Pieter and Helene Bos, C. Parkerstraat 50, 1311 PJ Almere, The Netherlands
tel +31-36-5469660; fax +31-36-5469661; ; www.servingthenations.org
A NEW DIRECTION IN THE CHURCH-STATE DEBATE:
Article 4
GOD-STATE RELATION IN THE NEAR FUTURE
by PIETER BOS.
April 2009
Content article 4: Long-term application of the THESIS
4.1 Towards a “re-mythologisation”?
About forty years ago in theological circles there was a trend towards “demythologisation”: the supernatural was deemed childish and “mythical” and the science of theology needed to rid herself of it: a speaking god, miracles, punishment for sin, nothing happens by chance, a heaven for the elect, and all that sort of thing. In this way theology and the world view of theologians was “flattened” to the visible and tangible and experiential. This trend has contributed substantially to secularisation and the exodus from the churches.
Seeing the trend it is remarkable indeed that now, in the early 21st century, god is back on the scene, even in the political arena. It is a sensitive subject, and there are new forms of “political correctness”: Christians dare not speak their heart about Islam, about the Dalai Lama, about New Age[1] influences. But all these influences are strongly represented in the public debate. Certain groups, i.e. Christians and Jews are easily labelled “fundamentalist”. What does that mean?
The previous articles referred to God’s covenant “Beauty/Grace with all nations” that God established, and broke, and wants to establish again, with all nations, even in our time. This seems theoretical, even though we have 21st century examples of states and cities that actually did so (Article 2).
But aside from theory, what do we actually see in the present political world? We see international covenants and covenantal actions blocking nations from covenanting with God. That’s why I call them “anti-covenants”. Here is a list of no fewer than nine of them.
1. The dedication of states and cities to “Mary, Queen of Heaven”. This is contrary to the dedication of states and cities to God the Creator, “God over all kingdoms of the earth” (2 Kings 19:15) and offensive to him.[2]
2. Islamic Sharia rule. This rule brings a state and a whole society under a god “who has not made heaven and earth” (Jeremiah 10:11).
3. Freemason covenants. These bring a state or city under “The Great Architect of the Universe” who explicitly is denied to be the God of the Bible and the Father of Jesus Christ.
4. Unbiblical church-state relationships. In these God is obscured by the church as an institution.
5. Unbiblical legislation concerning marriage, sexuality and the sanctity of life. This excludes the prime Initiator of covenant and the Source of life from state and city life.
6. If rationalism and materialism are the basis for policy (communism, laicism), God is denied and so is the option of covenanting with him.
7. Being an EU member, and even more strongly, a UN member, is “anti-covenantal” (elaborated in § 3.4).
8. Rehabilitation of old (Greek and local) gods is in fact covenanting with them; this is strongly stimulated by the UN.[3]
9. In eco-utopianism “Mother Earth” is presented and venerated as a living organism; in this “covenant” God the Creator is denied.
Are these ceremonies, organisations, leagues, networks, communities, not real and of our time? Are they not international and very visible at state level?
Each of these “anti-covenants” (including anti-covenantal actions and networks) have a “church-state” character; they are religious in nature and active at state and international level. The numbers 3, 5, 7, 8 and 9 are more or less officially being supported by the UN, with the pressure the UN is able to exert, with her status and through the many NGO’s (Non Governmental Organisations, many of which have been established by the UN itself!).
consider each of these “anti-covenants” as an effort of Satan to block nations from covenanting with God. (Acts 16:26-27). The fact that there are so many of them underlines the suggestion that we can speak of a “re-mythologisation” of international politics in the 21st century. Is the THESIS about a god-state relationship, a god-state covenant, getting through?
If indeed we believe that the focus needs to shift from a church-state to a God-state relation, does that lead to the isolation of Christians? Does not this list of national and international treaties and laws show that the re-mythologisation has started already? What we need is assertiveness to join the discussion.
4.2 Towards “re-mythologisation”? Intolerance
A second development “towards re-mythologisation” is the development of “tolerance” among the great world religions.
Polytheistic religions are tolerant in the sense that they can easily absorb new gods; therefore these religions hardly proselytise and there is no particular god-state relation.[4] Monotheistic religions on the contrary are by nature exclusive and intolerant, not in the sense that they exclude men, but they exclude other gods. There is a claim on truth that people from outside easily label “fundamentalist”.[5] These religions do have an explicit god-state understanding.
Judaism does not proselytise, or hardly, but it is unashamedly exclusive: we are God’s elect. Most Jews want to be secular, but many at the same time hold on to their identity and to the claim to “their” land. On both grounds they are labelled “fundamentalist”.
Christendom does, according to the Great Commission, proselytise eagerly, out of love and based on the claim of exclusivism: “Only through Christ does anyone, any nation, have access to God!” However, in our time the “Christian West” tries very hard to be “neutral”, tries harder and harder to separate church and state, even faith and the public realm. France is most advanced in this; the US is struggling how to live this out. In the “Christian West” secularisation is popular, and those who speak up as Christians are easily stigmatised as fundamentalists. In Christendom a separation seems to be emerging between a bible-believing and a secularising wing; both are reluctant, if not afraid, concerning any relationship between church and state.
Islam also proselytises eagerly, in the past through the “jihad”, in our time through international financial support of “community services”. Islam does not hesitate to use intimidation, sometimes bordering on terrorism (e.g. the burning of churches). Islam does not recognise any “church”-state separation and is not content with a minority position. Through the media and globalisation Islam is under the threat of secularising, causing a counter-dynamic of fundamentalising. The many who travel abroad for economic reasons are followed by imams to keep them on track in their faith. Young Muslims either secularise or fundamentalise. Muslims in the diaspora dream of (and start to demand) application of Sharia rule in neighbourhoods where they have a majority; Muslims in Islamic countries dream of an Islamic world.
