God's Dealings with Man-- Before and After Christ

In the past few years there seems to have been a great burst of nostalgia for things ancient, even in the religious sphere. Christians have been opening the first half of their Bibles and perusing the Old Testament. Bible study is a good thing, but regrettably, a certain group of these innocents are coming to the incredible conclusion that they must somehow revive the old ways and become 'New Testament Jews,' or perhaps 'Old Testament Christians.'

The word regrettable for this spiritual regression is, if anything, too mild. This looking backward for spiritual progress is being fostered, I believe, by serious misunderstanding of Holy Scripture. In addition, we've seen a major retreat to conservative views in the social and political arenas, so this religious phenomenon follows the same pattern. In any case, I believe that the Christian world is much imperiled by this kind of movement that Paul took pains to warn the nascent Christian church to avoid! This weak-willed yearning for the familiar ways of the past threatened to extinguish the very life of the early body of believers, and Paul was zealous in preventing the death of his 'adopted protege'. He himself had made the leap from his traditional upbringing to the Christ-centered faith, and he really 'got it.' Paul understood precisely what the Messiah had accomplished, and what a radical departure it represented from the ages-old thinking of his fellow children of Israel. When he saw the believers of Galatia starting to slip back into observing the old traditions, trying to 'up-grade them' and integrate them into the new way of relating to God, he used strong words to rebuke them, and gave them direct instruction on their new faith.

The biggest problem with the Galatians is that they wanted to play 'double jeopardy' --they wanted to piggy back Christian beliefs on top of their old Jewish beliefs. Put another way, they were attempting to combine the Old Covenant with the New Covenant, creating a monstrosity in the process. Paul knew: you can't live the New Covenant life with an Old Covenant mindset! Jesus had warned his followers against this very problem when he related the parables found in Matthew 9 (vs. 16, 17). He stated clearly that you can't store new wine in old wine-skins. Wine was often used in scripture as a symbol for spiritual belief, and the message here was (supposed to be) unmistakable. To reinforce the same idea, Jesus cited the other example of sewing new cloth onto an old garment. Again he made the point that this is a recipe for failure; the new and the old are simply not compatible!

What were the 'new' and the 'old' things that Jesus was referring to, anyway? That, it turns out, is a fundamental question at the heart of the Christian faith. Not surprisingly, Jesus was referring to the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. But that just raises the subsidiary question: what are these 'covenants' that seem so crucial? Right. The first thing to know is that 'covenant' means the same as 'testament,' and we notice that the Bible has been divided into two major parts that are labelled as 'OT' and 'NT'. The next detail to keep in mind is that a covenant is a legal agreement or pact or treaty, as in fact, the word is still used to this day. So, apparently, the Bible is composed of records relating to two legal contracts. The obvious questions then are, what are these contracts all about, and why were they created?

A great deal of ink has been devoted by an army of scholars of all levels of knowledge and training to the subject of covenants as used in the Bible. Hence, a massive amount of information--and perhaps even more dis-information--is available to the inquiring mind concerning covenants. My purpose here is not to write yet another treatise on covenants. Rather, I would like to paint for the reader 'the big picture' of why the covenants exist, and how they are important to our faith. Therefore, I will try to present a very brief look at the concept of covenants, and then proceed to my main analysis.

If covenants are legal agreements, what are they doing in the Bible? The answer comes from the nature of God Himself. The two ultimate, personal characteristics of God's nature are these: justice and love. John wrote that 'God is love,' and indeed, that is what Jesus was trying to demonstrate throughout his earthly ministry. But God is also a God of justice; He rewards righteousness and punishes injustice or wickedness. His war with Satan is based on His divine justice being affronted by evil, whether by angels or mankind. In accordance with His justice, God does not do things willy-nilly; God acts in a legal, just manner, showing that He is responsible and accountable, despite being the supreme intelligence of the cosmos. Therefore, in His dealings with mankind, either individuals or groups, God establishes His promises on a contractual basis. Think of it--this is really phenomenal; that the God of creation is ready to hold himself to a legal agreement!

That observation covers the 'why?' of covenants. But the 'how?' questions are entirely more complex. For the purpose of this overview, I'm attempting to condense a lot of material into a broad panorama. (The interested student is urged to do individual Bible study and other research). What we'd like to know is: "What were the OT and the NT, and what do they mean for us today?" It turns out that there were numerous covenants cited in scripture. God made covenants with Adam, with Noah, with Abraham, with Moses, and later, with David, and with others. One can analyze these various agreements, and notice the features they share in common, as well as their differences. Many scholars have done just that, and in the process, made the whole analysis as complicated and convoluted as imaginable. In the end, one has to wonder if any of that really benefits the poor believer!

In the face of almost overwhelming information, with a resulting inverse degree of knowledge, I can only turn to the scriptures themselves in seeking clarity. I believe that the essential clarity is not lacking. The Holy Spirit did not leave us to the mercy of multi-lingual, multi-degreed academics, who cannot reach any accord among themselves in any case. Thank God, He inspired his servants, the writers of the Bible, to speak the simple truth. We don't even know for certain who wrote the book of 'Hebrews,' (many believe it was Paul), yet it is a key treatise on the comparison of the covenants, and ought to be essential reading for any professing Christian. That said, most Christians have rarely, if ever, heard a teaching, let alone a sermon, based on 'Hebrews.' Pastors shy away from this fundamental text, while evangelists apparently realize that it would demolish much of what passes for Christian dogma in their campaigns. Our outspoken friend, Paul, tackled the issue head on (how else, for brother Paul!) in his letters to the believers in Rome, in Galatia, and to a degree, those in other early congregations.

So, dear reader, you can start ploughing your way through all those academic treatises on biblical covenants, and get thoroughly confused. Or, you can pray as you read the explanations given in the scriptures themselves, and see the plain truth. It may help to be familiar with the books of the OT part of the Bible as you read the NT parts; but the important ideas can be discerned on the strength of the latter texts in themselves.

The author of 'Hebrews' is addressing his letter/essay to Christian believers from the ranks of his confreres, the people known as (the Children of) Israel. Israel was the name given by God to Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of the patriarch, Abraham (who came from a group called 'Hebrews' in Mesopotamia). Jacob had 12 sons who were the progenitors of the tribes that constituted the nation of Israel. By the time of Christ, in fact, the original nation of Israel had metamorphosed considerably. Briefly, the original 12 tribes had divided into two nations: Judah (basically the tribes of Judah and Benjamin) and Israel (composed of the other 10 tribes). They had re-united for a time under David, only to split again after the death of his son Solomon. The nation of Israel was taken into captivity by Assyria in 722 BC, and later dispersed, disappearing from the annals of history. What existed in Jesus' day was Judah, now the remnant of the original 'Israel.'

Hebrews' writer, a master of scripture, takes his readers through a solid, logical line of reasoning with one main intention in mind: to point his flock forwards in the (new) Christian faith, and to make it crystal clear why they should, by no means, even long for the good, old days. What were the two 'paradigms,' old and new, that this letter analyses? Let's take a brief look.

Hebrews states plainly that the old system under scrutiny is the Sinai Covenant, brokered by Moses in the dessert, some 1300 years before Jesus' birth. This is the agreement that the people of Israel had been living under for all those centuries, and it was firmly entrenched in their collective minds as their religion and ethnicity--the two are inextricably identified. Yet, building on Jesus' own teachings, Paul was telling Jewish believers to abandon the old traditions, and walk in this new system founded by their savior! The writer of Hebrews explains, in terms that Jews could understand, why this radical departure was unavoidable and, moreover, desirable.

Anticipating Jewish objections, Hebrews defines how Jesus was a perfectly legitimate High Priest, although he did not come from the usual tribe of the priesthood (the Levites). He identifies Jesus with Melchisidek, a famous priest-king who was paid homage by Abraham himself. The writer goes on to consider each major feature of the Jewish religious order--the temple, the great feast of Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement), and the sacrificial system. Without providing another analysis of those individual arguments, the summary is that Jesus introduced a new system that is superior in every way to the previous arrangement. The ministry of Jesus is wholly efficacious and all-sufficient in ensuring the salvation of all who believe in Him (Heb 7:25).

In contrast, the writer demonstrates how the old, Mosaic system was inferior in every respect, being installed in its day for the purpose of leading the Israelites to the 'real thing' to come. The old contract contained 'object lessons' such as the Tent of the Lord's Presence, and the articles that furnished it; and the sacrificial system for symbolic removal of sins, and so on, to provide tangible correlatives for a nation that had spent the last 400 years under Egyptian authority. The Old Covenant was, in fact, a complete 'constitution' for this people who had arrived in Egypt as a large family, and left, four centuries later, as a nation of possibly, two million souls. All they had known was Egyptian rule of law and social norms; now God, through Moses, supplied them with a full legal package for an orderly society! Reading the 'Pentateuch' (the first five books of the Bible, and attributed to Moses' hand), one can see that it includes, notably, rules of conduct (principally, the Ten Commandments, but there were dozens of extra rules added by Moses to account for various situations common to society). It also covers rules of public health and nutrition, as well as a system of animal sacrifices to atone for wrong-doing. Without such a comprehensive package, the people of Israel could well have broken down into chaos in short order following their hasty departure from Egypt! God was concerned about His own holy name; if Israel fell into chaos, they would ultimately turn to alien gods and idols, as the model they had grown up with, and His honor would be besmirched. That's why He instituted a 'national covenant' with Israel.

