God’s dismay, if not anger and judgment.5

In other words, short of divine revelation, any nation that initiates war is not trusting God but trusting in its own wisdom, the same desire for control that drove Adam and Eve from Eden.

Peace on Earth
So when does God sanction a nation starting a war?

I suggest, based on the witness of Jesus Christ in the Gospels, never.

John Howard Yoder argues in The Politics of Jesus6 that the New Testament portrays Jesus’ life, teachings, and especially his cross as normatively shaping Christian ethics and politics. The way of the cross, then, governs how we read the rest of Scripture. Richard Hays, drawing on Yoder, similarly describes the cross as the theological fulcrum of New Testament ethics, the point at which the biblical story’s moral vision comes into sharpest focus.7

At the cross, Jesus voluntarily gave up his life so that we might have life. That is the way of non-violence, non-resisting, not answering evil with evil. Jesus taught enemy love, not retribution. (John 10:10–11, 17–18, Matthew 5:38–39, Romans 12:17, 21)

When arrested, Jesus declared that “my kingdom is not of this world,” explaining that if it were, “my servants would fight to prevent my arrest.” (John 18:36). This stance is fundamentally at odds with the use of military force. His refusal to mobilize armed resistance—even when facing execution—wasn’t weakness but the expression of the upside-down nature of God’s Kingdom.

For those who might argue that is a utopian posture for a nation, you’re not wrong. But it is individuals who make those “good and bad” decisions about military maneuvers, and individuals who cloak their own wisdom in biblical language should be evaluated, if Yoder and Hays are right, and I believe they are, skeptically.

Jesus was radically counter-culture for a First Century Jew. He didn’t quote war passages from scripture. He preached non-violence and cited scripture focused on love and obedience to God. While most Jews of the era were looking for a messiah who would be a great military leader, Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey’s foal. (Matthew 5:38–44, Matthew 22:37–40, John 14:15, Zechariah 9:9, Matthew 21:1–5, John 12:14–15, John 10:11–18, Romans 12:17–21.)

The Constantinian Shift
Prior to Constantine, Christians were overwhelmingly pacifists and committed to non‑violence and enemy love, even as they were being fed to lions and burned as torches in the Colosseum. A combination of Constantine’s politicizing Christianity and Augustine’s Just War Theory meant that Biblically grounded culture of the early Church began to erode.

Over time, that accommodation to state power helped set the stage for the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the bloody battles of the Reformation.

Which brings us to Pete Hegseth.

The man who prefers “war” to “defense” for the department he runs (my pacifist friends say, at least that’s truth in advertising), and inks himself with crusader symbols (the Jerusalem cross and “Deus vult” (“God wills it”)8. In his book, American Crusade, Hegseth frames American Christianity involved in not just a cultural war but as apocalyptic Crusader-like “Holy War.”9

Even when Hegseth speaks of Christ dying for our sins and cites John 3:16, he consistently pairs that message with crusader symbolism and war‑like rhetoric, presenting a Jesus who blesses American military power rather demands peace on earth.10 11

He’s also shown he’s quite willing to outsource war’s moral decisions, the already fallible human calculation over “good and bad” to machines.12

Psalm 144
It’s striking that in this backdrop, Hegseth used Psalm 144 as a blessing for both the mission to capture Nicolás Maduro and the ongoing operation in Iran.13 David’s song isn’t about Israel’s king plotting combat under his power. Rather, David credits God with training his hands for war and fingers for battle, describing God as his fortress, stronghold, and deliverer. This isn’t David boasting about his own martial skill. It’s an explicit attribution of military capability to divine instruction. David isn’t glorifying war or blessing violence, he is acknowledging God’s sovereignty.

The Psalm was particularly meaningful to exiles returning from Babylon, living in a militarily unstable state, as they called to God for his aid. David asks God to “part your heavens and come down” and to “send forth lightning and scatter the enemy.” There isn’t a hint of self-initiative in the Psalm.

It’s interesting that Hegseth would pick one of David’s Psalms, the song of a warrior-king who wanted to build a temple, but God said no, exactly because he was a warrior. The Lord spoke to David, “You have shed much blood and have fought many wars. You are not to build a house for my Name, because you have shed much blood on the earth in my sight.” (1 Chron 22:8) God says plainly enough, war isn’t his ideal solution to wash away man’s sins.

Rather than blessing Hegseth’s military adventures, the Psalm reads like an indictment of his own initiatives.

