Rob Schenck, "Costly Grace:" The Conversion of an "Evangelical" Activist

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

Terry Gross, host of National Public Radio's award-winning "Fresh Air," yesterday talked to Rev. Rob Schenck about his new memoir, "Costly Grace: An Evangelical Minister's Rediscovery of Faith, Hope, and Love."  Schenck reflected on what he calls his three conversions: from Judaism to Christianity, from a Christian missionary to an "Evangelical" activist, and from a Reagan "Evangelical" to a minister of the inclusive grace of Christ.

Schenck talked about his 25 years in the most militant and violent wing of "Evangelicism."  His beliefs and actions at that period were, he said, a result of his embrace of  "...what I now call Ronald Reagan Republican Religion, which is distinctly different from Christianity, and, over time, became very narrow and very contemptuous of other people - and very self-righteous, very self-affirming at the expense of others. And I spent a long time there."

Schenck's view of today's "Evangelical" movement deserves to be quoted in full:

[Political involvement] "...has compromised our spiritual and moral integrity. In fact, I entitled my chapter on Donald Trump 'Donald Trump and the Moral Collapse of American Evangelicalism.' I think it's a Faustian bargain with Donald Trump. And I think it may lead to the demise of American evangelicalism as we have known it. But my hopeful thought in that - that as the phoenix arises out of the ashes, so a new evangelicalism will emerge mostly led by a new, younger generation of evangelicals that are truer to the faith that is at the center of evangelicalism."

The mp3 of that interview at https://www.npr.org/2018/07/11/628000131/once-militantly-anti-abortion-evangelical-minister-now-lives-with-regret is "temporarily unavailable."  A transcript of Schenck's interview can be read at: https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=628000131.

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

"Political Correctness" I

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

One of the mindsets that has grown up with...or rather, degenerated with...today's "conservatism" is hatred of "political correctness."  By that term, the opponents of "p.c." mean the social viewpoint and responses that we're all supposed to subscribe to, and operate by.

That its opponents choose to cal it "political correctness" says a great deal about where they're coming from.  Instruments of social control...which is what they mean by their use of that term...can certainly be political:  especially if they are embodied in law, and subject to political debate.  

In that sense, the civil-rights laws of the 1960s making it illegal to deny a job, or refuse to rent to, or deny restaurant-service to, black people were quintessentially "p.c."  They may indeed be where the idea of "political correctness," and opposition to it, originated.  Civil Rights law is most certainly an instrument of social control.

Following the Civil Rights era, many Americans were doubtless over-sensitive that their words and actions not offend other people, especially "minority" people.  Not just black people: native people, handicapped people, oriental people, mentally-ill people...the list is endless.  Of course "endless:" if society is broken down into its constituent parts (a favorite ploy of politicians), we are each some kind of "minority."

That was the jumping-off point for many hate-groups, like the "White Power" movement.  Their claim was that if black people deserved "special" treatment because of their race, so did white people.  It's a typical operative "principle" of such movements to claim they stand up for the "rights" of some (in their eyes) unjustly-downtrodden "minority."  Telling people their "rights" are being denied them is a guaranteed way to generate anger: and anger always produces hatred: and, when you make enough people hate, you can gather a hate-group.

Though not all poltical movements or parties are hate-groups, the "White Power" people illustrate another "principle" by which politics operates.  Politics is not an endeavor in which deep and honest thought is required, or rewarded.  So it's always easy to create a "movement" or "party" among the thoughtless, simply by reversing, or opposing, or denying some accepted verity in society.

That's largely the origin of today's Reaganite "conservatives," whose (notably-shallow) demi-god told them that "government is the PROBLEM" ...in reversal of, opposition to, and denial of the American operative verity that "the people" are the government; and the operative Biblical verity that government is "a minister of God" to do good for people (Romans 13:1-4).

The "anti-p.c." idea undoubtedly came into being that way.  At a time when Americans were especially sensitive, and some overly-sensitive, to not offending others, it was easy...indeed, inevitable...that some people would react against, and reverse, and oppose, the idea that people should be sensitive toward each other.

