Plutocracy's Real Risk

Pundits and partisans studiously avoid discussing the real risk that having a plutocrat as President brings. The political establishment seems unnerved by the election of a non-career politician to lead the United States. Is this a fundamental shift in governance? Career politicians have for decades, maybe centuries, sold access and influence to raise campaign funds. Whether the wealthy (e.g. George Washington) hold office, or they manipulate the political process as did the so-called robber barons of the 19th century, plutocracy is not a novelty. But there are intensified risks, particularly for a well-managed and flourishing economy.

Digressing a bit on politics, the impetus to govern has its roots in God's mandate to Adam before the fall, to rule over the animals, fish, birds, etc. (Genesis 1:26 & 28), and to tend the garden (Genesis 2:15). This mandate extends to making things right in the affairs of humankind implicitly in Genesis 1:28. When Adam and Eve were fruitful, filled the earth, and subdued it, this implied some form of group cooperation. The response to this universal command manifests itself in almost uncountable ways, as people care for animals, tend gardens, and try to rescue people and right wrongs. Zookeepers and veterinarians, gardeners and farmers, first responders, missionaries, and those who operate soup kitchens manifest this divine charge. This drive seems universal even among unbelievers, who take up the same practices, without a spiritual connection to God. It was written into our human psyche at the very beginning. Political leadership does well to keep this priority in perspective.

Paul described the proper role of government in Romans 13:1-7, referring to the Roman Empire.  Government bears the sword to enforce the universal mandate that individuals do what is right and abstain from what is wrong. Not surprisingly, attempts by government to reach beyond its divine mandate lead to disaster for both the ruler and the ruled. Governmental overreach will ultimately consummate in the kingdom of the antichrist at the end times (Revelation 13), but human history has already given us many examples, which I am sure immediately leap into the reader's mind.

We can be strongly tempted, when obeying God and carrying out His mandate, to play His role and perhaps receive the credit due only to Him. Playing God tempts both believers and unbelievers, and relates closely to the risks associated with wealth in our individual lives. Although the wealthy have devoted a significant part of their lives to finding ways to acquire riches, God commands them to join His earthly enterprise. The Bible warns

•      even when a man has abundance, life does not consist of possessions (Luke 12:15);

•      the riches and cares of life will choke the seed of the word of God (Luke 8:14);

•      the wealthy will be tempted to trust in riches instead of God (Deuteronomy 8:11-18); and

•      seeking wealth will open the door to temptation (1 Timothy 6:9-10).

Instead, Jesus encourages us to use earthly wealth to purchase eternal approval and heavenly dwellings. (Luke 16:1-9)

Aristotle wrote that the ideal ruler would be a philosopher-king a few centuries after Solomon had demonstrated both the merits and limitations of a wise king. Aristotle missed the spiritual dimension. Solomon's success and failure provides an excellent example of the risks associated with wealth. He started off well (2 Chronicles 6-7), but forty years of worldly success and the recognition that came thereby, and the multiplicity of his wives, turned his heart towards idolatry. (1 Kings 11:1-13) The kingdom flourished in his reign, but divided and nearly erupted in civil war shortly after his death, along the lines of his spiritual waywardness. (1 Kings 11:11 ff) Unfortunately the people of Israel suffered for Solomon's idolatry and disobedience, but that is the nature of governance.

God challenges us to overcome the risks associated with wealth to serve Him. Not that there is virtue in poverty, because wealth can be greatly used for God's kingdom purposes, but many temptations of the rich do not tempt the poor; they have no choice but to rely on God. Blessed are we if, at any level of worldly provision, we rely as much on God. While economic success may tempt political leaders to play God or the people to worship mammon, we individually risk succumbing to this temptation daily. Plutocratic national leadership – a rich President – cannot mitigate this risk.

The Trauma of Advent

The pain that accompanied Jesus' birth is a perfect type for the heralds of the arrival of God's kingdom. In the Christmas season we pass quickly over the stigmatization that Mary experienced as an unwed mother (Matthew 1:19-25); the slaughter of the innocents (Matt. 2:16-18); the nomadic life of Joseph and Mary as they left home, not to return for some number of years, their first stop as homeless people borrowing a barn for Mary to give birth (Matt 2:13-15, Luke 2:1-7); and Simeon's  warning to Mary of more pain to come. (Luke 2:34-35)

There are three dimensions of resistance to the coming of God's kingdom: the world, the flesh, and the devil. Each is overcome through striving and pain.

If the world made Joseph and Mary homeless, it is that we learn through struggle that God is our source and He will provide. No doubt the gifts of the Magi (Matt 2:11) helped fund the young couple through their sojourn in Egypt. Nothing is recorded of the daily providences that must have been their experience, as for many of the modern-day homeless. Provision in God's kingdom is of divine origin, but it does make us uncomfortable, if not painful, to be destitute and completely dependent on God, even though that is our true condition in the spiritual realm. Jesus later reflected on His divine homelessness. (Matt 8:20)

In our natural state, the comforts of food, shelter, family, society, go beyond mere provision. Simeon's prophecy to Mary of the emotional pain she would later endure goes beyond the stigma she had already experienced as an unwed mother. In that day, the penalty for sex outside of marriage could have been stoning, and certainly was social ostracism, unlike the present day. Mary's pregnancy outside of wedlock would have been considered irrefutable evidence, since even Joseph needed an angel to convince him of the virgin birth. The Bible only hints at Mary's pain when she stood beneath the cross watching her firstborn Son die. (John 19:25-27) Crucifixion was deliberately the most painful, drawn-out death by torture that the Roman Empire could devise, and even Jesus dreaded it. (Luke 22:42-44) But He also knew that it was the only way to redeem us from our sin. Paul later reflected on the state of fully reckoning the value of the knowledge of Christ to be the loss of all earthly things (Philippians 3:8-11).

