Click here to go HOME and 

click here Thursday Reviews to go back to the essay listings of Thursday Reviews, one of the four main sections of uptospeedgoforit.com 

---------------

[Please note:  Ctrl + home will usually take you to the top of any computer page 

Thursday Review

Subject: A Review of former Senator John Danforth’s Faith and Politics

(Thur., December 7, 2006)

(approx. 5777 words, 10 pp.)

Mr. Danforth’s confusions in his recent book Faith and Politics seem extremely complicated on initially reading his book, but, in truth, Mr. Danforth’s problems are really pretty simple, they really are, when you boil it all down. But it does take some intellectual effort to do this. Shall we get started? (Thinking caps, please!)

PART I: The Confusions

What in the world is going on with former Senator John Danforth’s recent Faith and Politics book? I have done this many years, with the man or woman on the street, with the world’s best, and not so best, and with just outright amateurs. Everyone likes to do philosophy, and everyone tends to think he or she is an expert, that is just the nature of the game, and that is what makes it so much "fun." On the other hand, sometimes people think they are "experts" because they went to a "good" school or seminary, etc. (Everyone thinks theirs is "the best"?)  However liberals, almost without exception, virtually by definition no less, think they have a higher vision than everyone else because they have come to a higher consciousness of "liberality" or "tolerance," etc. as the highest moral value.

But what I have always wondered is: What makes the liberal elite always think they are such "experts" on morality? And, hence, why do they think they know more than everybody else through the millennia, especially on those occasions when they truly make total fools out of themselves? The reason is in "religion" and "morality" one person’s views, beliefs, faith, etc. is necessarily as good as another’s?  Right?  No, actually wrong--- Mr. Danforth is going to take his specific "religious" confusions, and impose them on his "moral" theory confusions, and then attempt to impose his moral theory confusions on politics and society in a very intolerant and illiberal manner, which is a "good" for him, if in fact his religious and moral confusions are indeed, so to speak, a higher consciousness (my term).

Mr. Danforth is a very confused man, and I personally have seen him speak on numerous occasions, and there is not one doubt in my mind that he truly means well, as liberals generally do, and he truly believes in what he is saying with his, in essence, 20th century liberal/ apostate Christianity, (which it certainly is). He does not know this apparently, but that doesn’t matter. The historical roots of his confusions are not that important for straightening out the specific or actual content of his confusions. In truth he is simply wrong about the historical content of Christianity as a religious faith, and he is wrong about the moral content and principles of the Bible, and he is apparently just uninformed about the foundational history of the Republic and the views of the founders. And in the end all of these confusions are not as complicated as they initially seem, but this book is worse, if that is possible, than Jimmy Carter’s book, Our Endangered Values, but it is in the same vein, regardless. Mr. Danforth is not (for me, anyway) as easy to read as Mr. Carter, and he does not make his points as consistently and clearly, but at least Mr. Danforth gives it the old college try! As they used to say in my old school days "E" for effort for Mr. Danforth!

However after that, it is hard find anything else good to say about the book, though clearly Mr. Danforth is a man of deep compassion. Still, in the end the book is highly decisive and intolerant, in my opinion, and hence it is often guilty of doing the very things he accuses his opponents of doing! This is a classic trick or rhetorical device of the left, but I am not sure that he even realizes that. Still, he does concede that "most" of the dirty pool or character assassination (of judicial nominations, for example) is done by Democrats (p. 207), and that takes a great deal of courage on his part to say the Left is the most morally out-of-control with its tactics in American politics today, but, nonetheless, he wants their agenda advanced and imposed on the nation regardless, though civilly, to be fair. The bottom-line is Mr. Danforth is highly confused in the specific content of his thinking on religion, morality, and politics, regardless of style, and that is what we will stick with, though he is right to call for civility, I think, and, he seems to concede, that his folks on the Left are often the least civil, tragically.

Almost all of Mr. Danforth’s confusions arise out of his tragically misguided understanding of the historical and Biblical Christian faith, and he then carries this misunderstanding into morality and politics, almost with a vengeance, so to speak. And being a man of the cloth, as well as a former Senator, he seems to feel or think he cannot be wrong in these areas of religion, politics, or morality. Mr. Carter, to his credit, in his book concedes the point that he may be totally wrong about everything! But then Mr. Carter bulldozes ahead as if that thought had never crossed his mind! The idea of being wrong about anything in religion, politics or anything else does not, to this reviewer, seemed to have ever crossed Mr. Danforth’s mind? Let alone being totally and tragically wrong about almost everything.

