Two Masters

The part of the preamble that you quote is the part that I think is an hysterical reaction to an hysterical reaction over 9/11. It reads rather melodramatically, in my opinion. If they have a point, I think the overblown language kind of overwhelms it. I don't think it is entirely accurate anyway, even if I try to overlook the language. I don't believe that all the US's notions of democracy and justice are 'twisted' at all. The US was not the inventor of democracy. Nor do I know what 'the historical misconceptions of its "Christian heritage" mean in this context since it wasn't intended to be a theocracy and it isn't clear to me what the writers expect the US to be.

I think they are referring to the hyper patriots who believe that America and Christianity are synonyms but for me it is hard to tell in these Theses, what the writers think America should be. But the hyperbolic language and the use of "Yahweh" for "God" is a turn-off for me.

Why say "Yahweh" when the way common people express it is as "God?" Even the Jews do that, although they might spell G-d. I'm not disputing that Yahweh/Jehovah is used in the Bible but calling him "God" is also not wrong. We're not calling him "George" for instance. But in using "Yahweh" it is as though they want to make a distinction where none exists, hair-splitting. It is as though they are looking to seem educated but they seem as dumb in that unnecessary distinction as those people who think that Muslims worship Mohammad/that "Mohammad" is the name of the Muslim God. Or "Allah." "Allah" means "God" in Arabic. It's not some new and unknown god. It's no different than if I pray in German, mein Gott.

But I think that there is some Biblical justification for repentance and praying for a nation even when we do not share the ideas that we are repenting from. When you say "And with the separation of church and state, how do we decide which actions to repent?" this would be my thinking.

That Christians are never part of the state. God does not see separation of church and state. It is something that He allows. But I see no indication that He sees that as a good thing anywhere in the Bible, the live and let live attitude. Since I am a citizen of the Kingdom of God and not of the state, I have no problem praying for the state, and maranatha, Lord Jesus, even so, come quickly.

What you are talking about when you talk about the dilemma of how to choose what to pray for in a secular state, is oddly enough, exactly what my objection is to Christians not realising that they are citizens of one country only - the Kingdom of Heaven. Which has not yet, but which will, absorb all states, when God Himself will walk once again among us and wipe our tears. What you describe are torn loyalties, and we must serve either one or the other. We can't serve two masters. We can't separate ourselves into multiple personalities and say this is the law for the state and I support it because I see no other option, and then hold a different view in terms of our religion.

So I must pray for all the things that my understanding (which is limited) tells me a Christian ought to pray for. I can pray for leaders, that they will be just. I can pray that the death penalty, or abortion or whatever else I might consider a sin is something that doesn't happen in the state. What I think is wrong though, and where I do think that America has gone wrong - is in thinking that it is possible to serve both masters - to do what the state requires, and which that old idol of personal freedom requires, even if I personally believe it is wrong.

I only mention America as having gone wrong there because the Theses is so geared towards America specifically, and also because Americans, even in politics are so vocal about their faith and there are those who believe that what is right in the Bible should be imposed on the state. Other nations are just as wrong - only I can't think of any but Islamic republics that are as vocal politically on that as Americans.

I don't know - I just don't see a problem with my praying, "Lord, have mercy on Canada. I hope you give us good leaders and good laws. And I am so sorry for the sins we as a nation have committed. Forgive us - we know not what we do."

That is the kind of repentance I think that the writers of the Theses are referring to, although it is hard to tell from the convoluted language. There is that general repentance and the repentance of one's personal sins. I think we need to do both.

We are told that I will bless them that bless you and curse them that curse you regarding Israel and the Jews. But I don't think I agree that there is a measurable correlation in US history with regards to Israel. I would like to see the site you mention. Neither Canada nor the US nor any other country wanted the Jews at all, and even turned them back during WW2. Canada and the US have both been great supporters of Israel since its inception, along with many other countries.

But we are also told that God causes the rain to fall on the just and unjust alike. Therefore I think that we need to be careful before we say there is a cause and effect thing going on here rather than a just and unjust thing going on here.

I also don't think that the verse means that we are not to be critical of Israeli policies. It is like being a friend - sometimes a good friend is the one who has the nerve to tell you what you don't want to hear but need to hear. Israel as an earthly land is as subject to corruption and injustice as any of us. You can be a friend and be critical of Israeli policies and still absolutely want Israel to exist and believe that Israel is a holy people, set apart by God, the gravitational centre of the world, the thing to which all other things turn, whether they know it or not.

But the US will not save Israel from its neighbours that do not wish them well. The Lord Himself shall do that. He will do that so that no one can rationalize away just Whom it was who is Israel's help and shield. He will not, I think, save them by proxy, through another nation, US or otherwise.

