Political Saturday

I Kings 16

30 And Ahab the son of Omri did evil in the sight

of the LORD above all that were before him.

31 And it came to pass, as if it had been a light

thing for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam the

son of Nebat, that he took to wife Jezebel the

daughter of Ethbaal king of the Zidonians, and

went and served Baal, and worshipped him.

32 And he reared up an altar for Baal in the

house of Baal, which he had built in Samaria.

33 And Ahab made a grove; and Ahab did more to

provoke the LORD G-d of Israel to anger than all

the kings of Israel that were before him.


This has been a week busy with political events,

judging from the newspaper headlines. And on

Monday, we celebrate Labor Day.


Whenever the subject of politics comes to the

forefront, just as it does during these times,

the word hubris comes to mind.

"Aristotle defined hubris as follows: to cause

shame to the victim, not in order that anything

may happen to you, nor because anything has

happened to you, but merely for your own

gratification. Hubris is not the requital of past

injuries; this is revenge. As for the pleasure in

hubris, its cause is this: men think that by

ill-treating others they make their own

superiority the greater."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris


And that's the level of public discourse related

to modern politics. Say something negative about

the other candidate in order to make yourself

look more appealing. But in the end, it leaves

me with no sense of admiration for all concerned.

What I tend to pay closest attention to is which

candidates draw criticism from which

spokespersons. It's the clearest indication, to

me, of what candidates are really like. Those

outspoken members of the opposition let you know

what candidates are likely to believe. You can

tell who a person is by who their enemies are.


The thing that I dislike the most about politics

is the deception and compromise. One reason for

that is because I don't believe that it's always

that difficult to know the difference between

what's right and wrong. But that's not the

language of politics. As I understand it, the

language of politics is making deals. In other

words, it's nothing but a swamp of compromise.

I realize that there isn't

much interest in doing what's right. I realize

that many people are far too compromised

personally to ever be able to have even a faint

desire to do what's right. So in the end,

politics is simply a reflection of the corruption

that exists at the personal level. And it's

always been that way. I won't be able to fix it.


Whenever I think of politics, what often comes to

mind is the record of King Ahab in hebrew

scripture, and his charming wife Jezebel. The

story goes on over the course of several

chapters, the kingdom of man represented by Ahab

and Jezebel versus the kingdom of heaven

represented by Elijah. It seems that the general

populace was apathetic.


"Apathy (also called impassivity or

perfunctoriness) is a state of indifference,

where an individual has an absence of interest or

concern to certain aspects of emotional, social,

or physical life.

History

Apathy etymologically derives from the Greek

απάθεια (apatheia), a term used by the Stoics to

signify indifference for what one is not

responsible for (that is, according to their

philosophy, all things exterior, one being only

responsible of his representations and

judgments).

Many Christians believe that the concept was then

reappropriated by Christians, who adopted the

term to express a contempt of all earthly

concerns, a state of mortification, as (they

claim) the gospel prescribes."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apathy


I Kings 18

17 And it came to pass, when Ahab saw Elijah,

that Ahab said unto him, Art thou he that

troubleth Israel?

18 And he answered, I have not troubled Israel;

but thou, and thy father's house, in that ye have

forsaken the commandments of the LORD, and thou

hast followed Baalim.

19 Now therefore send, and gather to me all

Israel unto mount Carmel, and the prophets of

Baal four hundred and fifty, and the prophets

of the groves four hundred, which eat at

Jezebel's table.

20 So Ahab sent unto all the children of Israel,

and gathered the prophets together unto mount

Carmel.

21 And Elijah came unto all the people, and said,

How long halt ye between two opinions? if the

LORD be G-d, follow him: but if Baal, then follow

him. And the people answered him not a word.


Elijah was not the type given to apathy, even

though the popular majority showed indifference

toward Baal worship. '...the people answered him

not a word.' As I see it, things are not that

much different today. It's well known that many

eligible voters don't bother to go to the polls.

One of the primary reasons is that people have

the sense that they are not being represented by

the 'system' and they sense that there is little

interest on the part of any within the power

structure to do what's right. In other words,

there are many people who recognize that the

nature of compromise, the compromise within

politics and personal compromise prevent

constructive action. On the other hand, Elijah

had the attitude that even if he was the only

one, he would take a stand against evil.


18:22 Then said Elijah unto the people, I, even I

only, remain a prophet of the LORD; but Baal's

prophets are four hundred and fifty men.


Nothing's changed much over the years. Politics

is still mired in compromise, the public is mired

in apathy and personal compromise. And there are

still a few who can't sell out in spite of the

fact that they will be marginalized and socially

stigmatized. Another thing that hasn't changed

is that there is still a difference between right

and wrong, between truth and error. Political

process won't lead us there, popular apathy won't

take us there, but the kingdom of heaven will

eventually arrive in the fullness of time.

Elijah did what needed to be done, in his time.

He brought an end to Baal worship, although it

was not completely eliminated until years later

when Jehu became king.


Over the next few chapters, the story of Ahab and

Jezebel continues. It's a sad story of continued

compromise and apathy, characterized by endless

conflict. Corrupt leadership brings only misery

upon a nation. And during their reign, Ahab and

Jezebel brought a great deal of misery upon their

people. In other words, compromise is not the

virtue that it is advertised to be. It is a

practice that bears the fruit of misery, as it

was under the rule of Ahab and Jezebel.


You can come to your own conclusions about how

this carries over into modern society. Just like

me, you can examine the social metrics and take

stock of your own personal situation. Do you

believe that things are heading in the right

direction? Personally, I find evidence that the

misery index is already into the high-stress

range, and the kingdom of man is on a course that

will only generate more of the same and increased

conflict. Look around.


On the other hand, the kingdom of heaven offers

an alternative. And the day will come when Jesus

retuns to set the record straight. In the

definition of apathy, the wikipedia entry says

that christians... 'adopted the term to express a

contempt of all earthly concerns, a state of

mortification, as (they claim) the gospel

prescribes.' I don't know how anyone can arrive

at that conclusion, if they've ever read the

gospels. In fact Jesus taught that christians

were to pursue the kingdom of heaven while here

on earth, to do his will in the here and now.

Sure, it's at odds with popular culture. But the

Apostle Paul puts it this way in Romans, 'And be

not conformed to this world: but be ye

transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye

may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and

perfect, will of G-d.' Rom. 12:2 That would not

provide an excuse for personal compromise and

apathy or a 'state of mortification', as the wiki

entry suggests. In spite of the confusion that

rules the kingdom of man, christians are to be

ruled by the peace that characterizes knowing and

doing the 'will of G-d'. That's an alternative

to the kingdom of man.

Solzhenitsyn and Russia - East and West

Ezekiel 38

1 And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,

2 Son of man, set thy face against Gog, the land

of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal,

and prophesy against him,

3 And say, Thus saith the Lord G-D; Behold, I am

against thee, O Gog, the chief prince of Meshech

and Tubal:

4 And I will turn thee back, and put hooks into

thy jaws, and I will bring thee forth, and all

thine army, horses and horsemen, all of them

clothed with all sorts of armor, even a great

company with bucklers and shields, all of them

handling swords:

5 Persia, Ethiopia, and Libya with them; all of

them with shield and helmet:

6 Gomer, and all his bands; the house of Togarmah

of the north quarters, and all his bands: and

many people with thee.


Ezekiel 39

1 Therefore, thou son of man, prophesy against

Gog, and say, Thus saith the Lord G-D; Behold, I

am against thee, O Gog, the chief prince of

Meshech and Tubal:

2 And I will turn thee back, and leave but the

sixth part of thee, and will cause thee to come

up from the north parts, and will bring thee upon

the mountains of Israel:

3 And I will smite thy bow out of thy left hand,

and will cause thine arrows to fall out of thy

right hand.

