"It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is"

When we regard Holy Scripture, does time matter? Is it relevant? Is it consistent? Are references to it to be taken literally and uniformly? Does “soon” really mean “soon”? If something was “at hand” in one verse and “at hand” in another, can each infer drastically distinct interpretations? Is it possible for the first to mean "soon" while the latter insinuate a gap of thousands of years? Should we expect word interpretation consistency? Is there indication that Jesus or any of the inspired NT authors ever attempted to lead their readers to believe time was elastic to the point that it could not be faithfully relied upon?

Bill Clinton's famous quote, "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is", seems eerily similar to the manner in which many of the popular modern day Bible interpreters play fast and lose with Scriptural integrity and inspiration.

We know that to an infinite God, who has no beginning or end, time is of no consequence. To Creator God, a thousand earthly years is but a mere day and a day is as a thousand years. (2Pet 3:8) To God timelines are of no value because in His economy time is without limits.

But let me ask you a question. To whom was the Bible written? I don’t mean to sound facetious, but God didn’t write the Scriptures to and for Himself did He? The Bible communicates His redemptive plan to His fallen finite time-bound creation. Wouldn't God use language His creatures could comprehend? And should we not also assume God wouldn't intentionally attempt to confuse or mislead His most intimate first century followers? If time indicators were not reliable then why were they employed? Why would Jesus have placed time constraints on His coming (parousia) if they only stood to mislead His disciples? (Matt 10:23; 16:27-28; 24:34)

So what does the Bible tell us about time? (after reading this article, return to watch the below video to help flesh out that which we are considering here)

• Genesis 1:5 (ESV) God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

The infinite triune God created “the first day”. Why would God, being eternal, concern Himself with the creation of this finite system? In His immeasurable wisdom, He knew finite man would require this sun/moon time sequence to create a sense of order. From the beginning, time was consequential, and as we shall see, time mattered a great deal to God because it was part of man’s temporal economy. A sense of time consistency appears throughout Scripture that many of today's most God-fearing men and women appear to doubt. Why? Possibly because the bias of their presuppositional worldview does not allow them to treat time literally.

Many of us choose to interpret Biblical apocalyptic language (stars falling from Heaven and moon turning into blood) literally and by contrast, the literal time statements (at hand, soon, shortly) figuratively—all seemingly in an attempt to justify our positions. None of us intentionally believe things that are untrue so we are quick to employ justifications for the things that cause angst and confusion. How often do we pull out the 2Peter 3:8 card when God says something was supposed to be "soon" or "at hand" in the first century, that we insist was still thousands of years future to "them"?

The status quo is a very safe place to rest. No one likes to be in the minority especially when truth may force us to stand alone for a season or possibly longer. Some of us willingly throw audience relevance (the Scriptures were relevant to the audience at hand) out the window just to accommodate the way we think things are supposed to be. Presupposition and empiricism appear to rule the day. So instead of choosing to become effective Bereans (testing all things) we retreat in fear attempting to find adequate justification for neutering the meanings of these very menacing texts. Challenging a deep-seated paradigm can be a rather terrifying and intensely disorienting endeavor.

I apologize for being so intrusive but let me ask you another probing question. Is it intellectually honest to distort time to mean whatever we desire, simply to prove our paradigm? We have crafted an entire system of timeless ambiguity from just one out-of-context Second Peter verse. We have been asked to believe that every time referent written before or after Peter's Second Epistle has been neutralized of its imminence. Has 2Pet 3:8 really given us license to distort time?

First, it should be noted that 2Pet 3:8 (written in approx AD 67) actually proves the opposite of what many assume this verse implies. It had been approx. 37 years since Jesus' "this generation" proclamation (AD 30) and the "last days scoffers" were out in full force, questioning the very time issues Peter is purported to be trivializing. Was Jesus ever going to return? Peter's response in the next verse? "The Lord is not slow to fulfill His promise as some count slowness." Even though some thought Jesus was late to the point of being unfaithful to His promise, Peter was assuring his readers that Jesus was right on schedule. (And as is known today, Peter's statements were issued merely 3 years prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70—which marked the end of the Jewish age).