In the lower middle-class mixed-race and -ethnicity neighborhood where I grew up, my mother taught me it was rude (and the hint was, low-class) to call neighbors "dagos" or "wops, "niggers," "spics," "kikes," or "polocks."

In practice, it was usually no big deal among friends: "ethnic" guys just took it as a friendly joke.  Guys from the Ozarks weren't offended or angry to be called "hillbilly" by friends.  But in the Civil Rights era, on TV, we saw angry southerners cursing "niggers" or assaulting "niggers" often enough to know that was an intentionally, violent and hurtful epithet: we never would have said it to a black person.

And my mother was right.  Treating people with contempt, deliberately "hurting their feelings," is simply the wrong way to treat people.  Not because my mother said so: because Jesus said so.

What has always struck me about the "anti-p.c." movement is that it ridicules the simple decency of treating people right: that it legitimizes treating other people contemptuously, because being sensitive to other people's feelings is "politically correct."  The problem is not that the "anti-p.c." movement views Jesus' teaching as "social control:" it is.  The problem is that "anti-p.c." teaches that social control is evil.

That's largely because haters of "political correctness" view it entirely as "liberal" social control.  We all know "conservatives," deep-thinkers that they are, think "liberal" means "evil," of course.  And there are historical reasons they do.

The Civil Rights movement in which "political correctness" had its origins was a "liberal" movement: those who opposed it did so on the "conservative" principle that government should not "intrude" in citizens' lives to tell them what to do.  That political "principle" of 1960s' segregationists (and of their Confederate ancestors) was the "conservative" one Ronald Reagan legitimized slightly over a decade later in his first inaugural speech, when he proclaimed that "government is the PROBLEM !"

In accord with that doctrine, Reaganism ever since has sought to "de-regulate" governmental control of society: never mind that that is the job of government, and one of God's mandates to human "authorities" in Romans 13:1-4. 

And when Reaganism also renounced the principle that American government expresses the will of "the people," what could be more intrusive social control than "problem" outsider-government telling citizens how to treat each other: with Civil Rights laws, for example, embodying societal "political correctness" ?

That's the conservatives' " nightmare, which always sends them into hysteria about losing their "rights" when evil socialist government tells citizens what to do.

But to be honest about the matter, no one is more insistently "p.c." than "conservatives" themselves; no one more fearfully vigilant that everyone in their ranks rigorously conform with whatever is the current group-think.  "Conservatives," more than anyone else I know, delight in searching out and anathematizing each other for the least deviation from the party-line.

And having bought into the deception that "conservatism" is Christian, much of the American Church today likewise practices its own rigid "political correctness," with accent of the "political."  There are spiritual truths about Christians' politics, and the politicians they follow, that no one is ever supposed to speak in Church, or to the Church

The fact, for example, that the "conservative" politics most American Christians follow is a manifestation of the sin scripture calls "rebelliousness:" the stiff-necked autonomy ("self-law") that comes from a heart-attitude that "nobody tells me what to do."  The fact that, rather than their works of "Christan conservative" politics, God looks on the heart of American Christians.

Rebelliousness was satan's own original sin.  I have a hard time believing God is pleased when He finds it in the hearts of those who claim to be His people.

(To Be Continued)

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

Resident Aliens

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.     (Romans 12:2)


No one serving as a soldier gets entangled in civilian affairs, but rather tries to please his commanding officer.     (II Timothy 2:4)


Dear friends, I urge you, as foreigners and exiles, to abstain from sinful desires, which wage war against your soul.     (I Peter 2:11)


But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ.     (Philippians 3:20)


The most basic operative fact of life for every believing Christian is that we are subjects of the King.  We live in His Kingdom.  Jesus said His Kingdom is not of this world...and therefore, He said, His servants don't do things the way the world does. (John 18:36)

It's a fact we have to keep in the forefront of our mind, because for our time on earth we live in enemy-occupied territory.  People do everything differently here, because the laws of their ruler are different than ours.  And his first law is that everybody do things his way.

