There couldn’t have been a better choice for a place to gather the bishops for the First Ecumenical Council of the Church.
The city was originally named after the wife of one of the Alexander’s generals, victorious over his rivals in the civil war after the “son of Zeus” died of too much drinking in Persia. It was one of those cities that the divine human Alexander the Great and his heirs built to be a true representation of the City of Man, a proud declaration of the autonomous man to be a god, to build the tower of Babel and reach heaven. Every inch of the ground of Bithynia – one of the richest Roman provinces at the time – spoke volumes about the quest of man for divinity. There was no place within a few days walk from the city where there wasn’t some memory of ancient glories, victorious battles and dramatic defeats, fabulous riches, and great civilizations. Just 150 miles east were the great cities of the ancient Hittite Empire, one of the earliest attempts of man to build a world empire. The same distance west were the ruins of Troy – the earlier Carthage, the mistress of the seas and trade, destroyed by the lust, greed, and vaingloriousness of the Achaean barbarians. Thirty miles north was Chrysopolis, one of the ancient gold depositories of the Persian empire, the “golden city” of Xerxes. Just south was the kingdom of Lydia with its king Croesus – for a time a king over Bithynia as well – whose fame for his riches outlived antiquity by two millennia. Just a few miles north, in Nicomedia, the last great Canaanite in history, a hero of the City of Man, Hannibal (Baal is my Lord) took poison after Rome demanded his surrender. Throughout its history, Bithynia controlled the “cross of trade” – the sealines through the Bosporus, and the land roads from Asia to Europe. The place had everything that excites even our modern pagans today.
As Propraetor of Bithynia, Pliny the Younger rebuilt the city in the image and likeness of that ultimate City of Man, Rome, the highest achievement ever of man’s prideful attempt at conquering other men. His walls encircled area far larger than the population at the time. And, as a faithful servant of the City of Man, it is from the palace in the city that he commanded the persecutions against the Christians in Bithynia. Pliny knew what was at stake; he knew – better than modern Christians – that Christ’s goal was to make the kingdoms of the world, Rome included, His Kingdom. So he forced Christians to take the routine political oath of loyalty to the Empire. Those that refused to honor Caesar above Christ, he considered true Christians, true enemies of the City of Man, and therefore true ambassadors, and soldiers, of the City of God. He killed them.
The name of the city was Nicaea – the city of Victory. The victory of man over his fellow man – the victory of man over God. The ground, the history, every tree, even the names of the roads and the gates were laden with symbolism and witnessed to the attempt of the sinful man to rule as God.
So when in AD 325 Constantine gathered over 300 of the Christian bishops of the Empire in his imperial palace – most likely the same building where Pliny had been signing death sentences for Christians over 200 years earlier – the place was chosen very carefully, and its name too. Constantine made it clear that he resided in Victory over his enemies, and he called the bishops to live in the same Victory with him, even if for a few weeks. But there was more: The First Council was not simply a gathering of theologians. It was a Victory feast, a triumphal declaration to the world that Christ and His Church have vanquished those who had persecuted them. The world knew: After 300 years, the small band of one carpenter and 12 apostles forced the Empire to its knees. Caesar surrendered to Christ.
Defending Constantine
So when on that summer day in June of AD 325 Constantine personally gave the opening address, he said three things that were a political revolution for the ancient world. Modern historians, secular and Christian alike, being the blind bunch they usually are, focus almost exclusively on the manner of Constantine’s entry and his purple mantle – as recorded by Eusebius – to prove their own bias against him as “vainglorious and proud” (as if the Emperor had jogged to his throne in sport shoes and shorts, it would prove his humility or something). But they usually miss the essence of his words. The points of his address were (1) the peace of the Empire depends on the peace in the Church; (2) the peace in the Church depends on the revelation about the nature of God and Christ in the divine scriptures; and (3) the past is not worth mentioning, it is the future that matters. These points deserve much more detailed discussion in another article. Suffice to say here, from a political point of view they were the ultimate betrayal of everything pagan Rome stood for. Political peace (pax romana) was the ultimate, divine peace for the nations; the word of men was foundational, the word of gods was heeded only when it confirmed the goals of men; and the real meaning of the “peace” of man was a return to the past, to the long-lost but never forgotten mythical “golden age” of abundance, power, and happiness. These were the three foundations of Octavian Augustus’s ideology. Constantine, in his opening address to the Nicaean Council, turned the ancient world upside down, politically and ideologically.
This wasn’t the first act of the Emperor in this vein. A year before the Council, right after his final victory over the pagan forces, Constantine started a building project: The New Rome, the City of God that will replace the Old Rome, the City of Man. The site was right across from the site of his last victory, on the other side of the Bosporus, where the ancient Greek colony of Byzantium stood, a mere 40 miles north of Nicaea. A Christian empire deserved a Christian capital. And Constantine was in the process of building, while at the Council he was presenting the philosophy of government for the new Empire.
Everything pointed to a victory of Christ over Caesar, of light over darkness, of Christianity over paganism. Even when the Emperor tried to influence the Council in favor of his preferred Arianism, the orthodox bishops revolted, and in his presence they tore to pieces the proposed Arian creed. (On the preference of Emperors to Arianism, see Rushdoony, Foundations of Social Order, chapter 2.) Constantine conceded, as did his friend, Eusebius. Purple robe or not, Christ was not retreating before Caesar. In the final account, when the reign of Constantine was over, it was the church that emerged triumphant, and in the church the orthodox Trinitarian creed that we have today. With all the personal shortfalls of Constantine, with all the imperfections of his faith, his reign will remain as one of the greatest periods of triumph for Christianity and the Church.
Modern American theologians, preachers, and Christians know little of these events. If they have anything to say, it usually is a word of condemnation. They reject what they call the “Constantinian model.” They believe that the church should never preach to the civil government. They believe the civil government has a different sphere of operation, one that the Bible doesn’t speak to, and therefore the church has nothing to say about. They limit the Gospel to a few propositions for individual salvation. The Gospel can’t and doesn’t speak to the civil ruler, they claim. The issues of justice are left to the Old Testament. The New Testament is strictly individual, and it never addresses the culture, the law of the land, or the civil government.
They justify this retreatist ideology by resorting to the argument of “trials and tribulations.” According to the majority of modern theologians, the mark of a true church is persecutions. The more persecuted the church is, the purer it is, and therefore the better and the faster it will grow. If all institutions in a society and a culture are obedient to God, there would be no persecutions, and therefore such a “model” is unacceptable for the true Church. We cannot work to change the culture; to the contrary, we should rejoice when the culture is farther away from God, because then we have persecutions, and the Church grows much faster. Christians under persecutions are by default much stronger, and Christians in a peaceful, righteous society are weaker in the faith. The “Constantinian model” therefore cannot be an acceptable model for the Church.
But in the very “Constantinian model,” there is a strong testimony against such a view.
Theodoret and other church historians, based on the account of Eusebius, a participant in the Council, tell us something very peculiar about the Nicaean Council: The majority of the bishops present were maimed or disfigured. Some were one-eyed, others had their limbs cut off. All of them bore on their bodies the marks of persecution. Little is known today that the bishops present at the first Council had all passed through severe persecutions. Modern theologians only babble about persecutions and trials and tribulations from their cozy offices in churches and seminaries in America. (Strange how we never hear calls for more persecutions from Christians in North Korea, Pakistan, or Zimbabwe. We only hear babbling about persecutions from American theologians and preachers.) These early bishops didn’t babble about it; they saw it firsthand. They knew firsthand if the Church was really stronger under pressure; they knew firsthand how strong Christians were under persecutions. Some of these bishops were the first to voluntarily present themselves for mutilation of their bodies in order to save their flocks from fire, beasts, or torture. Death was the most merciful end of a true Christian; exile (the much condemned “persecution” in the later Christian Empire for heresy) was reserved only for the Christian members of the Emperor’s family. Most of the time Christians ended up tortured for weeks, or burned alive, or crucified in a most cruel manner. Some persevered and yet survived. Others gave in. Thousands died. The bishops present at the Nicaean Council were among those who persevered and survived. But they paid the price.
So, by the standards of the modern theologians of the “trials and tribulations” doctrine, these bishops were the best Christians of all. They can be taken as our standard for righteous action, since they not only passed through the tribulations, but they managed to grow the church to become the most influential community in the Empire. They knew the tribulations were a battle, a battle that would inevitably end in victory. They didn’t know if the victory would be in their lifetime – after all, many before them had died without seeing it. But they certainly expected it.
But when Constantine not only put an end to the persecutions but also declared that the peace of his Empire will from now on depend on the Church of Jesus Christ, these exemplary Christians, these mutilated, disfigured, tortured bishops did not resist the new turn of events. They apparently didn’t have the ideology of our modern theologians. They didn’t start babbling about the necessity of persecutions for “growth” and “strength.” They had a much different idea.
When Constantine gathered them, the men who felt the wrath of the pagan Empire now joyfully accepted the invitation to stay at the Emperor’s palace for over two months, discussing issues of theology that from now were to direct not only the Church, but the Empire as well. The persecutions were not an end in themselves; they were the means to victory. Not only the eternal victory in the final judgment, but an earthly victory as well, the victory of the City of God over the City of Man, in history, on earth. The persecuted Church – truly persecuted, unlike our modern theologians – accepted the surrender of Caesar as something normal, historically inevitable, and expected. And a year after the last battle on the battlefield against the Old Empire, the victorious Church in the persons of the formerly persecuted bishops was ready and willing to shape the future of the Empire and its culture and society, according to the Word of God.
The modern theological idolatry of suffering was not part of the early Church’s doctrine. Suffering was the means; victory in both history and eternity was the goal. The means couldn’t be more important than the goal. When Constantine surrendered, the bishops accepted his sword. And when he summoned them to learn from them the official ideology of his future Empire, they were there to teach him.
So when you hear a modern theologian talking nonsense about “exile,” “tribulations,” “by the rivers of Babylon” as if those are supposed to be the eternal state of the Church in history, remind them that they have never been through tribulations. Then set before them the example of those who have been, and persevered, and lived to see the victory of Christ over Caesar. Christianity accepts tribulations as a means, and we do not complain about them. But the idolatry of suffering is not a Christian concept, and the early Church’s example teaches this very well. God is not God over eternity only, but over history as well.
It is time for the modern Church to prepare the ground for its future Nicaea. The City of God vanquished the City of Man before. God will do it again.
A Reformed missionary to his native Bulgaria for over 10 years, Bojidar preaches and teaches doctrines of the Reformation and a comprehensive Biblical worldview. Having founded Bulgarian Reformation Ministries in 2001, he and his team have translated over 30,000 pages of Christian literature about the application of the Law of God in every area of man’s life and society, and published those translations online for free. He has been active in the formation of the Libertarian movement in Bulgaria, a co-founder of the Bulgarian Society for Individual Liberty and its first chairman. If you would like Bojidar to speak to your church, homeschool group or other organization, contact him through his website: http://www.bulgarianreformation.org/
This is truly a can of worms. Yet it is the fundamentals that make the biggest difference. Let others talk about less fundamental things… I know what direction I want to shine my flashlight towards. I want to get as deep and simple as possible.
So, I have some questions:
Can we stop using the word Trinity? Does anyone understand what that word really means? Can anyone explain it, using english and Bible?
Can we stop using the plural word Persons when referring to God, since the Bible never does?
Is trinity a salvation-level doctrine?
Does trinity have any impact in how we view the world? How?
I found this on Wikipedia.
“Personhood in the Trinity does not match the common Western understanding of “person” as used in the English language—it does not imply an “individual, self-actualized center of free will and conscious activity.”
Ok then. We know from scripture that a person is one that can house a spirit (or spirits). And so… a spirit can indwell. So if Jesus is a person, and his Father is a person (Heb 1:3)… and the Father is in the Son… It stands to reason that Jesus was two persons walking around. I guess you could say that. I believe that Jesus had two natures (one Father who was spirit, and one fleshly body which formed the conscious human soul of the Son).
It would be very difficult though to say that they are the same in all respects… since the person of Jesus is merely a physical image pattern of the eternal person of the Father. They are one because 1 person in1 person = 1 … in the same way that the earth’s crust is a layer that is shaped by what it is resting upon: the mantle.
But then we have an additional problem. Since God is in Jesus, reconciling the world to Himself… and Jesus is in US through the mystery of the Holy Spirit… then doesn’t that mean that I have people inside of me? You see why I don’t like the formulation of the trinity… I would rather relate to ONE person who changes me and lives in me… than a plurality of PEOPLE, who are merely acting as one. That … makes me uneasy!!!
This is my point. Trinity (as depicted by Nicaea) is NONSENSE. It was simply a way for the group of intellectual christians to get out of the room in one piece! They agreed to disagree, but they made it look like they agreed (they had to, the emperor was making them). At least they didn’t surrender to the emperor (that is very commendable!). But they were playing a game. In fact, it’s quite funny when you look at it this way: a group of men, stuck in a room together, not allowed to leave town until they get this matter resolved, and the matter is not getting resolved. Each man has his own opinion, and the prevailing opinions are not anywhere near unanimity. So they have to INVENT WORDS and use non-biblical words, models, and concepts, just in order to appease each other and get out of the room, so they can return to their wives, and go about their normal lives. They are very much like the trinity model itself: a bunch of seperate individuals who have seperate minds and opinions but must make it look like they are functioning together, because they must appear unified, because the emperor said so. And this one group of individuals has a common name, now, that is (or was) highly reguarded throughout the Roman world: the Council of Nicaea. One brand. Seperate people, each with his own mind, so to speak. But they couldn’t get away from each other until they all agreed!
And in fact, that’s how the doctrine of the Trinity operates in practice, as well. I have had friend tell me that I’m going to hell because I refuse to use 2 words when I talk about God: Trinity and Persons.
The first time “Trinity” is mentioned is not in the Bible, of course. It was by Theophilus of Antioch in AD 170. He lived one hundred and forty (or so) years after Jesus ascended. He never mentioned Jesus in his most important theological models and pronouncements. And yet his definition of Trinity is STILL more biblically accurate, and easy to understand… than the definition that came out of a Council full of men at Nicaea. Here’s what Theo had to say about the word he may have minted: “”In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity [Τριάδος], of God, and His Word, and His wisdom. And the fourth is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man.”" Would that the Council of Nicaea had been at least as biblical as this man, who never mentioned the core of the gospel message, when it formulated ITS doctrine of “Trinity.” For one thing, the council left out some very important ideas: how does creation and reality relate to God and FIT IN THE DIAGRAM!!!! No, instead, we have a three-personed cloud that is not directly (inherently) tied in to anything down here. After all, it’s not in the diagram, and the diagram does not appear to make room for it. The explanation of the Trinity does go deeper, of course… but it doesn’t seem to do the UniVerse justice in helping us understand how WE relate to the Godhead.
Oh… and even better… I just saw the earliest known depiction of the trinity: three men. Three seperate greek-looking men. Don’t give me this garbage that the trinity talks about one God! No. That is NOT the heart of the Nicene version of the trinity. The very word, that they chose to use, puts 3 before 1.
Your HEART tells you (and the scriptures tell you) that God is One, and that He is invisible. But you didn’t get that idea from the trinity. You had that idea before you ever came to that doctrine. But everyone is afraid to simply throw out the two terms Trinity and Persons… because… it came from a council.
One last thing…
If God is (as Rushdoony says in “the One and the Many”) just as fundamentally 3 as he is 1… and the Godhead is unified simply because these 3 personal beings love each other… and are “in it together”… (by the way: in what are they together? mutual godhood? Oh, I forgot, they Love each other. This makes Love more divine than any of the persons. Unless Love is one of the Persons…)
If God is 3. And He is 1 only because the 3 love each other unconditionally. Then a human-style of love is actually The Divine.
Why would the Son have to die? Because he volunteered for the job? (I’m serious.)
Why couldn’t the Father die, instead of the Son? After all, if they love unconditionally…A Father would die in His Son’s place… if He could.
What makes the Son, the Son?
I would argue that part of the solution to this is understanding that the Father is Love, the Father is invisible, the Father is Spirit, the Father came BEFORE the Son, and the Father chose us IN the Son before time even began. The Father exists outside of time, and the Son didn’t begin his existence until He was conceived of the Holy Spirit.
The Father, operating outside of time, already had this in place before the world began in Adam’s time… because the Son is basically how the Universe holds together (in some profound way). Logical and chronological usually work together as parallel streams. But sometimes, God who sees the future (and exists in eternity where time is basically already completed), does things to control the future in the past, and can do things for the past from the future (should a universe-changing paradox occur).
What I am trying to say is that God’s morality required the Son’s sacrifice. The Son dying for us would have no meaning, if the Father and the Son were two instead of One. The Father had to give something in order to purchase us back to Himself from Satan. So He Gave His Only Son (his human physical shell/layer). And adopted us back to himself, from the other side. You cannot give what you do not own. The Father has precedence over the Son.
…and lastly…
The One-ness of God has pre-eminence over the manifestations, titles, names, or even lesser beings He inhabits and creates. Now Jesus is the Only Begotten Son… and has the fullness of deity in him, bodily. His body was “formed around” the fullness of deity. And now we have His Spirit, our minds are being transformed into the mind of Christ (the same mind), and our bodies are His – His Body.
This is not a picture of 3… or 4… etc. This is a picture of layers. God layers himself, like a pearl. Outside-in… or inside-out… take your pick. The diagram works either way, as far as I know. God maintains his unity, oneness, headship, and order…even while he creates beings with lesser consciousnesses… and their existence is contingent upon His Own. He Owns them.
