News 415
CBS April 6, 2009
TALKING TURKEY
but turkey is a flightless bird
Obama before the parliament of Turkey! He too was born in an Islamic country, we hear, and he decides that they must proceed together, listening carefully, and showing "deep appreciation for the Islamic faith" which has "done so much over the centuries to shape the world". This is in the pre-stated context that "We seek broader engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect."
Much has been made of the fact that Obama has had a rather close relationship with a religious organisation, a Church of some kind. Various oddities arose concerning the pastor and Obama distanced himself at last.
Thus when someone - and contrary to what many imagine, a President or PM does not have to commit ideological suicide or religious apostasy in order to occupy such an office - decides that there is to be a deep appreciation of a 'faith' which demotes Christ from deity to mere man, and elevates the one who says so to ultimate revelatory status on this earth, there is an impasse. It is as such, pure and simple.
'We" is a plural first person pronoun which INCLUDES THE SPEAKER. Even if the speaker is speaking as a representative, he is including himself as a person, for you cannot represent and cease to be a person simultaneously. If what you represent DEMANDS or requires or its perceived interests require that you speak contrary to conscience and principles publicly shown, then if you accede, that is merely one case of hypocrisy. If however your commitment is to the work and words giving by and through the Lord Jesus Christ, then this becomes a maximal case.
There is never any excuse for this; and when a person declares that he follows Jesus Christ, there is explicit prohibition on any departure from His word. Therefore, if what I represent on earth demands or calls for me to demote or defile, or make dubious or questionable what I represent as a believer in Him who is Lord in heaven and earth, then I have an option. I may compromise Christ preferring a prepared path for the body I represent on earth, or honour Him instead.
You can honour Him whose honour is infinite and in ways defined by His word, or you may be ashamed of Him, find Him inconvenient, make a new 'christ' and not change the name (as in II Corinthians 11). You can sell the spirituality and the word of the Lord of glory who died on the cross at Calvary, for another spirituality or for some carnality; or you can keep the testimony to His personal glory intact.
Yes, you cannot tease it out and lend it here or there, mutating it, retracting or denying or honouring at will. Life is not like that. God deals with us as PERSONS who are true to Him OR NOT. If we sin, there is cover (I John 1); but this involves repentance and repentance has fruits worthy of it; that is, is not a mode but something clearly showing a change of heart and detestation of folly. There is one course or the other.
What then of the Christian ? You cannot represent what misrepresents what is primary in your personal values, and above all in His as depicted, defined and declared in the Bible. You can invent a new christ or a new bible; but this is your own invention or that of someone you allow to lead you, whichever, with but one result in the end. If however you do this anyway, then you are misrepresenting not only yourself, as a person which you CANNOT cease to be, but as a believer in a higher power, Person and commitment, and in particular in the Lord's Christ. You can re-invent Christianity or follow those who do; but God does not alter to such tailoring!
Indeed, Jesus declared this (Luke 9:9:26):
"For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words,
of him the Son of Man will be ashamed
when He comes in His own glory, and His Father's, and of the holy angels."
Here to be faced is a shame for the hereafter as
well as for the present. Sin can be confessed and ransomed; but unrepentance
with this defilement is like playing with cancer.
Moreover He said this:
"Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away."
The time has come when people must quit pretending or amending or defending defilement. There is one Christ, who was to die and did in the region of A.D. 30 (cf. Highway of Holiness Ch. 4). There is one record from the time of His coming which has been sustained by those who knew Him and in terms of His promise, defined millenia ago. This is in terms of His promise concerning His words, and the promise of God in revelation before He came (Isaiah 34:16, 59:21, Psalm 119:105-112,160, 12:6-7) as after His arrival as Messiah (Matthew 5:17-20, John 14:26, I Corinthians 2:9-13).
Defile your commitment to Him by making it to some equation or invention of your own, or some other body be it called church or anything else, and you invite shame.
If you allow yourself liberty for laxity with HIS HONOUR, then whether as representing God or man, up breach allegiance to Christ; for ALL Christians must ALWAYS be ambassadors for Him, and act in His name in ALL they do - Colossians 3:17 puts it clearly.
"And whatever you do in word or deed,
do all in the name of the Lord Jesus,
giving thanks to God the Father through Him."
CAN you therefore in the name of the Lord Jesus congratulate a religion which demotes Him from deity, despises His salvation to the point of making its own contradictory approach MANDATORY and HENCE His opposite approach wrong ? If this the 'fate' of Him who declared firstly that He is "the truth" as well as the life and the way, and that there was no OTHER WAY but that of His ransom (Matthew 20:28, John 14:6, 12:48-50)!
If this the treatment to be accorded to Him who declared that you MUST believe in Him as He is or perish (John 8:58, 8:24, 3:36,Romans 10:9), for He is the "I am" of eternity here revealed in flesh that we should BELIEVE IN HIM (not some substitute, far less some opponent of His words and state and status), or perish (John 3:36)! Of course not: for then you are presenting in 'we' (without resigning, should pressure be put on you) the point that Christ is NOT NECESSARY for a 'faith' to bring a deep appreciation of it to a Christian.