To boil it all down: Is Christianity primarily about tolerance or reconciliation of all people to be one, and is that, or should that be, the "moral" value you take into politics to impose on the entire country? "Yes," is the answer historically for the liberal because the liberal supposedly has the higher spiritual consciousness of total "tolerance," or "one-ness" or "reconciliation". (This is about to get a little bit complicated, but stick with it! You can do it!)

Carter, to his credit, did not claim to be a theologian, but Carter did say he based his thinking on famous liberal theologians such as Paul Tillich, and others, and he even had the courage to put an index in his book. The large sections of Mr. Danforth’s book I read were, tragically, "weak" in argument and understanding of politics, religion, and morality, and how these things have been understood historically. I do not mean to be unkind, but I have done this too long, and I have lost almost all patience with people like Mr. Danforth. He does not understand what religion is, and he does not understand what morality is, and he does not understand what politics are about. There is no other way to say it. In my view, the book is embarrassingly bad. I had one professor once in college who would not give me a grade when I had written a lousy paper but simply give the paper back and say do this over! (I have been known to write a bad paper, almost embarrassingly bad even, believe it or not!) What is Mr. Danforth right about? Almost nothing at all, tragically, and he needs to do the book all over, but, again, it is a bit complicated---

Historically the view of "liberal" theologians in the early part of the 20th century rejected the literal Biblical revelation of the Bible in matters of literal covenant, historical revelation, and Biblical morality. This is well known. And that is why they were called "liberal," and they called themselves "liberal."  Rightly or wrongly, they would say the Bible says "x" or "y" but these things no longer apply to modern man, because we now know that "x" or "y" are not true. They generally did not debate what the text was saying but that it no longer applies to us today because the Bible was seen as primitive man’s way of describing or relating to some infinite God we can all sense but not really describe or know about except in mystical experiences of one-ness and tolerance. And one became a theological liberal when one’s feelings or experiences of one-ness and tolerance replaced overt literal Biblical teachings, as being passé. Hence, one had, in effect, a new, higher, "liberal" consciousness, etc. These were the terms of the debate (for major theologians) through most of the 20th century, whichever side you were on.  Dear Mr. Danforth does not do this, but he comes to a similar tolerant and one-ness conclusion, or as he calls it "reconciliation" and "being one" position by misreading the Biblical texts and NOT by rejecting them, as passé, and primitive man’s expression, and so forth. So, what is Mr. Danforth’s fairly straightforward misreading of the Bible, as such, upon which he bases his religion, his morality, and his politics?

I do not mean to be unkind or condescending, but it is almost impossible not to be with poor Mr. Danforth and his book, but here’s the deal--- I will confine my discussion of "religion" to Biblical Christianity (and Judaism) because it will simplify the discussion immensely, and indeed that is the subject of most of Pastor Danforth’s comments on religion, morality and politics based on his misreading of the Bible. Mr. Danforth argues that the true religion of Christianity, Judaism, and indeed virtually all other true religions deal with the question of "reconciliation" and "being one" with all people groups. That is the issue, and that is his position based on a very straightforward misreading of the Bible, which I personally do not recall ever having seen in the commentary literature in the last 2000 years.

The point is the central theme in the Bible is not reconciliation of us to each other, as Mr. Danforth understands the term reconciliation, but rather it is reconciliation of us to God. Very simple, not complicated, big mistake, and this simple foundational mistake ruins all his arguments in the realm of religion and in his then applying this supposed foundational moral principle of Christian reconciliation to politics. Historically the liberal and the humanist do not misread the text but simply reject it as not true or as no longer valid. But not so dear Mr. Danforth. So you really get confusion on top of confusion based on faulty major first premises and principles, in reading the text. This is very tragic, but very wrong, and seriously so. As best I can tell Mr. Danforth is unaware of this and has launched out on his own with the Bible, uniquely understood, according to Danforth! And he is seemingly totally unaware of the major debates in the Christian Church in the 20th century, whether one sees one’s self as being Biblical or liberal! If the subject matter were not so serious, this is a comedy of errors, if there ever was one? (Obviously he missed our video series here at uptospeedgoforit on the history 20th century philosophy, but no matter.)