Yet, when lies entered the picture, and motivations that would divide His Order against itself… He WOULD not “own” that. He cannot. He sees and judges both sides (the good and the evil). But He cannot tolerate their continual existence, continual warfare, side by side, forever. Two resolutions: let evil perish, and start over. And a falling away would probably happen again. It is a statistical probability that the more free beings there are, the greater the chance that one of them re-creates another rebellion scenario, and leads another rebellion.
Option #2: provide an avenue of redemption by which beings can be cleansed of evil and forgiven, and brought back to Him. These people would be witnesses to both sides, they would remember (if need be) what happened before. And they would be teachers and proclaimers. This society of people would keep curious would-be rebels captivated by their love relationship with God, rather than constantly trying to fall away before such a love relationship can really (temporally) ‘get off the ground.’ And, of course, anyone refusing redemption, simply perishes as in option 1. Those evil beings that both cannot perish and cannot repent, he isolates in a part of himself that is reserved for permanent judgment.
Now, the Bible uses the language of puchasing and redeeming. The Son had to die in order to make a payment (in man’s place) to His Father…for what had been taken from His Father when Adam sinned. What had been taken was Adam…his body (which includes a brain which is necessary for the existence of a human soul, at least right now it is). Jesus had to purchase a new creative activity from His Father, so that His Father could remake us with new bodies.
If the Son was eternal… and co-existent with the Father… then how could he have ever died? The Word was with God and the Word was God. But then God “layered himself,” and begot His Son, and sent His Son. His son (God’s own visible physical body) died. And when he rose again, he rose as the firstborn of a new Body.
When I say that the Son of God is the physical shell/layer… that encompasses the soul, since the soul is what occurs when spirit and brain/flesh are brought together. Jesus had to grow up and learn, like we all did, on earth. (And of course, no trinitarian would deny that. The whole purpose for the trinity was to try to describe how Jesus is both God and man. I just disagree with their word formulations. I think it stunts our logic and proclamation.)
When we say the name of Jesus: we are talking about a name that encompasses all the layers of deity that come before us. I am not saying that we are equal with God. I am saying that when we have the Spirit of God dwelling IN us, that we remain just as subservient to the Father (and obedient) as Jesus was. And Jesus walked on water. He had command over the elements, under him. And He only did what He saw His Father doing. We are meant to be a “branch” bearing holy (personal) fruit. Ultimately, since the Father is a person… and His son is a person… in a way, this means that the Body of Christ is a person. Outwardly we look like individual people. Inwardly we are one in spirit, our minds are conforming closer and closer to the eternal pattern, and our bodies are more and more obedient (until we get new bodies which will not even tempt us to sin).
Systems are still necessary. They can be used for exploiting the darkness. Darkness responds to evil and greed and selfish fear. So impersonal systems such as Money, Corporations, the physical sword, are all helpful when dealing with evil. But they are not our primary weapons. We do not war after the flesh, or lord it over each other as the HEATHEN do. We are to be progressively coming OUT of this (retreating, if you will)…by having our own parallel society. We treat the brothers one way, so long as they believe and are faithful, and love God. We treat outsiders another way: we are ambassadors sent to them. Representatives of Jesus Christ. As if we were dealing with a FOREIGN COUNTRY THAT IS NOT OUR OWN. We do not have lordship over there. We have more power than heathen lords can hope to have. They will surrender their systems and their crowns to us, WHEN THEY SEE THERE IS SAFETY in the way that we manage our own affairs in our own SEPERATE culture!
But some day, the only systems that remain will be those that are naturally flowing from God. Biology. Spirit. People. Physical laws. Miracles. When we have no more need of money or corporations and we have no fear of death or theft or perishing… and we have no worry… God will back us with His Power. And He will return when we are mature enough and ready enough to receive Him. We must be without spot (prideful blemishes…think Gorbechev). And wrinkle (division… think sectarianism and submitting to other names and banners other than Jesus’ Person).
Somehow, we are in the world but not of it.
It is possible to be in Babylon (like during the exile) but not of it.
Where we learn to serve for the good of the people that we are among, and pray for them, and live in peace with them. Even while we act as personal beings that are not subservient to a godless system of laws or habits. We are free! We are not in their system. Nor should we act like we are. We are above it. If THEY want to give us resources, surrender to us, obey us, earn money from us, or even steal from us… then they may. What matters more than anything is the proclamation and it’s purity.
Daniel served God, not the dreams and wishes of Nebuchadnezzar. He didn’t wish Nebuchadnezzar any harm or ill will. He was respectful. He was honorable. He talked with them and learned about society. He was in a position of leadership, where he would obey Nebuchadnezzar so long as it was a RIGHTEOUS DECREE.
If it was an UNrighteous decree… Daniel did not pick up the sword. He simply prayed in the window like he always did, pretending that the heathen law didn’t exist. Why? Because it was only a law from a man, a tradition of men. He personally (devotionally? pietistically?) obeyed God, right out in the open, peacefully, wishing the best for everyone, not foisting his SYSTEM on anyone.
He furthered the system of Nebuchadnezzar, so long as that system was righteous. When it wasn’t, he didn’t get violent. He was aware of it, but he ignored it. He (like Joseph before him) used his authority in a Personal way. He didn’t truly respect the system. He respected PEOPLE that were in the system. He gave people his advice and even ordered them to do things…and in so doing, they (heathen) were obeying Daniel out of sinful fear and learning righteousness. This is the interest that God demands from foreign nations outside of True Israel, to be paid to Israel by obedience (even though it is out of selfishness), and then to be surrendered freely to God and personally used for God’s society of free people/brothers.
They pay, because they fear. Otherwise they would surrender. If they get aggressive, we ignore them. We declare and live openly, unashamed and bold. Quietly loud. “Being Positive” it’s called, today. Only I believe God would call it “Being Righteously Positive”. Being negative is a sign that one is in debt. (I keep coming back to mathematics!) Think about liberals… they are NOT happy people, nor are they truly liberal in their giving of themselves! But we are free, liberal, and responsible workmen…and we got to let that show, personally, and especially among EACH OTHER. It is good versus evil (even when both sides are duking it out inside of ourselves). We are to seek righteousness and holiness. Holiness is Oneness and Purity in standing with “The One” God.
Three of my favorite movies: Star Trek: First Contact. The Matrix. & The Island.
All are very entertaining pop sci-fi movies, about the One and the many. The nature of collective things and personal things. And the mystery of lawlessness.
And two other good movies: Braveheart and Gladiator illustrate how people fight over the shape, control, character, and identity of the civil state. And history marches on, appearing to erase most of their efforts, as if their fighting made no difference at all, whatsoever. Human nature is human nature. Inventions persist and change things. But wars? (This is why the end of Revelation 14 carries heavy meaning. The saints die, maybe of old age… and their works FOLLOW THEM. And this is the tenor and spirit of that era in history. There is a major breakthrough coming. And we’re on top of it!) The sands of time wipe out the gains of almost every civil war. CIVIL (state). War (advance). Same thing with Joan of Arc. She was French and fought for the unity of France (at least according to a 1999 CBS movie, I saw). Look at France now. What brave soldiers they are! Well, in the movie I saw, the French rulers weren’t all that brave back then either! They were petty, fractured, bribed, living off the produce of their own starving people… Maybe this is all liberal trash, but it made for a good movie. But think: historically it DID take a lady to unify and lead them. Very unusual. (Women can lead, but like the one ancient Israelite prophetess/judge… they usually first ask: “Where’s the men in this picture, and why aren’t they making up their minds?” Anyway…)
I really think that Star Trek First Contact is one of the best allegories you will ever find, about statism and it’s nature. Look past the veneer, into what statism IS, psychologically. For that is where statism truly resides. The sword is merely an instrument that is usually best left untouched. Ever since I first saw the Borg in Star Trek: The Next Generation episode… something captivated me. It wasn’t the visuals (they weren’t that impressive). It was the machine melded on to the man, and the man somehow being dead, zombie-like, lost in the machine. It was the overall depiction of the borg that HAUNTED me as if it were some kind of quasi-spiritual reality that we are now fighting against. (Rage against the machine… it IS a spiritual thing that we are contending with. It is the drumbeat of the secular left.) Only, as a kid, I didn’t understand this. I only knew that “the Borg” held a strange fascination and attraction for me. I liked them…in many ways. But I also found them mysterious. Impressive. Regimented. Non-living. Easily predictable. And One. But they were the enemy. They were the #1 enemy that Trek fans love to hate. The Klingons were made to be our friends and were fun to play around with. A rambunctious people that just (sometimes) liked to have fun, and stand up for honor, and die for what (they believe) is right. The Borg were something else entirely. They were made to represent the church (particularly an empire-like vision of Christendom, probably). But they ended up more closely resembling the Evil One. Right down to the queen as the whore riding the beast (the forced collective).
Gene Roddenberry initially wanted a formidable enemy for the Federation to kick off his new series. He settled on a rat-like race called the Ferengi… who were capitalists and entrepeneurs and exploiters. (America, anyone?) They were wheelers and dealers, and cannibals (initially). But they just weren’t scary. They weren’t even a believable, formidable, credible enemy for the vast and unified human-led Federation. After all the Federation treasured freedom, and these little creatures simply capitalized on the freedom that was afforded them. Greed doesn’t really make for good action. So they settled on an enemy that was so powerful, it made action almost irrelevant and impossible. The Borg.
The Borg assimilated everything that they could touch, see, and perceive into their matrix of knowledge and bee-like activity. They were drones that all thought with one mind. This is just what they did. They assimilated. Assimilating THINGS was their drive, their drone-like ambition. People and choice and even dialogue (for the most part) were irrelevant. “We are the Borg. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. Your biological and technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us.” Then we learned that they assimilated individuals into this kind of lifestyle. It wasn’t revealed until later that this collective was created by a hive mind that was controlled (or guided) by a mysterious queen. The queen was the hub of all Borg activity, and she gave narrative voice to their intents and philosophy.
But the queen isn’t nearly as interesting to me as the individual borg drone is. He has surrendered his faculties to a higher power that is invisible to him, but that he can perceive. He likes the company of his fellow drones and the thoughts of the collective, only because they are familiar to him. He does not think. He experiences thoughts. He is (for all intents and purposes) an involuntary part of a matrix, but he is not aware of that.
This reminds me of the man from Gadarene. The demonized guy who was cutting himself and living amongst the tombs (incidentally, the pigs immediately killed themselves when infested with the same demons….very telling pattern. It reveals that the man did not TRULY want to die. But the pigs were not nearly as formidable in their psychological defenses.)
Jesus once asked “Who do you say that I am?” (I is singular… I am not going to go beyond scripture, here). So… when Jesus got to shore, and confronted the man from Gadarene… you had a man also God (who is One) manifest in the flesh… confronting… an entity that called itself Legion. “What is your name?” “Legion. For WE are MANY.” A single name, a single alliance. Trying to gain strength in their collective numbers, in order to be formidable enough to oppose the Holy One with their Evil One. Pathetic. But mysterious and true. Forced collectivization, based on fear. Leading to factions. Notice, they asked not to be cast into another geographical area, out of fear (there was probably another regimented faction over in that other area). The only way to regiment and control evil, while still giving it the freedom to REIGN AND DO THINGS, is with fear of injury (the sword). Jesus didn’t threaten to injure the demons. He cast them away. Banishment. (de-socialization from the wicked, withdrawing from fellowship with the wicked, while moving toward holiness, truth, logic, purity, and love for the saints.)
We too, are surrendered to a higher power. We yield ourselves to God. But this is done VOLUNTARILY without the physical sword or coercion of any kind (except that of conscience). We are allowed to be independent as much as we want to be. In fact, we have to STRIVE FOR unity. With the borg drone, it’s the opposite. If he wants to think anything but the party-line he must face the threat of immediate death just to get away from the matrix that holds him. Notice: when we are evil, and dead to Real Life, things appear upside down. We treat Love as if it would kill us immediately and we fear the freedom of others. But perfect Love casts out ALL fear (except the fear and respect for God).
Which side of the Godhead do you err on? Bojidar, you have already said that you tend to err on the institutional side of things rather than the “personal salvation” side of things. And it is quite obvious which side I err on. You may call me pietistic or think that I am somehow speaking in dichotomies… but you yourself admitted that I place the personal BEFORE the institutional. How is it a dichotomy if one CAN come before the other? That would make it a progression or a process or a hierarchy. That actually gives a corresponding RELATIONSHIP to the two. A dichotomy is “either/or.” In a dichotomy, they cannot both exist. Institutions are tools, not masters. PEOPLE ALONE (or “conscious centers” if you will) are masters.
Unless you are a slave to sin. And sin DOES tend to operate in mechanistic, very predictable ways. And that is why it always butts up against freedom and life in predictable ways. It’s what makes God’s law seem so rigid and unmoveable… because we are always trying to fall away in those same ways…instead of enjoying the IMMENSE FREEDOM we have to do righteous things. God’s law doesn’t have to do anything, or even be enforced by a physical sword. It exists. It’s a part of reality that carries its own consequences and penalties even without the civil secular state adding to the burden. God’s burden is light. But… I don’t think that killing a person is a light burden, even when it is justified. I err on the side of pacifism (in corporate things) and protecting myself or my neighbor (in personal and relational things). I decide, based on what I see. And you must convince me, logically, how I am harming myself or anyone else. If I am not violent, and have not killed or anything… how does my action justify the death penalty? (Rape is a possible exception to the delayed death penalty, so I probably just threw my whole argument out the window).
I suggest that it is YOU who truly views the institutional and the personal as a dichotomy. And that is because you have placed the cart before the horse. Institutions are not alive. People are. So there is a difference between the two. But which is more important? It is NOT “a dichotomy” to suggest that one is more important than the other. It is “a HEIRARCHY of importance, logic, or sequence” to suggest that one is more important than the other. I suggest that people are more important than what we call “institutions” or “laws”. And the Bible backs me up in this. David ate the showbread. Jesus told parables about rescued sheep, rescued on the Sabbath. Etc. The only reason we have a law-structure is to protect, and further LIFE. The law structure is immutable and natural. It already comes first. What I am addressing is how we wield that sword.
You have said that the institutional comes first. And then the personal. (Well, that is probably my take on what you said. You actually claim that there is NO DIFFERENCE between the institutional and the personal. In that case, you must clarify: because the world calls the secular civil government an institution. Is it, too, somehow alive and a person, without the aid of individual people?) You give the collective higher priority over the personal. I understand why you (and many others) have done this. You desire to preserve God’s pre-eminence over us. We are people, yet we are to obey. Obey God’s law. And God’s laws are unchangeable, they are not up for debate. But that begs the question: did life come from non-life… or did non-living things come from life? Do the tools serve the men, or do the men serve the tools?
I would argue that the tools are there FOR men, to help men serve GOD DIRECTLY. The personal has pre-eminence (again, I cite Hebrews 1:3). 1:3…… One person (the Father) existing (logically) before the son. If it helps, think of it this way: Eternity itself has layers. It isn’t a clean cut separation between eternity and time. After all, a being that exists eternally created time. It’s as if eternity was really high up in the sky…and then you approach the surface of the water (time). There is high eternity, and low eternity. And in the waters there is deepness and shallowness corresponding to it like a mirror. Time is the thin surface of the water. God has depth. We have depth. (But without God, we have no perspective or bearing other than our own lostness.) Time is elusive, we cannot really grasp it or control it. The best we can do, is in the moment: is appreciate God’s Height with all of the depth available to us.
A lot of what happened in the early parts of the Bible before Jesus was born, was because God was dealing with a split culture that didn’t even understand itself. He liberated the Israelites from bondage… bondage to a people obsessed with endless “systems” (how they were going to operate the levers of eternity and time, in order to live forever). And the Hebrews demonstrated that they still thought like Egyptians, even as they were miraculously being led by a very powerful being. (Only Moses was humble enough to truly understand God, more than his fellows.) The Hebrews had put their physical bodies on the line (involuntarily) to make these monuments to a men trying to be MORE than they actually were… by using impersonal formulas that had nothing to do with correct attitudes. It wasn’t about relationship with eternity for the Egyptians. It was about manipulating earth and heaven, to get the best of both, for yourself. (And no, earth and heaven are not dichotomies either, but that’s another issue: there is a hierarchy and an order to all of nature. One thing necessarily comes logically and chronologically before the other. I’m not talking about evolution from down upward, I’m talking about logical creation from on high, downward. This is the LOGIC that GOD chose to found the universe. It’s the logic that we use in our conversations, every day. Times a million.)
I do not deny that institutions exist. I do not deny that they can be useful. I do not deny that they are tools. (There is a peculiar kind of institution that I do deny, however… the idea that unrighteous people and righteous people can be joined together under one government, and be at peace or stable. No. You and I know that it is either open warfare, or disguised warfare. Either way, the two sides WAR against each other. This means that the state of America will always be at war within itself. It will never be at peace. America is not a nation. It is a nation-state. The nation is the people, and the people can be divided, shepherded, manipulated, discipled. But to say that a nation-state can somehow “be disciple” without first discipling the people… is to misunderstand what a nation-state IS!!!