4 Thou shalt fall upon the mountains of Israel,

thou, and all thy bands, and the people that is

with thee: I will give thee unto the ravenous

birds of every sort, and to the beasts of the

field to be devoured.

5 Thou shalt fall upon the open field: for I have

spoken it, saith the Lord G-D.


In the first verse Gog is interpreted to be

Russia, Meshech is Moscow and Tubal is the

province of Tobolsk. These passages describe an

army of six nations that will mount an invasion

against Israel in a sneak attack. They will

launch the attack from the north, out of the

country of Russia.


This is a prophetic passage that has not yet been

fulfilled. There is more detail about this

invasion in these two chapters, but I won't go

into the other details. I just want to look at

the fact that this is an invasion from the north,

that consists of an army from six different

countries. The motivation is that the Lord will

'put hooks into thy jaws', in order to draw these

nations together for an invasion.


What we see happening in this region right now,

is setting the stage for the fulfillment of

prophetic scripture. For now, there is no six

nation alliance gathering to mount an invasion of

the nation of Israel, as far as I know. Recent

events show that Russia is just putting the bear

hug on former Soviet states to secure its own

borders.


Walvoord offers these comments:

"The prophecy against Gog is one of the most

dramatic predictions of Ezekiel. Many details of

the prophecy are not entirely clear, but the man

thrust of the prediction is not difficult to

understand. The passage predicted an invasion of

Israel by a great army that will attack Israel

from the north...


This passage is a part of the predictions of the

great world conflict which will characterize the

years just before the Second Coming. Though

Bible expositors have differed as to when this

fits into the prophetic picture, it is plausible

that preceeding this event the prediction of the

revived Roman Empire, a ten-nation confederacy,

will be fulfilled...


As the battle described here is a disaster for

the invading countries, it may change the

political power structure to such an extent that

it will be possible for the Roman leader of the

ten nations to become a world dictator...


The Great Tribulation also records another

mammoth world war (Dan. 11:40-45; Rev. 16:12-16)

which will occur just before the Second Coming.

This should be distinguished from the war in

Ezekiel 38-39 which is not a world conflict but a

war between a select group of nations attacking

Israel.


In the quarter of a century since World War II

Russia has risen to be one of the great military

powers of the modern world. To a far greater

extent than ever before Russiahas become a

prominent nation, especially in its influence on

the Middle East...


According to Scripture the invaders will be

totally destroyed which, undoubtedly, will have

an effect on the world power struggle in which

Russia is now a major factor... (the ten-nation

confederacy will be free to act at this point)

The war centering in Armageddon is one which

involves all the nations of the world. The

Russian war is predominantly Russia with six

allies. The Armageddon struggle covers all the

Holy Land, but the war with Russia is settled on

the northern mountain of Israel... The scenes are

different." pp 188-191


The latest news of the Russian invasion of

Georgia is a reminder of the recent passing of

solzhenitsyn on August 8th of this year, and the

address that he made in 1978 at the Harvard

University commencement ceremony. It's worth

having another look at the address to guage how

events are unfolding in the east.

Solzhenitsyn said,"A decline in courage may be

the most striking feature that an outside

observer notices in the West today. The Western

world has lost its civic courage, both as a whole

and separately, in each country, in each

government, in each political party, and, of

course, in the United Nations. Such a decline in

courage is particularly noticeable among the

ruling and intellectual elites, causing an

impression of a loss of courage by the entire

society. There are many courageous individuals,

but they have no determining influence on public

life."

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/Solzhenits

ynHarvard.php


"Russian troops poured into South Ossetia on

August 8 to repel a Georgian attempt to regain

control of the breakaway region. After smashing

Georgia's small US-trained army in South Ossetia,

Russian troops then pushed deep into Georgia,

including through Abkhazia."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080825/ts_afp/georg

iarussiaconflict

Russian military had been making preparations to

move into Georgia for a while. It wasn't a big

surprise to those who were paying attention. But

it sends a message to the world about the

direction of Russian interests. Even though the

Soviet Union fell apart in the 1980's, there are

still those in Russia whose idea of independence

is not that much different than the senile

alchoholics who ran the Soviet Union. I'm not a

student of Russian political personalities, but

from what little I read, Mr. Putin fully intends

that Russia control the region bordering Europe

and Middle Eastern countries. Of course, the

unspoken yet fully understood objective is

complete control of petroleum resources, and

therefore, complete control of western economies.

Look at what has happened to the West - Europe

and the U.S. For hundreds of years there was no

serious challenge to the leading role played by

Western Europe and the U.S. Economic control was

centered in the Western world. In times past,

the level of economic superiority of the west was

stunning. One indication of that was the fact

that you could travel almost anywhere in the

world and people would gladly accept U.S.

currency as payment. That's changing.


One of the primary reasons for change is the

energy dependence of western countries on the

petroleum resources of eastern countries. Mr.

Putin knows this. Western Europe and the U.S.

have a problem. They both have petroleum based

economies that rely on imported supplies. This

situation creates an opportunity for the

exploitation of East-West political tension.

Solzhenitsyn titled his address, 'A World Split

Apart' in reference to the conflict between

Eastern-Western worldviews. What he saw as he

viewed Western societies was a lack of moral

direction and courage. From his own experience,

he knew that this was a serious flaw. I would

suggest that one primary reason that we find

ourselves in this position is exactly because of

what Solzhenitsyn mentioned in his address to

Harvard as far back as 1978. There is a lack of

spiritual energy in Western society, that is not

lacking in the Eastern. As Schaeffer has pointed

out, Christian theology has been infiltrated by

modern western notions of 'truth'. What we have

left is only a shell of western christian

influence in society. In other words, we don't

have anything left to believe in. But the

Eastern worldview is fully energized by its envy

and loathing of Western society.


You see, if we had a shared sense of moral

clarity, we wouldn't question the idea of taking

and maintaining a leadership role in the world.

But we don't have that shared clarity, and we

don't desire a leadership role. We've become

irrelevant. And Russia just sent us that

message.


So we see world events unfolding before our eyes.

We see things taking shape in the Middle East,

Europe and Asia and we see what's happening in

this country. But how do we interpret the

significance of events? I'd suggest that for the

time being, in the U.S. there is a sense that

things are not well, but there isn't any desire

to address the real issues either at home or

offshore. Recent world events make us

uncomfortable, but we'd rather not confront the

realities, right now.


Scripture has something to say about the

significance of world events. As I've written

before about the book of Daniel, I believe that

one reason that we have the prophecy of scripture

related to end times is that in spite of all the

chaos and confusion caused by a world in crisis,

we can have the full assurance that it is under

Divine direction. Scripture provides us with

everything we need to know about the direction

and significance of world events as the end of

time draws near.


In the last post, I closed with the opening

passage of the book of Revelation. Looking at

developments in Europe and Asia over the past ten

or twenty years in light of prophetic scripture

leads to the conclusion that the time is very

soon at hand. The book of Ezekiel has a prophecy

that is directed toward Gog -- a nation whose

army will attack Israel from the north. Gog is

interpreted to be the modern nation of Russia.

Implications are that the West is totally corrupt

and rotting from the inside out. And the Church

of Jesus Christ will soon be taken out of the

earth to make way for the final assault of the

kingdom of man (Babylon) on the kingdom of heaven

(Jerusalem). But it will not succeed.

In These Things I Delight

Jeremiah 9

23 Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man

glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man

glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in

his riches:

24 But let him that glorieth glory in this, that

he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the

LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and

righteousness, in the earth: for in these things

I delight, saith the LORD.


So, we have to come to the point where we

recognize that there are two parallel, yet

overlapping dimensions that we live in. There is

the kingdom of man and the kingdom of heaven.


