NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label "christian" nationalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label "christian" nationalism. Show all posts

05 September 2026

UPDATE: JD Vance says the Antichrist may be among us and ‘wouldn’t be shocked if we’re living in the end times’ 2SEP26





NOT MY vp vance must be thinking about all of his antichrist-like policies along with all the drumpf/trump antichrist-like policies he has introduced, promoted and enforced for him to suggest "the antichrist may be among us". Word to jd, God the Father alone knows when the antichrist will make his appearance in his attempt to conquer the world and God the Father alone knows when Christ will return to defeat him and establish God's eternal kingdom. God does not need help from jd vance or anyone else in bringing about the end times. Christians are supposed to do all we can to bring people to Christianity and to practice and promote life on Earth per the tenants of Christianity as declared and taught by Jesus Christ ( see Red Letter Christians for more on Christ's actual teachings ). This from the Independent.....

 JD Vance says the Antichrist may be among us and ‘wouldn’t be shocked if we’re living in the end times’

Discussing his spiritual beliefs with Christian podcaster Bryce Crawford, Vance also defended President Trump’s AI Jesus post from earlier this year

Joe Sommerlad

 Wednesday 02 September 2026 11:42 BST

JD Vance has said that the Antichrist may be “walking among us”, in an interview about his Roman Catholic faith.

The vice president, whose new memoir Communion recounts his conversion in 2019, also told The Bryce Crawford Podcast that he was ok if “doing god’s work brings about the end of times”.

The host, a 22-year-old evangelical Christian, asked Vance: “What do you think about the end times? Do you think it’s here? Do you think it’s coming?”

The politician answered: “Do I think that we’re in the end times? I don’t know. And I think that it’s probably bad for me spiritually to focus too much on it because there are, like, things that you gotta do.

“I gotta be good to my wife. I gotta be good to my kids. I have to be as good of a leader as I can for the United States of America. And so, I think that focusing on – while I’m fascinated by it – focusing on it is, too much of it can be very bad.

“I think that there are, like, things about the world that make me feel like not shocked if the Antichrist was walking among us. But again, I try not to focus too much on it.”

He continued: “I tend to think, like, while I wouldn’t be shocked if we are living in the end times, what I’m trying to focus on is doing as much of God’s work as possible right now.

“And if that leads to the end times, OK. And if that leads to you know, us building a better world that thrives and survives for a very long time after I’m gone, that’s great too.”

Crawford also asked Vance how certain he was, on a scale of one to 10, that he will go to Heaven, to which answered: “Oh man, that is a tough question. It’s high but it’s not 10... It’s a seven or it’s an eight.”

Vance was also asked about Trump’s post on social media of an AI-generated image of himself as Jesus earlier this year, which Crawford said offended him.

Trump initially claimed he thought the image was of him as a doctor, then took down the post amid widespread criticism from even some of his own backers.

“He did not mean to, like, mock or mimic God, that’s just not who he is,” Vance said, adding that the president often tries to keep things light and constantly makes jokes.

“He’s a bit of a ballbuster, for those of us who work with him, and he just likes to have a good time. And I think that if people appreciated that, they would recognize, he’s not trying to offend people, he’s trying to keep things light.”

Before Vance wrote Hillbilly Elegy and became an Ohio senator, he was a protege of tech billionaire Peter Thiel. The Palantir founder delivered a four-part lecture series in Rome earlier this year in which he outlined his own complex personal philosophy on the imminence of Armageddon.

Thiel has said he is “worried about the Antichrist,” which he has characterized as “a spiritual descriptor of the forces of evil” or “an evil king or tyrant or anti-Messiah who appears in the end times.”

15 August 2026

ENLIGHTENING FACTS: MARGARET ATWOOD, A MODERN PROPHET

 


