The Historical Roots of Modern Christian Zionism

 A study of Bible prophecy and political advocacy

Abstract

Christian Zionism emerged as Christians moved from expecting a Jewish return to the ancestral land of Israel to advocating for it through public policy. This paper traces that development from seventeenth-century Protestant restorationism through nineteenth-century British and American advocacy, the founding of Israel, and modern evangelical lobbying. It then examines the principal prophecy texts in the King James Version. The evidence places William Eugene Blackstone at an important point in American political history. His 1891 and 1916 petitions brought an existing Christian expectation into foreign-policy debate and drew cooperation from Jewish Zionist leaders. The theological question is whether the biblical promises, even if they include a future for ethnic Israel, identify particular modern events as their fulfillment or require the church to endorse specific state policies. [1–4]

1  From Protestant restorationism to political advocacy

Christian restorationism is the expectation that Jewish people would return to their ancestral land, often in connection with conversion, revival, or the coming of Christ. Modern Christian Zionism includes the efforts of Christians who advocate for a Jewish homeland or support the State of Israel on religious grounds. The categories overlap. Belief about what God will do becomes political advocacy when believers ask governments to help secure a particular outcome. Christian supporters have appealed to prophecy, covenant, humanitarian concern, and Christian responsibility in light of antisemitism. These motives can coexist in a single person or organization. [1–2]

In 1621, the English Protestant writer Henry Finch published The World’s Great Restauration. Finch anticipated both a Jewish return and the calling of Jews and other peoples to faith in Christ. His work illustrates how early Protestant interpreters could read national restoration and Christian conversion together. Similar expectations crossed the Atlantic through Protestant theological traditions. That chronology matters because neither John Nelson Darby nor the organized Jewish Zionist movement supplied the earliest Christian restorationist readings. [1, 5]

In 1840, the British evangelical Lord Shaftesbury appealed to his government to promote Jewish restoration in Ottoman Palestine. This step placed restoration within the sphere of British diplomacy. Jewish political thought developed along its own lines. In 1862 Moses Hess proposed a Jewish commonwealth in Palestine in Rome and Jerusalem. Theodor Herzl published The Jewish State in 1896 and convened the First Zionist Congress at Basel in 1897. These developments explain why a Christian could advocate restoration before Herzl while still participating in a history with earlier Christian and Jewish precedents. [1–2, 6]

2  Darby and the Blackstone petitions

John Nelson Darby developed a form of premillennialism that distinguished the church and Israel within God’s prophetic program. Premillennialism expects Christ’s return before the millennium. Dispensationalism adds a particular account of how God administers his purposes through different periods and how promises concerning Israel relate to the church. Darby’s North American travels in the 1860s and 1870s helped spread that account. American evangelicals therefore had access to dispensational ideas before Blackstone presented his petition. Christian Zionism also had adherents whose arguments did not depend on Darby’s system. [1–2]

In March 1891, Blackstone presented President Benjamin Harrison with a memorial seeking U.S. diplomatic help to convene an international conference concerning Jewish claims to Palestine. The document appealed to the suffering of Jews facing persecution in the Russian Empire. Its signers included Christian and Jewish religious leaders, business figures, and public officials. Blackstone’s prophecy teaching helps explain his commitment. The petition’s humanitarian argument helps explain why others could support the effort without sharing his expectations about Christ’s return. [2–4]

In 1916, Nathan Straus and Louis Brandeis helped encourage Blackstone to renew the petition. Brandeis indicated in correspondence that the revived appeal could be more effective if its support came from non-Jews, given the work the Jewish Zionist organization was already undertaking. The sources document political cooperation and an effort to reach an audience through Christian support. The record also puts the Rothschild connection in its proper sequence. In 1893, two years after the original petition, Adam Rosenberg, acting for Baron Edmond de Rothschild, approached Blackstone about a separate settlement effort and later asked him to use his contacts with Secretary of State Walter Gresham. Those letters establish contact over that project. They provide no evidence that Rothschild directed the 1891 petition. [3–4, 7–8]

3  Study Bibles and the events of 1917, 1948, and 1967

Oxford University Press published the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909 and a revised edition in 1917. Its notes made dispensational interpretation readily accessible beside the biblical text. The arrangement matters for the history of preaching and Bible study. Readers could move from Ezekiel, Daniel, or Revelation to an explanation already fitted into a larger prophetic sequence. Scofield died in 1921. The 1967 edition was the work of a later committee. Any argument that the notes changed in response to the events of 1948 should cite the actual notes in each edition. [1, 9]

The Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917, made support for a Jewish national home in Palestine official British policy. The declaration also pledged to safeguard the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities. Its language speaks of a national home and does not specify the final political boundaries or form of government. British evangelical advocacy formed part of the declaration’s background. The declaration itself came from the British cabinet during World War I and belongs to a wider history of wartime diplomacy and Zionist organizing. [1, 10]

On May 14, 1948, Israel declared independence, and the United States recognized the provisional government that day. Many Christian Zionists took the establishment of Israel as evidence that prophecy was unfolding. The war also brought the displacement of roughly 700,000 Palestinians who fled or were driven from their homes, remembered by Palestinians as the Nakba. In June 1967 Israel captured East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza in the Six-Day War. Prophecy teachers treated Israeli control of East Jerusalem as another sign. A historical account can establish what happened and how people interpreted it. The judgment that it fulfilled Ezekiel or Luke requires an argument from those texts. [1–2, 11–13]

4  From popular prophecy to modern lobbying

Hal Lindsey’s The Late Great Planet Earth, published in 1970, brought prophecy interpretation into popular publishing. Its approach invited readers to connect biblical passages with developments in contemporary international affairs. Jerry Falwell became a visible evangelical supporter of Israel during the rise of the American Christian Right. In 1980, the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem was founded, giving advocacy an international organization. In 2006, John Hagee launched Christians United for Israel, which mobilized supporters to contact Congress. Hagee gave the closing benediction when the United States opened its embassy in Jerusalem in 2018. In 2024, CUFI publicly pressed Congress over delays in emergency aid to Israel. [13–18]