One of the things that we see in scripture is

that the sphere of man's influence is limited by

the higher order and authority of heaven's rule.

It ought to be obvious. We have a grasp of the

concept of the infinite, but we experience life

in terms of our finite personal relationship to

everything else, all the while knowing that there

is more out there that we haven't yet

encountered.


Let me suggest that one of the common desires of

man is immortality. It's expressed in a variety

of ways. One of the more personal ways that we

experience it is in our fear or loathing of

death. We wish to be remembered. But we will

soon be forgotten. Do you know who lives on the

other side of your back yard? They are not

immortal either, but they will want to be buried

with a grave marker.


One of the greatest contradictions of modern myth

is the impersonal view of man. And the promoters

of myth also wish to create an impersonal god in

their own contradictory view. This lies at the

foundation of the myth of evolution. There is a

desperate desire to portray man and god as

totally impersonal. And it's apparent that it

has nothing to do with science. Science can't

answer the question of whether or not personality

exist. Only religion or myth can. Yet, in

everyday experience, we see first-hand that our

lives revolve around an axis of personal

interaction. If you're like me, you may not

enjoy all the personal interaction, but I can't

deny that it's a central aspect of my daily

activity.


You would think that these folks are clever

enough to see that they are playing a game that

they can't win -- the dogmatic evolutionists.

Everyday people can see right through the myth of

an impersonal creation, because they experience

life surrounded by other people. The human

experience is deeply personal. Dogmatic

assertions can't change the human experience.


Human experience and the rejection of mythology

doesn't automatically imply that the ancient text

of scripture is true. The testimony of history

verifies the truth of scripture.


Unless, of course, you believe the other fantasy

known as relativism. In that case history was

true for them but may not be for me. And we have

to then go back to the idea that the only

validation of truth is how we experience it. Or,

your truth is different from my truth. The

fantasy of relativism leads only to chaos and

confusion, the normal state of the kingdom of

man.


But science shows that there is order in the

universe, and there is very little room for

error. Misplace one character in a computer

program, for instance, and it just won't work.

How much more elaborate is the design of

biological life? It's another aspect of the

contradiction of modern myth. Even though it

masquerades as science, it is just the opposite.

The prophet Jeremiah got this message a long time

ago. He put it all in one simple statement. It

is glorious to know the nature of who the Lord

is, who man is and what the earth is. There is

an established order that will never be subject

to the whim of men's fantasy.


This passage implies that the things that really

matter are not wisdom, strength or riches (the

goals of 'evolution'), but rather a well ordered

relationship between man, his Creator and fellow

man. The Lord requires that there needs to be

recognition that the personal level is where we

find our true identity. Lovingkindness,

judgement and righteousness are aspects of

relationship to our Creator and fellow man.

You can see right away that the kingdom of man

has it all wrong.


Some suggest that we need a revolution. I'd

settle for a revelation, although revolution is

the more likely course of events, judging from

the past. The revelation will arrive at its

appointed time. The time is at hand.


Revelation 1

1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which G-d gave

unto him, to shew unto his servants things which

must shortly come to pass; and he sent and

signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

2 Who bare record of the word of G-d, and of the

testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that

he saw.

3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear

the words of this prophecy, and keep those things

which are written therein: for the time is at

hand.

Schedule Change

Beginning this Monday, I have a new schedule and will post weekly rather than daily.
I'll be able to write either Saturday or Sunday afternoon. We'll see how the new schedule works out.

Eyewitness

I Corinthians 15

1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the

gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye

have received, and wherein ye stand;

2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in

memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have

believed in vain.

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that

which I also received, how that Christ died for

our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again

the third day according to the scriptures:

5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the

twelve:

6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred

brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain

unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all

the apostles.

8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of

one born out of due time.


Hmmm. After rereading the post from Saturday, I

see a couple mistakes that need correction. But

the central message is as clear as a bell. In my

view, Schaeffer did an excellent job of sorting

through the confusion of modern ideas. And I'm

left with the observation that theology, an

accurate view of G-d, man and the world, is

absolutely required in order to make sense of any

activity that men are busy with. Without being

properly centered around the Creator, the

activity of man leads to confusion,

meaninglessness and vanity.(This is

characteristic of what Schaeffer calls

'despair'.) If you read the founding documents

of this country you'll see that the authors of

those documents held the same opinion, since

they were mostly if not all, theologically

literate men. They clearly understood the

difference between the kingdom of heaven and the

kingdom of man.


One of the glaring omissions in public and

private life in the modern age is the lack of

theological literacy. I'm completely baffled by

the effort that men make, in order to ignore the

record of scripture and the record of secular

history. They can't really believe that in the

present age that we will be successful in

efforts that always failed in the past? You'd

think that especially in a technically advanced

society that there would be recognition of the

fact that there is a rule of Law in every

dimension of the universe. The physical universe

is orderly, but the social universe, ruled by the

kingdom of man shows no respect for the Law. Can

anyone really believe that the result is going to

be good? Has it ever worked out in the past? To

some degree, it depends on what you mean by

'worked out'. What I mean by 'worked out' is the

never ending military activity and social

conflict that characterizes every chapter in the

history of the kingdom of man. In the absence of

theological literacy, the failures of the kingdom

of man are impossible to accurately understand --

nothing will ever be gained from the experience.


What I can see is that without theological

literacy, all of human activity is centered in

immediate gratification. The rule is, I have to

take whatever I can at any cost, and I have to do

it as quickly as possible without any concern for

the welfare of others. This rule is applied

across the board. The measure of success is only

the immediate gratification. Focus becomes very

short term in most cases. And any sense of

satisfaction is immediately lost on the next urge

that demands gratification. It's a junkie

mindset that results from the lack of theological

literacy.


What troubles me is that as time passes, modern

social activities are looking more and more like

they revolve around the junkie behavioral model.

It's not just me making this up. Over the past

couple years, I've been clued-in to the changes

taking place in social behavior by some of the

things that I read. I seldom watch TV, but it

offers further evidence of the prevalence of the

junkie mindset.


This is all written in generalizations, but I can

be specific. I can go on at the personal level,

about my marriage and the toll it's taken there.

And I've seen enough to know that it's not just

me. I can go on about the present condition of

the financial world, but Lowenstein already did a

book on Enron/Arthur Anderson that accurately

characterizes the condition there. I can go on

about the political situation, but that's water

under the bridge. I can go further down the path

with observations about the entertainment/media

conplex. Or I can relate my experience traveling

across the country from coast to coast. In every

area of social life, across the entire spectrum

of American experience there is a decline induced

by what I identify as the junkie mindset of

self-centered immediate gratification.


My conclusion is that it will all end badly, and

this country is no longer a safe and healthy

environment for raising children. Oh, we've

managed to build a massive house of cards, but

where do we go from here? The stage is set for

social decline. The only question in my mind is

whether the decline will be a sudden collapse or

a long drawn out series of social conflicts.

History shows that it can go either way, but I

don't have any insight into the factors that

determine the course of events or where a tipping

point might be or a possible catalyst for

accelerating the inevitable. Some of the

conspiracy theories offer different views as to

the source and motivation for change, but I'm

more inclined to believe that the flaws are found

in human nature, as it is accurately described in

theological terms. The kingdom of man wishes to

worship the god of this world -- satan. And

satan is eager to destroy the souls of men, with

the empty promise of worldly pleasure and power.

Always, in the end, that path leads to the junkie

mindset. And that mindset cannot provide a safe

and healthy environment.


In my travels, I saw that the safest and

healthiest environments were in those locales

that would be considered 'backwards' in the naive

perspective of the modern mind. I never saw gang

grafitti in an Amish community, for instance.