The devil's opposition to the advent of Christ into the world (Matt 2:16-18) was foreshadowed by his effort to prevent Moses from rising to lead Israel out of Egypt. (Exodus 1:16, 22) The final arrival of Christ's kingdom on earth will come at great cost, in terms of the slaughter of believers, (Revelation 6:9) This apocalyptic bloodbath will evidently be greater than that recorded in church history from the time of Christ to the accession of Constantine to be Emperor. Not that persecution of Christians ended in the third century; the voice of martyrs continues to this day, perhaps in greater numbers than ever, as the devil attempts to suppress the fulfillment of the Great Commission.

Most of us do not experience pain of this magnitude in our daily lives, yet God deals with all His children fairly. There are a couple of common principles exhibited. Firstly, perhaps less important, is that the government is not God and cannot take God's place, and is vulnerable to being an instrument of the devil. Having godly men and women in government can perhaps deter the latter risk, but the government can never provide the daily, individual attention that we all need. But the second, more important principle is that God deals with us as sons, and therefore we must be taught to take on His nature. (Hebrews 12:1-13) The advent of God's kingdom into our individual lives is going to bring pain.

At Christmas, we often celebrate peace on earth, good will to men (Luke 2:14). Henry Wadsworth Longfellow reflected on this tension in his 1863 poem about the bells of Christmas Day. In the seventh stanza he records God's response to his despair over the consequences of man's rejection of God's advent and provision. In the midst the of the civil war in the no-longer-United States, he wrote that the bells pealed "God is not dead nor doth He sleep. The wrong shall fail, the right prevail." The coming of Christ into the world is God's answer, painful though it may be.

I am indebted to my dear friend, Bill S., whose discussion questions suggested the theme of this blog.

Build the Wall? Tear Down the Walls in our Hearts!

Ask the Chinese, Hadrian, the French. History suggests that walls often do not accomplish the ends for which they were built, although as defensive fortifications they can serve a limited purpose. As a means to control the movement of people they are less effective. No human wall can separate the righteous from the evil. It is in our hearts that we build walls to keep God from us; He honors those walls, but we are the worse for it.

The Chinese began building defensive walls as early as the 7th Century BC. The Qin dynasty greatly emphasized the building project (220-206 BC), tearing down walls that divided the previously warring feudal states and completing and connecting a defensive wall along the northern frontier. The wall that remains to modern times was built mostly during the Ming dynasty (1368-1644 AD), being built of bricks and stones, rather than boards and rammed earth.  There are multiple lines of fortifications because of shifting geopolitical dynamics over the course of two millennia, and estimates of the total length of walls range from 8,850 to approximately 21,200 km, depending on what is included in the survey. The height of the sections typically seen in modern times ranges from 5 to 8 meters with width of 5 to 6 meters. The Great Wall had multiple objectives over the many centuries when it was built. Most  builders were motivated by the need for defensive fortifications against raids or conquest. The Qing dynasty (1644 - 1912 AD) built a section called the Willow Palisade in Manchuria in the late 17th century for migration control. The term "Great Wall" was adopted for the entire network during this period.

Hadrian's wall was built 122-128 AD during the Roman Empire's control of England, to control raids by the Picts. It was approximately 117 km long, ranging from 3.5-6 m high, and 2-3 m wide. Its remains are a historical artifact to this day. Its construction may have been motivated strongly by internal Roman politics, defining the limits of the Empire, more than actual utility in controlling invading raids or armies. In later years the Romans attempted to control the Scottish lowlands north of the wall, up to the Antonine wall approximately 100 km further north, but this was unsuccessful.

The Maginot Line's purpose was to keep Germany from invading France after the First World War. Constructed from 1930 to 1939, it consisted of a string of heavily fortified strong points with artillery commanding the surrounding countryside. It ran approximately 700 km from the border of Switzerland to the border of Belgium. The German invasion of France in 1940 bypassed it by invading through Belgium. According to some sources, this was part of the purpose of the wall, to force Germany to violate other nations' sovereignty if/when they invaded France, drawing them (and others, such as Great Britain) into any war with Germany.

There are a few common features  of these walls. They were built primarily to prevent military incursion by an armed invader. For this reason, they had strong points or garrisons periodically along the length of the wall, which patrolled and were able to respond to intrusions or assaults. They had gates or openings at various points, to allow for normal daily traffic of daily business, because the wall was not a total bar to commerce.