So, the Old paradigm had its utility; but as a means of attaining personal right standing with God, it was hopelessly misunderstood by the Israelites. To begin with, the Sinai covenant didn't promise 'salvation' in return for Law-keeping. Many Christians believe that notion to this very day: i.e. that individual Jews were supposed to 'keep the Commandments' in order to 'be saved' (presumably, meaning attaining salvation or paradise in the next life). But the agreement really tells the Israelites that if they (the collective nation) observe His laws, and thus institute a 'theocratic utopia', then their nation would be supremely blessed and attain pre-eminence among all nations. Individuals who aspired to right standing with God were directed to the sacrificial system that was a foreshadowing of the later, perfect work of the Messiah to come. In invoking the sacrificial protocol, individuals were demonstrating the kind of faith evidenced by Abraham when he was ready to sacrifice his only son, Isaac, but was provided with a ram by God, in its place (Gen 22). It was the Israelites themselves who decided that observing the 'Decalog' (the Ten Commandments) was going to represent righteousness for them (Deut 6:25).

It is doubly ironic that, about three centuries after the inauguration of Christianity in Judea (as Rome called its province) the mainstream 'Christian' church gradually adopted the same fallacy. Although some church leaders still understood that Jesus had come to proclaim God's favor towards mankind, the notion became dogma that Christians had to keep the Ten Commandments in order to 'be saved.' Since there arose a backlash against Jews and their religion, the church fathers decided to 'Christianize' the Decalog--just as they had Christianized various pagan and Jewish feasts, such as the winter solstice (into Christmas) and Easter, in place of Passover. So, having to get rid of the 'Sabbath' of the Commandments, they substituted Sunday worship in its place. The gospel of Christ--the good news that God was gracious, and that all that is needed for right standing with Him is for us to believe in His Son--got completely muddled and concealed. It was not until the Protestant Reformation that the gospel emerged into the light of day once more. Yet, sadly, the Protestants too, soon forgot the essential message, and almost unbelievably, they continued the false gospel invented by the Roman church.

That same false gospel continues its unholy existence to this 'enlightened' day, in a confusing message that proclaims, in effect, 'all you have to do to be saved (eternally) is to believe in Jesus... and oh yes, then live in complete compliance with the Ten Commandments for the rest of your life!' This mixed message is an abomination that desolates the gospel of Christ! Yet, it is the dominant 'gospel' being preached to the world today. And Christians wonder why the pagan masses are not beating a path to their churches. This is not 'good news' to anyone; we know it's impossible to keep those rules 100% of the time, and we're told that slip-ups are not permitted. But this is the kind of thing that arises when we try to live the NT life using the OT mindset.

Paul sternly admonished the Galatians in blunt language intended to get their attention. He told them they were 'bewitched' by the old mindset, the desire to return to the old, bankrupt ways (ch 3, vs 1). If that weren't enough, he told the men who wanted to retain circumcision (the physical mark of belonging to Abraham's lineage) that they might as well go all the way and castrate themselves (ch 5, vs 12)! Now that's blunt language, friends. I won't go through his arguments again, (study them yourselves), but his conclusion is that the faith of Christ is a totally different, freeing way of relating to God. He understood fully that this faith was the one described by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, which he had summarized with 'the golden rule' (Matt 7:12). In chapter 4 (vs 21-31) Paul compares the two covenants to Abraham's wife and concubine, with the former standing for the new covenant of freedom, and the latter representing the old one of 'slavery.'

Similarly, the writer of Hebrews understood that the 'new covenant' was the fulfillment of the prophecies of Jeremiah (see vs 3:16, and especially 31:31-34) who spoke of a new covenant that would NOT be like the one made at Sinai through Moses. This one would have its rules written on the heart, not on tablets of stone. As foreseen in Psalm 40, it would not require animal sacrifices; it would require a heart turned to God. As Ezekiel had prophesied (vs 36:26-27), the 'heart of stone' would be replaced with the heart of flesh (love, grace). It was to be a spiritual revolution! Instead, it was perverted over the years into a confusing abomination, grafting the new ideas from the gospel age unsuccessfully onto the old traditions from the antiquated days of Moses.

God did not leave things in a confusing state; far from it. It was recorded in the gospel accounts (Luke 23:45) that at the moment Jesus exhaled his last breath, the curtain in the Temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. This was a clear demonstration that the old order was finished. The way into the 'Holy of Holies' was now wide open to anyone who approached (Heb 4:16; 10:19ff); the priesthood was futile (Heb 7:27ff), the animal sacrifices valueless (Heb 9:12ff). Both were no longer needed; the 'shadows' were superceded by the things they foreshadowed. Just in case some people didn't get this graphic message (and most did not), God made it abundantly evident a few decades after the Cross when the Roman legions invaded Jerusalem in 70 AD, and completely demolished the great Temple, which the Jewish priests, law-givers and rulers were so proud of. What more could God do? Well, we know that the surviving Jews were dispersed all over Europe, and Judah/Judea disappeared from the map.

To certain inquiring minds, it is a matter of considerable amazement that the early Christian church, which had manifested miracles, degenerated to such a degree over the subsequent ages, that today, it is almost a laughable institution in terms of its moral power and spiritual influence in the modern world. How could this have happened? My thesis is that the miracles disappeared at about the same time as the 'mixed gospel' became the common currency of Christian faith. With this abominable admixture of grace plus works, the resulting 'false gospel' has no real power to attract and hold souls. Worse, it quickly engenders a spirit of legalism, as people scramble fearfully to 'keep the Law.' And legalism is a deadly, stultifying disease, in the life of a believer or of a church, make no mistake! History proves that Paul was entirely justified in his attack on regression to the old ways, the Mosaic Covenant.

Some students label the Sinai Covenant a 'covenant of works.' But, as you can see by now, that is not exactly the case. It was not intended by God to be a covenant of works; it was the Israelites who fashioned it into such a beast. God intended the sacrificial system included in the Old Covenant to point sinners to the coming Messianic Savior, just as Abraham's sacrifice had done... and (many believe) just as practiced by Adam and Eve, and their son Abel. Thus, 'salvation' was always effected through faith in the provision of God. Jesus 'ratified' that eternal covenant when he instituted his 'Covenant of Grace' at the last supper (Matt 26:27), and delivered with it a New Law (or new commandment; Jn 13:34, 15:12, 17). That law of love, abiding in the heart (or mind, literally) is infinitely superior to the old Decalog, the constitutional law written on stone. (That contrast can easily be the subject of another, separate essay, so I'll leave it, for now.)

In summary, the reader can see now, this writer sincerely hopes, that... 1) God holds His dealings with humanity on an orderly, legal basis, expressed in 'covenants' that He made with individuals and with groups. The major covenants considered in the Bible are the one made at Sinai, through Moses, with the children of Israel, and the one sealed with Jesus' blood at Mount Calvary. 2) The Old Testament was re-interpreted and mis-interpreted by the Israelites to assume 'salvation by works', and their faulty understanding has been passed on, over the ages, to the organization known as the Christian church. 3) The New Covenant manifested by Jesus, and ratified by his sacrificial death at Calvary, is the only means to personal salvation. This covenant is based on God's grace, without reference to Law, and is invoked by belief, faith, in Christ and his perfect ministry.

In closing, this writer acknowledges that much of the preceding essay may appear to be radical, and even 'antinomian'--the fancy word used by scholars to mean lawless. You must understand that living in the gospel's freedom does in no way give anyone licence to live a hedonistic, lawless life. Far from it! Living under the law of love (God's grace) means living a responsible life, putting others' interests ahead of our own. There's nothing antinomian about it. Under Jesus' covenant, the focus is taken away from a check-list of external, written rules, and shifted to the completed work of Christ. We are judged righteous, not on the basis of performance, but purely due to faith in Him. Through that faith, we enter into 'covenantal solidarity' with Jesus, and are seen by God as identified with His Son. These concepts, again, are sufficiently important to represent the subject of a separate study (available from this author and others, too.)

Is the SDA Church Christian?

Some people suppose that the SDA (Seventh-Day Adventist) Church is just another protestant denomination, while others regard it as a cult due to their reliance on the writings of one of their 'founding mothers,' Ellen G. White. The truth is more surprising--the SDA Church, while believing itself to be ' the 'remnant church' of God, is instead, an anti-Christian organization. That may sound outrageous, but will make sense after an explanation. And why do I pick on the SDAs, out of the babble of self-proclaimed, official voices of the faith of Christ? That too, I will clarify below.

The crux of the problem lies in the errant 'gospel' espoused by this Sabbath-based church. (Sabbath is the 24-hour period from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday, and was cited in Moses' Ten Commandments). Any church that lays claim to the title of Christian must have, at minimum, a proper understanding of the basis of Christianity, the 'good news' of Jesus Christ. Of course, Adventists think they alone have the true gospel... the majority of members blissfully unaware that it is actually opposed to the message that Jesus came to bring. For the skeptical or curious, let me outline what they hold as the 'gospel,' and where that reasoning leads.

Like all their teachings, the SDA version of the gospel is marvellously complex, and requires considerable study and time to define and absorb. They talk about a two-phase process of salvation that some of them call 'the objective gospel' and 'the subjective gospel,' which refer to the more familiar theological concepts of 'justification,' and 'sanctification.' They say that Jesus' death paid the penalty for our sins, thereby providing the justification that gives us the legal right to eternal life. However-- before he or she can breath easily, there's the second little matter for the converted Christian to deal with. 'Sanctification is the work of a lifetime,' is a phrase familiar to Adventists-- meaning that the new convert must spend the rest of his/her natural life working on 'character perfection,' another buzz-phrase of Adventism, which refers to how one gains sanctification, the second mandatory requirement of salvation.