Christians living in the land have also spoken. In 2006, four Jerusalem church leaders issued a declaration opposing Christian Zionism. In 2009, Palestinian Christians representing several churches and organizations published the Kairos Palestine document, arguing that Christian readings of Scripture should reckon with Palestinian suffering and seek justice and reconciliation. On the other side of the theological debate, the contributors to Gerald McDermott’s The New Christian Zionism argue for an enduring biblical connection between covenant and land. Their case illustrates the variety within modern Christian Zionism. Some proponents build their argument around land and covenant instead of beginning with a rapture timetable. [19–21]

5  The prophecy texts and their disputed applications

Genesis 12 and Galatians 3

God promises Abram, “I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee,” and adds, “in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed” (Genesis 12:3). Christian Zionists often understand the promise as evidence of a continuing obligation toward the Jewish people. A further political inference treats support for the State of Israel as a way to obey that obligation. Paul, in Galatians 3:8, calls the promise of blessing to the nations the gospel preached beforehand to Abraham. He identifies the promised seed with Christ in verse 16 and includes those who belong to Christ among Abraham’s heirs in verse 29. Romans 4:13 likewise speaks of Abraham as “the heir of the world.”

The dispute is whether the blessing fulfilled in Christ includes a continuing territorial promise to Abraham’s physical descendants. The strongest Christian Zionist reading argues that inclusion of the Gentiles enlarges the covenant blessing without canceling the territorial promise in Genesis 15:18 and 17:8. A Christ-centered reading gives interpretive priority to the New Testament’s expansion of the inheritance through Christ. Either way, applying Genesis 12:3 to a contemporary military appropriation requires additional moral and political reasoning. The verse addresses God’s promise to Abram and gives no criteria for evaluating a modern government’s decisions.

Deuteronomy 30 and Ezekiel 36–37

Deuteronomy 30 places regathering in a context of return to the Lord. It also speaks of God circumcising the people’s hearts so they will love him (verses 1–6). Ezekiel 36 promises regathering, cleansing, a new heart, and God’s Spirit (verses 24–28). The dry bones of Ezekiel 37 represent “the whole house of Israel” (verse 11). The chapter moves toward a united people, a Davidic ruler, and a covenant of peace (verses 21–28).

Some Christian Zionist interpreters see modern immigration and statehood as an initial stage, with spiritual renewal still ahead. They point to the order of gathering and cleansing in Ezekiel 36. Other readers start with the prophet’s audience in exile and the biblical return from Babylon. Some see that return as an initial fulfillment and look to Christ and the final renewal for the wider fulfillment. Both readings must explain how the elements of the prophecy relate to one another. Ezekiel gives no modern calendar date, and identifying an initial fulfillment in 1948 depends on a proposed sequence that readers should state and defend.

Romans 9–11 and the future of Israel

Paul grieves over his kinsmen in Romans 9:1–5, prays for their salvation in 10:1, and asks in 11:1, “Hath God cast away his people?” His answer is “God forbid.” Gentile believers are grafted into one olive tree and warned, “Boast not against the branches” (11:18). Natural branches can be grafted in again (11:23). Paul writes that “all Israel shall be saved” (11:26) and that “the gifts and calling of God are without repentance” (11:29).

Some Christians understand “all Israel” as a future, widespread turning of Jewish people to Christ. Others understand it in terms of the full number of Jewish believers gathered across history, or read the expression in relation to the whole redeemed people. A future turning of ethnic Israel is compatible with the shared salvation Paul describes. In Romans 10:12, “the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.” The image of the olive tree concerns participation in God’s saving mercy. To infer national borders or a duty to support a government, a reader must make a further argument from other texts.

Acts 1 and 15 and the reign of Christ

In Acts 1:6, the disciples ask Jesus whether he will restore the kingdom to Israel at that time. Jesus places the “times or the seasons” under the Father’s authority and directs the disciples to bear witness from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth (1:7–8). Defenders of a future national restoration point out that Jesus leaves the disciples’ expectation open. A kingdom-centered reading emphasizes the mission Jesus gives the church and the ascension that follows. Acts 2:29–36 connects Jesus’ resurrection and exaltation to God’s promise to David. The risen Christ exercises authority now, and the church awaits the fullness of his reign.

In Acts 15:13–19, James cites Amos 9 in explaining why Gentiles are being received among God’s people. The restoration of David’s fallen dwelling belongs in the discussion of what God is already doing through the gospel. Amos also speaks of Israel being planted in the land (9:14–15). The debate is whether James’s application begins a fulfillment that will later include national restoration, or whether the reign of David’s greater Son and the gathering of the nations provide the controlling horizon for the whole promise. James’s immediate conclusion concerns receiving Gentiles. Acts records no direction to the church to pursue territorial claims.

Luke 21 and the limits of a timetable

Jesus says Jerusalem will be “trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled” (Luke 21:24). Some prophecy teachers connect the verse to the change in control of East Jerusalem in 1967. The interpretation depends on what Jesus meant by Gentile domination and what marks the completion of those times. In Luke 21, the saying belongs to a discourse that includes Jerusalem’s devastation, distress among the nations, and the coming of the Son of man. A claim about 1967 should explain how the whole passage fits, including why a particular military and political change is the decisive marker. [2, 13]

Case Study on the Dry Bones and the Founding of Israel

The interpretation that national restoration would precede spiritual renewal was already in print before 1948. What changed after statehood was the identification of an actual event as the beginning of that sequence. The comparison below follows two published examples and then examines how John Hagee applied biblical interpretation to particular policies. It establishes what these writers said and leaves the question of direct influence between them open.

