The axis of evil

At the beginning of his presidency, Ronald Reagan caused great indignation among his political opponents by daring to call the Soviet Union an “evil empire.” (By the way, read the whole speech. You'll be amazed at how relevant it is even today.) Reagan, who passed away in 2004, was mocked as “Ronnie Ray-gun” (I'd provide you a link but all the ones I found were laced with lewd and vulgar language) and a dangerous cowboy by liberals who feared that his policy of confrontation would lead to nuclear war. History has proven them wrong. The evil empire could not maintain its control over people it oppressed, and it disintegrated. Many former communist satellites in Eastern Europe, such as Poland, have turned to the United States for support in their struggle to establish democracy. Nations like Russia and the former East Germany still remain backward and in need of basic infrastructure repair. Communism, for all its promise of equality for all, stifled economic growth and oppressed those who would challenge the totalitarian rulers. The world should rightfully say “Good riddance.”

Or can we? This weekend brought another reminder that Communism is not dead and has not been exterminated from the world. George Bush identified North Korea as one-third of the “axis of evil” (along with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Iran) that comprised the biggest threat to world peace. The headline read, “US blacklists eight North Korean entities over WMD proliferation.” Here are the key paragraphs from the story:

President George W. Bush has introduced rules imposing strong financial sanctions against not only weapons of mass destruction but also entities and individuals providing support or services to proliferators.

The Treasury Department said the move Friday was part of ongoing government interagency efforts to combat unconventional weapons trafficking "by blocking the property of entities and individuals that engage in proliferation activities and their support networks."

At six-party talks last month, North Korea pledged to give up its nuclear weapons in exchange for promises of aid and security, the first major breakthrough after more than two years of deadlock over Pyongyang's atomic ambitions.

In return, the United States said it would respect the North's sovereignty and would not attack, a fear Pyongyang had repeatedly said was a main reason for insisting on developing an atomic bomb program.

But after the agreement was announced, North Korea, which is badly short of electricity, immediately said it would insist on having light-water nuclear reactors for civilian energy purposes before giving up its weapons.

The attempts to curtail and contain the spread of communism on the Korean peninsula were the occasion for the Korean war in the early 50’s. During the 1990’s, North Korea developed a nuclear weapons capability, and most of its national wealth is placed into its weaponry. This makes them very dangerous as well as desperate. One can only hope that they will see the prosperity of their South Korean neighbors and the increasing economic power of their Chinese neighbors to the north and recognize, as the original evil empire did, that communism is a failed experiment, and totalitarian rule can never be considered legitimate.

As the Iraqi people continue their climb to democracy, and their military demonstrates the increasing ability to defend their nation against the jihadist insurgents without US help, keep an eye on events in Iran and North Korea. World peace won’t come just by having beauty pageant contestants wishing for it or by hippies playing the guitar and demonstrating. True peace is that which accompanies freedom, and true peace has never been attained without the bravery of courageous warriors who confront evil by name and do not back down.

We enjoy peace with God because Jesus confronted the evil one and went to war with him. He defeated him at the cost of his own life. No Jesus, no peace—only the oppression and tyranny of the evil one. So know Jesus, know peace.

The evil who must not be named

Neo-Nazi.

Why would a group even choose to be identified with one of history’s greatest abominations? To do so suggests not only a belief in the supremacy of your race, but that you are proud of your bigotry and don’t care who knows it. “Neo-Nazis” (or new Nazis) have been around for over a decade in continental Europe, where Turks and other Muslims are rapidly becoming the most numerous ethnic minority. The neo-Nazis seek to keep Germany pure—Germany for Germans only—and use tactics of intimidation against those of other races. Therein lies the problem. The problem of immigration in Europe, coupled with an almost nonexistent birthrate among the native population, is real. But due to a sense of political correctness gone amok, no one wants to admit that the long-standing European tradition of tolerance has invited a very intolerant and sometimes violent population into the heart of what used to be known as “Christendom.” The murder of Dutch filmmaker van Gogh and the British tube bombings in July are two recent and glaring examples of the consequences of this policy. But to challenge the immigration policy brings charges of racism and affiliation with the Neo-Nazis. And the denial continues. And the big elephant is still in the living room and no one wants to talk about it.