To unify the two sides (good men and evil men)… you and I know is impossible. Therefore, suggesting that, through elections and judicial decisions, we apply Biblical law to heathen people IS an act of war to people still living in those lifestyles. And they oppose us because they value their sin, and they wish to live. Once you join two warring factions together under one government, and charge that government with keeping the peace between the two, you essentially make that government serve itself. It will triangulate. It has no choice, because that IS what a secular civil government bearing the sword IS. It is a triangulation: a truce. Because as soon as a leader of this supposed “institution” openly chooses sides, it has openly declared war. So it will not do this. It will find ways to subtly persecute, without trying to look like it is at war. It will choose either one master or the other. Our proposed solution to capture this apparatus and use it for our ends is no less a declaration of war against illogical/immoral people than real war is. They may ASK us for council. They may appoint us to positions, using their authority, where we act as INDIVIDUAL RULING AUTONOMOUS PERSONS… such as Joseph and Pharoah. But we are NOT to appeal to a secular civil truce as our BASIS of authority. And that is what a secular civil state IS. Church government is not a truce. Church government is when Christians meet together informally to discuss things and strive for the unity of the faith, for the sake of proclamation. As we are doing, right now. What we are doing right now, is similar to what the apostles did when they met together to discuss things and pray, until they ALL came to an agreement based on what seems right to the Spirit. And it was NOT a forced agreement! They were allowed as much time as they were comfortable with. They were free to come and go…only if they went, they couldn’t be a part of the physical conversation, obviously. Clarity of our proclamation is what church “governance” and responsibility is all about. It is the world that cares about the stability of its material prosperity. We are already free from serving physical things. We protect each other’s lives. We show love, at all times. And we PROCLAIM as clearly as we can… in effort to reach men’s consciences.)
This gets down to the very nature of “unified government” and how we think about government and structure it, and how we wage our warfare on the enemy.
I find it intensely interesting that it took a heathen (? Theologically ambivalent?) emperor to force a collective council to make a rather forced/contrived product. Is it any wonder that when you physically FORCE or COERCE (with implied physical brute power) a plurality of people, into the same room together, foist upon them one man-made unity (a council), and demand from them a decision before they can disband, despite it being very difficult to reach a decision… that the decision itself should resemble the council itself??? Logical debate and discussion is not regimented. It cannot be, for logic is out of our hands. Logic rests on the perception of a Whole. A Unified structure that we all do participate in (like it or not). Logic leads to proclamation, then conviction of the conscience, and then a change of attitude, direction, and action. We are to help people open their eyes. The sword does not open people’s eyes. It makes them fear for their bodies and possessions, and stimulates worldly concerns.
The Council of Nicea’s main theological contribution (product) of Tri-nity was an artificial (non-biblical language) contrivance (heavy on Greek thought) meant to describe God for the sake of the unity/existence of an earthly throne (because the purpose of having the intellectual product was to force it down everyone’s throat and capture their minds, binding them to Rome, and give reason for the sword). I know that the word Trinity was used before Nicea (which sounds a lot like “nice” doesn’t it? Play nice. Don’t hurt anyone’s feelings by stating the obvious: that the council’s product was sub-par. And it is also not nice to challenge the sword is it? The sword brings the punishment of death, and somehow, to SPEAK against it is considered the greater threat to stability than the sword itself? Why do we bear the physical sword? Only to counter someone else’s physical sword. Other than that, leave it up to God.) But Tri-nity wasn’t used for more than a hundred years AFTER the apostles letters were in circulation. That’s far from being “apostolic” don’t you think? Just a little? Yet, to question it meant the death penalty. Interesting. And we wonder why people are a little upset (even now) about what happened?
I wasn’t raised with the doctrine of Trinity. However, I have been JUST as savage with my own roots as I am now being with the whole idea of 3-in-1. It’s not a make-or-break. Like the best of lies… the trinity formulation can be in a believer’s mind, and it doesn’t totally kill their faith. But I would argue that it stifles faith, because it stifles logic. It is much more logical to say “1 in 3 …and then some (humans)” than “3-in-1, and the rest we won’t include in the diagram”. Why does the 3 have to come FIRST? And why are the 3 (this is MOST crucial) described as PersonS (plural). That is not found in the Bible. Does something have to be a person to have existence? No. (I have hair, my hair is not… a person). Do any of the 3 act separately? (No. The Godhead operates as one, in tandem… almost like it serves One Head. Hence, we call it a Godhead. Because the order streams down from the inherent hierarchy of existence.)
It seems like splitting hairs at first. We all believe in Jesus, that he is man, that he is God. We all believe that the Holy Ghost is a Spirit and is God as well. When any one of them is operating, he is not doing it independently. They are “together in this thing” … but then right there, in that statement, I have made an error. Tri-nity: “3 that are together in this thing… somehow… it’s still a mystery”. No doubt the council didn’t TRULY appreciate it’s forced consensus, but you must find that a little amusing (even if you don’t agree with me). The “decree” of the council (for it was treated as a kingly and earthly decree) did end up resembling the council itself. Even though they could not come to an agreement… they had to make it look like they did, so they could go home and be with their wives (if they had not already given them up, at that point in the compromise).
Nicea, unable to resolve HOW the three are One (and come to a substantive agreement) they settled for a formulation that basically means “the three things that we call persons are together in this thing we call God”. We turned our model of God into a thing, rather than a person-centric Being, who is Relatable and Heirarchical. God became nebulous, to the minds that could make the greatest difference to the intellectual climate. Somehow, though the scripture states that God IS Love… we had to begin with The Father being a person (which he is), and the Son being a person (even though the son is the image of the Father’s person), and the Holy Spirit being a person (even though there is no evidence to that). I didn’t say that the Holy Spirit wasn’t personal. Just as I didn’t say that the Son wasn’t personal. They are both extensions (in some way) of God’s own Person. The emphasis here begins with Unity and moves into Three (or more…because the Holy Spirit indwells believers). It is One-In-Whatever-number-God-wants-to-end-at. That is why the Bible doesn’t limit the number of aspects or things in God that can be studied. Never limits the number. God is creative. But God always remains in charge, or in control, and lesser beings (at the end of the day) can all still be used as tools by Him to accomplish His Own purposes. He is in control, and he has all of logic on his side. The GodHead. It’s all about headship. Order isn’t non-living. Order comes from dominion. Dominion requires a conscious center that exercises that dominion. And through righteous (true) dominion… more stability is formed, and more can be created and placed (or hung) on the structure. And all consciousness ultimately answers to both the consciousness that is in direct dominion over it (spiritual authority, if you will); but even more importantly, every being (conscious or unconscious, visible or invisible, whatever) answer to the Conscious Creator that is everywhere: God.
The dichotomy of system versus personhood… is found in our theories about God Himself. We didn’t stick to the Bible. A Person existed. He created things (either from nothing, or from Himself, or both). And the ORDER (logical necessity/hierarchy) of his creative acts… is what forms the structure of existence. And it seems so uniform, we call them laws. But these laws don’t exist apart from a person. They are rooted in and from an eternal and never-changing person. They are not ambivalent, amoral, capricious decrees. God is not a man. God IS One. He is Absolute. It is tempting to think of God and what he does as being THINGS (as if they were dead). But they are not. There are layers of awareness and consciousness. Beginning with the Godhead. The process of creation begins with the Father.
This isn’t rocket science. He placed the analogies directly into nature itself. And we haven’t even hardly begun to explore. Instead, some Irish or Scottish guy used a 3-leaf clover to try to explain the Godhead. Please. You can’t come up with anything better than that?!
The triumph of Jesus is not seen in what the power-centers do. It is sometimes seen in what the power-centers are ABLE to pull off. When the message, like a seed, has already spread and changed the lives of a sea of individual people… the power centers can pretend that it was all their idea, in the first place. (And so try to justify their power, and cover up the historical once-and-for-all victory of Jesus Christ. It is Jesus, His message being freely spread, freely proclaimed, and freely rejoiced in… that creates the peace that emperors enjoy for their own luxury. It is the EMPERORS who were obsessed with conquering time so that they could keep things from changing away from their order and control. They wanted to be certain about things, and proclaim with certainty… but in their misguided zeal, they turned to political solutions, forced certainty… and the result was a politicized zeal for political certainty…and it became less and less about truth and philosophy and a quest to know more… and more and more about managing the masses so things didn’t get out of control. So we went from PHYSICAL warfare between peoples, to INTELLECTUAL warfare foisted on all people. That was the trade-off to all this politicized power-grabbing that Constantine and the Emperors instigated, and the church willingly fell into.)
Tell me, when you READ the facts about what happened at Nicaea itself… in the actual meetings, decrees, results FROM THAT EVENT… doesn’t it just make you want to jump up and down for joy? Me neither. I can’t imagine too much joy happening at the Council either, unless they were getting hopping mad at each other! (I jump for joy when I discover something new about God… or when God does something amazing or great, like healing somebody or giving us a new child in the womb. That gets me excited. But the Council of Nicaea? I suppose that would excite me if I thought that politics and Rome was actually the determiner of things and the center of real power. But it isn’t. The Reformation Movement demonstrated that point, rather well.)
I know that “Wikipedia” probably won’t point out the “good side of things” about Nicaea… like how Christians EVERYWHERE changed the character of the empire. People still think in terms of what the “top dog” and the “sword-bearing man” is doing. The empires character did transform and shift. But that character change did NOT truly COME from the “First Council of Nicaea” in the first place. But nobody mentions that, on either side, unless they are telling The Truth.
This is what the people out there in the world SEE when they look at Nicaea: Bear in mind, that a lot of these words are Biblical words RIPPED out of their biblical definitions…or are non-biblical terms, or are flat-out lies. Just because something is “official” (with Caesar) doesn’t mean that it is “the first time it happened.” The disciples had a meeting where they came to a Holy-Spirit-Led consensus. And they weren’t forced to do it. And there were no trumpets, hooplah, and paper documents coming from it. It was all about helping them (as individuals) clarify their proclamation of the gospel.
From Wikipedia:
“ The First Council of Nicaea is commonly regarded to have been the first Ecumenical council of the Christian Church. Most significantly, it resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine, called the Creed of Nicaea. With the creation of the creed, a precedent was established for subsequent general (ecumenical) councils of Bishops (Synods) to create statements of belief and canons of doctrinal orthodoxy— the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom.
The council did not create the doctrine of the deity of Christ (as is sometimes claimed) but it did settle to some degree the debate within the Early Christian communities regarding the divinity of Christ. This idea of the divinity of Christ along with the idea of Christ as a messenger from the one God (“The Father”) had long existed in various parts of the Roman empire. The divinity of Christ had also been widely endorsed by the Christian community in the otherwise pagan city of Rome.[5] The council affirmed and defined what it believed to be the teachings of the Apostles regarding who Christ is: that Christ is the one true God in deity with the Father.
Derived from Greek oikoumenikos, “ecumenical” means “worldwide” but generally is assumed to be limited to the Roman Empire in this context as in Augustus’ claim to be ruler of the oikoumene/world; the earliest extant uses of the term for a council are Eusebius’ Life of Constantine 3.6[6] around 338, which states “σύνοδον οἰκουμενικὴν συνεκρότει” (he convoked an Ecumenical council); Athanasius’ Ad Afros Epistola Synodica in 369;[7] and the Letter in 382 to Pope Damasus I and the Latin bishops from the First Council of Constantinople.[8]
One purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements arising from within the Church of Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in relationship to God the Father; in particular, whether Jesus was the literal son of God or was he a figurative son, like the other “Sons of God” in the Bible. St. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius claimed to take the first position; the popular presbyter Arius, from whom the term Arianism comes, is said to have taken the second. The council decided against the Arians overwhelmingly (of the estimated 250–318 attendees, all but two voted against Arius.[9])
Another result of the council was an agreement on when to celebrate Easter, the most important feast of the ecclesiastical calendar. The council decided in favour of celebrating Easter on the first Sunday after the first full moon following the vernal equinox, independent of the Hebrew Calendar (see also Quartodecimanism and Easter controversy). It authorized the Bishop of Alexandria (presumably using the Alexandrian calendar) to announce annually the exact date to his fellow bishops.
Historically significant as the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom,[2] the Council was the first occasion where the technical aspects of Christology were discussed.[2] Through it a precedent was set for subsequent general councils to adopt creeds and canons. This council is generally considered the beginning of the period of the First seven Ecumenical Councils in the History of Christianity.
The Biblical Canon
Main article: Development of the Christian Biblical canon
A number of erroneous views have been stated regarding the council’s role in establishing the Biblical Canon. In fact, there is no record of any discussion of the Biblical Canon at the council at all.[45][46] The development of the Biblical Canon took centuries, and was nearly complete (with exceptions known as the Antilegomena) by the time the Muratorian fragment was written, perhaps as early as 150 years before the council. Later in 331 Constantine commissioned fifty Bibles for the Church of Constantinople. Little else is known, though it has been speculated that this may have provided motivation for canon lists.
[edit] The Trinity
Although the council of Nicea dealt primarily with the issue of the deity of Christ, some maintain that it was not the originator of the doctrine of the Trinity. Over a century earlier the use of the term “Trinity” (“trinitas” in Latin) could be found in the writings of Origen (185-254) and Tertullian (160-220),[47] and a general notion of a “divine three”, in some sense, was expressed in the second and third-century writings of Polycarp, Ignatius, and Justin Martyr.[48] But the doctrine in a more full-fledged form was not formulated until the Council of Constantinople in 360 AD.[49]
[edit] The Role of Constantine
Main article: Constantine I and Christianity
While Constantine wanted a unified church after the council for political reasons, he did not force the Homoousian view of Christ’s nature on the council, nor commission a Bible at the council that omitted books he did not approve of, although he did later commission Bibles. In fact, Constantine had little theological understanding of the issues at stake, and did not particularly care which view of Christ’s nature prevailed so long as it resulted in a unified church.[50] This can be seen in his initial acceptance of the Homoousian view of Christ’s nature, only to abandon the belief several years later for political reasons, under the influence of Eusebius of Nicomedia and others.[50]
[edit] The Role of the Bishop of Rome
See also: Primacy of the Roman pontiff and East-West Schism
Roman Catholics assert that idea of Christ’s deity was ultimately confirmed by the Bishop of Rome, and that it was this confirmation that gave the council its influence and authority. In support of this they cite the position of early fathers and their expression of the need for all churches to agree with Rome (see Ireneaus, Adversus Haereses III:3:2).
However, Protestants and Eastern Orthodox do not believe the Council viewed the Bishop of Rome as the jurisdictional head of Christendom or someone having authority over other bishops attending the Council. In support of this they cite Canon 6, where the Roman Bishop could be seen as simply one of several influential leaders, but not one who had jurisdiction over other bishops in other regions.
“Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail: that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges…”[51]
According to Protestant theologian Philip Schaff, “The Nicene fathers passed this canon not as introducing anything new, but merely as confirming an existing relation on the basis of church tradition; and that, with special reference to Alexandria, on account of the troubles existing there. Rome was named only for illustration; and Antioch and all the other eparchies or provinces were secured their admitted rights. The bishoprics of Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch were placed substantially on equal footing”[52]
Western Civilization is reaching out, and trying to love and understand everybody. We have overcome so much. We have overcome racism, nationalism, and a lot of elitism (our elites have to pretend, more and more, that they think of themselves as average), and we have also recently overcome the most powerful forms of state-worship…
We have not yet overcome utopianism, but that’s because utopianism is the dream that is necessary for many people to continue to love (or act like they do).
My main point is: western civilization does not suffer from a love deficit as much as a logic deficit. We are not logical, hence we are not pure. And because iniquity and impurity abound… our love is growing cold.
I truly believe that when our logic becomes more pure, and we begin to see things with clearer eyes, we will make straight the way of the Lord. There will be a clear channel for love to flow, unmuddied by logical or doctrinal opposition. Right now, one of my main focuses, is to prepare my mind and heart by purifying my thought processes. Through humility, deep study, and ideas/dreams of how people would personally implement my doctrines/ideas if my ideas were actually believed. Sometimes, in my head, I run through imaginary scenarios… just to see if my doctrines would have any truth and traction in the real world. When those who follow my ideas encounter persecution, death, misunderstanding, ridicule, or any type of hinderance… how do they overcome those hinderances? And then how would the world predictably respond? And how would we counter their response?
I truly is a wierd warfare. It counters hate with love? It brings a sword that divides people against their own family, even though it’s not talking about physically killing your own family. (sword is metaphore… unless there is a real sword involved, and we have the choice to take it up or lay it down)…
And at the heart of every intellectual dilemma… is the intellectual tension (or resolution) of The One and the many. The One is God. He is the only real Unity…and it is from Him that (I believe) we get the concept of the number 1. …and then anything that has distinctions in it is the many. The many long for unity in The One. And The One (in ways that we cannot yet explain, I guess) longs to be expressed in and through the Many.
And He has gone through great lengths to do this (create), and make it possible (through His Son), and make it sustainable (through the rescue of salvation, forming a continuity of awareness and memory of both darkness and light). God is creating a society of people for Himself, where He can truly invest Himself fully and (maybe some day) unreservedly… without it failing or crumbling because of lack of trust, sin, or disobedience. Someday… all of His plans will be shown to be perfect. We have infinite possibilities in a potentially infinite future (in this age or the next). God is not running out of time. He creates it. And then… some day… He may end it. And then only He knows what else He has in store.
We haven’t even begun to crack the surface, of the logical ramifications of Biblical thought and language. Science and eternity. Infinities and invisible things. Living Hearts and Logical Truths. Things that were once Pure and Holy and One being separated and made Whole again. Do we really understand what it all means? No. And too many of us pretend that we do, as we focus on well-trodden paths, and well-worn answers. We need to challenge ourselves to go beyond. And if we won’t challenge ourselves to imagine and stretch our minds around what scripture MAY be saying or COULD be saying… rest assured that someone else will.