How successful were they at accomplishing their objectives? The Chinese dynasties that were in power remained so for centuries. The Ming dynasty suffered military defeats and it is hard to tell if the wall materially affected the outcome of their battles or campaigns. The Roman Empire abandoned Great Britain about 410 AD. As mentioned above, the German army made an end run around the Maginot Line, invading France by way of Belgium in 1940. The effectiveness of the Willow Palisade in controlling migration is hard to assess. Over the course of a few centuries, there appears to have been some. Was it slower than it otherwise would have been because of the wall?

Biblical accounts of walls virtually all focus on city walls, whose purpose was twofold. The primary purpose was to fortify the city against assault by an invader. Another purpose was to control the entry of individuals to the city.

The city walls of Jericho were mentioned first as an obstacle to the Israelite spies, in that they had to escape over them (Joshua 2:15) since the gates were shut. Nevertheless, everyone knows the ultimate outcome; "Joshua fit the battle of Jericho and the walls came a tumblin' down." (Joshua 6:20)

The walls of Jerusalem were symbolic of the safety and security of its inhabitants. Notably, the end of the kingdom of Judah was marked when the walls were breached, the city destroyed, and the king and his family were captured, circa 587 BC. (2 Kings 25) Nehemiah was devoted to rebuilding the walls as a means of re-establishing the security and safety of the Israelites who returned to Palestine after the Babylonian captivity circa 445 BC. (Nehemiah 2:17) The walls were again breached, and the city leveled in 70 AD by the Romans under general (later emperor) Titus.

When we plan to build a wall, we need to consider its purpose, connect that purpose to the attributes it will need to accomplish that purpose, consider the broader context in which it will function, and lessons that previous walls might teach. Aside from a powerful symbol of xenophobia, why would we build a wall?. Would a wall stop people from coming here illegally? It might slow some down, but even so there are many other venues for determined people to travel. The context for this wall is broad. We already have border patrol, INS, innumerable laws, regulations, and the executive orders. We have a society with a large number of legal immigrants, and an economy in which both legal and illegal immigrants participate. We have a pluralistic culture in every dimension imaginable.

Revelation 21:10-26 describes the new Jerusalem in considerable detail, waxing eloquent on both walls and gates. Whether this is a spiritual metaphor or a literal future heavenly place (or both), the key point is Revelation 21:27.   The people of God are within it and no one who practices abomination and lying shall enter. Revelation 22:15 elaborates that outside are dogs and sorcerers and immoral persons and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying. Revelation 7:9 stands in stark contrast, showing worship before the throne of God by a vast multitude no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language. The criterion for those God values is clear.

Entry via the gates is only possible through Christ; Revelation 21:21 shows the gates as pearls, and Jesus is the Pearl of Great Price (Matthew 13:45-46). The apostles, and the church they began by preaching the gospel, are the foundation of the New Jerusalem. (Revelation 21:14) All are invited, but only those who repent of their sin and receive Jesus as their Lord and Savior are actually able to enter. Those who cling to their sin cannot come into His presence. (2 Thessalonians 1:9) Everyone wants to go to heaven. But not everyone is willing to pay the price of surrendering to Jesus as Lord. Any wall in our hearts that separates us from Christ must be torn down, or we will not enter in.

Book Review - Life in Tension

Life in Tension, by Stephen Hiemstra, dives deep into the context and intentions of the beatitudes. The blessings (makarios) of the beatitudes provide the New Testament fulfillment of the Old Testament call to peace (shalom). In the beatitudes Jesus points out that our experience of God's shalom is hindered by our sin and lack of commitment to Him, bringing tension within ourselves, between us and others, and between us and God.

The author's numerous insights connect Old Testament and New Testament scripture, history, and culture to Jesus' timeless words. He illustrates how our lives, culture, and choices are affected by rejection of Jesus' revelations. Some examples of Jesus' spiritual truths translated into our modern lives:

•    Modern technology worsens the already heavy burden of self-centered rumination.

•    God blesses those who are willing, who beg destitution in the spiritual realm, with the kingdom of God.

•    Taking the next step to extend God's law fulfills it, not merely staying within its boundaries.

•    We can receive blessing, forgiveness, and healing through true humility; or else God will act sovereignly, which may be harder on us.

•    Pain we bear shapes our identity and transforms us.

•    For us, meekness is a fruit of the Spirit; for God, it is just who He is.

•    We are pushed to break the fundamental commandments of God's economy in our pursuit of the wealth of Pharaoh's economy,

•    In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus changed the question from "Who is my neighbor?" to His own question (to us), "Who proved to be a neighbor?"

•    Hypocrisy or tension? Christians who act like everyone else are called hypocrites; those who do not are seen as judgmental.

•    We cannot end war, but we can at least express the love of Christ to the needy person who crosses our path.

•    Matthew 5:11 repeats and intensifies Matthew 5:10 with three verbs and a shift from third person to second person, as redemptive suffering is the capstone beatitude.

•    We do not naturally mourn over sin in our lives; we seek comfort, not transformation.

Jesus' bottom line calls us beyond receiving and believing truth, to allowing it to transform us.

