Fear makes us withdraw from the greater society and into the safety of tribalism. When the future is uncertain, people get scared and become unwilling to move out of their safety zones.
Today, the political atmosphere worldwide is uncertain and unstable. Nation-state governments are failing and few people trust them anymore. This will result in a neo-tribalism and possibly the rise of power in smaller, local governments like the city-state.
No one can ever depend on human governments, but we can always depend on the stability of the kingdom of Jesus.
“[Thus] the supreme gift of Christianity; it show[s] that the fear of death need not force man into the narrow cycle of any given community [tribalism]. In place of pagan dividedness it created a universal pedigree for man that transcends all partial ends and beginnings, and measures history from the end of time.” ~ERH
“The temptations of our time do not arise from heavenly demonism or earthly provincialism. They come from soul erosion. Our life is haunted by boredom and neurosis; it is disintegrated by a mechanized society, and by a mechanizing science which makes man a mere derivation of antecedent causes. Hence we are tempted to worship crude vitality, sensationalism, life at any price.”
Footnote on above quote: “Even man’s lusts and fears have become respectable today because they testify to his vitality. ‘Vital, dynamic, powerful, stirring, stimulating, exciting, thrilling, terrific,’ are the medals which modern man bestows. They are really insults. To call a speaker stimulating, for instance, is a triumph of Pontius Pilate among us. It seems that the truth no longer matters.”
I’m always amazed at the self-contradicting ideology of feminism: Women are as tough as men, but if a man treats a woman as harshly as he would a man, he is a misogynistic a-hole. Only half of that ideology can be true, and I would say it’s the latter half.
I’ve heard Douglas Wilson say that feminism has only two tenets: 1) All men are jerks; 2) Women are the same as men.
In the photo we see a graph of how often Trump interrupted Clinton in the three presidential debates. The graph was posted on Facebook by Christian author Michael Frost. He commented, “‘Manterrupting’: unnecessary interruption of a woman by a man. It’s a thing. And one of the world’s greatest manterrupters is running for president. Over 90 minutes of yelling over the top of his opponent, seizing the floor, and interrupting. This guy’s all class.”
Now, I am not going to to defend Trump against charges of rudeness; he obviously comes off as an arrogant jerk most of the time. But, does our friend Frost honestly believe that if Trump’s opponent in this election were a man, he wouldn’t interrupt him just as much, if not more, than he did Hillary?
Does Frost believe that Hillary is a delicate flower, who was somehow able to navigate her way through the harsh political waters over the years making it to the presidential debates, and is unable to handle Trump? Does Frost really believe that Hillary didn’t restrain herself in the debates as a strategy to egg Trump on and make him look all the more misogynistic so that she could play the sexist card? Could Hillary not have been just as aggressive as Trump if she felt it was advantageous to do so?
This is a perfect example of the contradiction in feminism. If feminists want women to be treated like men, but then get offended when they are, their ideology can not stand.
“It would never occur to people with academic degrees and professorships that they are both ignorant and incompetent in vast areas of human life, much less that they should keep that in mind before they vent their emotions and wax self-righteous.
“Degrees show that you have knowledge in some special area. Too often they embolden people to pontificate on a wide range of other subjects where they don’t know what they are talking about. The fact that academics are overwhelmingly of the political left is perfectly consistent with their assumption that third parties — especially third parties like themselves — should be controlling the decisions of other people who have first-hand knowledge and experience.”
I’m a big proponent of the Priest, King, Prophet cycle taught by James B. Jordan. To put it simply, the ‘Priest’ stage can be viewed as a childhood stage; the ‘King’ stage is the adult stage; and the ‘Prophet’ stage is the elder stage.
We can see these stages throughout Jewish history (before Jesus) and throughout Church history. The cycle repeats itself over and over and will again. This theory is nothing to burn at the stake over, but it is interesting to see and use to plan for the future of missions and the Great Commission.
In Jewish history we can see the priestly stage from Moses to David; the kingly stage from David to Elijah; the prophetic stage from Elijah to John the Baptist.
The Western Church has been in the prophetic stage since the Reformation. The Western priestly stage can be seen as the first few hundred years or so of the Church, when the Church was learning how to be the Church. The kingly stage can be seen as Western Christendom, when the Church actually ruled.
The Asian Church, today, is in the priestly stage. The elders of the Western Church need to come and teach the young Christians and churches in the eastern world.
In the future we can expect to see the Asian Church grow to its kingly stage, and then its prophetic stage. Perhaps in the future, the Asian elders will lead the Church to the completion of the Great Commission worldwide. Or perhaps, we’ll see the cycle repeat with a different group of people.
Christendom is not a bad thing if the kings rule righteously. If the kings become corrupt, God will send prophets to shut them down. If the kings rule well, the prophets will come and give more power to them. We have not seen that happen yet in our history, before Jesus or after.
I believe the Great Commission will be completed (the discipling of all nations) and it will happen through the Priest, King, Prophet cycle.
Pursuit of Percipience 