Now, to get around the obvious argument that this is a 'works-based' salvation, and therefore, unChristian, recent SDA theology brings in the Holy Spirit: it's the Holy Spirit working in me and thru me, who perfects my character, not really 'me.' It sounds credible, especially to new, unstudied Christians. The trouble is, the Bible simply doesn't speak anywhere about this kind of bilateral gospel. Scripture tells us that the work of Christ was all-sufficient, and needs no assistance from the human spirit or the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 1:30; Heb 10:10, 10:14, among many others). Okay, the Christian may agree; that's an un-biblical gospel... But, does that make it anti-Christian? The answer is yes.

Any gospel that requires a person to do some 'work,' to take an active role in his/her own salvation, is by definition, anti-Christian. If we have any part to play in our salvation, it makes the life and sacrifice of Christ of no account; it renders the grace of God not a gift but a wage. Second, one has to follow this theology to its logical conclusion to really see how demonic it is. For the Adventist, the outcome of this thinking is that s/he must be able to develop a sinless character over time... and that those who fail to do so must have weak moral fiber. It follows for them that the 'losers' of life are there by choice; they haven't allowed the Holy Spirit to work in their lives. The attitude that we can achieve perfection of character (i.e. sinlessness) hardens the heart towards those we judge as spiritual laggards, and can create envy towards those we perceive as 'high achievers' (or perhaps as just fakes). Legalism always entails judgementalism; one who hasn't accepted unconditional grace can hardly extend it to his fellow sinners.

In conclusion, any gospel that negates, or adds requirements to, the grace of God--the free gift of eternal life--is a pagan philosophy, anti-Christian. And the illustration above shows how adhering to this belief leads directly to anti-Christian behavior. In short, the Seventh Day Adventist Church is an anti-Christ organization posing as 'the remnant church' (their catch-phrase) with the message for the end of this age. And, incidentally, that claim puts them into the same category as such other self-proclaimed oracles as The Watchtower Society (Jehovah Witnesses), the 'Latter Day Saints' (Mormons), and even Baha'i.

Now, why did I select the SDA church for this analysis? Because they epitomize the same problem that affects virtually the whole panoply of churches calling themselves by the name of Christ! To give them credit, at least the SDAs follow their false gospel to its logical conclusion. And in doing so, they illustrate the error of the mainstream denominations. You see, almost all the churches proclaim a warped, hybrid version of the gospel that tries to graft the heart of the Old Testament (also called the Sinai, or Mosaic Covenant) into the body of the New Testament proclaimed by Jesus Christ. In his brief ministry, Jesus warned his followers against this very mistake (Matt 9:16-17). How do the churches do it? (And they've been doing it for almost 2000 years!). They do it by carrying the Ten Commandment law of Moses from the Old Covenant, and making it an essential feature of the Covenant of Christ (which it most certainly is not; study Hebrews, ch. 7-10, for ex.). Hence, the false gospel proclaimed by mainstream church spokesmen goes along the lines that 'You are saved by believing in Christ... and you maintain that salvation by obeying the Ten Commandments.'

Now I realize that most people who read the last statement will scratch their heads and say, 'So-- isn't that right?' No! It isn't right. That's not why the Son of God lowered himself to become a human, live a sinless life, and die ignominiously for our sins. The 'good news' is much better than that official party line from the organized churches! The true gospel is that Jesus has liberated us from all reference to the code of Moses, from behavior-based religion (and, not insignificantly, from hierarchical, patriarchal religious organizations). If the mainline churches really believe we have to obey the old, Ten Commandments, then they should do as the Adventists-- they should observe the Mosaic Sabbath, and not Sunday as the 'day of rest.' All the churches have fallen into the 'Judeo-Christian' trap of keeping old wine (the Ten C's) in new skins (the message of Jesus); and they've been doing it for so long that few people, no matter how sincere, are able to see outside the paradigm (the 'strong delusion'). In attempting to base a Christian theology on this error, the SDAs have been more consistent than other churches, and thus make the issue more apparent. Whether observing Sabbath or Sunday, the result is equally futile! As Paul labors at length to teach, believers are not under the Old Covenant, and the Commandments are a moot point-- a holdover from a specific tribe, from a long bygone era.

Christian Faith and Bahai

There are many good things to admire about Bahai, a religion that sprang up around 1844 in present-day Iran. So much so that many of its converts come from the ranks of ostensible Christians. One of the main claims of Bahai is that it builds on the doctrines of the prior, major religions including Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam. They refer to this cumulative effect as 'progressive revelation'... an expression similar to one used in the Christian faith, but having quite a different meaning. Do the claims of Bahai really hold up to Biblical scrutiny? Here are my own thoughts, having associated with informed Bahais.

To begin with, the claim of progressive revelation itself is essentially contradictory. Since the major historical religions differ markedly among themselves on certain fundamental issues (eg. reincarnation) then how could a later religion represent an accumulation of their collective wisdom? Bahais like to find as many points of agreement among the world faiths as they can-- and yes, there are many, as one would expect-- but at the same time, they overlook the often grating differences among the creeds in order to support their claim of 'essential unity of religions.' Certainly, the Christian creed does not acknowledge progressive revelation in the Bahai sense. Jesus stated 'I am the way, the truth, and the light,' and the New Testament elaborates on his pivotal role in history as the ultimate redeemer of humankind. There are no later Messiahs or incarnations of God expressed in Christian scripture.

As regards society, Bahai holds that on a collective basis, human consciousness is evolving, progressing in a positive direction towards ultimate 'god-awareness.' They believe that after sufficient disasters, mankind will come to see the folly of bad choices and will consequently make the decision to adopt the principles of Bahai. This belief, while comforting to them, simply flies against the statements of Christian scripture... not to mention the plain evidence of our planetary history! Jesus, Paul, Peter, and John all wrote that we are born with the inherent tendency of selfishness-- to do evil. This predisposition may be an unavoidable consequence of free will... without which we would be mere robots. It's like a genetic flaw that we are powerless to eliminate. History amply demonstrates the truth of this assertion. The 20th century, despite hyperbolic technical achievements including landing men on the moon, was the bloodiest century in recorded history. There is simply no veracity to the naive belief that our race is morally improving; in fact, quite the opposite is the inescapable conclusion of a disinterested examination of history. What Christianity asserts is that Jesus Christ is our only hope for the future. The solution to our self-destructiveness is not within us-- it is in our Lord and savior, Jesus, who will ultimately rescue us from our own waywardness.

In keeping with their belief in the progress of human consciousness, Bahais have made representations to the UN urging more resolutions and action in the sphere of religious freedom. On the surface this appears laudable; yet it demonstrates a naive faith in human bureaucratic mechanisms to accomplish what only God's Spirit can effect-- namely, a change in the human heart. In fifty years, the UN has made a few brave attempts to define universal morality, and merely tentative efforts at actively promoting and achieving those goals. Despite any of its efforts, virtually every member of the UN continues to violate even basic human rights every day. As Christianity teaches, the human race is incapable of pulling itself up to Godly levels of morality; it can only come from the gracious act of God towards us.

Although Bahai states a belief in one God, and even believes in His Holy Spirit, the creed does not believe in the existence of Satan (the Devil). They hold that evil is what happens when you remove good, as darkness is the absence of light. It is an outlook that is shared by many modern (eg. New Age) philosophers and religions. But, does it hold up to the evidence of 'demon possession' and other satanic manifestations? When thus pressed, some Bahais will claim that such phenomena are really due to mental disorders. That might explain some cases, but by no means covers all. Where do some people get the ideas that motivate them to commit heinous crimes? Is it purely self-generated? Where do some get the knowledge and powers they need to accomplish some of the worst atrocities? If there is a personal force for good, whom we call God; can't there be an opposing, entity of evil? Since freewill is an essential ingredient for expressions of genuine love from created beings, then even the angels (whose existence Bahai acknowledges) have the option of rebellion. That the most powerful such being chose to exercise that option and became Satan ('the opposer') is not much of a mental stretch. That this creature prefers that humans not recognize his reality is also an easy conclusion.

After examining the teachings of Bahai, the clear conclusion a Christian must reach is that Bahai, for all its surface attractiveness, is yet another instrument of deception for the souls of humanity. 

Popular American Myths

While still a relatively young country, nevertheless, Americans have a number of popular myths that they love to believe for the comfort they bring. Let's have a look at a couple of the most common.

America was founded by Christians. Everyone knows that, right? The founding 'fathers' were a group of largely God-fearing men from Christian traditions, who must have been guided, therefore, by God Himself in drafting the constitution of the USA. I used to believe that, too; after all, there's plenty of reference to God in those old documents. No doubt, a lot of American 'Christians' (certainly among solid Republican supporters) rest comfortably at night knowing that God is running their country thru the men who are elected to high office. But, lately, I have finally learned the truth, the awesome truth. America was not founded by Christians; it was founded by Freemasons. A search on the web or a newer history book will reveal that, indeed, many of the signatories of the Declaration of Independence were high-degree Freemasons. Okay, some readers will retort 'So what?; Freemasons are Christians, too.' Well, perhaps among the low-level Masons that may be true. However, at the highest levels of the craft, those men are quite the opposite. They may pay lip service to 'God,' but their god is really Satan. The high-degree symbology of Masonry is inextricably demonic in nature, having to do with 'occult' diagrams, geometry, and numerology. This is easily demonstrated by simply examining a US dollar bill, with its occult eye atop a pyramid, and its latin inscription (the reader is invited to investigate these symbols for him/herself). According to one source, the Masonic symbolism on the dollar bill reveals in coded form the true origins and destiny of the United States. More tangible evidence of the Masonic roots of the USA is embodied right in the geometry of the streets of Washington, DC. A study of the plan view will reveal that the 'mall' is designed as a picture of the compass and square of Masonry, and moreover, a Satanic pentagram (inverted 5-point star) is described by the streets, with its major apex sited on the White House. Other commentators have stated that 'every key Federal building from the White House to the Capitol Building has had a cornerstone laid in a Masonic ritual and had specific Masonic paraphernalia placed in each one.' George Washington was the first of many Freemasons to occupy the White House as president.