The internet says "Come Lord Jesus"

Gen. 11:1-9 recounts the story of the Tower of Babel. The nations of the world joined to live together speaking one language, building a tower to the heavens. The Lord confounded their language so that they scattered across the across the earth, and stopped construction. We get a hint at God's purposes in Acts 2:4-12. The Holy Spirit was poured out on Jesus' followers, resulting in a host of languages being spoken, and understood by onlookers. This conjugate work of God reveals His ultimate desire for a people in whom the presence of the Holy Spirit, made possible by the blood of Jesus, empowers those who welcome Him to join together to build His kingdom on earth. God frustrated the nations on the plain of Shinar because they were trying to do it on their own. We see the consummation of this work of God in Rev. 7:9, where a vast multitude of every nation, tribe, people, and language stand before God's throne to worship Him. By the way, these are those who witnessed to their faith in Christ by martyrdom at the hand of the kingdom of the Wildbeast (a.k.a. the Antichrist), mankind's final work.

What does the Internet have to do with all this? The internet's potential is staggering. The worldwide sharing of knowledge and ideas, augmented lately by automated translation, offers the hope of breaking ideological barriers and universal improvement in quality of life through the widespread dissemination of wisdom and best practices. Worldwide availability of a huge array of goods and virtual services, limited only by transportation, enables the dream of the classical economists of Pareto-optimality to be realized. Beyond that, the synergy of enterprising and creative entrepreneurs ranging from stay-at-home moms to billionaire inventors and innovators can create whole new industries and sources of wealth. Utopia is at hand! Except....

The first flaw in the ointment is cybercrime. This takes many forms: theft of information; credit card fraud; destruction of internet-connected databases, applications, domains, etc.; denial of service attacks; and even more devastating capabilities held in reserve by cyber-warfare units in many countries. All seem to threaten the utility of the Internet. But wait, there's more!

The foregoing is only the presenting symptom of the impact of sin on mankind's go-it-alone approach. The universal depravity of man manifests itself more subtly but in even more deadly ways in the content that internet enables. Consider the traditional seven deadly sins: Pride, avarice, wrath, lust, envy, gluttony, sloth. As just one example, the biggest single source of Internet traffic is reportedly pornography. Whether this simply cuts into the revenue of hard copy pornographers, or greatly expands its user community, only die-hard libertarians see this stoking the inferno of lust as a positive accomplishment. But even worse ...

The culminating flaw manifests itself when the internet's full potential is realized. Souls of kindred spirit and belief will join together in virtual and ultimately tangible communities to achieve their aspirations. Subject to physical proximity limitations in the past, we were forced to compromise with our neighbors to co-exist, to live and let live in peace. No more! We can now find those who agree with and encourage our narrow and self-righteous view of life. We split into a huge number of narrow but internally cohesive sects. This results in aspiring leaders - politicians, pundits, teachers, religious leaders - who will not compromise their rigid dogma. Although this might seem to be primarily manifest in extremist behavior in various groups in the mid-East, we saw this playing out in the 2016 Presidential election in the U. S. It will only intensify. God is confounding the speech of man as we talk past each other, unable to communicate.

Thomas Friedman wrote of this phenomenon in The World is Flat. Since the publication of his book, the intensity of Internet-driven behavior has only intensified. The problem is that there is no political or legal remedy to this social malaise. Genesis 11:8 records that construction of the Tower of Babel stopped and humankind was scattered over the earth when their speech was confounded. Is there any option to stop building the Internet? Clearly the Information Age is here to stay. Perhaps a feudal information  architecture is more suited to containing some of the consequences of sin, but this seems unlikely to happen, as the economic incentives for the current arrangements are so powerful. We no longer have the option of geographic dispersion, since the earth is full. God's judgment on fallen man seems to be the self-inflicted total devastation of human civilization. Regardless of who won the election, neither Donald nor Hilary can prevent this. The root cause is sin. That is the province of faith and religion.

Of the major religions of the world, most prescribe rule-following as the remedy for sin. This can take two forms. The more common is legal religious systems in which Pharisees stone adulteresses or Imams cut off thieves' hands. Or on a less draconian plane, sinners are called out and publicly shamed, shunned, or excommunicated. The second prescribed remedy for sin is self-control. Although select individuals may be able to overcome sin on their own, this is not likely to be a universal solution for society or civilization. Only Jesus promises supernatural power to live above sin. World-shrinking technologies can only be safely exercised when there is universal acceptance and exercise of this power. Come Lord Jesus!

Hilary and Donald Cannot Remedy Our Pain

In the 21st chapter of the Gospel of John, Jesus and Peter have a discussion about love, in which Jesus inflicts psychological pain on Peter. The context of this conversation is that a few weeks earlier, on the evening of Jesus' arrest and trial, Peter had boldly declared that he would die for Jesus, and then a few hours later swore vehemently that he did not know Him. After the resurrection, Peter moped and then ran away to go fishing. Jesus was not willing to let Peter self-destruct, so He came to the shore, built a charcoal fire to use Peter's sense of smell to remind him of the night of Jesus' trial. He then asked Peter three times if he loved Him, in a reminder to Peter of the three times the bystanders at the trial had asked him if he was one of Jesus' followers.