But in any region where there is an abundance of

'adult entertainment', you will also find

grafitti and bars on windows and doors, or other

types of security measures required. It doesn't

require any genius to figure it out. It's

obvious. Personally, I don't want to live in a

neighborhood or region that's littered with

grafitti or has criminal activity of any kind.

(In fact, I personally dislike any area that's

littered with billboards.) But that's the most

obvious signal of the general decline in social

standards from coast to coast. The 'adult

entertainment' that used to be confined in ghetto

areas across the country has come to be

acceptable in almost every urban setting. There

was a time when it was considered to be

undesireable to have an 'adult' establishment in

a community. The ghetto, along with the junkie

mindset is no longer contained within the

confines of undesireable neighborhoods. On the

other hand, it might be that there are just more

undesireable neighborhoods, and the extent of

that undesireability is reflected by the

ubiquitous presence of 'adult' establishments.

The entire country has been turned into a

'ghetto'. I prefer 'backwards' to 'ghetto' any

day of the week.


It seems my preference puts me firmly in the

minority position. The transformation of the

urban landscape into oversized ghettos doesn't

seem to bother most people very much, unless I'm

just not aware of a silent majority. I'd suspect

that there are other metrics that could be

applied in order to make a case for the expansion

of ghetto Amerika. You know, high school dropout

rates, teen pregnancy, unemployment, petty crime,

drug use, general incidence of police activity

and other social trends. Maybe someone's already

written a book. I don't know what sociologists

study these days. All I know is what I've seen

traveling from coast to coast, and if that is any

indication of the majority position, then I'm

clearly in the minority.


If the rise of ghetto culture in this country is

any indication of what's to come, then it's hard

to be solidly optimistic about the future of this

country. Of course, the kingdom of man has no

future, but that's another topic. To draw any

conclusion about the future rate of decline is to

speculate. But if my observations are accurate,

one thing that is characteristic of the ghetto

culture is that it is inherently unstable. It's

a world that revolves around 'me'. That

instability tends to be a destructive and

volatile force, if the past is any indication.

So if I were to speculate about the decline that

lies ahead, I'd have to expect that it will be an

accelerating trend. Unless events make a sudden

and unexpected turnaround, there is little reason

for optimism about the most likely outcome for

ghetto Amerika.


The question to answer is, Will ghetto Amerika be

contained? My guess is that it will be widely

contained, but probably absent in many of the

more rural (backward) areas of the U.S.


Here's another quote from Schaeffer:


"There is a real tension in being a modern man

because no one can live at ease in the area of

despair. A Christian knows that this is because

man has been made in the image of G-d and though

man is fallen, separated from G-d by his true

guilt, yet nevertheless he has not become a

machine. The falleness of man does not lead to

'machineness', but to 'fallen-manness'.

Therefore, when people feel this utter despair,

there is a titanic pressure, like being extruded

against all the long history of reasoned thinking

to accept a dichotomy, and then later to accept

some mysticism which gives an illusion of unity

to the whole."

"I remember sitting in a Lyons' Corner House near

Marble Arch in London some years ago, talking to

a brilliant young physicist. I asked him about

the latest work he was doing, and he told me

about a new idea that he thought might solve

Einstein's problem concerning electromagnetism

and gravity. He became very enthusiastic about

this, because I knew enough about the subject to

stimulate him, and he was far away in thought.

Then I brought him back by saying, 'This is fine

for the Christian, who really knows who he is, to

say that the material universe may finally be

reduced to energy particles moving in opposite

directions in a vortex, but what about your

naturalistic colleagues? What happens to them

when they go home to their wives and families at

night?' "

"He paused for a moment and then said, 'Oh, Dr.

Schaeffer, they just have to live in a

dichotomy.'"

"The very 'mannishness' of man refuses to live in

the logic of the position to which his humanism

and rationalism have brought him. To say that I

am only a machine is one thing; to live

consistently as if this were true is quite

another." pp 67-8


Another simplistic way to understand what

Schaeffer says here is to realize that even

though a person believes in evolution, except in

rare instances they live with the contradiction

between what they want to believe about evolution

and how they relate to others on a personal

level. You see, evolution says that we have no

purpose or meaning in this life except to eat,

sleep, reproduce and die. That's it. But at the

personal level, we know that others, especially

those whom we love, are more important than, for

instance, our car, our lawn mower or our

parakeet. 'Mannishness' includes the idea that

we are more than just machines with the ability to reproduce.

You might know of people who don't provide much

evidence of 'mannishness', in the sense that it

is a reflection of the image of their Creator,

but the very fact that you recognize that man is

meant for more than reproduction is evidence of

the Divine nature planted in man. So the

naturalist lives with that contradiction between

what he wants to believe and what he does; the

dichotomy that creates tension.


I mention evolution because it's the popular

mythology. Schaeffer mentions field theory in

this quote. But the unifying concept is the same

as far as how the personal nature of man fits

into the physical universe. Cosmology can't

explain the personal nature of man any better

than the theory of evolution. The dichotomy is

still there. It just gets brushed aside. A

clever cosmologist will carefully avoid the

question because he knows that he doesn't have an

answer. Jesus made some people uncomfortable

because he confronted them with their own nature.

(Jesus kept telling them, I am your answer.)

Christians still do the same today because they

don't live with the dichotomy that creates so

much tension within modern man and his popular

mythology.


"On the basis of biblical Christianity a rational

discussion and consideration can take place,

because it is fixed in the stuff of history.

When Paul was asked whether Jesus was raised from

the dead, he gave a completely nonreligious

answer, in the twentieth-century sense. He said,

'There are almost 500 living witnesses; go and

ask them!' This is the faith that involves the

whole man, including his reason; it does not ask

for a belief into the void. As the

twentieth-century mentality would understand the

concept of religion, the Bible is a nonreligious

book." pp 69-70


In other words, in the passage of scripture above

the Apostle says that what he experienced is

something that has also been the experience of

500 or more other people. It is not some kind of

mystical experience that can't be communicated or

was experienced in a different way by each of the

500 other people. It is a concrete fact of

historical record that Jesus arose from the tomb

and was seen by at least 500 eyewitnesses. Jesus

demonstrated his power over death, hell and the

grave. Given that level of demonstrated

authority, we ought to be listening to what Jesus

had to say about who G-d is, who man is and what

the world is.

Schaeffer's Answer

Matthew 5

1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a

mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came

unto him:

2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them,

saying,

3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is

the kingdom of heaven.

4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be

comforted.

5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit

the earth.

6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst

after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain

mercy.

8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall

see G-d.

9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be

called the children of G-d.

10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for

righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of

heaven.

11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and

persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil

against you falsely, for my sake.

12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is

your reward in heaven:


As I read this passage, I have the image of Jesus

pulling his disciples aside at this point in time

to remind them what it's all about. You see,

they had a huge mob of people following after

them about this time. As an analogy, they were

inside groupies of the hottest act in the

country. They were gaining celebrity status. So

Jesus sits them down away from the teeming masses

to remind them of who they really are, who he

really is and what the world is really about. I

imagine him with a big smile on his face, trying

to get the attention of the disciples away from

the distraction of the crowds, so he could take

this opportunity to remind them that this earth

and the kingdom of man, is not Paradise it's just

the opposite. He's saying, in effect, that all

of the images of greatness that they imagine

right now, have nothing to do with the kingdom of

heaven. Nowhere does he say, Blessed are you if

the world treats you well. He says just the

opposite. If the world treats you poorly, it's

then that you are reminded that you have a great

reward awaiting you in the coming kingdom. Jesus

was all about the coming kingdom.