Losing one’s life
Prior to the campaign against Iran, at the National Prayer Breakfast, Hegseth read from Mark 8 (“whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it.”) and then said, “The warrior who is willing to lay down his life for his unit, his country, and his Creator, that warrior finds eternal life.” (Mark 8:34–38)14

Hegseth is confusing the Kingdom of God with his own kingdom. Jesus is not blessing the Roman Legions or even Jewish zealots. He is explaining to his disciples the potential cost of following him. That could mean persecution, even, potentially, to the point of death. Hegseth’s framing baptizes military service with Christian language by suggesting that dying for country achieves the same spiritual reality as dying for Christ in the name of the Good News. Further, life in this passage doesn’t mean solely returning to dust. It means surrendering your entire self to Jesus and living in total submission to him.

Hegseth’s remark is straight-up Crusader talk. In 1095, before the First Crusade, Pope Urban II at Clermont said, “All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested.”15 Neither the Pope nor Hegseth has the power to open the gates of heaven to a warrior, or anybody else.

Armageddon
One of the most controversial topics in Christendom is end-times prophecy. There are Christians who spend entire careers trying to read the signs, mapping Biblical symbols onto modern machinery or nation-states (locusts become helicopters, Gog becomes Russia (or is it the United States? I forget). There are others among us who know Jesus is coming again, but realize that scripture was never intended to be read as a finely tuned GPS.

It seems that under Hegseth, the military has a number of commanders in its ranks who have read more Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye than they have a theologically sound Bible commentary on Daniel and Revelation.

There have been more than 200 complaints filed with The Military Religious Freedom Foundation from U.S. service members across all branches since the Iran strikes began, alleging that commanders are invoking biblical “end times” language to justify the war.16

One complaint (filed on behalf of 15 troops) describes a commander telling them the conflict is “all part of God’s divine plan,” citing Revelation and Armageddon and saying President Trump was “anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to Earth.”17

In First Century Judea, both the Pharisees and Zealots were trying to force God’s hand. They thought that through human action, they could subvert divine will to their own desires. The Pharisees believed that if they could just get the people to follow the law more precisely, it would hasten the coming of the Messiah. That God’s people would finally be ready to receive the military savior they long to see.

Meanwhile, the Zealots thought violence was the answer. If they could foment rebellion against Rome, then surely, the messiah would come to save Israel.18

Both groups misread the prophecy (a realization that should humble all Christians who try to figure out when and how Jesus will return).

Jesus, however, “did not play by the rules of any political parties of His day, though he was frequently pressured by people to fit into a category.” As one commentary put it, “He frustrated them with divine delight.”19

God’s will cannot be defeated by human presumption.

That applies to you, to me, even to Pete Hegseth.

1 Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011), chapter on Canaanite warfare, pp. 159–188, esp. p. 170.

2 WTC Theology. “Why God Withheld the Tree (And What That Teaches Us About Desire) | Tim Mackie.” YouTube, 9 Mar. 2026, www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oKhKBJAENc.

3 Robert D. Bergen, “Exodus,” in CSB Apologetics Study Bible, ed. Ted Cabal (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2017), 96.

4 T. Longman III, “Warfare,” in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, ed. T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 836.

5 Paul Copan, That’s Just Your Interpretation: Responding to Skeptics Who Challenge Your Faith (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2001), 167.

6 Yoder, John Howard. The Politics of Jesus. 2nd ed., Eerdmans, 1994, p. 9.

7 Hays, Richard B. The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation. HarperCollins, 1996, p. 248.

8 Salam, Armin Rosen and Suhail. “Pete Hegseth’s Tattoos and the Crusading Obsession of the Far Right.” New Lines Magazine, 28 Nov. 2024, newlinesmag.com/essays/pete-hegseths-tattoos-and-the-crusading-obsession-of-the-far-right/.

9 Hegseth, Pete. American Crusade: Fighting for Religious Liberty, Freedom of Speech, and the Quest for a New American Crusade. Center Street, 2020.

10 One America News Network. “Secretary of War Pete Hegseth Speaks at the 74th Annual National Prayer Breakfast.” Facebook, 4 Feb. 2026, www.facebook.com/OneAmericaNewsNetwork/videos/1436195738155266/.

11 Rosen, Armin, and Suhail Salam. “Pete Hegseth’s Tattoos and the Crusading Obsession of the Far Right.” New Lines Magazine, 28 Nov. 2024, newlinesmag.com/essays/pete-hegseths-tattoos-and-the-crusading-obsession-of-the-far-right/.