Peter did not miss the significance of Jesus' words. There is an interplay on the words used for love in this interchange that many other expositors have written on. The substance of this psychotherapy session is that Peter did not think that he was capable of loving Jesus as Jesus loved him. He had failed. He had denied knowing Jesus and even if Jesus forgave him, he could neither forgive himself nor think that he would do any better the next time. Reliving that event must have been psychological agony. But Jesus saw what Peter did not, that the coming of the Holy Spirit would fundamentally and profoundly change Peter. He even told him that he would one day have the strength to die for Jesus, which church history records happened a few decades later.

Why did Jesus inflict this psychic pain on Peter? Jesus knew that Peter had to move beyond his failure and continue to grow, in order to fulfill the future that He had for him. And so, what makes the pain justifiable is not that Peter got emotional closure or psychological rebalancing, but that he would one day (soon) live a life and say and do things that would fulfill him and his life's calling to be a fisher of men.

We all experience pain. Not just the physical pain that results from bodily injury, but the psychological and emotional pain that comes from things we have said and done, and from things that others said or did to us. As Stephen Hiemstra wrote, "Self-centered rumination is a heavy burden, not a light one." Unlike daily life, God uses pain not for chastising us, but for making us like Him. C. S. Lewis wrote, in his book on this subject,

“We can ignore even pleasure. But pain insists upon being attended to. God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: it is his megaphone to rouse a deaf world.”

The bottom line is that God so desires that we become like Him in His attributes of love and holiness that He will use any means necessary to move us towards that goal. If He was willing for Jesus to die on the cross and endure the weight of the sins of the whole world, including the punishment justly due for those sins, why would He do any less to get us to experience His divine character in our daily life?

Sin has consequences. Whether we reap the consequences in our own life or inflict consequences on others, cause and effect are inescapable, apart from the grace of God. The government is not God. Government can mitigate some of the consequences but runs the peril of encouraging sin if the consequences are removed. In Christianity this is sometimes called "cheap grace". (Romans 5:20 & 6:1)

Politics seems to have morphed within my lifetime from the casting of vision to an appeal to anger and pain. Before blaming the current crop of politicians for leading in that direction, perhaps we should consider why those who tap into that current of anger and rage receive so much support in the ballot box. Why? To paraphrase Shakespeare, the problem lies not in our pols, but in ourselves. It is far easier to blame someone else for our problems than to own up to our own failures, because that would be painful. We accuse others of stealing from us, taking advantage of us, or treating us unjustly, and then expect the government to fix it. This is not leading us toward heaven on earth, but earthly hell.

For our society to flourish, pain must be redemptive, not destructive. The blame game and the associated anger will simply destroy. What does this path look like? Pain must be embraced, and this means to not look for a solution that will make it go away. Whether we blame crime or unemployment on illegal immigration, building a wall is not a solution for sin. Blaming the fat cats or Wall Street barons for poverty and redistributing their wealth does not solve sin. Only Jesus can forgive sin and then empower us to live free from it, on an individual basis, regardless of circumstances.

The problem is not that our politicians are making self-serving accusations or promises. The problem is that we are looking to government to fix things that it is impossible for government to fix. Hilary and Donald cannot remedy our pain. Perhaps we must render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, but we should not make the mistake of hailing Caesar as a god, much less expecting Caesar to do what only God can do.

Apocalypse Soon

The book of Revelation paints a grim picture of life on earth during the period immediately preceding the return of Christ. Two figures (besides Jesus Christ) figure large in this narrative: the beast, and the harlot. The beast is shown in chapter 13 as a political figure who controls the economy of the world and also controls the lives of his subjects. The harlot is described in chapter 17 as immoral, reveling in wealth, and thirsty for the blood of the saints. Many additional details are provided, and over the ages innumerable commentators have attempted to identify contemporaneous events, individuals, and institutions with these details. 

The important features of these passages are the attributes and characteristics of human behavior and society that demonstrate rebellion against God. Through the ages there have been some aspects of society like these. Whether any particular age will be the fulfillment of the second coming of Christ will probably only be obvious in retrospect. But the judgment of God falling on society for its rebellion is not reserved for the end times, except in its terminal severity. In fact, the consequence of sin is death, unless a person goes to the cross of Christ and seeks forgiveness from Him. In many cases these cause and effect threads are purely natural, such as  fornication, violence, theft, drug and alcohol abuse, and so on. It is therefore the mercy of God that His intervention crushes these sins in society, to preserve the possibility of human life at all. Simply put, humans are designed to live in a society that operates according to God's principles, and any society that rebels against them is unlivable. 

We have the spectacle today of the emergence of social norms that tolerate almost every sin except murder and theft. And even though not considered normative, these last two occur far too frequently. Consider that the death rate from the use of opioids now exceeds that of traffic accidents in the United States. In times past drugs were used to induce wildly divergent behaviors (such as the cult of the Assassins, who were reportedly named for their use of hashish to get individuals to allow themselves to commit murder in a drugged stupor.) Nowadays these drugs serve initially as pain relievers, but quickly become addictive masters and ultimately murderers of their users. 

The complete abandon with which young people engage in sexual activity probably dates to the 1960's. The unavoidable consequences of this lifestyle choice were manifested recently when the father of an accused rapist said his son shouldn't have to go to jail for twenty minutes of "action". But that is only one manifestation of today's culture. Whether one examines the illegitimate birth rate, STD's, or the divorce rate in the West, it is hard to see how a society such as ours can escape God's judgment. He doesn't even have to manifest Himself, but simply let cause and effect run its course. 