1917  J T Mawson reads the vision before statehood

In “The Feasts of the Lord. No. 2,” J. T. Mawson considered whether the Zionist movement signaled that restoration was approaching. He wrote, “it may be that this remarkable movement was an indication of the near approach of the fulfilment of the promises to Israel.” He then pictured a future national gathering before spiritual renewal, drawing on the bodies formed without breath in Ezekiel 37:8. He was writing during World War I, when a change in the political status of Ottoman Palestine was a live possibility. His distinction is important. Organized Zionism could be a sign that events were moving toward restoration, while the gathering and subsequent spiritual renewal remained ahead in his reading. [22, p. 173]

1970  Hal Lindsey identifies the national restoration with 1948

In The Late Great Planet Earth, Hal Lindsey and C. C. Carlson read Ezekiel 36:24–27 as gathering followed by cleansing and a new spirit. They saw the same order in Ezekiel 37, where bodies form before breath enters them. They described the first stage as “the physical restoration as a nation in the land” and dated the national restoration to 1948. In the same discussion they wrote, “We are living in the times which Ezekiel predicted in chapters 38 and 39.” They also linked the restored nation to a future northern invasion and spiritual conversion. The page numbers here come from the November 1980 printing of the book first published in 1970. [23, pp. 60–61]

The continuity is the two-stage reading. Both sources distinguish national gathering from the spiritual life symbolized by breath. The change is in what the writers claimed to recognize in their own times. Mawson treated a political movement as a possible sign of an approaching fulfillment. Lindsey treated the founding of a state as an accomplished prophetic milestone and read subsequent international affairs through the next chapters. This comparison demonstrates how the occurrence of statehood gave an established interpretation a concrete date and new claims about what would follow.

What Ezekiel actually gives the reader

Ezekiel identifies the bones as “the whole house of Israel” and gives voice to their despair, “Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost” (37:11, KJV). The historical setting is Israel’s exile. The vision promises reversal of that despair. In 36:24–28 God gathers, cleanses, gives a new heart, and puts his Spirit within the people. In 37:15–28 the joined sticks signify the reunion of Judah and Israel under one king, called “David my servant,” with a covenant of peace and God’s sanctuary among them. The order of the imagery gives the two-stage reading a textual basis. Turning that order into distinct modern historical periods requires a further argument. A reading that identifies 1948 as the first stage should explain why statehood is the decisive marker, how it relates to the return from Babylon, and how it fits the vision’s promises of unity, Davidic rule, and peace.

From interpretation to public policy

John Hagee made the political application explicit in his 2006 interview with Terry Gross. He connected Ezekiel’s dry bones with the return and establishment of modern Israel. When asked about his opposition to the land-for-peace road map, he appealed specifically to Joel 3:2: “Those who divide up the land of Israel will come under the judgment of God. Therefore, don’t do it.” Here the step from prophecy to policy is visible in Hagee’s own words. Ezekiel supplied the account of restoration. Hagee invoked Joel as grounds for opposing territorial concessions. Joel describes God’s judgment on nations for scattering his people and dividing his land. Applying it to a negotiated agreement requires showing that the circumstances and conduct are morally comparable to those the prophet describes. [24, interview transcript]

On April 23, 2024, Hagee welcomed Senate passage of a supplemental aid package. He argued that it would help Israel defend itself and reduce the risk of a wider war, and said lawmakers who supported it were on “the right side of history and the Word of God.” Congress enacted the package on April 24 as Public Law 118–50. Hagee’s statement documents a specific policy endorsement framed in biblical terms. It gives a practical rationale that can be examined on the evidence and a theological rationale that can be tested against Scripture. The release cites no particular prophecy passage for the appropriation. [25–26]

6 A response from the Friends peace testimony

The history supports a specific conclusion. Protestant restorationism was in circulation centuries before modern Zionist organizations. Dispensationalism gave many American evangelicals a framework for reading restoration as part of an end-time sequence. Blackstone brought the expectation into American political advocacy, and the 1916 campaign shows how Christians and Jewish Zionists could cooperate. The events of 1948 and 1967 then became reference points for popular prophecy teaching and organized lobbying. The weight of responsibility for Christian preaching, giving, and advocacy belongs to Christians themselves. [1–4, 13–18]

Theologically, Christians can take seriously God’s faithfulness to Israel, resist antisemitism, and examine the justice of any state’s conduct. Romans 11 calls Gentile believers to humility. Jesus calls his disciples to peacemaking and love of enemies (Matthew 5:9, 44). The Friends peace testimony brings those commands to bear on how Christians respond to the suffering of Israeli and Palestinian neighbors and on what they ask of their own government. Belief that a prophetic promise remains open leaves Christians responsible for judging present actions by the commands of Christ.

Christian Responsibility for Present Policies

Jesus blesses the peacemakers (Matthew 5:9) and commands his disciples, “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you” (Matthew 5:44, KJV). Peacemaking requires work to prevent harm and repair relationships. Enemy-love reaches people whom fear or anger makes easiest to disregard. When Christians publicly endorse a policy, their discipleship bears on the foreseeable effects of that policy, including effects on people their own side regards as enemies.

In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus asks who acted as a neighbour to the wounded man. The answer is “He that shewed mercy on him.” Jesus says, “Go, and do thou likewise” (Luke 10:36–37, KJV). Applied to public decisions, the question becomes whose wounds our advocacy takes into account. Israeli families threatened by attacks and Palestinian families threatened by bombardment, displacement, or deprivation all have claims on Christian concern. Matthew 7:12 gives a way to examine our consistency. Would we accept the same protections, conditions, or risks for people whose lives we hold closest?