12 Gerl, Thomas. “Without Good and Evil: Military AI and the Architecture of Refusal.” gerl.dev, 28 Feb. 2026, gerl.dev/blog/without-good-and-evil.

13 Kirchick, James. “Pete Hegseth Outright Quotes Scripture in Iran War Briefing.” The New Republic, 9 Mar. 2026, newrepublic.com/post/207564/pete-hegseth-quotes-scripture-iran-war-briefing.

14 Kaylor, Brian. “At National Prayer Breakfast, Hegseth Says US Soldiers Gain Eternal Life.” Public Witness, 4 Feb. 2026, publicwitness.wordandway.org/p/at-national-prayer-breakfast-hegseth.

15 “Urban II: Speech at Clermont, 1095.” Internet Medieval Sourcebook, Fordham University, sourcebooks.web.fordham.edu/source/urban2-5vers.asp.

16 Anadolu Agency. “US Troops Being Told Iran War Intended to Bring About Armageddon, Watchdog Says.” Anadolu Ajansı, 3 Mar. 2026, www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/us-troops-being-told-iran-war-intended-to-bring-about-armageddon-watchdog-says/3849151.

17 “Watchdog Alleges US Troops Told Iran War Is ‘Part of God’s Divine Plan’.” The Business Standard, 3 Mar. 2026, www.tbsnews.net/world/watchdog-alleges-us-troops-told-iran-war-part-gods-divine-plan-1377341.

18 James Hastings et al., in Dictionary of the Bible (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1909), 610.

19 Dan White Jr. and Debra Hirsch, Love Over Fear: Facing Monsters, Befriending Enemies, and Healing Our Polarized World (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2019).

The Tension: Resisting empire while submitting to authority

Howard Owens — Sat, 21 Feb 2026 15:37:35 +0000

One thing that can easily be overlooked in our reading of scripture is the deep corruption of the later Second Temple period. It is a corruption that Jesus confronts several times, and it is that corruption that ultimately leads to his crucifixion.

Matthew 17:24-27 is on point in this regard. Peter is confronted about paying the temple tax, and Jesus has Peter do a little fishing so that they might obtain coins to pay the tax.

It isn’t as if Jesus and Peter couldn’t pay the tax — the mission had a treasury and patrons (hence Judas carrying the money bag) — but Jesus is teaching a lesson about both submitting to earthly authority, even if corrupt, and not surrendering your allegiance and dependence on God.

In this era, the position of high priest was purchased from Rome, and it remained within family dynasties. The Temple Tax was of questionable scriptural provenance. The rate was set by the high priest. It had to be paid in Tyrian coins, so the high priest also set the exchange rate.

The animal sacrifice system had also been corrupted. Annas, in Jesus’s time, sold animals from his own herd for sacrifice, and priests would also reject the animals brought in by families and defective, forcing them to purchase animals at inflated prices from Annas.

The Sadducees considered the temple tax voluntary, but as we can see in this passage, Jews were pressured into paying the tax. This created a two-tier system in which priests and the well-connected could avoid the tax, while everyone else had to pay.

Jesus asks Peter who has to pay — the kings of the earth and their kin, or just “strangers.” Peter answers strangers, meaning the rest of us.

We see that Jesus recognizes the corruption, just as they did when he flipped tables in the Court of the Gentiles, but rather than encouraging resistance to the Empire, he advises not to cause offense, knowing that God provides and is ultimately the only sovereign. So he instructs Peter to go fishing so that the Temple Tax might be paid by God, subverting the entire corrupt system. It is resistance through God’s authority, not in our own power.

This is giving to Caesar what belongs to Caesar while relying not on man but God alone.

Jesus flips tables, he asserts the sovereignty of God, but he turns his back on revolution, confrontation, violence, even to the point of going to the cross.

It’s a powerful lesson in resisting empire through obedience to God, in not conforming to this world, but standing apart from it.

An Open Letter to Romans 13 Christians

Howard Owens — Thu, 29 Jan 2026 14:14:45 +0000

If Romans 13 means total obedience to empire, the rest of scripture is meaningless

This essay started out as a response to a pastor I sometimes communicate with about faith and politics, during an exchange in which the pastor cited Romans 13 as a reason Christians shouldn’t participate in anti-ICE protests. I added citations to my most recent email to the pastor because I believe it’s an important issue worth publicly discussing further.

Here is what I think I hear you saying — Romans 13¹ is a command for Christians to never oppose any government authority, is that correct?