Judaism holds that there are 7 Noahic Laws which God gave the nations at the time of Noah and his sons, and those 7 laws are what all nations are required by God to obey. They are 1) not to worship idols; (2) not to blaspheme the name of God; (3) to establish courts of justice; (4) not to kill; (5) not to commit adultery; and (6) not to rob (7) not to eat flesh that had been cut from a living animal (Taken from the Jewish Encyclopedia http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/)

In the great debate between Peter and Paul, we are told that the apostles also agreed that for Gentile Christians, while there was no need for circumcision or keeping kosher, Gentile Christians were obliged to follow some rules, those being (Acts 15:19) Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

See now, this is very interesting to me what you had to say about the pursuit of freedom and Americans hiding in bunkers and relating that to helping people during the Rapture. I don't believe in any of that. I don't think that is theologically defensible. The last days won't be a souped up version of WW2 in which a hero or heroine smuggles food to hiding Jews, or in this case, new Christians.

Revelations 6:15: And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

I don't believe that anyone will escape those days - not the rich man, nor the free man (your pursuit-of-liberty man). I think that you are also basing this idea on thinking that a lot of people who are left behind, will come to their senses, so to speak, and therefore hide. I don't think that in those last days, any country is excluded, and I think you underestimate just how vile and perverse man can be.

I don't think there will be any helping of their fellow man. Evil doesn't always come in obvious forms. I think that the evil that will come is already among us and survives by disguising itself as goodness. I don't think there will be compounds full of gun-wielding Americans outwitting the anti-Christ and helping Christians. We are told that those who don't follow the anti-Christ will be killed and are given as an example the two witnesses,which traditional theology holds to be Elijah and Enoch. When they are killed, people celebrate - they send each other gifts in a perverted Christmas-like celebration.

Maybe I misunderstood what you are saying about that? I just reread that part of your post and I'm not sure anymore that I understood you correctly.

Ah, well, it's late and I'm not thinking very clearly.

Layla

Spoiled? Moi?

Err... yes. Very very spoilt. I'm with you. I will never forget how happy I was to come HOME after China. So very happy. And we're spoiled in a thousand different ways. No, you'll get no arguments from me - we're Rome in the days of bread and circuses, and as rotten-ripe to fall.

Dr. McGee was in 2 Kings because the bit I listen to is the Thru the Bible program, and it ... goes through the Bible, he was just in 2 Kings today. Incredibly informative program, most evangelical preachers don't touch quite a lot of the Bible. He skips back and forth from OT to NT, we're going into Romans next week I believe. Looking forward to it!

Elijah and the Second Coming - yes, I'm agreed that he's supposed to be one of the two witnesses during the Tribulation/prior to the Second Coming. I don't think the Second Coming = the Rapture though, the Rapture is when *we* go to *Him*, not vice versa.

Pat Robertson. Yes. I 'bout cried last night when I heard he was backing Guiliani. I'd prefer if A) We didn't back anyone, particularly this early in the game B) We backed the most moral person, not the person we thought would win. I mean... Guiliani? The commentator who wrote up the report was all "I guess evangelicals are all about conservative politics instead of conservative morals" - ugh ugh UGH. That there is pure slander. FWIW - my preacher doesn't do politics from the pulpit, the preachers I listen to don't do politics from the microphone. At least not to the point of backing particular parties or people. Certainly they're opposed to the usual things, but that's right and proper. I expect to be kept up to date on relevant current events - briefly. I don't expect to hear a whole sermon about it, I vastly prefer the style of sermon that just works through the Bible verse by verse and applies it to daily life. Both Dr. McGee and Pastor Mike do that - Dr. Stanley tends to be more topical, but it's "Christian Living" sort of topical rather than current events. (FYI, Dr. McGee died in 1987).

And yes, I'd be happy if the world changed 'round so that the preachers preached about God and the politicians listened to them because they wanted to get right with God, not because of the voting block. Then again... politics, particularly current politics, makes me ill. It's a mudwallow front to back. And that's where a LOT of the mud that lands on evangelicals like yours truly starts from. :( C'est la vie... we aren't here to discuss politics, which is a relief!

Revival - it does seem like much of the world is experiencing a polarizing. Some countries are experiencing massive revival (often where most repressed) and other countries have declared themselves "post-Christian". Other places are plain dying off. I want, desperately, to think that the US will come back from its full-scale run into "post-Christianity" but I can't see it. Not without a disaster that keeps us so busy that the "shiny people" don't have time to scoff at the honest folks. It's sad, there are a lot more salt-of-the-earth types than shiny folks, but it's as if they've/we've just laid down our arms and decided to let things happen as they will. Propaganda is the first line of attack, I guess it's been effective here.

