Wednesday, October 1, 2025

Part I

Lethality and the Department of War: Secretary Hegseth Seeks to Return the U.S. Military Back to Its Central Focus

A lot going on this week, but yesterday there was an unprecedented meeting of the senior commanders of the United States military. Now, of course, ongoingly, there is the body known as the Joint Chiefs of Staff. That is the heads of the services, the top military officers in all of the services, the Chief of Staff of the Army. And you just look at all the different branches that are there.

But this was bigger by far and indeed by a multiple factor of anything that had happened, at least in recent United States history. This was the top commanders, the generals and admirals and others of similar rank brought together at the order of the President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense for a very unusual gathering, and at least in terms of recent history, unprecedented.

There was a lot of speculation about why the Secretary had called this particular meeting and had required the generals and admirals to gather there. There were national security concerns about having so many senior military officers, indeed, virtually all of the senior military officers in the US military called together in one place at one time, and they were addressed by the President of the United States and the Secretary of War.

The security for this meeting must have been absolutely massive, and the importance of it is going to be debated for some time. Why did the Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, call the gathering? Well, it was clear he wanted to address the senior military leaders of the United States about how he, and the Trump administration were reconceiving the American military. And it is really interesting because they raised a host of issues. The meeting’s going to be debated for a long time, so will the comments made by the President and the Secretary of War.

I want to center in on one part of the secretary’s message, which I think has made some people uncomfortable, but for all kinds of worldview reasons, I think we need to look at it pretty clearly. The Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, emphasized that the purpose of the US military was lethality. And I think some people look at that and say, “Well, that sounds very bellicose, that sounds very warlike.” And of course, they’ve just renamed the Department of Defense, the Department of War; the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of War. Now, by the way, the White House can’t do that with a lasting effect unilaterally. It would take congressional action. But at least for the Trump administration, so long as Donald Trump is President, this is the Department of War and thus its secretary is the Secretary of War. 

Now, let’s just pause for a moment. Why would the name have been changed from the Department of War to the Department of Defense after World War II? And why did President Trump want to change it back?

Well, the title or the name of the department conveys a very important message. In the history of the United States, the Department of War was about national defense, yes, but it was about national defense mostly in an episodic need, the occasional eruption of war, a major military threat against the United States of America.

And so when you look at American history, foreign wars and foreign entanglements were actually few. Now they were important. You talk about the Revolutionary War, yes. You talk about the War of 1812, yes. You talk about the Civil War, you talk about the Spanish-American War, and then of course World War I, World War II. The point is that throughout much of American history, the necessity of an ongoing army was not so clear, especially since given America’s constitutional order, the primary purpose of the Army, the Navy, the Marines, and then of course later expanded to the Air Force, now Space Force, the entire military universe that includes the National Guard and of course the Coast Guard and others.

The purpose was to protect the peace and interests of the United States of America. And the point is that throughout much of American history, that was episodic, not constant. Now that really began to change. Even in terms of being episodic, there was still the need for the United States to have a military in order to ensure the navigation of American ships at sea.

And there still had to be a basic army force in place, but I think most Americans would be absolutely shocked to know that between World War I and World War II, there had been a massive demilitarization of American culture, so much so that by the time the United States had to enter World War II, just a few years before, we had had an army that didn’t even rank in the top 10 in the world in terms of the number of enlisted personnel.

Now, of course, that was transformed very quickly into a massive war effort that was very, thankfully, successful. But it was at the end of World War II that President Truman decided to change the name from the Department of War to the Department of Defense. And a part of that was because it said it was less bellicose. Department of War is about war, the Department of Defense is about the ongoing necessity of defense.

It was also a moral statement about the fact that the United States does not have aggressive intentions around the world, but it will do everything necessary to defend the nation. And the Secretary of War became the Secretary of Defense. And now President Trump has reversed that. Now, why would that be so? Now, by the way, after World War II, the National Seal was also changed so that the eagle faces the olive branch rather than the arrows. That’s reflected even on the Presidential Seal. So it is very interesting. There was a statement after the horrors of World War II that the United States wanted to turn to maintaining the peace rather than waging war.