And think about this. Is it even plausible that the same author who less than a year earlier wrote, “the end of all things is near” (1Pet 4:7), would in one swipe of the quill erase time from the Biblical record? Is the Bible the only historical book ever written where time is supposed to be inconsequential? And if it is, who informed the direct recipients that the things they were being told were misleading and untruthful?

If by “Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place" (Matt 24:34), Jesus is presumed to be talking about a distant generation (which would have been “that generation”) 2,000 years removed, who told His disciples that Jesus wasn’t really speaking to them?

Let’s give a fair-minded look at the following statements and remember to keep “audience relevance” in your mind’s eye as you think about the impact these things would have had on the recipients.

They were exhorted to have patience “for the coming of the Lord is at hand … the judge is standing at the door” (James 5:8-9). Challenged to be self-controlled because, “The end of all things is near” (1Peter 4:7) Encouraged to endure the horrific persecution knowing that, “In a very little while He who is coming will come and will not delay”. (Heb 10:36-37) Cautioned to stay as they were, free from added anxieties because, “the time is short…the form of this world is passing away”. (1Cor 7:29-31) Warned to be vigilant because of the ever-present antichrists proving that “it is the last hour” (1John 2:18). And when they received their edition of John’s Revelation they were heartened to know that these were “things that are to take place shortly…for the time is near”? (Revelation 1:1,3)

What kind of impact would these promises have had upon the heavily persecuted first century Christ-followers? Today, many a theologian unwittingly asks us to assume that the inspired writers of the NT deliberately misled the faithful. Why? In order to create a multi-generational expectancy? Is this method of deception and misdirection truly consistent with God's character? Can you imagine what disastrous consequences would have ensued had these promises not been fulfilled in real time? Did Jesus and the inspired writer's of the NT, promise short term vindication to the heavily persecuted early Church with no intention of being faithful to those promises?

• This is a plain indication of God's righteous judgment so that you will be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which indeed you are suffering. ⁶ For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, ⁷ and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, ⁸ dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 2 Thessalonians 1:5-8

Has anyone ever promised you something that you realized they never had an intention of fulfilling? How did that make you feel? How did that affect your trust level and your reception to their future promises?

Consider for a moment the psychological impact of failed promises in the following parable. (Thanks to my daughter for graciously allowing me to use her wedding photo)

A women’s lifetime of dreams is upon her. Other than her commitment to Christ many years earlier, the most magnificent day has finally arrived. She is about to wed the love of her life. As she readies herself in the bride’s quarters, she can hardly wait to walk those few glorious steps down the aisle to meet her man.

As she waits patiently she’s given word that the groom has not yet arrived. Of all days to be late! But there's no cause for alarm since there's still time. She knows in her heart that he’ll be along any minute so she tries as best she can to relax. As her mind runs wild, she begins to wonder if something's gone awry—her groom has always been abundantly faithful.

The bride's spirit is quieted somewhat as she’s given word that he will “soon” appear at the altar awaiting his beautiful bride. Minutes pass and the bride continues to sit without her beloved as tensions begin to rise. Another word from the groom’s best man is such heartening news—he is now said to be arriving “shortly”. The anticipation grows with these more imminent words but still no groom as the clock keeps ticking and the guests grow impatient, evidenced by their ensuing chatter.

A note of certainly has sprung from the groom’s entourage and the maid of honor whispers the good news to the bride saying, “It’ll be a very little while”. He must be right outside the church she surmises. She's hardly able to contain her eager anticipation. Her hopes continue to heighten. The rush is coming. Her heart begins pounding wildly. Another encouraging report saying, “it’s the last hour”, his coming is “at hand”. Her enthusiasm crescendos to a new pinnacle. She can hardly stand still. Her Groom is about to appear. She can feel his presence!