Then He is dispensable as the Redeemer without whom none come to the Father (John 14:6). He is wrong if this is right. That, it is not a Christian position, and worse if it were possible, because it aggravates this, it is not a rational one (cf. SMR).
Did Christ 'deeply appreciate' Judas, who betrayed Him by doing a political deal to enable Him to be removed from the scene, as far as he could, as God on earth as man ? On the contrary, as we read in John 6:70, "one of you is a devil"; and that one was identified as seen in Matthew 26:25. Of this betrayer, the one who allowed financial-political matters to take precedence over spiritual ones, who yielded the sanctity of Christ as far as he was able, to a dynamic where He was not treated as Lord, Christ stated that it would have been good for that man never to have been born (Matthew 26:24).
Judas was a special case ? Certainly he was, but he was also a typical case of one who while having a close time relative to Christ, when the chips are down, when the cost is audited, finds that it is convenient to cease to honour Him in His unique situation as Lord of all and the One in whom it is NECESSARY to believe, and by whom NECESSARY to be saved, and that indeed by the command of God (cf. Luke 13:1-3, Acts 4:12). No one else has this salvation, said Peter, and all must gain it and by Him and no one else, nor is there any combination, option, alternative or name.
We will recall at this point that the intention is to expose what is being SAID; for it is God who can deal with the man, whoever he is, who errs. That is His prerogative; but our duty is to consider the words spoken and to be faithful as a witness to His people and those who may be led to tragic error.
These things being so, Obama's statements defile two things. Firstly, they defile his apparent or ostensible commitment to Jesus Christ. If his commitment is to some other christ, then of course he is not a Christian, for what you make up out of your own head is an idol, not God (cf. II Corinthians 11). But love hopes all things. If then his commitment is to the Jesus Christ, the Lord Jesus Christ, the only and the necessary Saviour of the Bible, then this commitment has in this speech been violated. He deeply appreciates a 'faith' which teaches contrary to truth, to Jesus Christ, and has often used force both verbally in the Koran and militarily in pursuit of it. That point is merely additional.
Wherever then he stands, this is the position for his words here.
Can you deeply appreciate, without losing rationality, a practice which kills ? To deprive of Christ, or to drive from Christ, by force, or culture, or command, principle or procedure, is to deprive of what is NECESSARY for man to live before the only God there is.
Now of course you can construct a new religion; but this one is like that.
In addition, in these words Obama, President Obama, representative of the USA, has compromised the position of all US Christian citizens. That is a fact. You may argue that this is not so, and that as President, he must represent all. That is impossible. He must seek to be kind and just to all, and helpful, this certainly, and endeavour not to discriminate in governmental distribution; but he CANNOT represent those from whom he cardinally and categorically differs, to the point of spiritual faith, either as to its nature or its implications.
There IS no common position for all. You CANNOT both believe and not believe in God, in Jesus Christ, in the necessity of salvation through Him. Opposites are not possibly complementary.
You CAN seek not to oppress, not to use force or inequitable withholding of due services for those who hold what you do not hold to, but you CANNOT in sincerity and truth pretend to represent all in the field of religion. You can at most seek to be just to all. That is a very different thing. Now of course in one of his earlier speeches, Obama made it clear that he was a leader who would seek to bring into one, the gay and not so gay, black and other and so forth; but you cannot do that. They are not one. When it comes to moral and spiritual things, you cannot unite them, for they diverge, not as an accident but as a resolution of the heart.
If you so much as recognise the propriety of giving respect to what you know kills, severs from health or God or both, then you merely mislead. You CAN not discriminate against them in terms of disciplinary laws; but you CANNOT be at one with them or make them one or with righteousness make them appear to be one in hope, in morals, in spirit. They are categorical contradictories. Some respect the law of the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. Matthew 5:17ff.), and His fulfilment; some do not. Some respect His morals as shown in the word of God at His authority, and some do not. Some serve Him with all the heart, whatever the imperfections, but retaining none on purpose; and some do not. Some regard Him as being God, and having THEREFORE monopoly on truth, for HE IS IT (John 14:6, Romans 1); and some do not. Never can these be combined (Matthew 7:21ff.).
If you wish to join them now, God wishes to disjoin them at judgment, and here says so.
 |
Thus equity is one thing; |
|
|
spiritual insubordination by sharing spiritual dis-equivalents,
contraries, |
|
|
this is another. |
This approach has been shown before*1. Now it is even more necessary to face it.
A leader MUST be an honest man and believe and say what is in accord with what in his mind are ultimates (if he has any), if he is to be trusted. You do not become a moral zombi or a spiritual salami just because you would like to lead a nation. There is no need for that, nor is there any excuse. Such a course by a Christian, if once followed, must be disengaged from at once.
What then of following such a way ? Some may choose to do this; but there is no logical necessity. Moreover, while for some it may appear apt thus to win office; uet to deny what one publicly believes in order to gain what one wants is hypocrisy. Such is the biblical position (Luke 6:46, 9:26, I Corinthians 6:9ff.).