For those of us who don't, and won't, it's an uncomfortable and dangerous place to live.  That's why Jesus' prayed for us:

"I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I do not ask You to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.  As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world."     (John 17:14-18)

It's no accident that we're here.  Jesus sent us here.  He doesn't ask the Father to take us away from here (I have to believe whatever Jesus asked the Father, would happen)...rather, He asks the Father to keep us in truth, while we live in this foreign kingdom that hates truth.

But some of those whom Jesus sent here have "assimilated."  That's what this foreign kingdom wants from us: we can always get comfortable with living here, and not be in any danger, if we'll just do things their way a little.  Especially if we'll just relax our insistence on truth a little.

Actually, the assimilationists tell us, we should relax a little, because if you squint hard enough the rulers of this kingdom could almost seem to be Christians.  And hasn't God blessed this kingdom more than any other nation: doesn't that prove He loves this nation, above every other ?  This is a Christian nation (if you squint really hard): why shouldn't we make ourselves at home, and do things the way the people here do ?

Since they believe here that "the people rule," why shouldn't we ?  And if we go along with them, we can take power and exercise power the way they do.  We can keep the Presidency, and the Congress, and the Supreme Court Christian, as they are today...and isn't that really what Jesus meant by "the Kingdom of God" ?

What most recommends doing it this nation's way is that the only alternative is living here as "resident aliens," people whose allegiance is to a different ruler and different laws than they have here.  If we do that, all we can expect is that the people we live among will fear, and hate, and mistreat us.

Jesus said so Himself.  But even if we didn't have His word for it, we've seen firsthand how this "Christian nation" treats its resident aliens.  Really, do we want that for ourselves ?

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

4th of July 2018

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

It's a bitter holiday, today.

It's America's great patriotic holiday.  I'm always skeptical of what commonly passes for "patriotism."  But this day is more bitter still.

Certainly there is such a thing as real patriotism: love for one's country.  Certainly God has created us capable of love, and commanded us to love.  In simple definition, God commands us to think the best of, desire the best for, and do the best for others, the same as we do for ourselves.  "Others" manifestly includes our countrymen, who are our nation: and, Jesus said, every person, of every other nation.

But we are temporally- and spatially-limited beings, and it's probably an in-born impulse to love first those closest to us, emotionally as well as physically.   Our family is usually both.  And we also usually find our first friends (with whom we are often bonded most closely throughout our lives) among those who live nearest to us.

There are many exceptions, of course.  We may have an unbreakable bond with family-members who live hundreds or thousands of miles from us.  And increasingly, in this digital world, we may form a strong friendship with people in other nations or continents, whom we've never physically met.  Even so, who we meet is (by definition) primarily a function of physical proximity; and those we meet are usually the people we come to know the best, and come to love.

Geography is not destiny: but it is a factor of destiny, as it is of love.  What happens to our neighborhood, or city, or state, to the nation and the world in which we live, happens to us.  The people are the place.  If they could, those who wish to destroy Aleppo would no doubt preserve its buildings and infrastructure.  Their horrific assault is on the people who are Aleppo.

As we do the family of which we find ourselves a part, we identify with the human geography into which we're born, and in which we live.  How could we not ?  The physical place we live, our family and our closest friends live.  We are, with them, in every real sense that "neighborhood," "city," or "state."  Our destiny and the destiny of all those we love is what happens to that place.  How can we not think the best of that place, desire the best for that place, and do the best for that place: how can we not love that place ?

I won't bother to contrast that genuine patriotism, "love of country," with the widespread false "patriotism" that pervades our society.  The latter is too familiar to need description, beyond saying its effects are always to harm a country, and ultimately destroy a country.

Should anyone need an example of false "patriotism," I can think of none in our recent national experience that has harmed our country more than Vietnam.  "Patriotism" is always used to sell war, and that was very much the case with Vietnam.  It was the standard "patriotic" argument of every war: if you love our country, you must love the war.

Never mind that Vietnam resulted in almost-unmitigated harm to America as a nation.  Death is always the major result of war, and hundreds of thousands of people died in Vietnam.  Presumably the fraction of those which were American deaths would not be considered good for America, even by "patriots" to whom only the American deaths matter.

