As the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas enters phase two, many are equally surprised it has held this long and dubious that it will continue. At the heart of those doubts are questions about the Board of Peace, which is meant to oversee much of this transition.

Why it matters

Rebuilding Gaza will take an enormous commitment from the nations that have pledged to help. Anything that leaves room for Hamas to regroup and eventually retake power—or for a group equally committed to Israel’s destruction, even if it comes at the expense of the people in Gaza—could result in even worse warfare than before. This peace needs to last, and it remains to be seen if it can.

The backstory: How we got to phase two and what to look for going forward

Last October, both Israel and Hamas agreed to a 20-point plan that would start with a cease-fire with the hopes that lasting peace could be achieved by the end of it. The first phase of that plan called for Hamas to return all living and dead Israeli hostages, while Israel would release 2,000 Palestinian prisoners. As of last week, the body of the final hostage was returned to Israel.

While both sides have continued to kill one another at various times over the last three months, overall, the violence has lessened to a tremendous degree. Moreover, the UN reports of starvation that proliferated last year have subsided, with 100 percent of Gazans now having their basic food needs met. And the Rafah Crossing from Gaza to Egypt is now open once again, paving the way for an estimated 18,500 people—including 4,000 children—in need of medical care to receive it.

However, phase one was always going to be the more straightforward part of the deal. Now comes the really tricky part.

You see, phase two is where most expect that the cease-fire will fall apart. Israel now has the reward they valued the most—the return of all hostages. Meanwhile, Hamas will now be expected to fully step back from governance and disarm—the requirement they have never fully agreed to live up to.

In place of Hamas, a National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG) will pick up the mantle of governance. Ali Shaath has been tapped to lead this group of fifteen Palestinian technocrats as they attempt to guide the rebuilding of the region. A “Gaza Executive Board,” comprised of leaders from Turkey, Qatar, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Israel, and the UN, will help to supplement their efforts.

And above them all stands the Board of Peace that President Trump announced at the World Economic Forum last month. Yet, the Board has quickly become the most controversial element of the situation in Gaza, despite the presence of an armed terrorist organization in Hamas and Israel’s continued bombings.

So what is it about the Board that is so controversial? And will it ultimately prove to be more of a help or a hindrance on the path to peace in Gaza?

Has the Board of Peace already lost its vision?

The controversy surrounding the Board of Peace centers primarily on two points: the scope of their mission and who was invited. Let’s start with the mission.

When the Board was first proposed, the idea was that it would serve as an international body of countries committed to supporting Gaza’s reconstruction and development. Most would agree that the scope and scale of that project is far more than any one country could handle. For example, clearing the rubble is projected to take at least three years, so simply making the bulk of Gaza safe for the people of Gaza is a big ask to start with.

That’s why many of the Board’s skeptics were quick to point toward mission creep after President Trump presented his plans for the endeavor at the World Economic Forum. There, he announced that the group would instead seek “to promote stability, restore dependable and lawful governance, and secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict” (emphasis added). “Areas affected or threatened by conflict” pertains to a lot more than just Gaza.

While Secretary of State Marco Rubio later clarified that Gaza will “serve as an example of what’s possible in other parts of the world,” that only works if the group can stay committed long enough to actually finish their work in Gaza.

Perhaps it shouldn’t come as a surprise, then, that the first term on the Board will start with a three-year interval unless countries choose to pay $1 billion for permanent membership. Essentially, if you want to still be around when the time comes to profit from much of what is being rebuilt, you need to pay up and prove your commitment from the start.

And, given some of the nations that have signed up to do just that, many are dubious of what those efforts will look like in the long run.

Can the Board of Peace be trusted?

The second point of contention many bring up with the Board of Peace and its plans for the future of Gaza is related to the group’s composition. Many of America’s more traditional allies in Europe—France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, to name a few—have declined their invitation to join.

Instead, the Board will be composed largely of the Middle Eastern nations with whom Trump has negotiated heavily since returning to office. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, the UAE, and Israel have all agreed to play a role. Meanwhile, Russia and China have been invited but, as of this writing, have yet to say whether they will take part.

Given Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine and China’s ever-present threat of attempting to take Taiwan, inviting them to a group focused on “enduring peace” has understandably raised some eyebrows. That Trump is set to preside over the body even after his term as president ends in 2028 is another point of suspicion for many who doubt that the Board was put together with the good of Gaza in mind.

