1 Chron 12:32 report, 54: The Ezekiel 3 warning and the duty of courageous prophetic intellectual and cultural leadership

A current Washington Times editorial sums up an utterly revealing encounter in 2001, between Registered Nurse Mrs Jill Stanek and then state-level legislator Mr Barak Hussein Obama, in the Illinois State Legislature:

Mrs. Stanek worked at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois from 1993 to 2001. When she worked in the hospital's Labor and Delivery Department she saw that babies who survived abortion attempts were left to die alone in supply rooms. They could linger for as long as eight hours, without medical care, without even the dignity of a warm blanket or a soft touch. Their tiny bodies were then dumped in the trash. Mr. Obama's spiritual mentor served on the board of the hospital. Mrs. Stanek went on a public crusade to protect these children.

At a 2001 Illinois legislature hearing, Mr. Obama questioned Mrs. Stanek. She insisted that children needed medical care if they were born alive. Mr. Obama said: "Ms. Stanek, your initial testimony last year showed your dismay at the lack of regard for human life. I agreed with you last year and we suggested that there be a Comfort Room or something of that nature be done. The hospital acknowledged that and changes were made and you are still unimpressed. It sounds to me like you are really not interested in how these fetus [es] are treated, but rather not providing absolutely any medical care or life to them."

Mrs. Stanek replied: "What the hospital did was try to make things look better. What it really is, is that the baby is still dead". . . .

Where is our civilisation heading?

A pause to refresh our memories on the key second paragraph of the United States Declaration of Independence, July 4th 1776, gives a key part of the answer:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, [cf Rom 1:18 - 21, 2:14 - 15], that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security . . . .

"We hold these truths to be self-evident . . . "

A phrase that too often sounds strange to us today. But, the meaning of this phrase derived from Romans 1:18 - 20, is actually quite simple:

Once (a) we understand what the key words used to state a self-evident truth speak of and (b) we see how they are connected in light of our experience of reality [applying a modicum of common sense!], we will immediately also see that (c) it must be true. So, the attempted denial of a self-evident truth will only end in patent absurdities, underscoring the force of the truth.

A classic example, following Josiah Royce, is: error exists.

If we attempt to deny it, we would have to be claiming that the original claim would be an error -- confirming that the original claim was in fact true. In short, it is undeniably, self-evidently true that error exists. (So, wise men and nations will be humble before the possibility of error and will be open to well-warranted correction. Sadly, the long history of the march of folly shows that this humility is too often the exception, not the rule.)

In the case of the American Declaration of Independence of 1776, it is asserting that we have a common root in our Creator and Lord, and so we have fundamental equality.

Thus, we can make a reasonable moral demand that our lives, liberties and freedom to fulfill ourselves under God must be respected by one and all. Attempts to deny such -- even those that are propped up by the abuse of the prestigious name of "Science" -- invariably end in utter absurdity.

When implemented on the ground, such absurdities end in tyranny, and too often in mass slaughter and chaos. (Any resemblance to the picture Jesus painted as he wept over Jerusalem and the world in Matt 24 is NOT coincidental.)

So, now, let us look a little closer at the above cited exchange:

First, the now president-elect of the United States summarised Mrs Stanek's key concern: ". . . dismay at the lack of regard for human life."

He then said he agreed with it and that the state legislature then set about what he clearly thought was an appropriate and acceptable corrective measure: "we suggested that there be a Comfort Room or something of that nature be done."

Mrs Stanek's reply -- and plea for mercy to and rescue for those innocents about to die -- was devastating: "What the hospital did was try to make things look better. What it really is, is that the baby is still dead."

Thus lies revealed utter absurdity, outright moral bankruptcy and even -- sadly -- hardness of heart joined to sin-darkened closedness of mind.

A moral absurdity that has now cost 48 million children in America their lives since 1973; most of them unborn, a telling few, even after they had survived abortion and were born despite the best efforts to kill them in the womb.

A sadly portentous absurdity, on the principle that track record is an excellent predictor of onward behaviour.

[And, my native land, Jamaica, is currently contemplating the same moral outrage and absurdity! For shame! "Eternal Father, bless our land . . . Give us true respect for all. Stir response to duty's call. Strengthen us the weak to cherish. Send us vision, lest we perish . . . "]

Where, then, is our civilisation headed, and why?

What, then, should we -- as God's people in the Caribbean -- do?

Plainly, first, we must seek and have courage to heed the counsel of God to be watchmen on the wall for our region.

For instance, in Ezekiel 3, we read (in the classic KJV):

Ez 3:4 And he said unto me [Ezekiel], Son of man, go, get thee unto the house of Israel, and speak with my words unto them.

5For thou art not sent to a people of a strange speech and of an hard language, but to the house of Israel;

6Not to many people of a strange speech and of an hard language, whose words thou canst not understand. Surely, had I sent thee to them, they would have hearkened unto thee.

7But the house of Israel will not hearken unto thee; for they will not hearken unto me: for all the house of Israel are impudent and hardhearted.

8Behold, I have made thy face strong against their faces, and thy forehead strong against their foreheads.

9As an adamant harder than flint have I made thy forehead: fear them not, neither be dismayed at their looks, though they be a rebellious house.

10Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, all my words that I shall speak unto thee receive in thine heart, and hear with thine ears.

11And go, get thee to them of the captivity, unto the children of thy people, and speak unto them, and tell them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear . . . .

17Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me.

18When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

19Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

20Again, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumbling-block before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

21Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous man, that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou hast delivered thy soul.

This grim, usually unpopular, often painful -- and sometimes, frankly dangerous -- duty has not diminished one iota in our day.

