The Word of the Hour

Listen (RealAudio)

And that word—or buzzword—ladies and gentlemen, is "change."

With the Presidential nomination campaign in full swing prior to "Super-Duper Tuesday," February 5, the candidates are making "change" their mantra. This is only to be expected in an election year following a two-term President like George W. Bush, and especially after a tenure that inspired so much unbridled vitriol and sheer hatred. It began with the 2000 election chad fiasco in Florida—in which Democrats claim Bush supporters all the way up to the Supreme Court "stole" the Presidency for him—and it never let up. Well, it did, but only for those few weeks of revenge and resolve after September 11, 2001.

It is a good thing that our Constitution now limits a President to two terms. Any more time in office would grant the President too much time to garner excessive power to himself. The office is already quite powerful, and Presidents have managed to make it even more authoritative through the Constitutionally vague use of executive orders, an unbalanced and unchecked mechanism designed to get things done quickly and without oversight. There are dark rumors of secret executive orders that would go into immediate effect during a real crisis, making the President a virtual dictator. However, this is nothing new: The revered Abraham Lincoln accrued similar powers to himself during the Civil War.

In times like today, candidates of the opposition party—the Democrats—yammer repetitively for change as if their voices were on the proverbial broken record:

• The slogan of Barack Obama's website reads, "Change We Can Believe In." He is quoted prominently (at the top center of the page) saying, "I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington . . . I'm asking you to believe in yours."
• John Edwards' site asks one to "Join the Campaign to Change America." His 80-page policy paper, "Plan to Build One America," carries the subtitle, "Solutions for Real Change."
• Hillary Clinton has a harder time stressing change, since her husband's administration was one of those two-term, establishment Presidencies. However, after her defeat in the Iowa Caucus, where Obama's message of change hit home, her first New Hampshire advertisement was titled, "Ready for Change." In it the narrator declaims, "We will change things in this country, because we want it. Because we have one candidate who spent her life fighting for it. Standing up for our families, our children, our veterans."

Republicans have latched on to the hour's buzzword too, doing their level best to distance themselves from Bush's unpopularity:

• Mitt Romney insists he is the candidate who will bring "change to Washington." In one 15-minute news conference on January 4, he used the word "change" 21 times.
• Mike Huckabee's supporters argue that "he is the one for honest change" and that "this is the year of change and Mike Huckabee is the best representative."
• John McCain says that he, too, is an "agent for change," claiming that he has been the force behind the greatest changes in our Iraq strategy, campaign finance laws, and government spending.
• On Fred Thompson's website, a supporter declares, "What I want and what this party and this country needs is a conservative leading the country for a change." Thompson himself, however, vows that he will not be jumping on the "change bandwagon," saying leadership and telling the truth are more important messages.
• Ron Paul's message of change is perhaps the most radical: returning America to its Constitutional roots and the Gold Standard. In fact, his website encourages its visitors to "Join the Revolution."

Concerning change, one verse jumps out as a stern warning: "My son, fear the LORD and the king; do not associate with those given to change; for their calamity will rise suddenly, and who knows the ruin those two [the LORD and the king] can bring?" (Proverbs 24:21). Obviously, this is a caution against revolution, attempting to overthrow the government. Most rebellions are hugely unsuccessful, stamped out by the government with merciless violence. This is shown to great effect in Les Miserables. The hotheaded university students' revolution against the French state suffers brutal annihilation, their hasty barricades overrun, and all their hopes for just and glorious change dashed.

This warning takes on greater significance due to the mention of God's involvement. If we believe Romans 13:1-7 is true, we also believe that God is engaged in the governance of nations, working out His purpose through "the lowest of men" (Daniel 4:17; see verses 25, 32; 5:21). Moreover, in the modern nations of Israel, He is even more intimately involved. As Winston Churchill declared, ". . . he must indeed have a blind soul who cannot see that some great purpose and design is being worked out here below." From this vantage point, we can conclude that agitating for change could be fighting against God. He may very well have orchestrated the nation's intolerable conditions to instigate the next phase of His plan.

Among humans, change is inevitable because people are different. No two people can agree completely about anything, it seems, so their solutions to problems will often be diverse. And not all change is bad; things can be changed for the better. Certainly, when people sincerely repent and turn to God, what great changes occur (II Corinthians 7:11)! Yet, change for the sake of change is dangerous, for who can foresee the effects that change will bring?

