Tag Archives: Christianity

My Thoughts on the “I” Cycle – Part 5

Leave a reply

The New Creation “I” Phase

(I have put all of my posts on this cycle together. See the link to the right).

According to Clyde Pilkington’s model called the “I” Cycle, this new “I” phase is the point where the new creation is fully realized. I believe that this phase is easier to understand when looked at in contrast to the phases preceding it. For example, consider the preceding phase, the “God” phase, where the focus is on God’s sovereignty and predestination. Though that phase often brings a sense of relief and assurance to those who enter it, it can also have some drawbacks if one gets “stuck” in that phase.

For example, Clyde Pilkington says, “A lot of people who begin to see the sovereignty of God seem to lose their personal identity . . . [God] didn’t create all of us so that we would just all be Him; he created us to be ourselves (23:10 – 24:00).”

I believe that the full realization of the new creation resolves some issues that existed as previous phases of the cycle. In particular, I want to look at this concept of “being yourself.” At the beginning of the cycle, in the “old-creation” phase, people are living to be themselves, and they see this as their right and their purpose in this world. But when they start to develop a spiritual aspect of life, their paradigm changes.

If people move on to the “I and God” phase, they are mostly being themselves but they keep God in the picture through means such as prayer, rituals, or worship. Later, if they progress to the “God and I” phase, Christians make a conscious effort to surrender their own identity and conform to the will and nature of God.  Then, if they cross the bridge to the “God” phase, they see God as sovereignly operating in them apart from a unique identity. Thus, the first and second phases involve engagement with one’s identity, and the third and fourth phases involve distancing from one’s identity.

But at the destination of the cycle, when the new creation is fully realized, one’s identity becomes the focus again, but it is a reoriented identity. You are being yourself, but you are aware that as a new creation, God’s spirit is working through your interests, passions, and personality.

I must admit that I have some difficulty grasping this at times. Though I can understand it conceptually, I am still learning how this works in the practical aspects of day to day life. From my own experience, there isn’t a precise methodology behind this.

Regarding the new creation, another commentator on the I-Cycle, Martin Zender, says,

“We don’t lose our identity . . . we gain it. [The Apostle Paul’s] basic personality didn’t change. The “I” didn’t change. The basic self became transformed by the Cross. Now, he could be himself, he had discovered himself, and that personality of his, that ‘go get ’em guy’, was now transformed and he became a servant of God. You don’t lose yourself, in that sense. You gain it. You have an identity, it’s your identity, and you have a name. Paul . . . didn’t give up who he was. He actually found his true self in Christ (4:40 – 5:48)”

Some passages of Scripture relevant to this topic include:

Galatians 2:19-21 – “I have been crucified with Christ;  and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God

Phil. 2:13 – “For it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.”

Sometimes, Christians feel a need to qualify passages such as these because they do not want to give them impression that God is “controlling” people apart from their own initiative. But what if, instead of looking at these passages as excuses for gravitating toward inaction, we viewed the Scriptures as liberating us to act, by giving us freedom to act in accord with our nature, trusting that our nature is being oriented by the work of the Holy Spirit?

There is a progression in the way people view themselves as they go around the cycle. In the starting phase, the “old-creation” phase, people often do not see anything inherently wrong with themselves. Though they may recognize certain weaknesses, they also believe that they have the power to overcome those problems, if only they can find it.

But then, if they progress to the “I and God” phase, they realize that they do have inherent problems that would keep them from succeeding in life without God being with them to help them through. Then, if they move on to the “God and I” phase, they realize that their inward problems are so far reaching that the only way to overcome them is to fully submit themselves to God and seek His will in all matters of life.

And then, if Christians move on to the “God” phase, they still think that something is inherently wrong with them, to the extent that they often wait for God to whoosh in and cause dramatic, inward changes to make them follow His will.

But, if a deeper realization of the new creation is attained, all of the sudden, we do not have to see anything inherently wrong with ourselves. A lot of Christians talk about a dichotomy between the old creation and the new creation, and that they must seek after the spiritual ways of the new creation rather than the selfish ways of the old creation. I understand why Christians see themselves this way. After all, even as believers, people are quite capable of acting awry. Why is that?

I believe it is not because any aspect of ourselves is inherently wrong. After all, we are new creations, and Paul says that as new creations, old things have passed away, and all things have become new (2 Cor. 5:17).

However, the new creation needs to be oriented. Its nature is inherently pure, but it needs to be channeled in a beneficial way. It needs to find appropriate ways to express itself. I believe that this is the goal for us as believers. A helpful analogy might be a piano that is in perfect hardware condition, but needs to be tuned to sound good. The Bible’s instructions for how to live serve as tuning guides. Likewise, seeking God’s will is not about trying to suppress any part of ourselves. Rather, it is about tuning our natures.

That concludes my thoughts on the “I”-Cycle for now. I hope that these commentaries have provided insights into your own experiences and inspired some new ideas to ponder. As I said earlier, I myself am still in the process of figuring out how all of these concepts apply on a practical level, so feel free to reply with your own interpretations and experiences.

Works Cited:

Clyde Pilkington: The “I” Cycle (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0w53DgB9Fks)

Martin Zender: The “I” Cycle, Part 4 (http://martinzender.com/new_zender_sheridan/Zender_Special/zender93.htm

 

 

My Thoughts on the I-Cycle (Part 3)

1 Reply

The “God and I” Phase

This is a continuation of my series of post on Clyde Pilkington’s theory of the I-Cycle. Here are the links to Clyde’s video and my summary of the cycle:

Clyde Pilkington’s Video

My Summary

This post examines the “God and I” phase of the cycle. This is the phase where people decide to fully submit their lives to God. They decide to seek his guidance on all matters of life, and they commit to following His will instead of their own.

This is the phase which many Evangelicals hold as their paradigm. Often times, Christians enter this phase because they believe that, when following their own desires, they are getting into all sorts of trouble. Maybe they know what is right but cannot get themselves to follow through. Or maybe plans in life that sounded good at one time are going awry, causing continual frustration. Perhaps these Christians were involved in some truly noble endeavors, but lacked success in those pursuits and are growing weary, finding themselves in a quandary of guilt or self-questioning.

Thus, these people come to believe that the only way out of these predicaments is to follow God’s leading in all matters of life. Many Christians in this phase have a strong spiritual focus. For example, they may spend a lot of time in prayer and meditation. They place a lot of emphasis on following the Holy Spirit instead of their flesh or their minds. They believe that in order to live for God, they have to set aside their mental feelings and urges (which they consider to be corrupt and selfish) and instead follow their spiritual intuition, which they view as a deeper part of themselves that has the life of God.

Many Christians in this phase feel a sense of peace that they lacked before. Instead of simultaneously living for themselves but also trying to follow a set of religious rules, they feel free and empowered now that they can follow the Holy Spirit’s leading instead of trying to conform to fixed rules or ordinances that they never quite succeeded at. Furthermore, they perceive that their selfish tendencies are now being subdued since they are no longer tantalizing those tendencies with their own desires and ambitions of life.

I consider this to be the first phase of the “I”-Cycle that has a Biblical basis for fully living in it. For example, the Apostle James writes,

“Come now, you who say, ‘Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a town and spend a year there, doing business and making money.’ Yet you do not even know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. Instead you ought to say, ‘If the Lord wishes, we will live and do this or that.’” (James 4:13-15).

Also consider the following passage from the Apostle Paul,

“I appeal to you therefore, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God—what is good and acceptable and perfect” (Romans 12:1-2).

In this “God and I” phase of the I-Cycle, Christians often seem to be “on fire” for God. This is where being “separate from the world” really becomes a prominent part of one’s mentality. As opposed to the previous phase, where one’s faith is more of a private aspect of life, many Christians in the “God and I” phase take their faith public and engage in faith-related discussions with those around them.