A discussion of the ramifications of current economic practices might start with the business practices born of greed and envy, but let judgment fall evenly. Unless one chooses to follow the advice of Paul in I Timothy 6:6-10, anyone in any economic circumstance can envy those with more, or seek to gain more by taking advantage of others. Whether one practices false advertising or writes exploitive contracts, or simply shirks promises made, the principle is unchanged. Neither government regulation nor government ownership and operation of industry or agriculture will remedy it.

The bottom line on all this is the paradox that after a lengthy and hard fought primary season, we have two Presidential candidates that most people don't want to vote for. One promises to fix things by more government regulation, more taxation, more redistribution. The other promises to fix things by less government regulation, less taxation, less redistribution. A stark contrast! But the problem is that neither can deliver because these are not problems the government can fix. If we persist in rebellion against God and His ways, we will reap what we sow, and no politician or government program can save us from that. Jesus may not return to earth any time soon, but we will have tribulation in this world.

There is one more point, after the bottom line has been calculated. Apocalypse means unveiling. In the book of Revelation, it refers explicitly to the unveiling the of Jesus Christ. In the prayer that Jesus taught His disciples in Matthew 6:9-13, Jesus specifically mentioned His kingdom twice. Where is His kingdom on earth? 

God's kingdom on earth is being built invisibly right under our noses. There are ministries, present in every major city in the U.S., not part of any human government, that minister to the poor and those who are dealing with the consequences of sin. These ministries do not promise worldly success to those that the devil has chewed up and spit out, but they offer peace with God. This kingdom that is being built is invisible to the world because, as Jesus said, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God. (John 3:3) God's kingdom is unveiled to those who seek Him. When the world system has failed, crashed, and burned, what remains will be visible.

Metaphor Confusion

The interpretation of the many symbols and metaphors in the Bible results in considerable theological confusion, or perhaps division is more apt. Many are the items interpreted literally by some and symbolically by others.

One of the more enduring differences revolves around the Lord's Supper, initiated and commanded by Christ at the Last Supper. Generally Protestants view the bread and wine (or grape juice) as symbols of the body and blood of Christ, a reminder to remember the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross and by faith show it until He comes again. Catholics take the statements of Christ to be that the elements become the very body and blood of Christ through transubstantiation, citing Jesus' words that His body is true meat and His blood is true drink. By faith, Catholics hold that the spiritual reality is not detectable by material changes in the elements, but is a greater mystery of the church.

Other theological stumbling blocks include the use of buildings as a metaphor for the church, and the relationship of human lovers, including romantic dynamics, to symbolize the depth and intensity of the love God has for His people.

We cannot resolve centuries-long theological disputes easily and do not plan to try. The more immediate and practical issue is the use of metaphors in politics. In particular, one of the presidential candidates routinely and frequently speaks metaphorically, generally with hyperbole for additional spice, and seems incredulous that pundits and commentators do not understand him. One example: the statement that President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton founded ISIS. A literal interpretation is absurd. But the substance of the claim merits discussion. Did the withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq in 2011, combined with the support of Syrian rebel groups, create the conditions that were the incubator for the growth of the so-called Islamic State? Can this strategic error be ignored because no one takes the claim seriously except certain narrow-minded strategists? How can we improve our strategy if we refuse to examine failures? The usual Santayana quote* applies here.

Metaphor and hyperbole are not new. I was forced to learn about them in junior high school English class. To focus on the literal statement is to evade the need to seriously examine the substance of the issue. I do not expect the use of metaphor to diminish. Its purpose is clearly to impel an emotional, visceral response to the issue at hand. Whether talking about national security or economic policy, metaphors capture the attention of potential voters on a level that intellectual discussion does not. Perhaps metaphors are best understood as a test of our willingness and ability to see beyond purely logical argumentation to engage a wholistic view of life. But, like satire, metaphors can cut two ways.

Satire is a technique employed by writers to expose and criticize foolishness and corruption of an individual or a society by using humor, irony, exaggeration or ridicule. The challenge of interpretation is that if the satirical work includes enough of its object's substance, and there is merit to the substance, the listener may think the satirist is advocating that position by repeating it; or alternatively the listener may dismiss the satirist entirely as mocking something which is praiseworthy or sound. But if the satirist does not include the substance of his target's position, his work will be dismissed as being superficial, mocking only the nonessential attributes such as mannerisms, without making any real case about the real issue.

Satire and metaphor are different sides of a coin. That is they both are artistic or verbal tools used to make a point by invoking a seemingly irrelevant but broader context for a logical argument. But they both carry risks, and their users would do well to consider Jesus' words: suum omnes enim qui acceperint gladium gladio peribunt

*  "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Jorge Agustín Nicolás Ruiz de Santayana y Borrás, The Life of Reason, VOL 1.

Where has God's Glory Gone?

What does politics have to do with Christianity's view of God's glory? Before shaking your head in disgust at the thought, consider first what God's glory is.