Much more could be said, but the point here is that, far from being a nation founded by Christians and based on Christian principles, the USA is instead a nation founded by demon-worshipping Freemasons who injected their principles in numerous subtle ways in the US constitution and related documents. The naive belief of so many Americans that God has granted special status and protection to the USA is a pathetic myth-- a fable of similar proportions to that of an Ayatollah proclaiming his Islamic nation to be the special object of Allah's grace.

Another common myth of Americans is that they live in a democracy-- in fact, the best democracy in the world. Is that true? I maintain that it has never been true; the US has always been ruled by a mere handful of shadowy men who manipulate elections and candidates behind the scenes to ensure that their interests are guarded and promoted. Some of the original participants in the foundation of America had grave misgivings about the constitution and selected model of governance; but the Freemasons carried the day, and inevitable oligarchy was ensured. To those who deny this, I say that the current administration will soon remove all doubt, if they haven't already. The Bush cabinet is populated by individuals drawn from the executive ranks of business who hardly pretend not to promote the interests of big business. More evidence is found in the federal taxation system that has been tilted in favor of the wealthy and burdens the masses of the working/middle class. The last two presidential elections were characterized by voting 'irregularities' the like of which would be soundly condemned by observers in any 'third-world' state. What the plutocrats want to do is preserve the illusion of democracy, to keep the masses in their pacified state of endless consumerism, while actually controlling the government to achieve their desired goals.

An examination of the record of legislation over the past few decades also makes clear that there is, essentially, no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats-- both are in the employ of big business (mainly big oil, big pharma, and the defense industry). Under the American system, it is virtually impossible for an independent candidate or party to intrude in this two-party game. Even if a grass-roots movement should coalesce around a suitable candidate, the big media would simply ignore this impudent upstart, and with no vehicle to carry the message to the electorate, that candidate would quietly flop. So, with two copies of the same character to choose from, how can anyone call it democracy? The truth is that democracy-- to the extent it ever existed in America-- is dead; long dead.

Obviously, the two myths are related. Because the USA was from its very origins designed by self-interested, demonically-inspired Freemasons, the system they implemented was deliberately set up to allow co-opting by a plutocracy, the wealthiest cadre of individuals who were deemed most suitable to govern. It has taken some 230 years (less for perceptive observers) for the wolf to be spotted lurking under the sheep's clothing. Now the secret is out; the US is not a viable democracy, in fact, never was, but has been promoted vigorously by forces that wanted the populace and the outside world to believe the grand illusion. Many will prefer to cling to the illusion than accept the aweful truth. No matter; soon all the pretences will be stripped away as the oligarchy, drunk on the prospect of having control over the mighty American military machine, takes on full authoritarian control of the government. They will do this under the staged threat of 'terrorism' by fabricated enemies that demands drastic assumption of absolute powers to 'protect' the populace. Exercising all the leverage of fear, the draconian action will at first be welcomed by the stupefied citizens, whose reasoning has been compromised by decades of TV drivel and subverted media spin-doctoring. Only when many of them are incarcerated in mega-prison camps will they start to open their dull eyes to the incredible reality.

This sad tale has been foretold in the Bible, in symbolic language to preserve it from the tampering of the guilty. Instead of a wolf in sheep's wool, the Bible talks of a 'lamb-like beast' that suddenly 'spake as a dragon' (Revelation ch. 13). In biblical symbology, a beast represents a nation. A 'lamb-like' beast would be a nation that appears beneficent, peaceful. To speak like a dragon would be to issue fiery, frightening edicts. Does that brief description fit the US? At this moment of history, it certain can. The next few months and years will be literally apocalyptic-- revelatory of where events are going. I believe that only then will the biblical prophecies become decipherable. Stay tuned.

Wheat and Tares (Matt 13:24-30, 36-43)

In the parable of the wheat and tares sown simultaneously in a farmer's field, Jesus explained the symbolism to his curious (and unimaginative) disciples (vs 36-32). So, we don't need to go over the basic allegory again. Still, there is the nagging quesiton: why does God allow the 'tares' to keep growing until the end of the age? Sure, Jesus gives a brief explanation. However, there may be a little more to the story that we haven't thought about... maybe because we haven't been this close to the 'harvest' before these 'latter days.'

Once we become adults, most of us think we can detect evil when we see it. Of course, most evil-doers, criminals, confidence-men, etc. try to hide their true intentions from everyone in order to accomplish their criminal activities. Yet, sooner or later, they almost always slip up-- the leopard cannot hide its spots indefinitely-- and we uncover the crimes and their perpetrators. It has been like this down thru the annals of human history. Cain killed his brother Abel, then tried to scam God with feigned innocence. For God, it's an easy matter to discern evil. But for mere mortals, it can be most difficult. We don't have moral X-ray vision that allows us to see into the psyche of others... altho some sensitive people do claim to be able to 'read the aura' of other individuals, and to detect various hidden attributes of the soul. Until we regain that ability on a general basis, we have to rely on what we observe. 'By their fruits you shall know them,' say the scriptures. And so, bad actors like Hitler, Stalin, serial killers, disgraced CEOs, and so on, are easily recognized and reviled.

The problem is that the fruit of evil can often be disguised and hidden for a long time, so that we are ignorant of the danger in our midst. This is proving to be particularly true in the case of institutions. For whatever reasons, we humans tend to have almost an inherent trust in our institutions. I'm talking about such things as governments (at least 'democratic' ones), universities and schools, churches (including 'denominations' and clergy), medical systems, corporations and so on. What the late 20th century revealed to us in often shocking terms was that these organizations can in fact be very corrupt. While presenting the outward appearance of beneficence and decorum, there emerged stories of endemic abuse of human rights, corruption of officials in positions of trust, denial of justice, illegal siphoning of funds, and a great many other perversions of the public trust. By the 21st century, many of us have become cynical of institutions of all kinds. And yet, for those who call themselves Christian, it is difficult to accept that the same corruption could affect the churches that they are affiliated with.

Yet this corruption of nominally Christian institutions is the greatest challenge that faces all who aspire to the Christ-based faith. This is not the personal paranoia of this writer; Jesus and other NT authors warned their flocks-- of their age and the ages to come-- of the great dangers posed by "wolves in sheeps' clothing" who come to destroy the church of Christ. These warnings were not minor mentions to be relegated to the remote recesses of believers' consciousness. They were delivered in stark language by every writer of NT scripture.

The most strident warnings came from Jesus himself. His words that at the 'end of the age' will come deception so powerful as to deceive 'the very elect' leave no room for cautious word wiggling by unctious preachers. Will it be impossible to discern the evil in our midst, in that case? Certainly not, I insist. At least not for those who are true followers of Christ-- not of denominations or fast-talking 'evangelists'-- and who do even a modicum of Bible self-study. The ones who will be deceived are those who think they already have all the truth they need, be it secular or religious truth. Those who have shut their minds from further evaluation of new revelation; who have hardened their attitudes towards learning anything new in the realm of religion. These are the ones who will not be able to distinguish a stalk of wheat from a weed, who will be vulnerable to the strong delusion coming from Satan's worldly puppets.

For the 'wise virgins' who seek out the additional 'oil' of knowledge for their spiritual lamps, the fruits of evil are apparent at an early stage. (Matthew 25:1-13) They can discern the good wheat from the evil weeds in our midst, without being deceived by institutional baffle-gab and self-serving obfuscation by co-opted spokespersons. In these early years of the 3rd millennium, we are seeing an increasing demarcation between good and evil... and more importantly, between 'ostensible good' and 'so-called evil.' When seedlings are young and still growing it can be difficult to tell the good plants sown by the 'farmer' (God) from the weeds sown by the 'enemy' (Satan). But when the plants mature, there can be no mistaking the heads of 'wheat' (good results) from the spikey, domineering weeds (evil works). This distinction is the fulfillment of Jesus' parable, in preparation for the coming harvest. It is God's grace that lets the tares become so evidently evil that even the 'willingly blind' will have no excuse that it was too difficult to distinguish the evil-doers.

There are well-meaning Christians who believe they must protect the Church by overlooking the evils committed by church representatives. And there are those who are using the organization in a deliberate way to achieve certain personal ends, be they financial, political, or whatever. The most pernicious 'tares' are represented by organizations that pretend to have a benign purpose, but which have become infested at the highest levels with self-seeking, ravenous leaders. Those leaders may not themselves be the hands guiding the actions of the institution, but they are in the full control of often hidden manipulators who are the real powers behind the officers. Those organizations have been carrying out their grisly business for a long time, disguising their ugliness with clever 'PR' and buying of official favor. But the day is coming when their true evil intentions and actions will be unmasked. That will presage the Day of the Harvest.

For God's unerring justice to be fully revealed with no room left for lingering doubts, it is necessary to allow the noxious weeds to flourish among the good wheat. For dim human consciousness to finally recognize evil when it pretends to be good, it is necessary to wait for the harvest. Then, at the end of this trying age, will come the answer long anticipated by the saints slain throughout the ages, the victims of those vicious tares, when they ask in Revelation 6(10): "How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?".

Blame Religion?

With the world in continued turmoil, and especially conflict between groups identified as Muslim, Jewish, or Christian, as well as Hindu, you hear a lot of people say something brilliant like "we should abolish all religions!" That's a sentiment that is getting a lot or airing these days, in private conversations, letters to editors, and so on. But, wait a minute; is there really any logic to this knee-jerk reaction to the violence we all abhor? Let's think about it more carefully.