Recently, Dr. William Bennett, former Education secretary, drug czar and editor of The Book of Virtues, made the following comment on his radio show: "If you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose -- you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossibly ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down.” Bennett was opining philosophically that utilitarian arguments against abortion are dangerous, and that a pro-life position should be defended on the basis of life, and not its benefit to society. But a major uproar ensued. Demands for apologies came from the African-American community and from the congressional Black caucus. Even the White House distanced itself from Bennett’s comments. Why? What did he say that was so wrong? He obviously denounced the thought of a eugenic slaughter of blacks as morally reprehensible, even though that was really one of the goals of Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. Bill Bennett dared to utter this statistically undeniable fact: the crime rate is higher among blacks than among any other ethnic group. And that was the shameful fact that the African-American leaders did not want mentioned. And the denial continues. And as long as denial continues, how can a solution to be found?

This past weekend, Neo-nazis planned to meet for a rally in Toledo and then march on the sidewalks. Despite their racist beliefs, there is very little doubt that the constitution protects their right of free speech and their right of assembly. So Toledo’s city government could not prevent them from their planned “demonstration.” And if you think that racist or “hate” speech should be outlawed, how long do you think it would be before a Christian pastor and congregation who denounces homosexuality, for example, would be considered “bigoted” and “hateful?” No, a better response to the neo-Nazis would have simply been to ignore them.

But why Toledo? Why at this time? The neo-Nazis sought to expose and confront the problem of gang activity. So who should show up to confront the racist group? The gangs! And, as if on cue, they proceeded to prove the neo-Nazis’ point by engaging in all sorts of violence and vandalism. I saw footage of a gang of thugs throwing rocks at an ambulance, and of brutes kicking in the apartment door of an 86-year old innocent man. I read reports of destruction of gas stations and vandalism of stores; in short, of every imaginable sin. It reminded me of the reports that came out of New Orleans in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, when looters, marauders, and murderers made rescue operations even more difficult than they were already by shooting at the rescue helicopters, and who decided that they should help themselves not only to perishable food and water but also to big screen TVs and other luxury items. So instead of ignoring the racism of the neo-Nazis, the gang members seem to have proven their point, and it would not surprise me if their recruitment of new skinheads actually increases as a result.

What is wrong with the African-American community? There is a deep pathology there that I don’t think can be attributed to people like Martin Luther King, Jr., who dreamed of a color-blind society where people would be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. There is serious rejection of community values, there is a pattern of blaming others and claiming victimhood as an excuse for all manner of evil, a culture of promiscuity and drug abuse and crime. In the book of Romans, St. Paul warned that when evil humans would reject God and his law, that in judgment God would “give them over” to every manner of degradation. In other words, there is nothing to curb or hold back the evil of the sin nature that lurks as part of every human. The brakes seem to be released, and the truck is careening downhill out of control.

Not all African-Americans are in blind denial. Comedian and actor Bill Cosby challenged the meeting of the NAACP criticizing the lack of interest in education. Rap music's violent and misogynist themes are also well-documented. These things are like the big elephant in the room. The African-American community was shocked that a brother would air the dirty laundry in public. But how can a problem ever be solved if the problem is not identified? How can a disease be cured if the patient refuses to acknowledge that there’s something wrong?

The obvious root of all behavioral pathology is sin. The Christian church can do all sorts of compassionate things for the poor in these communities; we can love them, spend time with them, feed them and dress them. But these things will never overcome the evil-to-the-core wickedness that blights urban gang centers like Toledo and Detroit. It didn’t overcome the rotten nature in my flesh and in yours, either. But the Gospel, the power of God for salvation for all who believe, can change those hearts. The answer isn’t more neo-Nazi racism. The answer isn’t to pay reparations for slavery. The answer isn’t more government dependency. It’s to call sin “sin” and to offer forgiveness and restoration in Christ. Being a true evangelical means to feed the soul, not just the body. And when the Gospel is at work, and lives change through a relationship with Jesus, and lives are lived to the glory of God and not in the pursuit of evil, this is the real solution to society’s ills.