Here’s the Problem in his Biblical perspective, and here is the misreading Mr. Danforth himself uses; this is Mr. Danforth’s exact quote from the Bible and his words about it page 14:   "[T]he more prevalent message [than ‘divisiveness’] in the New Testament urges reconciliation. In John 17, the High Priestly Prayer, Jesus prays for the unity of his followers ‘that they may be one.’ Unity is [also] a theme in Paul’s epistles, which were written to hold together fracturing churches in his time. Notably, in 2 Corinthians 5:19, Paul wrote, ‘(I)n Christ, God was reconciling the world to himself... entrusting the message of reconciliation to us.’ The theme of reconciliation [also] receives special attention in Ephesians..."

This is "the message of reconciliation" of the church in Mr. Danforth’s mind, and it is this religious message which can bring not just moral but political "reconciliation" as well. And hence the subtitle of the book, "How the ‘Moral Values’ Debate Divides America and How to Move Forward Together." So, what’s wrong with all of this? Seriously, I’m not being sarcastic! What’s the problem?

Everyone, historically, whether tolerant liberal, humanist, or Bible-believer acknowledges that clearly the passage Mr. Danforth uses for his argument about the "message of reconciliation" is about our reconciliation to God and not to each other, whether one believes in such reconciliation or not! Clearly that is what the text is talking about! A person may or may not accept reconciliation to God in Christ, but clearly that is the message of reconciliation the text is talking about. Mr. Danforth just clearly and flatly misreads the text. In the Bible quote from 2 Corinthians 5:19, Christ was said, clearly, to be reconciling us to God, not to each other specifically, and further this is the larger theme of religion and reconciliation, as such, in the entire Bible (no less) from Cain and Abel, to the Aaronic priesthood, to the Cross. And the message of reconciliation "entrusted" to us is to take this message of reconciliation to God in the atoning work of Christ’s sacrifice to the world. And we are to be "one" in this faith or belief. Really not very complicated.

Church and State

So, how does this relate to historical issues of separation of church and state, and what’s the problem in doing evangelism? The problem in doing evangelism is not everyone wants to turn from their sin and be "reconciled" to God in Christ’s atoning sacrifice! But, no problem for politics or the state! In a free society it is all a matter of individual conscience! Take or leave this "reconciliation," this atoning sacrifice, as you wish! This is the reason we separated church from state!!! It’s none of the state’s business if you want to accept this message of reconciliation to God, or not. Very simple. And this is much of American history on the reason for separation for church and state, is it not? I, personally, don’t want to change it, but there is no reason to re-write history, to make one’s liberal point? (for crying out loud) But, regardless, if the clear purpose of religion is not reconciliation between people, as such, but reconciliation to God, as such, then Mr. Danforth’s arguments collapse for Christianity, and hence subsequently for morality as primarily reconciliation between all people groups, and further for politics as complete reconciliation to all people groups, no matter what one’s views or behavior.

Traditionally moral theory, as such, does not deal with our reconciliation to God, as such, but with lying, stealing, killing, various forms of sexual activity, etc., that is various forms of human interaction, and specifically socially desirable human interaction at that. Look in the dictionary! (What can I say?) But, please note, it is the reality of the moral that shows us our separation from God and our need for specific religious "reconciliation" to God, that is, if there is no moral law, there is no separation from God and, hence, no need for reconciliation to God. No need for an atoning sacrifice! Christ could have just "kicked-back" in heaven and relaxed, etc.! But to the point at hand: the moral is generally seen to be based on "reason" (or what is sometimes called "natural revelation") as much as, if not more than, the direct revelation, or what is called the "special revelation," of the Bible. The higher moral law or the so-called moral "natural law" tends to be universal across all cultures over the course of recorded history, and it is roughly the moral principles of the 10 Commandments, which in turn are based on love your neighbor as yourself; so the "philosophers" Jesus and Paul tell us.

The point is moral principles were not traditionally separated from government (as, say, ways of reconciliation to God were in America) nor can they be because you are always going to legislate some "morality" or social "goods" on issues of human interaction. And that is why the framers specifically chose or simply accepted the moral "Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God" as the general moral foundational principles (of human interaction) for the Republic.

The 10 Commandments are generally considered foundational moral and life principles in US history and Western civilization, more than technically "religion," as such. You will note the 10 Commandments do not mention the religious issue of reconciliation to God, as such, nor how to accomplish that! Only that there is a God and a moral law, and that is the issue in life and human interaction, and hence, they are generally foundational principles to the culture and society as well as the American Republic, but the Republic’s foundation is actually much broader than the 10 Commandments, and includes much of the preceding Western and colonial heritage generally, as well as the specific foundational documents of the Constitution and the Declaration and the broader moral "Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God," which are more or less the Natural Law (or Higher Law) including the 10 Commandments, but not so for Mr. Danforth in his book, nor for the Left since the 1960s. Indeed that was the point of the so-called postmodern 1960s. (All of these foundational things had to go.)