Now hours have passed and no Groom is in sight. All the guests but the parents have returned to their respective homes. The bride, sobbing and downtrodden, experiences untold sorrow. “But he was on his way. Why didn't he come? And why did they continue to tell us that he'd be here soon?" She felt the epitome of rejection, telling her maid of honor that it would have been better to have never loved than to go through this tortuously agonizing trial.

Days pass and still no Groom as the bride grew increasingly despondent. Weeks and still no sign of him. Not even a Word from his parents. Years are now in the books and although the bride was clearly grief stricken, she had moved on. Her faith was irreparably shattered, no longer able or willing to trust her Groom even if He did one day return.

If Jesus (the Groom) was unfaithful to those (the Bride of Christ) that received these many imminent promises, then what effect would that have had on the early church? I believe the implications of failed expectations would have been catastrophic. Would the Gospel have proliferated so significantly into the 2^nd century if the Christ-followers believed they had been duped? You may be shocked at the following excerpt from C.S. Lewis', The World's Last Night, written the same year (1952) as Mere Christianity:

“Say what you like,” we shall be told, “the apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, ‘this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.’ And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else.” It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible.

Unlike C.S. Lewis, I was not able to successfully assimilate this view that Jesus "created their delusion". Was Jesus wrong? Was He engaged in situational ethics where the end (creating a generational expectancy) justified the means (intentionally using false promises)? I don't believe Jesus was 2,000 years late. Listen to this rather poignant song, "2,000 years and counting" (by Jeff Reulbach).

Unfortunately for C.S. Lewis, he was, to my knowledge, never given a consistently Biblical solution to the expected imminency of Christ's return. Apparently no one shared with him that Jesus was in fact totally faithful to meet the time expectations He set forth in the Olivet. For good reason Jesus told His disciples to flee to the mountains. They would soon encounter perilous times for which He was preparing them. He told them they would be severely persecuted to the point of death. When would these things take place? Jesus said, "all these things will come upon this generation" (not "that generation").

The Olivet wasn't written in a vacuum. It was the natural outgrowth of the thrashing Jesus gave the religious elite (which Matthew records in the prior chapter). Be one of the disciples as you sit on a nearby rock. Listen and consider the impact of Jesus' verbal flogging of these self-righteous vipers. Is there any doubt who Jesus is speaking to? Is there any confusion as to the destiny of these Christ-killers or the time in which these hypocrites would experience the vengeful wrath of God?

• "So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. ³² "Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers. ³³ "You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell? ³⁴ "Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, ³⁵ so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. ³⁶ "Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. (Matthew 23:31-36)
  

And this came to pass exactly as it was predicted. God did avenge His faithful followers through the direction of Roman General Titus and his multinational force that razzed Jerusalem in total desolation. (For more info read the Works of Josephus and/or the paper written in 1805 by George Holford, "The Destruction of Jerusalem, An Absolute and Irresistible Proof of the Divine Origin of Christianity - Including a narrative of the calamities which befel the Jews so far as they tend to verify our Lord's predictions relative to that event) Praise be to God that he was not slow to fulfill His promises!

We know that the Gospel flourished after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 (The Seige). The believers that received these many assurances passed on this magnificent Gospel without interruption. This ought to be divine proof in the timely execution of the many time sensitive promises where “shortly” always meant “shortly” and “is”, is what it “is”.

To End All Wars - The Heart of Mercy

I finally secured my copy of “To End All Wars” (2001). It was as powerful as it was brutal. What a masterpiece! I rarely watch movies but since this one came so highly recommended by two esteemed friends in the faith, I stayed the course alone, enthralled with the many apparent contradictions of life. "For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong." 1Cor 12:10 (ESV) The movie’s native POW setting and graphic details were certain to violate my wife Debbie’s gentle sensibilities--so I spared her from such.