So, in the face of a civilisation that -- having increasingly insisted on turning its back on and dismissing then forgetting God, our Creator, Lord and Saviour -- is now falling ever faster into the absurdities, follies and horrors that stem from such rebellion, we must have the courage to stand up and speak the truth that men do not want to hear; even as they may flock to those who will tickle itching ears with what they want to hear.

If some few listen and heed, they will at least turn back from destruction.

If many do not, we have done our duty of the corrective truth under God.

But, let that truth be spoken with a tear, from a broken heart; not from a gloat or a rage that shows ungodly hostility.

However, our duty as the people of God amidst the nations does not end there:

TIT 2:11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. 12 It teaches us to say "No" to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, 13 while we wait for the blessed hope--the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.

In short, we have to renew our commitment to the duty of evangelism, missions and discipleship, seeking to reshape our lives in light of the foundational principles of Hebrews 6:1 - 2:

F1 -2: “the foundation of repentance . . . and of faith in God”: Learning to trust and serve God in Christ, through (1) repentance: changing our hearts and minds in surrender to God, and (2) faith: trusting God based on his Word. [Isaiah 55:1 - 9; Rom. 1:1 - 4, 16 - 17; 4:4 - 8 & 10:17; Heb. 11:6.]

F3: “instruction about baptisms”: Celebrating death to sin, new life in Christ, transformation of life, eternal hope under God, and the indwelling and empowering Spirit, through water baptism — a symbolic burial and resurrection. [Matt 28:18 – 20, Rom. 6:3 - 7, cf. 1 - 14; Acts 1:4 - 8 & 2:32 - 39; Rom 8:9 - 17; 1 Cor 12:1 - 13 & Eph. 5:15 - 21.]

F4: “instruction about . . . the laying on of hands”: Learning the principle of service from the laying on of hands: our hands, but God's initiative, control and power. [Acts 8:14 - 23, 2 Cor 4:1 - 11.]

F5 – 6: “instruction about . . . the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment”: Living life from an eternal point of view: Jesus rose, validating the gospel and giving us an eternal hope of resurrection. But this also means that God "has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed," Christ. Accordingly, we must live as stewards who shall give an account for our lives and service, before the bar of eternal judgement. [Acts 17:30 - 31; 1 Cor 3:10 - 17, 4:1 - 5, 15:1 - 8; Matt. 6:19 - 24; 2 Cor 4:17 - 5:10.]

The need for such grounding and for such a focus is multiplied by the cumulative force of the trends our Lord outlined in Matt 24:

[1] the rise of mass deception,

[2] spreading tidal waves of chaos in nature, society and the political world,

[3] the countervailing communication of the gospel to all nations.

First, in a civilisation whose centres of power, opinion-shaping and education are plainly increasingly going to be captured by men in open and obviously absurd rebellion against God, this means that we have to create effective alternatives that teach the truth, train in living by the truth, and correct errors and deceptions.

Thus, in an age where the logistics and economics of the Internet increasingly dominate all forms of tele-communication, we see the priority of building a regional Cyber-Campus based, discipleship, missions and reformation oriented college with a network of local micro-campus centres based on churches, businesses, community centres and the like. Such a network also provides the crucial human capacity we need to carry forward the rest of what needs to be done.

Second, we not only face a world of natural disasters and resulting chaos such as the hurricanes that recently devastated our sister Caribbean islands, but we face an age of war; one in which the Islamist -- note the distinction from ordinary Muslims -- vision of invincible end-times black flag armies bringing the world under absolute subjection to the Islamic regime of the Mahdi and his lieutenant Prophet Isa [= "Jesus," as he is understood by many Muslims in light of Islamic teachings . . . ], is likely to cause a tremendous surge in terrorism, chaos and full-bore wars. (God willing, more on this "soon.")

Widespread war leads to famine and economic chaos.

So, we must prepare to handle and provide succor to those suffering from disasters and privations in our region, and in the wider world. That strongly suggests the need for creating a regional network of Christian aid and support agencies, with a mercy and missions focussed charter. For this, I strongly suggest that we take captive to the obedience of Christ the sustainability vision that is now such an international buzz word.

Third, we must realise that we the Christians of the Caribbean are a potentially critical global resource for the global mission of the church.

For, as the world's first cosmopolitan region, with a population largely descended from the peoples of the 10/40 window, and who through brought here under slavery and colonial oppression were in significant measure liberated and empowered through the gospel, we have an intrinsic credibility that is simply unique. In addition, our cosmopolitan cultural mix makes us into bridging people who are well able to help people find peace with God, and under God with one another -- if we equip ourselves with sound approaches informed by Godly insights instead of ideas deriving from sin-darkened misunderstandings shaped by our civilisation's accelerating rebellion against God.

Indeed, a reasonable calculation similar to that used by the Chinese church under its Back to Jerusalem vision, leads to the insight that our global missions potential is about 8,000. I doubt that we are even near five percent of that figure.

So, will we rise to the challenge to provide prophetic intellectual and cultural leadership in today's kairos? END

Matt 24 Watch, 74: "Watch out that no one deceives you . . . "

Today, we need to address a neglected aspect of the church's serious business of un-deception.

The title for this post [and the wider series that now reaches post no. 74] comes from Matt 24:4, where in context we see a conversation between Jesus and his disciples during the Passion Week, as events raced to their climax on that fateful first Good Friday:

MT 24:1 Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2 "Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."

MT 24:3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"

MT 24:4 Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in my name, claiming, `I am the Christ, ' and will deceive many. 6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of birth pains.

