When A President Speaks Like God

Readings for the 26th Sunday in Ordinary Time: Ezekiel 18:25-28; Psalm 25:4-5, 6-7, 8-9; Philippians 2:1-11; Matthew 21:28-32.

Last Tuesday, before the United Nations, President Trump said he had “a big decision to make.” Would there be a deal allowing Iran to rebuild? Or would he “annihilate the Islamic Republic” and drive its people “into hell with no chance of survival”? Those are his words, as recorded in the available transcript of the speech. They sound like a man who thinks he’s God.

In any case, I keep coming back to the people who would have to live under such threat: a mother trying to get her children to school, a nurse caring for the sick, an elderly man who has already lived through too many wars. What decision have they made that gives an American president authority over their future? How can anyone speak of leaving a people without hope for future generations and call it a choice that belongs to him?

The United Nations was created so that nations would settle their conflicts without threatening one another with destruction. Its charter forbids members to use threat or unauthorized force against other states. Yet there stood the president of the United States, before that very assembly, speaking of annihilation in his illegal war of aggression.

This Sunday’s readings give us a way to judge what we heard.

Through Ezekiel, God asks a question: “Is it my way that is unfair, or rather, are not your ways unfair?” It is a question worth putting to every government that speaks of security while treating other people’s lives as expendable. Would we accept such words from the leader of another nation directed at us? Would we call them statesmanship if our own grandchildren lived under the threatened bombs?

Ezekiel does more than condemn wrongdoing. He says that people can turn from it. The one who has done evil can begin to do what is right and just—and live. The word turn matters. God does not demand that we defend yesterday’s course simply because we chose it yesterday. God calls us to change course when we see where it leads.

That is a word for our president and for everyone helping to prosecute this war. It is also a word for us. Americans can turn. We can refuse to lend our silence to threats made in our name. We can insist that diplomacy, the protection of civilians, and an end to the killing are possible and necessary. Ezekiel will not let us say that it is too late to do what is right.

Then Paul asks us to have the mind of Christ Jesus. In one of the most beautiful passages in the New Testament, he says that Jesus, though in the form of God, did not treat equality with God as something to be grasped. Instead, he emptied himself, took the form of a slave, and accepted death on a cross.

Think of the direction of that movement. Jesus goes toward those with the least power. He shares their vulnerability. He ends among the people an empire could execute.

Christ refused to grasp at godlike power. Our president appears eager to exercise it.

For Christians, that contrast should be impossible to miss. No human being has the right to decide that another people will have no future. And no follower of the crucified Jesus should be comfortable hearing such power claimed on our behalf. We cannot kneel before a man executed by an empire and then applaud an empire’s threat to destroy others.

Paul’s words are addressed to a community. He asks the Philippians to look not only to their own interests but also to those of others. For us, that means asking what the war looks like from beneath the bombs and from inside Iranian homes. It means seeing the people who will suffer before we repeat a government’s account of its aims.

We need not approve of Iran’s rulers to do that. We need not overlook injustice committed by any government. Iranian civilians do not lose their claim on our conscience because of what their leaders may have done. Their lives cannot be reduced to a bargaining chip in a dispute between states.

That brings us to Jesus’ story of the two sons. Their father asks each of them to work in the vineyard. One says no but later changes his mind and goes. The other says yes, sir, and never appears. Jesus asks which one did the father’s will. Everyone knows the answer.

He tells this story to the chief priests and elders. They know how to give the proper religious answer. But when John calls them to change their ways, they refuse. Meanwhile, people they look down upon—tax collectors and prostitutes—hear the call and respond.

It is hard to read that Gospel this week without thinking about the churches. We know how to say yes to Jesus. We praise the Prince of Peace. We recite Paul’s hymn about his self-emptying. Some Christian leaders have spoken against this war and pleaded for diplomacy; Pope Leo has done so. But after a threat as stark as the one voiced at the UN, why don’t we hear church leaders speak with unmistakable clarity about the lives at stake?

And I have to ask the same of myself. It is easy for me to preach against a president. The Gospel asks what I will do once I have finished speaking. Will I make my opposition known to those who represent me? Will I stand alongside people organizing for peace? Will I keep paying attention to Iranian lives when the speech has passed from the headlines? Jesus asks whether we actually go into the vineyard.