If the 10 Commandments are not so much "religion," as such, but more a part of a common American worldview, prior to the 1960s, on God and moral good, do you have to accept the Declaration and the Constitution, and hence the 10 Commandments as part of the general worldview of those foundational documents, to be an "American"? Yes, and no, obviously. "No," in that clearly one can be here and be a citizen without accepting the Declaration, the Constitution, the 10 Commandments or even gravity for that matter, but, "yes," one, by definition no less, must believe in the Declaration, the Constitution, and hence the 10 Commandments to hold to the original foundational vision of America.

Mr. Danforth, following his new theory of so-called "reconciliation" morality, which follows from his faulty new theory of "reconciliation" religion, is, as the Left and Democrats generally since the 1960s, not bothered by any of this. Why? For the Left and Mr. Danforth, the Declaration and its worldview generally (of the Natural moral Law and the 10 Commandments, etc.), and Constitution specifically are seen as too "narrow" (Mr. Danforth’s word, page 81) and obviously so given the Left’s new theories of morality, as simply "reconciliation" or more commonly "tolerance." Mr. Danforth in his arguments on ditching the Constitution (and its rational moral theistic worldview) tends to avoid the usual terms of the debate on the "living Constitution" versus "original intent." Apparently he sees the Democrats and Left to have lost that discussion and so he is trying a new one, which is essentially based on his reconciliation theory of morality, which in its turn is based on his own reconciliation theory of religion. This is clearly confusion, on top of confusion, on top of confusion. It is very tragic and sad to see such a major public figure in politics and religion do something like this in print.

The so-called "postmodern" 1960s did not so much throw out the Biblical "revelation," as such, that had been gone for years but "reason." (That is what "postmodernism" is all about, as one learns in Philosophy 101.) The question of philosophy over the last 2500 years or so has been "Is the moral good simply what makes you happy or what feels good or is it something rational?" And the consensus of educated opinion since the Greeks (prior to postmodern thinking and the earlier fact/ value distinction, postmodernism’s precursor) was moral good was based on reason. There has been such a consensus on this that the very definition of the word "morality" deals with rational moral principles and not "feelings," "passions," etc. (If you doubt this, look in the dictionary.) But for the Left since the 1960s and for Mr. Danforth, this is not the case! For dear Mr. Danforth the foundation for morality is, again, mere "reconciliation" between people and how you feel about what you do!!! (If whatever makes you feel "happy," he says.)

Good-bye 2500 years of rational Western thought specifically and Western civilization generally!!! There is not a whole lot you can say here, but in truth many liberal and humanist thinkers in the 20th century saw themselves as moving beyond the long rational heritage of the West. So, Mr. Danforth is hardly alone here, and presumably makes very big bucks from a big publisher writing such baloney and outright nonsense (literally). And Danforth’s "moral" comment on homosexuality? If it makes you happy, it makes me happy (page 99). "Happiness" in this context, of course, means "feels good."  Aristotle, as is well-known, based his moral theory on "happiness," as well, but he meant the happiness or sense of fulfillment one has in practicing traditional moral virtue (for crying out loud), and not the pleasure found in one’s passionate indulgence. But enough of this. Three questions remain---

What do we need in politics? What do we need in religion? And what does poor, dear Mr. Danforth need? (God, help us.)

In politics we need to return to our founding vision. Clearly. The Left’s position since the 1960s, of which Mr. Danforth’s is only a part, has been not so much "un-American" as it has been "anti-American," that is, to the founding vision as expressed in the Declaration and Constitution and other founding documents. Indeed this is how they define themselves, as does Mr. Danforth’s idea that the Constitution is too "narrow" to be interpreted "literally." However, in truth the problem in politics is not are there general and real moral principles in life and should they be the basis for our own individual lives and the Republic, but rather what is the best specific application of moral principles in legislation, and this can be quite complicated, and that is why we need legislators who have the wisdom to wisely apply these principles of the general moral good, of the founding and of the last 2500 years.