WE were warned in 1985 and in 2017 and we are being warned again in 2026. THE 2026 Midterm elections can be the beginning of restoring our democratic Republic. Please go to Rock the Vote to confirm you are registered to vote and all the information is correct and then please vote on 3 November 2026.
She was sitting in a walled city, surrounded by the sound of deliberate sonic booms, reading the newspaper and taking notes.
It was the spring of 1984, and Margaret Atwood had rented a typewriter in West Berlin. The Berlin Wall encircled the city on all sides. Every Sunday, the East German Air Force sent jets screaming overhead — not for any military purpose, but as a reminder. The Soviet Empire was watching. It was always watching. Elderly women who had survived the Second World War walked the streets without speaking much. Young men hid in the city to avoid military conscription elsewhere. West Berlin was a small island of the West sitting inside a totalitarian sea, and you could feel the pressure of that arrangement in the air.
Margaret Atwood was writing about a future in which women lost everything.
She had given herself one rule before she began, and she intended to keep it without exception: nothing would go into the book that had not already happened somewhere, at some time, to real people. No invented horrors. No atrocities she had imagined from nothing. Every single dark thing in her dystopia had to have a precedent in documented human history.
So she began collecting.
She cut newspaper articles and filed them in binders. Pieces about infant mortality rates. Reports from Romania, where the dictator Nicolae Ceaușescu had banned abortion and contraception and ordered women to produce children in service of the state. Stories about Soviet women losing ground in the workforce as the political climate shifted. News from American states where abortion access was being restricted. Headlines about baby stealing, forced surrogacy, missing children, women losing property rights they had only recently gained.
She did not call it research. She was, she would later say, just reading the news.
The novel had begun as a question she could not put down: if someone wanted to reverse every right women had gained — property ownership, employment, bank accounts, bodily autonomy — how would it be done? What would the mechanism look like?
The answer, she found, was not complicated. You would reverse the steps that had produced the freedom, one by one, in the right order. You would justify each reversal with safety, or morality, or the protection of family. You would make each step seem reasonable before the next one began.
In her dystopia, women were sorted by function and color-coded by clothing — a system with direct precedents in Renaissance sumptuary laws and Calvinist dress codes. Women who could bear children became handmaids, their bodies the legal property of the state. The handmaid system itself was drawn from the Lebensborn program in Nazi Germany, where SS officers maintained biological wives to produce what the regime considered racially desirable children. The public executions in the novel came from the Spanish Inquisition and the Salem witch trials. The stolen children given to commanders' families came from Argentina's Dirty War, in which military officers took infants from political dissidents they had murdered. The surveillance, the careful speech, the way people changed the subject when someone who might be listening came too close — Margaret was living all of that in West Berlin in 1984, in a city that understood what it meant to exist under eyes that never closed.
She finished the manuscript in early 1985, moving between Berlin and Canada and Alabama to complete it. She titled it The Handmaid's Tale.
When it was published in August of that year, critics called it a feminist 1984. Some praised the imagination behind it. Others dismissed it as paranoid, as overwrought, as the kind of book that mistakes anxiety for prophecy. One of the common refrains was that nothing like this could happen in modern America.
Margaret kept her newspaper clippings.
The book became a bestseller and won awards and was taught in schools and then banned from schools, sometimes the same schools that had assigned it. Parents objected to the sexual content, the treatment of religion, the political argument beneath the story. The objections themselves were a kind of evidence she had not been looking for but could not ignore.
For decades the novel lived in that particular category of books that are considered important warnings about somewhere else, some other time, some other kind of society — not here, not now, not us.
Then 2016 arrived and something shifted.
Hulu announced a television adaptation. The series premiered in April 2017, three months after a new administration took office in Washington with explicit intentions to reshape the country, the same month that states began passing laws restricting abortion access, the same month that women in many places felt, in a way that was difficult to articulate but impossible to ignore, that something was moving in a direction that had a name.
The show became a cultural phenomenon. But it was what happened outside of the screen that no one had anticipated.
Women began appearing at political protests dressed in the handmaids' red robes and white bonnets. They stood in silence, in rows, outside the Texas Capitol while lawmakers debated abortion restrictions inside. They appeared at Senate confirmation hearings. They marched in Washington and Buenos Aires and London. The costume from a novel that critics had once called paranoid became the uniform of real political resistance in multiple countries simultaneously.
A warning dressed as fiction had become a language that real people used to describe what they felt was actually happening.
In June 2022, when the Supreme Court overturned the federal constitutional protection for abortion access that had stood for nearly fifty years, search traffic for The Handmaid's Tale rose by six thousand percent. The book, written in 1984, became the number one bestseller again — thirty-seven years after its original publication. Women who had never read it, or who had read it and filed it away as a period piece, were suddenly searching to understand whether it was a prediction.
Margaret Atwood, by then in her eighties, gave the same answer she had been giving since 1985.
She had not made anything up. It had already happened. She had simply remembered.
The newspaper clippings from 1984 and 1985 are stored in boxes at the University of Toronto archives. Researchers who examine them report a consistent and unsettling experience: the headlines feel current. The stories about reproductive rights, about women losing economic standing, about children separated from parents — the dates say 1985. The content reads like this week.
In 2019 she published The Testaments, a sequel that won the Booker Prize. By then she had stopped needing to defend the plausibility of her fictional world. She was watching pieces of it arrive.
What Margaret Atwood understood in that walled city in 1984, sitting with her binders of newspaper clippings, was something that most people find genuinely difficult to hold in their minds: dystopia does not announce itself. It does not arrive with villains explaining their intentions. It moves slowly, through restrictions framed as protections, through curtailments framed as safety measures, through the patient reversal of freedoms one at a time until the reversals feel normal.
And it is never new. It is always a return to something that already happened, somewhere, to people who also believed it could not happen to them.
She was forty-four years old in 1984 when she wrote a warning and disguised it as a novel, following a rule that nothing in it could be invented — that every horror had to be borrowed from history because history had already provided more than enough.
The terrifying part, she has said more than once, was never that she predicted the future.
It was that she never had to.
For those who believe that the most important warnings are the ones we dismiss as exaggerated until we suddenly cannot — what piece of history do you think the present moment most urgently needs to remember?
See less