(Tantric) Buddhism proselytises subtly but is growing more and more pushy. Under a friendly guise, it uses occult means, such as mandala and kalachakra rituals, offered to local and national authorities all over the world. Tantric Buddhism expects an empire, Shamballa, led by the highest lama (until the empire merges into nirwana). In these rituals a “palace” is built for Buddhist gods. These gods are then invited to settle, and by destroying the structure the gods are “released”; i.e. the material is scattered near a river, by which the gods obtain authority in the whole river basin. At scores of rivers on all continents high-ranking lama’s practised these rituals, often at the invitation of the local or national authorities (!). In this way they invoke their “gods” over ever-increasing territories, at the same time misleading unbelievers and blinding believers.[6] , [7]
The New Age movement is seemingly rather polytheistic, with gods like Gaia, Queen of Heaven, nature and fertility religions, feministic theology, eco-feminism. But New Age is in fact monotheistic, devoted to Nature/the Primeval Mother/Mother Earth/Gaia. Through many eco-utopist, population control[8] and especially aggressively feminist NGO’s, often with high UN-classification, New Age thinking has gained considerable influence in the UN and in international legislation, produced by the many international UN-conferences. The UN also sets up “monitoring bodies”, with the task of monitoring the implementation of this legislation by the member states; these monitoring bodies are often manned by the same NGO’s (!). This is nothing less than proselytising, with UN supervision and at the expense of the taxpayer.[9] The unbelievers are labelled reactionary, conservative or fundamentalist. Lately some of these “conservatives” started to realise what is happening; the term “secular fundamentalism” was coined (among others in parliamentary discussions in The Netherlands), greatly enraging the enlightened ones, but it needed to be said. New Agers tend to exclusivism and intolerance. As in the EU the extreme point of view of one member state (France) was allowed to dominate, so in UN circles the extreme points of view of feminists, environmentalists and world–federalists are allowed to dominate. In the “Earth Charter” the concept “sustainability” has been elevated to core value; it has been stretched far beyond its technical meaning, to a philosophical, holistic and so in fact idolatrous concept and framework for a wave of international legislation flowing out of the UN since the 90’s. This sounds extreme. It is extreme.
Each of these five world religions stands for a (far reaching) influence of faith upon society and politics, and has its own exclusivity, with the danger of intolerance. Only the secularising wing of Christendom seems to be weakening, giving in to the pressure and intolerance of New Age. This development shows, with less and less concealment, that the world moves towards “re-mythologisation” of international politics.
At the core of each of the five world religions, armed with no fewer than nine actual international “anti-covenants” we discern a “re-mythologisation of international politics” in full swing.
Is the Church “awake” enough to not be taken by surprise (1Thess 5:4)? As far as this development is a strategy, it is one of Satan. Does the Church have one at this high level? This is going to be a battle of end-time proportions.[10]
4.3 The bottleneck of world history
In article 1 I introduced the prophet Elijah’s life and acts as a prototype for the Church in the God-state relation. Three things are crucial: intercession, prophecy and showing forth divine power. In Revelation we meet an Elijah-type prophet: one of the “two witnesses”.
In the near future I expect headlines to report the visible effects of the “cosmic countdown” of Revelation 6-9. In these chapters we read how the Lamb/Lion/King opens the booklet or scroll containing God’s end-time plans, seal after seal; we hear trumpet blast after trumpet blast, we are told about thunder after thunder, miraculous and not to be written down; altogether a global and mysterious “countdown” of world history to a climax. Climax? Or bottleneck, to a next phase?
When finally the last seal is opened, when the last trumpet has sounded, when the last thunder has rolled, when the most terrible tsunami’s have hit, when the economic crises (starting October 2008?) have shattered all continents, when the political and ecological chaos is complete, when millions have died or are refugees, THEN, in this bottleneck of history, THEN the angel says to John: “NOW you must prophecy again to all nations, peoples, languages and kings, NOW, in this huge chaos, the nations will listen to a prophet who speaks wisdom into this global situation, NOW they will have an open ear for My planned God-state relation!” (freely after Revelation 10:11). And immediately the Two Witnesses appear on the world scene, two “prophets to the nations” (Jeremiah 1:5; one of them resembles Elijah). These two by their prophecies “torment” (!) all peoples, tribes, languages and nations (Revelation 11:9-10).
In that oppressive time the Church seems reduced to just these two witnesses. The chasm between secularising Christendom and bible-believing Church has become evident. But the latter group, however small, is extraordinarily radical and powerful; it “mediates” between God and the nations through prophecy, through “tormenting” confrontation, and through showing forth divine power! And it announces the coming realm of peace.
The world can try to keep God outside the picture with church-state separation and secularisation, but at a certain moment and in his way, He shall break into reality: ”a rock was cut out, but not with human hands” and this rock will crush and blow away the world power systems, making way for the realm of peace. It is noteworthy that God gave this dream to a secular prince, a king of kings ruling a kind of one-world-government, probably a tyrant, and that this person clearly discerned this dream to be of political-spiritual significance (Daniel 2:28-30, 35); this is confirmed by Daniel.
In the not too far away future God, with strong and outstretched arm, through trouble and oppression fitting his holy indignation, will reveal his God-state relation and execute it in this world.
4.4 God-state relation in the near future
How will history develop from where we are now to where God reveals we will be? What can we expect?
In the following I will try to connect the point where we are now spiritually with the point indicated in Revelation. I sketch, very cautiously, a possible scenario for this “bottleneck of history”. Of course this contains speculative elements. However, not the scenario is the issue, but trying to envision Gods “master plan” for (this phase of) history.