Thus no President, PM or other political leader, being a Christian, should EVER make ANY statement, and this on biblical authority, which demeans, far less by implication makes questionable the status of Jesus Christ over all, whether they like it or not. God is not removed for the sake of occupying the presidency or the throne or the PM post. Whatever may be the confusion, if such there be, or the preference, this is the biblical fact concerning the honour, integrity and requirement concerning truth, His truth, the word of the self-revealing God, Jesus Christ the Lord.
It is not necessary to take any such course, in order to rule. You COULD tell a Moslem nation that you do not seek military engagement with them; but you COULD NOT say that it is out of the question, for if such a nation sought to take over a country by force, your own, you are pledged to its defence from alien sources not chosen by the people. No blank check is possible, such as is presented in the declaration, "the United States is not, and never will be, at war with Islam." Islam might at any point take any action, under any ruler of spiritual or other kind that it wishes. It has not been in many of its major positions, reticent in centuries before.
Such a statement then represents a gross surrender. Islam*1A has in its Koran many statements of intent regarding the use of force, and many have cited them in terms of political intentions and military ones indeed. IF Islam as such chose to make war on the USA, then it OUGHT to deal with that threat, for otherwise it is surrender in advance to what its own people have not chosen.
If Obama meant something different, nothing will alter the fact that this is his reported speech as given by CBA. One can make no attempt to fathom what lies in his heart, for God only knows this fully. One is directed however very decisively, as a pastor, a Minister in the Christian Church, to analyse what is to be found in his words, their implications and results, intended or not. WHEN things are spoken in such places, all the more, it is not what is meant but what is said which takes, shall we say, a certain priority. That a leader SHOULD say what he means is apparent.
What then, to the point of principle ?
It is not that such a war is by any means to be desired; it is just that such an exclusion cannot by the leader of a country, be given in this manner without surrender of the sovereignty of the nation; and when world domination is the implication of the thrust of the Koran and the history of Islam in former centuries, so that in contest which may arise, or deemed to arise, there be no opposition to "Allah", this becomes close to a preliminary surrender.
It would suffice to say: the USA does not seek as a nation to attack any religion, for it is a free nation; but when force is involved in any religion or out of it, and to the extent and place where this is so, then the USA will resist and seek to deter and remove any threat emanating in those terms. This however is very different. It is not at all what was said.
This spiritual servility is in line with the deep appreciation offered later in the speech, where in Christian terms as noted above, it does not belong. You can appreciate cultural exhibits exclusive of religion, but the religion, in Christ's terms (cf. Matthew 24:24ff.), is simply wrong which does not honour Him as deity, saviour (and there is none but God - Isaiah 43:10-11), Lord and God. Such is not Islam. To honour it AS A RELIGION is therefore to dishonour Christ, disobey Him, to that extent act to bring Him into disrepute, argue against His words and invite shame.
The first consideration is His NAME, and the HONOUR to God which is not to be found outside of Him, indeed the judgment when He is excluded (John 3:19,36); and the condemnation for not coming to the light of life, which is explicit. The second is the attitude to any religion thus alienated from the God who is both Lord and Creator, Saviour and Judge. Is there to be undertaking not to resist any assault on a nation from it ? if such a religion were for any reason in any situation or political configuration, to make it ?
Thus the Christian position is betrayed. It is NOT that one fights for the religion; it is just that when one speaks thus of ANY religious body, it means that the nation as a nation is to be deprived of delivering itself from oppressive invasion. Not intended ? much better then not said, or at least not excluded by what IS said.
The movement of Obama is quite in accord with the predictions of the Bible. The movement of the USA from Bush to Obama is not a total one. Bush was making endeavours*2,to some kind of peace with Islam, at the spiritual level, with nice references to the religion. However Obama has gone further. It is prophetically significant that he has done so.
Thus the removal of the papacy from mention in the proposed EU Constitution, despite its displeasure (though a good thing in itself cf. SMR pp. 1032-1088, and in line with the predictions of Revelation 17:16 (cf. SMR pp. 946ff.), and this spiritual obsequiousness on the part of a US President, praising what millions abhor, and doing so as a professing Christian, so that what is contrary to Christ has such congratulatory approach, despite its exclusion from salvation, the only one there is in biblical terms: they one thing in common.
They move the power in the international military forces allied to the political ones, towards ONE HUGE RATIONALISED RELIGION, which includes no salvation by grace through faith as its criterion. It DOES moreover introduce a new form of respect and admiration for what denies Christ's vicarious death and salvation, and a new movement towards religious syncretism.
With such syncretism, one not disallowing, not disregarding and not diminishing or criticising, not rejecting as gravely wrong what is unbiblical, or even omitting any statement in this area, but rather accepting what denies it, as generally honourable and making sound contribution IN ITS DOMAIN as 'a faith', we have a situation and a sequence.