If we aren’t ready to show love, or we don’t know how to effectively do it and remain true to our proclamation… then we had better prepare the Way of the Lord. Strive for the Unity of our Faith. One Faith. One baptism. (in the NAME of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit… the only NAME given under heaven whereby we must be saved… JESUS. He is our banner, he’s the only One we lift up above ourselves…and we’re safe in so doing, because the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Him. So when we lift him up, we also lift up and glorify the Father who begot Him. And now He dwells in us… so … you may also presume that the fullness of the Godhead, which dwells in Jesus, now works in us and dwells in us. We are without excuse, brothers.
Everything that Jesus had when he walked the earth, we have available to us (and even more, because the Work is already done). Jesus had to contend within flesh that had the likeness of sinful flesh: he was tempted, just like we are. He had to face it and he overcame it. He submitted even unto death, for the joy set before Him. That joy (I believe) is us. And if he takes that much joy in the completed work… which is all of us together enjoying Him… then we should take that joy as our strength. And we should laugh and sing and proclaim.
I once heard a funny quote that is very true: “Don’t give a sword to a man that can’t dance.”
This is one of the most important things that I have ever written or explored. It is important because of the topic that it addresses (not because it’s well-polished or even completely thought-out). The subject at hand has infinities involved with it. And this makes it difficult to describe except in the broadest possible terms. The ramifications of our conclusions on this matter will ripple outward and affect our entire worldview, as the subject being discussed really does establish all of existence.
Bojidar said something, and he assumed that I would agree, and just go along with it, and that a particular issue would be settled. It isn’t. I could go on and on forever (probably)…but I would never be done exploring this issue. I wrote 20 pages in Microsoft Word (single spaced) just warming up for this exact post. I just want to get it out there, and get the ball rolling.
Ok. I’ll try to be brief, even though my brevity will not explain much about how big the scope truly is, of the subject that I am now going to tackle… head-first. I’m sorry if I sound defensive, or long-winded. It’s just that I’m a little nervous about what I am about to say (later on) in a few short sentences. It will change the entire tenor of the debate. And will impact how everyone who responds to me, will treat me in the future.
It is going to be incredibly difficult for me to keep this short because I am going to “step in it” and I know people are going to react and react strongly. As they should. But as long as we keep a dialogue open… and we are honest with ourselves… I believe that we will grow in knowledge and insight.
I am going to jump into a subject here that I would like to talk about and explore for eternity to come. There is something in me that gives me an edge, a fire, a zeal… It has motivated me for years, but I haven’t explored it or let it out. I have stayed around the edges of the exact line of inquiry that I will now pursue with gusto. The reason I am here, is to get to the heart of this one topic…and now that I know what that topic is, I am not going to stop short of it. It’s almost like Jeremiah: “A fire shut up in my bones.”
I’m getting into some deep stuff, and if you want me to: I can explain what I mean in detail, and at length. I would be glad to. I want to. I like to explore things, intellectually, before I make up my mind if I believe in something. And I usually don’t get extremely talkative about something, until I begin to see it with my mind’s eye, and I don’t feel a hint of evil or duplicity in my heart regarding the matter. I am now going to wade into some very controversial territory… But it needs to be said. I welcome all feedback, provided that it isn’t someone just telling me that I’m going to hell. That isn’t helpful. That’s a conversation-stopper that needs to be overcome in Christian circles. I’ve had that happen before, from a good friend no less, when I’ve opened up about this particular topic. That was long ago, and I’m used to heated debate. The “you’re going to hell” has been used for a LONG TIME as a conversation stopper, and a thought-stopper. Sometimes resulting in death. And often resulting in spiritual death for one or both parties.
I get energized, when other people provoke me to think deeply. Others can challenge me, but they will not scare me away from thinking about deep and complex things. Not any more. I know I’m on to something, now. And I’m not giving up. I’m not backing down. Even if that means that I have to leave this forum. Though, with the reasonable minds in here, that thought seems absurd.
If you tell me to “not question something” in my inquiry, then I will certainly ask “why” or “why not?” I have already found my safe place: I trust in Jesus and the Scriptures. I will always return there. And I believe that it is that commitment that I have made with my Personal God, that draws me away from fruitless ideas and toward fruitful ones. I believe that God is my safety, and that I constantly need to “check in” with Him. I don’t necessarily need to “pause and wait” before I intellectually inquire. I will hold the Devil accountable to the standards of logic, I will hold myself accountable to its standards, but there is one thing that is beyond logic… and that is the one thing that I will begin to explore. Logic confirms it…but it comes by revelation and sight. “He who has eyes to see, let him see (please). And he who has ears to hear, let him hear.” I urge us all to not freak out (that’s #1…worry has a way of being irrational and stunting all thought processes). I always keep Jesus (the real historical Jesus of the Bible, who also transcends all time and space) foremost in my thoughts – and I am finding that to be the thing that always reassures me whether I am speaking the truth…or whether I’m on a bad trail.
Some truths must be declared in order to achieve the cultural breakthroughs that we need. Satan is trying desperately to keep certain truths at bay… truths that would reveal our victory to the world. Truths are obvious, once they are explored… but certain truths have been hidden and shrouded in intrigue and obfuscation. And this intellectual “dodge ball” has been going on for well over a thousand years on many topics. And I am now beginning to see the root of it all. Some things are so obvious, it’s a wonder why they have not been systematically articulated sooner. It’s not all that complex. The words are already written in scripture…but…
There is one very giant stronghold that is easy to ignore, and seems harmless to believe… but it has caused western culture to be a dwarf compared to what it could have been. It has stunted our growth as believers: intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually. It has done this by avoiding (as much as possible) DIRECT and BOLD exploration, inquiry, and confrontation. This stronghold has avoided being exposed by appearing to be inconsequential, while at the same time exploding in the face of anyone who dares challenge it or explore it openly. And this is especially if that person is a believer, who fellowships with fellow believers. It is one issue that cannot be seen unless one is already becoming a believer, yet cannot be freely explored once one is a believer without being shouted at. But things are changing, at least in my circles. People are beginning to see for themselves. They are beginning to open up and connect the dots. It will probably lead to the biggest breakthrough in Christian thought… for those who are PAYING ATTENTION TO THEIR FELLOW BELIEVERS, and OPEN TO THE IMPLICATIONS of Logic and the Truth that was revealed to us almost 2000 years ago.
A logical fallacy seems to be the root of many smaller fallacies…and seems to come up in intelligent circles, exactly when smaller fallacies are about to be resolved. So… lets get to the root of it. Bring it on.
Here is one branch off of the main problem at hand:
I now believe that institutions (even the Institutes of Biblical Law, if I am using those words correctly) are made to serve individuals and not the other way around. Institutions serve people, people never (truly) serve institutions. If anything, they serve in order to benefit a Personal Being (either themselves, or someone else). They desire to profit a Personal Being (one or many). If you desire to challenge me, because your worldview is predicated on something called “The Institutes of Biblical Law” then answer this one question: what does the word Institutes mean? What is an Institute? What is it made of? (I am not attempting to overthrow everything…only refine what the Bible means when it uses words…and what we all truly mean, when we use these words. Oftentimes, the confusion starts at our root perceptions of individual words, so each individual word must be challenged, so that we can begin to speak properly about the gospel.)
For that matter…can someone articulate for me what the word “Law” means in a way that gives maximum concrete definition to the word? After all, we have physical laws and moral laws, and laws of mathematics. I believe that they are all related and connected in the same living matrix (all things hold together in Jesus)… but that’s another story. Oftentimes, the most consistent, concrete, and broad definition of a word will point to even more logical conclusions, when that word is used properly. We are in a battle over meaning. So let us begin by refining what WE mean when WE proclaim the gospel!! I’m sure that “iron sharpens iron” and we can figure this out together, when we are honest, humble, open, and hold fast to the Word of God.
I believe that all institutions (visible and invisible, indivisible and desolvable) are aimed at people’s hearts, and are controlled (made, kept, or broken) between people. And I believe God to be a Personal Being as well: the ultimate observer of all contracts. All contracts, all covenants, all institutes and institutions… are Personal in nature. To imagine a lifeless, machine-like system which is MORE than a Person… is worse than heresy. It leads to an unbelievable magnitude of death, when such reasoning is built upon, acted upon, and carried through to its conclusion.
I have many reasons for saying these things… which would lead to a very fascinating discussion, no doubt. All of reality is rooted in God and What/Who He Is. And when all of reality is challenged (as it is these days), then God is the only thing to fall back on. The Only Way that we can Truly Understand Reality is to Understand God: Who God Is and What God Desires.
But anyway… here is the main problem at hand, for which I wrote this post, and which I do believe has (cleverly and subtly) stunted western civilization for 1500 years. The clarity of the gospel message has been compromised, before. It’s nothing new. But the cost has been enormous.
(not to mention stunting intelletual growth, inventiveness, and physical prosperity): Here goes: I’m just gonna say it… and I hope to still be able to post to this website (just kidding):
Please, I welcome any criticism of my words. I see it as an invitation to grow. I hope that any words that I may say, would be seen the same way. (And I really hope someone reads this post… otherwise… I just wasted the better part of a day learning and exploring things by myself.)
• Bojidar, you replied to me: “Individuals act; societies also act. It is the very nature of the Trinitarian Covenant.
Ok. Lets get to the heart of the issue then. Trinity is not a word used in the Bible. I do not truly understand that word, nor what you mean by that word. What do you mean by “the Trinitarian Covenant”? …
By now you’ve probably guessed that I’m not a traditional Trinitarian. And besides that… please define for me what a traditional Trinitarian is, in words that are both biblically compatible and understandable?? And then please describe what you mean by Trinity (I’m not asking for a definition, just a description).
(If you are referring to a nebulous “collective” of 3 Persons being the basis for God’s laws and judgments, I have to disagree. The Bible does not use the plural word Persons (EVER) when describing God. And individual words (especially when describing the very foundation of our worldview) are EXTREMELY important!! After all, we don’t understand everything that we need to understand yet, and that is why we HAVE the Bible written down for us, in the first place! If creeds and councils cannot stick to biblical phraseology and OBVIOUS logic… then how can we trust them? I choose to trust in the Bible. I will not place my fate (earthly or heavenly) or my mind in the hands of elitists.
God is Personal (Hebrews 1:3…I like that whole chapter), and I believe that He made us as persons so that He could relate to us. I believe that society is made up of many people. God desires an expanding society of individual people, because He loves life, and desires to show His greatness, and because He is creative and desires to create things that do not fall away or perish.
I hold to my initial position. God is Personal, and deals with People (and judges them) individually. The quickest and best way (and Only True Way) into someone’s heart is Personally. Now, if you want to press me on the issue of Personhood, and the definition of “Person” I will be glad to go there, and explore that…all though I doubt I could contain it all in words. In fact, challenge anything I say. I got to get better at how I present “my case” that God is One, and that we should be talking about the Unity of the Godhead, and what the word Godhead means…rather than discussing what the word Trinity means. You don’t mathematically move from 3 to one without subtraction or starting with a negative number. But in math, you can move very easily from 1 to 3…and beyond…while still remaining within a greater 1.) I will not disgust you guys or shock you guys any more than I already have. To me, this is not shocking, it is exciting. I start thinking about what the number 1 IS. And what 0 IS. And how creation seems to create a 2 where there was only a 1 before. And how -1 doesn’t actually exist, yet it does. How there is an Evil One and a Holy One. And evil seems to have a structure to it, just as holiness has a structure to it… and how at the top of it all you have Satan (“adversary”) who is the father of lies…little not-so-sweet nothings… and God, the Father, who is Love and Spirit and Head of His Son, who is the Center of all things that His Father creates. It all holds together in the Son. The dynamics of unity.
No. I don’t subscribe to the Trinity. I do not understand it. But you start talking about oneness, unity, love, under-standing something, and then I start understanding things. And my mind is taken captive to the truth.
When I start thinking about God and Nature, and how Creation (including us) is made to fit God like a glove and enjoy Him as it would enjoy a paradise. And how His Joy is truly remarkable. God is not a man. But He is Personal. And we all know that persons house infinities and spirits (for better or worse).
When I start thinking about how man is head of his wife, they both are one flesh (a shadow an example of Christ and his Bride, the church, new Jerusalem)… it all begins to … RELATE and CONNECT. There is a lot about oneness in the Bible. A lot said about love, forgiveness, unity, and choice (all choice is essentially binary, when each choice it is reduced to its component elements).
I’m not saying that we are in a false matrix, a digital world… or whatever. I am saying that physical reality (which is real) points to deeper structural truths that are buried in reality itself. And that God has revealed this, and not hidden this. Reality is rooted in God’s character and nature (they are not seperate things. Who God Is is Who God Is.) This means that when we begin with a proper concept of God (if we can)… then nature begins to come alive and make sense. Everything comes alive and makes more sense. And then all we do is add to our knowledge, precept upon precept. Beginning with The One, and never deviating from The One, even as we try to explain the Many. And the devil’s most clever will be undone. Because we will not have the option of hiding behind emotionalism and fear. We will see how love and mathematics CONNECT.
When the Godhead is mis-defined (even in the slightest way)… it does not aid logic, it actually hinders logic. And if the gospel doesn’t make sense logically… then the only appeal is to emotion. And we wonder why “the church” seems to run on emotionalism? For better or worse, if we don’t have logic, all we have is nebulous, mysterious, and sometimes faulty emotions. And if emotions are the best we got (when it comes to the appeal of the gospel)… then we are truly an effeminate church. Our proclamation does not put logic out front! We use emotionalism (however cleverly disguised) to accomplish our ends. Maybe we are only winning christians over from other christian camps, because we are emotionally drawn to each other, not because we are making fundamental logical sense, on the fundamental salvation issue.
I will attempt to explain what I mean later (if I can actually do this successfully) using mathematics. Yes. I believe that it may be possible to DESCRIBE (and maybe explain) a lot about God and salvation and the fundamentals of existence (including our own existence) using simple mathematical principles, beginning with eternity on down through creation and redemption and back to eternity. And I am not a mathematician. I don’t know how far I can get with mathematical logic… but I believe it is quite possible, when we start with the right model, and the right assumptions. This would cause a revolution… if we could diagram salvation, just like we diagram gravity and the laws that govern material nature. They are “laws” are they not?? Just because we cannot see them, does not mean that we cannot describe them, using mathematical principles. I believe (I may be slightly crazy and off my rocker) but I believe I may have found a few key insights that may allow me to begin doing this. At least for my own entertainment and amusement, just to see if I can.
We could make God and salvation very easy to understand, and very obvious. And furthermore, we could make the principles of the visible economy and dominion obvious as well, since they are the same essential principles as the invisible economy (which involves salvation) and dominion. The solution isn’t high-mindedness. The solution is to get as simple as possible in our words (questioning our word definitions), in our logic, in our phrases. We can be as simple as possible, while remaining true and comprehensive. After all, fools multiply words. Just look at Washington DC. What we need are diagrams, symbols, principles… that make it easy to understand for the young child and the graduate student.
By the way, do you know that one of the FIRST things that Muslims (who profess to love logic, morality, Monotheism, and the written word) throw in our face when we talk to them is: Mathematics! End of argument. Simple mathematical logic. So let’s begin addressing the issue in those terms (if we can). After all, mathematics has proven to be foundational to material reality (both seen and unseen)…and mathematics and the material world are rooted in God. The invisible is often reflected in the visible. Is it so hard to imagine that maybe, we may be able to describe (not define) GOD HIMSELF using the language of mathematics, when we use numbers as SYMBOLS? Lets turn the tables. Real is real. I do believe that pure mathematics is the simplest way to describe things logically (not define it… but to explain and describe it). God appears to really want this. After all, monotheism wasn’t man’s idea. The idea of One God who is Conscious and Transcendent but yet Relatable isn’t something that fallen men tend to gravitate toward and hug with open arms. At least, their rulers fear this, and their rulers want to keep the people from realizing what is available to them. Because then the rulers wouldn’t have a justification for their authority and centralized position. (Rulers like to think of themselves as MORE than a person, or at least MORE than other men.)
The world is panicking because of all the external upheaval happening around us. But if I am right, and the gospel really can be explained in a way that a dummy could understand (with his logic)… then the end of the world truly is dawning. And that is what they are sensing, especially those who desire to avoid morality. We may have to suffer economic depression and wars, etc. in the near future. But if we begin now, to come together, and get our proclamation and unity ironed out (logically, AND emotionally/relationally with each other) then it’s over! Game up!
We can dream…. right?
We know what we believe, as seasoned saints, having weathered many storms. So now is not the time to worry. (And for those around us, who are simple christians, barely hanging on to faith against the intellectual onslaught… many of them believe just as firmly as we do…and they choose to believe, despite not being taught much… they are to be commended and fed simple morsels of truth, not ridiculed!) Now, it’s time to step out of the boat. Keep your eyes trained on Jesus and place your Hope in Him. You will be very surprised to see what happens when you don’t look past logic, when you choose to see Jesus for Who He Is. You may just become like Him and walk on water as you go out to meet Him there!
Good day!
There is a lengthy but worthwhile critique of this article here.
It is amazing how one can write so much to “critique” and miss the main point of the article. No word at all as to why the persecuted bishops gathered at the First Council. I suppose, the author – who’s never been persecuted – believes himself to be morally and spiritually superior to those who were persecuted for their faith.