Christians who have reached this phase often serve as “spiritual role models” for those who are in the earlier phases. Some Christians who reach this phase are comfortable living in it for the rest of their lives. However, there are others who develop tensions while living in this phase, which lead to further developments in their spiritual journey.

I want to describe some common characteristics in the journey to, through, and beyond this phase, based on many testimonies I have read.

Often times, Christians enter the “God and I” phase out of a sincere desire to know God’s will and have a deeper relationship with Him. They often have a healthy sense of humility and inward peace as they keep their focus on God rather than themselves. Their relationship with God is like a new world for them, and the spiritual distance between themselves and the rest of the world isn’t bearing upon their minds. However, there comes a point where they notice the distance.

When the distance grabs their attention, they observe that they are making a lot of sacrifices to keep God first in their lives, whereas other people are carelessly going about their own ways. At this point, they start becoming a bit self-righteous about their choice to follow God. They sense that they are striving to maintain their spiritual purity amid a world that’s going down the drain. They may eventually become overwhelmed and burned out.

At that point, some of these Christians step back into a mentality that resembles the previous phase of the I-Cycle, “I and God.” However, other Christians move forward into the next phase of the cycle, the “God” phase, which we will look at in the next post.

My Thoughts on the “I” Cycle – Part 2

Leave a reply

The “I and God” Phase

I am continuing my interpretation of the “I Cycle,” a theory about spiritual development created by Clyde Pilkington from the ministry StudyShelf. Here is a link to Mr. Pilkington’s video (Clyde Pilkington – The I-Cycle). The “I and God” Phase is discussed during 2:10 – 4:00 in the video.

Here is my own post where I summarized the whole cycle (I-Cycle Summary).

In the last post, I looked at the starting point of the cycle, the old-creation “I” phase. That phase is where people feel that the world revolves around themselves and that they are entitled to have their desires met.

Some people live their entire lives in that phase. But others move beyond, and come to a point where they realize that they themselves do not have the power to overcome all of life’s challenges. They realize that they are going to need God’s help to get through certain circumstances. Thus, they enter the “I and God” phase. I will share my thoughts on this phase based on testimonies I have read and people I have personally known.

“I and God” believers are still, for the most part, making their own decisions for their lives, and going about their business as they would without their faith. However, they also keep God in their minds and see Him as being there for them when they need help. They may pray regularly, attend church, and read books about spirituality to see how God can help them. However, their faith is likely to be somewhat of a private aspect of their lives, and they probably do not talk about their faith to everyone they encounter.

These people do not like to be intruded upon. Their minds tend to filter out the words of preachers who would try to make them feel guilty, or tell them that they have to change their lives in some radical way. They are easily turned off by pushy religious folks. “I and God” believers often think that their religious life needs to be properly balanced with other aspects of life. When they read the Bible, they probably see it through the lenses of their own moral judgments, and more or less feel vindicated by the Bible’s admonitions, though they may be open to adjustment on some matters of character or attitude.

The “I and God” Christians are a widely varied group in terms of their spiritual walk. Some of them may be mature spiritually. However, others have a tendency to be viewed as “lukewarm,” “carnal,” or “baby Christians.” They could be seen as trying to get the benefits of being a believer without totally committing their lives to Christ.

Among “I and God” believers, lifestyles vary widely. Some of them are still very much living however they want to. However, my personal feeling is that their attitudes have changed from the previous phase. Instead of entitlement and being the center of the universe, their attitudes shift to rationalization. On one hand, they perceive that there are acceptable and unacceptable ways to live. However, whether consciously or subconsciously, they rationalize to say that the way they want to live is morally acceptable. Thus, they see themselves as obedient to God while basically living however they want.

But there are other Christians in this group who are making efforts to live as they honestly perceive the Bible to teach. However, they may be troubled by a lack of self-control. They feel bad when they do something wrong, but the effort they make to follow through with repentances may seem somewhat lacking in fervor.

However, I also think there is a third group of believers within the “I and God” phase. These people are very self-disciplined, and are very much staying away from moral vices. They feel that they are good Christians by virtue of their self-controlled and motivated natures, and thus, even though they are still following their own ambitions, they perceive God’s approval to be upon their lifestyles.

There are some believers who remain in the “I and God” phase for the rest of their lives, and I am not trying to say that there is anything inherently “wrong” with that, for I believe it is God who determines what phase a person will reach in this life.

However, if people move beyond the “I and God” phase, it is often prompted by adversity or temptation which they feel they cannot overcome unless they completely surrender their lives to God. When they come to that point, they enter the “God and I” phase of the “I-Cycle.” We will look at that phase next time.

 

My Thoughts on the “I” Cycle – Part 1

Leave a reply

The Old-Creation “I” Phase

I am doing a series on posts on the “I” Cycle, a theory about spiritual perception that was developed by Clyde Pilkington, who founded the ministry StudyShelf. I have recently come to believe that the “I” Cycle is an extremely powerful model for understanding the spiritual experiences of ourselves and those around us. I also believe it sheds new light on Scripture and reveals why the Biblical authors said some of the things they did.

In this post, I want to look at the starting point of the cycle, the old-creation “I” phase. Mr. Pilkington says,

“Man starts his journey with the center of his world being himself. And as we move along, we begin to think that not only does the world revolve around us, but seemingly we sit on the throne of our own life . . . God is scarcely in our thoughts at all. If He is there, there is an attempt to keep Him at bay as we get older, because He’s confusing to us – He interferes with what we want to do. His thoughts bother us and trouble us (1:10 – 2:00).”

It is sometimes perplexing how people, who seem to be nice, decent individuals, can suddenly act hateful or engage in very immoral behaviors. But I think what’s going on with these people is that they feel entitled to have their desires met.

Many of these people do not want to be hateful all the time; their priority is not to hurt others. They basically want to be nice people. But at the same time, they have urges and raging emotions, and they feel that it is their right to act upon these impulses. Seeing themselves as the center of the universe (whether consciously or subconsciously), their physical and emotional sensations are bigger than anything else in the world. Thus, when they are feeling something really intense inside, reasoning goes out the window.

You can try to tell people that some minor thing which ticked them off is not worth exploding over. You can try to point to devastating circumstances facing others in the world to put things in perspective. But suppose a person has a vision problem that makes everything in front of him look really big. You can try to tell him that the fly buzzing in front of him is small compared to Mount Everest, but he’s not focused on the size of Mount Everest at all. What he’s focused on is that fly in front of him which looks as big as a truck!

Some people in this phase are religious. But they are probably not focused on relationship with God. Rather, they probably associate religion with decent people and social order, and they want to be basically nice people after all. They may go to church because, that’s what they think good people do. Some of these folks may even become preachers, given that they see value in Christianity and want to promote it as a career, feeling that it would have benefit not only to others but to themselves as well.

However, they still see themselves as the center of the universe (although it’s probably somewhat subconscious at this phase). Why is it that we often hear about famous preachers who get caught in various scandals? Well, my view is that, it’s because many of those preachers still felt like it was their right to act upon their impulses; thus, they probably felt justified in living a double life. They preached against those behaviors because they thought that is what good preachers do, and they wanted to be good preachers. They probably perceived value in preaching against those sins, even though, in their personal lives, it was their right to act upon their impulses, which seem bigger and more important than anything else.

In the next post of this series, we will look at the phase “I and God,” where people come to realize that they truly need God’s help.

 

Here is the link to Clyde Pilkington’s video on the “I” Cycle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0w53DgB9Fks

The “I” Cycle (Summary)

3 Replies

In my last post, I shared a link to the video where the writer Clyde Pilkington describes his theory called the “I” Cycle. I first heard about the “I” Cycle in 2013. I thought it was interesting, but it was not until here lately that I suddenly realized how powerful this model could be. I believe that this model for spiritual growth could profoundly address many of the debates facing believers today, in particular, the faith-works controversy.