Still worse was the harm done America's spirit.  Many citizens began, with Vietnam, to distrust and hate our government.  That mindset is still with us, and still working to destroy our country.

Hatred for authority, satan's own sin...which scripture condemns as "rebelliousness," and "lawlessness"...always destroys a people: as scripture likewise proclaims.  It gave rise in the 1960s to America's drug-culture, which is still doing us immense harm.

It is also the basis for the policy of "de-regulation," which began with the Reagan administration.  The President who characterized government as "the problem" of course rejected government's authority to regulate: even though scripture's mandate to human government was that it be "a minister of God" in punishing evil-doers (Romans 13:4).

Reagan's followers continue to this day "de-regulating" laws which formerly restrained powerful evil-doers (especially wealthy "business" evil-doers) from doing harm to America's people, environment, and economy.  The financial crisis of 2008 and the current destructive head of the Environmental Protection Agency* are examples of the harm we've suffered, and are still suffering, from the governmental lawlessness of "de-regulation."

The distinction between patriotism and "patriotism" is at root a moral one.  Patriotism desires and does what is good for our country: "patriotism" produces harm and destruction for our country.

It's an easy choice, for those who can...and will...discern between good and evil.  People who can't (even more, those who won't) are not patriots: are indeed incapable of patriotism.  But they can, and do, always avail themselves of the shallow "patriotism" by which the morally-blind, -foolish, and -deceived destroy themselves and their country.

America's tragedy is that so few...notably, even so few Christians...can (or will) discern between what is good for our country, and the harm done to America by deceivers whose lying "patriotic" slogan is that their evil will "Make America Great Again."

It's a bitter holiday.  Bitter that the "patriotism" most Americans celebrate today is the false one that does America deep and lasting harm, and leads America in evil ways.  Bitter to all who love America, seeing millions cheer that evil as America's "greatness"... knowing that God's sure promise is that He will destroy evil and evil-doers.

* Scott Pruitt, the corrupt and destructive head of the E.P.A., resigned July 5th 2018.

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

Heart-Sick

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

Church was hard to take this morning.

Everything was as good as usual; the music, the sermon, the presence of brothers and sisters whom I love and rejoice to worship with.  Everything was as I most hope and expect and thank God for.

But it was the patriotic "4th-of-July" service.  Canada Day, actually; but American Christianity owns the Sunday closest to the 4th, of course, no matter any other circumstances.

Today's service didn't trumpet America's glories, and our military "heroes," nearly as much as some have in the past.  Today's service was more as it should be, about worshipping God.  But that was what hit me hardest.

Our first praise-song was one we often sing, with the repeated refrain "because of Who You are."  It's a great song, affirming God's centrality in all the events of our lives.

Throughout the service, there were comparatively few and passing nods to America's greatness, and we only sang one "patriotic" song, "God Bless America," at the end of the service.

But that was what hit me extremely hard.  Because of Who He IS, how can God bless who America is ?  Can God bless pride and unrighteousness ?

My wife argued as we drove home that I was making it all about politics: and she certainly knows how I feel about politics.

But I can't agree.  If it is in people's hearts, the hearts especially of Christians, to accept and follow and promote the politics of lies and hatred, what is God's heart towards us asking and expecting Him to bless us ?


                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

John Brown

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

John Brown made it his life's work to end slavery in America.  He was obsessed with the evil of slavery.  Even the majority of abolitionists considered Brown too fanatical, someone who gave their cause a bad name.

Angered by political events which made it increasingly clear that slavery would never be eliminated by America's governmental and judicial institutions, Brown took up arms.  He moved his family to the newly-opened Kansas Territory where "Free State" and pro-slavery settlers were in open warfare.  In addition to several battles between the two sides, Brown led his sons and others in the "Pottawatomie Massacre," where five pro-slavery neighbors were hacked to death with swords.

But Brown was still unsatisfied with the efforts to end slavery, even by abolitionists.  He insultingly told their convention in 1859 that "These men are all talk; what is needed is action — action !"