And the reality of the situation is that the good of Gaza is, most likely, not the Board’s first priority. As Dan Perry points out, though, that may not be a bad thing:

Trump is also driven by a sense of ownership. He remains focused when a project feels like his, and the Middle East is such a project. If the Board of Peace appears to be key to sustaining his sense of ownership — and if it keeps pressure on regional actors, maintaining momentum toward dismantling Hamas’ grip on Gaza — then it may be useful, even if its structure is indefensible.

And Trump is hardly alone in paying more attention to causes from which he can benefit personally. The peace plan in Gaza hinges on everyone involved standing to benefit in some way.

World leaders have rarely—if ever—acted solely out of the goodness of their own hearts. Some opportunity for selfish gain has to be baked into the equation for nations and leaders to sacrifice as much as they’ll need to for Gaza to know true peace and restoration.

Would it be better if these leaders’ primary concern were the people of Gaza? Absolutely. But it also wouldn’t work.

As such, the situation in Gaza and with the Board of Peace speaks to a much larger truth about humanity, as well as the opportunity that truth presents for us to share the gospel.

Spiritual application: Redeeming human selfishness 

Milton Friedman once remarked:

I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or if they try, they will shortly be out of office.

To put it another way, the temptation toward selfishness is endemic to our fallen nature, and the key is learning to redeem it. In truth, though, it’s been that way from the beginning.

The very first person ever born with inherited sin murdered his brother because he was jealous that God honored Abel’s sacrifice rather than his own. And things didn’t exactly improve from there. Before Adam died, he would see his offspring spread across the land and begin to devolve into such wickedness that God would purge the earth of everyone but Noah and his family.

And even after humanity restarted with Noah, it didn’t take long for things to go downhill once again. However, living in accordance with Christ’s commands stands out all that much more because the world has taught us to expect selfishness and evil from our fellow humans.

And you don’t have to be a politician or world leader for that to be the case. There are selfish people in every walk of life, which means that your example can stand out regardless of where God has called you to work, the community in which he’s called you to live, or even the church in which he’s called you to serve.

Each time we see examples of selfishness or evil in the world, it’s an opportunity to either grow jaded and distraught or to be reminded of just how easy it can be for the gospel to stand out when we follow Jesus well.

Which response will you choose today?

Denison Forum

A reflection on cultural engagement and spiritual purity

The 68^th Grammy Awards were on television last night, an event intended to recognize outstanding achievements in music. My wife and I watched for a few minutes, but the parade of celebrities wearing very little clothing and taking turns disparaging the government soon became wearisome. (Though I must add that Jelly Roll’s acceptance speech, in which he glorified God and emphatically called on the audience to trust in Christ, was a very notable exception.)

In addition, I have heard almost none of the music being recognized and know very little about the performers apart from the headlines they occasionally generate. It was the same with the Emmys last fall, and I assume it will be the same with the Oscars in a few weeks. Thus far, I have seen exactly one of the movies nominated for best picture and am not sure I’ll see any of the others.

This is an odd confession for someone whose calling is to be a cultural apologist. How can I respond to the culture if I’m not more engaged in it?

It’s a question that concerns not just people like me but also people like you. And it has implications far beyond annual awards shows.

Living in a cave atop a tower

With regard to cultural engagement, a spectrum of options presents itself.

On one extreme, we can emulate the desert monastics who retreated from society into lives of complete isolation. They did so in part to prevent being “contaminated” by their fallen society, but also to intercede for that society.

On a study tour of Greece and Turkey some years ago, our group drove through a region noted for its “fairy chimneys.” These are rock formations characterized by tall pillars rising from the valley below. Many are pockmarked with caves. And some of these caves are inhabited by monks who live there for years, some for decades.

These monks are fed and otherwise supported by nearby monastic communities. Some of them will go many years with no contact with the larger world.

I asked our tour guide how Christian ministers could feel they were serving God in such isolation from the world we are called to influence for Christ. We are the “salt of the earth” (Matthew 5:13), I noted, but salt has no effect if it remains in the salt shaker.

He explained that these monks dedicate their lives not to escaping the world but to praying for it. They feel that their intercession is a greater service to the global population and its challenges than anything else they could do.

If we believe in the merits of intercessory prayer (cf. Mark 11:24), we should consider the merits of their position.

What percentage of Christians possess a biblical worldview?

On the other extreme, we can engage so fully in our fallen culture that there is little distinction between us and those who do not claim to follow Jesus.

Only 30 percent of self-identified Christians attend church services each week. According to Barna studies, only 9 percent of us possess a biblical worldview. On a variety of issues, many Christians and even many evangelicals are indistinguishable from the larger culture in their beliefs and practices.