Before I give my own thoughts on the “I” Cycle, I want to summarize Mr. Pilkington’s theory in case you didn’t have time to watch the whole video.

Phase 1: The old-creation “I”

This is where people begin life. Infants are only aware of their own needs. As they grow into early childhood, they gain awareness of the broader world but see the world as revolving around themselves, and feel entitled to have their desires met. Some people continue this self-centered mentality into adulthood.

Phase 2: “I and God”

At this phase, people decide to make God a part of their lives. They realize that there are situations in life in which they need His help. Although they may engage in church and prayer, they are primarily following their own pursuits and ambitions, even though they see God as being available when they need Him.

Phase 3: “God and I”

This is where people decide to put God first in their lives. They often realize that, left to themselves, they are creating a lot of trouble. So, they decide to surrender their lives to God and follow Him step by step.

Phase 4: “God”

At this phase, people put more emphasis on God’s sovereignty. They come to believe that God is not relying on their own obedience for His will to be fulfilled, even though He may choose to use them. People in this phase often reject the concept of free will.

Phase 5: The new-creation “I”

Here, at the completion of the cycle, people come to fully see themselves as new creations in Christ. In contrast to the “God and I” phase, people are no longer focused on “submitting” themselves to Christ. Instead, they see the life of Christ as inherently expressed through their lives. At the same time, in contrast to the “God” phase, people do not let their comprehension of God’s sovereignty inhibit them from getting into action or acknowledging their own accomplishments. They no longer think that God has to swoop in and do something with them in order for His plans to be fulfilled. Instead, seeing themselves as new creations, they are free to act without having to worry about some part of them interfering with God’s plans. Life is no longer about overcoming one’s natural state to conform to a “correct” state. Instead, as new creations, people are free to be who they are.

Here is the link to Mr. Pilkington’s video where he discusses the “I” Cycle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0w53DgB9Fks

In my next post, I will share my own thoughts on each of these phases and how I see them reflected in the Bible, and the lives of believers. I also want to show ways in which this model could address debates in the church today.

The “I” Cycle

Leave a reply

The “I” Cycle is an explanation that the writer Clyde Pilkington gives for what he perceives to be a progression in the way people understand their relationship with God.

I have found the “I” Cycle to be very enlightening when considering my own spiritual journey, and it has helped me understand other believers as well. Here is the video where Mr. Pilkington describes the theory.

Let me know what you think about the “I” Cycle, and any reflections or concerns that you would like to share!

 

 

Daniel 7: Past and Future?

Leave a reply

Unless otherwise noted, Scriptural quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version

Earlier in this series of posts, we looked at Daniel Chapter 9, and examined the prophecies of “70 weeks,” the temple’s rebuilding, the Messiah’s ministry, and the eventual destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. I made the case that all of those prophecies were fulfilled by 70 A.D.

Daniel Chapter 7 is a place where similar events are described, and many commentators believe that Chapter 7 depicts the same time period as Chapter 9, although there is disagreement as to whether the fulfillment is past or future.

I believe there is sufficient evidence to say that most of Daniel 7 had a literal fulfillment in the first century. There is a thorough explanation of the first-century interpretation on the Revelation Revolution website, in their article “Daniel 7: A Preterist Commentary.” In this post, I will bring out some key points of that article, but I would recommend reading the whole commentary if you are interested in this subject.

If you want to jump to the section where I discuss a possible future fulfillment, skip down to the section with the heading “Potential Future Fulfillment.”

 

First Century Perspective

Daniel 7:24-27 – Ten kings shall arise, and another shall arise after them. This one shall be different from the former ones, and shall put down three kings. He shall speak words against the Most High, shall wear out the holy ones of the Most High, and shall attempt to change the sacred seasons and the law; and they shall be given into his power for a time, two times, and half a time. Then the court shall sit in judgment, and his dominion shall be taken away, to be consumed and totally destroyed. The kingship and dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the holy ones of the Most High; their kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey them.

The Ten Kings in the prophecy could be the leaders of the ten cohorts operating under General Titus and Emperor Vespasian in the destruction of Jerusalem. Alternatively, the Ten Kings could be ten Caesars of the Roman Empire. The king who arose after them in the prophecy could be General Titus, the son of the tenth Caesar, Vespasian. The prophecy says that the new king would put down three other kings.

After the death of Emperor Nero, there was a battle for the emperor’s throne, and Titus and Vespasian defeated three other contenders (Galba, Otho and Vitellius), each of whom briefly ruled in 69 A.D. After that victory, Titus and Vespasian co-ruled the empire, with both of them having the title Caesar. Titus committed blasphemous acts in the temple and sought to alter Jewish customs as described in the prophecy.

Thus far, the first century interpretation makes sense. However, at the end of the passage quoted above, we encounter the same “problem” that we had with 2nd Thessalonians in the last post. Daniel describes the coming of the Messiah and the new Kingdom Age in the same context as the aforementioned war – “the court shall sit in judgment, and his dominion shall be taken away, to be consumed and totally destroyed. The kingship and dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the holy ones of the Most High.”

Obviously, this did not happen in a literal sense during the first century. In my post on the Olivet Discourse of the Gospels, I described a way in which the Bible allows us to infer a prolonged gap of time between the first century events and the future return of Christ. The big question is whether the Bible prophecies a specific recurrence of conflict between the Jews and surrounding kingdoms that will take place right before Christ returns.

 

Potential Future Fulfillment

In Daniel 7:1-8, four animals are described (a lion, a bear, a leopard, and an ambiguous creature). Those four animals could represent four religious-backed alliances (a Buddhist alliance, a Hindu alliance, an Islamic alliance, and a Christian alliance). This was the view held by A.E. Knoch, the founder of the Concordant Publishing Concern. His views are outlined in the book Concordant Studies in the Book of Daniel. Key points and quotes from his commentary on Daniel 7 can be found in the article “The Four Great Beasts” by Lorraine Day, M.D.

Also, on the website of the Concordant Publishing Concern, there is an article by A.E. Knoch titled “The Three Eastern Beasts” from his series “The Mystery of Babylon,” which addresses describes Daniel 7 in conjunction with Revelation.

The first animal, the Lion, could represent a Buddhist alliance. The Concordant Literal New Testament describes the Lion as an “eastern animal.” Of the four major religions in the world, Buddhism is the easternmost religion. The Lion was described as having “eagle’s wings,” implying an ability to spread across regions. This may represent the spread of Buddhism from its origin in India to East and Southeast Asia. The Lion was also given a “human mind.” This may symbolize Buddhism’s focus on humaneness and ethics (Concordant Studies in the Book of Daniel, p. 222, quoted in “The Four Great Beasts” by Lorraine Day, M.D.).

Looking to the future, it is very conceivable that an Asian alliance of nations could form with China as its head, given China’s dramatic rise in economic and political power. If this relates to Daniel’s prophecy, the alliance is likely to have the backing of Buddhist leaders in Asia.

The second animal described is a bear. Given that the Lion was the “eastern animal,” it makes sense that the Bear would be slightly west of the Lion. If you start in East Asia and travel west, the next major religion you will encounter is Hinduism in India.

Daniel wrote that the Bear “was raised up on one side” and “had three tusks in its mouth” (v. 5). A.E. Knoch believed that this passage depicts the Caste System. In this interpretation, the part of the bear “raised up” is the Brahman priestly caste. The three tusks in the Bear’s mouth are the three castes beneath the priests. Note that unlike the Lion, there is no mention of wings on the Bear. This could symbolize the fact that Hinduism’s spread beyond India has been very limited (Concordant Studies in the Book of Daniel, p. 222, quoted in “The Four Great Beasts” by Lorraine Day, M.D.).

