The Kingdom Come

When men like Martin Luther opposed the Roman Catholic Church, for the most part, since he was in Europe he would have had scant options as to where to go Church. There was certainly the option to go to the Eastern/Greek Church if he left Germany. Or perhaps he could have joined with the Waldensians who had been in existence at least since about 9-10th century. Or he could have joined the Lollard movement in his own Germany. But, as we know neither Luther nor most of the Reformers such as Huldrych Zwingli had to make this choice. Each already had a position and therefore an instant ability to create a "new church". How much different it would have been had Luther, Zwingli and some of the other early reformers been mere laymen.

First, we must ask where this idea comes from? Is it just hype created by the movie "2012"? Ironically enough, released in 2009. I've reviewed other movies from a Christian perspective but I wanted to delve into this concept in a way more than just a film review.

Apocalyptic scenarios have been with us since mankind began to tell stories, but is the 2012 account different? Let's first get to the origin of the concept. As you may know, a Mesoamerican culture called the Mayans maintained a calendar, called the Haab which ends on December 20, 2012. But why? This requires more about the creation accounts of the Mayans. According to Mayan theology, the gods created three worlds before this present world. The previous world ended on August 10, 3114 BC, and the present world began on August 11, 3114 BC. This in itself causes issues, since for example, according to popular biblical accounts the present world was created on October 23, 4004 BC,

Okay, okay. Yes, I am a LOST fan. Lost is a television series on ABC. The series started in September 2004 but I didn't become interested in it until 2009. In 2009, I spent a few months watching the previous five seasons in order. The synopsis of the series is that a plane traveling from Sydney Australia to Los Angeles crashes on a tropical island. The scenes immediately after the crash are extremely dramatic. Amazingly, many of the passengers survive. The rest of the series are about the struggles of the survivors.

A church in England preached Ephesians 5:22 and Colossians 3:18 and immediately many women members were so offended that they quit the congregation.  So what does Eph 5:22 and Col 3:18 say that is so offensive?

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. -- Eph 5:22

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. -- Col 3:18

Some of the women congregants said they were "disgusted" by the sermon which was accompanied by leaflets. Further, a woman member asked,

So we heard about the state of the Union, but what is the state of theology today?  It is not a question to be asked by a politician but let each Christian ask him or herself.  Let us base it on the biblical principle of  2 Cor 13:5 and 2 Peter 1:10.  Is our theology a personal hodge-podge hobbled together or is it the faith of the community of saints?  Is our faith a weak, beggarly faith more apt to be part of the Oprah or Dr. Phil show?

In the 21st century, Christianity is under attack not only from secularism, but from enemies within the gates; people who claim to be Christian but uphold everything but historic Christianity.  Whether they are trying to make a "new kind of Christian", such as the Emergent/postmodernists have been attempting, or they fancy themselves as apologists or watchmen out to expose everyone and everything yet never seem to get around to applying 2 Cor 13:5 and 2 Peter 1:10 to themselves.

Before I watched the movie, The Book of Eli (official website), I read a few one-sentence reviews/comments about it but didn't read any full reviews or synopsis.  I wanted to be as unbiased as possible.  However, the previews do make it look like a remake of Mad Max.

I'll try to review without revealing too much to spoil it.

With the massive earth quake of January 2010 striking the nation of Haiti many news sources have had leading stories about the dire struggle of the Haitian people.  There are heart-wrenching stories of the utter poverty of the nation even before the devastation.  One thing that seems to lack in all this coverage is the FACTS of how Haiti became so poor.  Most stories touch on Haiti's tumultuous political situation, having been under decades, perhaps centuries of dictatorial rule.  But the reports never seem to really get at the heart of the issue.

By psychosis I don't mean to imply Christians are crazy per se, after all I am a Christian and I hope I'm not crazy -- however as a humorous aside, how would a crazy person really know they are crazy?  Anyhow, by psychosis I do mean that many people who claim to be Christian do seem...well a bit odd.  I know, I know.  Define odd.  But I think most people know what I mean. 

Many Christians behave in an unstable or socially untenable manner. For example, many Christians while supposed to be well grounded in source-able biblical precepts are instead champions of vagaries.  Did I just prove my own point? 

Every Christmas season, Americans and people in other countries have become accustomed to seeing the bells and pots of the charitable group, The Salvation Army.  But do we Christians ever stop to think about the background and beliefs of the Salvation Army?  I mean, many Christians hunger so much for the manifestation of moral principles that we have been willing to support Mormons for president of the USA (see Mitt Romney). Is the Salvation Army a, "Christian" organization?

The history of the Salvation Army starts in England during the late 1800s. William Booth, a Methodist preacher started the Salvation Army, originally under the name, The Christian Mission.  Perhaps the best way to understand the principles of the Salvation Army is by reading the book by Booth, called "In The Darkest England and the Way Out". (1890)

In the Internet generation, anyone can start a blog and put forth their views on any given topic (well except perhaps in places like China where Facebook and Youtube are often blocked. -- source#1 and source#2).  This ability has had positive and negative effects.  While this allows for the possibility of otherwise stifled views to get out, (which could be positive or negative) it has also allowed for such a deluge of information that it is often difficult to sift through credible and non-credible information.  This is one reason I have a practice of source linking as much as I can when I write.  This way the reader can follow up on the sources of the information.

However, there is also an element of...well...can we call them snobbish elitists who think that just about everything is best left to the "professionals".