Schaeffer goes on to write of a 'new theology' as

an expression of modern philosophy and culture,

and titles the chapter 'Modern Mysticism: Despair

Beyond Despair'. In the passage above, Jesus

gave one answer, because he IS the answer. When

you meet him, there is no reason to despair,

because the reward is never going to be found in

this world. Jesus is all about the coming

kingdom. I can't hope to attempt an explanation

of all the technical details, but as he makes his

case to describe the present world system,

Schaeffer offers this view:

"...philosophy, art, music, theatre, and so on --

differ in details, and these details are

interesting and important, but in a way they are

only incidental. The distinctive mark of the

twentieth-century intellectual and CULTURAL

climate does not lie in the differences, but in

the unifying concept. The unifying concept is

the concept of a divided field of knowledge.

...the concept of truth and the method of

attaining truth." p 43


If I were to put it in simple terms, I would say

that the unifying concept is simply an absence of

truth. We live in an anything goes society, and

that is self evident to any casual observer who's

had any experience with the 'real world'. It's

usually considered to be naive if you even

mention the possibility of 'absolute truth'.

What strikes me as even more naive is failure to

recognize that truth remains a stubborn presence,

especially in the 'real world'. Yet so many will

swear to its absence.


I don't know how it strikes you, but whenever I

begin to think about the cultural conflict with

'truth', my mind goes to images of Abbott and

Costello's 'Who's on first' routine. The

statement 'there are no absolutes' is a

'first-order' experience of the level of

confusion that characterizes the kingdom of man.

You have to laugh, or you will cry. Oh, never

mind.


So we've come to the point that we've arrived at

a 'new theology' modeled to conform to the

unifying concept (we can't know truth), and the

technique that's been applied is the same that's

used liberally across the social spectrum -- the

misuse of words and symbols. Schaeffer uses the

term 'semantic mysticism' to describe the modern

religious experience that lacks an ability to

describe what the experience is (we can't really

know).


"Real communication is not in fact established,

but an illusion of communication is given by

employing words rich in connotations... Every

word has two parts. There is the dictionary

definition, and there is the connotation... the

new theology uses such words, without

definition... useful in arousing deep

motivations. " p 59


"This is something beyond emotion. An illusion

of communication and content is given so that

when a word is used in this deliberately

undefined way, the hearer 'thinks' he knows what

it means. The use of the word pantheism is a

good example. Though it really speaks of

something absolutely and finally impersonal, yet

the theism part of the word causes a reaction of

acceptance, since theism carries overtones of

personality. Now suppose you were to substitute

the word pan-everythingism (which is what it

really means). The whole reaction would be

different." p 59-60


And then there is the critical point to take away

from this -- "To the new theology, the

usefullness of a symbol is in direct proportion

to its obscurity." p 60 If you don't get

anything else from this discussion, this is the

point to always remember when approaching modern

religion. Symbols have meaning. New theology

does its best to make sure that the authentic

meaning is hidden, so that it can mean something

different to every person. The crucifix is an

example of a popular symbol almost completely

lacking authentic meaning in modern culture. The

crucifix was an instrument used by the ancient

Romans to inspire terror and dread. It's like

wearing a miniature electric chair around your

neck. The meaning of the crucifix is that OUR

guilt before G-d resulted in the wrongful

substitutionary conviction and brutal sacrifice

of Jesus. Yet, he willingly bore OUR guilt and

paid the penalty of OUR rightful death sentence.

There is the obscure meaning -- it means nothing

or it means whatever you want it to mean. And

there is the authentic meaning, that Jesus took

upon himself the guilt of all mankind, and the

paid the full penalty for OUR sin.


"At first acquaintance this concept gives the

feeling of spirituality. 'I do not ask for

answers, I just believe.' This sounds spiritual,

and it deceives many fine people." p 60


And here is what I take away as a very good

response or answer to the situation where we find

ourselves when confronted with new theology:

"Whenever men say they are looking for greater

reality, we must show them at once the reality of

TRUE Christianity. This is real because it is

concerned with the G-d who is there and who has

spoken to us about Himself, not just the symbol

god or christ which sounds spiritual but is not."

p 61


What Schaeffer is getting at in this statement is

the fact that TRUE Christianity relies ONLY on

the doctrines of scripture and not on the

subjective experience of others. ONLY scripture

is able to communicate the essential message

about who we are, who G-d is and what the world

is. Period.


'The symbol god or christ' that Schaeffer refers

to above is represented in the pantheistic idea

that all religions have different names for gods

and christs, but are all the same spiritual

entity. Yet we know that can't be accurate,

since there was only one Jesus, and only one

Bhudda, and only one Mohammed, etc. and they

never claimed to be united as a spiritual entity.

They would be the ones to know about that. In

fact, Jesus claimed just the opposite. He

claimed to have an identity unique from all

others. That was one of the excuses used to turn

him over to the Roman authorities for

crucifixtion -- he claimed to be Divine. On his

cross, Pilate wrote: This is the King of the

Jews. There was no secret about what Jesus

claimed to be. He was not a symbol. He was

authentic. (Proven by the resurrection.)


One of the Jesus People groups from the 60's

called themselves 'Christ Is The Answer'. Now,

we are given the line about experiencing Jesus.

But what Jesus do we want to experience? Are we

looking for the experience of the one mystical

spiritual entity that is supposed to represent

ALL spiritual enlightenment? Or are we looking

for the one authentic Lamb of G-d? You see, man

and the world don't really NEED another

experience so much as they need a Savior. As far

as I know, the only religion that offers an

authentic Savior is the personal G-d who we find

revealed in the pages of scripture. It's just

like the Jesus freaks said in the 60's -- Jesus

IS the answer.

Return To Schaeffer IV

Matthew 5

1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a

mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came

unto him:

2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them,

saying,

3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is

the kingdom of heaven.

4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be

comforted.

5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit

the earth.

6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst

after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain

mercy.

8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall

see G-d.

9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be

called the children of G-d.

10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for

righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of

heaven.

11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and

persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil

against you falsely, for my sake.

12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is

your reward in heaven:


We've taken a little sidetrack in order to get a

closer look at the description of man, from the

perspective of how he sees himself in terms of

the modern world. When we look back at times

past, we are amused at the mythologies that were

developed to describe man and this world and its

Creator. But what we find is that modern man has

made little progress since then. In fact, my own

view is that we have gotten even farther from any

hope of discovery because now we have come to the

place where we even deny the level of our own

experience. We've come to the point where we can

comfortably reject the validity of formal logic.

The kingdom of man has entered a modern Dark Age.

(This is where Schaeffers 'Escape From Reason'
takes its starting point.)


What Schaeffer does is to bring into focus the

current position of the kingdom of man in

relation to the kingdom of heaven. That allows

us to get a firm grip on the ways that the

kingdom of man has been able to influence modern

man's perception of the world, of himself and of

his Creator. Once we can see that there is a

subtle yet very distinct difference between the

way that scripture describes these two kingdoms

and the way that the kingdom of man describes

them, we are brought to the point where a debate

and a decision can begin. In other words, as

things are described by the kingdom of man, man's

kingdom describes itself in a way such that there

are no other choices. The kingdom of man is all

there is. Man totally rejects the kingdom of

heaven. But Schaeffer makes the point that based

on our own experience, we find that what the

kingdom of man has to say about itself is just

not true, EVEN at the level of experience.

Remember yesterday's post about the man who

experiences love, but he doesn't believe that

love exists? The reasonable conclusion about the

kingdom of man is that its mythology is full of

holes. The kingdom of man is riddled with

confusion -- about EVERYTHING. And one reason

that the kingdom of heaven escapes this dilemma

is that the kingdom of heaven is about a person,

who we call Jesus.


The kingdom of heaven worships its Creator and

the kingdom of man worships man. That's the

manifestation we see in the homage given to

celebrity status. We worship celebrity status

because we also wish to acheive a place in the

modern pantheon. But Jesus said that the meek

shall inherit the earth. It seems that such a

simple statement wouldn't be so hard to arrive

at. But taking the long way around, is where we

have to confront the situation that we face right

now, as it always was and always will be, the

only question is, Whom will you serve? Or the

terms that Jesus puts it in, Whom do men say that

I am?