The whole critique is saying: “I am better than those persecuted Christians of the fourth century. I know better.” It is not a critique of my article. It is a prideful declaration of one’s own moral superiority.
Can we correct a brother, in love? Such a brother may be able to respond… except they cannot because they died long ago. So are we not allowed to say anything, out of respect for them?
People make mistakes. It happens, even among saints. That’s why we have each other. Hindsight is 20/20 as they say. 100 years from now, people may look back at the things that I did (or the general changes that I am advocating) and find fault. Part of the Christian Reconstruction requires pruning, and re-constructing. And we must all be humble.
I have much respect for brothers who suffered for the faith, and helped pass it on to us. I do not hold myself above them. I have the benefit of hindsight. And I may see something in the Bible that they didn’t, somehow.
Bojidar wrote: “I wish Gary would let me publish articles as long as your post is. I have much more to say on every subject I write about than what is in an article.”
If you like to write long articles I guess you could save the scraps for the comments section (??). Just an idea. For those of us that like to mull over things.
I should feel bad about clogging up the conversation. I need to pace myself. But I just like to write and think about this stuff, and go deep about things that can make a real difference. I figure, more conversation, is better than less! And since I don’t write the main posts…I don’t feel a need to condense things for the sake of clear presentation. This is a conversation among interested people, it’s just in written form. So, if it needs to be said, and it’s true, and it’s not vindictive… then we can say it, right? I like to bounce things off of people, as I frame my thinking.
And now I’m off to work!
No way. Your two posts gave me at least three ideas for articles. The fact that I don’t reply in detail is not because the conversation is clogged but because I haven’t much to disagree with.
I’m very happy to hear that. Like I said, I hope others here learn from my naivite.
I think I will have to start my own blog, since I feel very motivated and energized to write. And I like to be conversational, but deep. I only speak those things that I know and feel are common sense. At least that is how I am trying to be. Common sense is basically previously revealed things with logic applied to them. It’s just that nobody usually knows how to articulate it, or feels comfortable enough to talk about it, or (quite frankly) wants to take the time and effort to put something that they THINK is common sense into words. Often, it is those with unspoken common sense who are carrying the breakthroughs and the revelations! (Even if it’s just a “revelation” of themselves, I guess! I have read “Christian Reconstruction” material for a couple of years now, and most of that material just doesn’t “speak to me.” Like it is written for someone else. It doesn’t hit home. So I guess, that’s why we need to start “coming together” both virtually and in real life. All of us are bridges. We were made to be bridges, between God and others. I have taken a lot in, from many different areas of “Christianity”, at this point. But I can only stick with what I know and (in a way) feel to be true.
When I write, things just come out. And like all writers, the editing process is much more time-consuming and exhausting than the initial writing. It slows me down. Maybe that’s why Christianity seems to spread faster in a word-of-mouth culture than in a text-bound culture (I don’t know). Not that I am against the written Bible! Men have preserved it for a reason (because they treasured it)… and God protected it!
When I free-flow, I go in all kinds of directions. It’s how I discover things, even faster (SOMETIMES) than reading. When I read, I usually don’t connect the dots unless the author does it for me. When I write or speak, in free-flow, those are the things that (when I am honest and humble) I really believe… and it is amazing what comes out, especially when I connect the dots between what one author has said and what another has said. And it is only when you first connect the dots that you either realize that other people have been living/operating/thinking/relating in that area for a long time… or that hardly nobody around you has that particular bit of knowledge. Or (sometimes) people are operating in an area, without knowing precisely what they’re doing.
I speak from a simple heart that is at least partially shaped by a spiritually vibrant background. (I will not use labels for movements or denominations any more, unless I have to. I am now trying to stick to biblical labels, for the most part.) Most christians from my background are not steeped in heavy thought, but they like to feel things and see things and be free-flowing. And when they stagnate in their feelings (like an engine stalling) they don’t usually understand why. Like all of us. Usually, the answers rest in things that we are not examining and not exploring (or hiding from).
Most of those around me who are deeper, more grounded and balanced… are more contemplative and devotional and heart-felt in the way they relate to everything in life. This is how they prefer to believe. You speak long words, and their eyes glaze over, and they either call you “deep” or walk away. If they can’t feel it, they are not sure if they should believe it. It is their chosen belief-lifestyle. They believe with their heart or emotions…and they like to interact with people and do things. I like to sit and dream. Most of them have not yet taken individual “ownership” of their minds, or realized the strength that they have to question, reason, and investigate things. That still requires IMMENSE uphill battle. They think in groups…but that is beginning to change. And the pace of the change is accelerating. People are becoming more and more free to CHALLENGE and think for themselves. (I guess the radical change of the 60′s wasn’t all bad.) How we interact with other people, and live our lives, is all about “perceived structure”, and the 60′s shook that to the core (for better or worse). There is no going back. Any structure that we build, must be built from the groud up, upon true philosophy, and humble genuineness. And it must be able to free-flow out on the streets, while pointing to true philosophy and humble genuineness. That’s a tall order, but it is coming. I can envision multi-racial rallies out in the open that lift up only one name and one label: Jesus. That, in and of itself, would be a breakthrough! (If anything, it would do great damage to the enemy – and it would disarm most of his weapons.) Our culture is ready.
I have a heart for ministering to people, even more than I desire to “teach”. I desire my words to help people by sinking into their hearts. People in my circles like to say that truth and annointing and power is “caught” more than it is “taught.” And I know there is something to that. It all depends on motivation, and what attitudes we have allowed to shape us. Sometimes bad things comes through in our choice words, and in our tone. It can build bridges, or erect walls. Sometimes the words, phrases, or ideas that are well-worn to our culture, are actually harmful to our communion, our understanding, and our sharing.
I do believe that we will all meet in the middle…which is Jesus Christ…if we stay humble and question with boldness. God will reveal it to us. Now is the time to be humble, and question with boldness, and proclaim something once we are certain. And it doesn’t take years of research and a seminary degree, to get a sense of certainty. A spiritual instinct and a gut instinct BOTH will confirm it when it is true. Why do you think the man from Gadarene ran TO Jesus, when the demons wanted to get away? That puzzled me, until I realized… the demon possessed man was still in control. His spiritual senses were heightened, and that was either because of the demons, or what resulted in the demons. He didn’t like the darkness that he was in, he wanted to live, even though the demons inside were suicidal. So when he felt their fear, his body and his discernment was stirred. He felt something. Whatever it was, it made him want to RUN TO Jesus for deliverance. And the demons could not hold back his desire. He probably wasn’t all that intelligent about historical, social, or “regular” truths of his day, I’m guessing. He was an eccentric who wasn’t too bright. But he knew Jesus when he FELT Jesus’ presence. The same is true for every believer, to some degree or another. We need to learn to follow that instinct toward the good! It will lead us toward deliverance from demons, bad attitudes, and wrong beliefs.
The BEST truths that I like proclaim (which will get us farther and faster) are truths that are closer to truth and reality. Truths that are IMMEDIATELY accessible to everyone. History is great, but history is philosophy played out. The philosophies (core ideas about good, or core ideas about evil) still exist, regardless of history. The rules (of good and evil) will always be. The realm of evil was always a possibility, and now it is a real realm. It’s only a matter of how we wield the sword, what the particular dynamic is, in our time.
Look at the change Jesus made in a short time. And he says that we will do greater things because he’s already done most of the work and he’s now seated in power with His Father. While it’s important to think hundreds or even thousands of years ahead for our descendents (as well as we can), we must understand that the power that we imagine we COULD have, someday, is closer to us than we think. The power that we imagine Paul had, or Jesus had, or Abraham had… is with us. It is waiting to be stirred up, articulated, activated, communicated. And it can and will be confirmed by miracles. (Show me in the New Testament where miracles ceased or were supposed to cease in the future, and I will believe it.) The question is: do we believe what it says? Do we believe these things (and more) are possible (so long as the Bible doesn’t rule it out)?
The truths that make the most difference in society are the simple truths that we interact with and experience (mentally, emotionally) in our day-to-day, moment-by-moment. Truths that we can… imagine with… play with… like a living symbol that can be seen in 3-dimensions, from multiple perspectives, and still remain true. (God gives us such symbols, like the circles and globes we see everywhere in the natural world, on all levels… as well as male and female, man and wife. Down and up. God gave us these things as toys, for our understanding. He’s got the real stuff, we just have the visible images of the real stuff, that are patterned after the invisible structures. And men are, I believe, mostly visual learners. Those who reason the best, are probably doing so with pictures in their minds’ eyes.)
We long for Eternal (immediate, outside-of-time) truths that never change, relative to time. Not cookie-cutter microwave platitudes. No. We hunger for immediately ACCESSIBLE and RELATABLE and UNDERSTANDABLE free-flow of truth. At least the truly humble and deep among us desire this. The Devil desires to stop this. When we get together and start putting our pieces together, and lifting up a Whole image of Jesus Christ…. woah! That is what Satan has been trying to keep from happening by quarantining each fresh truth that comes out, with a new denomination or fixed-member congregation. No more.
History is mostly a vain attempt to reach for eternal (never-changing) truths from the physical, upward. We want stability AND life, but were unable to come to a consensus because our sin kept us fractured. But God has come down. And now, he has given us power to understand things, His way. We are now supposed Ato reason from The One downward (like God does, only with the understanding that we are thinking God’s thoughts FTER Him. He exists whether we think or not.). God is One. Ok. Now how do you get from One to Two, and so forth…? There is an order, a heirarchy, in all things. Creating something from your mind (or in God’s case, one’s own Being and Power Alone) gives you rightful ownership of it. Ownership and economy are only possible (and justifiable) through a proper understanding of God. Including redemption. God is One. That is why he needed to PURCHASE us back to HIMSELF. Because we fell under the authority of a divisive character (the originator of sin, “the adversary” himself). Satan has “seniority” in his domain, and power in his domain, probably because he’s the one that first opened it up and “created” a lie! Satan is the father of lies, that’s it. Satan is the father of improperly understanding something, and assuming that we KNOW it to be true. So wherever there is a lie, there Satan has a foothold, a stronghold. And so Satan has a kingdom and a heirarchy that is built upon the structure of falsehoods. You are only as powerful as your duplicity, in his kingdom. You can only go as far (and decieve as many people) as your particular brand of duplicity takes you. And there are a finite number of lies. Infinite diversity in infinite combinations…sure…but there are only so many rabbits you can pull out of the hat, before you run out of fundamental truths to destroy. And then the fundamental truths begin to fight back…and they gather more contingent truths. And you are forced back, and further back… as God is revealed for Who He Is.
The Father is Head of the Son. The Son, Jesus Christ, became a life-giving spirit (and still, I believe is a human person, as we think of it). He is Head of His Body, the Bride. The Body/Bride is in charge of all the creatures. And (for the most part) creatures lord it over plants, and plants lord it over the raw materials of the earth. The raw materials operate like basic machinery, on a molecular level. about God, personhood, experience, etc. We cannot proclaim truth, while building on false structures…and expect to get very far, or be received very well. Sometimes we are not rejected because our opponents are prideful (though there is no way to tell in writing). Sometimes we are rejected because something doesn’t “smell right.” Something is fishy in the foundation (which, if the words were acted upon, we would get to see quite clearly where we went wrong). I know it sounds crazy, but sometimes something almost makes sense to our minds…but doesn’t feel right in the heart. And I get this feeling, many times, when I talk or write. I have learned to interact with it this gut uneasiness and intellectual free-flow. More often than not, I have found totally new ideas…and stuff just comes together. The dots are connected.
I have learned that humility before the unknown is the middle ground. Jesus Christ is the humble one, and we need to walk with and in him. “Neutral” isn’t the middle ground (there is no neutral). Neutral is just what everyone around you thinks and feels. And if you are “neutral” and don’t know why you stand where you stand… you are already in danger of being on the wrong side. You are an accident that is either already happening, or waiting to happen.
The best thing for people who don’t like to think for themselves… and aren’t quite emotionally stable enough to think too outside-of-the-box… is to listen to Christians from all over the spectrum, everywhere… and soak it in. It doesn’t matter. Truth is truth, and the mind does recognize logic. Just soak it in. Same with prayer and worship – soak in it. And then when the time is right, and you are humble and open enough… it will just spill out of you, and you won’t even know where you got it from. The SPIRIT will quicken it in you… and you will be (what I like to call) “ON FIRE”. But we must be constantly vigilant to be on fire with humility, truth, and love. We must constantly examine OURSELVES. The purer OUR message gets, and the purer our attitude gets, the better our communion, testimony, and proclamation gets! Forget about what other people and other “denominations” are doing. What are YOU feeling, thinking, and doing? Is it what you desire? What do you want? What are you chasing after? What is the outcome and fruit of the things you desire?
Too much of the thinking from Rushdoony seemed stale to me (it was like suffering through indigestion) but it widened my scope. Rushdoony does not seem very interested in the personal or “fresh”. He seems to be more interested in the corporate “big picture” stuff. But what does it all mean, if it cannot be boiled down to the individual person who goes through life living, acting, and believing? The history of thought is helpful, philosophy is great, but what about me personally, today? Does that philosophy help me to define who I am, and give context to the world that I am living in, in the every day? Christian truths are ultimately so basic and simple (but deep) that it would make the devil’s cultural tactics seem distant and inconsequential. Granted, the TV and mass-media can bring all that cultural garbage within eyeshot. Somehow, we have to connect deep thoughts with the PERSONAL, everyday, living, breathing human being… to God and a proper understanding of God and life. We have to move past opposing evil, and move toward God and each other… especially when it’s hard and there is resistance!
It’s only hard to do this, because we have to fight our way through cultural strongholds and mindsets that have been imposed on us by evil. And so many people are scared to open up to anything more than they know, because they don’t want to open up to evil. Well, I’ve faced that demon. And I have gained the victory through trusting and having faith in the personal Jesus of the Bible, even though I don’t always understand Him. I have humility before the Unknown. And I trust that Jesus (Yah Saves, or “God Saves”) has my back, as long as I desire to obey truth, God, and goodness…and I acknowledge that every word in the Bible is true… in some way, somehow, it’s all true. It’s a tightrope somtimes, but I have to walk it. Complete trust in the words of the Bible on one hand. And personal freedom to feel, explore, think, and interact in the other hand. Feeling my way toward goodness and seeing if it’s confirmed or denied (or simply left open) in Scripture. Until I find what I am desiring, and have a way to articulate and express it, with clarity and zeal.
Bojidar your articles always provoke lots of controversy, this remind me a statement in “El Quixote”: “Sancho, the dogs are barking, therefore we are riding”
Ha ha, William, I had forgotten this! I need to read that book again.
Yes indeed, the dogs are barking. And I hope that others may learn from each other’s naivite (mine, at least), as well as any insights that we share. I learn as I write. I like getting down to the fundamentals. I believe that the scales will be removed from people’s eyes when they see the church as she truly is, and they see God represented as He truly is. But before I can help remove the scales from other’s eyes, I have to get my own eyesight sharpened. This is why I’m barking. It challenges me. Ultimately, we know that this is not a game, though it is fun to debate and discuss. Lives are at stake. And it would be a great help to people if we could get our message right and clear. I truly believe that everyone has a piece of the puzzle. Everyone (especially believers) have things that they see. And we need to share what we see, and discuss them in the light of logic and the prophetic revelation that IS the Scriptures.
The shape of OUR very institutions are part of the message. We preach by our lifestyles. We are living stones, epistles read of men. And judgement (reasoning/logic/sound decision making?) begins at the House of God. If the light of the body is dark, how dark is the body? We are the light of the world, and it seems that a lot of us are not all that bright, right now (even the best among us). We generally see only a few pieces of the picture (those pieces that we are already well-rooted in). We need more light. But I believe that will change, VERY SOON. Circumstances are changing, rapidly…and even as many are digging in with dispensationalism, I also see many backing away from it! (And I travel in those groups.) You can call them “post-dispensationalists” if you’d like. There is an exodus occurring, right now. It’s happening mostly without labels. But there is a lot of talk (and songs) about “The Kingdom” … and eyes are opening up.
We should not be afraid (or too condescending) to those that are “new”… because it is those who see with the simple eyes of faith and love, who can arrive at the simple answers (if false thinking or worry doesn’t interfere). It is our duty to help people get to the simple answers. God is near to the heart. Oftentimes, He is much more accessible to our hearts than our minds. After all, he made us to be conscious beings, because he wanted to relate to us (on many levels). Most of the challenge (with our message) is in translating what is in our hearts (the Spirit of Christ), into words that we speak with our mouths. After we initially come to Jesus, we STILL must be transformed by the renewal of our minds. Most of this transformation process happens as “iron sharpens iron” and we contend for the unity of the faith, together. As we do this, we lift up Jesus and His Word as our central points-of-reference. And if people want to know what we are about, that is the FIRST place we point to. (We do not point people to a congregation, denomination, pastor, nation, structure, etc)
So, yes, the dogs are barking. And they should keep barking (kindly) until we all break new ground, together. This forum helps us to find ways to articulate our message, and refine it… so that we can then proclaim it with more efficiency. Our unity (of spirit and mind) does proclaim to the world. We need to strive for the unity of the faith, and remember that none of us are above learning, at any time. This is mutual.
There is just something fresh from having endured physical hardship, that gives added energy to the message. I get a lot from Bojidar’s insight, and his clarity. This is not a game. All of these things have immense real-world impact. It doesn’t take much imagination to see that armies, money, infrastructure, emotions, actions…even worship… are all affected by what most people think is mere “abstract reasoning.” But reason is powerful, and I believe that the Word is the substance of reason.