Today, India is another country that is rapidly growing economically. With a population of 1.3 billion, more than one sixth of the world’s population, I could imagine India as a stand-alone, Hindu-backed empire to compete with the other three in the prophecy.

Continuing westward, the next religion we encounter is Islam, in the Middle East. Islam may be represented by the Leopard in Daniel’s prophecy. The Leopard had “four wings” (v. 6). If wings symbolize spread of a religion, Islam’s rapid spread, both historically and in the present day, is noteworthy. Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the world today, according to a 2015 Pew Research study. The world’s Muslim population is projected to have a 70% increase by 2050, and Muslims are expected to comprise 10% of Europe’s population by then.

Daniel wrote that dominion was given to the Leopard (v. 6). We know that the Middle Eastern nations play a major role in global politics and economics. The “four heads” of the Leopard (v. 6) could represent four Islamic nations that will form an alliance near the end of this age.

Continuing westward, we encounter the parts of the world that A.E. Knoch refers to as “Christendom,” Europe and the Americas (Knoch, “The Three Eastern Beasts”).  Now, the obvious question would be, if we believe that Christianity is the one true religion, why does the prophecy group Christianity in with other religions, and why does it describe the fourth animal as evil and violent?

First, I believe this prophecy is NOT talking about individual practitioners of any of these religions. Knoch describes the relationship of religions to kingdoms in Daniel 7 as follows:

“The fourth beast is repeatedly called a kingdom and it includes ten kings. If then, these are kingdoms, what relation do they sustain to the temple and to Israel as the priest nation? In ancient times religion was a matter of state. Nebuchadnezzar was neither the first nor the last to demand religious as well as political submission. As the wild beast, or its head, the anti-christ of the future will demand more than political fealty. He will have the worship of all mankind. His image will be the object of divine honors far above that accorded the most exalted potentate. The clash between Israel and the nations at the time of the end will arise out of their refusal to worship the image, rather than a breach of political faith. All of this leads us to the conclusion that the beasts of Daniel and the composite beast of Revelation are kingdoms in which religion is directly or indirectly a matter of state (“The Three Eastern Beasts”).

Thus, the prophecy deals with characteristics of nations that claim a particular religion as their basis, not the spiritual status of the religions at their core. Note that, what we see from European history is that church-run governments have the potential to turn violent and oppressive. The problem is not the true Christian religion, which is founded upon Scripture, but rather, faulty ideas about God and man’s role that corrupted the church. Similar corruption of the Christian faith could occur in a future Christian confederation.

What Daniel’s prophecy seems to indicate is that a Christian alliance of nations will eventually form in the Western world. The current European Union is a secular union. This is why I believe that if this future interpretation of Daniel comes to pass, the current European Union will be dissolved. The United Kingdom’s recent exit could be the start of this. What would eventually form is a new, religious European Union, that could very well include the Americas too. In the prophecy, the fourth animal had “ten horns” (v. 6). This could represent leaders of ten nations forming the new union.

The prophecy later says that a new horn rose up in place of three that fell off, and that the new horn had defeated those three. This could symbolize some sort of new leader arising and exposing political scandals involving three other leaders of the new union, forcing them to step down. However, as the prophecy will later reveal, this new leader himself is far from righteous.

With this political conflict in mind, it is worthwhile to consider the increasing tendency for countries to meddle with each other’s political processes. Organizations like Wikileaks are creating new platforms for such interference.

The new, Western leader depicted in the prophecy, and its supportive organizations, could be privately affiliated with any religion, or no religion at all. However, if this future scenario comes to pass, I think the leader will be guised as Christian in some way or another.

Once this leader gets into power, he or she will likely get the world’s other three alliances (East Asia/Buddhist, India/Hindu, Middle East/Islam) to cooperate with the Western alliance on common objectives for the world. This persuasion is likely to be made by finding common ground across the world on issues of both politics and religion. This absorption of the other alliances is implied by Revelation Chapter 13, which depicts a beast resembling that of Daniel 7, but with all four animals combined into a single creature (Knoch, “The Three Eastern Beasts”).

It is likely that the Western leader would act supportive of Israel at first, and may even support Israel in reconstructing the Jerusalem temple. However, the Western leader will eventually turn on Israel and go to war against them (Dan. 7:24-25). This leader may also persecute Christians who do not support his or her agenda, or whatever form of Christianity is favored by the government. If the “time, two-times, and half-a-time” of Daniel 7:25 is to be literal, this war would last for 3.5 years.

However, the prophecy continues to say that this leader’s reign will be stopped (v. 26). It is not said exactly how this will happen. It is possible that it will occur through the actual return of Christ, or perhaps, shortly before Christ returns, there will be a political revolution that removes the leader from power.

I do not necessarily believe that the aforementioned war will involve global destruction. Using the period of 66-70 A.D. as a precedent for fulfillment, there was some sporadic violence throughout the ancient Roman empire as well as natural disasters, but the only severely affected areas were Jerusalem and surrounding regions. The Apostle Paul wrote to the church at Thessalonica that the Rapture would come at a time when people are saying “peace and security” (1 Thess. 5:1-2). The Thessalonians were within what is modern-day Greece. Thus, while there could be some elevated violence and other crises throughout the world in the final years of this age, most people will likely, for the most part, be carrying on as usual in the years right before the Rapture.

It is after the Rapture, during a brief period before Christ’s arrival on earth, that it appears disasters will severely affect the entire world (1 Thess. 5:1-3, 2 Thess. 1:5-10). However, if you look at the passage from 2 Thess. 1, note that the destruction is directed toward those who are rebellious against God. Even though the Rapture only includes believers who are in the Body of Christ, there are people outside of the Christian faith who are striving to do what is right in accord with their conscience, are resisting their selfish passions, and live according to the principles which Jesus taught. I feel that there is good reason to think that these people will be protected on earth during the period right before Christ’s arrival on earth. In Jesus’ many parables about His coming kingdom, those granted access are those who do good works in accord with love for others.

On the other hand, the significance of being a believer, as described in Paul’s writing, is about entering into a special kind of relationship with the Lord based on justification (Rom. 3 – 8), being made a new creation spiritually (2 Cor. 5:17), and having a special role in the coming ages (Eph. 2:7). However, I do not believe this is the baseline message of salvation in Scripture. Rather, it is a special salvation for believers in this age.

The advantage of being a believer is that, through the Rapture, there is absolute assurance of protection from the calamities that will occur right before Christ arrives on earth to establish a new eon for the world.

 

Concluding Thoughts

As I mentioned earlier, this entire future fulfillment of Daniel 7 is not something that I am absolutely sure will happen. However, in light of the fact that prophecy is not confined to a particular era, but instead, is being continually fulfilled throughout human history, I found it worthwhile to consider possible clues in Daniel about a future fulfillment to take place shortly before Christ returns and the present age comes to a close. The interpretation of Daniel 7 described in this article makes sense to me based on the spiritual perspectives on the world and religions that I have arrived at through thematic analysis of Scripture in general.

I want to close this article by saying that, I am not encouraging people to completely separate themselves from institutional Christianity due to anything I have written. Furthermore, I am not saying that it is wrong for religion to play a role in politics. Rather, what I am writing against is enslavement to religious systems. This enslavement can manifest itself in forms such as, feeling guilty to differ on points of doctrine, feeling obligated to pledge support to various missions or political agendas, or feeling obligated to stay with a church even when that fellowship is not yielding anything beneficial to one’s life. If you can be a member of a church without being chained to the system in this way, then that is perfectly fine, and you are not at risk of religious deception.

Having looked at prophecies contained within the Bible itself in recent posts, the next matter to discuss would be, what to think of prophecies that Christians claim to receive from God today. I believe that our examination of Biblical prophecy will provide a helpful framework for thinking about modern-day claims of supernatural revelation.