A theory proposed by the church fathers, not as a definition of God's glory but merely as a description of His nature and character, stands as a candidate for an explanation of His glory. They pointed to the unique combination of holiness and love in God, and more specifically in Jesus. This explanation comprises the perfect holiness of God, who can do no wrong based on His purity, and His unconditional love, which will do anything and everything He can to bless His children. If His holiness were above His love, He would end up alone like a prudish prig who cannot have any close relationships because all have sinned and fallen short. If His love were to trump His holiness, He might wink at sin (as we are tempted to do with our children) which would compromise His holiness. But God's divine nature can allow neither of these. God's solution to the problem of mankind's sin is found in the offering of Jesus on the cross as the atonement for sin. God's love and holiness are thus both fully satisfied. This reconciliation of two uncompromised absolutes is glorious.

There is one potential further aspect to God's glory. In Revelation, the twenty four elders that surround the throne of God are shown worshipping Him because He created all things.

Going back to the very beginning, there is a fundamental logical impossibility that the universe exists. We observe cause and effect in our universe. Tracing that backwards, the concept that everything has a cause, and that cause has a cause, and so on, leads to infinite regression. But the second law of thermodynamics points the arrow of time forward, as the direction of ever increasing entropy. Backwards, entropy decreases. But it can’t decrease forever because of the third law of thermodynamics. So there had to be a beginning. And before that? How did the universe come into being? Even Aristotle knew that he needed an immovable mover to make sense of all this. But the Bible very simply says, in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.  This tells us two things. First, that God must have existed previous to the existence of the universe that we know. Second, that God is not subject to the law of universal causation that this universe is. That is the fundamental answer to the problem of existence. If we ask, 'If the universe was created by God, where did God come from?' the only possible answer is that God is not subject to this limitation, and therefore is utterly outside our experience.

Consider a typical urban neighborhood. Houses were built that reflect human reason: architects drew up plans; contractors built the houses according to the plans; bankers arranged financing and raised money in financial market; people live in the houses and make payments on mortgages. And it all seems makes sense. Beyond the houses are hills and the mountains, and in parks, we see trees and birds. Most people generally say that nature is far more aesthetically appealing than subdivisions. We listen to a robin sing, see birds fly. Consider the way living things come to be. The plans for them are buried in the genetic code, recorded in DNA and implemented via a very sophisticated biochemical process that converts the genes into living tissue according to the plan of the gene. Where did that plan come from? Can we  really believe that time plus chance plus natural selection resulted in a detailed plan for living organisms that science is only still learning to understand?

One of the amazing aspects of God's creation is that there is an eternity that exists and existed before God created our universe, and in which God conceived of this whole enterprise - creation, redemption, glory, and so forth in which to exercise His love - when none of it existed. We cannot fathom God's purpose or motivation in that pre-creation milieu that resulted in His decision to create. But perhaps we have a hint for the basis of the elders' worship in Rev. 4:11. This may not be the ultimate revelation of God's glory, because I suspect there are dimensions of God's existence, nature, and character that are completely outside our experience. But we can worship Him for those aspects of His glory that we do understand.

C.S. Lewis' essay on the weight of glory concluded with the observation that glory is in essence the approval of God, being accepted and welcomed by Him. In this he cited various Biblical accounts, all pointing to a common theme. Lewis did not address God's revelation of His own glory, which he took as a given.

What does politics have to do with this view of God's glory? Unfortunately our society and political system seems to center on voters' approval of candidates. The very definition of manliness is portrayed in Schwarzeneggerian terms. With no prejudice to any individual, few are those who frame their identity in Lewisian context, that is, to approve what God approves.

In the political realm, to gain voters approval, candidates put forward ideas, opinions, proposed plans of action, and broad statements of political ideology to which we respond. The reporters and political pundits of the media act as surrogates and interpreters for the electorate and so their approval is often sought (or rejected) by candidates. How base this all seems standing next to the possibility of the approval of God! And yet candidates who state that their belief system is based on allegiance to God, to living in such a way as to gain His approval, routinely do poorly at the polls. The leading candidates reflect the values and choices of the voters. Do we really want leaders who would sell their soul for the purpose of gaining an earthly crown? To paraphrase Shakespeare, the fault, dear Brutus, is not in our politicians, but in ourselves.

Joy

What experience with the Lord could bring the deep-seated joy that transcends earthly pleasures? Are there parallel sensations to touch, sight, sound, taste, or smell in the spiritual realm that will bring joy far beyond the pleasure we feel in earthly sensations? When we see Him as He is, what will it look like? Are our spirits shaped to respond with the spiritual equivalent of endorphins when He smiles on us or when we sense His close presence?

Music is perhaps a clue, as we experience pleasure in worship of God in song, in the congregation. This perhaps is recorded in the dedication of the Temple (2 Chron. 5:14).  Art and architecture provide another clue, although the beauty of the most stunning manmade creation pales compared to the natural beauty of a sunrise or a scenic mountain vista. We perhaps get a sense of the spiritual dimension of this when we read David's invitation to worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness. We don't usually think of holiness as beautiful. Most likely that is because we have heard the world's distortion of holiness as an attribute of prudish prigs who look down on everyone else. We do not see God's holiness inextricably fused with His love. We do not see that it was this love that caused God to send Jesus to the cross to rescue us from the consequences of the folly of our sin. And when we fully perceive the spiritual depth of His love and holiness, we will fall to our knees in worship, and be overwhelmed by entering into the joy of our Master.