Well, since we're asking the question... let's

see what else Schaeffer might have to add about

the kingdom of man. We have the passage of

scripture above, where Jesus fills us in on

certain aspects of the kingdom of heaven. I'd

say that there is a stunning contrast presented

between modern ideas and Jesus' declarations.


Schaeffer published this originally in 1968.

This last paragraph was apparently added in a

later edition. I think he hit the nail on

the head:

"Our culture is largely marked by relativism and

ultimate meaninglessness, and when many in the

1980s 'join the system' they do so because they

have nothing worth fighting for. For most, that

was ended by the 1970s. It is significant that

when 'Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band'

was made a Broadway play (1974, Beacon Theatre)

it no longer had the ferment; it was 'camp' and

nostalgia -- a museum piece of a bygone time." p

42.

Jesus gets the last word in. It's a statement

that rings with antithetical truth:


5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit

the earth.

Return To Schaeffer III

Acts 17

16 Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his

spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city

wholly given to idolatry.

17 Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with

the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the

market daily with them that met with him.

18 Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans,

and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some

said, What will this babbler say? other some, He

seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods:

because he preached unto them Jesus, and the

resurrection...

24 G-d that made the world and all things

therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and

earth, dwelleth not in temples made with
hands;

25 Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as

though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to

all life, and breath, and all things;

26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men

for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and

hath determined the times before appointed, and

the bounds of their habitation;


Idolatry is wrapped in a mythological belief

about what the world is, who man is and who G-d

is. These three catagories are defined by the

Apostle in the passage of scripture above. Paul

saw right away that in the city of Athens, at

that time, there was a complete misunderstanding

about the genuine nature of the world, the nature

of man and the nature of G-d. In only three

verses, Paul describes the genuine nature of the

Creator and his creation. As it was in ancient

Athens, so it is in the modern U.S. These days,

we don't build large temples and images of

mythological characters. We have another form of

idol worship that more closely resembles our

existential bent. We have malls and TV. We

spend our admiration in the accumulation of

trinkets and in admiration of celebrities and all

of their glamour. You see, you have to imagine

what it will look like, say from a thousand years

past or a thousand years into the future. What

would someone distant in time observe about our

habits of behavior. Or, you can just listen to

someone separated by culture, like Sohlzenitsyn,

who is able to see they composition of mythical

belief as it, more realistically, is.

The next thing that I'd like to look at is the

way that myth leaks into popular acceptance. The

ideas are introduced in subtle ways, and then by

repetition they become fully assimilated.

Eventually, they take the shape of de facto

social standards, no matter how disgusting and

repulsive they may be. And that, my friends, is

where the U.S. has arrived in modern times.

Popularity has become the standard, but it's not

an accurate measure of truth. And the popular

message is transmitted by the media/entertainment

complex. These days, it's not just a leak that

promotes the assimilation of modern myth, it's a

flood.


What does Schaeffer have to say about the media?

"We usually divide cinema and television programs

into two classes -- good and bad. The term

'good' as used here means 'technically good' and

does not refer to morals. The 'good' pictures

are the serious ones, the artistic ones, the ones

with good shots. The 'bad' are simply escapist,

romantic, only for entertainment. But if we

examine them with care, we notice that the 'good'

pictures are actually the worst pictures. The

escapist film may be horrible in its own way, but

the so-called 'good' pictures have almost all

been developed by men holding the modern

philosophy of no certain truth and no certain

distinction between right and wrong. This does

not imply that they have ceased to be men of

integrity, but it does mean that the films they

produce are tools for teaching their beliefs..."

(Think about that the next time you see your

crumb-snatchers hypnotized in front of the big

flat screen. They aren't just being distracted

or entertained, they're being indoctrinated.)

"No greater illustration could be found of the

way these concepts were carried to the masses

than 'pop' music and especially the work of the

Beatles. The Beatles moved through several

stages, including the concept of the drug and

psychedelic approach. The psychedelic began with

their records 'Revolver', 'Strawberry Fields

Forever', and 'Penny Lane'. This was developed

with great expertness in their record 'Sergeant

Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band' in which

psychedelic music, with open statements

concerning drug-taking, was knowingly presented

as a religious answer. (To which I would add, in

the 'Beatles Anthology' video presentation, they

discuss that aspect of the development of their

artistic/religious effort.) The religious form

was the same vague pantheism which predominates

much of the new mystical thought today. One

indeed does not have to understand in a clear way

the modern monolithic thought in order to be

infiltrated by it. 'Sergeant Pepper's Lonely

Hearts Club Band' was an ideal example of the

manipulating power of the new forms of 'total

art'. This concept of total art increases the

infiltrating power of the message by carefully

conforming the technical form used to the message

involved. This is used in the Theatre of the

Absurd, the Marshall McLuhan type of television

program, the new cinema and the new dance with

someone like Merce Cunningham. The Beatles used

this in 'Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club

Band' by making the whole record one unit so the

whole is to be listened to as a unit and makes

one thrust, rather than the songs being only

something individually. In this record the word,

the syntax, the music, and the unity of the way

the individual songs were arranged form a unity

of infiltration." pp. 40-1


I'd suggest that Pink Floyd took this approach to

the next level with additional refinements.

Although I spent little time listening to the

Beatles, I spent alot of time in my youth

listening to Pink Floyd (and Black Sabbath), not

because I really got hooked by their message, but

because of my sense of their artistic ability.

All the same, I was able to realize that there

were those among my peers who were quite taken in

by the message conveyed in 'rock' music.


Personally, as a youth, I thought that as far as

message is concerned, Frank Zappa was as lucid as

any of the rest, he just didn't have the musical

talents of a band like Pink Floyd. I admit, that

even as a youth, the profoundness of the

confusion represented by the kingdom of man is

something that I never could escape, even in Pink

Floyd. ( Ah, the wasted days of my youth.)


Schaeffer lays it out about as clearly as it ever

can be done. In his discussion I see my own need

and my early groping about for the 'meaning of

life' and was as surprised as anyone when I came

to the realization that the 'meaning of life' is

not the Island that C.S. Lewis started out for,

but an introduction to the person of Christ.

Now, it's all so obvious, but then it was

elusive. Like many today, I was so easily put

off by the messengers that I struggled far too

long with the message. But the message and the

messengers of the kingdom of man are in their own

ways, lacking appeal. Which I believe is one

of the factors in the popularity of teen suicide.

The messengers are not all that appealing. And

the messages are often garbled by the natural

confusion that's always been an element of the

kingdom of man.


Have you looked at the cable TV aimed at the

youth? All I can say is that it's lame. But

that lameness doesn't seem to disgust the youth

as much as it does me, at least across most of

the normal distribution. I'm guessing that what

they see, what they choose to see, is the glitz

and the glamour (fantasy) portrayed as reality,

and the message is clearly materialism oriented

rather than the Beaver Cleaver relationship

oriented programming. Others are there to serve

selfish material aspirations rather than the idea

that others are there for us to serve THEIR

human and spiritual needs. That's not to imply

that there is anything easy about taking on G-d

given roles and responsibilities (marriage, for

example), but only to point out that the two

world views are at odds. Modern entertainment

media are feeding the beast. At this point in

time the media programming of the youth should be

obvious. This is what Schaeffer calls

'infiltration'.


As I work through these blog postings I'm left

with a sense of the incompleteness and feebleness

of my effort. An awareness of the need for a

careful presentation nags me. What I find in

response to that nagging feeling is the

limitation of my own ability. But I haven't come

to the point where I would rather throw in the

towel. It's just the opposite. I'd rather make

this chase, because if nothing else it also

heightens my awareness of the vital need for

relationship -- my personal need for a Savior.