Now, the point that was made by the President and even more pointedly to the top leadership of the American military is that, to put it bluntly, that was a mistake. That when the Department of War became the Department of Defense, it became just a part of the administrative state, or at least it succumbed to the danger of becoming just a part of the administrative state. And it had lost a focus on the fact that the main threat of the United States military is waging war, not just something that might be defined as defense.

Now, I think that’s a very interesting topic of conversation, and I think Christians can come down on all sides of the issue with very many different arguments about which one is preferable. I don’t think that’s the main point. I think what was clarifying is when Secretary Hegseth pointed to the fact that the issue of war is lethality, and this is something that the President Trump believes the United States military and political leaders have confused over the course of the last several years.

And so let me give you an example of what’s behind that because I think a lot of people don’t understand there’s an historical context here. And it’s one that goes back particularly over the course of the last 30 years, which is when Donald Trump has been most politically active. And that has to do with the fact that you had the involvement of the United States, and others, sometimes under the name of the United Nations in so-called peacekeeping efforts using the American military in peacekeeping forces. And you can argue whether many of these were successful or not.

But the point is that President Trump has an aversion to the use of the United States military in that sense. He said pretty clearly he doesn’t believe that the United States military should be deployed in foreign conflicts without the American national interest being directly involved. And this was a rejection of the internationalism that was very much a part of American foreign policy from the period, especially the 1960s and ’70s into the first decade, maybe even the first two decades with President George W. Bush of the 21st century.

And so this was a repudiation. It is very clearly a repudiation of much of the internationalism that shaped American foreign policy and military policy during that time. But there’s more to it than that because the argument that President Trump made in a very long address, the bottom line of his argument is that diverting the United States military into peacekeeping efforts, sometimes got quite futile frankly, and exposing the United States military force in such situations, that’s just not right.

And instead, Secretary Hegseth said the issue is going to be lethality. Now, here’s something else, and I just speak from historic Christian thinking, grounded in what’s known as just war theory. Christian just war theory is applying Christian biblical doctrine to the context of war, asking when and under what circumstances war is justified and then how war would be righteously fought and under what terms. Christian just war theory does remind us that the reason it is so serious is because of lethality. 

And so there’s a sense of which I think I just want to double down a little bit on what the secretary said, because I think a lot of people say it was about issues of policy. It was de-working, you might say, the American military. And by the way, let me just say that there are very justified concerns about the extent to which woke ideologies had infected the entire administrative state. And the Department of Defense really has been a part of the problem there, other departments as well. And I can just tell you, years ago I saw in a foreign capital a US embassy lit up in gay pride colors. I can just tell you it’s gone on.

The Secretary Hegseth went on to say, “No more of these Pride Weeks and all the rest, no more dudes in drag.” Okay, I think that communicates, I think the average American’s going to say, “I think that’s the right posture for the US military.” There were other issues there, but I’ll just say I think that the people who are pressing back on lethality and saying, “No, I think the United States military ought to be used for all these different things,” I think that is an important moral focus and it’s going to be interesting to see how that works its way out.

But Christians have said, “If we’re going to talk about war, we need to seriously talk about war in biblical and theological terms. And that means we don’t confuse it with other things.” Lethality is lethality, and that is the reason why you have an Armed Forces, a military, Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, et cetera. And so you just look at this and understand there will be controversy over this. And no doubt some of this is the controversy over whether or not such a meeting should have been called.

But the larger issue is there is a pushback on the fact that many people, particularly on the ideological Left, they don’t really want to talk about lethality because they don’t want to really face the threats that are confronted all around the world. And quite honestly, those threats are building. And my concern is actually that even in the present, American military and political leaders aren’t taking these threats as seriously as they ought. Just consider the major report that came out yesterday on the development of Chinese hypersonic missiles and just about everyone says we’re way behind. We think we’re way behind. Well, we better find out before we find out the hard way.