The Biblical examples of those who see God's glory unveiled does not necessarily convey the experience of joy. The visions by Isaiah and Ezekiel, the disciples on the mount of transfiguration, and John on the Isle of Patmos of either the throne of God or the glorified Jesus  all show a response more akin to terror than joy.

Adam and Eve walked with God in the cool of the morning, and it is hard to believe they lacked the joy of being in His presence. We could guess that the reason they traded it for the sorrow of sin that came from eating of the tree of knowing good and evil was ignorance. They did not truly understand the consequences of doing what God said not to. God foresaw this. But what can we learn about God from this?

God already had created angels. Some had rebelled, apparently beyond any possibility of redemption. Apparently, God's desire to have a people that would worship and fellowship and obey Him in on His moral level was so strong that He created mankind with the determination that if we rebelled but then repented, He would pay the price to redeem us and restore us to fellowship. We know what that price was. But we also realize how strong was His desire to create a people who would freely choose to walk with Him based on faith but also bloodied by experience.

The politics of entitlement and of anger seem to grow from a deep-seated feeling that people have been robbed or cheated, either by the government or other people. There is a fundamental error in thinking that a change in government policy or action will remedy this. We have been robbed of the joy of experiencing God's presence. And this theft was perpetrated by the evil one, that fallen angel who has tempted us to sin. We think we know right and wrong, good and evil, but we reject God's revelation and provision. As St. Augustine said, "Thou hast made us for Thyself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they find their rest in Thee." No politician can do this. There is only one Savior and He made must deliver us from our joyless separation from God.

I owe Hilary Clinton an apology.

I owe Hilary Clinton an apology.

For some time, I had agreed with those who blamed the consequences of the so-called Arab Spring on her policies and support of the revolutions in various nations of the Middle East, such as Libya, Egypt, Syria and so forth. And certainly she did make statements about the promise of the Arab Spring, and advocate engaging, encouraging, and standing with those who were rejecting the existing governments and demanding reforms.

Current events would suggest strongly that this movement has failed. Syria and Libya, at the very least, could be described as failed states or ungovernable anarchies. Iraq is headed that direction. Egypt seems stable largely because the Egyptian military ousted the democratically elected president, Mohamed Morsi. The rise of ISIS, and the international spread of its ideology and terrorist practices are the latest chapter in the spread of fundamentally uncivilized (or perhaps anti-civilization) ethos.

To trace cause and effect, one might go back to John F. Kennedy’s speech to the United Nations on September 25, 1961 in which, in the context of terrorism, he said,

And it is in the light of that history that every nation today should know, be he friend or foe, that the United States has both the will and the weapons to join free men in standing up to their responsibilities.

Hilary Clinton may well have had that in mind when she spoke to the Center for Strategic and International Studies on October 12, 2012, when she said (as one example).

We stand with the Egyptian people in their quest for universal freedoms and protections, Egypt's international standing does depend both on peaceful relations with its neighbors and also on the choices it makes at home and whether or not it fulfills its own promises to its own people.

Wonderful aspirations. What went wrong?

I believe the reason this all came crumbling down, and the reason I owe Mrs. Clinton an apology, is that the cause of the failure of these policies is not ignorance or misinterpretation of events on the world scene. The problem is the general failure to recognize the fundamental driving forces behind the unrest in the Middle East: the spiritual forces of darkness that seek to destroy all that is good and right and just, who are stirring up worldwide rebellion under false pretenses. Mrs. Clinton could not possibly have understood that, and even if she had, it is not in the power of the U.S. Government, or any other government, to respond effectively to it.

We often romanticize that the U.S. revolution is a prototype for throwing off the chains of tyranny and establishing a democratic government in a nation of free people. But in fact, this is a rare, almost unique outcome of revolutions. It certainly didn’t happen in the French Revolution a few years later – they got the Reign of Terror, and eventually Napoleon. Clarence Crane Brinton offered one perspective on this, (Anatomy of a Revolution), but the most straightforward explanation can be found in Peter Marshall’s The Light and the Glory.

Few are willing to accept this, but the words of our founding fathers very strongly suggests that it was the widespread evangelization and conversion to Christianity from the time of the First Great Awakening until the American Revolution that gave the people residing the these United States the moral and philosophical basis for the U.S. Constitution and the various state governments. Imperfect though they were, the unique linking of rights and responsibilities to the average citizen, a shared consensus on how political decisions could be made peacefully, and how people could live together with disagreements, only arose out of the values of the Christian gospel, accepted and practiced.

There is no real possibility that nations lacking this heritage can establish such a government. If we are looking for a way to bring political reform to those nations of the world still under tyranny, our first priority must be to bring them the gospel. The entire teaching of Christianity begins with the saving of souls as a necessary first step. But it must be followed by the building of the Kingdom of God within communities of people that does not depend on governments for its existence, nor pretend to be a government.

I can’t blame Hilary Clinton for not recognizing this. I have heard no other politician make any references to the root cause of our present worldwide turmoil. And I couldn't expect her to. I am sorry.