America's City on a Hill

 Ronald Reagan frequently quoted his feel-good characterization of America as ”a shining city on a hill," including in his Presidential farewell speech.

He took the words from John Winthrop’s address to the Puritans embarking for New England on the great emigration fleet of 1630,  But as throughout his political career, Reagan's comprehension of principles was shallow, and his purpose manipulative.

Winthrop's speech, “A Model of Christian Charity," called on Puritans to build a Christian society in their new home, modelled on Jesus' words in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5: a "city on a hill" whose godliness would be an example to the divided nation they left behind, and "a light to the world" (Matthew 5:14).

The only way we can be what Jesus calls us to be, Winthrop told his fellow emigrants, "...is to follow the counsel of Micah [6:8]: to do justly, to love mercy, and walk humbly with our God."  He continued,

"We must delight in each other, make others' conditions our own, rejoice together, mourn together, labor and suffer together, always having before our eyes our commission and our community in the work as members of the same body.  The Lord will be our God and delight to dwell among us as His own people.  For we must consider that we shall be as a city on a hill.  The eyes of all people are upon us so that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a byword through the world...till we be consumed out of the good land whither we are going."

The Puritans fell short of Jesus' commands for a Godly life, as we all do.  But the "Model" Winthrop set before his fellow emigrants put before America's following generations the Pilgrims' certainty that Jesus' teachings were the only basis for a Godly society, and that obeying Him was the only way God would be pleased to bless this new land.  

If we believe Jesus is Lord of all, as the Puritans certainly did, His commands for a Godly society are still the "model" for men of our time, and every other: even those for whom it is only an ideal of what makes a "good" secular society.  Massachusetts, which grew from Winthrop's colony, indeed adapted that ideal for their secular polity, constituting themselves a "commonwealth," rather than a  "state," in our new nation.  The "-wealth" in that form of government is "weal," the ancient English word for "well-being:" and Massachusetts' secular governing principle to this day is the shared well-being of its people.

When Puritan-descendant John Adams wrote Massachusetts' constitution a century-and-a-half on from Winthrop's day, he described that principle as "...a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall shall be governed by certain laws for the common good."

The Puritans' uncompromising faith was that Christ's teachings were those "laws;"; and they would have been horrified at the thought that "the people" should be their source.  But the Puritans' vision for their "city on a hill" was indeed (to secular understanding) a "commonwealth."  A famous example is that, following age-old English custom, when Winthrop's company moved to the Shawmut Peninsula and founded Boston, they set aside 50 acres as grazing-land held in common by the community: and it remains "Boston Commons" today, a public park belonging to all of Boston's citizens.

(I have to wonder if Reagan was aware that the Puritan leader he so admired was imbued with such "socialist" ideas ?  But of course Winthrop would have considered his "Model" the Spiritual communitarianism of the first Christians in Acts 2:44-45: a scripture Reagan may not have been familiar with.)

The Puritans' failed to live up to Jesus' commands that Winthrop set before them.  We all do; which is the human reality for which God offers the honest...any who will admit to themselves and God their failure...the grace of repentance and forgiveness in Christ.

John Winthrop would never have questioned that Jesus' "Model" of a Godly society "got it right."  He was at the same time too fervent a lover of Truth (Who Jesus IS) to not admit, confess and repent that the Puritan colony fell short of being the "city on a hill" Jesus commanded.  He did so in his writings in later life.

But Ronald Reagan invoked that image for a very different purpose than Winthrop's:

"And how stands the city on this winter night? More prosperous, more secure, and happier than it was 8 years ago. But more than that: After 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm."

Reagan's nod to Jesus' commands came at the end of a valedictory in which he claimed America had risen in the previous 8 years (not coincidentally, his term in the White House) from recession, over-regulation, and the self-doubt of the Vietnam era, Reagan claimed too that America was once again respected throughout the world: he claimed a foreign leader at a summit-meeting once asked him the secret of the "the American Miracle."