Thus the movement Obama carries forward from the error of Bush, one much lesssevere in its error, but in this same direction*2: it is most apt for the finale. The wrath of the Lamb is palpable enough. He has won victory over death and presented the path freely to immortality and this as a gift; He has shown His love in anguish of heart and spirit on the Cross, and His power in the resurrection of His body, beyond all the resurrections and healings before this and what then ? In the face of this, sin is to be preferred, whether personally or in professional and national or international collectives ? So be it. There is a divine wrath which is not a denial of love but an affirmation of the horror of its defilement, wilful absence from its provisions and the needs of created, donated life (Revelation 6:14-7:3, 17:14, 19:15, John 3:36). There can be no change. Wilful exclusion is woeful inclusion.
What then of the international context ? Is it to be and is it becoming something like this concerning Jesus the Christ: His death honourable, a contribution, His resurrection unnecessary to reality, a position merely ? Is this unlike the political tooling up that appears to be going on ? What then of the outcome for such an ... income! Christ smites the false prophet, perhaps yet to arise, perhaps operative already and destroys the beast, who at last with the false prophet comes out without more parleying, DIRECTLY against Him, and so explicitly (Revelation 19:19). The togetherness*2A of the political tool-makers, empire builders, world creators, this is no more: the distribution of the body of the beast and his battalions is a thing literally for the birds.
While Christ pleads for the acceptance of what in love He and He only could provide, sent from the Trinity as the Word (Isaiah 48:16, Zechariah 2:8, 3:9, 9:9, 14:5, Philippians 2, John 1-3, 5:19ff., 8:58), yet when this is rejected, as you find in the self-same Chapter 3 of John which is so expansively magnificent in the presentation of simplicity of salvation by the work of God, then for this, there is no uncertain outcome. There is wrath, divine, deserved, inalienable because of actuaity.
HOPE provides peace; but folly invokes law, its due come-uppance: for its standards of perfection, far from double-tongues or triple talk, are those operative with God who though He show mercy, does not favour impenitence and error mixed in explosive cocktail (cf. Isaiah 29:13, Malachi). Pardon enables acceptance by God Himself, but ONLY where HE places it. Repudiation, diminution, bypassing or compromise, be it equivocal or outright, of what He provides, of His specific, sent for necessary salvation, sovereign, equipped with grace and glowing with a donor's love: this is not a path of peace but of programmed pathology. It has, like physical equivalents, its way and its day and its end.
What! will a pauper reject a cheque on the ground he wants cash! Will a man tell the Almighty that he wants some other provision, and so dishonour Christ as the ONLY way to God, the NECESSARY way to God so that what does not operate on HIS premises, AS God in the flesh, is by rejection excluded! Is this omission to be praiseworthy in the field of religion ? Is dream to dominate and reality to be transfixed ... again! (cf. Jeremiah 23: 25ff.).
What then is to be appreciated IN THE FIELD OF RELIGION, about what excludes from one's God! for that He is, whether there be faith in Him or not, and is as He says not as some desire, this remains. Thus He judges not by literal impertinence from dreams about Him, but on actual disjunction from what He has declared, and declared in Christ and in His word, the Bible, these millenia, for all to see in completeness of the prophesies of the millenia from the prophets of old (cf. *6 below).
He is not what men want to make of Him; but what He is - I AM WHAT I AM, is His magnificent declaration, whether in Exodus or in John 8:58*2B.
What then of relativistic religion, what of honour for what Christ decries as thieves and robbers or else false prophets (John 10, Matthew 24, John 14:6) ? Kindness and even love to one's enemies is a very different item from compromise with their principles or applause for their basic errors! To BE a robber is not praiseworthy, whether in religion, where some of the words of God are robbed and reflected in the much later Koran and others rejected, whatever the motive or motif.
Yet THAT is the way the Lord describes such a process of conjunction of disparities, HIS word and that of man, His where every jot and tittle is underwritten, and theirs where their very presumption is abhorrent to the Holy One (Jeremiah 23:10 in context, 23:16-31). Jude writes in fire that purges about the same topic*3. The faith is once delivered to the saints and toying, trading or compromising, adjusting, having a sort of national or international survey point beyond it, assessing or combining it, praising and depleting at will: this is mere enmity, seeking if not yet finding judgment. The appointed way for this world to go (cf. Revelation 13:11 - the religious beast spoke like a dragon but looked like a lamb, 1613ff., and contrast 12:11-12), it is not therefore the less worthy of attention but the more, if any is to be faithful in biblical declaration, preaching, teaching and warning!
What then of the combination, the complex consonance approach (*2A), which has honour all round, which does not condemn, does not reject, but applauds it all ? It is not just a question of whether one may and must differ from what differs from the express words of deity (cf. *6); it is what one does with the difference. Note therefore Luke 16:15-17 (emphasis added).
You are they who justify yourselves before men; but God knows your hearts:
for that which is highly esteemed among men
is abomination in the sight of God."The law and the prophets were until John:
since that time the kingdom of God is preached,
and every man presses into it. And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."
Press or not, the fact remains, NOTHING from the word of God is merely deleted; it is fulfilled or it stays to the uttermost. God does not waver, whatever man may do. What then of the mobility of current appearances increasingly at the international level ? As the State now here and now there, over a long time now, stretches forth its wings to cover all including religion, what is facing mankind more and more ? It is this.