 

Works Cited

Knoch, A.E. Concordant Studies in the Book of Daniel. Concordant Publishing Concern, 1968.  qtd in Day, Lorraine, M.D. “The Four Great Beasts: What or Who Are They?” The Good News About God. Spencer Publishing. 2006.     http://www.goodnewsaboutgod.com/studies/current_news/home_study/daniel7.htm

Knoch, A.E. “The Three Eastern Beasts.” Concordant Publishing Concern, n.d., Web.                 http://concordant.org/expositions/the-mystery-of-babylon/13-three-eastern-beasts/

Morais, Daniel. “Daniel 7: A Preterist Commentary.” Revelation Revolution. n.p., n.d., Web. http://revelationrevolution.org/daniel-7-a-preterist-commentary/

“The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections, 2010-2050.” Pew Research Center, 2 April 2015, Web. http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/

Lack of Cohesion in Modern Evangelicalism

Leave a reply

Many people today are talking about why many Christians seem to lack devotion to their faith. It has been said that a lot of Christians are “Christian in name only,” in the sense that they claim to be Christian but, other than that, Christianity does not seem to have a big presence in their lives. It has also been noted that people of other religions seem to be more devoted to their faith than many Christians are.

Obviously, there is not a single answer to this dilemma, given that everyone has their own personal circumstances affecting their devotion or lack thereof. But from my consideration of the testimonies, experiences, and teachings of Christians, both in past eras and the present, I would like to share my thoughts on why we are seeing some of the reported characteristics within the church today.

Many Evangelicals believe Christians are overall less devout today than in past eras. In some sense, I can accept that assessment (I say “in some sense” because I’m not sure that claim is absolutely true, for reasons I’ll discuss later). So, if it appears that Christians are less devout today, to explain why, a reasonable approach would be to compare what modern Christianity teaches to what Christianity taught in past eras.

In terms of what Christianity teaches today, there is not much difference since the Protestant Reformation in the 16th Century. However, regarding the presentation and delivery of the message, there is a major difference.

Modern Evangelicals are really trying to emphasize God as a God of Love. They emphasize that God desires the best for everybody, and that what God wants from us is not religious devotion, but rather, a relationship with Him. They seek to make their message more inclusive and less judgmental.

However, while modern Evangelicals present their message of God’s benevolence, there are other issues they have to deal with, such as, how to talk about sin, judgment, or hell. And this is where the modern Evangelical gospel faces some tensions. For instance, Evangelicals are usually adamant that they are not promoting religious regulations, but rather, relationship with God. But then they are confronted with Scriptures that condemn certain things which conventional, secular morality does not necessarily believe to be immoral. This creates a tension because blanket prohibition of those activities very much appears to be religious regulation, something that many Evangelicals supposedly do not believe in.

So, on one hand, Evangelicals feel bound to condemning those activities because they see them as a real danger, morally and spiritually, and they believe that those who live in sin are going to face judgment in some form or another. However, at the same time, they do not want to talk about these issues too much; otherwise, Christianity would become about rules and regulations, which they do not want to happen. So, they try to minimize the tension by talking about these hot button issues just enough to get the point across, but keeping the main focus on love, forgiveness, and relationship with God.

Topics such as judgment and hell are also recast in modern Evangelicalism. Judgment is viewed as what happens when people separate themselves from God, thus separating themselves from His protection, and facing the consequences of their sins. God is not portrayed as actively causing harm to anybody, but rather, allowing them to face the consequences of their actions so that they may be led to repentance. On the issue of hell, modern Evangelicals still preach eternal punishment in the afterlife, but instead of fire and brimstone, they tend to portray hell as isolation from God.

However, I sense that in the minds of the audiences, these concepts create tensions. If God is loving and benevolent, and Christianity is not about rules and regulations, then it does not seem to naturally follow to say that people will face judgment or isolation from God if they don’t believe in Him, or if they live certain lifestyles that do not seem to be immoral apart from Christian teaching. These tensions prevent a lot of Christians from really connecting with their faith. And since the teachings against sin and warnings of judgment are given a comparatively small share of teaching material, many Christians tend to resolve the tensions by just focusing on the positive aspects of the teachings and very much disregarding the more “serious” parts.

But concepts like sin and judgment have to be regarded in some way or another in order for salvation to be meaningful in one’s mind and one’s life. We learn a lot of things by contrast. Thus, modern Evangelicalism’s tendency to deemphasize the “negative” aspects has the consequence of reducing the power of the redemptive aspects in the lives of the audience.

Prior to the past couple centuries, God was often viewed as a righteous judge who actively punished sinners. If the Bible condemned a certain activity, you were going to obey because God said so, and if you didn’t obey, He would be coming after you!

Some of you may know about Jonathan Edwards, a famous preacher during the Great Awakening revival of the early-mid 1700s. His sermons (most famously “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”) had graphic depictions of hell that frightened many people into repentance. The Great Awakening era, which Edward’s preaching came to symbolize, was a time in which there did appear to be a surge in real devotion to the Christian faith.

I believe that what made the Great Awakening preaching effective was its inward cohesion. Hell was terrifying, sin was gravely serious, and God was just as intimidating to sinners. The whole package worked together. Preachers were not trying to juggle a lovey-dovely message with warnings about sin. Furthermore, for those who were saved, there was an extra degree of appreciation to Christ for one’s salvation, which I believe led to the apparent changes in the lives of Christians in that era.

Now, I’m not saying that I personally recommend that kind of preaching. However, it had a kind of inward cohesion that got apparent results. However, it is hard to know what was really going on in people’s hearts long after their conversion experiences. If people have the conception of God in their minds that was prominent in that era, they will try to live right. They will put on an appearance of morality (especially in public). They will acknowledge God in their lives. But their deeper attitudes or secret thoughts inside, and what they do behind closed doors, could be a very different story. After all, sin is stimulated by Law (Rom. 7:11).

Nevertheless, if we look at the kind of preaching that got results in the past, it seems apparent to me why modern Evangelicalism is not getting the kind of results that its proponents desire. So, what should we say?

Well, first, I should say that God can work through many types of preaching, including that of the Great Awakening and that of modern Evangelicalism. I am not trying to say that there is a definitively “right” or “wrong” way to present the Gospel message. However, when we’re on the subject of why many Christians seem to lack devotion in their faith today, I believe that the lack of cohesion in modern Evangelicalism is a problem.

I believe that Christians should seek a way to present the Gospel in which various themes are integrated together, such that to talk about one subject is to talk about another. As an example of this paradigm, the truth of redemption is revealed by talking about sin and judgment, and the truth of judgment is revealed by talking about redemption. Under this paradigm, you are no longer trying to balance various themes. You cannot talk about one subject more than the other, because to talk about one theme is to talk about another.

There is more than one way that this can be done. As long as the message is Christ-centered, the specific teachings being presented are not my main concerns here. For example, there is a lot of debate between Christians over whether people can lose their salvation. The doctrine of Eternal Security (“once saved always saved”) is viewed by some as a cause of the lack of devotion today, but it is viewed by others as the way to teach a consistent message of grace. However, I do not believe that Eternal Security necessarily resolves the tensions discussed earlier. In many cases, I feel that the doctrine of Eternal Security is just a screen to hide the incoherence under the surface. In fact, some of the most bewildering websites I have EVER encountered are teaching Eternal Security.

So, my main concern here does not involve the specific doctrines being preached. Instead, what I encourage is that, regardless of what doctrines are being taught, the principles of the teaching have internal cohesion and are not creating the need for awkward attempts to balance various themes.