There is no nirvana. Human effort fails, if only

because of physical limitation (death/departure).


So, I'm drawn to that phrase in verse 25, '...as

though he needed anything...' It sums things up

nicely. We have a creator and redeemer, to whom

we have absolutely nothing to offer. He has

everything (and he's made himself accessible).

We have nothing. It's the point that we have to

arrive at before we will have any sense of the

necessity of relationship and redemption -- a

personal NEED for Jesus.

Return To Schaeffer II

Acts 17

16 Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his

spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city

wholly given to idolatry.

17 Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with

the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the

market daily with them that met with him.

18 Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans,

and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some

said, What will this babbler say? other some, He

seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods:

because he preached unto them Jesus, and the

resurrection.

19 And they took him, and brought him unto

Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new

doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is?

20 For thou bringest certain strange things to

our ears: we would know therefore what these

things mean.

21 (For all the Athenians and strangers which

were there spent their time in nothing else, but

either to tell, or to hear some new thing.)

22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill,

and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in

all things ye are too superstitious.

23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions,

I found an altar with this inscription,

TO THE UNKNOWN G-D.

Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare

I unto you.

24 G-d that made the world and all things

therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and

earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

25 Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as

though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to

all life, and breath, and all things;

26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men

for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and

hath determined the times before appointed, and

the bounds of their habitation;

27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they

might feel after him, and find him, though he be

not far from every one of us:


It's worthwhile spending some time having

a look at Schaeffer in an attempt to try and

bring together the concept of a 'mythical

understanding' as opposed to the authentic nature

of faith. It's one aspect of the difference

between the kingdom of man and the kingdom of

heaven.

More from Schaeffer:

"It is obvious that often when a man claims to

have had an experience, whether under drugs or

not, something has certainly happened to him.

When he experiences, for example, the 'redness'

of a red rose, he has really touched something.

But what?

Usually only two live options are presented as to

what happens in an Eastern religious experience,

an existential experience, or a drug experience.

One is told either that they have stumbled on

'nothing' in their experience, or else that they

have met 'the reality of g-d'. This latter is

especially true when the Eastern religious

experience is under consideration. The guru

says, 'I have met something.' Usually people

describe it as nonsense or say that he has 'met

G-d.'

The built-in trouble with all these existential

experiences is that the content of such an

experience in not open to communication. Only

the unknowing would demand,'Please describe to me

in normal catagories what you have experienced.'

But I believe that there is a third live option

when we ask ourselves what these people have

touched. It is an alternative explanation

Christians are able to give because we see these

people as they really are in G-d's universe.

G-d created a real, external world. It is not an

extension of His essence. That real external

world exists. G-d has also created man as a

real, personal being, and he possesses a

'mannishness' from which he can never escape. On

the basis of their own worldview often these

experience-seekers are neither sure the external

world is there, nor that man as man is there.

But I have come to the conclusion that despite

their intellectual doubts, many of them have had

a true experience of the reality of the external

world that exists, and/or the 'mannishness' that

exists. They can do this precisely because this

is how G-d has made man, in His own image, able

to experience the real world and man's

'mannishness.' Thus they have hit upon something

which exists, and it is neither nothing, nor is

it G-d. We might sum up the third alternative

by saying that when they experience the 'redness'

of the rose, they are having the experience of

the external world, as is the farmer who plows

his field. They are both touching the world that

is.

In the same way, lovers on the left bank of the

Seine in Paris experience the 'mannishness' of

man when they fall in love and yet cry because

they do not believe love exists. If I met any of

these, I would put my hand gently on their

shoulders and say, 'You are separated from G-d if

you do not accept Christ as your Savior, but at

this moment you understand something real about

the universe. Though your system may say love

does not exist, your own experience shows that it

does.' They have not touched the personal G-d

who exists, but for a fleeting moment they have

touched the existence of true personality in

their love. This is indeed an objective reality,

because G-d has made their personalities in this

way. It is true that in these experiences man

has touched something, not nothing; but what he

has touched is not G-d, but the objective reality

of the external world and the 'mannishness' of

man that G-d has created." pp 23-4


If you pick up a copy of Schaeffer's trilogy, one

thing that you'll find is that there is in modern

philosophy what I have labeled a mythical belief

about the physical world and about its creator.

One aspect of that popular belief that Schaeffer

touches on is the idea of a personal G-d. C.S.

Lewis was surprised to arrive at the same

conclusion, that there is a personal G-d who we

can meet by accepting personal redemption in

Jesus. Modern philosophy and popular belief

reject the idea of a personal savior, and that

idea has even leaked into much of modern

christianity. Remember, it's nothing new. The

Apostle Paul saw and warned of the same thing.


1Tim. 1:3 As I urged you when I went into

Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may

command certain men not to teach false doctrines

any longer

4 nor to devote themselves to myths and endless

genealogies. These promote controversies rather

than G-d’s work — which is by faith.


One conclusion that I come to, in light of the

never ending seduction offered by the kingdom of

man, is that nothing has ever been much different

in all of human history. The kingdom of man

always shows a preference for a mythical

description of itself, rather than the

description of man provided by scripture, where

the true nature of man is revealed. Human

history shows that the kingdom of man has always

been in rebellion against the kingdom of heaven.

It's an observation that hints at the powers that

rule in these two kingdoms. The source of the

conflict isn't found in man, it's found in the

one who has been given power to rule over man's

kingdoms.

Return To Schaeffer

Revelation 17

11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is

the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into

perdition.

12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten

kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but

receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

13 These have one mind, and shall give their

power and strength unto the beast.


Here's a little more about the beast found in the

book of Revelation. It still describes the beast

'...that was, and is not...' and the 'kings' will

serve this beast. The beast is personified as a

'he', but yesterday we saw in verse eight that

the beast ascended out of the bottomless pit.

The beast is a product of hell's invention, and I

have to imagine that it is what I described

yesterday, a mythological ideology that appeals

to a wide range of interests, so that there can

be the formation of a ruling conglomorate, under

an occult influence. The beast is the

personification of demons ascending out of the

pit of hell.


If you think that the kingdom of man is in a mess

right now, just wait until this future chaos and

confusion is initiated by a host from hell.


At this point, it's time to return to have

another look at what Francis Schaeffer had to

write. If you want to read more by Schaeffer,

you should pick up a copy of the Francis

Schaeffer trilogy, 'The G-d Who is There',

'Escape From Reason' and 'He is There and He is

Not Silent', published by Crossway Books. These

are not light reading, but neither are they

highly technical. And they are well worth the

effort.


You see, from yesterday, I've gotten to the point

where it's evident that in order to find the real

Jesus, all of the layers of myth have to be

peeled away, until we get to the core of truth.

We want to know the real Jesus, because once we

meet the real Jesus, then we won't want anything

else. Modern ideas, including modern ideas about

Jesus are wrapped in layers of myth. Mythical

thinking leaks into every area of life once the

mind is conditioned to think that way. Schaeffer

uses the term 'mystical'. I'd imagine, that in

technically correct philosophical terms, there is

a difference between 'mystical' and 'mythical'

and 'magical'. At this point in time, I don't

want to go into a technical discussion of

terminology, but there's no reason that you can't

explore that area on your own, if you are so

inclined. Schaeffer points out that there is a

rational approach to Faith. There is Truth. I

want to identify the real Jesus. Not the

'mystical' or the 'mythical' or the 'magical'

Jesus, that has leaked into the cultural concept

of christianity.