All the major, world religions (ie. those numbering multi-millions of adherents) believe and teach peace among all people. At least they do in their sacred writings. Moreover, if you poll the members of any of these world religions, the ordinary believers almost overwhelmingly desire peace and detest war. Yet... we have the constant specter of 'sectarian violence' hanging over our heads almost everywhere in the world. So, what gives? In the Christian scriptures, Jesus projects himself to the 'great judgement' at the end of this age (Matt 7:22-23): 'Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice lawlessness.'

Jesus could foresee exactly what has happened-- in the name of religion. There are plenty of shysters around who can talk up a good forgery of religion, complete with ostensible miracles. But in their heart, these people are not truly religious, not converted to the true principles of God, which basically and simply require putting others ahead of ourselves. These fakes are experts at playing the religion game, using it to make a lot of money and gain a lot of power and influence. These individuals are occasionally discovered and revealed in various Christian communities; but they scramble their way to the leadership of all the hierarchical religions. (Hierarchical religions are those that do not practice a 'priesthood of all believers;' rather, they have professional clergy who run the churches, synagogues, and mosques, and have a supporting cast of administrators.)

When you look back over the ages, it's those religious leaders who instigated violent policies toward selected groups, generally 'heretics'-- those who oppose them internally; and then, 'unbelievers'-- those who hold to other views. These men were Jewish insurgent leaders, Catholic Popes, and aggressive Imams. And it's men who must shoulder the blame, since the major religious institutions have almost invariably shut women out of their governing structures. But one may rightly ask: how have religious authorities succeeded in assuming control of the religious agenda, and turn the message of peace into an acceptable pretext for war? That's the real crux of the matter!

The answer is right in our own hands... we 'ordinary' members of the assorted religions. Or rather, in our minds, for we have allowed ambitious men to bamboozle the masses with fiery rhetoric, fallacious and unscrupulous use of holy scripture, and general psychological manipulation. And the masses fall for all these mind-traps for one, salient reason-- they are too complacent to do even minimum 'due diligence.' The masses of believers are too lazy to read the scriptures and exercise the prayerful study that would easily dispell much of the misinformation they are being fed. The result over the ages has been absolutely tragic.

Finally, anyone who has read my other essays touching on religion may demand to know why I now seem to be defending religion when I am normally so critical of it. The answer is that it's due to a weakness of the English language. I am distinctly opposed to 'religion' in the sense of an organization, an institution; this is a construct of human nonsense. However, I respect 'religion' in the sense of a science of the knowledge of God; a system for elevating the human spirit. So, there is no contradiction.

In my mind, the conclusion is clear: do not blame religion for the endless conflicts among humans; the real culprits are 'religions'... and their blind believers who will not think for themselves.

Christianity Primer for Skeptics, Agnostics and Atheist

This essay is specifically directed to those who have consciously rejected the Christian religion (perhaps all religion), especially those who believe they have done so with 'full knowledge'-- that is, after having investigated the claims of Christianity. It is also intended for those who have dismissed Christianity on the basis of 'hearsay' or out of lack of interest or motivation to bother looking into the matter. Now, to the atheist I say 'Look, I'm not trying to change your mind-- what I'm saying is that if you are sincere in your beliefs-- and I know with certainty that many of you are sincere-- then you'll be willing to check into this article simply to see if, in fact, there might be something that you overlooked in establishing your position... which many atheists hold as firmly as any religionist!

Okay, to get right to the point, I'll disclose the core of my thesis: the 'Christianity' that has been presented to the world-- from shortly after the death of Christ until today-- is FALSE! That's right; we've all been reacting to a straw man, a chimera, a false religion. Don't hit that mouse button just yet! Stay with me a while longer, as we explore this assertion. After all, if I'm right, then you will have to re-examine your due-diligence and perhaps even arrive at a different conclusion.

What makes me, a lonely voice of dissent in a sea of religious leaders and followers, think I can support such outrageous claims? Well, I base my arguments on the only objective source available to us, the Bible. Virtually all Christian 'churches' (ie. denominations) and believers trace their faith, their dogma, to 'holy scriptures', almost always the Bible. (I will, for the moment, ignore the differences in versions and translations of the Bible, since I will deal with high level features that are beyond those mundane concerns.) Most people, believers and 'outsiders', apparently are under the impression that altho there are innumerable variations on the Christian theme, there is a core of beliefs that somehow define the Christian faith, and that are shared by the 'mainstream' churches (those whose membership numbers in the millions). In fact, I agree that there is indeed such a small set of foundational beliefs that are put forth as 'Christian' by virtually all the mainstream churches. And it is those very beliefs that I challenge as false; that is, as gross violations of scriptural truth. This is a very serious charge. If you purport to be Christian, then it would mean you are subscribing to a false doctrine. For a sincere atheist, you have probably rejected a false notion of Christianity, which means your position is, therefore, lacking integrity.

After two millennia of existence, what makes the core Christian message false? First, let's see what it is that the big churches proclaim as the heart of Christ's faith. If you ask any seasoned Christian or plow thru a typical book of apologetics, you are informed that the heart of Christianity is 'the gospel.' Okay; what is the gospel? It's a word meaning 'good news,' we are told. Well then, what is this 'good news?' What we are then told is something along these lines: Jesus, the son of God, came to live as a man, died for our sins so that we humans could be saved from eternal death. So far, it sounds pretty good, no? 'Is that all there is to it?,' we enquire cautiously. No, comes the reply. You have to believe in Jesus, have faith in his 'gift of salvation.' Okay-- it sounds easy enough... Is that all? Not quite, say the religionists, as if waiting to close the deal. And here's where it gets complicated... and gets off the rails of truth and into falsehood. After you accept Jesus as your 'Lord and Savior,' you have to live a Christian life. Oh; what does that mean? It means you have to obey the Ten Commandments, is the usual bottom line, if you press the point at all.

So, the 'gospel' proclaimed by mainstream churches can be capsulized something like this: Jesus took on our penalty for evil by dying in our place, and we can have eternal life if we (1) believe in him and his achievement, AND (2) live the rest of our lives in obedience to the Ten Commandments. That's essentially what they say, is it not? Of course, there are different ways of stating it, some differences in details, but in the main, I think that is a fair representation of what people understand about the Christian religion. BUT, is that really what the Bible teaches? To keep this essay brief, I challenge the reader to check into the scriptures for him/herself. Let me give just a few hints, since delving into that big book can be regrettably intimidating. First, if you're studying the Christian faith, go to the New Testament! If you start reading from Genesis, you'll get bogged down in thousands of years of ancient history. You may also get the wrong impression that Christianity is merely an off-shoot of Judaism, a common misconception. Pay special attention to the books of Romans, 2nd Corinthians 2, Galatians 3, and Hebrews. You can't just read these scriptures like stories. To study scripture means to follow cross-references (including to the Old Testament scriptures), to consider the words chosen to translate original concepts, and to seek guidance from 'the Higher Source' however you currently conceive of It.

The other important tack is that scripture itself tells us that the message will be corrupted and will deceive many. Jesus warned his listeners that 'wolves' would enter the 'flock' and lead many to perdition. He wasn't talking about 'outside attacks,' he clearly had in mind people who claim to be religious but are really satanically inspired. The 'gospel accounts' (written by the so-called evangelists) clearly reveal how the same thing had previously happened to the Jewish religion-- Jesus denounced the leaders of Judaism as liars and deceivers who misled the Jews and misused the temple. Paul and John (two scripture writers) warned in their letters that 'anti-Christs' would infiltrate the ranks of believers and present deception disguised as truth. They even stated that it was happening in their own time-- it was not some far-off, future event. (So this idea of one, so-called 'Anti-Christ' is itself not scriptural.) Finally, the terminal book of scripture, Revelation ('the Apocalypse') seems to portray a widespread false system of religion that deceives the masses and wreaks havoc by influencing governments. (Unlike so many pundits, I don't want to speak boldly from Revelation since that source is so obviously opaque, symbolic, and intended to make sense more in retrospect than prospect.)

Such is the power of consensus that people read the NT and completely miss the essential mission of Jesus-- which was to set humanity free from religion! That's right; he didn't come to set up a worldly and worldwide organization to proselytize and establish the domination of 'his religion'. He saw the abuses that became entrenched in the system given thru Moses to the Israelites. He deplored the virulent legalism that characterized the Pharisees of his day... and that persists to this day in most religions. Jesus told his hearers (paraphrasing) that God loves humanity as a father loves his children; that He is not out to condemn for every little infraction of the Law, but He extends forgiveness freely and expects us to behave in like manner with our fellow humans. Is that the message you get from the pulpits of the churches? Not very often! Instead you get uninspiring, anything-goes mush from those few who are reacting to the stifling legalism, or more often, 'fire and brimstone' tongue-lashings from defenders of 'traditional values' and 'Judeo-Christian' heritage. There are those who understand the existence of the Holy Spirit... but who assume that His role is limited to dispensing 'gifts' to true believers, mostly the gift of babbling in 'tongues.'

[I refer interested readers to essays I've written on the subject of Christianity and the Law, to be available on this website.]