Part II

A Tragic Week for Mormons: A Horrific Shooting of a Mormon Chapel in Michigan and the Death of Its President

Now, I want to shift to a very sad headline coming out of Grand Blanc Township in Michigan. And this was a savage attack upon a Mormon congregation gathered there this past Sunday. It appears that a man drove his truck with two big American flags, drove it into the building. He then got out of the truck and shot people. At least four are dead, others are wounded. And then apparently he set the entire complex on fire. So by the time law enforcement became actively involved, you had a fire, shootings, an intentional ramming of the vehicle into the facility. Over the course of the last several hours, of course, details of the story have become more widely known.

The shooter himself was shot and killed by police in an exchange of gunfire. It also becomes very clear that the man had an animus, a hatred against Mormonism. And the background to that, I don’t know. The important thing to recognize is that this was yet another attack upon a religious group in the United States, a deadly attack undertaken by a man who clearly seems to be operating out of animus. And so obviously we’re praying for all the persons who are involved in this and should be.

And once again, you just see a very tragic outbreak of violence directed in a way that just shows the depravity and evil that can hide in the human heart until all of a sudden it is so horrifyingly exposed. At the same time, Mormonism was also in the headlines because of the death of the group’s First President, and that means its living prophet in a succession going all the way back to Joseph Smith. So the New York Times headline was, “Russell Nelson, aged 101, who led major changes in the Mormon Church dies.” And so Dr. Russell Nelson, the First President of the Mormon Church, and he, by the way, went into that role at age 93.

What an amazing thing. He was 93 years old when he went into that role and he and two counselors formed the First Presidency of the Church, going back to the basic architecture of the Church, the system of the Church that is grounded all the way back to Joseph Smith. And I’m using the word Church here because that is in the name. It is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That’s the name by which they designate their movement, and it’s more commonly known as Mormonism because of the Book of Mormon. That is the most common name.

And so even as I talked about the attack in Michigan, I mentioned it was directed towards Mormons. But in his role, as First President and prophet of the Church, Russell Nelson insisted that the entire Church drop references to Mormonism and instead use the full name, he said, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Okay, there’s a lot to unpack there, but we need to unpack it theologically and understand what in the world’s going on here, because it’s clear the national media don’t know how to handle this. Is this a Christian denomination? The fast answer is a very quick no, but it uses the name “Jesus Christ,” it uses the word “church.” And that becomes very confusing even in the news report about the attack in Michigan, by the way. There were those who referred to it as a Mormon Church. Actually, I think most Mormons would say both words are wrong in terms of the way they see it under the influence of Russell Nelson as the first president. They use words like “Stake” and “Ward” and it’s a “Meetinghouse.” Sometimes I’ve heard it referred to as a chapel. I think it is primarily a meetinghouse. It’s for instruction. And you also have other words that are used.

You hear about the Mormon Tabernacle or the Tabernacle in Salt Lake City and then you hear about a Mormon temple or a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints temple. And those are numerous under the leadership of President Russell Nelson who just died. More than 100 new temples were planned. Temples are different than the meetinghouses because of the theological structure of Mormonism. Temples are where certain ceremonies take place. Most important, the ceremony that is known as sealing, which is the sealing of a married couple in a Mormon ritual.

And so there are baptisms and sealings that take place there in a temple, which is one of the reasons why the worldwide expansion of Mormonism, which has been pretty amazing, although it has slowed down rather considerably in recent years, it’s been rather amazing. It requires a temple to be built in proximity to where Mormons can go in order to undergo the ceremonies. 

It is also interesting to note that this is an organization by definition with a geriatric leadership. And that is to say that when you look at the Quorum of the Twelve and who are chosen for that role, that is the second-highest body in the Church. The First Presidency is the highest body, and that’s the First President who’s considered to be a living prophet. The claim is that God speaks through the prophet and thus what the prophet says when he speaks as that role is like scripture.