Jesus describes power among his disciples in terms of service (Mark 10:42–45). Before Pilate he says, “My kingdom is not of this world,” and connects the character of his kingdom to why his servants would not fight for him (John 18:36, KJV). Christians differ about the proper use of force by civil authorities. The Friends peace testimony gives a particular answer. The 1660 declaration rejected outward warfare as a practice for Christ’s followers. From that conviction, Friends have grounds to question military aid and to advocate concrete measures that protect civilians, provide relief, and pursue a just peace. [27]

Responsibility follows the action a person actually takes. A legislator bears responsibility for a vote. A pastor bears responsibility for what is taught as a biblical duty. A citizen bears responsibility for the policies they urge, the claims they repeat, and the organizations they choose to support. Before calling an arms package righteous, Christians should ask what it funds, what safeguards protect civilians, how those safeguards are monitored, and whether the policy is likely to reduce violence or widen it. Before rejecting a peace proposal on prophetic grounds, they should examine the proposal’s actual terms and what it would do for the security and dignity of the people who must live under it. These are ways of applying mercy, truthfulness, and neighbour-love to choices Christians can influence.

Even if Ezekiel foretells a future restoration of Israel, the promise belongs to God and obedience belongs to Christ’s followers. The church can affirm God’s faithfulness and still scrutinize what a government does with weapons, territory, and political power. The question for Christians is what faithfulness to Jesus requires of us in the choices we make today.

Sources and further reading

1. Donald M. Lewis. A Short History of Christian Zionism. IVP Academic, 2021.  Source

2. Yaakov Ariel. “An Unexpected Alliance.” Modern Judaism 26, no. 1 (2006), 74–100.  Source

3. Wheaton College Archives. The Blackstone Memorial, with copies of the 1891 and 1916 petitions.  Source

4. Yaakov Ariel. “A Neglected Chapter in the History of Christian Zionism in America.” Studies in Contemporary Jewry 7 (1991), 68–85.  Source

5. Folger Shakespeare Library. Catalog record for Henry Finch’s 1621 book.  Source

6. Moses Hess. Rome and Jerusalem (1862), in the Cambridge edition of his writings.  Source

7. Louis D. Brandeis to William E. Blackstone, May 22, 1916, reproduced in Christian Zionist Heroes.  Source

8. Faith and Thought 101, no. 1 (1974), 45. Discussion of the Rosenberg correspondence.  Source

9. Dallas Theological Seminary Archives. Guide to the New Scofield Reference Bible Editorial Committee Records.  Source

10. Balfour Declaration, November 2, 1917. Text reproduced by the United Nations.  Source

11. U.S. National Archives. Press release announcing U.S. recognition of Israel, May 14, 1948.  Source

12. Congressional Research Service. The Palestinians: Background and U.S. Relations, RL34074.  Source

13. PBS Frontline. Apocalypse! Pictorial Chronology.  Source

14. International Christian Embassy Jerusalem. Our History.  Source

15. David D. Kirkpatrick. “For Evangelicals, Supporting Israel Is ‘God’s Foreign Policy.’” The New York Times, 2006.  Source

16. U.S. Department of State. U.S. Embassy Jerusalem Dedication Ceremony, May 2018.  Source

17. The Times of Israel. Interview on Hagee and the embassy dedication, May 2018.  Source

18. CUFI Action Fund. “CUFI Leadership Pans Congressional Inaction on Emergency Supplemental,” 2024.  Source

19. The Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism, August 22, 2006.  Source

20. Kairos Palestine. A Moment of Truth, 2009. World Council of Churches.  Source

21. Gerald R. McDermott, ed. The New Christian Zionism. IVP Academic, 2016.  Source

22. J. T. Mawson. “The Feasts of the Lord. No. 2.” Scripture Truth 9 (1917), printed p. 173.  Source

23. Hal Lindsey with C. C. Carlson. The Late Great Planet Earth. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970. Eighty-first printing, November 1980, pp. 60–61.  Source

24. John Hagee, interview by Terry Gross, 2006, rebroadcast by Fresh Air. Transcript, exchanges on Ezekiel’s war and the road map for peace.  Source

25. Christians United for Israel. “CUFI Applauds Senate Passage of Israel Aid.” April 23, 2024.  Source

26. Public Law 118–50, Division A, Israel Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2024. April 24, 2024.  Source

27. A Declaration from the Harmless and Innocent People of God, Called Quakers. 1660 peace declaration.  Source

All Scripture quotations are from the King James Version.

He Has Been There All The Time

 Over the past four years, my health has taken a nosedive. It started around the time of my knee replacement, when a routine blood test revealed that I had a blood cancer that could lead to blood clots. Once we got that under control and I had the knee replaced, I made an appointment with a neurologist to find out why my hands were shaking. That was when I learned I had Parkinson’s disease.

By then, I was also dealing with congestive heart failure and stage five kidney disease. I remember thinking, What else could go wrong? Then an infection meant I had to have another toe removed. Afterward, I developed two blood clots, and I’m still taking blood thinners to treat them.

One of my doctors told me I’m a very complicated patient. With eight specialists looking after me, I can see what he means. A treatment that helps with one problem can make another harder to manage. When the doctors were trying to get the infection under control, they also had to consider what the antibiotics might do to my kidneys. I’m thankful for the people who have had to make those hard decisions and for the care they’ve given me.

I share these things because I want to tell you where I’ve found my help. Through every diagnosis, every appointment, and every stretch of waiting to see what the next blood test would show, the LORD has been here all the time. Psalm 46:1 puts it plainly.

“God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.”
— Psalm 46:1, KJV

I’ve thought a good deal about those words, very present. There were days when I had more questions than answers. Even then, I could pray, knowing the LORD heard me.

When my kidneys were at stage five, I called for the elders of the church. They came, anointed me with oil, and prayed for my healing, just as James tells us to do.

“Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:”
— James 5:14, KJV

My kidney function has since improved into the stage four low range, and I praise the LORD for that improvement. I’m grateful for every bit of progress. I’m also grateful for the people who prayed with me when we had no idea what the next report would say.

I still have health problems to deal with, and I have days when I wish I could do things as easily as I used to. But I can thank the LORD for what He’s given me today and leave tomorrow in His hands. I have no regret about putting my life in His hands. The same Lord I trusted when I first went into the ministry is the One I trust now.

“I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.”
— Hebrews 13:5, KJV

During these years, I’ve found myself putting some of what I’ve lived through into gospel songs. One of them is “Been Here All the Time.” It tells of my dependence on the LORD and how, looking back, I can see His hand even in days I would never have chosen. If you’re waiting for an answer today or wondering how you’ll get through the next thing, I hope this song will encourage you to lean on Him. He’s been here all the time.

Listen to “Been Here All the Time” by Larry G. Truitt

When Fear Replaces Principle: A Country Preacher’s Thoughts

 Here is an observation I have made about this election and what I believe has happened to the Republican Party. These are the opinions of an old country preacher who has lived long enough to hear the promises, watch the campaigns, and recognize some familiar patterns.

I was too young to vote when John F. Kennedy ran for president in 1960, but I remember the concern about his Catholic faith. Among some Republicans and Protestant voters, there was fear that electing Kennedy would give the Pope influence over American government. Kennedy addressed that concern directly in his September 12, 1960, speech to ministers in Houston, affirming that his decisions as president would serve the national interest rather than outside religious instructions.

Kennedy was elected. America did not become a Catholic nation, and the Pope did not become our ruler. Looking back, we ought to ask how much of that alarm came from evidence and how much came from prejudice dressed up as patriotism.

Fear is a powerful campaign tool. Frightened people may stop asking whether their own leaders are telling the truth. They become so concerned about the danger they have been told to fear that they overlook what is happening right in front of them.

Today, I hear warnings about Muslims taking over America. I do not believe that is a sound basis for judging our neighbors or choosing our leaders. A Muslim American’s religion does not prove disloyalty any more than Kennedy’s Catholic faith proved that he would surrender the presidency to Rome. Judge people by their conduct. Apply the same standard to everyone.

Religious liberty becomes a hollow promise if we defend it only for people who believe as we do.

Meanwhile, I want my Republican friends to consider another question: How carefully have we examined the influence of the Israeli government on American foreign policy?

In my judgment, the administration has tied American interests too closely to the objectives of Israel’s leadership, particularly in the conflict with Iran. That is my assessment of the policy, and it deserves an honest debate. Friendship with another nation does not relieve our government of its responsibility to explain why Americans must bear the costs and risks of war.

My criticism concerns government decisions and political influence. Jewish people are not collectively responsible for the decisions of Israel’s government, just as American citizens are not all responsible in the same way for every decision made in Washington.

I am troubled when support for Israel is presented as a religious obligation that places its government beyond criticism. Some Christians speak as though supporting a modern nation’s military decisions guarantees God’s blessing upon America. I cannot accept that interpretation.

Scripture requires justice, mercy, and obedience. The prophets rebuked Israel when its rulers oppressed others. They did not teach that national identity excused wrongdoing. Neither should we.

“He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” —Micah 6:8, KJV.

That requirement reaches Washington as surely as it reached ancient Jerusalem.

I also question the language used to describe this war. Announcements of victory mean little to families still facing danger and loss. If the fighting continues, the American people deserve a clear explanation of what has ended, what remains, and what further sacrifice it demands. Recent reporting describes continuing attacks and instability around the Strait of Hormuz despite hopes for an end to the conflict.

I believe Congress must use its authority over appropriations to demand accountability and press for an end to this war. I cannot promise that cutting particular funds would end the conflict immediately. But an administration should not expect an unlimited check while the public receives shifting explanations.

The Democrats have now won control of Congress. That is a defeat for Republican leadership, but it does not automatically make the Democratic Party the answer to America’s troubles.

My concern is that the next two years will become another season of political revenge. Investigations can uncover wrongdoing, and no president should be above accountability. But accountability must follow evidence and apply consistent standards. If the purpose becomes humiliating opponents and settling scores, the public will once again pay for a political struggle that does little to improve ordinary life.

People need affordable groceries, dependable work, medical care they can obtain, and confidence that their children will not inherit another endless war. They deserve representatives who remember those needs after the campaign signs come down.

A weary part of me thinks a divided government might at least slow the passage of laws that further restrict our freedom. Yet paralysis is a poor substitute for good government. We ought to expect more than two parties preventing each other from harming.

When I say there is not a dime’s worth of difference between the parties, I mean I'm frustrated by their habits of power. Their policies differ in real ways. They also share familiar patterns: excuses for their own side, outrage at the other side, and promises that seem to expire after Election Day.

As a Christian, I cannot let party loyalty become the keeper of my conscience. A wrong does not become right because a Republican commits it. It does not become right because a Democrat commits it. Religious language cannot sanctify dishonesty, injustice, or the needless taking of human life.

What do I believe happened to the Republican Party? In my judgment, too many of its leaders learned to depend on fear, personal loyalty, and religious assurances while neglecting the principles they claimed to defend. This election should give them reason to examine that failure. The Democrats should examine themselves just as carefully before mistaking a victory for a certificate of righteousness.

I am an old country preacher. I want truth from the people who govern us, justice for those who suffer, and peace pursued with the seriousness we so often reserve for war. I want leaders who remember that public office is a responsibility the people entrust to them.

That is my opinion. My conscience is not for sale to either party.

