printable version

We Are Not The World
By J.R. Ensey

How many times have we heard the word “change” used in the last two years? It was well-worn by the time election day rolled around. Does a commitment to radical change pave the way to political office? Evidently there was much more meaning behind its use than the fact of a new administration in Washington, a new president, or new faces in Congress.

Somewhere along the way, simple change morphed into radicalism. Collectively, we voted for it; collectively, we are getting it. But it is rapidly becoming clear that those who were using it are now abusing it. Some assume that appropriating its overuse in the effort to get elected gave them a mandate to warp virtually every principle of American government to suit their own personal agenda. Capitalism is giving way to collectivism. Individualism is surrendering to globalism. Democracy is sliding into socialism. “One nation under God” is fading from our language to be replaced by “we are the world.” Will administrative pogroms soon override constitutional mandates? As Judge Robert Bork so ably put it, we are “slouching toward Gomorrah.”

Virtually all of president-elect Barack Obama’s political colleagues and close associates are either under indictment, in jail, under suspicion, or they are busy haranguing America, a.k.a. Jeremiah Wright. Even the Illinois governor, Obama’s close friend, has just been arrested for trying to sell the appointment to the Senate seat Obama is vacating to the highest bidder. Doubtless he will be cleared of “wrongdoing.” A few weeks ago, both Obama and his senior advisor, David Axelrod, stated that the president-elect and the governor had discussed the matter of who should fill the seat. Now that the governor has been arrested, Obama says that he has not discussed it at all with him. Axelrod now says that he was mistaken, and that no discussion was ever had. Are you convinced? If it is not considered morally wrong for such a discussion to take place, then why compound the problem with the appearance of a lie?

Our president-elect has publicly, in Germany, declared himself to be “a citizen of the world.” How many times did he use “global” in that speech? How many news outlets have hailed him as the newly elected “president of the world.” He and his appointees promise to make us just another part of the world, diminishing our heritage, denigrating our national fathers and heroes, and denouncing the values that made this nation distinct from all others. Does he not intend to fulfill his dream of making America just another nation among nations, to be at least partially governed by the United Nations, subjugated by global treaties to pagan and totalitarian regimes, and controlled by foreign economies? He extols France’s diversity and China’s infrastructure and wants us to become like them when France is on the verge of collapse in the face of a rapidly rising Muslim population. And China is…, well, China. Has he been to China? Has he seen the China that I saw when I was there?

One world. One president. Sameness. Uniformity. Global egalitarianism. The one-worlders would change the words to America the Beautiful to Amerika the Ugly.

Better than others? No, different. Different in our government, our freedoms, our values. Differences that were hard-won. Differences for which we paid dearly. Differences we are now asked to discard in order to flow into the global village model he espouses—where perhaps everyone can have round, thatched roof huts like those in Kenya, Obama’s father’s homeland.

America is not the world. Like the church, we are in the world but not of the world. We are citizens of one nation, not the world. There is no “World Passport.” We co-exist with others in the world, but why must we accept the demotion of this country to the level of the weakest and most vulnerable nation on the planet? The attack by atheists and social “progressives” on virtually every element of Christianity has the effect of reducing its citizenry to nothing more than animals in the jungle where all share the same turf, the same trees, and the same survival code of eat or be eaten?

America was formed by a higher ethic, for a nobler purpose, by a people who longed for freedom, who sought for liberty, who were escaping from the despotism of a rigid, tyrannical authoritarianism. They wanted to be different. They yearned to be free. They sacrificed to establish a republic where they could worship God as their conscience dictated. They determined to be someone else, something other, than they had been in Europe.

So the “huddled masses” came. And they framed a constitution to reflect their values, structured to guard against excesses and abuses and protect the human rights they felt were “inalienable” and God-given. The United States Constitution was written to express their values, their hopes and dreams. The Bill of Rights was drawn up to protect their individuality in the republic they had formed. Government—not ours or any other nation’s—was not to encroach on those rights. The least government was perceived as the best government.

Now, after two hundred and thirty-two years, we seem to be choosing to go backwards, to be retreating into a government over all—“Washington uber alles.” We seem bent toward a willingness to follow the jackboots of power-hungry politicians wherever they lead. Government must increase; privatization must decrease. Industry must be nationalized. Our largest corporations must cede their assets to the government in order to survive. Businesses must conform to cultural mandates in order to be licensed to operate. Guns must be registered and ownership controlled and be subject to search and seizure. Gestapo-like forces are to be established in our homeland to “protect us from ourselves.” Every new appointee of the president-elect is passionate about gun control. They want your guns. Can another kristallnacht be far behind? The thieves of history have stolen our only defense against such internal aggression: knowledge of the past. Their only hope of success lies in our ignorance.