This is on the order of a modern day Passion of the Christ. Every emotion imaginable is intertwined within this beautifully scripted work of art.

Writer Brian Gadawa deals with the worst depravity has to offer against the qualities found only in those endowed with the Spirit of Christ. Gadawa who wrote an excellent paper, "The Promise to Abraham" (a must read regarding the true "Israel of God") is no stranger to the concepts of bigotry and the stereotypes that foster oppression and devalue human life.

Even the hate, fear and vengeance that are on stark display in the brutality of war, wilt under the incredible pressure of mercy and forgiveness. It’s what the Christianity of Scriptures would look like today had it not been hijacked by the mindset of the average westernized 21st century believer. Kill the Islamofascists before they kill us we cry. Evangelist Rod Parsley said, "Amercia was founded in part by seeing this false religion (Islam) destroyed". "Destroyed" is a very volitile word that serves to inflame the passions of Muslims, Jews and Christians.

Is Parsely speaking of destruction through peaceful conversion by the non-violent gospel-preaching methods of Peter and Paul (murdered by their audience) or ultimately by military aggression? Since I've had time to reflect over these past 2 1/2 years, today's vitriol that emanates from the mega-church's "religious right", seems so foreign to the message of the New Testament. Have we not lost the message of Christ? Were the beatitudes to be confined to Christ's earthly existence?

Love your enemies. Pray for those who persecute you. Turn the other cheek. Vengeance is mine says the Lord. Until recently, these concepts were totally foreign to me. I read them as though they had no relevance in my life. I had a sense of duty to help others pay the price for making me uncomfortable (but always with the rationalization that it was a righteous indignation). In reality more like sinful resignation.

"To End All Wars" presents a model of first century Christianity in its finest hour, where hope, sacrifice and a passionate commitment to Christ, overcome the most horrific adversity of torture and ultimately death.

Acts 7:60 (NASB) Then falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them!" Having said this, he fell asleep.

Do we not all long to have the compassion of Stephen, capable of truly loving our enemies with this kind of selfless abandon? Can we joyfully accept the "plundering of our goods"? (Don't forget the context of the following Hebrews' passage written in the latter part of the 60's AD, just prior to the Destruction of Jerusalem. Audience relevance must be constantly on our minds, especially as we reach verse 37, which was the short term hope of these heavily persecuted believers)

Hebrews 10:32-37 (NASB) But remember the former days, when, after being enlightened, you endured a great conflict of sufferings, ³³ partly by being made a public spectacle through reproaches and tribulations, and partly by becoming sharers with those who were so treated. ³⁴ For you showed sympathy to the prisoners and accepted joyfully the seizure of your property, knowing that you have for yourselves a better possession and a lasting one. ³⁵ Therefore, do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. ³⁶ For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God, you may receive what was promised. ³⁷ For yet in a very little while, He who is coming will come, and will not delay.

“What is the final destination of hatred? When you look into the eyes of your enemy and you see yourself…” These were the disturbing words at the movie's end. They dare us to look within.

Oh that I could be “Dusty”, a POW so captivated and saturated with the Gospel of Christ that he was completely compelled to live its message. A faith so tangible that it left him no choice but to demonstrate the love of Christ, not merely to his friends but to his enemies as well.

John 15:12-13 (NASB)"This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you. 13 "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.

I thought the following excerpt from a Christianity Today review was extremely poignant:

Cunningham explains that the film is "not a Christian movie, and we don't want it portrayed as one." In an interview with The Oregonian, he elaborated: "The rating is an R and my frustration [with conservative Christians] is this: that over the last few years, all the great movies—Schindler's List, Dead Man Walking, The Shawshank Redemption and Amistad—are all R-rated pictures, and everybody should be seeing them. They'll accept PG-13 in The Fast and the Furious but not the R of Schindler's List. The church should not be basing its decisions on that system, which covers such a range."