A few months later he led 18 men in capturing the U.S. Arsenal at Harper's Ferry, Virginia.  He believed his raid would spark an uprising by slaves, whom he would arm with rifles from the arsenal.  Instead he and his surviving men were captured, and Brown was tried and sentenced to death.

In a prison interview with a southern reporter, Brown said, "...all you people at the South — prepare yourselves for a settlement of this question, that must come up for settlement sooner than you are prepared for it."

As he was being taken to the gallows on December 2nd 1859, he gave a note to one who accompanied him. "I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land can never be purged away but with blood. I had, as I now think, vainly flattered myself that without very much bloodshed, it might be done."

A month after the election of Abraham Lincoln in November 1860, South Carolina was the first of the southern states to secede from the Union, which precipitated the Civil War.  More Americans died in that war, and more of our country was devastated, than in any other war in our history.

I awoke this morning with a sobering and terrifying "John Brown" realization.  Events of the last few days have made it increasingly clear that we cannot put our trust in America's governmental and judicial institutions, or in the commonsense decency of America's people, to keep this land from deserving God's judgement.

We have been proud for over two centuries of the democratic electoral system by which "the people" rule, and proud of the system of "checks and balances" that has kept us safe from the rule of evil men.  Both have helped make America strong for two centuries.

But if God "is camped in battle-array against" the proud--and the Greek of James 4:6 and I Peter 5:5 say He is--pride is a certain guarantee of God's destruction.  If a majority of "the people" desired to follow a man of satan's lying character and raging hatred (which Jesus says is murder; Matthew 5:21-2), he would be elected to lead our country.  If such a man filled the legislature and court of our governmental system with his followers, our trusted "checks and balances" would not stop him from doing whatever evil he wished to.

In that scenario, the things in which America has most trusted and placed the most pride would be most instrumental in destroying America.  That is the scenario who have today.  I admit that I have at least partly trusted that our electoral and governmental systems would work to bring America back to sanity and righteousness.  I realized this morning that I cannot.  I, Steve Hicks, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land can never be purged away but with blood.

We are on the brink of war.  It will not be with North Korea.  It will not be between the supporters of this current president and his opponents.  It will not be between our day's societal  "conservatives" and "liberals," as America's Civil War was in its day.

We are on the brink of a spiritual war, between good and evil, as we can now see America's Civil War actually was.  John Brown saw it so in his time, even if the way he chose to fight it was mistaken. Scripture's descriptions of the end-time spiritual war clearly indicate incredible bloodshed will result on earth: and just as clearly that spiritual war is not against flesh and blood; and not waged with humankind's guns and swords (II Corinthians 10:3-4, Ephesians 6:12).

I am also certain that very many who claim to be Christians, and whom I had believed Christians, will join themselves to the enemy.  I am certain because I have seen it happen, unbelievably, suddenly, and recently.  Those who choose to follow a liar and murderer have already put themselves in definitive opposition to the One Who IS "The Truth" and "The Life" (John 14:6).  We must not be deceived on this current battlefield by those who mouth the right password, when they wear the enemy's colors.

I had one more "John Brown" moment as I mused on these things.  As he stood on the scaffold and looked over the Virginia hills, Brown said "This is a beautiful country," just before the hood was placed over his head.

This is a beautiful country.  It has been a good country, and a country God has often used as His "minister of good" to many people, and His "minister of wrath" on many evil-doers (Romans 13:3-4).

It grieves me more than I can say, and almost more than I can bear, to see that my country's people now embrace evil-doers, for nothing could more certainly guarantee God's swift and bloody judgement on this beautiful country.   But I am now quite certain that the sins of this guilty land can never be purged away but by war.

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

Why Delete a Link ?

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

For the first time ever, I've deleted a link on my home-page to a blog I used to read and recommend. 

That won't make the national news.  It's probably not a big deal to anyone but me.  But it is a big deal to me.  It feels like I'm personally rejecting someone I've considered a friend and a brother in Christ, and saying his thoughts are of no value: more than worthless, harmful.  And that is exactly what I'm saying.