14 August 2026

MOTHER JONES DAILY Navigating the public health zombie apocalypse: Fauci, RFK Jr., and the Latest in American Health, What does "Woke 1" even mean?, Trump admin releases final rule attacking healthcare for low-income trans kids, Pete Hegseth dreams of holy war. Meet his spiritual adviser., A DSA candidate lost a messy race for Wisconsin governor, The Great Inflammation Panic 12AUG26

 


19 July 2026

SOJO MAIL: Pete Hegseth’s high testosterone holy war, How Christian Nationalists Took Control of the U.S. Military, Empire Is More Than a Political System. It’s a Spiritual Reality,Andy Mineo and Wordsplayed Are Having the Most Fun in Christian Hip-Hop, Forgiving Graham Platner Isn’t Our Business, Trump’s Foreign Policy Is a Rejection of Jesus' Teaching 16JUL26

 


Name

By Betsy Shirley
Editor in Chief, Sojourners

Yesterday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced his “Department of War” would begin testing troops for low testosterone. In a video posted on X, Hegseth quoted dubious science to claim this would ensure troops had the “biological foundation required to sustain the fight” and remain on the “leading edge of lethality.”

This weird move isn’t even the most alarming news out of the Pentagon lately. In our latest issue, religion scholar Carmen Celestini traces how Hegseth’s “Christian Crusade mentality” has turbocharged long-present Christian nationalist influence in the military. The result? Troops who report they’ve been told the Iran war is “part of God’s divine plan” or that Trump is anointed by God to cause Armageddon. And if you’re thinking this “holy war” language feels exaggerated, consider that Hegseth has not one, but two tattoos evoking the 11th-century Crusades.

Speaking of political figures with bad tattoos: Graham Platner has dropped out of the Maine senate race following credible allegations of sexual assault—and forgiving him isn’t our business, argues Tyler Huckabee. Elsewhere this week, we’re thinking about why some Christians use the word “empire,” the theological implications of Trump’s “might makes right” approach to foreign policy, and how two Christian rappers approach their music (and the wild messages they get in their DMs) with grace and humor.



How Christian Nationalists Took Control of the U.S. Military


The conflation of God, war, and country did not begin with Pete Hegseth.


FORMER FOX NEWS host and current Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has some revealing tattoos. Across his right bicep is the phrase Deus Vult (“God wills it”), a rallying cry from the 11th century Crusades, and on his right pec is the Jerusalem Cross, which was carried by Christian crusaders on medieval campaigns to conquer the Muslim Ottoman Empire.

Back when Hegseth was a TV commentator, he laid out his vision for a new wave of American holy wars, both foreign and domestic, in American Crusade: Our Fight to Stay Free. “Surrounded by the Left, with the odds stacked against us,” he wrote, “only a crusade will do.” Since becoming defense secretary in 2025, Hegseth has attempted to implement a Christian crusade mentality within the U.S. military.