MT 24:9 "Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13 but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

In short, there are three major signs of the end of our age and the second coming of our Lord:

[1] the rise of mass deception,

[2] spreading tidal waves of chaos in nature, society and the political world,

[3] the countervailing inexorable communication of the gospel to all nations.

All three of these are increasingly present in our time.

In order to effectively go about the third -- the real sign of the end, and our primary mandate as the church -- we must be able to handle the disrupting, distracting, confusing and damaging implications of the first two. And, given the way the factors involved in the second sign tend to work together, it should not surprise us that desperate people wanting explanations, hope and rescue will be very vulnerable to political, ideological and religious pseudo-messianism as major contexts for the spreading of entangling deceptions.

Indeed, even science itself -- as we have seen in recent posts -- too often becomes captive to ideology, and serves the cause of deception.

So, we see that the business of "un-deception" (as C S Lewis termed it in his collection of essays on Undeceptions) becomes a key part of the gospel-based spiritual warfare that we must engage.

Also, if we are to be faithful in contending for the faith once for all delivered to the saints, we have no alternative but to engage deception where it lives. And, the habitat for deception is often at the nexus of science, falsely so called, ideology, the politics of false hopes and -- as Rev 13 points out -- with false or apostate religion in close support.

That immediately means that a relevant presentation of the gospel -- one that cuts across the popular deceptions of any time and place -- will necessarily be in part controversial. Thus, it will be resented, rejected and opposed by those who naively set their hopes on or calculatingly hope to profit by deception.

So, it is no wonder that Jesus warns of of hostility, persecution and falling away from the faith!

So also, as times race to the culmination of the age of the gospel, we face increasingly intense worldview war, with the serious possibility of persecution, suffering and even martyrdom. (Let us not forget that Stephen was both the first Christian Apologist and -- precisely because "they could not stand up against his wisdom or the Spirit by whom he spoke" [Ac 6:10] -- the first martyr.)

The Amplified rendering of 2 Cor 10:4 - 5 is especially plain on a key facet of that warfare:

2 Cor 10:4For the weapons of our warfare are not physical [weapons of flesh and blood], but they are mighty before God for the overthrow and destruction of strongholds,

5[Inasmuch as we] refute arguments and theories and reasonings and every proud and lofty thing that sets itself up against the [true] knowledge of God; and we lead every thought and purpose away captive into the obedience of Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed One),

I find it interesting that we often tend to over-"spiritualise" this passage, through an over-emphasis on the spirituality of the weapons involved. But plainly, the main issues are those of breaking the power of lies and opening the door to the liberating en-light-enment of the gospel.

But, doesn't it talk about leading "every throught away captive into the obedience of Christ?

But of course: to be captive to the truth, not the error is the ironic path of true intellectual and moral freedom!

To see that, it is illuminating to read Col 2:3 in the NIV: ". . . Christ, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."

In short, Christ is Truth himself, and Reason himself; manifested to us with power by the resurrection from the dead, with over five hundred eyewitnesses and awesome supernatural resurrection power shown in the transforming impact of the gospel, right down to today. So, the church's task embraces that courageous prophetic intellectual and cultural leadership that targets the critical cracks in the foundation of deceptive worldviews, then proclaims, explains, correctively warrants and calls for appropriate response to the truth.

Paul's opening words to the Athenian intellectuals in Acts 17 are an iconic, classic example:

AC 17:22 Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you . . .

Here, the proud guardians of the West's intellectual, artistic and democratic traditions had been honest enough to literally build a monument to their ignroance on the single most important point of all knowledge: God. And, in passing through the Agora that was yet haunted by the ghost of Socrates, the Areopagites met there a man preaching and discussing what it meant with passersby; similar to what the founder of Western Philosophy had been wont to.

Now, the Areopagites of Paul's day were disciples of Socrates, not like their forebears who had unjustly put him to death for being an intellectual gadfly. But, Paul seemed to them to be a half-baked intellectual seed-plucker purveying half-understood ideas:

Ac 17:18 A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him. Some of them asked, "What is this babbler [spermologos] trying to say?" Others remarked, "He seems to be advocating foreign gods." They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection.

At least, they had the basic "brought-up-cy" to be civil to him, expressing that civlility with a subtle urbanity that reflects well on their sophistication and schooling:

Ac 17:19 Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, "May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? 20 You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we want to know what they mean."

Of course -- as we just saw -- they got a lot more than the intellectual titillation they bargained for. For, with his opening words, he laid bare the key crack in their whole system of thought and life. Then, he spoke to the God who is our Creator, and who has not left us without an adequate witness to his divine nature and moral requirements, as Romans 1 - 2 so eloquently amplifies.

Then, as he brought his challenge to the Athenian intellectuals to a climax, Paul remarked:

AC 17:26 From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27 God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28 `For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, `We are his offspring.'

AC 17:29 "Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone--an image made by man's design and skill. 30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."

Paul also sets out the challenging ethical standard for Christian preaching and persuasion:

2 Cor 4:1Therefore, since through God's mercy we have this ministry, we do not lose heart.2Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

A sobering challenge. And, the marker of the border between a proper call to repentance, renewal of heart mind and life, and reformation of the community, culture, civilisation and its institutions, and deceptive manipulation, distortion and brainwashing.

Indeed, this brings back to mind the shock I felt when some twenty years ago, I first studied the Schein-Lewin model of change as a social-psychological process, in the context of having to address a manipulative sect preying on students in my university. For, that model shows that change rests on a basic, fairly simple process, one that is common to many, many situations, ranging from the innocuous and inconsequential to the utterly destructive:

I --> FROZEN: Normally, our social and institutional environment tends to lock us into roles, expectations, perceptions and relationships. that may be a happy experience, or an entrapping one that we find hard to escape.