I'd followed this person's blog for some years.  His meditations were often more "pious," than I cared for, but sometimes spot-on in glorifying God, and reflecting a believer's experience of God.  "Sometimes" on those scores is probably the highest any Christian blog can achieve.

But over the past couple of years, his views of world and national events and personages had become increasingly strident and out-of-touch with reality.  In a recent interchange, for example, he asserted that the Nazis' destabilization of German society on their path to power was like America today, where "...people’s fanaticism for the previous president has caused the kind of riots we see at College campuses and so on where any speaker, not given to a certain ideology, is shut down either by intimidation or by violence."

I didn't bother to call him on that.  Strident unreality is enough of the "Evangelical" profile that I've learned to try to look past it to see if there's actually something of Christ's Spirit in what "Evangelicals" are saying.  But his claim that violent pro-Obama riots are rampant, and created to bring about a "leftist" dictatorship, doesn't seem to match up with any reality this side of Breitbart News or World Net Daily's headlines.

Such "conspiracy-thinking" is another prominent part of the "Evangelical" profile (a "profile," I'd hasten to add, Evangelicals created for themselves to distinguish themselves from their "enemies," including Christians who don't share their politics).  But it's a part of the "Evangelical" profile I find it impossible to "look past."

It's a breaking-point, for me, when people choose to assert a "reality" contrary to the one God created and sustains, the reality that sane people believe in and live in.  But unreality too seems to be something "Evangelicals' " have chosen for themselves.

My preference is always to try to reason folks back to reality when they go off on a self-destructive tangent.  That's how I understand Galatians 6:1's teaching on "restoring" a brother.  But to reason together, people have to share some basic point of agreement.  There has to be some shared belief that a transpersonal "good" exists, for example; and that seeking that "good" benefits an individual, but also everyone else.

When Jesus teaches how to restore a wayward brother, He emphasizes at each step that a brother will be restored "IF he listens to you..." (Matthew 18:15; my emphasis).  The unfortunate fact of people who choose a "personal reality" is that they put themselves in a mindset where they (sometimes literally) cannot hear any reasoning unless it's predicated on the "alternative facts" of their counter-reality.

Trying to reason people out of their delusions is almost always fruitless, and only makes them mad.  Affirming reality to a person vested in a counter-reality is only ever perceived as an attack.  A personal attack, most of all, on the "god" who created and sustains the "personal reality" they choose to inhabit.

So it was in this case.  And as in the case of many "Evangelicals," the breaking-point was political: a spiritual battlefield on which satan has been particularly active, and successful in capturing American Christians.  Pointing out that the current president manifests the character that Jesus said shows satan's paternity (John 8:44, Matthew 5:21-22) infuriates his "Christian" followers.

That was when the blogger responded with his claim of rioting pro-Obama fanatics (presumably in the intention of showing that what he perceives as "my side" is just as evil as the pro-Trump fanatics he seems to side with), and an angry dismissal of speculating about who anti-Christ is.

The latter I responded to, since I'd never said the current president is the anti-Christ, and I hate that kind of misleading speculation.  I pointed that out, with some scriptural reasons why I don't, at present, consider him the anti-Christ.  Pointed out too that I John 2:18 says there are "many antichrists," and that any human being who manifests satan's character must be seen as one of that "many"...which is not to identify him as THE Anti-Christ.  (A summary of my present thinking about Anti-Christ was posted here a couple days ago.)

I presume that the blogger read my latter responses, though he didn't post them.  Since they were calm and straightforward, and reasoned from scripture, I presume he didn't post my comments because he didn't like what I said.  I run into people who don't like what I say often enough not to get upset about it: I think we all have to.

But it does seem that when you maintain a public blog, you open yourself to hearing what other people think (indeed, hearing other peoples' thoughts is one of the great benefits of blogging); and you have to expect some people will disagree with you.  It seems basically dishonest to censor civil responses solely because you disagree with them: especially, on a Christian blog, civil responses based on scripture.