I'm always very suspicious of self-congratulation, my own or anyone else's.  Christianity teaches the discipline of rigorous self-examination: (I Corinthians 11:28, II Corinthians 13:5, Galatians 6:4, and I Thessalonians 5:21): that God demands of us unrelenting vigilance against self-deluding pride, without which we cannot recognize our failures, repent of them, and be forgiven.

From his writings we know Winthrop regularly practiced that discipline for his own life, and the life of the colony under his charge.  And my understanding of Biblical truth is that all of us who honestly self-examine will find we fall short of God's command of righteousness, always.

Reagan's "shining city on a hill" is of the contrary spirit, a celebration of what he regarded as America's rightful pride in its greatness (restored, he said, under his administration).  He credits those words to Winthrop, rather than Jesus: and characterizes Winthrop not as Jesus' follower (which Winthrop himself doubtless considered the whole point); but as what Reagan extolled as a "freedom man."

Reagan saw in his "shining city on a hill" no sins to confess: no slavery, no massacres of native Americans, no Vietnam: and he doesn't.   A more honest President had held out to us in America's darkest days a vision of our nation that mirrored Winthrop's deep Christian consciousness of God's will and God's way; that America is "the last best hope" for human government on earth, and that our unrepented sins would destroy America, and that hope.  But self-congratulation, not repentance, was Reagan's purpose.

"...a final word to the men and women of the Reagan revolution, the men and women across America who for 8 years did the work that brought America back. My friends: We did it...We made the city stronger, we made the city freer...

"And so, goodbye, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America."

It grieves me that even decades later many Americans still buy into Reagan's shallow, self-serving, vision of his “shining city on a hill;” a fictionalized ideology rooted in "American Exceptionalism" more than in reality.  And I think we should be terrified that, because so many Americans believe the lie that God will bless an unrepentant proud nation such as Reagan urged us to be, America has never been in greater mortal danger than in our time.

anti-Christ Today: Beyond Speculation

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

Speculation about some world-figure being the anti-Christ is usually misguided: and indeed, intentionally misleading.  It's point is usually to "prove" that some world-figure, whose politics are contrary to those of the self-appointed "prophet'," is the person scripture calls "anti-Christ."  Satan loves nothing better than that we vigilantly watch for his approach, in a direction he's not coming.

I heard enough of such speculation from my "conservative" family to have become skeptical of it, long ago.  The first world-figure I heard them claiming was anti-Christ was John F. Kennedy.  But a few years later, they were convinced that Richard Nixon was a man who'd done nothing wrong, brought down by his enemies' lies.  That level of misdirecting political "discernment" remains characteristic of "conservatives" and their Christian "prophets."

I'm myself convinced that anti-Christ is pre-eminently a spiritual figure, and will only be recognized by spiritual discernment...and only at the time God is pleased to reveal him to the faithfully spiritually-discerning.  "Discerning" him by one's politics has to be the greatest self-delusion there could be: and inevitably misleading to all who accept it..

But there's substance and reason for talking about the Anti-Christ: the Bible clearly tells us definite facts about him.  That much is beyond speculation.  Revelation13 and 17, for example, say satan will give him "authority," and that he will direct the "kings of the earth" in battle.  It's therefore clear that the Anti-Christ will be a person of world-stature and fame, with worldly political power and influence.

It's misguided to interpret him, and end-time events, by politics, as most speculation about the Anti-Christ does.  It's entirely wise, however, and obedience to Jesus' command to "the crowds" in Luke 12:54-56, to analyze "the times"...including political events and figures...by the discernment the Spirit gives us.

In that discernment we probably should understand that the definitive spiritual fact about the Anti-Christ is that he will be the embodiment of satan's spirit, as Jesus was of His Father's Spirit.  And God has attested to us some truths about the spirit of satan.