II --> UNFREEZING: If one is isolated from that matrix, physically, situationally, emotionally, or by its real or imagined collapse, one finds oneself disoriented and open to . . .

III --> CHANGING: Based on the example of others in a new situation, or on "discovering" and using then internalising messages and models for a new way of operating that seems to work "better," one is induced to move to a new way of thinking, relating, speaking and acting. (Too often, the new messages and models are "conveniently" available, and their limitations, gaps or fallacies are even more "conveniently" neatly suppressed.)

IV --> REFREEZING: Over time, the new way may gel, setting itself in a locked-in condition similar to the old. This may be based in part on a new set of views and values, or it may simply be a sustained response to the imperative to get along with the powerful and thus survive and if possible thrive in a new situation.

The shocking part is that such processes can equally happen in beneficial, high-integrity ways, or in destructive, deceptive, manipulative ones. Indeed, the real difference between repentance and renewal on one hand and outright brainwashing on the other is in the integrity of the process and its leaders. A high integrity change process respects people, and acts in light of the truth and the right (as well as the struggle we all have to consistently do the truth and the right).

Manipulative change processes, by contrast, use deception, indoctrinate the naive and trusting with half-truths, suppress material truth that would lead people to make a better -- but not so agenda-serving decision -- and, in general, show themselves in a ruthlessness that disrespects people and the Rom 13:8 - 10 duty to do no harm as a key expression of neighbour-love. The Gramsci-Alinski Rules for Radicals methodology [in which US Presidential Candidate Mr Obama was trained, as Alinski's son testifies], unfortunately, abundantly (and highly relevantly) illustrates the latter. And, in light of its evident impact on our region, we must address it. So, we now turn to this highly relevant example of the challenge we face.

First, the Hoover Institution in a 2001 policy study on "Why there is a Culture War," aptly sums up the Neo-Marxist (surprise! -- NOT . . .) way of thought of Antonio Gramsci, the key theoretician:

Gramsci’s main legacy arises through his departures from orthodox Marxism. Like Marx, he argued that all societies in human history have been divided into two basic groups: the privileged and the marginalized, the oppressor and the oppressed, the dominant and the subordinate. Gramsci expanded Marx’s ranks of the "oppressed" into categories that still endure. As he wrote in his famous Prison Notebooks, "The marginalized groups of history include not only the economically oppressed, but also women, racial minorities and many ‘criminals.’" What Marx and his orthodox followers described as "the people," Gramsci describes as an "ensemble" of subordinate groups and classes in every society that has ever existed until now. This collection of oppressed and marginalized groups — "the people" — lack unity and, often, even consciousness of their own oppression. To reverse the correlation of power from the privileged to the "marginalized," then, was Gramsci’s declared goal.

Power, in Gramsci’s observation, is exercised by privileged groups or classes in two ways: through domination, force, or coercion; and through something called "hegemony," which means the ideological supremacy of a system of values that supports the class or group interests of the predominant classes or groups. Subordinate groups, he argued, are influenced to internalize the value systems and world views of the privileged groups and, thus, to consent to their own marginalization.

Far from being content with a mere uprising, therefore, Gramsci believed that it was necessary first to delegitimize the dominant belief systems of the predominant groups and to create a "counter-hegemony" (i.e., a new system of values for the subordinate groups) before the marginalized could be empowered. Moreover, because hegemonic values permeate all spheres of civil society -- schools, churches, the media, voluntary associations -- civil society itself, he argued, is the great battleground in the struggle for hegemony, the "war of position." From this point, too, followed a corollary for which Gramsci should be known (and which is echoed in the feminist slogan) — that all life is "political." Thus, private life, the work place, religion, philosophy, art, and literature, and civil society, in general, are contested battlegrounds in the struggle to achieve societal transformation.

. . . . Marx had argued that for revolutionary social transformation to be successful, the world views of the predominant groups must first be unmasked as instruments of domination. In classical Marxism, this crucial task of demystifying and delegitimizing the ideological hegemony of the dominant groups is performed by intellectuals. Gramsci, more subtly, distinguishes between two types of intellectuals: "traditional" and "organic." What subordinate groups need, Gramsci maintains, are their own "organic intellectuals." However, the defection of "traditional" intellectuals from the dominant groups to the subordinate groups, he held, is also important, because traditional intellectuals who have "changed sides" are well positioned within established institutions.

The metaphysics, or lack thereof, behind this Gramscian worldview are familiar enough. Gramsci describes his position as "absolute historicism," meaning that morals, values, truths, standards and human nature itself are products of different historical epochs. There are no absolute moral standards that are universally true for all human beings outside of a particular historical context; rather, morality is "socially constructed."

. . . . All of Gramsci’s most innovative ideas -- for example, that dominant and subordinate groups based on race, ethnicity, and gender are engaged in struggles over power; that the "personal is political"; and that all knowledge and morality are social constructions -- are assumptions and presuppositions at the very center of today’s politics. So too is the very core of the Gramscian-Hegelian world view — group-based morality, or the idea that what is moral is what serves the interests of "oppressed" or "marginalized" ethnic, racial, and gender groups.

If that sounds in part familiar adn insightful, but also in part dangerous and potentially deceptive, it should.

For, we see that the ethical controls on the change process have been taken out through a resort to ethical relativism.

In short, might makes right, so it is only a question of whether the establishment or the insurgents have the bigger rhetorical and socio-cultural firepower and impact. Indeed, we see here the key idea that the "oppressed" are inherently the ones who hold the moral high ground, and that their (perceived) interests define morality.