Instead of spiritual cancer being ALWAYS deadly and wrong and dangerous and counter-productive and at war with God and contrary to health in the heart and destiny in the future, in the light of denial of the salvation of Christ Jesus the Lord, there comes a more 'positive' note. It is that of compromise and fudge factors.
With this, it then becomes not REALLY necessary for spiritual mutual admiration to cease, or mutuality of spirit to occur. Words can dishonour the necessities prescribed by Christ to the ultimate and intimate levels for every man, can cast shame directly or indirectly on His deity, on His dealings and crisp communication as God to man, while agreements and consensus can interplay like potassium cyanide with milk.
|
|
The complex combination of honour thus becomes an
item |
|
|
As to Christ, His exclusion utterly
|
|
|
Never did honour so drape the rejected |
|
|
Never did the wrath of God (as applied in John
3:36) |
THINGS CHRISTIAN AND ANTI-CHRISTIAN
While this is a certain type of politics, it is anti-Christian in this, that it forsakes the REQUIREMENTS of Jesus Christ. If then HE is not essential for ANY religious admiration (if something kills, it is not relevant to health, if it tastes nice ? ), and even for spiritually envisaged co-operation with what denies His essential work and salvation, what is the reason for this ? Is it that it is deemed helpful so to act and so to speak, for the USA and other nations ? When this occurs, then that nation which so acts becomes involved in counter-faith activities.
|
|
It then as a nation becomes not merely unbound to Christ; |
|
|
it is binding what is contrary to Him as spiritually acceptable. |
When, then, there is even a forwarding of spiritual co-operation for the nation, though millions in it may be bound to Christ, while in the USA case, there has been a maintaining of the name of Christ in the background, on the way to presidential election: the whole country is compromised. If it wanted new things*3A, it should have seen far sooner just of what kind they were! What follows ?
Such a nation is then not only to a significant if declining extent free, one which excludes force from religion wisely; but it is also more. It then becomes part of the coalition of the willing. In this case, willing for what ? Willing to co-operate spiritually with, and to congratulate or have respect for, what damns. That is the biblical and actual position, and it is that in which much of the power and greatness of that nation has been built, in vast institutions, missions and numbers of Presidents, not excluding the pious Abraham Lincoln.
That is the NEW COALITION OF THE WILLING; and it will prosper for a little while as the grace of God is the more distanced in its categorical necessity (Romans 3:23ff., Galatians 3, 5), and the work both of imagination and co-operation, of disparities and dubious dynamics grows in man, in order to survive, that he might die the more healthily. It is a patch over the one eye, while the other is being blinded.
When is this becoming and to what end does it begin to reach, for this misled race ? It so moves when the contemporary necessity for survival, so touted, becomes at last what it is, mere folly, short-term weakness for long-term death. You can borrow and borrow financially until the future is mortgaged, the present is compromised by alien powers and your over use of funds becomes an indolence of ruin or a greed without ultimate gain; and you can do this with Mammon or truth. You can tolerate the lie*3B in order to gain prosperity, or even life; but the truth will not tolerate what you then tolerate, and the ruins of your flamboyant spiritual aeronautics then become the divine comment on your overreaching innovations. This is the spiritual flight in that domain. If it is grievous, is it yet to be ignored!
As pointed out in previously*4 , it is perfectly possible for a would-be president to make it clear beforehand that he has immutable morals and that these are Christian, and that he himself is a Christian and THEN, without forcing anyone to believe or applying sanctions to faith or disfaith, he could consistently seek to implement conditions and principles of this kind. That would, biblically of course, mean no advancement for would-be same gender marriages or other distortions of design. People are free still in their choices, but not to be assisted by law.
Rather, just as in one agenda, they are penalised for saying this or that unfavoured by trans-genderites, so here, they are not assisted by legal provisions for their moral innovations. There is equity. The nation is then not swayed to endorse what is contrary to the stated morals of the would-be President before His domain arrives, nor does it use any kind of force to require conformity. Its position is not morally emasculated, to be sure, but neither is it religiously oppressive. It does not advance what it is against, and it does not force conformity in private conduct.
What is public, whether in one thing or another, it either endorses or disapproves. If it leaves it open, it endorses its PROPRIETY. That is a position, a philosophy. Not so to endorse is another. Free people can decide either way; and their nation AS ONE WHOLE will assuredly take the consequences. It is one thing to be discriminatory, abusing equity and persecuting those who differ; it is quite another to lack discrimination, that is, in the sense of due understanding and wise and prudent consideration, and to rush headlong into any pit that some seek to construct. There is truth and error; there is folly and wisdom. People in a nation can choose; and in a free nation, they may choose to subvert the designer morals (cf. Deity and Design ... and cf. Romans 1), or not. ALL take the consequences; EACH may choose.
The resultant will profoundly affect the nation, one way or another. To elect a Christian president with a biblical basis, that is one thing. To elect one with a mutable christ is another. That is precisely WHY many should have realised what was happening when in a pre-election speech, Obama including the biblically defined perversion element in his embrace. That, it is merely one example. To proceed now as has happened in the Islamic direction, that is one of the results to be expected from such a beginning, although to be sure, if possible, it amplifies it. Euphoria then too late, becomes realisation. Remember what the word of God declares: TEST ALL THINGS. For the Commander in Chief of the armed forcers, this is all the more, a very good idea!