Pride may be satan's greatest characteristic.  The "taunt against the King of Babylon" in Isaiah 14 is generally understood to be addressed to satan.  It quotes him as saying "‘I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God...I will make myself like the Most High" (vv. 13-14).  If this scripture attests that willful self-pride was satan's own "original sin:" we should probably expect it will be a prominent characteristic of his "son," the Anti-Christ.

Similarly, the two characteristics Jesus singles out as showing that spiritual paternity in those He's confronting in John 8:31-47 are "lies" and "murder."  As I've mentioned before, I think we have to understand Jesus' mention of "murder" here by His definition of murder in Matthew 5:21-22: hateful contempt for others.  (It's worth noting that He finds these spiritual characteristics of satan in people "who had believed him," v. 31.  We should therefore probably consider it possible the same could happen in our time.)

Does honest spiritual discernment call to mind any current world-figures whose manifest character is pre-eminently what scripture says is satan's character: willful pride, lies, and angry contempt for others ?  I'm sure there's always been some degree of pride, lies and violent hatred in the character of most world-leaders...and probably in almost all human beings.  But those are manifestly the character of the current American president to a degree never seen before

The politically-minded can take the above comments as scripture-twisting for political purposes.  The politically-minded, of course, inevitably perceive all things as political.  But if what I've said above is straightforward affirmation of what scripture says, as is my intention, I'd hope readers will meditate on what scripture says.  The spirit of satan is the spirit of anti-Christ.

Scripture says more.

John wrote that "...just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour" (I John 2:18).  If it was "the last hour" in John's time, our time, 2000 years later, is all the more "the last hour."  If the appearance of "many antichrists" was the notable spiritual event of John's time, we should expect there will be all the more "antichrists" in our time.  As Jesus is the Elder Brother among God's many children, so is Anti-Christ among satan's many children.

So I am not here identifying the current president as the Anti-Christ.  Clearly he manifests satan's spirit, and satan's spirit is the spirit of the Anti-Christ.  But satan's spirit is manifestly the spirit of all the "many antichrists" active in the world.  And there are scriptural reasons to believe the current president is not THE Anti-Christ.

If Jesus' words about "false Christs" and "false prophets" apply to the Anti-Christ...and surely they do, since he is THE epitome of both...it would seem the Anti-Christ will be a world-leader "slick" enough "...to mislead, if possible, even the elect" (Matthew 24:24).  It's doubtful anyone who looks at the current president without political blinders can find him credible (plausibly "slick") in the least.  He has thus far been notably unsuccessful in misleading many Americans, and even less so world-citizens.

The caveat is that spiritual deception can trump natural commonsense.  We've seen that happen with the current president's followers, including many Christians.  With satan's maximum power of deception behind him, perhaps the Anti-Christ will not need even a fig-leaf of credibility to cover his naked lies.

But the greatest scriptural objection to identifying the current president as the Anti-Christ is that, to this point in time, he has not made war on the saints, as scripture tells us the Anti-Christ will (Daniel 7:21 and Revelation 13:7).  In part that's been a political calculation: many Christians are part of the current president's political "base;" hardcore followers whom he doesn't want to alienate.  It makes sense that neither he, nor the Anti-Christ, would attack those who willingly idolize, agree with, and follow him.

But this is a time which consequently demands our maximum Spiritual discernment, day by day, as events rapidly unfold.  I'm particularly watching the current president's response now that some Christians are speaking out against his policies (or rather whims) which contradict Jesus' teachings.  This week some Christian leaders have made fairly strong statements on that basis against his policy of separating the children of asylum-seekers and illegal immigrants from their families.  I don't find it at all hard to believe that if his wishes were thwarted a time or two by people speaking up for Jesus' teachings, the current president could easily become a violently implacable enemy of anyone who spoke up for Jesus' teachings.