Bojidar, it is obvious to me that you are very passionate about expressing your faith. That is so unabashadly refreshing! Carrie brought up the point that many readers on AV are new, and I would take that a step further to say that even those who present as if they are more learned, are in fact still new in some respects. I myself am guilty of jumping to conclusions regarding some of the rhetoric implied by posters, and find it necessary to remind myself that often times my detractors are merely misinformed as to my motives or my method of delivery. My late wife had such a grace about her, it was disarming even to the most offended critics. It is most impossible to be provoked by someone who has humbled themselves by the washing of your feet.
John 13:35
“By this all people will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”
Ephesians 4:1-3
1I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, 2With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;
3Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
1 John 1:7
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
Blessings!
This is on the topic of collectivism and the sword. There are deep treasures to be found in this area of the conversation. I’m trying to learn more about it (by dissecting it). This subject is one of the keys to understanding how to manifest the kingdom of God (which reigns in our hearts) on the earth. Usually, an issue is “very controversial” when it is a key to a cultural or personal change, when such an issue is settled Biblically. The truth is simple, when it’s uncovered. Often, both sides do not see or present the issue clearly, and a discussion helps us refine and refine…until we can see it and present it clearly. This is a topic that I think, for our time, is crucially important to understand. So thank you Bojidar, for digging deep, and not backing away from a controversial subject. I will buy and read that book on Constantine.
The following touches on some of the foundational ideas of the Reformation. It’s not over, yet. The very foundational concept of the Reformation (denying the Papacy) was biblical, and it has a logical conclusion… which would reshape the entire socio-religious world as we know it (and the geopolitical soon thereafter).
For better or worse, we seem to be headed back to a first-century-style church (and overall climate). The very foundations of our institutions and methods are being questioned, from all sides (even within). Everything is up for grabs, amidst cultural upheavals, and institutional decay. But the Gospel message seems (to me) to be tailor-made to answer the questions of a crumbling empire. God supplants the “empire of self” (the kosmos-systems) with His eternal solutions. God’s solutions always mysteriously revolve around a Living Creator, who is the beginning and ending.
But how are His solutions implemented?
You cannot divorce the solution, from how it is implemented. If the solution is faith in Jesus… then how are we to implement that? If the solution is obedience to Jesus, then how are we to implement that? Clean the inside of the cup, and the outside will be clean, also. You see, Jesus was addressing individuals, and their need to reform from within, in order to keep the law. Their inability to reform from within should lead them to the real living Jesus, sooner or later. The Pharisees were outside-in people, and Jesus countered that by challenging their outward hypocrisy…and proposing an inner solution (that would be expressed, in an outward fashion, naturally)!
You see, Christian Reconstructionists think big thoughts. But they undermine their own clarity (and message) when they begin their thought at the institutional levels of society, instead of where the institutions come from. These days, it seems like everyone is becoming a “systems thinker”. A lot of people seem to just ignore or gloss over where these systems arise from, what they are made of, and what truly makes them work. (Just look at our bloated Uncle Sam, which is full of “systems” that need to be dismantled for it’s own economic health, to say nothing about the health of everyone.)
Even Rick Warren is going global with his “systems” approach. It may work, it may not. The answer will be found in what his “systems” approach is based on. Is it based on walking arm-and-arm with secular rulers, helping to bolster their claim to legitimacy over the people of God? If so, it is doomed to fail, either in the short term or the long term. The early church suffered a huge falling away. Compare the first century to the time just before Constantine. There is an undeniable difference in the way they talked and walked, and not for the better. It seems that the model for the ideal saint became less Jesus and more Socrates or Greek aristocrat, in a way. The church progressively leaned on the brains (that were increasingly un-transformed from the Greek/Roman mold) and leaned away from the Spirit, which empowers individuals directly. Hence, they felt a need to control almost everything. And the “regular saints” just slid right back into the peasant mold. The general trend is undeniable… so around the time of Constantine you have the Bishopric (one man over each city, as THE bishop of that city). Now, is THAT “Christendom”? Maybe. But it certainly is not an ideal expression of the kingdom of God. It led directly to the bishop of Rome thinking to himself, “hey, I’m the guy in charge of spiritually overseeing the EMPEROR HIMSELF, and since he’s the top dog on the world’s political scene… that means … that I am the top SPIRITUAL authority in the earth! And we got the Pope. Simple logic is simple logic. One does not need to be a scholar to see human nature at work in the church and it’s ways and programs. It’s not so much about the character of Constantine (and whether he was saved or not, or a good guy or not). Constantine was a figurehead, for what man already wanted to do, and did quite easily. The church ended up in an unholy compromise/truce with the state… Instead of REPLACING the empire with Christians who lived freely… it copied the ways of the empire, and carried those ways into the spiritual and philosophical dimensions of life. Councils? How about the Roman senate. Creeds? How about treaties, alliances, laws. The bishopric was established over whole cities, setting up hierarchies that much resembled a pyramid. It was only a matter of time before the pyramid demanded a top. Constantine probably wanted to BE that top. But… churchly people who got paid to think and talk, thankfully stopped him… and instead inserted one of their OWN as Head of the Universal Church.
Before we talk about how the church should relate to the state… we need to have an honest, concrete discussion about what the church IS, and what a state IS. Because I think that individual Christians are slipping through the cracks of all of our well-thought-out “systems.” While systems appear to work very fast at getting people to agree, and spread the word… it’s been 2000 years, and only about 1/3 of the global population are Christian, and many of those are very shallow and not even genuine. Our institutions, structures, codes, laws, whatever… really haven’t worked as well as we think. We give way too much credit to the power centers (that have the money, swords, etc) and not nearly enough credit to the ordinary peasants who CREATED THE ATMOSPHERE wherein these parasitical power structures could prosper. Proclaiming the GOSPEL (and righteousness) to as many people as possible actually changes hearts far faster than trying to grab for power! After all, men are not surprised when they see other men grab for power, and claim to be the rightful heirs of human power. That’s the way the world-systems run.
I am a postmillennialist, but I am coming to see that my instincts do not pull me in the direction of propagating hierarchy-style systems. (It just seems a little to prideful for little-young me to try to rise above my fellows as a lord or something.) I can own property, run a business, be in political office… and do that all as a Christian according to Christian principles. But I cannot say that I am proclaiming the gospel by so doing. Proclaiming the gospel is… proclaiming the gospel. Actions often affect the exterior, while the words that EXPLAIN the actions are what capture people’s hearts and minds. That is probably why Jesus is called The Word…not The Deed. (ok, maybe I’m just being dumb, right there.) Jesus and logical dialogue go together. But the world frequently pushes logic aside in the pursuit of power.
There is no end to the creativity of men (even fallen men) when people are wide open to the concept of hierarchy (particularly if it involves money, fame, or power). Something is being lost in all of this. Something small, personal, volitional. We must keep things fresh, alive, free, and truly testifying of a PERSONAL JESUS who sets men free. After all, we are not “Borg” (Star Trek), and God does not want us to be satisfied living in a false matrix and “reforming it” to merely be more just. We should recognize that if Caesar were to listen to us, he wouldn’t remain the same. And his “institution” (mostly built on falsehoods) would not look remotely like it does now. If Caesar listened to us, about moral things, then he would become more just in his decisions and so-called “laws”. But if he turned toward PERSONALLY BELIEVING in Jesus Christ, and His Way, then the false institution of “Caesar” would fundamentally transform (and not just in duplicitous speech, or “what man is in charge”). You see, most of the time, the elitists among us (the caesar’s among us) are more concerned about the outward righteousness and stability of other people (“the masses”), than they are even aware of their own inner wickedness.
Render to Caesar… means give back to Caesar what is personally Caesar’s! (This includes money that is minted by governments, where the government has control and property over that currency or an image theron.) If he listened to us, or if we truly lived like we should, the very definition and use of “Caesar” would change (at least among us). Caesars know that if they listened to the True Church (God’s People) that things would change…and that is behind their desire to dismantle the west (in order to purge secular society from it’s “infection” of righteous people). The Caesars know that they need to be rid of us, in order to re-constitute an empire (a pure empire is a dead empire, so this is impossible). This is the source of the animosity between church and state. Because the very nature of men would change (and consequently, their trust and institutions).
Let the chips fall where they may. With the Christian, the means will justify the ends. We do NOT copy empire, especially within the church. The way, the truth, and the life…will beget more of the same (naturally) if we keep declaring things, logically, consistently, loudly, and in love! We SHOULD be proclaiming the gospel with all our might, all of our reason, all of our mouths! The proclamation alone is enough, provided that we back such proclamation with righteous lives as best we can (as individuals). We cannot manage someone else. We can instruct them, and change how we treat them, according to what they are doing. And if I am not justified in picking up the sword to defend myself (in some cases, the sword is not warranted, like spying on people in their bedroom… I would indict myself!)…then how can I lend such power to a ‘society’ of men? Speak the truth in love. Advise people, even rulers. Shout it from the rooftops. That no man reigns, except by Jesus! And that the only morality we are morally required to follow is accessible/obey-able only through Jesus!
About the bedroom thing… Marriage is an institution between two people and God, and is to be supported by the community. But marriage came along before the community. And it was here CERTAINLY long before a statist government came along to help us “regulate” who is married and who is not. (like we need to… why?) By the power vested in me by… Uh-huh. God made the first man and woman – and their faithfulness to each other before God is what made a marriage. Everything else is backup. And if a state decides which style marriages it deems are fit to support, or which marriages/contracts/covenants are NOT fit to support…in effort to create a suitable definition for marriage… my answer is: it is not in the position to argue the point. It does not define marriage!!! It may choose to recognize them, but then one must ask WHY it would be so interested in sticking it’s nose so far into our personal lives and families… If it gets to “recognize” marriages… then it also gets to “define for itself” what that term means… Next thing you know, a civil government has a parallel reality where words have a GOVERNMENTAL meaning and a literal meaning. And the GOVERNMENTAL meaning is what supposedly makes the difference. Sorry. No. I don’t belong to such a system, where the secular civil power-structure gets to “regulate for itself” what to do with the status of my marriage. Why? (That being said, I am biblical and traditional in how I view marriages. I believe in vows, said before people out in the open, before FELLOW BELIEVING SAINTS.) That is where I stand, right now anyway. Institutions (like the Sabbath) serve people, people were not made to serve the institution. Marriage isn’t really an institution anyway: it is a covenant that is instituted BY GOD (contingent on human promises). The church isn’t an institution either, in the visible sense: it is made, invisibly, by an invisible God who honors the faith and trust of individual people. He binds them together. And only then do they outwardly share TRUE communion. Otherwise, it’s a farce anyway…and needs to be weeded out (and will be).
You see, the time of intellectual persecution that the church is in right now, is going to help us in the long run. It will help us stand, without humanistic crutches. It will purify us and our efforts. In revelation 14, it talks about those who die having their work FOLLOW THEM (I believe, historically). Revelation has a repeating phrase: here is the patience of the saints. Why would the saints need to be PATIENT? Not, here is the weariness of the saints, or the weakness of the saints, but here is the PATIENCE of the saints. Why? Because the gospel is like a seed. It requires time to grow in the hearts of people and society at large. Many people’s hearts were changed, but their minds still required an exodus from empire-style thinking. This occurred (in the last 2000 years) in PHASES. Each phase has a corresponding phrase in Revelation: here is the PATIENCE of the saints… (here is what they are going to have to put up with, while proclaiming the gospel and trying to live it out). They needed patience, because (if they wanted to live as true Israelites) they were not instructed by God to pick up the sword (coercion or force) to solve their problem the “easy way.” The easy and fast way… is often a detrimental distraction from long-term success. And these distractions need to be UN-done…not built upon.
Our message about Jesus Christ is actually far more pure than our practice of it, at this point. When the purity of our lifestyle and ideology becomes as pure as the proclamation of the saving grace of Jesus Christ… then Jesus Christ will be REVEALED in His sons and daughters. Revelation is all about this corporate revealing. But it is a corporation unlike any in the world (government or economic sectors). It uses principles of economy, but it is an invisible economy. It has hierarchy, but it is a spiritual hierarchy that comes from God himself. It has laws, but laws that are so fundamental that they need not actually be written – because they exist already.
What we need to “rely on” in proclaiming the gospel and “enforcing” righteousness is a stronger community of believers, not based on systems or hierarchy except the hierarchy that comes to us invisibly. We do not need offices (that are “offices” because of money and status with a sword-bearing civil government). We need offices that are made out of RESPECT for our seasoned maturity, godly character, and spiritual depth and insight. The “underground church” that operates informally, is still operating as a body of believers. But it does not answer to Caesar, or allow itself to be regimented by wannabe-rulers who exalt themselves.
I think that many postmil’s may not be postmil enough. I like America. Its existence has been ENORMOUSLY helpful to the spread of freedom and the gospel. But do we really think that there will be an America and a Russia forever? Is that what God meant, when he talked about “nations” in revelation? Or is God talking about something far more geographical and biological? Maybe when Jesus talks about “discipling nations” he’s talking about the PEOPLE. After all, there are some structures (historically) that have proven to be un-reformable by their very existence. The Spirit of God will not forever wrestle with man, or tolerate pride. And we must be patient, as we continue to preach the gospel to everyone (high and low, regardless of stature). Our patience will pay off. God will cause things to happen and change, as His message reaches certain saturation points and tipping points. Violence and state control isn’t the answer. It’s often the problem. We must be peaceful, righteous, and LOUD about coming to Jesus and about His Ways. And it should be ALL ABOUT HIM. Not laws for laws sake, or morality for morality sake, or order for stability’s sake.
If you look back at the Bible, you will see that Israel was not originally a nation-state. They didn’t originally have kings. They had laws that they were expected to uphold in their own families. And when they finally did receive a king, it was for the purpose of pointing toward a REAL king and prophet who would reign in people’s hearts, and who would TRULY cut people off from the assembly if they didn’t listen to him.
God is making an assembly. For himself. A living testimony to His character (and the character of sin) so that the temptations to “fall away” will be GREATLY reduced in the ages to come. He will be their God, and they will be His People.
In proclaiming, we shouldn’t begin our understanding with an unspoken, presupposed acknowledgement caesar’s alleged authority, and our link with Caesar. Because where does that authority end…and how much damage can Caesar do, before we figure out where his authority ends? That’s the mistake we made, often enough, the first time around…and it resulted in a Constantinian Compromise that didn’t fully satisfy the church or the state, and it resulted in a lot of people kept in darkness, even as history advanced. It didn’t stop elitism. Everyone’s eyes were trained on “the system” and “the progress of history (for our system, framework, teaching).” They were converted Romans…who often still thought of the world as Romans would think of it: with an elitism and Rome-centrism. The Constantinian Compromise was, basically, the state recognized the church’s hierarchy, and the church recognized the state’s hierarchy…and together, they kept people in check. This is very similar to the way statist governments relate to each other, in order to keep their respective populations stable and “in check.”
We should speak to Caesar as a person who does right or wrong. And as Caesar falls under conviction, he will become less and less a “lord” over God’s inheritance (people’s hearts).
But what of the REAL Lordship of Christ? It is best seen and reflected through the teachings and actions of individuals, as they teach and feed each other, and strengthen each other. God has a natural biological system ALREADY in place, for perpetuating righteous teaching and example, once the ball is rolling! It’s called Patriarchal Fatherhood. Oftentimes, it is the “systems” (with men on top of them) that interfere with this natural passing-on. We need to stick up for “the little guy” who, once being a convert, needs to know how to righteously lead his own desendents, and others…through his property and actions. The Way will (over time) be seen as The Way to govern, The Way to live, The Way to have a future, The Way to believe. As the PEOPLE change, they have less need for external government, and the rivers dry up (the rivers that flow into Babylon and support it). This transition would happen quite peaceably, if heathen men didn’t get itchy trigger fingers. But even so, nothing seems to be stopping the spread of the gospel. In good times and in bad… it continues to spread and create peace and understanding. Slowly, sporadically, but progressively. But there are ways to HASTEN the coming of our Lord, as well.
If a man’s authority is unjustified, we should not begin our thinking/argument with an appeal to his false scheme/matrix. Nor should we seek to duplicate the ways of fallen man, by rising above each other and lording it over each other. We should appeal to morality, which comes directly from our mutual Boss: God…and whatever Ways He has established for us as individual PEOPLE. That way, heathen society can be quickly de-constructed, and a Christian society re-constructed in its place! We should step outside of a wicked system, evade it, rebuke it, and proceed as if that thing didn’t exist, until God may decide to deliver us over to the wicked rulers of the day as a testimony. We should judge between each other. And if one of the brethren still decides to be wicked…we should disassociate and be no longer a brother (confiding & getting direction from him). To a person who is outside of the body, we are an ambassador of Christ to him, sent to teach him (if he is willing).
We should not base our authority (in the church/assembly) upon money or legal power FROM association with Caesar. No. Our argument begins with God, and the individual person. That is the realm of the strongest morality and accountability. You want your message to sink in, most powerfully: treat people as morally-accountable individuals, accountable to God’s Law. Caesar may aid, but Caesar aids only as a servant of God and a servant of God’s people. Otherwise, Caesar is a hindrance. Caesar takes our advice, but cannot give advice TO US, when we are righteous. We are sons of God. What/who is Caesar?