The surest course we can take is to throw in our lot with God and cling to Him and His way with all our might. He says in Malachi 3:6, "For I am the LORD, I do not change." Why should He change when His way, His government, is perfect?

'Dangerous' Speakers of Truth

Listen (RealAudio)

Just this Tuesday, speaking at Regensburg University in Germany, Pope Benedict XVI quoted fourteenth-century Byzantine Emperor Manuel Paleologos II, a Christian: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." Of course, as we have unfortunately begun to expect when someone speaks the truth about Islam, his remarks have been met with the usual firestorm of protest from the Muslim world. From the growing Muslim enclaves of Europe to the more traditional Middle and Far Eastern Islamic nations, the Pope is being burned in effigy and lambasted as a bigot and a racist intent on promoting a modern Christian crusade against Muslims.

The Byzantine Emperor's observation predates by about five centuries a lengthier and more detailed one from a young Winston Churchill, which he included in his book, The River War, published in 1899:

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities—but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.

Intrepid radio talk-show hosts, columnists, and a handful of politicians have made similar remarks to their respective audiences since September 11, 2001, only to be castigated for intolerance, mendacity, and bigotry. In fact, here in America, one Muslim group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (maybe better known by its acronym, CAIR), headquartered in Washington, spends nearly all of its time and energy protesting truthful statements about Islam in the media. They have been successful in causing radio stations to fire talk-show hosts and squeezing newspapers and magazines to offer apologies to the "Muslim community." Perhaps they have been most successful in intimidating politicians to tone down their rhetoric and to treat American Muslims with kid gloves.

So great is the fear of offending adherents of Islam that it is the official policy of the Bush Administration that "Islam is a religion of peace." To assuage Muslim voters, the President repeats this ironic statement every time there is an "incident" involving Islamic violence and terror. Watchwords of our time are "Islamic terrorism" and "Muslim extremists," and nearly every point of conflict on the planet involves Muslim aggression, yet the American government—and frankly, most other Western governments—continues to insist, "Islam is a religion of peace."

Any objective history of Islam will show that "the religion of peace" expanded primarily at the point of the sword. The concept of jihad, whether or not the Koran's original intent included aggressive warfare, came to mean "holy war" early in Islamic history, and millions of Muslims have sworn to advance jihad, no matter the cost, until the entire earth lays under the banner of Islam. The so-called "moderate Muslim," if such a person exists, is either 1) a secularist in reality, or 2) a moderate because he has calculated that it is presently in his best interest (for example, the governments of "moderate" Arabian Peninsula states like Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar fall into one or the other of these categories).

More broadly, the Pope's statement and the Muslim world's reaction to it highlight a confounding reality of this world: Those who speak the truth are considered dangerous and must be silenced. Usually, the silencing of those who dare to say what is right takes the form of ridiculing or discrediting them, branding them as intolerant, or stridently calling for them to apologize or resign. If this fails, Islamists are not above intimidation, threats, violence, and murder. In the Netherlands, Theo van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn both paid the ultimate price for daring to speak the truth about Islam and Islamic fundamentalism.

But this goes beyond Islam. It can reach into every facet of life on earth, but it is especially virulent when the subject is religion, lifestyle, or morality. Anyone who speaks authoritative truth wears a target in these days of tolerance and liberal humanism. Should a preacher, backed by the authority of God's Word, condemn homosexuality, he could in some places not only expect persecution, but also find himself jailed or heavily fined for his "hate speech." Were a missionary to enter America's urban neighborhoods and preach abstinence, non-violence, and respect for law and authority, he would likely be laughed down, roughed up, and perhaps even killed for his "insolence." Even college campuses, supposedly bastions of free speech, are no longer safe for preachers, pundits, and politicians who stray beyond a narrow, politically correct viewpoint.

The prophet Amos foretells of such a time: "They hate the one who rebukes in the gate [where city elders made judgments in ancient Israel], and they abhor the one who speaks uprightly" (Amos 5:13). Isaiah, too, speaks of those "who make a man an offender by a word, and lay a snare for him who reproves in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of naught" (Isaiah 29:21). Jesus concurs: "[Yes], the time is coming that whoever kills you will think that he offers God service" (John 16:2).

It seems that the whole world—the nations of modern Israel in particular—has come to such a point. The time of the end is fast approaching as we see these activities of evil men increasing. From here on out, it will become increasingly dangerous to speak the truth to a "hear no evil" world.