I’m going to start off with an assumption that I’m reading you correctly and try to point out some of the scriptural and historical inconsistencies of that position.

If I’m wrong or you concede that the logical progression I map out goes too far, I will also address it from the other side: the Christian case for opposing government injustice.

God hates empires

Howard Owens — Sat, 10 Jan 2026 18:18:02 +0000

Christians are exiles, pledged instead to God’s upside-down kingdom

Egypt. Assyria. Babylon. Rome. God hates empires.

Empires favor the rich and powerful over the poor and marginalized. They distort God’s design of mutual beneficence, where the poor are fed and the sick are healed. Empire is steeped in sin, idolatry, and the worship of its own outstretched arm of power.

God hates empire. Ezekiel 29:9-10 (Egypt), Isaiah 10:5-6, 12-13 (Assyria), Jeremiah 51:24-25 (Babylon), Revelation 18:2-3 (Rome, where “Babylon” becomes a symbol for Rome and all empires, even to this present age).

Jesus taught and modeled a counter-imperial message. When he said we are to render unto Caesar, he allowed Caesar a few coins as scant support for the empire, because everything else belongs to God (Matthew 22:21). When he said to pick up our cross, his first audience would not have thought, “He’s going to get crucified.” They would have recognized it as a symbol of imperial power, carried by insurrectionists. Yet Jesus told his followers to take up that cross daily (Luke 9:23) as a rejection of the world and its ways.

He declared before Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). Jesus proclaimed an upside-down kingdom: “The rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them, not so with you.” Instead, in Christ’s kingdom, “Whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant” (Matthew 20:25-26).

God’s kingdom operates on radically different principles, where the last shall be first (Matthew 20:16), leaders must be servants of all (Mark 10:43-45), the poor in spirit are elevated in the kingdom (Matthew 5:3), we love enemies and pray for persecutors (Matthew 5:44), and power is perfected in weakness (2 Corinthians 12:9).

The wisdom of God’s kingdom remains hidden from those puffed up with the wisdom of the age. The blind and deaf of empires trust in their worldly wisdom. They are confident in their declarations that those who exercise strength are on the right side of history, that taking what you want demonstrates power, and that power justifies itself.

But Jesus reveals something different in Matthew 11:25-26:

“I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do.”

Christians reject empire. We are in the world, not of it (John 17:14-16). We’re called to the humility of little children, to reject worldly pride and power, to become servants carrying our crosses as we spread the good news:

“The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor” (Matthew 11:5).

This is the kingdom. Not empire’s power over others, but God’s power healing and restoring the broken. Not taking what we want, but giving what others need. Not the mighty crushing the weak, but the King becoming servant of all.

Isaiah 12-13
“When the Lord has finished all his work against Mount Zion and Jerusalem, he will say, ’I will punish the king of Assyria for the willful pride of his heart and the haughty look in his eyes. For he says:

“‘By the strength of my hand I have done this,
and by my wisdom, because I have understanding.
I removed the boundaries of nations,
I plundered their treasures;
like a mighty one I subdued their kings.’”

Ezekiel 29:9-10
“Egypt will become a desolate wasteland. Then they will know that I am the Lord.

“ ’Because you said, “The Nile is mine; I made it,” therefore I am against you and against your streams, and I will make the land of Egypt a ruin and a desolate waste from Migdol to Aswan, as far as the border of Cush.”

Jeremiah 51:24-25
“Before your eyes I will repay Babylon and all who live in Babylonia for all the wrong they have done in Zion,” declares the LORD.
“I am against you, you destroying mountain,
you who destroy the whole earth,”
declares the LORD.
“I will stretch out my hand against you,
roll you off the cliffs,
and make you a burned-out mountain.”

Revelation 18:2-3
“With a mighty voice he shouted:
“ ‘Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great!’
She has become a dwelling for demons
and a haunt for every impure spirit
a haunt for every unclean bird
a haunt for every unclean and detestable animal.
For all the nations have drunk
the maddening wine of her adulteries.
The kings of the earth committed adultery with her
and the merchants of the earth grew rich from her excessive luxuries.”

^{Acts 17:6-7}When they did not find them, they dragged Jason and some of the brothers before the city officials, shouting, “These men who have turned the world upside down have come here too, and Jason has welcomed them. They are all acting contrary to Caesar’s decrees, saying that there is another king—Jesus.”

Proverbs 6:16-19
“There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him,” then lists arrogant eyes, lying tongues, hands that shed innocent blood, and those who stir up conflict.