I’m not writing this to place one group above another,
nor to take sides between Catholics and Protestants.
I’m also not doing this to please anyone on this earth.
I’m writing this because when the world sees Christian leaders speaking so differently about war, many people become confused. And not just confused—some even start saying that Protestants love violence, that they enjoy bloodshed, or that Christianity has become a political banner. That is not only painful; it also forces us to look inward and ask whether we are truly reflecting the heart of Christ.
Something very serious happened in recent days.
Pope Leo XIV publicly condemned Donald Trump’s threat against Iran, calling it “truly unacceptable.” He also expressed concern about harm to civilians, infrastructure, and the moral weight of that kind of language. His message was clear: stop the logic of destruction and pursue peace.
On the other side, Franklin Graham spoke about the conflict from a very different perspective. In his April statement, he said that Israel is defending itself from Iran’s radical Islamic government, thanked President Trump for his “decisive action,” described Iran’s leadership as evil and responsible for many deaths, and called for prayer for peace and for a free Iran.
There is the tension.
One voice says: this cannot be accepted.
The other says: this firmness was necessary.
And in the middle of all this, something even more delicate surfaced: a woman who calls herself a pastor, close to Trump’s circle, went as far as comparing him to Jesus, suggesting that just as Christ was used by God, he is also being used in this time.
And this is where we must stop—with reverence before God.
Because one thing is to say that God can use anyone.
That is biblical.
But something very different is to start comparing a man to Christ.
That is no longer faith… that is spiritual danger.
So the question is not small.
The question is: which position actually reflects Christ?
And if we truly want to submit to the Word of God, we have to speak honestly, not fearfully.
Christ was never soft with sin.
He never justified evil.
He never called good what destroys lives.
But He also did not speak like empires speak.
He never turned threats into virtue.
He never made brutal power a sign of holiness.
When Peter drew the sword, Jesus stopped him.
When James and John wanted to call down fire from heaven, Jesus rebuked them.
When He was on the cross, He responded not with vengeance, but with mercy.
And when He saw Jerusalem heading toward judgment, He did not celebrate its destruction—He wept over it.
That means something very deep:
Christ confronts evil, but He does not adopt the spirit of evil to do it.
So if you ask me seriously, from a biblical perspective, I will say this:
Christians who fully support language of threat, destruction, or dehumanizing hardness are not reflecting Christ well in that, even if they believe they are defending order. They may be right that evil must be stopped. They may be right that Iran is not innocent. They may be right that governments have a duty to protect. But when the Christian heart stops grieving for human life and becomes comfortable with words that sound like crushing others, it has already drifted away from the tone of Jesus.
The Bible does recognize civil authority.
Romans 13 is there.
But it also says that human anger does not produce the righteousness of God.
It also tells us not to be overcome by evil, but to overcome evil with good.
In other words: not everything that looks like strength comes from God.
I also want to say something with respect and clarity, on behalf of the SomosCristianos team: we are not promoting any denomination in particular. We recognize that all have areas that must be examined in light of Scripture. That’s why, in this specific matter, we are not defending a church—we are setting aside labels and focusing on Christ.
The fact that God has a plan for Israel does not mean that everything the modern State of Israel does is automatically holy, perfect, or beyond question. The Bible tells us to pray for the peace of Jerusalem. The Bible shows God’s love for Israel. The Bible also clearly shows that God corrects Israel when it strays, and that His faithfulness is not a license for injustice.
So no, supporting Israel does not mean blindly blessing every military action, every political speech, or every excess. That would not be biblical faithfulness—it would be human loyalty disguised as faith.
Many evangelical pastors are suggesting that Iran is the enemy of Israel and therefore must practically be eradicated.
But the biblical truth is deeper than that.
Yes, Iran may act as an enemy of Israel.
Yes, there is terrorism.
Yes, there is real evil.
Yes, Israel has enemies.
But God does not need Christians to turn hatred into theology to defend His people.
God has never needed human help to fulfill His promises.
When He decides to protect, He protects.
When He decides to raise up, He raises up.
When He decides to judge, He judges.
The final victory does not depend on Trump’s fury, nor on a pastor’s rhetoric, nor on a nation’s military power.
The final victory depends on God.
And that changes everything.
Because if I truly believe that God reigns, then I don’t need to speak as if everything depends on the total destruction of the enemy.
I don’t need to celebrate threats.
I don’t need to harden my heart.
I don’t need to treat annihilation as if it were an expression of faith.
A Christian can recognize that there is an enemy.
Can recognize that there are evil governments.
Can recognize that there is terrorism and bloodshed.
But should never forget this:
God is still God, and Christ is still calling us to a different kind of heart than the world’s.
In war, women and children have died.
And this is where it becomes painful to ask:
is that something a Christian can support without being broken inside?
Is that what reflects the heart of Christ?
Is that what we are truly defending when we applaud certain speeches?
Is that what is being supported when leaders like Graham speak of firmness without fully stopping to weigh those lives?
So, who is closer to the truth in this case?
I will tell you soberly:
When Pope Leo XIV rejects as unacceptable a threat against an entire population, that position, in that specific point, is closer to the visible heart of Christ than a Christian position that embraces the logic of force without showing the same weight for human life.
Not because it comes from Rome.
Not because a Pope said it.
But because Jesus never spoke of entire peoples as if they were disposable.
Christ would not support Iran’s sin.
Christ would not justify terrorism, oppression, or fanaticism.
But He would not support dehumanizing threats, language of annihilation, or the idea that destroying entire peoples can be presented as something aligned with His heart.
That does not mean everything Catholic is right.
Nor does it mean everything Protestant is wrong.
It means something more serious:
in this specific point, the voice that resists dehumanization looks more like Christ than the voice that becomes too comfortable with power.
And that should make us think.
Because maybe the problem is not only Trump.
Maybe the problem is that many Christians are no longer discerning politics through the Gospel, but the Gospel through their politics.
And that is where the danger begins.
Because when a political leader becomes almost untouchable to a believer, discernment no longer comes from the cross—it comes from group loyalty. And the disciple of Jesus was not called to follow the strong man. He was called to follow the Lamb.
It is worth pausing here to remember something very important: do not let fanaticism or legalism change your heart, and always hold on to the free will, the freedom to think and to discern that God gave you. Do not let yourself be influenced by radical voices, even if they come from people who present themselves as spiritual leaders.
Let me leave you with this reflection:
Not everything that speaks of security comes from heaven.
Not everything that speaks of peace comes from the Spirit.
But when a position holds truth without losing compassion, and refuses to treat human destruction as acceptable, that position is closer to Jesus Christ.
If you ask me today:
“Who would Christ support?”
I would say:
He would not support terrorism.
He would not support the evil of Iran.
He would not support lies.
He would not support hatred against Israel.
But He would not bless threats that despise human life either.
He would not use His name to justify hardness without mercy.
He would not teach His followers to trust more in human strength than in God’s sovereignty.
Christ would call for repentance.
He would defend truth.
He would weep for the innocent.
And He would remind us that the God of Israel does not need His children to lose their hearts in order to fulfill His will.
I invite you to pray with me:
Lord Jesus,
deliver us from spiritual blindness.
Do not allow us to defend in Your name what grieves Your heart.
Give us truth without harshness, firmness without cruelty, and discernment without fanaticism.
Teach us to see evil clearly, but also to see every human being as someone made in Your image.
Guard us from trusting in men more than in Your sovereignty.
And if our passion to defend a cause ever makes us look less like You, correct us, break us, and bring us back to Your heart.
May we never use Your name to justify what You would not approve.
Amen.
We are Christians, connecting hearts with Christ.