Twenty-five years ago Dave Hunt wrote in Peace, Prosperity and the Coming Holocaust these chilling words: “A ruthless, vicious, totalitarian government, saying all of the right things about peace, love and brotherhood will soon take control of planet Earth. Nothing can stop it. The United States, after its sudden and mysterious collapse, will be powerless, a mere pawn in the process.” Most of us could not see then how that could become a reality, certainly not a “sudden collapse.” How crystal clear the possibility, if not the probability, all of it is today. Six months ago nothing of the sort that we have seen come to pass in recent weeks could have been envisioned.

Norman Thomas (1884-1968) was a leading American socialist, pacifist, and six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America. One of his famous quotes was, “The American people will never knowingly accept socialism, but under the name of Liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation without knowing how it happened.” He further stated, “The difference between Democrats and Republicans is: Democrats have accepted some ideas of Socialism cheerfully, while Republicans have accepted them reluctantly.” Wasn’t it Margaret Thatcher who said, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”

I am not a conspiracy theorist, but one wonders if the current economic collapse was orchestrated behind the scenes to ensure the election of Obama and make his socialistic schemes more palatable to Main Street. We all know desperate times demand desperate measures. Create desperate times and the desperate measures seem the only option. “Change we can believe in” was a campaign slogan. The change we are getting none but the far left of our society see much to “believe in.” As our economy falls, the economies of smaller nations are also downgraded, making them easy prey for rogue nations like Russia and China. Ahead, we will see more change than we bargained for as privileges are being stripped from Christians but given to the Muslims and spiritualists from the East.

Mindlessly, our media-led culture plunges ahead behind the grinning pipers that fill our congressional seats. The majority remains plugged into the talking heads on TV, imitating the movie celebrities, rapping with the rock stars, and throwing money at the greedy producers of technological toys that we don’t really need. Where will these pipers lead us? Only those familiar with history know. Only those who understand the term “final solution” recognize the signs. Only those who have seen the crowded rail cars heading for Dauchau and Auschwitz and dare to ask, “Who are those people?” will know. As John Donne wrote, “Ask not for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”

What does all this have to do with Apostolics?

Christianity can survive in such a climate. Brave believers survive today under the heels of totalitarian governments around the world. But can missionary endeavors continue? American churches have financed most of the hospitals, social services and evangelistic efforts in many third world countries. Can those entities survive if their funding sources are cut off? Will religious donations continue to be tax deductible? Can our assemblies continue to operate when they become taxed? Will churches be forced to conform to new governmental standards and decrees? Who knows what the future will truly be like? Should we even be concerned about the church in the future? I don’t want to spike your blood pressure, but there are too many parallels between the church and America to miss seeing the similarities in what is happening in both.

The word “change” was bandied about among Apostolic Christians until a majority was ready to accept it, regardless of its shape and form—Charismatic, Emerging Church, Religious Entertainment, Body Worship, Social Gospel, TV Evangelism. It just seemed inevitable. “Bring it on,” they said. “Let’s give the church a makeover. Whatever was in the past must have stunk. Let’s re-create Apostolic Christianity and make it into something that can better reflect the culture.” Change was called for; change came. Change that, in retrospect, only the far left can appreciate. Change that would reflect the culture, not challenge it.

Sadly, few seem to have to the guts to say, “Hey! Hold on! Where are we going? Change is fine if it means progress, but if it generates regress, we don’t need it.” Too often those voices are marginalized as being negative. Nothing is negative that gives birth to that which is positive, and nothing is positive that produces the negative. Deceit is not positive. Hype is not positive. Truth is not negative. Righteousness is not negative.

America is not the world. Nor is the church the world. Again, we are in the world but not of the world. The differences are sacred, bought with a price. Somewhere in an old black-backed Book I read, “And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God” (Romans 12:2).

This world is not our home; we’re just passing through. We are on our way to heaven but the world is on its way to oblivion. Let’s get out of it before the “meltdown” reaches “the elements” (II Peter 3:10-12).

back to top