Perhaps some of us have supported the war. Perhaps some have feared speaking against it. Perhaps many of us have simply grown weary and stopped listening. The first son gives us reason for hope. His first answer was no. It was not his final answer. He changed his mind and went.

That possibility is the mercy running through all today’s readings. In the psalm we pray, “Teach me your paths.” Ezekiel says that we can turn and live. Paul shows us the path of Christ, who gave up power and stood with the vulnerable. Jesus tells us that what matters is whether we will take that path today.

I pray that our president will turn from the language of annihilation. I pray that our churches will find their voices. And I pray that we, who say yes to Christ every Sunday, will hear the invitation he places before us now: go into the vineyard. Defend the lives being threatened. Work for peace. RESIST. VOTE.

When Leaders Become School Shooters

I’m sure you noticed that on the very first day of the current U.S. war with Iran, American missiles struck a school compound. In that single horrendous attack 165 people (most of them little girls between the ages of 7 and 12) were slaughtered. Their classrooms became rubble. Their playground became a graveyard.

There’s no “fog of war” here. This was a first strike presumably meticulously planned before hostilities began. Put plainly: Trump’s and Netanyahu’s first targets in their completely illegal and immoral war were school children – little girls.

A War of Aggression

Even before considering the victims, let’s underline the war’s undeniable illegality. It was completely unprovoked. That makes it a war of aggression. In international law, initiating such a conflict is considered the gravest of crimes. The judges at the Nuremberg Trials famously declared that to launch a war of aggression “is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, because it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” That principle was meant to ensure that powerful states would never again unleash violence against another country simply because they could.

Yet here we are.

Targeting Civilians

As I said, the opening strike on that Iranian school could hardly have been accidental. Moreover, it followed a pattern already well-established by Israel’s war in Gaza under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Again and again, the world has seen images of bombed schools—places that had become shelters for displaced civilians, classrooms for children, or simply the last fragile spaces where families tried to survive. Critics have begun to describe this tactic grimly: the “Gaza-ing” of cities—systematic bombing of densely populated areas where civilians inevitably live.

Now that same logic appears in Tehran.

In this context, be reminded that dense urban neighborhoods are not empty landscapes. They contain apartment buildings, schools, hospitals, and nursing homes. They house women, children, the elderly, and the disabled — people who cannot easily flee when bombs begin to fall. When such areas are targeted, civilian casualties are not accidents. They are predictable consequences. They are intentional.

An Epstein War

And here the moral horror becomes even sharper. That fact that most of the victims of that first strike in Teheran were girls between the ages of seven and twelve, connects it unmistakably with Jeffrey Epstein scandal from which the Iran War seems anxious to distract us. (Some are even calling it “The Epstein War.”)

Once again, young girls are the victims. Once again, power stands on one side and vulnerability on the other.

No one is claiming that the dynamics of sexual exploitation and the Trump and Netanyahu school shootings are identical. But the pattern is deeply unsettling. Powerful men act with near-complete impunity; little girls suffer the consequences. When this happens repeatedly—whether in elite abuse scandals or in the conduct of war—it raises questions that go far beyond ordinary sexism. It points toward a culture in which the suffering of the most defenseless becomes politically invisible.

“Leaders” As School Shooters

Meanwhile, Americans continue to express horror at school shootings at home. The 2007 massacre at Virginia Tech where 32 people were killed shocked the nation and remains the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history. Americans rightly consider such crimes monstrous.

But what should we call it when a government destroys a school killing pupils and teachers with missiles?

I’ll tell you what I call it. It’s a school shooting. And Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu are the most lethal school shooters on earth. The phrase shocks precisely because it strips away the language of strategy and exposes the reality for what it is.

And when national leaders behave this way, they do more than destroy buildings and lives. They set an example. Leadership shapes moral culture. If governments normalize violence against children abroad—bombing schools, flattening neighborhoods, “Gaza-ing” cities —why should we be surprised when violence seeps back into our own societies?

Conclusion

There I’ve said it: the two men just referenced are far worse school shooters than the worst we’ve seen. The moral logic in all cases is nonetheless frighteningly similar. They murder because they can. If we truly believe that children’s lives are sacred, that principle cannot stop at national borders. It reveals the slogan “pro-life” for the grotesque instrument it has become: a banner raised in defense of unborn life at home while bombs fall on little girls sitting in classrooms abroad.