Sources for historical and current factual background:

- [John F. Kennedy’s September 12, 1960, Houston address, The American Presidency Project](https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/speech-senator-john-f-kennedy-greater-houston-ministerial-association-rice-hotel-houston)

- [Associated Press: Calling control of Congress in the 2026 midterm elections](https://www.ap.org/the-definitive-source/behind-the-news/calling-control-of-congress-in-the-2026-midterm-elections/)

- [CBS News: Iran war updates, November 5, 2026](https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/iran-war-us-trump-midterms-strait-of-hormuz/)

A Christian Nation—or a Nation Influenced by Christianity?

 *By Larry G. Truitt | Ramblings of a Country Preacher*

*An opinion and biblical reflection*

I often hear people say, “America was founded as a Christian nation.” When asked what they mean, they point to churches, the faith of early settlers, biblical language in public speeches, and the influence of Christian morality.

I acknowledge that influence. Christianity has helped shape American thought, institutions, and public life. But influence and obedience are different things. A nation can borrow Christianity's language while refusing Christ's commandments.

That is the distinction I believe we must face honestly. When I question whether America has ever been a Christian nation, I am questioning whether the name accurately describes our national conduct. I am not denying the faithful Christians who have lived here.

Jesus asked:

> “And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?”
> —Luke 6:46, KJV

That question reaches beyond an individual profession. It challenges churches and every public claim made in His name.

 Christian influence deserves an honest definition

Christian influence can mean that biblical ideas helped shape moral convictions, that churches established ministries, or that believers worked to relieve suffering. Those influences deserve acknowledgment.

But Christianity's presence in a society does not establish that everything the society does is Christian. Neither does the faith of some founders make every institution they established an expression of obedience to Jesus.

The federal Constitution established no Christian church or Christian profession as the basis of national membership. Article VI prohibited religious tests for federal office, and the First Amendment protected religious exercise while prohibiting Congress from establishing religion. Early state arrangements differed, and some supported churches through taxation.[1]

That history matters. Yet my concern goes deeper than constitutional wording. Even an official declaration of Christianity would leave the question of obedience unanswered.

> “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.”
> —1 John 2:3, KJV

 Religious persecution cannot be made Christian by religious language

Consider the Puritan authorities in Massachusetts. They sought to maintain a religious society, but denied liberty of conscience to those whose beliefs challenged their own. Quakers, Baptists, Catholics, and other dissenters faced exclusion. Four Quakers were executed between 1659 and 1661. Mary Dyer was hanged in 1660 after returning from banishment.[2]

These were colonial events, before the United States existed. Nevertheless, they belong to the history frequently invoked when people describe America's Christian beginnings.

How does hanging a religious dissenter demonstrate obedience to Jesus? How does punishing a Catholic or a Quaker for conscience fulfill the command to love our neighbors?

> “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you.”
> —Matthew 5:44, KJV

Those who persecuted others may have sincerely believed they were defending truth. Sincerity did not make their methods faithful to Christ. Religious power became a means of coercion.

As a Friends pastor, I cannot celebrate the Christian character of colonial society without remembering the Friends who suffered under its authorities.

 A Bible in the hand did not justify slavery

Slavery presents another searching question. People could attend church, hear sermons, and speak of God's providence while claiming ownership of other human beings.

How could a person profess Christian love while treating another person's labor, body, and family as property?

Jesus gave a command plain enough for anyone willing to apply it:

> “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.”
> —Matthew 7:12, KJV

Would the slaveholder willingly have exchanged places with the enslaved?

Christian abolitionists challenged that contradiction. Quaker Benjamin Lay condemned slavery among those claiming the Christian religion. We must also acknowledge that some Quakers owned slaves. Our own religious heritage must undergo the examination we apply to others.[3]

Faithful Christians who resisted slavery deserve remembrance. Their witness also shows why “Christian influence” cannot be treated as one undivided force: religious people appealed to Christianity both to defend an oppressive system and to demand its abolition.

The moral question must therefore reach beyond who quoted Scripture. It must ask how Scripture was interpreted and whether the resulting conduct obeyed Christ.

 Native peoples deserved the love we professed

The treatment of Native Americans also challenges comfortable stories about Christian America.

One documented example is the federal Indian boarding school system. Religious organizations participated in a system that sought to assimilate Native children, including through the suppression of their languages, religions, and cultural practices.[4]

Calling a program Christian education did not establish that its methods followed Jesus.

Having served among Native people, I take this question seriously: Did those who came speaking of Christ honor the people before them as neighbors? Did they recognize their dignity, listen to them, and treat their families with love?

The gospel gives us no permission to despise a person's ancestry or to confuse conversion to Christ with the destruction of a people's identity. Christian ministry must answer for its methods as well as its stated intentions.

 Religious language can become a covering for evil

This is my central concern: America has repeatedly wrapped wrongdoing in religious language.

That does not mean every expression of public faith is dishonest. It means that invoking God can become a way to avoid the moral scrutiny His commandments require.

Jeremiah confronted people who trusted their connection with the LORD's temple while continuing in injustice. In Jeremiah 7, God demanded changed conduct toward neighbors, strangers, the fatherless, and widows, and an end to shedding innocent blood.

The temple's presence did not excuse their behavior.

Neither can our church buildings, public prayers, or patriotic references to God excuse ours.

> “They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him.”
> —Titus 1:16, KJV

Religious words become dangerous when they persuade us that our side no longer needs correction.

 Presidents must be measured by the same commandments

My concern about religious defenses of Donald Trump is this: whenever supporters claim God's approval for him, his conduct still must be examined by the commandments of Christ.

The same standard applies to every president and every political party.

Calling a leader God's instrument cannot excuse dishonesty, cruelty, pride, or injustice. Believing God permitted someone to hold office does not establish that God approves everything that person does.

We should examine specific words and actions honestly. Supporting a candidate does not mean endorsing every decision. But Christians are responsible for the wrongdoing they knowingly defend and the claims about God they make.

When we condemn misconduct in an opponent and excuse it in an ally, we surrender our moral credibility. When political victory becomes our evidence of God's approval, we risk mistaking power for righteousness.