The reason I brought it up is that my mom was saying that there was a time a few decades back when the signs and portents were building up in much the same way, and then they abruptly stopped. It's not war that makes me feel apocalyptic, although certainly the location is interesting (surely someone who could bring solid peace to the mess in the Middle East could set himself up for power and worship easily enough). It's the swirling evil - the "post-Christian" attitudes. The tighting of belts that will be coming next year, what with all the food areas that have been hard hit by weather this year. A thousand little things. And of course the general desire to have done! :) My attitude DOES color my perspective, and I'm not fool enough to lie about that. Let's face it... NAmerica, particularly the US is rotten ripe and we ARE going to fall, it's only a matter of time. I'd like to think that our fall isn't just another civilization plopping through over indulgence. /shrug. Then again, maybe I'll be moving in with you if that happens, there are not many places LESS self-sufficient than SoCal. :)

I suppose we'll know what's coming when it gets here. But it's always fun to wonder.

The End of the World

I'm just not much of a date person when it comes to things like the end of the world. I'm not even entirely sure that there is a Rapture in the way that most Christians mean when they use the word. I do believe there is a day of reckoning and a day of judgement.

What specifically, makes you think these are the last days? Is it the war in Afghanistan and Iraq? I know that you mention chipping people a lot, but besides that.

North Americans are spoiled. Dreadfully so in that they haven't, in recent memory had a war that destroyed their infrastructure completely. The reason I am reluctant to speculate about any dates is that when my grandparents went through the Russian revolution, and others still through the second World War and Stalin's famine - things were so dreadful that to any human eyes it looked like the end of the world. Many believed it was the end of the world. This past century has seen dreadful wars, wars that engulfed the whole earth and numbers of people killed, that just to look at the numbers on the page makes your heart shudder.

How could anyone of that time not have believed it was the end of the world? And even before that, around the same general time period when Seventh Day Adventists were donning their white robes and jumping up and down on a hill in - New York State? - waiting for the rapture, Mennonites in Russia went through a similar thing, only they believed that Russia was the new promised land and that Christ would return there to set up His kingdom. And some others yet believed that the Temple in Jerusalem had to be rebuilt before Christ returned, and so they headed off to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple. They became known as the Templers. Not those Templers from the Crusades - a Mennonite form of Temple-rebuilding Templer.

And when they couldn't rebuild the Temple, to make a long story short, most of them headed off to Australia.

As to a revival - was Dr. McGee talking about 2 Kings because of Elijah and Elisha? Elijah is supposed to return before Christ. I think that we aren't headed for any sort of revival here in North America. I think that the very evangelists that preach this message and preach politics from the pulpit and preach the prosperity gospel have so turned off the vast majority of people that if anything, they cause people to lose their faith entirely. Matthew 24:

And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.

These pastors also tick off people who aren't Christians, to the point where Christians become their own instrument of execution. On the news now lately, there have been stories about some of their prosperity preachers and preachers who preach to their congregation about what political party they ought to vote for. But these same preachers cry foul and cite their first (I believe it is the first?) amendment rights when these same politicians or the general public points out their tax exempt status rests on the tolerance of the state.

I watched a commentator on CNN and he made the point that if the government limited the power of these prosperity gospel thieves and publicans, then a precedent was set for the government to come back to any church who supported a politician, and intervene there.

And I am thinking DUH!? Since when is it is the business of any church to endorse a politician or a certain way of political thought? The purpose of the pulpit is to preach the redeeming love of our Lord Jesus Christ. The church can't have it both ways, claiming separation of church and state while involving itself in affairs of state.

It isn't wrong for a church or an individual to speak out about issues of morality, to warn people against immorality. But it is very wrong and very wolf-in-sheep's-clothesish to use the pulpit politically, the way Jerry Falwell did, and the way Pat Robertson is doing now. Preachers who use the church to that end are doing one of the very things that was an issue in the Reformation, when the the Catholic church required rulers to pay it homage.

When Paul was brought up before Agrippa, (Acts 26) he did not talk about the problems that he was having with the politicians of the day or use that time to endorse one Jewish leader over another. Paul's interest was not in the kingdoms of this world, which pass away, which are temporal - his interest was the kingdom that was eternal - the kingdom of God. And Agrippa said to him, "Almost thou persuadest me to become a Christian."

I think it is shameful and an outrage what too many churches are doing, involving themselves in temporal matters of politics.

I know that often Christians say, well, they don't want to judge the state of any one's soul, ie, as in whether Pat Robertson is going to Hell in a hand basket but that really means that we are just cowards, living as though Christ were dead and not raised. Jesus had no problem speaking out about the hypocrisy of religious leaders in his time.

Jesus made it clear that in the last days things would be going on pretty much as usual, with people marrying and giving in marriage, and bridesmaids falling asleep waiting for the bride. I don't think we necessarily have much to look for in the direction of signs. God's time isn't our time. Two thousand years ago the disciples believed that Christ's return was at hand. How is one supposed to take that if one is a Biblical literalist?

That being said, just because there may not be a religious revival in North America doesn't mean that it isn't going on elsewhere in the world. The world is a big place. Revivals of a spiritual nature go on all the time in various parts of the world, big ones and littler ones and we never hear about it. But just because we don't hear about it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

(PS: the store had my stuff! I had left it there after all.)

Layla