Anxiety over Judgment is a Type of Judgment

Leave a reply

Among Christians, there is a lot of discussion about judgment. There are warnings that individuals are going to be judged for sin, and warnings that countries are about to be judged for sin. In modern times, there has been a shift away from the view of judgment in which God Himself inflicts harm as punishment. Many Christians warning of judgment today have a different view, in which judgment is the loss of God’s help and protection as a result of persistent disobedience.

Some Christians seem to be comfortable with the concept of judgment because they feel assured that they are right with God and are safe. But other Christians feel less secure and worry about judgment. What I will propose in this article is that, many Christians who are worried about future judgment, might already be living in a type of judgment (and have been for a long time), but they don’t recognize it because their minds are thinking about what the future holds.

Let’s look at Romans 8:12-13 – We are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh for if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

I believe this passage applies in two different ways. Passages like this are often used to say that if you persist in living according to your own desires rather than living for God, then you will experience judgment manifested in either literal death or a figurative type of death such as illness or various crises. And while I think that is a valid interpretation, there is another application of this passage that is not talked about very much.

First off, what does “the flesh” consist of? Since flesh is contrasted with spirit in the passage above, I take it to mean that flesh constitutes all non-spiritual (i.e. biological) aspects of a person. So, a person’s organs, chemistry, and psychology are all part of the flesh. Many commentaries equate living in the flesh with living in sin. That may be a valid interpretation, but I believe it is only half of the story.

So, what is the other half of the story? To understand it, we need to consider the way we feel about ourselves when we do various acts. I believe it is normal to feel good when we do good things, and to feel bad when we do bad things. God made us to be that way; otherwise, there would be no incentive to do what’s right.

But I believe the problem is when we let the presence of that good feeling resulting from good works dictate whether we can feel good about ourselves as a person, or how we feel about our relationship with God. I believe this is a type of living according to the flesh, because our lives revolve around maintaining that positive sensation in our minds.

When we have that positive feeling, we feel good about the future. We think that we’re on the right path and that we’re making progress, so God isn’t going to let misfortune happen to us. In the midst of this bright feeling about ourselves and the future, temptations can be suppressed for a season. That positive feeling can even be a motivation to do good works, because we want that feeling to last.

But even though temptation might be confined to a small corner of one’s brain, it is still alive. Over time, temptation slowly starts reclaiming territory in the back of our minds, but we don’t realize it because the front of our minds are still shining and optimistic. And since we still are not sinning necessarily, there is nothing we have to worry about according to conventional religious logic.

But then there comes a point where, we start to feel the growing presence of temptation. For a while, resisting was a matter of just saying NO to temptation and moving on. But now, it takes more effort to say no, even though we’re still saying it. Our conscience seems to be putting heavier demands on us, and we seem to lack the willpower to meet those demands.

At this point, although we’re still confident that we are living right, and thus feel good about the future, the bright, positive feeling in our minds starts to subside. Then, without that tailwind in our minds, fighting temptation gets really hard. At this point, we may start returning to habits that we thought we had kicked a while back. Or, we might continue to resist those temptations, but lose the motivation to do certain good deeds. Maybe prayer starts to feel burdensome as we lose confidence about our spiritual state.

You see, that good feeling we once had was generated by the flesh in response to the good that we saw ourselves doing. It’s like watching an instrument that gauges your performance and trying to keep the meter rising. This is just as exciting to one’s mind, and just as addicting, as any kind of sensual pleasure.  But we then started living for that positive feeling, and when the feeling slipped out of reach, the drive to continue our progress weakened.

Then we’re worried about judgment again. Now, when people talk about impending judgment upon the nation or individuals, it hits close to home because we’re not so sure what God thinks about us at this point. The bright, positive feeling we once had gets replaced with a sense of dread and anxiety. This dread or anxiety is a type of death, and a form of judgment resulting from living in the flesh during the season when it appeared that everything was going right, morally and spiritually. Furthermore, the anxiety can cause us to fall into habits such as lack of sleep or unhealthy eating habits that can cause health issues or other problems in life. Thus, ironically, by worrying about judgment, Christians can end up facing the same problems in life that they worry are about to come upon others because of sin.

I believe that Christians who are struggling with guilt need to realize that, ultimately, they are right with God regardless of what their performance meter is doing, and they need to let go of the vision of mastering their lives and keeping their meter rising in order to finally become a good Christian who is safe from judgment.

The Apostle Paul wrote that where sin increased, grace abounded all the more” (Rom. 5:20).

But here’s a critical observation. Romans 5:20 is not an experiential reality. Even though it is a true statement, it is never going to “feel” true in our own lives. In other words, committing sin does not cause us to feel an even greater presence of grace.

Some Christians try to test out Romans 5:20 to see if it’s really true. I’m not saying that I recommend doing that. But to satisfy the curiosity, I’ll go ahead and say that it doesn’t bring a feeling of grace or peace. Even though God’s acceptance of someone doesn’t waver as they go through the experiment, what they feel is even more inward angst. Furthermore, testing out this principle actually takes a lot of effort. It makes you feel tired.

On one hand, we need to realize that Romans 5:20 does not fail upon application. If we think it will fail when tested, we go back into performance meter fixation. But when we realize that Romans 5:20 is a robust principle, we find a new motivation for doing what’s right. That motivation comes from the fact that putting grace to the test just causes more tension than it’s worth. This realization comes from the Spirit’s work in us. Likewise, doing good works isn’t about trying to become a good Christian. Rather, it is about wanting to see something uplifting and beneficial coming from our lives.

So, to summarize everything, the key point that I have become convicted of is that, anxiety over judgment is actually a type of judgment. It is the Biblical message of grace that sets people free from this judgment and enables them to become what God has made them to be.

Politics, Religion, and Christian Worldviews at this Point in History

Leave a reply

Here is a PDF version of this post.

Normally, I prefer not to write about current events on this blog. I do not want to imply that current events influence what I believe. My goal is to look for key principles in Scripture that are reflected in both my own life and human history in general, and then let readers decide how to specifically apply it to the present time or their own lives.

However, many Christians today (especially Fundamentalists) are putting current events at the center of their expression of their faith. Some of them almost go as far as to say that being a faithful Christian requires you to see what is going on today from their perspective. What I seek to do in this article is present an alternative Biblical perspective on the world today (that I believe better fits Scriptural themes), in order to show that the predominant Evangelical perspective is not the only worldview that can result from a study of Scripture. How you view the world from a Biblical perspective also has implications for what a Christian life entails, which is another reason why I am addressing this topic.

Key points that will be addressed in this article include:

Why I believe secular liberalism is near its peak in world history, and why religious conservatism is about to surge in the Western World

Parallels between institutionalized church systems and political systems.

How Christians should view their relationship to church systems and politics.

__________________

Romans 1:20 – Ever since the creation of the world [God’s] eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made.

Throughout history, atheism has been a minority in the world’s population. Even today, when there seems to be a shift away from religion, atheists are probably not more than ~13% of the world’s population 1 and ~3% of the U.S. population 2. Most people are unable to definitively believe that humans are the highest power, and that the natural order is the only dimension to the universe. Deep inside most people is an intuition that something beyond the natural exists, or that the universe was not formed completely through chance. It is very difficult to see Creation, the world, and our own lives, and not have some inkling of a supernatural dimension. Even if people have no doctrines or theological models to explain it, the intuition is there.

Now, suppose that the devil wanted to keep people from acknowledging God. What would he do? Trying to convert the world to atheism would be a futile pursuit because most people cannot be atheists. So, what the devil does instead is create twisted understandings of God so that people can acknowledge some aspect of God but fail to recognize Him for who He really is.

Some of the earliest manifestations of this tactic were idol worship and nature worship. The Apostle Paul wrote that the problem of this was that people worshipping “the creature rather than the Creator” (Romans 1:25). People saw a divine design in nature. But then they went awry by treating nature as if it were God Himself.