The church must retain the freedom to call its own preferred leaders to repentance.

 Christian morality must reach the neighbor we would rather overlook

A nation influenced by Christian morality may recognize some Christian principles without consistently living by them. That influence can produce real good, but its reach must be examined.

Does our concern for truth extend to claims that help our political side? Does our defense of religious liberty extend to those whose doctrines we reject? Does our concern for innocent life extend across national borders? Does our love of neighbor include the poor, the stranger, and the person we fear?

Jesus did not give us permission to stop obeying when obedience became politically inconvenient.

> “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.”
> —John 13:35, KJV

We are saved by grace through faith. Obedience is the fruit of that faith, and persistent, defended disobedience calls our profession into question.

 The name must answer to the life

I love this country enough to believe it should tell the truth about itself.

America has experienced Christian influence. Faithful believers have served their neighbors, confronted injustice, and borne costly witness here. America has also permitted grave wrongs to be defended in Christian language.

Both belong in an honest account.

My objection is to treating Christian influence as proof of national righteousness. The history of persecution, slavery, and the mistreatment of Native peoples demands a more searching judgment.

A Bible in the courthouse does not excuse a whipping post outside it. A church steeple does not sanctify a slave market. Speaking the name of Jesus does not transform oppression into Christian love.

The question I want the church to ask is whether we are obeying the Christ whose name we claim.

> “But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.”
> —James 1:22, KJV

When we have sinned, we need repentance. When we have harmed others, we need to seek justice and make things right. When we have used religion to excuse wrongdoing, we need the courage to confess it.

**Being called Christian must never take the place of living in obedience to Jesus Christ.**

---

Historical sources

1. [National Archives: Constitution](https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript); [Bill of Rights](https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript); [Library of Congress: Religion and the State Governments](https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel05.html).
2. [Massachusetts Archives: Quakers in Massachusetts, 1656–1781](https://digitalarchives.sec.state.ma.us/quakers/); [Massachusetts Commonwealth Museum: Religious Intolerance](https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/commonwealth-museum/exhibits/online/two-colonies/a-tale-of-two-colonies_15.htm).
3. [Library of Congress: Abolition and Anti-Slavery Movements](https://loc.gov/exhibits/african-american-odyssey/abolition.html).
4. [Department of the Interior: Federal Indian Boarding School Investigation](https://www.doi.gov/node/40661); [Bureau of Indian Affairs: Federal Indian Boarding School Initiative](https://www.bia.gov/service/federal-indian-boarding-school-initiative).

 

You Cannot Declare Peace While the Bombs Are Still Falling

 Just read an article that Trump did not wait until elections were over to attack Iran. He also declared the war over and said we won.

As a country preacher, I find this report deeply troubling. President Trump says there has been no fighting for months, while American officials describe continuing strikes against Iranian targets. Those accounts demand an honest explanation. The American people deserve a clear statement of what our military is doing and what risks our leaders are asking others to bear.

Officials say the Qeshm Island strikes followed Iranian fire against an American aircraft. That claim deserves examination. Protecting servicemen is a serious responsibility, but calling an operation “defensive” does not settle every question about the larger conflict. What mission placed those aircraft there? What are its limits? What diplomatic steps are being taken to stop the exchange of fire?

I am especially disturbed by the casual language surrounding another possible attack. To describe bombing a nuclear-related site as something that can be accomplished in an hour treats a grave decision far too lightly. An attack may take an hour; its consequences may burden families for generations.

The Bible says, “There is that speaketh like the piercings of a sword: but the tongue of the wise is health” (Proverbs 12:18, KJV). Leaders’ words can inflame a conflict or help prepare the way for peace. Boasting about our ability to destroy does little to establish the trust that negotiations require.

I do not excuse the Iranian government from accountability. Every government must answer for its actions. But our responsibility as Americans includes examining what is done in our name. As Christians, we must remember that Iranian families are our neighbors before God. Their children are precious, and so are the sons and daughters serving in our armed forces.

Jesus said, “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God” (Matthew 5:9, KJV). The church ought to take those words seriously enough to demand truth, restraint, and persistent diplomacy.

In my opinion, a nation shows wisdom when it uses its strength to end bloodshed. Let us pray for leaders who understand the weight of taking a life, who speak honestly to their people, and who pursue peace with the same determination they bring to preparing for war.

When Nations Forget That God Judges Righteously

 My opinion — Larry G. Truitt, Ramblings of a Country Preacher

“The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.” — Psalm 9:17, KJV

I have watched the news from Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran, and I keep coming back to a question that ought to trouble every American Christian. How long can governments use their power to destroy lives, and how long can the people who put them in office excuse what they do, before the Lord calls them to account?

What changes when the leaders change?

When I listen to the political debate in Israel, I wonder how much would change for a Palestinian family in Gaza if a different leader took office. The question I want answered is whether those seeking power would end policies that destroy homes and uproot families, allow relief to reach those who need it, and recognize that Palestinians have a right to live in safety and dignity. A family that has lost its home has little reason to celebrate a change in leadership if the policy that cost them their home carries on.

This raises a hard question about voters' responsibility. A 2024 Pew survey found that about four in ten Israelis thought their country's military response against Hamas was about right, 34 percent thought it had gone too little, and 19 percent thought it had gone too far. That tells me there was substantial public support for the military response at the time. The survey measured views of that military response, and the differences among Israelis were real. The people who have spoken against the suffering in Gaza deserve to be heard.

Elected leaders bear responsibility for the orders they give. Voters bear responsibility for what they knowingly endorse and what they are willing to excuse. I apply that same rule here at home. If I keep rewarding a politician who defends a policy I know is wrong, I have a question of conscience to answer myself.

What are we doing in Syria?