God has spoken

Have you ever used the phrase, “God called me to…,” “God told me to…,” “God directed me to…,” or “God said that I should…?” How do you think that those statements are interpreted by those who hear you?

Have your church leaders ever prayed, “God, help us to know and do your will?” When a decision was made, did they announce, “God has led us to this decision?” Or talk about God opening a door or closing a window?

How does God guide us or help us with our decisions? I have heard many people talk about their feelings and interpret them as God’s call to do something or to be something. But emotions and feelings are an unreliable test of the presence of the spirit of God. After all, despite the completely fictional and Christ-denying history and doctrine of the Mormon church, when you witness to them, they will reply that they don’t care if the book of Mormon is historically accurate or not, they had a burning in the bosom, so they know that Mormonism is true.

The book of Hebrews begins, “In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his son.” In the past, in the Old Testament era, God spoke through dreams and visions, in burning bushes and with the mouth of a donkey. In the New Testament era, the “last days,” he has spoken by his son. That is a perfect tense, indicating completed action with an effect that endures into the future. We should not expect God to “speak” to us in any other place than in the Gospel. Christians ought to strive to hear the voice of God in the words of Scripture, and nowhere else.

Not every thought that occurs to us is to be interpreted as the voice of God. If I pray, God, I can’t decide what to have for breakfast, and I open the cupboard and, lo and behold, there’s a box of Cap’n Crunch, I’m not going to say “God told me to have Cap’n Crunch for breakfast.” What if that was a temptation of the devil, and God really wanted me to have a low-fat muffin? The truth of the matter is, there are many decisions in which God leaves it up to our personal liberty, and no matter what we decide, we can be sure that God has led us to it, even if he didn’t appear to us or give us a sign beforehand. (If, that is, it is truly a choice between two God-pleasing paths.)

This week, an article appeared in the British press in which a Palestinian leader, Nabil Shaath, related the following anecdote about President Bush.

Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"

Abu Mazen was at the same meeting and recounts how President Bush told him: "I have a moral and religious obligation. So I will get you a Palestinian state."

President Bush has denied that such a conversation ever occurred. So has Shaath's fellow Palestinian, Abbas. But that doesn’t mean that the press will pull the story from circulation. No, one more thing to make Bush look like a fool. After all, only a fool would hear the voice of God, wouldn’t he? And when you’re the most powerful man in the world, how dangerous to lead the world into war at the behest of the voice in your head! Here's a sampling of such thought, if you can take it.

I have no doubt that the President is a man of faith and a man of prayer. I believe he prays for God’s strength, but that he makes decisions based on what is right and wrong and in the best interest of the nation and for the good of his fellow man, no matter what race and no matter whether they are hurricane victims in the US or earthquake victims in Pakistan. I believe that he is convinced that, like Esther, God has brought him to his position “for such a time as this.” I do not believe that those things equate to a crazy man listening to voices in his head.

Much better and profitable for “growing in grace” is to study and know well the message of God in the Bible. Here God speaks clearly and unambiguously. Too much falsehood has entered the Christian church via those who went beyond Scripture, adding their own feelings as a guide. This is what our year’s annual theme verse means, when you see it in context:

“(Paul’s) letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position. But grow in grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”

Under God

On the first Monday in October, the United States Supreme Court opens its new term. This year, the court has a new face for the first time in over a decade, as the President’s choice for Chief Justice, John Roberts, was just sworn in. Before the week is out, President Bush will have made another nomination to the Supreme Court to replace retiring justice Sandra Day O’Connor. With important cases facing the court this term, including some key decisions regarding partial-birth abortion, Bush’s nominations are critical.

One case sure to come before the court has to do with the Pledge of Allegiance and the phrase “under God.” A year ago, atheist Michael Newdow sued to have the offending phrase removed on the grounds that it constituted the establishment of religion and therefore violated the First Amendment. At the time, the court refused to hear the case because Newdow had no standing to sue on behalf of his daughter, because he was not her custodial parent. This merely sidestepped the issue, since the Supreme Court avoided hearing the case on its merits. But Newdow found allies in the same California locale, and the District court of Sacramento has ruled, as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had done beforehand, that the recitation of the pledge with “under God” is, in fact, an establishment of religion, and must be banned from public schools.