What then ?
ALL laws will be cast in one or other ideological mode. Even if the aim is to combine, many things are contraries and even contradictories. Hence some way of handling this fact HAS to be found. If it is this, that the moral desires of some are to be made relative, and anything goes, then that IS the moral approach: moral oblivion. Its end is in the same place as its beginning...
There is always an approach. If a Christian President, having boldly and without fawning made his PERSONAL position clear at the pre-selection meetings, then favours the kind of principles he stated to be his, then that is fine, so long as he does not force people to say they agree with him, or like his principles, or penalise them for their faiths by punishment for private practice or divergent views even if publicly expressed. If would however be just as improper for him to negative his principles in using all his power, limited though it be, as a basis for evaluation in seeking law. Every President will in effect implement in terms of a perspective.
If some want to surrender their faith and principles and morals in order to be President, that is sad. There is no need if they have stated their position clearly before selection. The sale of the soul is not a necessity for rule over a free people; it merely misleads if it were possible, the elect. The truth in the soul will always determine it in the end; and we will continue to hope that if it is there, in a given leader, then that EVENTUAL OUTCOME will appear. A good tree DOES bear good fruit and in the eyes of Him who said this, false prophets are not those who think they are wise, or their ways are wise, for on the contrary, this is one of their distinctive features, but who depart from the law, morality, grace gift and goodness of the living God, their Designer and Guide.
Such is the confusion, that if some President wants to make creation-evolution (as Bush did), an issue for non-domineering, non-proclamatory approach, so that people confer about it, he may; and if another wants to make it a non-issue and act as if this ludicrously anti-evidential thought of organic evolution is a fact, as Obama did, he may.
BOTH one will observe, have personally spoken according to conviction. Neither has forced things; though what more Obama will do after such a daft and unscientific statement as that*5, is yet to be found. If internationally he can display deep appreciation for what is contrary to his apparent convictions as a Christian (not an inventor of a new christ), as is the case, he may likewise seek practical implementations nationally of what is contrary to Christ with much appreciation likewise: not only in the grace of kindness and equity, but in the voice of compromise as well.
Compromise with the Bible in the name of Christ is not new.
It is as old as the day Paul who rebuked it in the strongest terms (II Corinthians 11); and in essence, this spirit goes back to covetous Balaam (Numbers 22, Jude 11), on to Jeremiah's day (Jeremiah 23), was rife in that of Isaiah (Isaiah 1-3, 6, 28:5ff, 29:10-13), and was abhorrent in that of Malachi. Moreover, as to the approach, it was manifest in the crucifixion prelude, when PRIESTS indeed, and in the name of God, sought to kill and proceeded to implement their desire, the very One they affected to serve. Change when it comes to God, the revealed Creator and Redeemer, has its end there; but the resurrection provides the testimony of the power of truth, which the lie cannot overcome.
As to duplicity, the duplex, the polynomial god, without ceasing to speak of the one and true God: this phenomenon has a long history; but before long this is to cease.
CROSS-BREEDING RELIGIONS
Cross-breeding religions for spiritual co-operation and deep appreciation (for the spirit of the thing is crucial, God Himself BEING a Spirit), brings spiritual poodles of no strength, except for evil. How can one say this ? Readily, for it is the assured logical resultant of following the words of Jesus Christ, the one NOT made up millenia later! It is He who did the job of dying for life, cancelling penalty for believers in Him, even death row's outcome, by His own denudation and death amid calumny, mockery and jibes, often combined with physical lashing and piercings. It is not another. It is not an invention of roving spirit but a convention of truth and judgment, met together on Him, because of love, effective because of innocence, routing death because of His deity, in the resurrection. There is none other to earn the name, do the deed.
What then ?
The way, said HE, is NARROW and few enter through it (Matthew 7:15ff.). Not a jot or tittle of the law or the prophets will pass. His words will remain though heaven and earth pass - as those current bodies indeed will (Matthew 24:35 cf. Isaiah 51:6, II Peter 3), and that in manner spectacular enough, as was the creation.
HOW narrow, then, is the way ? I AM THE DOOR, He cried, all who came before are thieves and robbers! NO MAN, cried He, comes to the Father EXCEPT BY ME (John 14:6). It is as narrow as that. Following Him, false prophets (Matthew 24:24) and for that matter, false christs. ONLY ONE was heralded in detail, fulfilled in particular, and has a Gospel similarly foretold by centuries, and fulfilled and being fulfilled to this day. Mind has no other matter (The Meaning of Liberty and the Message of Remedy).
You can invent a parroting 'christ' who agrees with some syncretistic philosophy, but that is mere asinine plagiarism. You take words to attribute to Him or remove His words, and so make what is not yours to be added to what is, in order to create a christ option that is mere piracy.