I believe the Israeli government bears grave responsibility for its conduct in Gaza and for decisions that have widened conflict in the region. Other governments and armed groups must answer for their own deeds. My first duty as an American is to ask what our government is doing. What are we paying for, what are we arming, and what are we encouraging? When Washington backs military action, what does it do to protect civilians and end the fighting?

I have asked, What has Syria done to us? There is a distinction worth making. U.S. Central Command said its January 2026 strikes in Syria targeted ISIS following a deadly ISIS attack on U.S. and Syrian forces near Palmyra. American and Syrian forces were both attacked. That leaves Congress with questions it ought to answer in plain English. What is the scope of our mission in Syria? Under what authority does it continue? What would bring it to an end?

And when leaders speak of war with Iran, or justify further strikes in Lebanon, I want to hear what they have done to keep the fighting from spreading. The families who bury the dead will live with the consequences long after the men who made the decisions leave office.

What have we made of our Christian witness?

I am grieved when I hear American Christians defend almost anything the Israeli government does because they believe prophecy requires their support. The prophets of Scripture spoke plainly about the sins of their own rulers. Amos cried, “But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream” (Amos 5:24). If we take the prophets seriously, we ought to be willing to ask the questions they asked about power, justice, and the treatment of the poor.

A Palestinian mother grieving her child deserves the same compassion as an Israeli mother grieving hers. A Lebanese family driven from home and an Iranian family afraid of the next strike are our neighbors in the sense Jesus taught. I cannot read the parable of the good Samaritan and imagine that the Lord expects me to check the wounded man's nationality before I stop to help him.

Jesus said, “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God” (Matthew 5:9). I have preached that verse in times of peace. I had better be willing to preach it when people are cheering for war.

The election and the judgment of God

I fear that this American election may hasten our downfall if we send men and women back to Washington with the understanding that they can widen wars and excuse the suffering of civilians and still count on our votes. I want to know where a candidate stands when loyalty to a party or an ally costs innocent lives. That question matters to me whether the candidate has a Republican or a Democratic name beside theirs.

I believe the course both the United States and Israel are taking bears the marks of what Scripture warns will bring nations into judgment. When rulers grow proud, when innocent blood becomes a matter of little consequence, and when religious people bless what they ought to rebuke, I hear the prophets' warnings. As I consider these events in light of end-time prophecy, the one thing I can say with certainty is that God sees what nations do and will judge righteously. The timing and manner of that judgment are in His hands.

Peter wrote that “judgment must begin at the house of God” (1 Peter 4:17). Before I point my finger at Jerusalem or Washington, I had better ask what I have excused, whose suffering I have overlooked, and whether I have prayed as earnestly for peace as I have argued about politics.

My prayer is that God will have mercy on the families caught in these wars, that He will give our leaders the courage to seek peace, and that He will give the church the courage to speak when those leaders do wrong. And may He start with me.

From the Back Porch to Songs of Praise By Larry G. Truitt

For more than twenty-five years, I have enjoyed singing and playing bluegrass music. For the past eleven years, I have had the privilege of being part of the Back Porch Pickers—a group of talented musicians who have brought me much enjoyment. These folks are more than fine pickers and singers. Several are gifted songwriters, and I have enjoyed listening as they shared songs they had written.

For a long time, I was content to sing and play what others had composed. Writing a song of my own had hardly crossed my mind. I appreciated a good song, but I had never given much thought to whether I might have something to say through one.

About two years ago, that began to change.

I decided to try writing a song I called "What a Wonderful Day." It took several attempts to bring the words together. I discovered that having something on your heart and putting it into verses and a chorus are two different things! But I kept working until I finally finished it.

That first effort stirred a desire to learn more. I began searching the internet for songwriting advice, reading suggestions, and ways to study how songs are put together. Little by little, I started writing more lyrics.

As a country preacher, I have spent many years sharing the gospel through sermons, Bible lessons, and the written word. Songwriting offered another way to express the truths that have sustained me: God's mercy, the forgiveness of sins, the faithfulness of Jesus Christ, and the hope we have in Him. Sometimes a song gives us words for something we have carried quietly in our hearts.

However, I soon ran into a difficulty. I could write the lyrics, but I did not know how to write a musical score. I had words I believed were ready for music, yet I couldn't seem to take that next step. I knew the feeling I wanted a song to convey, but putting the musical parts on paper was beyond my ability.

Then our oldest son told me about a program called SongGenerator.

That opened a door for me. For about two years now, I have been using SongGenerator to help bring my lyrics to life. I choose the musical style, mood, voices, tempo, and format. The program generates the musical arrangement and vocal performance according to the direction I provide.

The lyrics are my own, and SongGenerator arranges and performs the music. I hold licenses for the songs I produce through the program. This has given me a way to share words that might otherwise have remained on the pages of a notebook.

I especially enjoy the sound of a cappella country gospel. Something about voices blending in harmony suits the message I want to share. I want the words to be understood and the gospel message to reach the listener's heart.

These songs grow out of Scripture and my personal walk with Christ. Some speak of joy and thanksgiving. Others speak of trials, questions, weariness, and the grace that carries us through. Through them all runs the same testimony: the Lord has been faithful.

Psalm 40:3 says, "And he hath put a new song in my mouth, even praise unto our God."

After all these years of preaching, singing, and playing music, I am thankful to have another way to tell of His goodness. I still have a message to share, a reason to sing, and someone who may still need a word of encouragement.

My prayer is that these songs will encourage the weary, comfort the troubled, and point someone toward the Savior. If they help you remember a promise of God, lift your heart in praise, or find strength for another day, then I am grateful.

Thank you for listening and allowing me to share this part of my journey. I hope you enjoy the songs, but more than that, I hope you are blessed by the message.

There is still a song in this old country preacher's heart, and I am happy to share it. Find me at: https://www.youtube.com/@lgt1044

Or go to youtube.com and search for LARRY G TRUITT