Recent polls suggest that over 90% of Americans do not see the voluntary recitation of the pledge with the words “under God” included as an unconstitutional establishment of religion. They say that the word “God” does not establish one religion over another, since all religions claim to worship a deity. Opponents argue that only Christians refer to God as “God,” that Muslims call him “Allah” and Jews “Adonai Elohenu.”

Constitutionally, the fact that no one can coerce school children to say the pledge of allegiance certainly argues for the status quo to be upheld. Religious groups such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses have long been conscientious objectors to the concept of pledging allegiance to a flag or a nation instead of to Jehovah God alone. Those who do not wish to participate do not have to do so. And, putting the First Amendment and its establishment clause into historical context, the framers wished to prevent the government from having a particular church, like the church of England, favored and supported by tax dollars. It is unreasonable to suggest that they were advocating the complete removal of any mention of God’s name from public life, a situation some extreme atheists (and their legal advocates in the ACLU) seem to insist on forcing upon America.

From a Biblical standpoint, there is nothing objectionable to a Christian citizen pledging allegiance to the nation or to the flag, the symbol of the republic. Nowhere does the pledge imply that this is a citizen’s highest allegiance. From Acts 5:29, where the apostles declared, “We must obey God rather than men,” we know that only in those rare situations where the laws of men conflict with the laws of God must we practice civil disobedience, even if it were to require time in prison. After all, the authorities tried to prevent the apostles from proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus. They refused, and found themselves jailed for it. Christians can be truly thankful for the first amendment, which not only prevents Congress from passing laws establishing religion, but also prohibits them from passing ones that prohibit the free exercise of our faith.

However, the idea that “God” is not religion-specific is more troublesome. If this were a prayer, and we were in a group of students that included Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, and Christians, and we all prayed together, it would be offensive to the true God. Jesus said, “Whatever you ask the Father in my name, he will give it to you.” Prayers that are not offered “in Jesus’ name,” are not worship of the true God. And “in Jesus’ name” does not simply mean you recite that phrase as if it were an incantation or a mantra, it means that you pray as a believer in Jesus, recognizing that only through the death and resurrection of Christ Jesus do you, as a sinful human being, have access to God’s presence through prayer.

This past week we have heard reports on Hinduism and Judaism. There are adherents of both religions who claim that there is no difference between their faith and the beliefs of Christians. Hinduism, as we have studied, has a history of adaptation and absorbing of other religions into itself. George Harrison of the Beatles wrote “My Sweet Lord” with the clear intention of juxtaposing the Judeo-Christian word of praise “Hallelujah” with the words “Hare Krishna,” thereby inferring that the two were identical. And it is almost taken for granted and assumed that “Jews and Christians worship the same God” because we both have the Old Testament and worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Consider, however, Jesus’ dealings with the Jews of his day. He told them in John 5:23, “He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.” This apostle also wrote by inspiration, “No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also (I John 2:23).” Simply put, because Jews (and by this is obviously not meant the ethnic or racial Jew who believes in Jesus) reject Jesus and his divinity, and reject the Trinity, they do not worship the same God as Christians.

There is and always has been only one God and one way to heaven. Jesus said “I am the way (not “a” way), the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6).” Those pious and faithful Jews who lived prior to Jesus’ coming in the flesh were saved by faith in the promises of the Savior even as you and I are saved by faith in those same promises. As Paul put it in Romans 4:1-2, “If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. What does the Scripture say? Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” The true children of Abraham are those who believe as Abraham did. And, as Paul wrote to the Galatians, “You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for as many of you as are baptized into Christ have been clothed with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free, for you are all one in Christ Jesus our Lord (3:26-27).”

On another occasion, this blog will consider the issue of the land of Israel, today’s modern nation-state of Israel, and whether it has any bearing on the fulfillment of biblical prophecy. Use the comments to talk about the Supreme Court, the pledge of allegiance, the establishment clause, or anything addressed above.