I re-read the interchange, to make sure all my responses had been civil.  I have strong scriptural reasons for insisting that Christians should love Truth...since that's Who Jesus says He IS (John 14:6)...and that Christians must recognize reality, since nothing exists except what was created by God's word (logos, Logos: (John 1:1-3).  I'm totally convinced of those two facts, and adamant about them.  I sometimes speak more adamantly than gently (as Galatians 6:1 commands us in restoring a brother), when I'm affirming those facts.

But nothing I'd said was more vituperative than "Surely you can see that...:" which is a gentle reminder to people that they can avail themselves of the Spirit's discernment, even when their perceptions are being manipulated by propagandists.  Certainly in "urging" the blogger "...to take an honest look at today’s socio-political reality" I implied he's been dishonest in that regard... but without angry accusation.  And the warning I gave, against breathing in "the spirit of the age," was deliberately phrased impersonally, in hopes of circumventing his tendency to regard criticism of his "personal reality" as personal attack: "All who do so are in very great spiritual danger."

I'm satisfied I gave the blogger no reason to cut off my comments except that he didn't like what I said.

The conclusion these reflections have led me to, about the man and his blog, make me feel I can't in good conscience recommend his blog here.  I know God sees the heart, so it may be, and I hope it is, that He sees there more love of Truth than is manifest in the blogger's words and ways.

But there is such a thing as condemning ourselves by what we approve (Romans 14:22; a scripture I recommend to those who "support" the current president).  I can no longer approve anything of that blog and its writer, when they currently manifest the spirit they do.

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

I Hate to Say So, But . . .

                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

Musing on what constitutes political popularity makes me question the basic premise of democracy.  Question even more than I already do from knowing that demos +kratia, "the people rule" is a straight-on denial that God rules.  The latter is the totality of Jesus' teaching, "The Kingdom of God."

And when "the people rule," they clearly make their decisions and choices according to their human motives.  Human beings being what they are, we primarily "rule" by self-interest.  Ideally, American human beings are educated, both by secular schools and by their churches, to think beyond self-interest; to think of themselves as a corporate body, with mutual interests that they each have an individual responsibility to safeguard and promote.  Ideally, Americans are taught to make their local and national decisions according to the "common good."

My mother, not particularly a "thinker," considered such talk "kind of communistic."  Now that communism is pretty much a dead-letter, some people vehemently attack the ideal of a "common good" as "socialism." But it was the intent of the "founding fathers" that Americans and our government "promote the General Welfare" by common effort, putting aside some of our natural self-interest.  That is the essence of our centuries-old national motto, E Pluribus Unum.  I'm thankful that I was raised and educated in a time when unity and mutuality, both under fierce attack today from deeply evil politicians, were central to Americans' consciousness of being Americans...together.

(Lest someone object that "In God We Trust" was made America's official national motto in the 1950s...I know that.  I also know that the Democratic Congressman who wrote that legislation during the Cold War promoted it as showing America's undying opposition to "godless" communism.  That "official national motto" was intended as political self-congratulation: not really a statement of religious devotion.

Pretending America's "official national motto" shows America is a "Christian nation" is entirely political spin, since that was not its intent.  More to the spiritual point, boasting of one's godliness when one's operative reality is the opposite is simply hypocrisy.)

Thankfully, many Americans still have some of that "corporate" consciousness governing their self-interest.  Many are still aware that choices which strengthen and benefit the nation are the right choices for America.  Greater than that temporal national interest, some Christians still realize that their primary personal responsibility, and loyalty, is to always do right regards The Kingdom of God: which is itself the very definition of right-eousness.

It is hard to believe...and shows the great flaw of the human governing principle of demos kratia...that America's current president is a man whose own governing principle is naked self-interest.  "Naked," because he really doesn't try to hide it...only "spin" it.  He doesn't have to hide it, as long as his followers continue to believe his "spin."

Some of his followers are completely satisfied to accept his self-interest as the "higher purpose" by which they make their choices for America.  I don't know what to call their operative mindset except "dangerous lack of commonsense."  These are the irredeemably deluded, who perfectly fulfill the idolatrous requirement of "citizens" under the Nazis' Fuhrerprinzip: that the person, word, and will of the Leader (Fuhrer) are supreme.  That is obviously the current president's own belief, and his most devoted followers pride themselves on thinking exactly as he does.