Indeed, Jesus Christ's NAME is so great that many do this, since there is never even a logical possibility that any other name can provide access to God *6. Hence contemptible misuse of His name is desired by many, in order to create a world peace, whether between Islam and Christianity, or the USA and the Islamic world domination thrust, this or that power group or miserable renegade thrust, whether with respect to this book or nation or group or in that. Pretending that categorical opposites are combinable may be an exercise in corrupt public relations, but it is not a logical possibility, If one holds to what defines itself as immiscible, as Christianity does (Revelation 22 and Matthew 5 are merely examples of this fact ... cf. SMR Appendix C and D), and so seeks to mix: then it is an exercise in irrationality, a default into urbanity, a regenacy from truth and a motion into fables, myths and whatever else cannot cohere with reason or reality. As such it is of course precisely what is predicted (II Timothy 4:1ff.)
When Obama added this of the "Islamic faith" that "it has done so much over the centuries to shape the world", he evidently was not talking of its near military take-over of Europe, stopped in 732 A.D. in a massive encounter. It was on the heels of his other utterance, that "we will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith". The context therefore would not permit such a distortion. He was referring to what in his opinion was a good thing, worthy of appreciation. It was not the military power but the more constructive works of the Islamic faith to which he referred.
The question however is not one of mathematics or architecture. When you are speaking of THE ISLAMIC FAITH, you are not discussing hair styles, but the configuration and power and basic impact of this religious movement. Islam did do much to shape the world, and nearly shaped Europe into one of its provinces. However the MANNER of imposition of it was force. The rest is relatively insignificant when you speak of the 'faith' in broad general terms as here, in the field of appreciation. If Hitler helped with the Volkswagen's origin, does this become a relevant issue when you are discussing in general terms, the NAZI FAITH ? Would it linger in your mind in such a context, as relevant to note, when the totality is the object of reference ?
Obviously not. You would have in a short reference in an evaluating context, to take the main ingredients, the active ones, the motivating ones first. Thus this is to bury the vital realities of force which was used, denial of the salvation of Jesus Christ which was central with the affirmation of Islamic faith through Allah and his man, and degradations innumerable following where the said Islamic faith was not made on object of spiritual transfer, as frequently when it was resisted or rejected because untrue or unvalidated or unverified or when it wasunseemly in practice in murder and mayhem.
One of the key points in any religious faith is obviously GOD. One of the key points in any approach to God is this, WHO IS HE! One of the key points in any approach to finding out is this, WHO HAS COME FROM HIM. Islam says Christ was fine and the Old Testament prophets were fine (in complete contradiction of the realities from their own perspective - cf. SMR 1080ff.), but He was not DEITY, and His sacrificial atonement is not even mentioned as the way to heaven, whereas numerous nostrums are stressed repeatedly.
A different christ is invented, some 6 centuries after the One who made a Name which none has ever equalled in simple performance criteria, let alone prophetic fulfilments terms, to the last point of accuracy. This invented christ is part of Islam. It is a necessary part since Muhammad made of his utterances the final version of the matter, and Christ is stripped of His place of deity acting as vicarious substitute for sin and Saviour. Another christ is created in the Koran, and he is confused inexcusably with Jesus Christ.
Hence the appreciation of the contribution of Islam in this survey where the spiritual has to be in view, since it is statedly primary as well as actually so in practical reality, this becomes at the personal level a simple denial of the place of Christ. it is not deemed infinitely wrong to move contrary to His status and salvation, as in Islam; no, it is rather displayed as a matter of deep appreciation, the existence and performance of this religion. But one may say: Surely it is not this to which Obama referred ? for there is much else in Islam.
Such might be said, but not logically. Thus the FIRST consideration is WHO is GOD and how do you find Him, with totally divergent answers from Christ, and the subsequent Muhammad who used Old Testament and Christian things with alterations or additions, but made no logically based verification available for his own presentation. Force was the impact, whether in the entry into Mecca and the results of enforcements, and whatever is thought after that, the constant battle-oriented thrusts were basic. They produced 'converts', pleased Allah and brought into sight, rewards in heaven.
If then the way to God is denied, as it is defined by Jesus Christ in total monopoly AS GOD speaking of God, centuries before Muhammad, millenia after the divine predictions in the Old Testament, all fulfilled or being fulfilled, what then ? If this word, as defined indeed by God the sent speaking of God the sender (as in Isaiah 48:16, John 1, 5, 8, 12), be treated equivocally or degradingly, then there are results. Then the basic thrust of the approach being wrong, the insidious or mutant contribution is potentially lethal, the imposition is disaster and the movement is that of a false prophet, as forecast by Christ.
Any relativisation, any normalisation of relationships between the two becomes betrayal of the one. THIS does not mean war: Christ did not send His Church to make war or even to use force (John 18:36), for HIS kingdom, in this also contrary to that of Muhammad, does not use force in this arena. Rome like Muhammad DID use force, popes in this like Muhammad, used it a lot; but in the specifically Christian domain, it is excluded. Any sect, be it in the Middle East or in Rome, may use force and both of these have done so; but this is a type justly contrary to the ineffable beauty and truth of Christ, who insisted that spiritual things be not a matter of the trade and impact of force. That is not what this Age is for, but for the free proclamation of the Gospel, so often harried, harassed or prevented in many Islamic countries.