We've all seen that's how the current president "wars" on anyone he considers an "enemy:" Democrats, James Comey, Hilary, John McCain and other members of his own party who disagree with him, "the lying media," Rosie O'Donnell, Obama...the list is endless.  If he came to regard those who spoke up for Jesus' teachings as "enemies," it's not at all hard to believe he would use every means at his disposal to destroy those saints: though undoubtedly Christians who remained part of his political "base" would be safe from his wrath.

I titled this post as being "beyond speculation," but obviously the last paragraphs are speculative; near-future events in the realm of possibility, but not yet reality.  That said, I'd urge readers to be rigorously spiritually-discerning of the current president in all his future pronouncements and deeds, especially toward those who publicly advocate Jesus' teachings.

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

Woebetudes

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

We love the Beatitudes of Matthew 5.  They teach a reality that is upside-down, but positive.  We can all put ourselves in the place of the poor in spirit and those who mourn, and be encouraged by Jesus' promise of blessing.

We seldom consider the parallel version of Jesus' words in Luke 6, which include what someone has called the "Woebetudes:"

"But woe to you who are rich, for you are receiving your comfort in full. Woe to you who are well-fed now, for you shall be hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep. Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for their fathers used to treat the false prophets in the same way."  (Luke 6:24-6)

Maybe, if we examine ourselves honestly, we can also put ourselves in the place of the comfortable and the reputable, and be fearful of Jesus' words.

There's no escaping the fact that Jesus' gospel was bad news for some; for those who grow rich by impoverishing others, or profit from others' bondage.  Bad news, perhaps, for people such as we may be.

Jesus wasn't killed for the good news He brought to men . . .
 

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
 

Procedural Note

Some people have objected to my calling the incoming-president an "unrighteous" man.

My using that term comes from a recent conviction that human beings don't have moral "standing" to call any other human being "evil" or "good."  Both are assertions what someone's spirit IS, absolutely and without admixture.  At the most basic level of reality, that's a dishonest view of any human being.

Certainly Jesus forbids us to call anyone "good": even Himself in the days of His flesh: because "No one is good except God alone" (Mark 10:18 and Luke 18:19).

But Jesus does speak of "evil" people.  In all the other gospels, His references are to men's evil deeds or thoughts: but in Matthew, there is an evil generation of men (12:39, 12:45, and 16:4), an evil slave (24:48), an "evil person" He tells us not to resist (5:39), an "evil man" who brings forth evil treasures (12:35).

Collective mankind on which the sun rises (5:45), and which the king invites to the marriage feast (22:10), includes evil people.  And Jesus is completely direct about who these people are, and what their nature is: "you, being evil" (7:11, 12:34).

I'll be the first to admit I don't understand everything about Jesus referring to people as "evil."  But knowing Who Jesus IS, I think He has the spiritual authority to make that judgement, which belongs to God Alone.  And I think His "...you, being evil" means no human being has spiritual "standing" to call any other human being evil.

I'm convicted we should rightly only characterize people by the nature of their deeds, and thoughts, and words.  We can call someone who does righteous things and speaks righteousness, "a righteous man."  Jesus has forbidden any characterization beyond that, for "no one is good except God alone."

And a man whose deeds, and thoughts, and words are manifestly evil and harmful is "an unrighteous man."  I'm convicted I'd be spiritually unwarranted in judging Donald Trump "an evil man:" but only as "unrighteous."

But that only explains the terminology I've chosen.  I could yet be factually wrong about Donald Trump.  God knows the thoughts of his heart.  My characterization is only based on what he's publicly done, and said.

So I here publicly invite correction.

If anyone who objects to my characterizing Donald Trump as "unrighteous" will make me aware of an instance I might have missed, in which he did or said a righteous thing, I will post it here.

In light of any verifiable evidence of his doing any righteous thing, or saying a righteous thing,
I will also re-think my characterization of Trump as "an unrighteous man."  And if anyone shows me proof that I have mis-characterized him, I will here publicly apologize.