Here's what Schaeffer has to say:

"It is not only the existentialist who has talked

about an experience as a means of validating

oneself. Right up to the time of his death

Aldous Huxley suggested that a way of achieving

what he described as a 'first-order experience'

would be through drugs. This experience would,

like the final experience advocated by the

existentialists, be above the line of rational

validation, in this way:

THE NONRATIONAL | A first-order experience
AND NONLOGICAL | by the use of drugs.
-------------------------------------------------
THE RATIONAL | No purpose or meaning
AND LOGICAL | found.

This overwhelming desire for some nonrational

experience was responsible for most of the

serious use of the drugs LSD and STP in the

1960's. For the sensitive person, drugs were

then not usually used for escape. On the

contrary, he hoped that by taking them he would

experience the reality of something which would

give his life some meaning. Intriguingly enough,

Professor Timothy Leary, formerly of Harvard

University, linked up the LSD experience with

that described in the 'Tibetan Book of the

Dead'. Thus he shows that the desire for, and

the form of, this experience changes very little

from West to East. Whether it is the

existentialist speaking, or Aldous Huxley, or

Eastern mysticism, we find a uniform need for an

irrational experience to make some sense of life.

Their views have brought them to a wall, and by

an unrelated leap of faith they hope to clear the

wall. Each of their views may be distinguished

in detailed description, but they have come to

the same wall and are making the same attempt to

clear it. Each case involves a nonrational leap

of faith...

In conclusion to this section, let us note that

when we speak of being under the line of despair,

we do not mean that these people necessarily sit

down and weep, but that they have given up all

hope of achieving a rational, unified answer to

knowledge and life." pp 22-3.


Schaeffer puts into a philosophical context the

same idea that I have examined here in terms of

the popular mythical conceptual understanding and

explanation of social and personal life. We

don't really know WHO we are. And the effort to

package Jesus in popular myth means that we'll

never be able know WHO he really is, in THAT

context. Schaeffer takes the discussion to the

next level by describing the situation as a

rejection of the rational and the pursuit of

nonrational 'experience'.


My conclusion is, that there is what Schaeffer

calls a 'rational' basis for life and faith, but

it's not ever going to be found in popular myth.

You see, the Island that C.S. Lewis was seeking

isn't that much different than the variety of

nonrational first-order experience sought by the

existentialist. Coming to reason, we seek a

person (Jesus), in whom we find our true

identity. What Schaeffer sees as the 'line of

despair' is what I see as one part of the wall

that separates the kingdom of man from the

kingdom of heaven. Jesus entered the kingdom of

man, so that we could get a 'flesh and bones'

glimpse of the kingdom of heaven, since that's

the nature of our experience (we now live in the

finite physical world). Jesus entered the

physical world in order to provide for us a sort

of 'first-order experience' that the

existentialist seeks. It was an experience of

the reality of a personal G-d. The experience is

that of restoring the broken relationship that

causes separation between G-d and man. Scripture

provides a totally rational basis for faith, as

long as it's kept in proper context.


The problem is that men reject THAT rational

basis for faith, because it doesn't excuse their

own willfull rebellion. And you can't serve both

the kingdom of man AND the kingdom of heaven. At

the deepest level, it's not that faith is

irrational, it's that men wish to behave

irrationally.

Babylon in Revelation 17

Revelation 17

5 And upon her forehead was a name written,

MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF

HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of

the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of

Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great

admiration.

7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst

thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the

woman, and of the beast that carrieth her,

which hath the seven heads and ten horns.

8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and

shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go

into perdition: and they that dwell on

the earth shall wonder, whose names were not

written in the book of life from the foundation

of the world, when they behold the beast that

was, and is not, and yet is.


The verse from Revelation 17 doesn't describe the

beast, it only makes mention. In the following

verses, there is a more detailed description of

the beast, what I believe to be a conglomorate of

political, military, religious and financial

systems under the control of one global entity.

It will be the one world government of the end

time. And there is a curious description given,

that it will be an entity 'that was, and is not

and yet is'. I'm thinking that the hint given

by Jesus statement that, as it was in the days of

Noah, so shall it be at the coming of the Son...

What about the days of Noah? There is no record

of the pre-flood civilization that remains,

except for the record of scripture. The entire

civilization was wiped off the face of the earth

and remains only as a mention in scripture and as

a memory in the embodiment of legend, as in the

lost city of Atlantis. I believe that there is

good reason for this lost chapter of history.

Imagine a civilization so corrupt and defiled

that it had to be completely destroyed without a

trace, in order to provide for the preservation

of humanity. Humanity being Noah and his family.


From the record of scripture, we know that there

was a thriving demonic activity and likely

occultic practice. This has to be derived from

what little description that we have of pre-flood

civilization. But we can see its echo in the

civilization that arose immediately after the

flood in the attempted construction of Babel, the

original Babylon and the prototype of the kingdom

of man. What we have to recognize is the use and

application of myth, as a tool put into practice

in the deception of men, to accept the rule of

demons and occult activity. This is something

that I gather, based in part, on what I've read

in relation to C.S. Lewis. There is a powerful

deception built into the production of mythology,

that goes hand in hand with demonic activity and

occult practice.


Then, there is what I am seeing happen right now.

We live in a civilization steeped in myth, and

being programmed into the occult. Watch TV, and

even children's cartoon programming. They are

indoctrinated at a very early age to accept the

mythology. Currently, it happens to be very

fashionable and trendy to be enlightened about

modern mythology (evolution) and familiar with

practices of the occult (magic).


We are no longer thinking in the way of

logicians, we are comfortable thinking in the way

of magicians. The prototype that is most recent

and comes to mind is the well known occultic

symbolism used by the Nazi government under

Hitler. It is well known that Hitler practiced

the occult. It is also well known that it didn't

work out for him. But remember, we're smarter

than those guys were (one aspect of the

mythology, and satisfying to the ego no less).


Are we more magical, or more logical? Is it more

magical to believe that something came from

nothing, or that there is a timeless,

dimensionless creator? First, we have to see

that there is a theology that is not a product of

mythical thinking, but an infinite Divine being

that extends beyond our three dimensional time

based finite universe. What we can see, there is

a logical structure to the physical universe.


So, my theory is that what we will see in the end

time, is what has occured in the time before the

flood, and find as a prototype, the Third Reich.

There will be a global form of government,

organized under a mythological ideology and

openly practicing demonic worship by way of

occultic ritual. We are clearly already well on

the way toward this end, as it has always been an

aspect of the kingdom of man. As the end of time

draws near, and the prophetic clock winds down,

we should expect an increase in government

sponsorship of these activities.


You see, in order to have any kind of success,

the practice of the occult has to appear to

provide a sense of control. It worked out for

Hitler, up until it didn't. Same for the beast

in Daniel and Revelation. What mythology and the

occult provide is a smokescreen for the elements

of darkness to deceive and control those who wish

to believe that they are really the deceivers and

controllers. They say that nothing is as it

appears to be. Well, that especially applies

here. And scripture provides the warning that a

powerful deception will come over those who wish

to follow this road to perdition. Once given of

themselves to the belief that they have control,

there is in fact, total loss of control because

of complete en$lavement by occult influence.

All of this is more subtle than you imagine, yet

very much real.


In one way, it's a sad ending -- the willfull

enslavement of the soul by way of the occult.

But on the other hand, it's a happy ending,

because everyone gets what they want -- those who

wish to serve the kingdom of man, are able, and

those who wish to serve the kingdom of heaven

will gain eternal satisfaction.


It's always the same question to address. Jesus

asks everyone, Whom do you say that I am? As we

wish to answer that question, will determine whom

we will serve throughout eternity. Unless I'm

missing a big piece of the puzzle here, I find it

impossible to say that G-d is not just and not

loving. Look, he gave us the whole story.

There's nothing to be guessing about, as far as

final destiny is concerned. The question is

always the same and it's not a trick question.