But not everybody is going to fall for this tactic. The Jewish teachings of the Old Testament proclaimed that there is only one God, that He is above all creation, and that He cannot be worshipped in the form of a human image. Even though some Jews in the Old Testament still got caught up in idolatry despite these teachings, the more observant Jews (such as the Pharisees) knew better than to fall for that. So, evil supernatural agents would have to come up with new tactics to keep folks like the Pharisees from knowing the true nature of God.

Many Pharisees were deceived by an idea of spiritual superiority. This was going on when Jesus was on earth. The Pharisees and other elite ranks of Jews thought that God’s favor was on them, and Jesus rebuked them for getting fixated on technical details of the Mosaic Law while looking down on the poor, the Gentiles, and people with certain illnesses and disabilities.

However, Christianity, in contrast, has emphasized generosity, forgiveness, and outreach, in response to Jesus’ admonishments to the Pharisees. So, is there any way that spiritual forces can keep Christians from recognizing the true nature of God? It turns out there is.

Romans 8:15 says, “For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received a spirit of adoption.”

Some types of Christianity have found a way to preach love and forgiveness, but still cause people to have fear about their spiritual standing. They do this by saying that God loves everybody and has made a way for everybody to be forgiven, but if people sin without repenting or “backslide” (something that is often ambiguously and subjectively defined), then despite God’s love for them and longing for them to repent, there is nothing He can do for them because they have chosen by their own “free will” to depart from Him.

In response to this teaching, the minister J Preston Eby wrote,
“As a child I was told in church that God so hated sin, that God could not look upon sin, could not excuse sin; so if I fell, if I slipped into sin, if I made a mistake, if I disobeyed the Lord, if I cussed or lusted or cheated or told a lie, and didn’t confess my sin to God and get it “under the blood” before I went to bed, should I die in my sleep before the sun rose I would certainly burst hell wide open!  According to the doctrine of condemnation living holy keeps you saved, whereas sin in your life causes you to lose your salvation . . . I tell you today — there is no hell anywhere worse than that one!  To live under condemnation is hell!  The doctrine of condemnation . . . contradicts the word of our reconciliation which declares that God does not impute our trespasses unto us, and denies that we are justified by grace through faith alone, not of works, lest any man should boast!” 3 (quoted from Revelation Series, Part 39 at kingdombiblestudies.org)

There are many people who see the problem with this teaching of condemnation. But unfortunately, they do not know of any Biblical alternative. So, even though they still believe in God in some way or another, they drift away from Christianity. If people are able to see the problem with religious condemnation, but manage to stay in the Christian faith and discover the true Gospel of grace, it’s literally a miracle and a sign that God has chosen them for a special role in life.

Now, keep in mind that the devil’s goal in religion is to cause people to have faulty notions about God. If people simply lose interest in Christianity and drift away, they’re not misleading people about God anymore. But the devil wants to get them back into the religious system. How can he do that? I believe that he has plotted a way to do that by constructing an enemy of religion. The ultimate goal is to provoke religion into a holy war against that enemy and make burdensome religion look good by contrast, thus drawing people who are seeking virtue and safety back into religious bondage.

I believe the enemy created to instigate this process was Secular Humanism.

The plot began five centuries ago, during the Renaissance. In response to religious violence, some philosophers began reasoning that traditional conceptions of God and religion were inherently harmful and divisive to society because of conflicts over who was on the side of God and who wasn’t. This, coupled with advancements in science and the arts, led many philosophers to think that humans had far more inherent potential than religious tradition had assumed, and thus, instead of reliance on God and confrontations over religion, people should simply seek to maximize their inherent, natural potential. This philosophy constituted Humanism. A new religion called Deism developed, which taught that there is a God who set the world into motion but is not actively involved in people’s lives.

Secular Humanistic thinking got a big boost in the mid-1800s. Continued advancements in science led some scientists to conclude that the existence of the world does not depend on God at all, but could be explained entirely through natural means. Darwin’s theory of Evolution was used by atheistic naturalists to further their agenda. Prominent atheists such as Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, and Friedrich Nietzsche wrote some of the most vicious attacks on religion ever written, claiming that it was deeply damaging to society and personal development.

These 19th Century criticisms of religion gained attention among some progressive church leaders in the U.S. during the early 20th Century. In response to the social problems which plagued that era and the widespread, poor living standards resulting from laissez-faire economics, progressive Christians began to perceive that traditional Christianity was not impacting society that way it should. Although they did not see a need to abandon Christianity, they decided that the critics of religion had some valid points. In response, liberal Christians began emphasizing social justice, downplayed the themes of personal salvation and individual spiritual rebirth, and focused instead on the collective salvation of society. Liberal Christianity viewed the Bible as an ancient source of wisdom that was culturally conditioned, as opposed to being authoritative in every aspect.

In the latter half of the 20th Century, conservative Christians began aligning themselves with strongly capitalist economic models that emphasized smaller government and pro-business policies to boost job creation and economic growth. Liberal Christians, while often stopping short of socialism in the U.S., viewed the government as having a greater responsibility to fund programs to reduce poverty, and to enact policies to combat corporate greed.

Also, amid many high profile social movements, traditional views on moral issues (such as sexuality and gender roles) started getting called into question, and this is what often draws the ire of conservative Christians today. Liberal Christianity, with its culturally-conditioned view of Scripture and elevated view of inherent human nature, aided these movements to some degree.

In the late-20th Century, many countries in Western Europe adopted quasi-socialist economic policies, and Western Europe also began a trend toward secularization which was associated with significant declines in church attendance and interest in organized religion. The United States, however, seemed to be less affected by liberalism following a sharp resurgence of conservative politics in the 1980s. Although a Democrat was president in most of the 1990s, Congress was controlled by Republicans for the latter half of the decade, which prevented any dramatic progression of liberalization. Conservatism in the U.S. seemed to remain intact during the early-mid 2000s decade as a Republican president was elected for two terms.

However, it seemed that the country took a sharp liberal turn with the election of the current president in 2008. This was driven, to a significant degree, by the 2007-09 financial crisis which was often blamed on the previous administration. But the political shift was also driven by a strong movement of social liberalism that had been brewing for a while but did not shift elections until a new wave of Millennials became old enough to vote.

So, then, it would seem that post-2008, liberalism achieved the kind of dominance in the Western World that it had waited five centuries for. This alarmed many conservative Christians, and in subsequent years there was a sharp surge in apocalyptic prophecies on the internet. Some Christian Fundamentalist websites even began declaring the current president the anti-Christ as a result of the perception that he had favoritism toward Islam, promoted economic globalization, and suppressed Christian freedom.

Fundamentalists are portraying the ultimate battle today as a conflict between those who want to push God and Christian morals out of America vs. those who want to preserve the country’s Christian heritage and Biblical values. However, I believe the Fundamentalists are making a mistake in this portrayal. I believe that Secular Liberalism is not the ultimate enemy today. Instead, I believe it is an intermediate enemy designed to provoke religious conservatives into a holy cultural war that would ultimately make burdensome religion look safe and noble in contrast.

I perceive that in Western politics, most notably the United States, the tide is turning against liberal politics. Even though since 2008, liberalism got the kind of dominance it had waited centuries for, some people are starting to feel that it did not produce the ideal world that it promised. The U.S. and European economies still face a lot of difficulties in the aftermath of the financial crisis. Western countries have become more vulnerable to terrorism. Racial and ethnic tensions seem to be just as bad if not worse than before. A lot of people are unhappy and frustrated, and are having problems in their personal lives and family lives.

In the U.S., conservatives started making a surge shortly after the current president took office. In 2010, the Tea Party movement generated a wave of anti-establishment Republican candidates that caused Republicans to win a majority in the House of Representatives. Republicans started winning many governor races, and in 2014 they got a majority in the Senate. Now, this year, the anti-establishment movement is aiming for the White House in a big way.