His "Evangelical" base professes to follow him for a higher "Christian" purpose, seeing him as a "godly man," who wishes to serve God's purposes.  Obviously a great deal of self-delusion is also operative for those followers.  In the few years since he began to strut upon the scene, the current president's continual lies, arrogance, hatred, corruption, and immorality have still not shaken some "Evangelicals' " self-willed belief that he is yet a "godly man," pursuing God's (and not his own very sordid) purposes.

Since my own viewpoint on things is Christian, I particularly fault "Evangelicals" for their willful self-delusion.  Fault them most of all for ignoring the basic spiritual understanding that, since Jesus identified Himself as "The Truth" (John 14:6), following a liar is emphatically not following Jesus.

But perhaps the largest component of the current president's "base" are the folks at whom he directed his trademark slogan, "Make America Great Again."  The self-professed patriots: folks whose "higher purpose" is America, and who want America to be the greatest nation in the world.

By and large, those folks' patriotism is probably honest.  "Patriotism" is quite often just empty lip-service by politicians, or a marketing ploy of retailers, or a tool for social demagogues to short-circuit their victims' ability to think.  The current president and his slogan use it all of those ways.  But I believe that most ordinary fellow citizens...probably even many who are deceived to follow the current president...actually, in some sense, honestly love our country.  By the definition of "love," these are folks who want the best for America.

Where those "patriot" followers of the current president are deceived, however, is first that America's "greatness" is a faulty "higher purpose."  It's certainly higher than any one person's self-glorification...the foolish mistake of his Fuhrerprinzip followers.  But the national self-interest of any earthly nation is, and always will be, infinitely inferior to the Kingdom of God.

The patriots also go astray in their concept of "greatness," and how it is attained.  Almost always, by "a great nation" they mean one which possesses dominant power, and the highest "standard of living," in the world.  Looked at rightly (that is, from the Kingdom-of-God view), that kind of greatness only comes by God's gift...never by man's political machinations.

The patriots' ultimate self-deception is in believing the current president is making America "great" in any sense, even in their own wrong understanding of what "greatness" is.  A nation has power among other nations only when they respect its word and trust its intentions.  Having great military power...even nuclear weapons...only makes a nation feared, as we've seen with North Korea.

Making his own reckless inconsistency, lies, and selfishness the face of America to the world, the current president has pretty completely destroyed all the credibility and respect all previous presidents worked to give America.  Our former friends despise America: treating friends as enemies has that result.  At the same time, our president fawns over nations who wish America harm: and who undoubtedly rejoice to see the harm he does to America's world-reputation and internal stability.

No patriot could believe the current president's actions "make America great again," except with ample doses of self-delusion.

All the current president's followers indulge in massive self-delusion.  And for many, their self-delusion has proved immune to correction by reality.  It is the terminal stage of self-delusion, when one's own imaginary world becomes one's only reality.

I hate to say so, but I'll be interested to see if all those self-deceptions will remain immune to reality in the near future.  The current president has put America in trade-wars with the other nations of this continent, with the European Union, and with China.  Despite his trademark lying foolishness that "...trade wars are good, and easy to win," there are bound to be repercussions from his actions, and it's doubtful those repercussions will be "good."  They may be very bad, in very many ways, for all of America's people.

If so, we will get a glimpse of some of his supporter's true "higher purpose."  Those who follow the current president contrary to commonsense, contrary to Christ's teachings, or contrary to patriotism, may face a crisis of their delusional faith when the all-knowing, all-wise, and omnicompetent being they've worshipped does something that harms their finances.

I hate to say so: it sounds cynical, but I think it's true of many human beings: that you only see what a person really believes when their money is threatened.  Under stress, many people quickly revert to basic self-interest and self-preservation: and for many people, financial danger is the ultimate stress.  The reaction of the current president's followers to financial danger will very clearly show where their faith, and their hope of salvation, is vested.


                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                              

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.