Before closing this article, I should probably anticipate a question that may bother some readers-- namely, how did such a major 'error' get insinuated into the very heart of Christ's message, right from its early days, and persist right up to the present? It appears at face value as impossible, incredible. As you can infer from what I've stated, the correct information survives in the scriptures, thanks be to God (literally!)... it's the interpretation, the inference, that got messed up long ago, and stayed messed up. And the reasons that happened lie somewhere in the human psyche, as it functions under the masterful deceptive manipulation of the spirit of Evil (Satan, to Christian readers). Peering back thru the foggy mists of time, it appears that the 'pure gospel' was fully assimilated by the original 12 apostles, and even the original cadre of converts (the '120' mentioned in Acts, and later, the 'thousands' who first joined their ranks after the stirring speech by Peter). Yet, by the time the last apostle (John) died, alternative interpretations were already attracting followers. Some variations on Christ's message were sincere explorations; many were self-seeking and malicious. The defence of the fledgling 'church' against heresies was a preoccupation of the first several centuries AD; but the biggest one apparently just slipped in so innocuously that it was never recognized! That is the notion that Christians 'inherited' the Ten Commandments from the Jews, and are bound by its strictures. Indeed, many reading this will be baffled as to why I even question this idea. Yet, think about it for a brief moment. To whom were the Commandments given? Answer: to the children of Israel. When were the Commandments given? A: when the Israelites left Egypt and journeyed in the wilderness after 430 years of living under Egyptian law. What did Jesus say at 'the last supper?' A: 'This is the cup of my blood, the new covenant, which is poured out for (the) many.' What did Jesus mean? He meant that he was instituting a 'new covenant' that replaced the 'old (Sinai) covenant' of Moses. He also stated (3 times) that he was giving a 'new law,' namely, that 'you love one another.'

The point is that the Sinai Covenant was defined by the Ten Commandment Law, and was given solely and exclusively to the People of Israel... it was NEVER given to 'gentiles!' Moreover and more importantly, it was categorically REPLACED by Christ in his last act of ministry. In proclaiming a new covenant for 'the many', Jesus was saying this one was for everyone, not just Jews. Bottom line: those who buy in to the gospel of Christ have no obligations whatever to the Ten Commandments! Now, NOTE PLEASE: I am not saying that Christians are free to do whatever they want; they certainly are not. What I'm saying is that the 'Decalog' (Ten C's) are obviated as a measure of righteousness; the believer's righteousness is inherited or assumed from Christ, his personal savior. The Christian is called to emulate Christ, his model, in every aspect, but when he fails (as we all do) 'there is therefore no condemnation' (Rom 8:29) and the sinner can simply learn a worthwhile lesson and carry on in the certitude of God's abiding love. There is no neurotic self-flagellation for every stumble in the walk of life for 'those who walk according to the Spirit.'

[So, you diehard legalists who are enraged to read this, please don't rush to your keyboard to 'set me straight' from my heresy. This essay is not a proof of these assertions; I have biblical proof in other papers that you will have to read first before attacking with your unassailable logic.]

To the sincere skeptic who has stayed with me this far, I say 'bravo,' and I hope you 'see' that the common perception of Christianity is quite off-base with the biblical truth. My bet is that most atheists will see this reality more easily than ostensible Christian readers, because they will not have all the 'baggage' of believers, all the 'traditions of men' to defend. The agnostic may see how the Bible is 'purposefully' convoluted and arguable-- that is precisely how God has preserved the essential message from being expunged or perverted by malicious forces. There is so much redundancy and extraneous material in the scriptures that the dark forces didn't know what to tamper with, and couldn't have done so in a consistent manner thru-out all those verses. It's a brilliant strategy that could only have come from God! Let this new insight motivate all, skeptics and insiders alike, to look further into holy scripture, seeking with simple hearts to know 'the truth' that 'shall set you free.'

The Truth About Israel

The Bible and Israel

Christian spokespersons, especially among American Evangelicals, have been steadily ramping up the rhetoric in support of Israel, over the past decade or more. Their logic for this often outspoken advocacy is usually accepted with little analysis as ‘obviously’ based on the Bible. More than that, their logic for that support is highly curious. This essay takes a closer look at the reasoning of Evangelical enthusiasm for defending Israel against any and all criticism.

The first curious thing to strike the objective onlooker is that their cozy feelings for Israel are hardly reciprocated, to say the least. Instead of attempting to curry favor with their Christian acolytes, the Israeli government has continued its decades long, low-key antipathy towards the Christian world, in whatever guise it appears. For a couple of decades it has been illegal in Israel to ‘proselytize’-- a law that is essentially aimed at Christian missionary attempts to reach Jews. Even in the US, there is little affection for Christians among official Jewish figures. Far from appreciating Christian support, some Israeli lobbyists in the USA cynically view that collaboration as a political tool to be manipulated for the furtherance of Israeli objectives.

And incidentally, the reason behind Jewish antipathy towards the Christian faith is not highly obvious. Sure, there is a lot of suspicion for historical reasons, with sporadic persecution of Jews in Europe going back almost two millennia. One could point to American blacks who are still predominantly Christian, the faith of the original slave-owners. Or there are the aboriginals in the Americas who will still hear of Jesus, despite the genocide perpetrated against their populations by ostensible Christians. Yet the Jews seem to have hardened their hearts against any attempt to investigate the claims of Christianity... to the detriment of both faiths.

The next curious aspect of Christian enamoration with Israel arises from the supposed ‘Biblical’ basis for it. Many pop evangelists, preaching from their video pulpits, spout verses from the Bible-- almost invariably from the Old Testament scriptures-- as proof of the validity of their exhortations on behalf of Israel. But, what really do the scriptures state about the future of the region of the Middle East that we presently call ‘Israel’?

Before we get into the ofttimes obscure ground of Bible study, it is vital to summarize the history involved. The essentials originate with the figure of Abraham, who is correctly widely recognized as the progenitor of the three major religions struggling on today’s world stage, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. But, how many people actually know how this development came about? First, we have to understand that Abraham was not a Jew; he was from a tribe known as Hebrews (who were descendants of Noah’s son, Shem... hence, ‘Semites’). After relocating, at God’s behest, from ancient Chaldea to the land later called Palestine, Abraham had a son, Ishmael, by his concubine, Hagar, then another son, Isaac, by his wife, Sarah. Moslems trace their ancestry back through Arab lines to Ishmael. But, going back to Isaac, he had two sons by his wife Rebekah, Esau and Jacob, who were (very) non-identical twins. After various adventures, Jacob had a nighttime encounter with an angel (or God) and his name was changed to Israel, in acknowledgment of a change in his inner spirit. At that time, Jacob/Israel was married to two sisters, Leah and Rachel. Eventually, Jacob had 12 sons who went on to become the patriarchs of 12 tribes, each of which was named after one of them. One of the sons was named Judah, and his descendants, the children of Judah, were called ‘Jews’ for short. (The German name for them is ‘Juden’, which shows the linguistic link better than English.) Now you can see that the Jews descended from Abraham, but Abraham could not have been and was NEVER a Jew!

You can also see that Jacob, alias Israel, could not have been a Jew, either! However, the full collection of his offspring were known as ‘the Children of Israel,’ (that makes sense!), or the People of Israel, or quite simply abbreviated as ‘Israel.’ Well then, how did the Jews come to call their conquered territory ‘Israel?’ We have to provide some time markers at this point. Jacob had his large family sometime around 1500 BC, and due to a famine in that region, they all moved to Egypt when the 12 sons were of adult age. The offspring all stayed in Egypt for 430 years, becoming a virtual nation of Hebrews living among the Egyptians. Most people of ‘Western’ heritage know the story of Moses leading the ‘Chosen People’ out of Egypt and into the ‘Promised Land.’ (Note that Moses was NOT a Jew, but a Levite, a descendent of Levi.) To condense a story that spans centuries, the 12 tribes, by then large in numbers, settled in 12 districts in the present-day Middle East. Over time, they coalesced into two main groups: the ‘Southern Kingdom,’ called ‘Judah’ because it consisted of the tribes of Judah and the smaller, Benjamin; and the ‘Northern Kingdom,’ called (get this!) Israel, probably because it comprised the remaining ten tribes. When the famous David came along as king, he succeeded in re-uniting the two nations into one (called Israel) for a while. After his death, the two groups again separated.

What happened next is important. As detailed in the Bible, the two Abrahamic, or Israelite kingdoms had numerous episodes of idolatry and spiritual infidelity, and then, in the year 722 BC, the Assyrians under Chedorlaomer, defeated ‘Israel,’ the Northern Kingdom, and dispersed the inhabitants to Assyria, and apparently, later to all points of the compass. While theories abound, the fact is that the ten northern tribes disappeared from history as an identifiable entity. You could correctly state that it was the end of Israel. The southern kingdom of Judah continued right up to the time of Jesus... and slightly beyond. In fact, Jesus, in his ‘Olivet sermon,’ predicted the future destruction of Jerusalem and the great temple that had become an instrument of religious oppression in the hands of a self-serving clergy. Jesus’ words were fulfilled within the lifetime of many of his hearers; the Romans sacked Jerusalem in 70 AD, destroying the temple, and killing many Jews. The survivors dispersed to different lands, but they carried their religious traditions with them-- a religion that is called Judaism. But you can see that it could more accurately have been given a more general name, since the fundaments had been given through Moses in the desert to all 12 tribes. Also-- note this-- Abraham never observed a Jewish religion! The Ten Commandment covenant, the basis of Jewish faith, was handed down to the ‘people of Israel’ through Moses, more than four centuries after Abraham’s death.

After the end of the Second World War, Jews living in Europe organized an army that invaded Palestine, inhabited for centuries by Arabs, and with the complicity of the victorious ‘Allies,’ they occupied a piece of territory they designated as ‘Israel.’ They should more rightly have termed it Judah, but it is claimed that all 12 tribes are represented in the ranks of nominal Jews. In any case, by calling it Israel, they probably hoped to lend it an air of Biblical legitimacy, since they claimed to be re-possessing the land promised to their ancestor, Abraham. Some of us have a hard time understanding how you can come along after a lapse of 2000 years and declare ownership of a land supposedly promised to your ‘great-to-the-nth-power grandfather;’ but apparently, any excuse will do when you have the firepower on your side.