When asked why he doesn't follow the route of films like Left Behind and The Omega Code, Cunningham explains, "They almost seem to me like fear-motivated messages—'turn or burn' kind of things. I don't think they're related to modern life. It may be well meaning, but none of these people are filmmakers; they're all evangelists trying to use film. My heart and desire has been to make a film that causes you to think. It's not based on fear, but on the struggles that we have inside us."

Don't get me wrong. This was not an easy movie to watch. It will not leave you feeling entertained. Neither did The Passion of the Christ. Both should be seen and assimilated. Drained you will be, and stretched for certain, but disappointed you will not be.

Is McCain able? The line is in the sand

After watching this short video clip you may begin to understand why I voted for Keyes in this year’s Florida presidential primary and why I hope Alan Keyes becomes our Constitution Party candidate, and ultimately the president of the United States. Wishful thinking? Perhaps.

I have been continually bullied by proclaimed conservatives like Gary Bauer who is in reality quite unabashedly more sold out to a party than a set of non-negotiable values. He insists that a vote cast for anyone other than McCain is a wasted vote and therefore believes it is imperative that we “close ranks”. Why does it always come down to fear? Why are we considered less than patriotic for principle-based voting? I’m quite frankly tired of being manipulated to violate my conscience that I believe is heavily influenced by the residence of God the Holy Spirit.

I contend that it is sometimes necessary to willingly take a few steps back in order to eventually take gargantuan leaps forward. Yes, I do believe a vote for Keyes may in fact be in essence a hanging Obama chad, which ultimately could spell disaster on many levels. So am I therefore obligated to vote for McCain, a man so distant from my faith-controlled values? In dreaming of casting my ballot for McCain I wake up in cold sweats knowing that I have sold out to expediency over righteousness. At what point do we as believers draw our lines in the sand and say, “Enough is enough!”

I reached that position 2 years ago after watching George W. Bush, who Bauer proclaimed savior of Republican Party, literally wreak havoc on the basic tenets that “W” so exuberantly asserted. I voted for him in 2000 and then against my better judgment again in ’04. Just a short while before that ‘04 presidential election I had been challenged by long time friend Debbie Beckett to consider a candidate from the Constitution Party who more accurately reflected our values. At that point I felt that it was too late to make such a move. I argued that the Supreme Court’s balance of power was at stake and therefore I could not in good conscience veer from another Bush term.

Well, I’ve seen and had enough. If the Republicans are not going to act in a manner consistent with the Biblical principles I hold dear (most of which were stated in the party platform) then I cannot in good conscience continue to endorse this charade.

Over the past 7 years we have been spent into oblivion and during the first 6 it was at the hands of a consolidated Republican monopoly that I had always dreamed would take us to the promised land of righteousness and prosperty. Back in '94, I was convinced that Newt and the boys, along with the emergence of the Contract for America, would turn things around in favor of Biblical principles i.e. against big government, abortion on demand, and for traditional values.

Joe Scarborough in his book (on my nightstand), “Rome Wasn’t Burnt in a Day (2004), describes how all but a tiny handful of those newly elected congressmen (dedicated to the tenets in that contract) abdicated their commitments so quickly. After the greed-facilitated Washington social network took its toll even their pledge for term limits was abandoned for the trash heap.

And where did Colon Powell, the man most responsible for our invasion of Iraq, go? What is he saying today about our war with Iraq? What does Colon Powell’s former Chief of Staff, Colonel Larry Wilkerson, have to say about WMD and Iraq? 

Listen, I am not becoming a shill for the Democrat Party. Far be it! However, I do believe that as Christ-followers we should do everything in our power to obtain and dispense truth. Do I believe everything Wilkerson says? No. Do I think Colon Powell’s departure from the repub party should have been a red flag? I think so.