In short, the Left, the Democrats, and dear Mr. Danforth need to get back on board with traditional notions of reason, morality and truth, and the founding worldview notions of the Republic. The general principles of traditional morality in the Bible as well as in the natural law are usually pretty cut-and-dry, and have always been seen to be, by any educated person over the last 3000 years or so. (And that is why they are called "moral absolutes.") But actual application of foundational moral principles and goods is a bit tricky and requires true wisdom and insight. But all this that is truly needed in politics collapses with morality being what feels good and everyone’s supposedly being reconciled about it, and indeed this is how the philosophy of existentialism or postmodernism emerged in the 1960s because this thinking of "morality as any feeling" was correctly seen to be nonsense by it own proponents, no less! The new yard stick for morality became how you "feel" about what you do, and not the "reasons" for what you do. In short, we need to return to the foundational worldview and vision of the Republic, based not on mere feelings but on reason as expressed in our foundational documents (including the 10 Commandments) and in the many writings of the framers. This is the American vision, for better or worse. This is not an issue for "compromise" but for "commitment" indeed for national "consensus," once again. This is the way "to move forward together," is it not?

Faith and Politics is a book about religion as much as politics, and indeed it is Mr. Danforth’s simple misreading of straightforward Biblical texts that seem to lead to all of his embarrassing, even his you-must-be-joking performance. There is confusion upon confusion by Mr. Danforth in this book, but after you understand the initial confusion in his misreading the passages on Christians’ being "one" in the faith specifically and on "the message of reconciliation" of us to God and not simply to each other, the book essentially disintegrates in your hands (so to speak).

There are two fundamental "religions" in the Bible. The religion of Cain and the religion of Abel, and they represent two different paths of reconciliation of us to God (not to each other). Abel’s offering deals with animal sacrifice for reconciliation with God, God’s supposed requirement, because without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. "No," says Cain in effect, "I have my own way of reconciliation to God, without the shedding of blood." However, according to the story, as everyone understands, God was not happy with Cain’s offering for reconciliation, and Cain got mad and killed Abel. What is the relevance of this for us today and for Christianity today? The relevance is Christ’s atoning sacrifice is seen historically and Biblically to be an Abel offering, so to speak, for reconciliation of us to God, and not to each other, and in fact, it was done in accord with the Law of Moses specifically. This is not an apologetic! This is just the story line, and everybody but Mr. Danforth, apparently, knows it. This is not to say whether it is true or false. Traditionally the humanist holds it to be false, of course, because he does not believe in any God and, hence, in any reconciliation to God, one way or another. (Not complicated here folks.)

For a variety of reasons not relevant here, the liberal historically has said of the two ways of reconciliation to God, those of Cain and Abel, that Cain was right, and therefore we do not really need the Mosaic ritual law for reconciliation to God (not simply each other) nor do we need an atoning sacrifice of Christ in the first place in order to discuss whether it is or was valid in the second place. Dear Mr. Danforth, bless his sweet heart, does not really take part in this debate because even as a "man of God" he does not know that this debate has been raging furiously in the Christian Church for the past 100 years, that is, apart from who is right or wrong on the matter! And this goes back to our original point here. The reconciliation to God by atoning sacrifice does not fit into the liberal’s theology so he just overlooks them or dismisses them as irrelevant or primitive man’s way of expressing himself and on and on. Not so for poor, poor, dear Mr. Danforth! Danforth does not dismiss the reconciliation passages but brings them out and uses them for the basis for his entire theology and moral theory, but he completely misreads them in an overtly wrong manner (in a somewhat unique way I have not exactly seen in almost 30 years of doing this stuff).

And what does poor Mr. Danforth need? (God, help us.) Mr. Danforth needs "help." He needs a Bible-believing Christian to come along side of him, maybe even take his hand, explain to him what the Gospel is and what the "reconciliation thing" is all about and then lead him in the sinner’s prayer. If he is not offended, too proud, etc., the tear may flow profusely, but this is "the Good News," as they say. And, what is "the bad news"? The bad news, if I may be so presumptuous, is "what would Jesus say" to Mr. Danforth, if Jesus were to return to earth and face Mr. Danforth personally? The problem here is just as to reject the founding vision and its documents and worldview is, by definition, not simply to be un-American to that vision but to be anti-American to that vision, so too to reject the founding vision of "reconciliation to God in Christ" is not simply to be un-Christian but anti-Christian, when it is practiced as a religion, as such. Hence, many possible tears may be forthcoming for a life misspent in persecuting the Christian Church?  WWJS? (What Would Jesus Say) The truth is we know from Scripture what Jesus would say to all of this, do we not? What did Jesus say to the infamous, misguided religious zealot who was persecuting the Church in its early years? We know. And so we know what he would say today? He would say, "John, John why persecutest thou me? ...It is hard for thee to kick against the goads!" 