It is not for Christ that men are to fight battles. You may defend your country; but in religious terms, it is not to be a war for Christ. You may protect your country against religious or other take-over from mere force; but you may not in Christ's name seek to extend His kingdom by such use (John 18:36). His kingdom is of a different kind already, a fact the priests in His day ignored; and even Pilate, the false Governor, did not have the effrontery to suggest that it was.
Hence all the efforts at peace would not be so misplaced, IF only they were not extraneously and irrelevantly and sacrilegiously combined with religious characterisations. These are neither necessary nor wise. Whether fear or ambition, cunning or deceit, lack of faith or deviousness, indeed whatever the cause of such errors, they merely defile the testimony of Christ, bypass the realities of it, and dishonour Him in whose defence alone there is any safety.
In such ways, now, and not now only but for some time past, the United States of America, in so much so generous, to so many so liberal, with such multitudes seeking zealously to serve Christ, gracious and godly, is being betrayed. It is not only in word; alas, when righteousness exalts a nation, sin is a shame to any people. Alas, neither Britain, which made in some ways a very fair showing for a time, nor the USA, nor any can be the cynosure or praise, or indeed contend for primacy; for only Christ has that. In His day, which is well on the way (Acts 1:7ff., SMR Ch. 8), only the Lord will be glorified. Isaiah declares precisely this (Isaiah 2:10-11, cf. Micah 7, Revelation 19).
PURPOSE AND PITY
Why then is it necessary to write these things ? There are several needs.
Firstly, it is necessary in all sympathy and kindness to warn people of what is the nature of the innovative fresh look being given, with something more than gloss, to the USA.
Secondly, it is good to warn biblical Christians and those who aspire to be, that the things regarding the syncretic, paranoid principles of religious parade and facade are far further advanced than some might think; and that the state of the (often fallen) churches is in perfect parallel (as for example indicated in News 121, 122, as in SMR Ch. 8, Lord of Life ... Ch. 4, Things Old and New Ch. 10).
Thus, the horrendous alliance of false religion and soaring political ambition as foretold, is moving like a rocket at last ignited, and beginning to sway off the launching pad.
Thirdly, it is to warn fellow travellers with the innovative creep (for rockets taking off in the first few seconds, do seem to creep, in vast contrast with what happens a few seconds further on in the program), that it would be good to avoid that rocket. Like Challenger, it can go far; but not for long. Its early beginnings in this case, involved with many participants from varied quarters, have slowly gathered force and certainty appear lively in their contributions to lift-off.
Clarity beyond the haze is rising, but slowly.
Fourthly, it is apt to encourage biblical Christians, pointing out that instead of being duped by the Obama adminstration's increasingly obvious actual circuit compared with the apparent one, they should note its direction and pursue the Lord's, acting not in apposition but in opposition. This is far from saying that it is all evil, or to encourage political turmoil: it IS to declare that spiritual opposition and awareness is the more essential, for the forces that will mislead are coming more and more profoundly in the political ascendant, as forecast by the Bible (cf. SMR pp. 502-516, 659-691, Answers to Questions Ch. 5).
As to the current political position, there are undoubtedly good strands in it, like good wire in a bomb. Nevertheless, in all things political, moral, ethical and religious, especially when in composition together, as THIS is, it is wise to realise that it is a matter of great import to note two things.
The first is the basis of the system and the second is the direction. From this, just as with rockets, so when using the Biblical depiction of last things for our Age, it becomes increasingly clear what is the end of it. Here the multi-praised duet of biblical and unbiblical, cacophonic though it be, together with the survival in composition together motif, for nations and religions, provides both a sense of dire direction and (lack of) basis (cf. Dastardly Dynamics Ch. 10).
The explosive results for the rocket, though it starts slowly in gentle uplift, remind one of Challenger. Disruption and dispersal is the finale (Revelation 19:19ff., II Thessalonians 1). If it has much power, it has more impact when it is abruptly terminated. It is this which will become apparent. Many 'fine' words precede the end (cf. Revelation 16:13ff., Daniel 7:20, II Peter 2:18ff.), some of them most devious (II Peter 2:1ff.). It is predicted that a certain 'swelling' feature will be amongst their qualities!
But the end comes, and the participants cannot be ambiguous. They are set with or against it all (cf. Revelation 13).
So this rocket moves to its end. That is, it is so unless it changes direction, and another quickly replace it. This end will come; its various participants ? some are yet to be defined in the case of the individual lives concerned. There is yet time at this level.
One cannot but hope that Obama will do just this, and change; for one hates to see anything going the wrong way, towards what is not to be desired, not godly in essence, for alas, intentions are not the same as reality. However, should he not void this perilous path and strange synthesis of approbation, then all the motives, now at least five, for writing this Chapter retain their place. Only the fifth should not through change of heart cease to be applicable, yet to the leaders concerned it would still apply.
If many do not heed ? what then! The matter of hope just mentioned, it is a worthy and a Christian one (cf. I Corinthians 13:7); and indeed, it is not without wisdom to seek good, even if some of the labour at last should be lost.