I think the average American Christian evangelical doesn’t have much of a clue about what Mormonism represents. They know it’s not Christian, but they don’t know exactly how to describe it. I think this is a good opportunity for us to think about it for a moment. Even as we are praying for our Mormon neighbors, we also are aware there’s some basic theological issues that just have to come to the fore here.

For one thing, you have the death of the First President, of making a half-page print obituary in the New York Times a remarkable figure. Dr. Russell Nelson was a pioneering heart surgeon there in Salt Lake City. He was the first in Utah to perform open-heart surgery. He even, as a surgeon, performed open-heart surgery on Spencer Kimball, who was the First President of the Church at the time. But in his late 50s, he was called into the leadership of the Church. He left that very prominent medical practice known nationwide.

And that’s another thing, the senior leadership of the Mormon organization is made up of generally very experienced, sometimes very wealthy, high-prominence leaders in the secular world who are called into the leadership of the Church. And so there’s some very significant figures who have played a role, certainly on the Quorum of the Twelve and then as First President. And so you are looking at the fact that the First President of the Church wasn’t someone who was pastor of a church. They don’t have churches, they don’t have pastors. It was someone who was a world-ranked heart surgeon.

And he went into the high leadership of Mormonism when he was in his late 50s. But he didn’t become First President until he was 93, and he served in that role until just dying in recent days at age 101. Okay, that’s some very old leadership. But even as he entered at age 93, Russell Nelson was a very energetic First President of the Church and prophet of the Church for quite some years. It was he who just insisted on returning to the original name, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And by the way, that’s a mouthful, which is why the media generally have not gone along.

And so you’ll notice the headline in the New York Times was the President, “Who Led Major changes in Mormon Church.” The headline in USA Today, “Gunman ranted against Mormons.” So I just want to say, by the way, different religious groups have had the same experience. And so Methodists didn’t intend to call themselves Methodists, but they had a method of Christian devotion, and the next thing you know, they’re called Methodists, and eventually they just owned it. Baptists known for believer’s baptism. The word Baptist stuck. And thus, even in the 18th century, the Baptists started referring to themselves as Baptists. 

But you can understand the brand management when it comes to Mormonism. They certainly see more advantage in their name, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Part III

Mormonism is Not Christianity: Our Mormon Neighbors Need the True Gospel of Jesus Christ

So what in the world are we talking about? So I mentioned that the man who died here, Russell Nelson was a prophet. He was considered a prophet in the line of Joseph Smith.

And so Mormonism is organized around the fact that there is a living prophet. Now, this means, by the way, that Mormonism can turn on a dime. So the priesthood is something only men can enter, and at one point, only white men could enter and Black men could not be brought into the priesthood of the Church. That changed in just an instant on the basis of what was claimed to be divine revelation. God did not want Black men to be priests until a certain point when God informed the prophet that he had changed his mind. In other words, it was a complete reversal of policy and the living prophet could simply say this and it had full authority within the Mormon Church.

And that just shows you that Mormonism is based upon the idea of continuing revelation. This is something, by the way, that historic biblical Christianity does not accept. And this is a major issue that arose in the Reformation. And that is to say we believe that there are 66 books of Holy Scripture and that the canon of Scripture is closed. We believe that God speaks through his Word, but we’re not looking for new books, we’re not looking for new prophecies.

And our Protestant understanding of the proper role of prophecy is that it is this Holy Spirit-inspired preaching of the Word of God. It’s the application of the Word of God. But the Book of Mormon is a successor volume, it is claimed, to Christianity’s understanding of the Old and New Testament. And so this is another testament of Jesus Christ, is actually a part of even how Mormonism presents it. Another testament, a successor testament. And this gets to a successor pattern we need to note because there is a very strange parallel, thus between Mormonism and Islam.