In light of the dynamics and issues over change highlighted through the Lewin-Schein "ice Cube" change-model, that should raise serious warning flags.

Saul Alinski, the Chicago-based practitioner, teacher, movement and institution-builder turned Gramsci's principles into a tested, ruthlessly effective community-based socio-political strategy. Andy and Berit Kjos provide a helpful summary, excerpting and commenting on Alinski's 1971 Rules for Radicals:

"True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism, Alinsky taught. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within. Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties....

In this book we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people; to realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace.... "Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.' This means revolution." p.3

"An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma to begin with, he does not have a fixed truth -- truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing.... To the extent that he is free from the shackles of dogma, he can respond to the realities of the widely different situations or society presents." pp.10-11

"The end is what you want, the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work. ... The real arena is corrupt and bloody." p.24

"The means-and-ends moralists, constantly obsessed with the ethics of the means used by the Have-Nots against the Haves, should search themselves as to their real political position. In fact, they are passive — but real — allies of the Haves…. The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means... The standards of judgment must be rooted in the whys and wherefores of life as it is lived, the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy of the world as it should be." pp.25-26

"...the organizer is constantly creating new out of the old. He knows that all new ideas arise from conflict; that every time man as had a new idea it has been a challenge to the sacred ideas of the past and the present and inevitably a conflict has raged." p.79

"And so the guided questioning goes on without anyone losing face or being left out of the decision-making. Every weakness of every proposed tactic is probed by questions.... Is this manipulation? Certainly...." p.88

"From the moment the organizer enters a community he lives, dreams... only one thing and that is to build the mass power base of what he calls the army. Until he has developed that mass power base, he confronts no major issues.... Until he has those means and power instruments, his 'tactics' are very different from power tactics. Therefore, every move revolves around one central point: how many recruits will this bring into the organization, whether by means of local organizations, churches, service groups, labor Unions, corner gangs, or as individuals."

"Change comes from power, and power comes from organization." p.113

"The first step in community organization is community disorganization. The disruption of the present organization is the first step toward community organization. Present arrangements must be disorganized if they are to be displace by new patterns.... All change means disorganization of the old and organization of the new." p.116

"An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent... He must create a mechanism that can drain off the underlying guilt for having accepted the previous situation for so long a time. Out of this mechanism, a new community organization arises....

"The job then is getting the people to move, to act, to participate; in short, to develop and harness the necessary power to effectively conflict with the prevailing patterns and change them. When those prominent in the status quo turn and label you an 'agitator' they are completely correct, for that is, in one word, your function—to agitate to the point of conflict." p.117

This strategy was then broken down into rules for action:

1. "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have."

2. "Never go outside the expertise of your people. When an action or tactic is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear and retreat.... [and] the collapse of communication.

3. "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than t he Christian church can live up to Christianity."

5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."

6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy."

7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time...."

8. "Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose."

9. "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."

10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign."

11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside... every positive has its negative."

12. "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.' ... When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments and carry out your attack.... One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angles are on one side and all the devils on the other." pp.127-134

The blogger's summary from yesterday's post is all too apt:

. . . lie, cheat, steal, etc., while making those with American principles live up to impossibly high standards of institutional altruism, so that we and our liberal government fail in ridicule. Preach "change" and gradually build an activist army of the proletariat, motivated by (short sighted) self interest, for a crescendoing revolt. All, to pave the way for the "egalitarian state." And funny thing, Alinsky's book tosses an acknowledgment to Lucifer, "the very first radical," a refreshing lapse into candor.

The ruthlessly manipulative, destructive, immoral -- indeed, a-moral -- nature of the above is plain. Unfortunately, it also sounds entirely too familiar, as we look around us at the tactics of many pressure groups, media-promoted agendas, and indeed even too much of in what now happens in the name of education.

In this context, as a warning flag, it is worth excerpting David Alinski's letter to the Boston Globe on the occasion of the just past Democratic Party Convention:

Barack Obama's training in Chicago by the great community organizers is showing its effectiveness. It is an amazingly powerful format, and the method of my late father always works to get the message out and get the supporters on board. When executed meticulously and thoughtfully, it is a powerful strategy for initiating change and making it really happen. Obama learned his lesson well.

I am proud to see that my father's model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday.

John Perazzo amplifies:

Obama was trained by the Alinsky-founded Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF) in Chicago and worked for an affiliate of the Gamaliel Foundation, whose modus operandi for the creation of “a more just and democratic society” is rooted firmly in the Alinsky method. As The Nation magazine puts it, “Obama worked in the organizing tradition of Saul Alinsky, who made Chicago the birthplace of modern community organizing.…” In fact, for several years Obama himself taught workshops on the Alinsky method. Obama and his fellow agitators made demands for many things in the Eighties, including taxpayer-funded employment-training services, playground construction, after-school programs, and asbestos removal from neighborhood apartments. Journalist and bestselling author Richard Poe writes: “In 1985 [Obama] began a four-year stint as a community organizer in Chicago, working for an Alinskyite group called the Developing Communities Project. Later, he worked with ACORN and its offshoot Project Vote, both creations of the Alinsky network.” (In recent years, Poe notes, both of those organizations have run nationwide voter-mobilization drives marred by allegations of fraudulent voter registration, vote-rigging, voter intimidation, and vote-for-pay scams.) The Nation reports, “Today Obama continues his organizing work largely through classes for future leaders identified by ACORN and the Centers for New Horizons on the south side.”

In short, we have a right to be concerned, even as the US moves into an election day with Mr Obama in an apparently commanding lead.

But, the Gramsci-Alinski methodology issue is not at all confined to the person or personality of Mr Obama. Indeed, his main Democratic Party rival, Mrs Clinton was also trained in the same methodology, as Perazzo and Phillips documented.

