Mission: Save the World

I didn’t watch the Inauguration Ceremonies on TV yesterday. All I did was see a bit of the poof-poof on Fox & Friends early in the morning, and then again this very morning, the morning after.

The article I have below is from backwaterreport.com. Posted yesterday. And it firstly has the right quote. The sort of thing that Fox & Friends was talking about, showed a small clip of P. Bush saying something like that … and I was ready to turn OFF the TV. They were talking about it as if it’s GREAT, bowing to Bush and basking in his glow.

To be so 80’s … gag me with a spoon … 😉

“It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.”

Oh, really? What policy? Is is able to stand up and be reviewed favorably under the United States Constitution? Nah, bet it’s not. In fact, I KNOW it can’t. Can’t means CAN NOT. Which means “is not able to …” As in, “A dead man is not able to seek God”

I hate the way the country is today. The so-called “Civil War” of the mid-19th Century forged the “union” with force. It hurt the people of both the North and South. Changed things overall for the worse.

Now it’s our “Modern Duty” to force the rest of the world into this same type of thing? Force the countries that the Administration deems “necessary… they need to change” …

It’s not that it’s not good to change the world, but that the world mustn’t change through Military Force. How is this any different from Brits in the past? Rome? And all the other Military Mights of History?

Ah, you say it’s different. Only different in angle. Not scope or end. It’s horrible. Death. Who’s?

Yes, some bad men. Some bad women. That’s good, right? Wrong. Who says WE are the ones to do it? What give US the RIGHT? Not our Constitution. We did not form a Country to go around the globe “liberating” everyone else. Let them liberate themselves if they want to. WE did, didn’t we? In the 18th Century? Then in the next century that Constitution that bound States together was killed and smashed to pieces. Then bits and pieces melted together to form totally new ideas and … the rest is history. They pretend to follow “the original constitution” but really don’t. It’s only a fake front.

That’s why it’s US and THEM. We see the truth, THEY are blind.

Sigh.

God is on High, and His gospel will bring peace. NOTHING else can. NOTHING else will. NOTHING else can even mimic God’s real peace.

I am a postmillennian reformed presbyterian westminster confession, christian agrigarian … INTP 🙂

My vision is true. It’s God’s. I didn’t make it up. I got it from His Word.

backwaterreport.com/index.php?p=288
Saving the World
by Mark Jurries II

President Bush said today that “It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.” I won’t waste much time dissecting the various legal problems with this statement and its mindest, (i.e. the lack of a Constitutional mandate to save the world), inasmuch as I suspect that the majority as ya’ll can spot the problems right off the bat. I do wish to address the theological and culture impacts, however.

Firstly, this should not be confused with postmillenialism. I say this because there are those who confuse the current secular Messianicism/Jacobism with postmillenialism. In a nutshell, postmillenialism holds that Christ will expand His kingdom on earth via means we’re not aware of. Hence, as Christians we’re to spread the gospel and raise Godly families, amongst other things.

The mindest of Bush and the neoconservatives, one that was previously held by Northern Unitarians and French Jacobins, is to free mankind through force. The mindset here holds that if man has “freedom”, he’ll be better off. While it’s true that freedom is great for man, it is rarely defined. (Bret McAtee has written a great article about the subject. Read also his Inauguration musings.) To be fair, this isn’t limited to the neoconservatives and liberals, there are a lot of conservatives and libertarians who talk about freedom and liberty without offering much a definition. And were they in power, they’d have problems as a result of that as well.

I attended a lecture by Steve Wilkins once, and he made the point that it used to be that when we wanted to change a country, we would send missionaries. Now we send the Marines. It’s a good thing to wish to be rid of tyrants, but at the same time they have a pesky tendency to replace each other. We threw down a tyrant in Iran, only to get the Shah.

The Middle East will see no peace until it embraces the Gospel. (I include Israel in that, there seem to be some evangelicals who have forgotten that Israel is as pagan as its neighbors.) The military is made to break things, not to fix them and certainly not to build them. The new-world-order types may mean well, but they’ll only become tyrants themselves if they follow this course.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. – C.S. Lewis

To get back to my original point, postmillenialists would not advocate conversion at gunpoint. The new Jacobins certainly do. Whether or not you’re a postmillenialist isn’t my concern, (though I would hope that you are), but I don’t wish to see the term nor the perception of its ideas sullied by a secular ideology.