You and I likely fall somewhere in the middle. We don’t live in caves, we attend church with some regularity, and we don’t participate in obviously sinful activities such as the near-nudity on the Grammys stage or the profanity of many of the lyrics performed and speeches delivered.

But if you’re not locked into an extreme on a cultural spectrum, you must decide where you should be on each issue as it arises. And you can expect some who differ with you to take exception to your decisions.

Quoting David Brooks

For example, I regularly reference writers with whom I disagree on significant issues. My extended quote from the now-former New York Times columnist David Brooks in today’s Daily Article is an example. I agreed with some of what he wrote in his article so fully that I wanted to reproduce and respond to it. I disagreed strongly with some other parts of the same article, however, just as I sometimes disagree strongly with other positions Mr. Brooks takes on political and cultural issues.

I regularly cite media platforms such as the Times, even though I regularly disagree with their typical editorial slant. On occasion, readers will take exception to such references, fearing that I am endorsing these platforms by citing them.

If, however, I am only to cite platforms with which I completely and consistently agree, I will have no platforms to cite. I don’t even agree with some of my own sermons and writings from years ago. And I acknowledge the fact that I am no more inerrant today than I was then.

It’s virtually impossible to participate in any collective activity or organization without risking an apparent endorsement that might offend someone. For example, we have dozens of staff members at Denison Ministries. Each of them could be seen as endorsing what I am writing right now by virtue of their decision to work with us. Because my wife and I attended church yesterday, someone could accuse us of endorsing anything our pastor says or does today.

All of which makes a cave atop a tower understandably appealing.

“Speaking the truth in love”

As always, Jesus is our model.

He engaged with his fallen culture so fully that critics called him “a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!” (Matthew 11:19). He did so in the knowledge that we must take the gospel to the lost just as salt must contact that which it is to influence.

Yet our Lord refused to participate personally in the sins of his society (Hebrews 4:15). He was in the world but not of it. As the author and professor John A. Shedd noted, “A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are built for.”

When a ship is in the water, all is well. When water is in the ship, all can be lost.

Now Jesus is ready by his Spirit to lead us to those parts of the culture we are to engage by “speaking the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15). Your call may not be mine, just as mine may not be yours. But we are both called to use our influence for the advancement of God’s kingdom in our world (Matthew 6:33).

As the Spirit leads us, he will equip and empower us. He will give us the discernment to engage with sinners without committing their sins (cf. Hebrews 5:14). He will speak to us and through us (cf. Matthew 10:20).

And he will enable us to love others as he loves us.

“Bad ideas have victims”

My wife often reminds those she teaches that lost people act like lost people. As Paul noted, “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Corinthians 2:14).

This is because “the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God” (2 Corinthians 4:4). As my friend John Stonestreet says, “Ideas have consequences. Bad ideas have victims.”

This means that you and I are not cultural warriors doing battle with those who disagree with us, but cultural missionaries called to share the love we have experienced in Christ.

Our enemy is Satan, not those he has deceived. Our power is the Spirit who always defeats our enemy. And our hope is as secure as the promises of God.

You are alive when and where you are because you can make a kingdom difference when and where you are. Charles Spurgeon was right:

“It is the whole business of the whole church to preach the whole gospel to the whole world.”

What part of this “business” is yours today?

Denison Forum

American governance and the path to our best future

Anti-ICE protests were staged in cities across the US over the weekend. Bikers also participated in memorial rides for Alex Pretti, who was killed by federal agents in Minneapolis last month. Over two hundred such rides took place across forty-three states.

In other news, the US government partially shut down over the weekend as dozens of federal agencies saw their funding lapse at 12 a.m. Saturday. And President Trump named Kevin Warsh to become Federal Reserve chair, but the process for confirmation by the Senate may be in doubt.

Here’s what these stories have in common: they illustrate features in America’s governance, not bugs. This is a fact that matters far beyond its political implications.

Equality vs. checks and balances

Public demonstrations have long been part of the American story, as the civil rights movement of the 1960s and the recent “March for Life” in Washington, DC, illustrate.  Such events stand in marked contrast to the recent massacre of protesters in Iran and the 1989 murder of demonstrators in Tiananmen Square by the Chinese Communist Party.

Our partial government shutdown occurred because the Senate approved a funding package late Friday, but the House is not expected to vote on it until tomorrow at the earliest. Mr. Warsh’s confirmation by the Senate may be blocked by Sen. Thom Tillis, not because he is opposed to the president’s nominee, but because he wants an investigation into the current Fed Chair, Jerome Powell, to be “fully and transparently resolved” first.