So There Has Been Another Terror Strike

A week and a day have hustled down the track since the 7/7 bombings in London. While the four bombs did not destroy nearly what the 9/11 airplanes did nor kill nearly as many people, they still did significant damage to bodies, bricks, and psyches in Great Britain. With more than 50 dead and several hundred wounded, they aroused the attention of Londoners fixated on the Live 8 concerts, the G8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, and London's recent victory over Paris in the 2012 Summer Olympic Games decision.

I happened to be in France on a church visit when the bombings occurred, giving me the opportunity to "take the temperature" of the average European on the street. Though the common reaction was not, "Oh, yeah? Another terrorist bombing? I'll have a cappuccino and a croissant, thanks," it was nonetheless unremarkable. I got the distinct impression—not from our members but from those with whom I interacted in airports and train stations in France and The Netherlands—that this was just another bombing.

I had to pass through a major Paris Metro station, Gare du Nord, Charles de Gaulle airport, and Amsterdam's Schipol airport the day after the bombings, and though the security was a little tighter than normal—instead of seeing a couple of machine-gun-toting soldiers patrolling the corridors, I saw several—passengers were calmly making their connections. I had the chance to speak with a couple of Britons on a train, and they were essentially unfazed by the attacks. Essentially, their reaction was, "This is the world we live in."

The news reports that I saw—on BBC World, primarily—seemed to support their calm acceptance of terrorism as the status quo. From Tony Blair to the common London commuter, the British stiff upper lip was the typical comment, spoken in a well-modulated, calm voice: "We will not let this bother us. We will persevere. We will not give the terrorists the victory. Life goes on." There may be little or nothing wrong with a reaction like this, but it is curious in its near-apathy. Perhaps it comes across as strange and weak to us in comparison to the average American's reaction after 9/11, which contained a great deal more outrage: "Let's roll! These people are going to pay for what they've done!"

Our understanding of their nearly non-reaction has to factor in Europe's long history of terrorism. The United States has had a long-distance relationship with terror; though the federal government, particularly the military, has dealt with terrorists for decades, only in 1993 in the first World Trade Center bombing did the militant, fundamentalist Muslims begin to strike on American soil. Europe, however, has been dealing with terrorism—and not just Islamic but homegrown terrorism—for decades. Britain's long struggle with the Irish Republican Army goes back several generations, while other European nations have contended with their own revolutionary factions at least since the beginning of the Cold War. Violent riots, shootings, car bombs, mail bombs, kidnappings, and other forms of terrorism occur with such regularity that the general populace has become somewhat inured to them, even those on the scale of last Thursday's atrocities.

This may help to explain why so many Europeans criticize America's War on Terror as an overreaction: They are far past the "fight or flight" reaction and deep into acceptance of the situation as "normal" or at least "commonplace." Since none of the measures taken over the past decades has stemmed the terror tide, they feel that the reasonable, mature response is to shrug and move on. Do not give the terrorists cause to gloat. America's volatile reaction, then, is thought to be childish and counterproductive. It will only incite more terrorism, they say.

We need to take this contrast into consideration from a Christian standpoint. How do we react to the spiritual equivalents of acts of terrorism—trials, temptations, persecutions, etc.? Do we, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, get up, brush ourselves off, and go about our business as if nothing happened? Or are we so offended and outraged that we stand up with our fists balled and a resolute gleam in our eyes? Do we mumble, "Not again," or do we shout, "That's it! I've had enough!"?

Truly, "the weapons of our warfare are not carnal" (II Corinthians 10:4), so our fight is not the kind the American government wages against Islamic terrorists. But the martial spirit is no less necessary in our fight against sin and the allurements of Satan and his world. The Bible is full of military allusions: from putting on the armor of God (Ephesians 6:13) to "endur[ing] hardship as a good soldier of Jesus Christ" (II Timothy 2:3). The Christian cannot be passive or indifferent to the very real struggle "against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places" (Ephesians 6:12).

Peter calls for steadfast resistance (I Peter 5:8-9), and Paul commands us pull down strongholds and cast down everything "that exalts itself against the knowledge of God," capturing and punishing any sort of disobedience left in us (II Corinthians 10:4-6). Jesus Christ Himself is portrayed as a great Captain of spiritual armies, out of whose mouth goes a sword used to strike and rule (Revelation 19:15; see Hebrews 4:12).

Christianity is a religion of action, not passivity. God's children need to be alert and prepared to react decisively to the enemy's attacks, wherever and whenever they may occur. "Be sober, be vigilant," says Peter in I Peter 5:8, and Paul writes, "The night is far spent, the day is at hand. Therefore let us cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light" (Romans 13:12).