So, my kind and gentle prayer is: May you see the Light of the Gospel clearly! May the scales fall from your eyes! May you become the great Apostle of evangelism to the Episcopalians first and then to the whole world of lost liberal mainline churches everywhere! A zealot, on fire! But, this time, a zealot "according to knowledge"! Know you not that Satan can disguise himself as an "Angel of Light" and he has "another Gospel" and "another Jesus"! Now you do!

Look, let’s be honest here, not to violate Matthew 5:22, but whether he really is or isn’t, Mr. Danforth seems to be something of a misguided, pontificating fool, but he is truly a darling, of course, of the mainstream media, the Left, the educational establishment, the liberal Church, and so forth, and so on. His book strikes me as sheer idiocy, but it is, supposedly, classic liberal "Enlightenment," at least all the long portions I could stand to read, and, at this point in Mr. Danforth’s life, unless God miraculously removes the scales from his eyes, one must assume, he will see almost nothing accurately in the realm of the spirit or in "religion." Again, even the humanist, though he rejects the message, understands that the Christian religion is about salvation, sin, and atonement. But not so the liberal! Ever! (Thinking caps, please!)

Even in ancient Israel, Judah, and Jerusalem, before their destruction, they also had outright humanists (or "non-religious"), but also very similar false religious liberals, and thirdly, true believers in the Covenant of that time or era. Destruction from God does not come and cannot come before the society as a whole tends to fall into total moral depravity and into false/ liberal religion, but at that point, given God’s justice, the judgment or destruction or tribulation virtually must come because of God’s justice and righteousness. Such times of judgment are a type of, or example of, the supposed ultimate great and terrible day of the Lord, or the so-called Great Tribulation, which will presumably come at some point in history as well.

Postscript: Bottom-line on all history for each and every one of us?

Postscript Bottom-line? No, great and terrible day of the Lord, no so-called Great Tribulation unless the Church goes into total apostasy of religious liberalism and otherwise, and the world or society at large goes into virtual total moral depravity, unrighteousness, injustice, and so on, even to the point of calling such things "good"! So, we do not have to worry about a thing! (Just joking.) But if we are not there yet, we are only about two ticks away? How long do two ticks take? Beats me. In truth, God is scripting all of history, indeed all creation, is He not? The Calvinists are right about that! "The Sovereignty of God" is about enough to make an old-time Presbyterian out of almost anyone! However, we do have a certain free will, I think. The Calvinists are wrong about that? (Or God’s judgment and our accountability before Him would not be "just," no?)  "History" may be like a giant wave in the ocean, and we are like little fishing corks floating along on the crest of the wave, free to make individual choices on our small part of the crest of the wave, and to influence things there, but not ultimately or generally free to do much of anything to determine the overall wave itself?! (Obviously?)

In any case, supposedly at some point we get morally depraved enough that we not only get a day of the Lord, but the day of the Lord! So, "History" is all scripted, from the beginning, by God?! So, is this the time? Maybe, possibly; maybe even probably? If so, we do not have to worry about the Christian Right or Christian conservatives taking over the Republican Party! Let alone the country. Or "winning" the so-called Culture War, etc. Why? In truth, we are closer to a "great tribulation" than a "great awakening"?! If so, things will continue downhill until ultimately "God intervenes," so to speak, big time. And, indeed, all of this today is just possibly God’s preparing a righteous, wise, and committed large "remnant" for the other side of that "day" or time of troubles, etc. Hard to say, really? And it does not make that much difference for us little fishing corks, anyway! Why?

We are to continue in our place of service, "my station and its duties" (as the Brits used to say), wherever that may be in the Church body and in the social body politic at large, and we are to preach the great message of the Great Commission to the very ends of the earth, times of trouble or no times of trouble! And that message of the Great Commission is? Christ died for our sins to reconcile us to God, and he rose again to give us new life in him! That is the message of the Christian Church, that is "the message of reconciliation" from Paul to Luther to Billy Graham. Take it or leave it! Each one of us must personally decide for himself or herself! And this is so even for us who do not write silly, if not outrageous, books of religious liberal nonsense and outright apostasy, indeed of great apostasy or falling away, long since prophesied for the end-times, as well. My goodness. My goodness gracious!