In the buildup to the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran in late February, Hegseth held a Christian worship service at the Pentagon. He prayed for God’s blessing on “overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy,” and said, “Let every round find its mark against the enemies of righteousness and our great nation.” While President Trump warned Iran to “Open the F***in’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell,” Hegseth provided the religious apocalyptic validation for the violence—both positioning the U.S. war machine as being on the side of the angels: Deus vult.

Hegseth’s vicious religious proclamations should be of concern to all Americans—and to people of faith in particular—but it is also important to examine the impact of those words within the military itself. Does religious language belong in the military, an institution constitutionally under secular, civilian control and prohibited from favoring any faith?

Hegseth’s Christian crusade mentality eradicates the wall separating church and state. It gives a government endorsement to Christian nationalist soldiers who supposedly fight to protect God, country, and family. Trump’s war efforts, in this view, are not only removed from the legally mandated oversight by Congress, they are also sanctioned by God.

The rise of religious authority taking precedence over the military’s secular control was the result of what author Jeff Sharlet calls a “cultural transformation” of the American military. Sharlet’s 2009 article “Jesus Killed Muhammad” outlines the strategy for how a “small but powerful movement of Christian soldiers concentrated in the officer corps” helped build a “godly army.” Prayer meetings, call-and-response shouts for evangelical cadets, and other actions lent uniformed support to the cause of Christian nationalism. Now, with Hegseth at the helm, Christian nationalist control of the U.S. military—the conflation of God and country—appears to be complete.

Evangelizing the military

TO UNDERSTAND HOW Christian nationalism has suffused U.S. military culture in recent decades, we need to look at the military chaplaincy structure and the civilian Christian organizations now intertwined with the military.

Chaplains have served the U.S. military since the Revolutionary War. An act of Continental Congress in 1775 provided for the appointment of chaplains for all the armed forces, making the chaplaincy second only to the infantry as the oldest branch of the military. During the 1846 Mexican War, Catholics were added to the chaplaincy, and President Abraham Lincoln removed the word “Christian” from regulations relating to the chaplaincy in 1862. Six months after the U.S. entered World War I, Congress passed the “Chaplains-at-Large Bill,” which opened the chaplaincy to Jews, Mormons, Christian Scientists, and others.

By 2017, the military recognized more than 200 denominations and religious groups. Retired Maj. Gen. Steven Schaick, the Air Force chief of chaplains from 2018 to 2021, told me that the purpose for the broad list of recognized religious groups was to respect the country’s diversity and to make sure every member of the military was represented.

In December 2025, Hegseth collapsed the number of 221 recognized denominations and groups to 31. The shortened list, Hegseth claimed, would no longer reflect the “political correctness and secular humanism” that he said had “infected” the chaplaincy under prior administrations—ignoring the fact that Trump was president in 2017 when the longer list was compiled.

The military uses endorsing agencies, operated by ecclesiastical organizations, to recommend chaplains. There are more than 100 churches and denominational endorsing agencies that select potential candidates. In 1952, mainline Protestant denominations including Presbyterians, Methodists, and Episcopalians, through their endorsing agencies, initiated and promoted annual preaching missions on U.S. military bases. The National Association of Evangelicals responded with their own endorsing agency and began missionizing on military bases. This was the beginning of a battle between evangelicals and mainline Protestants for influence in the military, with both the NAE and the National Council of Churches promoting proselytization to military personnel and the endorsement of a growing number of chaplains.

The turmoil of the Vietnam War affected the denominational composition of the military chaplaincy, which had been traditionally composed of moderate mainline Protestant denominations and Catholics. Mainline churches such as the American Lutheran Church, American Baptist Convention, United Methodist Church, United Church of Christ, and United Presbyterian Church were the most active in opposition to the war. The National Catholic Reporter, Christianity & Crisis, and The Christian Century all published editorials criticizing the war. As denominational leaders spoke out against the war, mainline Protestants began moving away from the military.

More conservative Christian groups, who often fought loudly against “godless communism,” supported the war, positioning it as “God’s work,” and soon the void left in the chaplaincy by Catholics and Protestants was filled by evangelicals and Pentecostals. In 1967, the largest Pentecostal denomination, the Assemblies of God, retracted its commitment to pacifism and proclaimed that worldly war was a counterpart to the spiritual struggle. Assemblies of God leaders developed a strategy of “infiltration,” a term they used for filling the ranks of secular institutions with undercover missionaries. According to Sharlet, they sought to first evangelize military personnel and then have those same individuals become missionaries to the world.