Sounds like "fighting words" to me.

Going Nuclear

The big news late this week was that—surprise!—North Korea has nuclear weapons. The planet's growing nuclear family (composed until recently only of the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, and France) now includes India and two somewhat unstable regimes, Pakistan and North Korea, and many would include Israel in this latter group, as it is assumed that the beleaguered Middle Eastern state has and would not hesitate to use atomic weapons if pressed. Nevertheless, among these three nations, Kim Jong-Il is by far the most extreme—some would go so far as to say he is certifiably insane. If nothing else, he is a brutal, egomaniacal tyrant in the tradition of China's Mao Zedong and Cambodia's Pol Pot.

All the nations in the nuclear club are nominal democracies except for China, Pakistan, and North Korea. China, however, as a major power in Asia, has shown restraint in its use of force and, despite its sometimes fiery rhetoric, is generally considered to respect international norms and protocols. Pakistan is ruled by General Pervez Musharaff, who attained his position via a coup and a rigged election, and who is embattled by Islamic fundamentalists of the Taliban variety, the kind that made neighboring Afghanistan the prime U.S. target after 9-11. His subsequent cozying up to the Great Satan, America, has made him quite unpopular inside his own country, and several attempts to assassinate him have already been made. Despite these strikes against him, Musharaff has said and done the right things enough times over the past three and a half years to earn a guarded trust on the nuclear issue, even from Pakistan's perennial enemy, India.

North Korea, though, is the proverbial horse of a different color. It is the world's most isolationist regime, seemingly on speaking terms with no one but Communist China, which fronts for it internationally. It has made some concessions to its cousin to the south, but reunification plans with South Korea have all but fizzled over its intransigence. Little news leaks out of North Korea, but enough emerges to know that it never has enough food to feed its population and that the government has brutally interned thousands of dissenters in concentration camps. North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il is paranoid and delusional, imagining attacks and invasions from every quarter, and he orders provocative countermeasures frequently. It is a regular occurrence to read of North Korean forays into other nation's territorial waters or, as yesterday, its bellicose, accusative language against America, Japan, or some other perceived enemy.

Conventional wisdom, intoned sagely and repeatedly by talking heads in the media, claims that dictators are more likely to choose the "nuclear option" than democratically elected officials. But is North Korea likely to use nuclear weapons?

Probably not. For starters, with the world against it, it would be annihilated in response. If North Korea used a nuclear weapon on the U.S., Japan, or South Korea, America's military reaction would be, if not in kind, another but deadlier shock-and-awe campaign. Pyongyang would be a hole in the earth. It is also likely that North Korea has only one or two nuclear devices—a handful at the most. It would not want to deplete its arsenal all at once for fear of not having suitable defensive or second-strike capability. Third, even though it claims to be able to strike America, there is no solid evidence that North Korea has a missile capable of reaching the West Coast—not to mention hitting its target. Finally, nukes are more valuable to the regime as bargaining chips at the international negotiating table than they are as offensive weapons. Ultimately, its aim is to extort aid and security concessions from the United States, and its nuclear arsenal certainly makes America pay attention. Kim Jong-Il may be crazy, but he is not stupid.

What does history teach us? The only member of the vaunted nuclear club to use its atomic weaponry aggressively was and still is a stable democratic state: the United States of America. It dropped two nuclear devices over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, in August 1945 to end World War II. The rationale was that, by vaporizing, burning, and/or irradiating a few hundred thousand Japanese civilians in a couple of strategic cities, many more lives—American lives, predominantly—would be saved. The tactic "worked," forcing the capitulation of Imperial Japan, but the end in no way justified the means.

This is not to say that history will repeat itself, but it certainly destroys the idea that a stable, democratic, nuclear state is "safe." Democratic states merely choose their leaders by popular or electoral vote—how those leaders govern, the decisions they make, after they are elected is, for the most part, out of their citizens' hands. And bad, fateful choices are the record of humanity, no matter what nation.

Former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill said rightly to the House of Commons in 1947, "Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." Human governments all have one fatal flaw, human beings, and God warns us:

"There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God. They have all gone out of the way; they have together become unprofitable; there is none who does good, no, not one." . . . "Destruction and misery are in their ways; and the way of peace they have not known." (Romans 3:10-12, 16-17)

Do not be distracted by the antics of "rogue states," as they are somewhat predictable. The trick is not to miss the elephant in the living room.