The issue is far wider than that, though: the same approach has now become a mainstream approach in all sorts of pressure groups and political or even educational movements. [Indeed, it is not a surprise to see that the openly unrepentant terrorist, William Ayers, is now a Chicago based Education professor.]

So, neo-Marxist political messianism -- not the only variety of this ever so seductive form of idolatry by any means, but an important one -- is plainly one of the challenges the gospel faces in our time.

A challenge we must equip ourselves to meet.

Putting that in different terms: Marxism, in mutated neo-forms, is back; and must again be decisively answered if the gospel is to move ahead. END

Matt 24 Watch, 73: A reading assignment on Judges ch 9 and trends in the West's political culture

Hitherto, I have refrained myself from commenting directly on the current US Election cycle, as my primary focus is on issues that are beyond the cut and thrust of politics, and my interest is primarily in the Caribbean. Also, given the observed intensity of feelings involved even in surprising quarters in our region, I have felt it wise to restrain myself from public comment until matters were pretty clear.

However, matters have now become clear enough for me to hazard a few observations and statements of concern, through giving some balancing reading assignments. I do so under the general principle that we need to promote sound thinking, as a core component of the spiritual struggle we face as 2 Cor 10:4 - 5 outlines, multiplied by my contention -- cf training article that is reproduced below -- that political messianism is a species of idolatry to which we are extraordinarily vulnerable in our region.

So, that makes me look serious askance at how we too often respond to polarising charismatic political figures in times of crisis: local, regional and global.

For, I think we in our region have shown an extraordinary naiveté in how we have responded to the major media houses and their radical secular humanist agendas and propagandistic spin tactics, and to the messianistic rhetoric and charismatic personalities who have been a key part of this US election cycle. For instance, few of us understand the significance of the number 48 millions.

What is that about?

It is the number of abortions to date under the infamous 1973 Roe vs Wade US Supreme Court Decision, that legalised abortion on demand; which unfortunately then became a central, deeply entrenched plank of the US Democratic party. It exposes a tide of blood-guilt that rises at the rate of more than a self-inflicted 9/11 a day, and so has become a spiritual cancer eating away at the consciences, hearts and minds of a generation of Americans.

So, even as I cannot find it in myself to support the parties in my native land that have been implicated in violence and bloodshed, I cannot support political organisations in neighbouring countries that have sustained such a policy as abortion on demand. I might support indivduals seeking to reform from within, but in this case, nurse and pro-life activist Ms Stanek has made shockingly plain just where the Democratic contender for president stands. (Cf here, here and here, for starters.)

{UPDATE: A Washington Times editorial sums up the encounter between Ms Stanek and Mr Obama in the Illinois State legislature as follows:

Mrs. Stanek worked at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois from 1993 to 2001. When she worked in the hospital's Labor and Delivery Department she saw that babies who survived abortion attempts were left to die alone in supply rooms. They could linger for as long as eight hours, without medical care, without even the dignity of a warm blanket or a soft touch. Their tiny bodies were then dumped in the trash. Mr. Obama's spiritual mentor served on the board of the hospital. Mrs. Stanek went on a public crusade to protect these children.

At a 2001 Illinois legislature hearing, Mr. Obama questioned Mrs. Stanek. She insisted that children needed medical care if they were born alive. Mr. Obama said: "Ms. Stanek, your initial testimony last year showed your dismay at the lack of regard for human life. I agreed with you last year and we suggested that there be a Comfort Room or something of that nature be done. The hospital acknowledged that and changes were made and you are still unimpressed. It sounds to me like you are really not interested in how these fetus [es] are treated, but rather not providing absolutely any medical care or life to them."

Mrs. Stanek replied: "What the hospital did was try to make things look better. What it really is, is that the baby is still dead". . . .

Mr. Obama even voted against banning partial-birth abortion - a radical procedure - in the Senate, in October, 2007. Since 2005, he has a 100 percent rating on pro-choice votes by NARAL, a leading, national pro-choice organization. Read the whole editorial, never mind its even strident tone; there is much more.}

And, horror of horrors, just the issue of legalised, easily accessible abortion is evidently now before Parliament in my native land, Jamaica. Oh, God, grant us wisdom to refrain from more blood-guilt!

On the other side of the US election, I am just as deeply concerned to see how many seem to want a charismatic, messianic figure, as came out when the Vice Presidential nominee for the Republicans was announced.

Nor, am I impressed with any of the major candidates or the general leadership of that nation. Indeed, I am currently inclined to believe that the US, having plainly begun to live out of Romans 1, is facing the stage in which bramble bush leadership emerges; as Jotham (sole survivor of a massacre of the sons of Gideon led by Abimelek, their half-brother) warned the men of Shechem in Judges 9:

v. 6 . . . all the citizens of Shechem and Beth Millo gathered beside the great tree at the pillar in Shechem to crown Abimelech king.

JDG 9:7 When Jotham was told about this, he climbed up on the top of Mount Gerizim and shouted to them, "Listen to me, citizens of Shechem, so that God may listen to you. 8 One day the trees went out to anoint a king for themselves. They said to the olive tree, `Be our king.'

JDG 9:9 "But the olive tree answered, `Should I give up my oil, by which both gods and men are honored, to hold sway over the trees?'

JDG 9:10 "Next, the trees said to the fig tree, `Come and be our king.'

JDG 9:11 "But the fig tree replied, `Should I give up my fruit, so good and sweet, to hold sway over the trees?'

JDG 9:12 "Then the trees said to the vine, `Come and be our king.'