The modern-day liberalism provoked the Republican Party to make a very sharp turn to the right, and this year, Republican voters are going along with this trend, as is obvious from the results of this year’s primaries. It appears many conservatives feel that moderate “Establishment” candidates are not strong enough to confront the dangers of modern liberalism.

Ultimately, I cannot confidently predict who will win the Republican nomination, or the presidency. But even if a Democrat wins the election this year, I believe that secular liberal dominance is in its last days and that we will see a powerful conservative become president in the near future. A key point is that, in recent decades, religious voters have generally aligned themselves with conservative politics. Thus, the reason I expect conservatism to take over the political scene is that I expect religion to regain its dominance in Western politics and society. I do not believe that modern-day liberalism is going to be at the center of any apocalyptic spiritual phenomena.

Why do I believe that? Well, we often hear people talk about having a “Biblical worldview.” A “Biblical worldview” is often presented as being on the right side of an ultimate battle between conservative Christianity and Secular Liberalism. However, I do not believe that a truly Biblical worldview puts believers in Christ on the frontlines of a battle with Secular Liberalism.

In the Bible, spiritual conflict does not take place between the people of God and Secularism. Instead, spiritual conflict takes place between the people of God and idolaters. In other words, the ultimate enemies of God are religious, not secular.

Think about the times in the Old Testament when Israel was being judged for their disobedience. What were they doing? Were they prohibiting prayer in schools? No; instead they were worshipping idols.

Think about the time when Jesus was on earth. Who did Jesus have conflict with? It was the religious people of the day. Furthermore, it was primarily the Pharisees, who were the most conservative type of Jews. Jesus said that it was Jewish religious leaders who were responsible for persecuting God’s prophets in past eras (Matt. 5:12).

Think about where the earliest persecution of Christians came from. It was from religious leaders (Acts 6-7).

And then there’s the Book of Revelation. Now, regardless of what you think Revelation is (literal prophecy, symbolic depiction of spiritual warfare, symbolic outline of history, etc.), the villains of Revelation are religious, not secular.

Revelation 2:14 [To the church of Pergumum]: I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the people of Israel, so that they would eat food sacrificed to idols and practice fornication. So you also have some who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans.

Revelation 2:20 [To the church of Thyatria]: I have this against you: you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet and is teaching and beguiling my servants to practice fornication and to eat food sacrificed to idols.

Revelation 17:20 – The rest of humankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repent of the works of their hands or give up worshiping demons and idols of gold and silver and bronze and stone and wood, which cannot see or hear or walk.

In Revelation, there is also the subject of “the beast” (Ch. 13) which many believe is the same entity as the anti-Christ depicted in the epistle of 1st John. Now, again, regardless of what you think the anti-Christ is (a literal person, a spiritual power, etc.), there is a common misconception about the anti-Christ. People think the anti-Christ will be something or someone that vehemently opposes Christ. But the Greek term underlying the prefix “anti” does not imply overt opposition. Instead, it implies deception via imitation 4. In other words, the anti-Christ is not something or someone that says terrible things about Christ. Instead, the anti-Christ has an appearance that resembles Christ. The anti-Christ appears to have the virtues of Christ. Thus, some people who are looking for Christian values will think that the anti-Christ embodies those values.

Thus, I believe that all of the people who are looking for the anti-Christ in the present-day Hollywood, or the IMF, or the United Nations, or the Freemasonry, etc., are off track. I do not claim that these institutions are inherently good or bad. But you see, these organizations and their leaders do not have a stated mission of promoting Christian virtues. In contrast, I believe that the anti-Christ is found in Christian contexts.

When people read Revelation and see the spiritual warfare that takes place, it often sounds mystical, obscure, and bizarre. Thus, they start looking for the religious enemies depicted in Revelation through conspiracy theories, secret societies, etc., thinking that the ultimate enemies of God will be found in these shadowy places. But I think this is the wrong approach.

Signs of the mysterious religious evils can be found anywhere in which people are under religious bondage. Whether its pagans who worship idols and summon spirits, or Christians who go to bed every night worrying about their salvation but still feel obligated to go to the same church every Sunday and hear the sermons that put them under condemnation.

The spiritual warfare in Revelation between God’s people and religious enemies is the reason why I believe secular liberalism is going to lose its dominance, and conservative religion will surge in the Western World. This also implies a return to conservative politics in the West given the alliance of conservatism and religion. I hope that it will not take some sort of catastrophe in order to decisively turn the tide toward conservative. But I am concerned that it might.

Suppose that there were to be a terrorist attack, economic crisis, or natural disaster worse than anything we have seen in recent years. Religious people will come out and say that it happened because the country turned away from God, because people abandoned Biblical morals to serve their own desires. And then they will appeal to people’s fears and say that people must protect themselves in these dangerous times by living in complete obedience to God, and that if they sin without repenting, it is only a matter of time until God judges them too!

Now, here’s the thing. Some people can genuinely live by that principle, and their conscience assures them that they are truly living for God, in which case they are true, repentant believers. But there are other people, both church leaders and ordinary people, who are not repentant in every aspect of life, but they are not fully putting their trust in Christ’s finished work and God’s sovereignty for their salvation either. They are still trying to mix grace and works, and they think they are saved because they chose Christ by their own free will, and this creates self-righteousness on their end and condemnation for those who are not self-righteousness but are trying in vain to follow their teachings.

Before I close this article, there is an important point I should bring out. We need to distinguish “systems” of the world (whether religious or not) from the individual people working under those systems. Consider the Christian saying “to be in the world, but not of the world.” I extend this principle to the church world. Even if we believe that the institutionalized church systems are not inherently Godly, we should not have to shut ourselves away from them (and I personally think we shouldn’t). We can work with them in order to have a platform to present our Biblical message to a wide audience. I myself contribute writings to an internet-based Evangelical organization with a large readership.

For me, being “in the world but not of the world” mean that I am willing to work with any reputable organization that is willing to work with me. But being not “of this world” means that I will not change my message in order to conform to any organization. I may refrain from bringing up certain subjects if it isn’t necessary, but I nevertheless stay true to my own beliefs.

And there are many people in religious systems who are operating there in accord with God’s leading, without making themselves slaves to the system. They may hold some doctrines that I consider unbiblical, but I believe they know the true Gospel in their heart (and it comes out in their preaching), even if I believe their intellectual models have some problems.

Likewise, with regard to politics, I believe God works with certain politicians and voters found in both major parties, in spite of political systems that are not of God. The things I wrote earlier about spiritual forces scheming with political doctrines refers to systems, not individuals within those systems.

The reason many people are afraid to go against the teachings of prominent systems, religious or otherwise, is that they are afraid they will fall for cults. However, what makes cults dangerous is that, they fail to distinguish individuals from systems.  Cults make character assaults on everybody who is in mainstream systems. As long as you can differentiate individuals from systems, you are not at risk of cultism.

For many years, I had an uncomfortable feeling inside of me about the battle between Christian conservatives and secular liberals. Even though I heard many calls of action to join the conservative Christians’ side of the battle, I never really felt at ease. I am not writing this article to call upon Christians to change their activism. I encourage Christians to stay wherever they believe they should be. However, I think that the discomfort I felt with the cultural and spiritual war of our time is something other Christians have felt as well, but did not know how to articulate Biblically. I hope that this article will help such people gain some new insights into what they are experiencing in their own lives and what they are seeing out in the world.

 

Links to External Sources:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism
  2. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/05/7-facts-about-atheists/
  3. http://www.kingdombiblestudies.org/Revelation/rev39.htm
  4. http://www.concordant.org/expohtml/TheMysteryOfBabylon/TheMysteryOfBabylon013.htm