What I do know is that I can’t continue to support policies and principles that are in direct conflict with Holy Scripture. It’s quite clear that this administration had the intention to wage war against Iraq before they took their places in the Oval Office—a full year ahead of 9/11. The baloney about WMD, democratizing and freeing the Iraqi people was mere window dressing necessary to dupe the America people. I don't say this lightly becaus this is a rather a rather sad commentary on the veracity of this administration's personel. I spent days researching this issue in hopes that I would not confirm my growing suspicions. I vehemently defended this adminstration again pariah Michael Moore and yet I'm forced to report that I believe there was at least a modicum of truth behind his attacks.

If that is claim is doubted then consider the views of Paul O’Neill, a two-year member of the Bush cabinet as Treasury Secretary. These revelations are problematic at best. Sure O’Neill had an axe to grind but are we to continue to trivialize the comments of all those who at one time took prominent positions within the administration? And lest we think this has nothing to do with Israel, then we are naïve. Watch the video below as well as the You decide 2004 video regarding O’Neill’s book, and the 60 Minutes Interview.

It has been through the realization that, although important, political operatives cannot exact change on this land and many times do things deleterious to our freedoms—they will never supplant or subvert our role as ambassadors of the Kingdom. In my view change will never spring from a top-down strategy. Certainly we don’t relish placing those in power that are in opposition to that which is good, decent and right, but we must know that God is always in control no matter who it is that governs us. It will most certainly not make the ensuing difficulties more palatable but it will lend the necessarily confidence to forcefully proceed in spite of the odds.

Jesus wasn’t murdered at the hands of men but by God’s sovereign decree. Rulers are in the palm of God’s hand.

• So Pilate said* to Him, "You do not speak to me? Do You not know that I have authority to release You, and I have authority to crucify You?" 11 Jesus answered, "You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin." John 19:10-11 (NASB)

God did not abrogate His thrown 2,000 years ago and He certainly hasn’t done so in 2008. It is only through His children, living in a manner consistent with the principles laid down in Scripture, which will afford us the kind of existence we treasure. The propagation of the Gospel is our only hope.

In AD 27 when Jesus launched His public ministry it was apparent that Jews wanted an earthly Messiah. They desperately desired to have a powerful political figure lead them out of the hundreds of years of oppression and bondage. But their Messiah didn’t come as an earthly King and He never will. How long will it be before we realize that the Kingdom will never be about flesh and blood? Jesus said:

• "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." John 18:36 (NASB)

The Apostle Paul wrote:

• Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 1 Corinthians 15:50 (NASB)

Our Kingdom is spiritual. The New Covenant blessings of righteousness, salvation, resurrection, eternal life, sanctification and redemption are purely spiritual. That’s why the Gospel does not come with persuasive speech but by the power of God. (Rom 1:16) This Kingdom cannot be and never will be observed for it is only through the eyes of faith that it can be “seen”.

This is how Jesus answered the Pharisees when they confronted Him about an earthly Kingdom:

• Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; 21 nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or, 'There it is!' For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst." Luke 17:20-21 (NASB)

Do we make the same mistake longing for the types and shadows when the King is already before us—when His spirit already inhabits our very being? We cannot “see” because we are still partially blinded by the veil of Moses (2Cor 3:13-18). The veil that should have been fully lifted in Christ still clouds our view because we don’t see with the eyes of faith. For we know that without faith it is impossible to please God yet most of us live lives controlled by empiricism—and I might add the same empiricism that guides the atheist.

• Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1 (NASB)

In my humble opinion I think we have a crisis of faith within the church. We exalt the natural but yet it is only the spiritual that is permanent. For goodness sakes I’m not some sort of Gnostic seeing no temporal value in anything physical. However, are the eternal blessings of God physical in nature? God’s Kingdom can never be prevailed against because it is not of a physical/natural nature.

The King told us when He would return and yet we cannot “see it” because the eyes of our faith are too dim. Paul tells us that the orderly progression is first the types and shadows manifested in the natural/temporal—then comes the reality which is wrought in the spiritual/eternal through the person and work of Christ Jesus.