We are called to something higher. We are called to leave “The Island” prison (kosmos) that Satan wants established in the mind of every human slave. We are called to be sons and daughters of God, right now. The kingdom is righteousness, peace, and joy IN THE HOLY GHOST while we are yet alive. The kingdom gets expressed through our personal outward (external) activities. Our righteousness and faith does not come from the system. Our righteousness comes by faith. If anything, our systems arise from us (the hearts of the populace).
Truth in our speech, Righteousness by faith, Justice in our actions, Mercy and Love in our hearts. And when we judge, we judge people by what they do and decide.
I have been puzzled over the solution to the dilemma of a Christian using a sword. It is obvious from scripture that the sword has “it’s place.” And in it’s place, there will be less and less need for it. The increase of Jesus’ government means an increase of peace, and less need for the sword.
Bojidar, you authored an article with the title: ”Raising the Moral Standard of Missionaries to that of Wal-Mart”
I admit, that I haven’t read the article. I hope that doesn’t offend you. I will simply respond to the title. How does Wal-Mart get righteousness from its employees?
The enticement of money (job security), that’s the carrot. That’s the reason why employees go for the job in the first place. Employees willing to work for wal-mart will abide by not just traditional righteousness, but will also go above-and-beyond to uphold the company image! Just what is OUR company image (the equivalent)? JESUS. What happens when we fail to live up to the standards of our savior? The scriptures talk about hireling shepherds, who are only in it for the money… but they don’t stick around. Money (as a motivation) isn’t good enough. And any corporate identity (name your institution) is actually made to serve the man at the top. Now, either we serve him or we don’t.
Through the threat of the sword (incarceration and litigation) should they actually do a blatantly unrighteous deed, like steal from the store (which is actually theft against the owner of the store). You have to admit that the only reason the store has a legal corporate identity, is because it is registered with Caesar as requiring Caesar’s law-enforcement supervision. Does the church require Caesar’s law-enforcement assistance???
Hmmm… I like policemen who come to my rescue. (this creates a dilemma, with my current view of the state). Ancient israel did not have “police”. It only had fathers protecting their families and guarding their tribes. I would like to stand firm and protect my brother, and have my brother come and protect me. But beyond that… we are told to “turn the other cheek” “give up our coat” and so forth. We are told to live at peace with everyone, as much as possible. Stand together with the believers. Proclaim to everyone. And… have faith that the message will spread. This is the patience of the saints, when faced with trying to prevail against secular collectivist machinations. When things cease being PERSONAL, and begin being about corporate entities, the church needs to separate from it. Preach. But preach as a separate entity.
The righteousness that the saints have comes by FAITH (in Jesus). And it is not a product of Caesar, and cannot be. It comes from Jesus. Jesus doesn’t even give Caesar much of a chance to be fair, when it comes to us. We are to “turn the other cheek,” we are to speak with loud voices (and advise government officials) when it comes to their personal treatment of others. People hide behind institutions, as they tried to do in Germany post WWII. But it was decided, for the sake of trial, that a corporate identity cannot effectively be placed on trial and have it really “hit home” with the individuals who were actually responsible for the atrocities.
Bojidar, you have said: “A missionary cannot set a priority of personal righteousness over social justice in his preaching. He must preach the whole counsel of God. He must admonish individuals and their institutions, and he must denounce the sins of both individuals and institutions. He must lead individual souls to Christ and he must lead institutions to Christ. He must declare the crown rights of Christ in every area of life, and he must never limit his message to personal salvation only. Family, church, business, education, sports, media, science are as much a part of the Kingdom of God as are the individual souls of the believers, and leaving them out of the missionary’s message is doing injustice to the Gospel.”
How do you lead an institution to Christ??? It’s a non-living thing. When you talk about the sins of a collective, you are talking about the sins of individuals aren’t we? I know that God deals with gods, countries, and empires… but those identities were identities that WE generate (as humans) for ourselves and our own “benefit.” God’s institutions (covenants) are always PERSONAL in nature…and he only deals with our abstractions as a way of condescending to us (because our minds get so caught up in our collective identities). Ultimately there are only a few real collective identities that matter: God and Nature, Jesus and His Bride, etc.
Bojidar, you have said: “So let’s not create a dichotomy between individual and institutional. Let’s make our missionaries ambassadors for a King and His Kingdom, not just sellers of cheap emotions.”
Where do institutions begin? With the individual and his/her covenant, contract, or allegiance. It is individuals who make choices. It is individuals that are (always) the hub of decision-making. And it is individuals that the gospel takes straight aim for, even in all of its proclamations about righteousness. Nations, cities, etc… are made of individuals. The only way to disciple nations or baptize nations, is to shepherd individuals.
Don’t worry. It’s still the same message, whether it’s shouted from the rooftop to a bunch of individuals, or whether its drafted into law (again, directed at a bunch of individuals), or whether it’s one-on-one. But what we must not forget is that those things that we CALL “laws” and “nations” are perishing, because their foundations are often rooted in abstract lies. And even if/when they are not rooted in lies, these structures lose power when their respective citizens (and citizens of other nations) become PEACEFUL. War is the health of the state. Nation-states will not be around, forever. People will be. Ours is not a collective salvation. It is a salvation that drafts us, as individuals, into a collective made-in-heaven, and made-for-Jesus. If you can picture a free-market without walls. Where property rights are respected, because people see it as the way things TRULY ARE and have always been.
Bojidar, you once stated “In my many years of missionary work I have never seen a convert moving naturally from a personal, pietistic mindset to do culture-changing work.”
I have, but only on limited and easy-to-grasp personal issues, like abortion. I was involved in many abortion protests in Milwaukee in the early 1990’s, where we were closing clinics and thousands were protesting, even blocking entry-ways. Because they were sticking up for other people who were under the threat of physical violence. They did this until it became “felony” to do these things, and then many people simply switched tactics.
I have questions that I have not resolved to my own satisfaction: As a country, if we are under attack from a foreign country, do we then go to war as a country to defend ourselves? Do we do so as the people of God (since that is what we are)? That depends on the nature of the foreign enemy’s attack. Are they attacking us because they want to kill us? Or are they attacking us, because the men that are over us are instigating the war (such as Mussolini or Hitler), and the aggressor merely wants a regime change? What would be the consequences of a regime change, should the “enemy” be successful?
So there is a place for the sword. But we should not be too comfortable when using it. Our heart should be close to the individual and his ownership and progeny, and distant from man-made and man-executed “systems.”
I agree with Erik. He said: “You actually hit the nail on the head when you mentioned that the United States use to be on the right track but has since fallen off.”
True. Ok. The fruit shows this. But what IS “the right track”? Can you offer us a precise formula? After all, whatever formula that they had going “for them” was somehow undone, or insufficient for the battle at hand. We have been surrounded, infiltrated, out-witted…oftentimes, by dimwits.
The founders rested their hope on a RIGHTEOUS CITIZENRY (individual people, particularly fathers). And yet the founders didn’t seem to be willing to challenge the “institutions” that were supposed to (SUPPOSED TO) further that righteousness. In hindsight, it seems obvious that the American Revolution stopped too soon. We got too comfortable with the religious “status quo” of splintered denominationalism. We got to comfortable with our own sectarianism. We didn’t create a unified “highway in the wilderness” where people could come out and see us, and clearly/instantly understand the Godly Ways of scripture, by viewing our actions and teachings. Instead, we created room for each other, and space (in the conversation and laws) for each other. We stopped trying to unify. We kept on splintering. And we were comfortable doing this (it fed our egos, if nothing else). And then came an enemy infiltrator (secularism) which claimed to be a neutral arbiter between us. And we didn’t even treat it seriously, until we were already on the “outside” of our own culture!! This is because the church has not unified in the PROPER way… since the first century. And even then, there was falling away already beginning, and sectarianism and pride forming. (The only thing keeping it from fully manifesting as a self-glorifying spirit-deadening hierarchy of traditions… was political persecution that put a target on your head if you tried. Try going over to China, and making yourself “Head” of the family church over there. They will make an example of you!)
The Bible talks about a people who are not able to see Jesus (a personal Jesus, a personal experience), until they say “Blessed is He who comes in the NAME of the Lord.” In other words, I don’t come in the name of a denomination, a country, a power structure, a congregation, a fixed-member congregation, a pastor, a rally, a cause, a school, etc. I come in the name of Jah-saves (JESUS) as an ambassador for him. That is the only name we hold ABOVE US, and over us, as part of our identities. We don’t pledge allegiance to the flag or (especially) to the republic (because that depends on what the orders are). We pledge allegiance to The One God whose name is Jesus – and we follow Him and His Ways. He covers me from head to foot, and I am resting in Him, and His Peace, and His Ways. (Yes, it does get a tad individualistic and pietistic, if you want to call it that. What is society and culture but an assembly of individuals? It is when these individuals come together, that they end up “lifting up” something or other. We need to have One Name covering us.)
Do I expect all saints to understand these things, and act this way? Not yet. I must have patience (the patience of the saints), and dutifully proclaim as much of the gospel as I know how. I do believe that we are in Revelation 14 (and that it is chronological). The thing that the saints have to have patience with, during the Rev 14 period, are those people who worship the beast and its image… who have no rest, day or night. And nothing (it seems) will persuade them to quit running themselves ragged in pursuit of one human system/structure or another.
God is returning for a bride without spots of pride, or wrinkes of division. We cannot caste the enemy out of our collective earthly societies, until we “come together” as truly pure societies, based on the correct premises. (And one of our premises MUST be the individual person, and PERSONAL fatherhood, since that is how God made us to live and prosper!) This is war. And to learn how to fight, we must learn more truth. For truth (and standing in it) is HOW we fight!! The Sword of the Spirit truly is sharper than a physical sword. And it can impact nations and generations in a way that a physical punishment or physical protection cannot.
If Jesus be lifted up (personally) He WILL draw all men unto Him. We don’t need the sword. It WILL happen. Though we die, are persecuted, are misunderstood, or whatever… our message will never be stopped for it is the One thing that binds the Universe together from all sides. It is the One thing that all people have in common, other than evil… if they would just admit it, and turn to it, and be holy unto The Lord.
It doesn’t matter if they grab for world governance. Or what weapons they use. They come at us with armies, their armies will (sooner or later) be converted. They displace populations, those populations (of people) will settle down and live godly lives (as they come to Christ, their Only Hope). They kill populations… well… then the truth must be told: so that both sides can be revealed. Proclaim with boldness. Articulate what is in our hearts. Progress deeper into truth, and use it as your sword.
And remember, that even deeper than physical swords (which have their place), even deeper than physical flesh (which dies), even deeper than mindsets (which are converted over time, when we declare truth), we fight against powers that are behind those mindsets. When we stand in truth, it is more than a physical or political fight. And sometimes, that’s why the fight is so hard. On a deep level, it is a Holy God versus an Evil One. They have influence that we cannot understand, even though we are participants in the struggle. When we learn to fight, we are fighting on MANY levels at once.
…and blessings to all my brothers and sisters who survived reading my longwinded post. (hopefully one or two)
I will refrain from posting a detailed reply. First of all, because there isn’t much I can disagree with in your post in the first place. Second, because in those areas where I disagree, I am not sure if I am right; I am struggling with the same questions at times, although my answers tend to be different. Perhaps because unlike you, I have experienced the other side, and I would rather err on the side of being too zealous for institutional change than on the side of giving priority to personal spiritual change.
I will only say this: I notice two dichotomies in your thinking.
First, there is the dichotomy of personal spiritual change before institutional change. Very common these days; and very attractive as a subject for discussion and meditation. Unfortunately, it is unbiblical; it is rather gnostic, dualist. There is no verse in the Bible that presupposes such a dichotomy. Man is treated as a whole – both as individual and as a member of the society. The Commandments are not limited to individuals, neither are they separated between individuals and collectives, neither is any priority specified between individuals and collectives. I challenge you to find me one verse in the Bible that ever discusses the issue of “you cannot have a righteous society without righteous individuals.” God speaks to collectives (“Jerusalem, Jerusalem”) at the same time He speaks to individuals, and nowhere is any indication of a dichotomy given. Individuals act; societies also act. It is the very nature of the Trinitarian Covenant.
Second, there is the dichotomy between what our institutions are today, and what they should be. Should we have centralized power? Should we have police? Etc. Now, this is a real Biblical dichotomy, and you can find many verses and whole chapters in the Bible that deal with it. Where is the solution? God’s providence. We have what we have today by God’s providence. And we are obligated to apply His Law in what He has given for our generation. Did God want a king over Israel? No, He warned against it. And yet, monarchy was part of His providence, because in David and Solomon we have a “partial message” of Christ.
Two dichotomies. The first isn’t Biblical; it isn’t part of the Trinitarian worldview. Drop it, it isn’t legitimate. The second is Biblical; but the solution is found in the verse: “The righteous shall live by faith.” Faith in God’s Providence, that is.
I am preparing yet another response to your response. This conversation is inspiring deep questions and insights. (I learn as I type… so that’s why I’m doing all this.)
America’s Founding Fathers were interested in setting up an external civil governing structure that would be sustainable to a plurality of people (both good and wicked). But they neglected the weightier matters of how the RIGHTEOUSNESS of the people (which they admitted they depended on for the continuance of their “system”) would be sustained. They assumed that instructing the population to “go to” “their churches” was enough, and that to teach the Bible was enough. But how was the Bible already being proclaimed and lived out, in THEIR time? I understand that, in their time, they had bigger battles to fight. But everything operates in hindsight when you look back from the future. There is more than one way to skin a cat! And often the quick way to get “results”… isn’t the most godly way.
America’s Founders FEARED that institutional sects would arise in politics… (this is a key insight: where did they place their hope for UNITY??? HMMM???). Institutional sects were ALREADY THERE IN RELIGION! And they weren’t that bothered by them! After all, politics is “bigger” than religion. Politics TRUMPS those petty divisions and squabbles. So lets debate, discuss, and squabble about how to manage and control our fellow man on a bigger scale (that includes UNBELIEVERS in the mix!) Now, how are we going to keep this system stable? …and they kept coming back to the truthfulness, virtue and faithfulness of the people. Guided by a belief in a transcendent and personal God who would judge them in the next life. Etc. Etc… (but they didn’t continue to explore in that direction. That was too philosophical for them, and they had a country to set up, you see! It was for everyone’s benefit, and the economy depends on it! And since the economy is tied to livelihood, I guess you could say our physical lives depended on setting up this governmental USA structure. Ok, well and good. But where was our faith? Was it in GOD? Truly? Then why didn’t America’s founders explore MORE about God, instead of leaving “those matters” to factionalism, which they said they feared. They had summits about political matters. They met to discuss those things. But “religion” was secondary… “religion” was merely a support mechanism. For a mechanical state, that would be run by the hearts of men. They were doing it for their fellow man, I understand. And there was a LOT of virtue and clear thinking. But it was a mixture: of statist tendency and christian thought. Only our mixture in America was much more christian and much less statist.)
The hearts of the people (which are motivated by religion) were left to institutionalized minds. Our Founders had fought their way OUT OF institutionalism, only to form an institution, and trust that their fellow servants (the public) would be guided by religious institutions. And they banked on the fact that no one institution would gain ascendency. Even the national government. But theirein was the problem. People gravitate toward The One, when it is clearly defined. It slowly pulls all people into its orbit. Problem is… there was no “one” that was clearly defined, except the one national government. God was SAID to be one… but particular doctrines about God – and forming a loving and unified consensus about THAT – were less important than political machinations (to our founders). They put their lives on the line for an institution of men that would preserve physical life, not for a pure teaching that would truly help men survive in the LONG TERM. Our republic was predicated on many factions holding each other in check. But they created one faction out of many parts… and this one (national government) has gained ascendency in the eyes of the people… and in that one, the one head of the executive has gained ascendency. People gravitate toward stability, which means unity, which means the one.
But who is The One?
Is it a man? Or is it God? If it is God, then DOCTRINE and PURE TEACHING is more important than immediate answers or even immediate survival.
So the very basis of our republic (the character of the people) was already in jeopardy, because institutions exist to perpetuate themselves, and we had entrusted the american public to faction (religious institutions). The people of God were kept comfortable in their trust in their own factionalism and institutions that they had formed. Those institutions (as the basis of the unity of our proclamation) were not challenged.
Institutions can help proclaim. But often, they begin to “lord it over” people’s minds… so that a continual exodus is demanded of the people of God.
The American Founding Fathers (overwhelmingly Christian) formed an institution to help men govern themselves. But they trusted the hearts of those men… to institutions that were already factious. And having more than 2 factions, is strong evidence of the hand of men, not God. America was already divided into more than 2 factions at it’s founding. So not only did we create space (in our civil government) for secular voters. We created space for our own factionalism. Because we didn’t like empire, we didn’t want to TELL people what to believe. (Good!) We left it up to those people to decide, discuss and debate. And then we gave WAY TOO MUCH TRUST to the quasi-political institutions that were already in the church. We assumed that they would shepherd men, or that men would see right through it. But we didn’t see through it in time, before the enemy infiltrated our culture under the banner of “netural.” There is no neutral. There is only a pro-God message, and anti-God message. The pro-God message leads us on a road through Jesus. The anti-God message usually leads to some earthly hierarchy where the power becomes concentrated, for the purposes of “change.”
The Founders wanted to unify the American people, but I guess they didn’t feel confident enough to go for the roots that could truly cause a lasting unity. The BROTHERHOOD of the saints was already there, but largely left UNEXPLORED by these great thinkers. Instead they tried to concoct theories about how to govern ALL of mankind, heathen and righteous.