In each case, we are seeing the juxtaposition of America’s founding declaration that “all men are created equal” with the constitutional provision of checks and balances against unaccountable power.

Citizens can seek to persuade our leaders and otherwise catalyze change through lawful protests and public gatherings. The various branches of government can also leverage their influence toward the common good. And even individuals serving in leadership can have an outsized role in our governance.

This system has helped an amazingly disparate and diverse nation achieve a level of solidarity and progress that few Europeans foresaw at its birth. But no nation’s future is guaranteed, including ours.

Our “most grievous cultural wound”

I have long appreciated the work of New York Times columnist David Brooks. I do not agree with all he writes, but I appreciate the reasoned way he seeks to advance his vision of American flourishing.

I was therefore surprised on Friday to read that he is leaving the Times after twenty-two years. In his final column, he diagnoses our cultural condition once more:

Four decades of hyperindividualism expanded individual choice but weakened the bonds between people. . . . As a result of technological progress and humanistic decay, life has become objectively better but subjectively worse. We have widened personal freedom but utterly failed to help people answer the question of what that freedom is for.

The most grievous cultural wound has been the loss of a shared moral order. . . . Without shared standards of right and wrong, it’s impossible to settle disputes; it’s impossible to maintain social cohesion and trust. Every healthy society rests on some shared conception of the sacred—sacred heroes, sacred texts, sacred ideals—and when that goes away, anxiety, atomization, and a slow descent toward barbarism are the natural results.

In other words, we want the benefits of consensual governance without the necessity of a consensual morality. But human laws cannot change human nature. At best, they can restrain some of us from harming others some of the time. They cannot produce the “shared moral order” that leads to the flourishing our Founders envisioned for us.

What can?

“Honest but reluctant taxpayers”

At this point, you probably expect me to recommend biblical morality as our essential cultural foundation. But here’s the problem: such morality requires our unconditional commitment. The Bible calls us to “love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength” (Mark 12:30, my emphases).

When did you last spend a day loving God with “all” your heart?

I am no different. I am just as tempted by partial obedience as you are. It is appealing to have my cake and eat it as well, to do what God requires to obtain his blessing but no more.

1. S. Lewis observed in his last sermon:

Our temptation is to look eagerly for the minimum that will be accepted. We are in fact very like honest but reluctant taxpayers. We approve of an income tax in principle. We make our returns truthfully. But we dread a rise in the tax. We are very careful to pay no more than is necessary. And we hope—we very ardently hope—that after we have paid it there will still be enough left to live on.

But partial obedience can lead only to partial benefits. The more unconditionally we are committed to our marriage, our children, our work, or our friends, the more we experience the best such relationships can offer.

It is the same with God. Our Father cannot bless what harms his children, and anything outside his will is sin (James 4:17) that enslaves us (John 8:34) and “brings forth death” (James 1:15). As Lewis noted in his sermon, “When we try to keep within us an area that is our own, we try to keep an area of death. Therefore, in love, [God] claims all.”

How, then, can we give him “all”?

“I have now concentrated all my prayers into one”

Jesus promised, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (John 14:15). “Love” translates agape, the unconditional commitment to place the other before ourselves. When we love Jesus like this, he said, “you will keep my commandments.” Not might, but will.

Here’s the good news: agape is a “fruit” of the Spirit, not of human effort (Galatians 5:22). When we submit ourselves to him daily (Ephesians 5:18), he produces this fruit in our lives daily. The Spirit thus enables us to love our Lord so fully that we naturally and inevitably keep his commandments.

As the pastor and author Erwin Lutzer noted, “When you surrender your will to God, you discover the resources to do what God requires.” And doing “what God requires” positions us to experience his best in and through our lives, advancing the “shared moral order” that Brooks identifies as foundational to our cultural future.

Charles Spurgeon testified,

“I have now concentrated all my prayers into one, and that one prayer is that I may die to self and live wholly to him.”

Let us make his “one prayer” ours today, to the glory of God.

Quote for the day:

“Few souls understand what God would accomplish in them if they were to abandon themselves unreservedly to him and if they were to allow his grace to mold them accordingly.” —St. Ignatius of Loyola (1491–1556)

Our latest website resources:

• Alex Pretti’s death, immigration tensions & how Christians can respond with Dr. Ryan Denison
• The Focus: Reason for hope after the shooting of Alex Pretti
• A review of “The Body Teaches the Soul” by Justin Earley
• Finding hope after life’s detours
• The Challenger disaster and the providence of God

Denison Forum