The Cold War era also saw shifts in the composition of the American religious landscape, with an increase in Muslim, Buddhist, and other traditions. The evangelical response to the change in demographics of religion in the nation was to seek a tighter hold on the institutions they considered “most American,” as defined by their version of Christian faith. The military was one of those institutions.

President Ronald Reagan cemented the evangelical hold over the chaplaincy by changing the regulations governing the denomination breakdown of the chaplaincy. Reagan, a born-again Christian, was staunchly supported by evangelicals, and his “Peace through Strength” policies evoked an apocalyptic narrative that reflected their end-time beliefs.

Prior to 1987, chaplains from different faiths were accepted into the chaplaincy based on the religious demographics of the military as a whole. For example, if 5% of the military was Catholic, a similar percentage of the chaplaincy would be as well. In 1987, Reagan reduced the number of religions identified by the military when he ordered that numerous Christian denominations be consolidated under the heading Protestant. This resulted in the number of “Protestant” military members skyrocketing. To respond to the demand of chaplains to reflect this increase, the Pentagon began using Pentecostal and evangelical endorsing agencies to recommend recent graduates of fundamentalist Bible colleges, such as Liberty University, to fill these placements.

This had a far-reaching impact. In 2005, The New York Times reported on the breakdown of the Air Force chaplaincy. Between 1994 and 2005, the number of Air Force chaplains from evangelical and Pentecostal churches rose and in some cases even doubled. For example, the Full Gospel Fellowship of Churches and Ministries International had no chaplains in 1994; a little over a decade later they had 10 chaplains. During the same period, the number of Roman Catholic chaplains declined from 167 to 94.

According to Department of Defense statistics, 40% of active-duty personnel were evangelical Christians in 2005, whereas only 14% of the U.S. civilian population was evangelical. At this point, evangelical chaplains represented 60% of military chaplains. These changes, in conjunction with the so-called infiltration strategy of the nonmilitary Christian organizations, created a scenario where military personnel, from the first step of their basic training, are predominately ministered to by one branch of Christianity.

Blurring church and state

CHAPLAINCY IS NOT the only conduit to religion within the military. Several Christian organizations operate on or near military bases globally, including the Officers’ Christian Fellowship, the Navigators, the Overseas Christian Servicemen’s Centers, Valor, and Full Gospel Business Men’s Fellowship International.

Cru Military, an affiliate of Campus Crusade for Christ (which is now called Cru), is present at U.S. boot camps and bases in 56 U.S. locations and in 35 countries worldwide, according to its website. In a 2005 sermon, Bob Dees, executive director of what was then called Military Ministry, preached, “We must pursue our particular means for transforming the nation—through the military. And the military may well be the most influential way to affect that spiritual superstructure.”

A goal of the OCF, which claims more than 15,000 members and is active at 80% of the U.S. military bases worldwide, is to create “a spiritually transformed U.S. military, with Ambassadors for Christ in uniform, empowered by the Holy Spirit.” The OCF started a Reserve Officers’ Training Corps ministry for the “next generation of Christian officers”—60% of the nation’s active-duty officers get their commission through ROTC at more than 1,600 colleges and universities. An article on the group’s website presents U.S. wars as a spiritual battle “against the powers of this dark world,” citing Ephesians 6:12, where “our prayer orders become just as important as our operations orders.”

In the years following the 9/11 attacks, several military leaders publicly voiced their faith while in uniform, creating a perception that their religious beliefs were associated with their official duties. An example was Army Lt. Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin, the U.S. Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence. At the 2002 Southern Baptist Convention’s National Faith Institute, Boykin—in uniform—proclaimed that the U.S. war in Afghanistan was not against Osama bin Laden but “against the forces of darkness,” a battle Boykin framed as not about military might, but one to be won “on our knees.”

The “spiritual enemies” of the United States, Boykin said, “will only be defeated if we come against them in the name of Jesus.” Although President Bush reportedly distanced himself from Boykin’s remarks, Boykin was never officially admonished or punished by the Bush administration for his blurring of the line between church and state, even in the face of congressional calls for censure. Much like during the Trump administration in 2026, the civilian oversight of Congress was ignored.

