In the history of the church, the relationship between church and state—two institutions God created—has been difficult. In the early church, the Roman Empire of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries tried to eradicate the church. Hence, martyrdom was often the norm. With Constantine in the early 300s, that relationship changed. He ended persecution and brought Christians into his government. But, as you study the next 1,000 years, church and state became intertwined such that the church served the state. Even after the Reformation, various rulers chose which brand of Christianity the state would be and then enforced those commitments with the power of the state.

President Trump has repeatedly argued that America must assume control over Greenland—an interest that dates back to his first term. His comments have been met with sharp pushback, with Greenland’s government rejecting a U.S. takeover under “any circumstances.” NATO allies have also warned that the use of U.S. military force to seize Greenland, which Trump initially threatened but has since ruled out, could put at risk the decades-old transatlantic alliance. Trump’s escalating rhetoric prompted Denmark to increase its military presence in and around Greenland, alongside several other European countries.

In the Pastoral Epistles of the Apostle Paul (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) the phrase “sound doctrine” appears nine times. The Greek term translated “sound” means that which is conducive to health—in this case spiritual health. Paul connects sound doctrine with godly living; in God’s eyes, sound doctrine produces righteous living. For that reason, the church needs to review the command of the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20: “make disciples” by going, baptizing and “teaching all that I have commanded you.” This is the task of the church, and making disciples involves teaching what God has revealed in His Word. How is the church doing in fulfilling this part of the Great Commission? How is it doing in teaching and promoting sound doctrine?

The world order put together by the United States after World War II is coming apart. For example, last year marked the 80th anniversary of the 1945 United Nations Charter, a document signed by 51 nations at the close of World War II. The signatories pledged to act “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” The great powers have not gone to war with one another since, and no U.N. member state has disappeared because of conquest. But over the past decade, that peace has begun to unravel.

One of the most precious terms of the American Republic is liberty. This Republic’s founding documents are rooted in expressing and protecting individual freedom. In the Declaration of independence, Jefferson argued as a “self-evident truth” that we are “endowed by our Creator” with certain “inalienable rights” and among those are “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” The Bill of Rights (the Constitution’s first Ten Amendments) articulates and guarantees a set of rights each citizen enjoys. “Liberty” is indeed a precious and unique dimension of this Republic. But, in 1992, Justice Anthony Kennedy, in the famous Casey abortion ruling, posited a re-definition of human liberty: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

In early December 2025, President Trump’s administration issued its “National Security Strategy” (NSS) document. The 33-page paper is the Administration’s most complete attempt so far to explain its thinking on national security. Editorially, the Wall Street Journal observed: “Eight years ago, in his now-distant first term, President Trump laid out a national security strategy recognizing the new world of great power competition. It was a welcome effort to articulate emerging global threats. The new strategy . . . is an all but explicit retreat from that competition. It will please China and Russia but discomfit America’s allies. The strategy isn’t an isolationist document that you might read at a libertarian think tank. But it is clearly a declaration that America can no longer afford to, and shouldn’t in the national interest, bear the burden of global leadership.”

In early December 2025, Australia began enforcing a ban on social media apps for children under the age of 16—becoming the first country to do so. “I’ve always referred to this as the first domino,” Julie Inman Grant, who leads Australia’s online safety regulator, said in remarks. The major platforms have “pushed back,” Grant said, in part because Australia could serve as a proving ground for an approach that has begun to draw interest elsewhere.

In late December 2025, President Trump loosened the regulation of marijuana in the US. The Wall Street Journal editorially argued, “Reclassifying marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act doesn’t legalize the drug under federal law. But it does let marijuana sellers deduct expenses from their taxes like other companies. It also sends the signal to young people that marijuana isn’t all that harmful, despite mounting evidence that it is.”

Robert P. George, McCormick professor of jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, asks these penetrating questions: “What should the conservative movement stand for? What should conservatives dedicate themselves to conserving?” As we begin 2026, it is clear that people describing themselves as conservatives do not agree on the answers to these questions.

The current US Department of Defense under Pete Hegseth is fundamentally altering what are normally known as the “rules of war.” This is understandably controversial and difficult, but it is also an issue within Christianity and the tradition known as the Just War. Hegseth purports to be Christian; so, I assume he is familiar with biblical teaching on this subject and the doctrinal position known as the Just War. Let me explain.