Alright; that pretext is sufficient for Jews, (although there are a few today who are questioning this dogma). But, why do ‘Christians’ accept this line of logic? Does the Bible really say that God ‘promised’ Palestine to the far-off descendants of Abraham? And if God did promise them the land, why do they need to wrest it by force of arms? Starting with Abe himself, and his famous tryst with his maidservant, Hagar, his descendants have been trying to ‘help’ God to keep his promises to them. That does not seem to evidence faith; but who am I to question? It’s time to open the Bible and see what it says concerning Israel.

A rational humanist may well inquire as to why we must consult scriptures that date back to some 12 centuries BCE, but such are the subtleties of religious logic. While today’s Jews insist that the Bible (or their Torah-- the Christians’ Old Testament) gives them eternal title to the land of Palestine, it’s valuable to study those writings for oneself to see what they really state. The book of Leviticus quotes the words of God as, in fact, stating exactly the opposite of the commonly held claims:

"The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants.” Leviticus 25:23 (NIV)

God is telling them bluntly that they don’t own the land-- he does. Okay, that wouldn’t deter the Jewish occupiers of Israel/Palestine; they will just reply that they have re-claimed their lease on the land and occupy it on his behalf according to ancient dictum. For some, that may be good enough, and they’ll just accept the assertion as ‘gospel.’ But-- we want to dig deeper and see if there’s more to the story... don’t we?

As it turns out, that lend-lease from God did NOT come ‘carte blanche;’ there were numerous conditions attached. If you read the next chapter of Leviticus-- or it’s recapitulation in Deuteronomy 28-- you will find that the whole land deal was predicated on strict conditions. God starts these clauses with a big IF... and then enumerates at length, first, the blessing they will enjoy in the land provided that they fulfill the demands handed down through Moses at Mount Sinai. Secondly, he describes the horrors that will fall upon the children of Israel if they should fail to live as God required and spelled out in ‘the Law’ handed down to them via Moses. Among those curses, they would be driven out of the land and scattered abroad, offering themselves as slaves to support themselves. It makes for scary reading... especially now, in retrospect, as we see that the curses were carried out as predicted, first to the northern ‘Israelites,’ and later, to the southern Jews.

So, you can read for yourself, that long ago, the Jews forfeited the land that God had lent them! If the people of Israel had modelled their society along the lines required by God, they would have enjoyed unparalleled prosperity and harmony, as well as protection from enemies. In failing to keep their end of the bargain (ie. the so-called Mosaic, or Sinai Covenant), they lost the rights to the promised land. The ‘promise’ came with conditions-- the Jews, and their Judeo-Christian acolytes, never mention those telling conditions. In light of the true Biblical perspective, then, one has to question why the modern, 20th century Jews tried to justify their invasion of Palestine on scriptural grounds. Evidently, they made the reasonable assumption that most people have never bothered to read the Bible, and therefore could be told anything about its contents.

Yet, there are plenty of so-called Christians who seem to be conversant with the Bible, and still they support the fiction that ‘God gave the land to the Jews.’ Why do they do this? One can either assume that they aren’t aware of the verses quoted here, or that they are being devious. Regrettably, the art of deconstucting Bible verses and reassembling them to justify almost any particular view is ages old. Scripture twisting was used in ages past to persecute Jews; later, to justify slavery. Today, they are used as pious rationale to destroy the Palestinians and enlarge the Jewish conquered territory.

Perhaps the right-wing, pseudo-Christian lobby that agitates for Jewish/Israeli hegemony is motivated by another warped understanding of scripture-- those that pertain to the ‘end times.’ In that aberrant optic, the adherents believe that the temple of Solomon must be rebuilt on the ‘temple mount,’ site of a present-day Mosque, a holy shrine of Islam. Surely if a Christian church had been built on the mount, these ‘Christian’ militants would be quite opposed to the notion of rebuilding the temple. But, in their faulty exegesis of ‘eschatological’ texts (ie. those pertaining to the ‘end of the age’) these opportunists seem to think they can advance God’s cosmic clock to the final bell... and thus hasten the return of Christ to rule-- with their ready assistance-- the whole earth, for a thousand years of peace, they believe.

For any thinking non-Christian, this line of reasoning must appear quite absurd on several points. For example, how can puny humans suppose that they can hasten Christ’s return by taking matters into their clumsy hands? And, do they honestly believe that Jesus is going to place these scheming manipulators into positions of authority? God forbid! But such is the arrogance of those drunk on dreams of religious dictatorship.

Those proud Republicans of the religious right, the moral majority, have been conned into buying this ‘Christian claptrap’ lock, stock and barrel by fast-talking ‘evangelists’ who have made fortunes on the side with a flood of pamphlets, fantastic novels (purporting to be ‘bible-based’) and more recently, videos giving graphic dramatizations of their bizarre theological theories of ‘apocalyptic times.’ Do the purveyors of these sensational scenarios honestly believe it? Maybe some do; the question hardly matters. The supertanker is moving briskly, and it’s not about to be turned around easily. The blind opportunists have been exercising increasing political clout in recent decades, especially since their first poster-boy Ronald Reagan was president and admitted his sympathy with the Evangelical views. Now they are egging the White House on to giving Israel an unlimited blank check to achieve a common goal-- expulsion of the Palestinians from their ancestral land, and approval to level the Mosque and rebuild the temple.

It’s insanity based on absurdity... yet it has a grip on the minds of a sizable number of Judeo-Christians in America today. If Christians bothered to investigate for themselves, instead of letting the snake-oil salesmen tell them what to believe, they would be astounded to read what Jesus, and Paul have to say on the subject of Israel. Many church-goers seem to regard Jesus’ parables as folksy tales with a spiritual message; rarely do they understand that these stories can also reflect important reality. In the parable of the vineyard owner who leases the land to tenants (Matt 21:33-44), he says the owner (God) sent servants (the prophets) to request his due from the tenants (the children of Israel). But what did they do? The renters mistreated the servants and refused to honor their lease terms. The owner then sent his son as his emissary. This time, the wicked tenants threw him outside the vineyard (symbolic of Jerusalem-- Calvary was outside the city), and killed the son (obviously, Jesus). Now, it’s interesting to read what follows (verse 45):

When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus' parables, they knew he was talking about them.

How about that! The Pharisees (Jewish religious leaders) knew he was referring to them. Yet today’s Christians don’t seem to ‘get’ the point of Jesus words. Even though, in the same chapter, he made it crystal clear. In verse 43, Matthew quotes Jesus as saying:

"Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.”

There’s no doubt that the ‘you’ in this verse refers to his audience, the Jews. (As proof, see Jesus’ words when he ‘wept’ over Jerusalem; Matt 23:37). Even prior to this parable, Jesus had enacted a prophecy regarding the Jews and ‘fruit.’ In a single amazing verse (Matthew 21:19) is captured in enacted symbolism the veritable future of Israel:

Seeing a lone fig tree by the road, He came to it and found nothing on it except leaves only; and He said to it, "No longer shall there ever be any fruit from you." And at once the fig tree withered.

The tree represents the people planted by God (Israel) on the road of life. The leaves held out promise from afar; but alas, there was no ‘fruit,’ no manifestation of the presence of God in their lives. Jesus didn’t just ignore the tree in disappointment; he cursed it in disgust!

Yet the evangelical lackeys of modern Israel are anxious to ‘bless’ that impostor! Why? Again because of a complete lack of understanding of the scriptures. Most facile Christians believe that the Bible advises that you must bless the Jews in order to receive a blessing. Is that what it states? Let’s see how a Jewish contemporary of Jesus understood that idea.

Galatians 3:8 The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you."

What Paul realizes here is that all nations were blessed through Abraham (not ‘Jews’) because Jesus’ earthly lineage was traced back to Abraham. It is the gospel of Jesus Christ that blesses ALL nations... NOT attempting to mimic ancient Jewish traditions!

In order to make the whole lesson unavoidably plain, Jesus made another prediction that was astounding in the ears of his audience. While they were admiring the great Temple of Solomon (one of the ‘Wonders’ of the ancient world) Jesus assured his companions that it would soon be leveled to the ground (Matt 24:1-2). It is recorded in the gospels (Matt 27:51, etc.) that the heavy veil or curtain that separated the first compartment (called the Holy Place) in the temple from the second (the ‘Most Holy Place’) was torn in two, from top to bottom, at the moment of Jesus’ expiry on the cross. This supernatural act was a sign from God that the entire temple service, with its priests and rituals and sacrifices (called ‘holocausts’, incidentally) was henceforth obsolete, futile. In case some still did not comprehend, the Roman army came to ‘pacify’ Judea, as they called the region, and in 70 AD, they destroyed the temple, exactly as Jesus had predicted. This act was a graphic demonstration that the entire system represented by the temple was finished, terminated.

Obviously, in view of the unmistakable words and acts of God and Jesus, every thinking Christian has to ask ‘How do these spokesmen get their weird ideas that we must support Israel so they can rebuild the temple... and hasten Jesus’ return?’ It’s all pure fabrication! Actually, it’s worse than that. In striving to do exactly what God has undone, to act opposite to the judgements of Jesus, to ‘bless’ what Jesus has cursed, these pseudo-Christians are furthering the cause of the one who opposes Christ-- the so-called ‘Anti-Christ.’ By rejecting Jesus, the Son of God, the Messiah who offers them peace, the Jews are (still) rejecting the God of Abraham. Jesus said, He who hates me hates my Father as well. (John 15: 23). Therefore, according to Jesus himself, there can be no such ‘abomination’ as ‘Judeo-Christianity!’

Am I saying that Christians should be antagonistic towards Jews and Israel? No! Don’t infer that notion. I’m saying that the political support advocated by some self-appointed Christian figures is quite misguided, non-Biblical, and ultimately anti-Christian. Every person on earth is of equal worth in the sight of God; there are no ‘chosen people’ who enjoy some

kind of special status before God. As Paul wrote to the believers in Galatia (ch. 3:6-7):

Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.

Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham.

It ought to be a fundamental article of Christian understanding that every human can be a ‘spiritual descendent’ of Abraham by the simple exercise of faith... not birth! Paul states this fact in many of his letters; why evangelicals are not teaching this fact is a blatant error and a shame. It’s time for Christians to stop thinking that they are somehow nothing more than an off-shoot of Judaism. That is completely wrong! The Christ-based faith goes back to Abraham himself. (Indeed, it could be traced to Eden, but let’s leave it at Abraham for this purpose.) It’s time to stop looking in the rear-view mirror, and to look toward the one who gave his life for mankind and whose name so many people pretend to worship. As Jesus told his skeptical audience:

“Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.” John 8:56

If Abraham, by faith, looked forward to ‘the day of the Lord,’ why should we be content to look backwards to Moses? The Jews took a detour in the Sinai desert... and never got back on track, even when the Son of God came to enlighten them. Let’s not make the same mistake all over because we’re too listless to read scripture for ourselves, and too eager to listen to fantastic stories about coming wars and miracles in the Middle East.

Personality and Religion

What I refer to here is the effect of personality on one's religious outlook. Is there an effect? Well, we typically don't have a say in our choice of religion when we are born into a particular faith family. So my comments really apply to those who have managed to extricate themselves from the circumstances of their birth and upbringing (be it religious or non-religious) and have later made the decision to join a specific religious persuasion. Hence, they relate mostly to those of us who live in the Western, secular societies that recognize freedom of religion.

So then, what draws a person to 'join' a particular denomination, when there are so many to choose from? You might say it's just chance, dependent on who influenced them. Or for some, it's divine providence, which I think is legitimate to an extent. Yet for many, I think it's their personality. Those who are conservative by nature will be attracted to the traditional churches that avoid change and espouse established values. The more liberal seeker will gravitate towards newer, more exotic faiths that proclaim tolerant views and may not always use the title 'church.'

So what? you may scoff. What does it matter? Maybe not a lot, if you have no interest in such matters. For those of us who do, it indicates how subjective is the religious experience. We may think we joined a church for logical reasons-- but how logical is a religious peruasion? It would also help explain why, in a free society, there are so many flavors of so-called Christianity. And why they(practically) all think that they alone possess 'the true faith.'

And then there's the present reality, where huge numbers of people are born into either of the two main branches of Islam, which by all indications, is a very traditional, conservative faith. There is little apparent tolerance for deviant beliefs within the Islamic cultures-- so one may ask, 'What happens to those with a liberal personality, in such a society?' Good question. Could it be that they are drawn towards the fringe that populate the ranks of the 'jihadists' (the fighters)? I would answer no. In fact, I venture that it's the ultra-conservatives who are most doctrinaire and most amenable to the violent message of the extremists... just as in any religion. By contrast, the tolerant individuals are more likely drawn to education, business, medicine, science, and so on. They are Islamic but adopt a more tolerant interpretation of the faith. From the viewpoint of a western observer, the saddest aspect of an indoctrinated society is that there is no acceptance of dissent. Everyone is expected to conform, and if he or she doesn't, the consequences can be very severe. For it's almost a given that mono-religious societies are highly legalistic-- there's an explicit code of laws and rules, and they are strictly applied. It's this legalism that is the most caustic aspect of all conservative faiths.

In the USA, where one could expect that many believers found their faith by choice, the legalism of the ultra-conservative 'Christians' is a hallmark. They are the ones who would institute the death penalty for a menu of crimes; who would prosecute givers and receivers of abortion; who would like to incarcerate people for all manner of misdemeanors. They never seem to grasp that if you cast the net broadly enough, they themselves stand a likelihood of being caught. These caricatures of Christianity are ideal for the authoritarian personality that wants to impose 'law and order' with as much zeal as any Muslim. The liberal Christian element are not inclined towards worldly power, and are more in line with the 'love thy neighbor' ideal of original Christianity. Naturally, the conservative group condemn the liberal wing as worldly and profligate, and needing severe discipline.

The maddening thing about all this rumination is that the greatest casualty in this phenomenon is (no surprise) truth. I've had first hand experience in this regard. In my own case, I was very conservative in my youth (I know-- I got it all backwards!) and hence, inclined towards legalistic views. That's why it took me over four decades to fumble my way to enlightenment and freedom. I can look back and recall that I had the critical doubts that would have led me to escape... but my personality made me shrink back into familiar views. After finding freedom in the Christ-centered message, I not-unexpectedly tried to liberate my fellow believers. Predictably, those within the church I attended at the time were not interested. In fact, they were threatened and took steps to contain me and my errant views. Well, okay, that wasn't too surprising; so I went back to the friends who had been so important in helping me find freedom-- surely they'd be eager to embrace the next logical step in the process they inaugurated. But, No! Not a chance. They opposed me vigorously, absolutely unable to see the promised land I had entered. How could these scholars read the same texts as me... and come to entirely opposite conclusions?

That question haunted me for some time; until I realized the insidious effect of personality on their views. You see, intelligence has nothing to do with it; even knowledge is inadequate. When persons who are genuine followers of Christ reject new 'light,' it is baffling to the pioneers who forge ahead. Doesn't the Spirit of enlightenment treat all who seek truth equally? But, maybe that's it-- you have to be dedicated to seeking truth... regardless of where it leads. Too often, people are dedicated to a denomination, to a 'school of thought,' etc. They want to conserve their position; new ideas can be risky, they often entail breaks with church friends and family... the costs may be just too high to merit the pursuit of truth. Others become proud of some 'breakthrough' insight they have achieved, and are not willing to let it go, to move on, when new doors open.

In these situations the determining factor is not knowledge, not IQ, but personality. When someone greets a new idea with words like 'I can't buy that,' they are speaking, most often, from their personality. They are right: they can't accept the idea-- it doesn't 'fit' their mental map of reality, doesn't resonate with their emotional profile. At that point, they may never go beyond their self-imposed frontier to 'buy' the idea. Yet, if they are aware of their personal predispositions, it's possible for a person to look further into the idea, to give it a fair hearing, and eventually even come to accept it. In some cases, the unbeliever has no choice-- the truth, like old age, finally makes itself so evident, that the most skeptical person must admit its reality. But in many, perhaps most cases requiring belief, there is always a slight, gray area, that gives the inveterate skeptic the straw of doubt to cling to.

The question that has been pounding in the mind of you, the reader, is something like 'What makes you think your 'new ideas' are superior to the familiar, traditional views?' Fair question. It appears like a circular conundrum; am I not trapped in the same paradigm I describe? Perhaps, to a degree. In my defence, I offer these points. First, I'm aware of the personality pitfall-- therefore, much better able to consider its effect on my outlook. Second, when I find scriptures I can't fully understand, I admit it. I don't try to force an interpretation on some set of verses because that would complete some novel theory. How many lurid prophecies have you heard based on 'solid scripture' taken from that handy wellspring of phantasmagoria, the Book of Revelation? Some pundits recognize and admit that this book is written in symbolism; nevertheless, they expect to decide, themselves, which portions are symbolic, and which can arbitrarily be taken as literal. Or, the other common fallacious technique is to base prophecies on Old Testament 'promises' when, verily, anything in the Mosaic era must be taken as conditional. Third, I am not, repeat not, beholden to any denominational world-view. Consider this: if you take my views to your pastor and ask his evaluation, the first question he will ask is 'Where does this come from?' That is, what organization promotes it? What most pastors (and others) want to do is immediately categorize the idea in some ready-made 'box;' it makes thinking almost unnecessary. Fourth, anything I believe about the Christ-based faith can be backed up by legitimate, rational scriptural study. Sure, they all say that. But check out their 'exegesis,' the methodology used to reach their conclusions. Grabbing a verse here and there, taken out of context and slapped together from an unstated political agenda, is hardly legitimate Bible study. Yet some of the most widely promoted ideas in Christendom have been born this way. And now that they've attained a sufficient mass of adherents, they are simply accepted as stated-- hardly ever examined critically any more.

You see, the 'traditional churches' appeal not just to the conservative personality, but also to the lethargic. After all, the majority must be right... right? If that simplistic logic were true, there would never have been a Protestant Reformation. For those who want to be sure that they are 'saved,' the safest route, with the least strain on the brain, is to hitch your star to a popular wagon. 'There's too many choices out there-- they can't all be right;' so play it safe. Well, hey, maybe you can join several mainstream churches, and hedge your bets! Seekers know it doesn't work that way. Jesus stated plainly: 'broad and smooth is the way that leads to perdition, and many are those who travel it; straight and narrow is the way to eternal life, and few there are who tread it' (paraphrased). Sadly, the modern, Western churches are as populated by the listless as by the merely conservative. The apathy among Christians in striving for truth is as pathetic as it is virulent.

As the insecurity of the 21st century impells many towards religion, it's natural that these seekers will look for an institution that resonates with their inner being. The problem for society is to ensure that these institutions observe mutual respect, and that no personality type dominates. As long as the link between personality and religion remains hidden, we as individuals can be captivated by teachings that stray far from Biblical truth, and led, lemming-like, to dangerous conclusions. As long as that link is merely an interesting phenomenon, society can rest easy. But, it's clear that if a religious faction-- most likely, fundamentalist in nature-- should wrest control of government, we will all have reason to fear. That's why I believe it is important that people of faith, especially Christians, should pause to reflect on how their personality has influenced their choice of religious views. And the next step is to re-evaluate those views and ask if we are honestly seeking God's truths or drifting along in the dogma of our church. The third step for most is to pray for the wisdom and the courage to follow the Holy Spirit... wherever He may lead.