• However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. 47 The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. 1 Corinthians 15:46-47 (NASB)

Our faith must never take rest in the earthly atmosphere deemed conducive to the propagation of the Gospel. It should not be shunned but no matter the environment, the Gospel cannot be defeated. Matter of fact, it was through persecution that the early church thrived.

The Apostle Peter, writing in approx AD 67, knew that the earthly Roman authority was not ultimately in control of his destiny. Times were very grim from a material/temporal perspective. Many of his compatriots had already been murdered for their faith. Peter was abundantly aware that the Judaizing scoffers (2Pet 3:4) were out in full force when he wrote, “The end of all things is near” (1Pet 4:7)—“the glory that is about to be revealed” (1Pet 5:1)—“He is ready to judge the living and the dead” (1Pet 4:5). It had already been 36 or 37 years since Jesus’ “this generation” proclamation and the natives were growing restless—Jesus had not yet arrived. Aid was just around the corner. The Thessalonians had been promised near term vindication. The stage was set to see the faithfulness of God poured out to all the oppressed. Peter along with every Apostle was martyred and yet through inspiration he wrote:

• Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, 14 or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. 15 For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. 16 Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God. ¹⁷ Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king. 1 Peter 2:13-17 (NASB)

Peter knew that his marching orders came directly from the Lord Jesus Christ. Physical death was not his enemy and neither is it ours. That’s why he did not fear the political establishment that merely controlled his earthly estate. (Mt 10:28)

Why have I taken this particular path to help dispel the myth that we must dutifully vote for John McCain or we will lose ground? I think we need the confidence to know that our hope is not in an earthly leader. Peter and the early church believers thrived in an atmosphere of contention and opposition to the Gospel. Governments can attempt to remove the mention of God from the public square but it will never be successful. As long as we are there the presence and power of God is as well.

At this point as I reflect back on my life I have made the commitment to attempt to leave this place in better stead then when we arrived. How can that be objectively quantified? I’m not altogether certain but one thing’s clear, we are not where we once were. This admission is not one of defeat but of reality. How can we get the train back on track?

It cannot and will not be accomplished solely on the back of the political system. I believe that making disciples in all nations is the only legacy I want to leave behind. If believers begin to take the claims of Christ seriously, the political process will change and the religions of Islam, atheism and Judaism will be defeated. This is our promise if we make Jesus both Savior and Lord of our lives.

In closing consider Gordon James Klingenschmitt’s reasoning for not voting for John McCain.

8 Reasons I Won’t Vote for John McCain (click link)

Let me state for the record that I believe John McCain stands closer than Clinton or Obama to Biblically sanctioned values. But then again so does Jeremiah Wright as compared to Adolf Hitler. The fact is that McCain is so far off the mark that it prompted James Dobson to say, “I would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances”. Be that as it may, I’m looking far past the next 4-8 years. I think we must begin to plan for the long haul and stop this short-term thinking. Sadly many Christ-followers believe (and I think it cannot be supported Biblically) that we won’t even be here 25 years from now and in so doing they have unwittingly taken themselves out of the game.

Regardless of eschatology I think this short-term mentality must be confronted and debunked. We must develop a worldview consistent with the implications of a resurrected Savior. Defeatism must be abolished and relegated to the pre-AD 70 generation to which it was prophesied. Positive change can and will occur when we in mass begin recognizing that the redemptive plan of Christ has been completed. Death has been destroyed and we are free without encumbrance to follow the law of Christ!

Our victory will only come as a grassroots effort where righteousness is the prevailing influence and in the context of the greatest commands.

• Jesus answered, "The foremost is, 'Hear, O Israel! the Lord our God is one Lord ; 31 and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart , and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength .' 31 "The second is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself .' There is no other commandment greater than these." Mark 12:29-31 (NASB)

Romans 13:11-12