JDG 9:13 "But the vine answered, `Should I give up my wine, which cheers both gods and men, to hold sway over the trees?'

JDG 9:14 "Finally all the trees said to the thornbush, `Come and be our king.'

JDG 9:15 "The thornbush said to the trees, `If you really want to anoint me king over you, come and take refuge in my shade; but if not, then let fire come out of the thornbush and consume the cedars of Lebanon!'

JDG 9:16 "Now if you have acted honorably and in good faith when you made Abimelech king, and if you have been fair to Jerub-Baal and his family, and if you have treated him as he deserves . . . 19 if then you have acted honorably and in good faith toward Jerub-Baal and his family today, may Abimelech be your joy, and may you be his, too! 20 But if you have not, let fire come out from Abimelech and consume you, citizens of Shechem and Beth Millo, and let fire come out from you, citizens of Shechem and Beth Millo, and consume Abimelech!"

Thankfully, assassination and massacre are not the driving forces in political life in contemporary Western civilisation. (NB: In the 1920's - 50's such were driving forces in the Soviet Union, Germany and Japan. And, I am troubled by not only the bloody violence of Jamaica's politics of the 1970's to 1980, but also by the track record of suspicious deaths in that general time in Guyana, and by the Grenada events of 1979 - 1983.)

But, back on the USA: I fear, the blatant and accelerating loss of civility in the USA, occasioned by the sort of rebellion, endarkenment and out of control passions occasioned by rebellion against God as outlined in Romans 1, has led to a politics of rhetorical fratricide and personal destruction that hinders sound leadership from emerging. And since "when America sneezes, we get pneumonia," that has serious implications for our region indeed.

Onward, the USA clearly faces the implications of the Deuteronomy 8 judgements on nations that turn their backs on, disobey and willfully forget God:

17 You may say to yourself, "My power and the strength of my hands have produced this wealth for me." 18 But remember the LORD your God, for it is he who gives you the ability to produce wealth, and so confirms his covenant, which he swore to your forefathers, as it is today.

19 If you ever forget the LORD your God and follow other gods and worship and bow down to them, I testify against you today that you will surely be destroyed. 20 Like the nations the LORD destroyed before you, so you will be destroyed for not obeying the LORD your God.

Moreover, I remain seriously concerned that our civilisation as a whole -- including here in the Caribbean -- is increasingly blind to the mortal peril it faces from two closely linked threats:

[a] internal disintegration due to the rise of evolutionary materialism-driven secular humanism and linked apostasy, paganisation and de-christianisation, together with their implications (as we have been discussing in this blog for some time),

[b] the rise of radical islamist fascism as a religiously motivated, global conquest eschatological ideology and agenda.

Accordingly, I think it appropriate to give out a bit of a reading assignment, much of it from a very interesting UK based commentator on major issues and trends, Ms Melanie Phillips.

You (and the author of this blog post, for that matter) may not agree with everything linked below, but we desperately need to take a balancing look at our current situation:

1] In "America’s first far-left radical President?" Ms Phillips raises a vital cluster of troubling issues on media bias and agendas, the propagandistic politics of demonisation, ridicule and personal destruction and linked messianistic adherence to charismatic political figures. This, backed up by serious questions on the radical socialist, subversive nature of key formative associates and experiences behind the likely next president of the USA.

2] In her earlier "Revolution you can believe in" she lays out what a "community organiser" is, and what that potentially implies for not only the USA but our civilisation, in the face of Marxist ideologue Gramsci's long, de-Christianising march through the culture and its institutions. In a shocker disclosure, she cites from a telling 75 pp undergraduate senior thesis submitted at Wellesley College by native Chicagoan and future Mrs Hillary Rodham Clinton, in 1969:

If the ideals Alinsky espouses were actualized, the result would be social revolution. Ironically, this is not a disjunctive projection if considered in the tradition of Western democratic theory. In the first chapter it was pointed out that Alinsky is regarded by many as the proponent of a dangerous socio/political philosophy. As such, he has been feared -- just as Eugene Debs or Walt Whitman or Martin Luther King has been feared, because each embraced the most radical of political faiths -- democracy. [Ms Phillips observes, tartly but aptly: "That’s not democracy as we know it, more a Marxist conception of people power."]

3] Two backgrounders allow us to peer deeper into the underlying radical socialist-developed dynamics and strategy of subversion, i.e. Alinski's Rules for Radicals, and Ayers' Prarie Fire. Thanks to a certain reader, I can sum up the Alinsky "community organizer" methodology in a tight quote from a certain blogger [without endorsing the wider context of the excerpt]:

. . . lie, cheat, steal, etc., while making those with American principles live up to impossibly high standards of institutional altruism, so that we and our liberal government fail in ridicule. Preach "change" and gradually build an activist army of the proletariat, motivated by (short sighted) self interest, for a crescendoing revolt. All, to pave the way for the "egalitarian state." And funny thing, Alinsky's book tosses an acknowledgment to Lucifer, "the very first radical," a refreshing lapse into candor.

4] Phillips' "Planet Equality and the eclipse of nation," opens up the underlying radical relativist multicultural can of worms to critical analysis, with as background her crucial book on Islamist subversion, Londonistan. [Cf Amazon page.]

Beyond that, I think that the below is still all too relevant:

_____________

Political Messianism

Often, politicians in our region project themselves as messiahs, anointed to lead us into new promised lands. However, as Christians, we know that it is only God who can save us from all the bitter fruit of our sin and selfishness, and it is only God who knows what is in men's hearts and can thus know the exact motives or attitudes of those who question or oppose him. (See 1 Sam. 16:7.)