Now, I want to be very careful. I’m not saying they are the same. I am saying that one of the central claims of Islam is that you have the Old Testament, you have the New Testament, but now you have the Quran through the Prophet Muhammad, which is a clarification of, an extension of, and a successor volume of greater authority than the Old and New Testaments. And so that’s how Islam understands the Quran over against the Old and New Testaments. They’re simply referred to as precursor scriptures followed by and indeed corrected by, they would argue, the Quran. Very similarly, that’s what you find in the Book of Mormon.

And it’s a successor, they claim, it’s also a corrective because Mormonism’s theological structure is radically different than either the Old or the New Testament, although it picks up on many of the same themes, by the way, it uses a lot of the same language. Joseph Smith claimed that he had a vision, and in the vision he was told to go find these golden plates. The golden plates he then, we don’t have time to go into detail, translated, and it became the Book of Mormon. He wrote it down, and thus the Church was established. The Book of Mormon was first published in 1830.

By the time you get to the late 19th century, Mormonism’s growing. It, of course, has a lot to do with the Exodus and the migration of the Mormons to what became Utah, eventually became a state. In order for it to become a state, Mormonism had to change its policy on polygamy. And it did, again, out of a new prophecy, and polygamy is now no longer acceptable. Then Utah became a state. Very interesting pattern. The theological structure of Mormonism is radically different than that of Christianity, right down to who God is.

They speak of Heavenly Father, but there is also a heavenly mother. It’s a very different thing. And I will simply say that you have to buy into Mormonism as a complete whole. And one of the problems for Mormonism is that most Mormons, throughout history, have not known a lot about Mormonism. The internet has changed that, and that has presented a very significant crisis. I don’t have time today to go into a full analysis. That would be profitable if we ever have that opportunity.

But I will simply say it’s important for Christians to understand that our differences of theological belief with Mormonism are massive, and they actually begin at the top and go all the way down to the bottom. And our understanding of who God is, our understanding of who Christ is, of why Christ came and what Christ accomplished, very, very different. Even though they use Christ’s name. Our understanding of the gospel is radically different.

The Mormon scheme is actually a form of works righteousness very clearly so. Very different than the gospel of grace, which is the essence of the gospel of Jesus Christ. 

All right. But I need to get to something, and that is this: Mormonism actually has what I would describe as a doctrine of kindness. And I think one of the interesting things about Mormonism is that when you get to spend time with Mormons, you’ll discover that overwhelmingly, they’re very kind.

And I’ve had opportunity, I’ve addressed the student body at Brigham Young University. I’ve had the opportunity to meet with some of the highest leaders of Mormonism. And by the way, I met with them as a capital “E,” Evangelical Christian, and they understood that. We had a very honest exchange. But I will tell you, there are a few people on earth who are more kind than some of the Mormons I have encountered. That’s a reminder to Christians that we should be known for kindness. If that’s a Mormon principle, it should certainly be a biblical principle, even more so for Christians. 

But I just want to remind you that as much as Mormons famously demonstrate kindness, we need to remember that our duty is to share with them the gospel of Jesus Christ. And so it’s just really important that we recognize that we’re not just talking about what is implied in that longer name, that this is just another church of the Lord Jesus Christ. This is a different religion and it has a history that reveals where those differences come from. 

But we need to remember that we have multiple duties here as Christians. Number one, we’ve got to get the gospel right. We’ve got to keep the gospel straight. We have to know what is and is not Christianity. Secondly, we need to share the gospel with all persons in order that hearing the gospel they may believe and believing they may be saved through the sheer grace and mercy of God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

And we need to remember, yes, there’s a reason why Mormons make good neighbors. They are very kind and they are suffering right now as they’re observing the death of the First President and also this attack upon a Mormon group there in Michigan. And we should respond to that with conviction, yes; with the gospel, yes; and with kindness, yes, for such would glorify Christ.

All right, day by day, you never know what we have to talk about.