It is not up to us to govern the heathen. It is up to us to govern ourselves, and to proclaim. This is why America has always struggled, and will continue to. Our eyes shouldn’t be on “America” as a corporate entity. We would bear much fruit if our eyes were re-trained on the SAINTS and THEIR UNITY and UNITY of the FAITH. Aim for the HEART. That is the quickest way to talk about morality. Talk about God and People. God and People. This is close to the heart of God: “I will be their God and they will be My People.” No labels, factions, or lies to get in between. No government either. Except through Jesus Christ, who is the only Mediator, and His government is one of freedom. Judgments, punishment, pruning, and cutting off will occur. We can help prune ourselves and each other with doctrine and love, and with fellowship/disfellowship. But disfellowship is reserved for those who ARE NOT SAVED. And how do we judge this except by discernment, because we know them as individuals. Not because a piece of paper says so. Go big, by going small and proclaiming wide.
Instead of focusing on the external and political, America’s Founders should have continued with the Reformation (after all, American culture and ideas were a product of the Reformation). They should have challenged the things that separated believers, and investigated the scriptures (how to form a unified doctrine out of all of it). Instead, they set up a civil government that was based on the principles of the Reformation, but that was, inherently, a state. A system. This created an invitation for the Enlightenment to come over and mess with us, as it began to shepherd the people who were tiring of factionalism. American social life became far more vibrant than the intellectual life of the church (which was stagnating, because of too many insulated institutions who didn’t dialogue in love). Institutions don’t love. People do. So it is up to the saints to move forward, and talk to each other, and form understandings.
And our culture has been in a tug-of-war between the Forward-Moving and decentralizing Reformation (which is getting more and more biblical, or at least trying to)… and the Enlightenment, which longs for Empire and always did. The Reformation and the Enlightenment are the two forces in play, during the demise of the Holy Roman Empire. It’s logical: The Holy Roman Empire was an uneasy alliance/truce between the forces of the church (God’s people) and the forces of the heathen state (political animals). One side craved God, the other side craved an empire that would save mankind. And both thought that the road toward a better life was to capture the whole empire for one side or another, as an institution. So the church mounted its “defense” against “the state.” And meanwhile, both acted like statists, and often thought like statists.
When Martin Luther came along, it sparked revolution in thought. It stimulated the imagination, while insisting that imagination be consistent with Scriptures. It opened the door toward GRACE-EMPOWERMENT (to have the good and do it) and AWAY from statism of external law (regulated by fellow men, who were often obnoxious, controlling, intrusive, in the way they thought about leadership). The pure church began to be revealed in history. Doctrines began to change and move TOWARD the Bible. Rome lost much of its centralized control, and was no longer fashionable. So those who were in it for the power (and never liked morality or God) fell away into the Enlightenment. The Reformation created freedom, which the Enlightenment used and enjoyed. But the Enlightenment has always been about re-centralizing power… without God.
The Beast (political animals of the Enlightenment) that the Whore of Babylon (church hierarchy) was riding (using for her own glory)… burned her with fire (truth), without compassion. And Enlightenment forces continue to try to burn us by reminding us of the “Holy Roman Empire” days. They use this excuse to avoid truth, every chance they get. They will not forgive us (the church) for what we used to believe in and swear allegiance to. Fact is, the church is pure through God’s Spirit…but on earth, those in the church have sometimes committed spiritual “fornication” with the power of the state. We have sometimes treated the State and it’s ways (of regimenting and regulating) as The One Order that will unify a good society, instead of a personal Jesus Christ. We assume that Jesus uses these systems, and he does. But he cannot enter hearts through a system. He must come in personally. All we did (in the long run) is distract ourselves by trying to climb on top of the empire, and in the process, we ticked off a lot of heathen people… but despite being ticked off, they learned from us. We socialized an empire and gave it a softer human side. And they learned the ways of socialized systematic charity and took advantage of us, for their own ends, through different institutions. Charity does not come through physical institutions. It comes through living people.
The Enlightenment found it’s successes by trial and error, in stages. French Revolution was a failure (trying to copy what the church did successfully in America, but without God). America wasn’t about empire, or world-wide unification (it was about example and shining a light). The French Revolution had world-wide utopian dreams of equality, from the beginning. Equality that would be “enforced”…by someone…
As America grew stronger in its economic power, it also grew in its influence. The Enlightenment thought it “had to” stop the church from “taking over the world.” After all, the Enlightenment had a one world dream, and it had no room for God in it. But we would bring God into it. So they had to attack America, despite the freedom and prosperity that it generated (that they enjoyed and used). The west became self-destructive, in order to stop the church from producing freedom and growing in proclamation. They justified their fear by saying that the church didn’t cherish freedom before, when “it” had power… so “it” surely wouldn’t do so, again. (TOTALLY ignoring the fact that the Reformation is what gave the Enlightenment the freedom to exist and act as a parasite. TOTALLY ignoring the fact that the Reformation is a de-centralizing force that is for compassion. TOTALLY ignoring the fact that the Reformation (the teachings of the true church) is what dismantled the centralized Roman idea in the first place! Our whole doctrine and existence and teaching is predicated on NOT returning to empire.) We see the world AS WE ARE. The Enlightenment projects onto us what it has in itself. And it assumes that IT is what we are. But they are the ones who cling to fleshly things, and outward political answers. It is the Reformation that has given us the freedom to explore more of our “inner selves” and have more freedom in almost every area, including speech.
While the Enlightenment progresses AWAY from the Bible… the Reformation (true church) moves toward it, in fits and bursts.
The Enlightenment forces shifted, and stopped grabbing for immediate political power. Their biggest successes were Darwin (an attempt at atheism through science), then Marx (economics and politics), then Freud (who deliberately set out to replace pastors), then Edward Berneys (who took Freud to a new level of mass-produced culture-changing paradigms of propaganda). And there we have the fruit of much of the 20th century. Meanwhile, the Reformation is still challenging itself to move forward toward a purer understanding of the Bible… and trying to guide the cultural machine toward a more pure understanding. But much of the cultural machine is now firmly in the spell of the secular propagandists who have fashioned our emotional culture. God is going to let their system fail, so that people’s emotions are no longer managed by secular elites. Then the people may (should) turn to us for answers.
We need to be prepared, to continue where America’s Founders left off. NOT by trying to reform the government. Just getting it back to its own constitution will be enough, for now. Most of our energy, before and after the constitution battle is won, must be applied toward unity in the church. That was ALWAYS the strength in America. Personal and doctrinal unity in our hearts and minds. As I have said before, it was the factionalism in the church, that allows the secular world to appear neutral amongst us… when they are in fact subverters and infiltrators. Close the ranks!
But in order to resolve our factionalism, we will have to let some things go. Things we cherish. Many things like names, titles, ministries, pastors, denominations, fixed-member congregations and membership rolls, doctrines about tithing and money, and even cherished and historical but FALSE teachings …are all going to have to change. And I believe that change will show its first fruits less than one generation from now.
I believe that we are in Revelation 14 (and that Revelation is a continuous story). Revelation captures many layers, including the “spirits of the times” of whatever time period it is depicting. You will see in Rev 14 that there are people who are singing new and fresh songs (spirit-led improv? Honest and humble and pure attitude?) that cannot be learned by people who don’t know God. Much innovation in music happened in the US, after the slaves were freed. They began singing “new songs.” This is also true, in a “spiritual” sense. People are singing songs from their hearts, not from rote memory, not because they have to for the sake of social solidarity…but because they want to honor God, and worship Him.
And Babylon the Great is declared to be fallen. People begin to turn their eyes away from empire-style thought: of capturing the top and regimenting everything from there. Before, there was the Whore of Babylon… who was drunk with wine. But now, it is just Babylon who “made all nations drink the wine of the passion of her sexual immorality.” Think about it for a moment… “The Elements”… supposedly if you did not join in the Eucharist, you were not “in communion” with who the hierarchy called “the saints” … and so you were “severed” from “the body” (by which they meant their assembly). Therefore, you had better be nice to the hierarchy, or they would be mad at you. And you would be punished in any way they have within their power. Babylon made all nations DRINK of the WINE of the WRATH of her sexual immorality with THE STATE. She should have followed the true church (people of God), humbled herself, and joined the Bride of Christ. God’s judgment is going to be poured out full strength, without mixture, undiluted…upon Babylon. So we’d better get our message straight, and get out of Babylon! Otherwise, we will not understand if it’s the hand of God or the hand of the enemy! And we will fight useless battles.
This is BIG.
This is why, when we challenge ourselves, we have the power to shift the entire course of the world with our proclamation. The purity of our proclamation (however impure it is) determines how we organize ourselves, and what names we place above ourselves, and Who we lift up. (If I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto me. – Jesus Christ.)
Personal purity does matter. And if you like to think about the big picture, just know that our unity/disunity forms collective clouds and/or light in the heavenly realm. Know that the world sees our light and follows. Know that we are ONE only In Christ Alone, and in Him we stand. Know that political power (the king’s heart) is like a stream… easily flowing and altering course… as the climate shifts. And God governs the climate, and He has chosen to empower us to proclaim a message that is shifting the political climate of the world.
I was wondering, where, in the great commission does it say to take over the world by FORCE if you have to and to establish a kingdom on earth?
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you
Matt 28:19-20 (NKJV)
We cannot FORCE anyone to become Christian let alone our society and government. That is the work of the Holy Spirit.
It is by evangelizing, bringing the gospel message that will change lives, and if those lives are truly saved, their “fruits” will change our culture and society.
This is what separates TRUE Christianity from Islam
As far as changing our world, Colossians 3:2 says
Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth.
What I’m reading in your writings is an establishment of a kingdom on earth. I don’t see that in scripture,( except maybe in the Lord’s prayer, but is that God’s kingdom, where He is the ruler? Or is it a kingdom established by man, like The Roman Catholic Church, for instance) nor do I see that ever happening in this current world nor the future. In 2000 years, the United States has been the closest to that “ideal” and look at where it is at now! As long as there is sin in this world, it ain’t gonna happen!
As Jeremiah 17:9 (NKJV) says “The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?
Even Paul (a believer) still struggled with sin (Romans 7). Believers still sin otherwise we wouldn’t need 1st John 1:9!
With man’s heart (even believers) the way it is, Setting up a TRUE kingdom of God on earth is never going to happen.
But that’s just my opinion from observations as well as what I know from scripture. So, I guess I am one of those DEFEATIST’s even though I haven’t seen that STRESSED as in lay down your weapons and give up, in the teachings I’ve received. No, It’s more of a “let’s get the gospel out there to the unreached despite all that is happening around us” attitude. After all, scriptures tell us to occupy ’till He comes!
John, the logical connection between establishing a kingdom on earth and FORCE is false. You may be reading it in my writings but that is only because you make such FALSE connection, not because I ever wrote such a thing.
Well, since you are trying to impose guilt by association, I will have to return the ball in your court: The Roman Catholic Church doesn’t believe that God’s Kingdom is on earth. There is no such thing in the doctrine of Rome. Therefore it is not me, it is you who believes the same things as Rome concerning the present reality of the Kingdom of God.
So, you do not see in the Scripture the Kingdom of God on earth, except in the Lord’s Prayer? If this is not contradiction in the same sentence, I don’t know what is. And where have I ever said something about “kingdom established by man”? Did you read the article. No, scrap that, did you read at least the title to the article? What does it say? What City do I talk about? What Kingdom do I talk about?
This is a false dichotomy. It never works. I have demonstrated why it never works in the following article:
http://americanvision.org/640/righteousness-justice-go-together/
You can not preach only righteousness but not justice. You can not “change lives” without giving them the comprehensive teaching of the Bible concerning ALL OF LIFE, including culture and society. Preaching only righteousness and expecting justice to somehow appear as a “fruit” is utopian – you only create little dualists and escapists, a self-righteous bunch of passive gnostics who never take the next step to producing “fruits.” Fruits are not produced automatically; they come as the result of faithful preaching to all of life.
The great commission does not say to use force, nor do any theonomist/postmillennialist. The mantra of theonomy has always been reconstructing society through regeneration, not revolution. Man can no more establish the kingdom by himself than any evangelist actually converts souls by words alone, both are dependent and achieved through the operation of the Holy Spirit. We are just the means by which God has chosen to deliver His message of salvation and plan for Kingdom expansion. A Christian society that observes “all things” He commanded can only be achieved once the Holy Spirit has seen fit to convert a majority of the population. It is true that there is still a lot of sin in the world, but things overall are a lot better now than they use to be. I imagine that the outlook was a lot bleaker when there were only a few dozen Christians in the whole world 2000 years ago.
You actually hit the nail on the head when you mentioned that the United States use to be on the right track but has since fallen off. The important question is why that derailment happened. Well, in the early 1900’s a majority of US Christians began believing that the world was only going to get worse and worse thanks to the rise in dominance of premillennial dispensationalism. Thus Christians felt they should only concern themselves with spiritual matters and not worry about civil issues – why polish the brass on a sinking ship. This pietistic withdrawal created a vacuum that allowed secular humanist and others opposed to God to sweep in and assume control. Thankfully those that began settlements here in the 1600’s didn’t take that few and knew they were working to expand God’s Kingdom. When they established societies based on God’s Word, they established the capital on which we’ve been thriving, but now unfortunately are squandering.
Postmillennialist, or Optimistic Amillennialist, do not assert that the earth will be free of all sin before the Second and Consummate coming, since Christ did say that the wheat and chaff will exist together until He comes for the harvest. It is only that things will gradually become more and more Christianized. This is reflected in the book of Habakkuk (2:14) when it reads that the “earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD as the waters cover the sea”, or in Daniel 2:35 when the stone that struck the statue afterwards grew into “a great mountain and filled the whole earth.” The stone is that cornerstone Christ Jesus who inaugurated His Kingdom at the first coming.
Great article Bo!
Back before my Reformed days I use to hear that Scripture promised three things to Christians – Persecution, Tribulation, and Salvation. That is definitely a truncated view of Scripture that doesn’t understand the promises of an ever expanding Kingdom consummated by ultimate victory.
I’ve never heard of churches and theologians claiming that the mark of a true church is persecution. Interesting thought. Can you provide examples of “modern theologians” who make such claims? I’m interested in knowing who thinks this way.
“Never”??? That would mean you either never read or that you don’t read too much.
Only a cursory Google search reveals at least three names of theologians who oppose Theonomy and Postmillennialism on the basis of “persecutions and suffering” as the mark of the “church age”: Richard Gaffin, Robert Strimple, David Engelsma. I am not going to give you the links. Do your homework before making such definitive statements.
I must say that I’m a little surprised and hurt by your response. Nothing in my comment was rude, divisive, or definitive.
I was merely being honest that I had not heard this before and since the article didn’t mention anyone specific, I was interested in knowing who you were addressing. I don’t believe a definitive statement was made in my comment, except that of my own experience, which was true. I have not heard this before. I wasn’t challenging anything in the article, only seeking additional information so I can do my homework as you suggest.
I have not read very much on the subject, which is why I asked the question. I read AV because I want to learn more about the biblical world view. Thats why I registered and will be attending AV’s Midwest world view conference in Morton.
I appreciate that you have given examples so I can better understand the context of the article, which I thought was good. Links are not necessary.
I apologize for the confusion.
Lee, I apologize too. Your comment sounded sarcastic to me, and true enough, many comments on this site are sarcastic because of the very nature of the controversy between American Vision and what most of the church today believes. I took you to mean I was making it up that there are such modern theologians.
I was wrong to be rude. I should have replied in good faith before I assumed you were sarcastic.
I will make an attempt to make up for it by giving you more info: The whole school of the Two-Kingdom theologians – especially those from the Westminster West – adheres to the idolatry of suffering. Not that they suffer too much of course, neither are they persecuted, but the idolatry of suffering is their excuse for criticizing Theonomy and Postmillenialism. The example of the early church is very often given in their writings – without, of course, mentioning that the early church never elevated suffering to the theological pedestal modern theologians do. Sadly, two of the theologians that helped many Christians discover the Reformed faith – Francis Schaeffer and RC Sproul – at times pay homage to this doctrine too; it is especially obvious in the cliche that is often repeated but never proven from Scripture, that “the church is by the rivers of Babylon, mourning for its return.”
The language of defeatism is far too prevalent in the majority of modern theologians; that’s what made me wonder how you missed it, and therefore mistake your post for sarcasm.
Bojidar,
Thank you and I understand the assumption you made. At times it appears that people come here to argue and one must be ready for it.
I do recognize that defeatism is prevalent in much our churches today, which is why I take joy that there are sites such as AV.
I appreciate the additional information and I look forward to the World View Conference in April. I always enjoy your articles and your perspective, keep up the good work.
I will see you at the conference, brother.
I am new in learning the biblical worldview as I was educated entirely in the government public school system. I enjoyed the article very much as we’re currently studying Constantine and the early church. However, I too was a bit taken aback by the harsh author’s reply to “Lee”. Many of us who read AV are novices and are seeking information. AV is one step on the road as we “do our own homework”. Perhaps AV can keep us beginners in mind when questions are asked. Thank you.
Carrie, I apologized to Lee. I was wrong to assume he was one of the critics, and I was wrong to assume he was sarcastic. Lee accepted my apology.
Every article I write receives much flak, both here and in personal emails. I am not complaining, I enjoy the challenge. But I make mistakes sometimes, mistaking a friend for an opponent.
Please ask me more questions, I am open to answer them. And forgive me if I sound harsh at times – I am a soldier, the old habits don’t die easy.