Therefore, when mere men project themselves as messiahs able to deliver our people into a new age, free of want, misery and suffering, and thus demand unquestioning support, or claim that politics is a sphere in which questions of right or wrong are irrelevant, they demand loyalties which properly belong only to God.

The first commandment still stands: "You shall have no other gods before me." (Deut. 5:7.)

Marxian ideology — now lying in a shallow and noisily stirring grave — added to this potent idolatrous brew a philosophical framework, based upon materialism. For, starting from the basic stance of rejecting any notion of a personal, Sovereign God, it asserted that matter and the purposeless laws that govern matter are all that exists. It then claimed that social injustice is due to how some men have invented the notion of property and have used it to steal the fruit of other people’s work to fatten themselves, inventing complex social structures, notably religious and political/economic ones, to legitimise their action. The proposed solution was revolution: the oppressed must throw off their chains and violently seize what "rightfully" is theirs.

Unfortunately, as the aftermath of the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe in 1989 – 1991 revealed, Marxist revolutions have simply substituted one oppressive, unjust and often incompetent ruling class for another. So, the collapse of the East Bloc has for the moment settled the debate over whether centrally planned economies outperform market-based economies: across time, they have not.

However, as Bob Goudzwaard points out in Capitalism and Progress, the underlying greed and oppression issues first raised by Marx and other Socialists remain unresolved. For, those who own or manage the capital assets of a firm often think only in terms of maximising profits. They thus tend to neglect the legitimate rights, needs and interests of other stakeholders: workers and their families, suppliers (especially when their bargaining power is weak), customers, the wider community, even the environment.

Therefore, in recent years, the ideological and moral controversies that have dogged capitalism from its inception have simply moved on to other grounds. These include: market failures and environmental damage; [un-]sustainability of development and North/South globalisation agendas; capitalist/patriarchal oppression of workers, women, black people, and other racial/cultural minorities. (Nor have the usual noises about profit maximisation as an efficiency measure put the critics to flight, for the key theorems relate to idealised, not real world markets.) That is, the underlying theme of oppression/liberation remains unresolved, and the underlying materialistic thinking and hankering after political messiahs still set the agenda for public debate.

This is fundamentally problematic, for secularist political messianism/liberationism rejects God, as its first step in thinking. So, however good the analysis may be at particular points — and it can be uncomfortably close to the truth, even though such thinkers have more than their fair share of misleading arguments — such thinking has no clear and firm basis for respecting truth, rights, and values; even though it often reflects a splendid sensitivity to the cry of the oppressed.

Now, it is an easily observed fact that we naturally become angry and complain or quarrel when we are treated unfairly, though we often fail to live up to the standards we thus set for others. That is, as C. S. Lewis was fond of pointing out, how and why we quarrel reveals that we expect other people to respect our rights — binding moral claims on others. In short, in practice, we all accept that at least some moral principles are objectively binding. Unfortunately, at the same time, we often wish to escape the force of such claims against our own selves!

As a result, it is an all-too- common human failing to be busy about sawdust in the next person’s eye, when we have planks sticking out of our own eyes. [Matt. 7:1 – 5; cf. 18:15 – 18.]

It is therefore quite easy for political messianists to highlight the failings and hypocrisies of others. But, more importantly, it is quite another thing for would-be saviours of society to give an adequate basis for the binding nature of our rights. For, what “rights” can “an accidental by-product thrown off by the random chaos of a chance world” ultimately claim against those who hold the levers of power in the community?

This is crucial, as secularist thinking naturally tends to reduce morality to subjective feelings driven by accidents of genetics or of culture, religion and history. Would-be political messiahs therefore typically resort to manipulative media and political power games as they attempts to deliver their promised utopias. But, since secularists reduce truth to subjective perceptions, and cut rights down to being mere entitlements granted through control of the levers of political, legal and regulatory power, they are usually blind to the planks in their own eyes — their own fallen, sinful, deceitful and desperately wicked hearts. [Cf. Jeremiah 17:5 – 11, esp. 9 – 10, and Deut. 8:17 - 20.]

Consequently, secularist utopian reformers all too easily fall prey to the corrupting temptations of power. For example, they often ruthlessly exploit media access and academic/ideological power to push through their policy agendas — often based on questionable or even deceptive scientific, factual, moral or legal claims. In some instances, they have even abused the power of police agencies and the courts — and not just Nazis and Communists, either.

As a result, public policy dominated or controlled by such ideologues soon drifts away from sound foundations, in pursuit of ever-receding mirages, often ending up in shipwreck. This has already become all too clear in the case of the Marxists, who have now left behind the daunting challenge of repairing the political, social, cultural, economic, educational and environmental havoc created by forty to seventy years of ruinous rule by tyrannical Communist Dictators.

Similarly, should they gain or hold power for long enough, bitter fruit will also come from the current crop of would-be political messiahs, precisely because they have lost sight of their own inner corruption and need for redemption, inner renewal and transformation through the only true Messiah. For, as the great Russian writer and dissident, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, observed — consciously echoing the ancient prophets — the line between good and evil passes, not between classes and nations, but right through the individual human heart.

The main question, in short, is NOT over particular issues, theories, rights and policies, but rather over who is Lord: man, or Jesus? (For, as Rom. 13:1-7 points out, governing authorities are servants and stewards of God, responsible for upholding justice, rewarding good, and punishing evil. When those who hold power drift from this mooring, they inevitably follow a road to ruin.)

In short, the state is, and must always be, accountable to God. For, it is only he who can truly establish justice in the community.

_____________

So, let us ponder our times, and let us seek a word from our Lord that will show us the right way forward in these troubled, turbulent times. END