These dynamics have only intensified and solidified under Secretary Hegseth, who attends churches affiliated with the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches, which was co-founded by Doug Wilson, who promotes a theology that Christian control of all institutions of society—including the military—is God’s will. Hegseth has effectively eliminated the separation of church and state in the area over which the commander in chief has the most direct authority.

The promotion of military action as being God’s work is directly connected to the unfettered access of religious organizations on military bases and on campuses with ROTC, as well as to the imbalance of conservative evangelical chaplains embedded with the military. While Hegseth proclaims his spurious doctrine of God’s support for the U.S. war on Iran, the military personnel who wage the war are not being offered a corrective by the outside religious groups empowered with their spiritual care and guidance.

Pushing back

SOME ARE SPEAKING out against this movement in the military, predominately through the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. The MRFF reported that after the attacks on Iran began, it received more than 200 calls from active-duty personnel, from more than 50 military installations, that “Christian zealot commanders” were positioning the Iran war as a catalyst to biblical Armageddon.

One noncommissioned officer, reporting on behalf of 15 unit members, told MRFF that their commander had “urged us to tell our troops that this was ‘all part of God’s divine plan’ and he specifically referenced numerous citations out of the Book of Revelation referring to Armageddon and the imminent return of Jesus Christ.” The NCO reported that their commander “said that ‘President Trump has been anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to Earth.’”

Reports of these complaints led 30 Democratic members of Congress to ask Pentagon Inspector General Platte B. Moring III to investigate. The letter to the inspector general argued that publicly positioning the war in religious terms, both by military leadership and by senior civilian officials, “risks emboldening similar messaging within military ranks.” The members of Congress decried Hegseth’s “extreme religious rhetoric,” which they said has “metastasized into segments of the military chain of command,” and demanded an investigation to “ensure that military operations are guided by facts and the law, not end-times prophecy and extreme religious beliefs.” At press time, the inspector general had not publicly responded to the congressional letter.

I asked Schaick, the former Air Force chief of chaplains, about the American men and women who have been ordered to participate in a war that Trump has described in genocidal and apocalyptic terms, threatening that “a whole civilization will die.” The retired major general expressed concern about secular civilian control of the military—a constitutional mandate—under Hegseth and Trump and said that this was a defining moment in many ways for the nation.

Americans have “resiliency,” Schaick told me, that stems from slowly learning from the country’s great mistakes in the past. Schaick said he hopes and prays that America has that same resiliency in the future.

James E. Parco, a retired lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Air Force and a former faculty member at the U.S. Air Force Academy, produced in 2013 a deeply researched analysis titled “For God and Country: Growing Religious Fundamentalism in the U.S. Military.” In it, Parco decried the “egregious actions of military leaders who are fundamentalist Christians and have been allowed to act with impunity to embed their religious views into the very fabric of military culture.”

In prescient anticipation of the dangerously improper actions of Hegseth and Trump, Parco warned that “a significant number of leaders at all levels have become so accustomed to crossing the line between church and state, they no longer see a need to separate their religious beliefs from their actions as officials of the federal government.”

Parco argued that we shouldn’t expect real cultural change in these behaviors to come from what he called “the foxes who guard the henhouse.” Rather, what’s needed now is the political will to demand and compel a new direction—and that will only come when people take concerted action against those who have sought to claim God’s blessing on their decidedly ungodly behavior.

Carmen Celestini, a lecturer in religious studies at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada, is the author of God’s Angry Men: The Political Legacy of the John Birch Society.







Our Latest Stories


Advertisements

Rest that Your Soul Has Been Craving

The new book Light for the Way brings together 50 years of wisdom from Sojourners magazine on how contemplation, rest, and community fuel justice work. With voices like Julia Alvarez, Walter Brueggemann, and Richard Rohr, this is your guide to sustaining prophetic resistance.

Action Alert: No War With Iran!

Contact Congress now to demand peace and an end to the war with Iran. As Christians, we know that each and every life is precious and every step must be taken to avoid bloodshed. Instead of recklessly pursuing a policy of escalation, we demand an end to violence and vigorous oversight from Congress in pursuit of peace.

Unsubscribe or update email preferences


Copyright © 2026 Sojourners. All rights reserved.
611 Pennsylvania Ave SE #342, Washington, DC 20003
Email: sojourners@sojo.net | Tel.: 202.328.8842