09
Sep
15

Refugee Flood: a few more thoughts.


Who is in Control of National Borders?

Here’s an interesting section of scripture that I believe has some relevance to the current refugee crisis.

From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him

Acts 17 26-27

To me it shows that God, not man, is in control of national boundaries. And he will change those boundaries to suit the purposes of His Kingdom and to create conditions conducive to people seeking and potentially finding Him.

That could work in multiple ways including:

1) Moving believers to unbelieving areas to take the gospel where it hasn’t been heard before.

2) Moving unbelievers into an area where they have more chance of hearing the gospel.

3) Moving hostile unbelievers into a lukewarm area where the gospel used to mean something, but doesn’t any more, where what is left of Christian faith will be tested and refined by the influx of those hostile unbelievers.

 

One of the clearest examples of the changing of boundaries and movement of peoples has been seen over the last century in the Middle East, relating to the Promised Land and the surrounding nations. The significance of those changes (and how recent they are) became one of the biggest discoveries I made in my reading about WWI. As a result of that war, centuries of Ottoman (Moslem) rule was ended in “Palestine”, and the whole map of the surrounding changed, not only making way for Israel to return to the Promised Land, but also making sure that their stay wouldn’t be an easy one.

The effects of tensions in that area continue to be felt not only by Israel, but also worldwide, and are at the centre of today’s refugee situation.

Psalm_2

Which of the three scenarios listed above most closely matches today’s situation?

I suggest that while there is an opportunity for taking advantage of option two (especially considering the failure of the richer Moslem nations to take in refugees – see previous post), the third option may be the most likely.

 

So called “Christian” nations in the west are increasingly Godless, even the churched have little idea of who God is or what He’s like.
In the “War on Terror”, the western governments involved have bent over backwards to reassure us that Islam is a religion of peace, and that those at the heart of the “terrorism” are fundamentalist extremists who are NOT genuine Moslems. [note the term “fundamentalist” a term that has so often also been applied to Christians who take their faith seriously].

While Western governments try to be more accommodating to their Moslem citizens, only recently we’ve seen an American Christian jailed for refusing to issue marriage licences to homosexuals. That case will probably be the first drop in a growing flood of anti-Christian discrimination focused on the recent political rush to make homosexuality more accepted in society.

I have to wonder what would have happened if it had been a Moslem who had been refusing to issue those marriage documents.

A decade and a half ago David Pawson gave a series of talks about the growth of Islam in Britain. He had concluded that Britain was on the way to becoming a Moslem nation; not by accident, but as a judgement. That series is well worth listening to, especially the first part, “Britain’s Spiritual Vacuum”:

davidpawson.org/resources/series/the-challenge-of-islam-to-christians

Maybe the mass Moslem movement across Europe is quite possibly the reaping of what the West sowed in wars against Moslem nations in the name of the “War on Terror”.
Western involvement, initially behind the scenes – such as the US in Afghanistan after the Russian invasion helping to train and establish those who became Al Qaeda, followed by the Western invasion of Afghanistan with Al Qaeda now as the enemy.
And we can’t ignore the two Bush family wars against Irag that destabilised that area enough to open the door for a group like ISIS, from whom the flood of people into Europe are fleeing.

And where was the “Christian” church when national governments were throwing their resources into attacking the weaker Moslem nations? Were they part of the cheer squad, confusing national patriotism with Christian faith?

I’ll let you consider what they were doing in your own nations.

Advertisements

12 Responses to “Refugee Flood: a few more thoughts.”


  1. 1 Marleen
    September 10, 2015 at 4:58 pm

    It doesn’t help that the woman refusing to allow others in the office she heads to issue licenses (to anyone) has been married four times, to three men. And the person she is currently married to is neither the first husband nor the man who, not her husband at the time, fathered her children (while she was married to the first man). Fundamentalists tend to be self righteous hypocrites who do little more than hurt others in addition to themselves. That woman has been free to do her stupid stuff, awesome heterosexual that she is (as have been the low men with whom she’s done her stupid stuff). If she is not allowed to force her will on others, I hope it will then be more likely Muslims will not be able to force theirs here.

  2. September 11, 2015 at 8:31 am

    Thanks Marleen, from the little that has been reported in the news here I could only admire and agree with her stance against PERSONALLY not issuing those licences. But what you’ve said certainly shows a different side to that issue, and is unfortunately an illustration of the state of the church today, where the sin of “Christians” is ignored but they self-righteously make judgement on non-believers.

  3. 3 Marleen
    September 14, 2015 at 12:52 pm

    Something else that happened in connection to her situation is that there was a rally outside a public building, and Huckabee (running for the Republican nomination for president) was getting his name in the news — his and a lawyer’s (maybe a legal team but particularly one lawyer on the stage along with Huckabee, on the two sides of this woman). Other operatives were along with them, and one wouldn’t let Ted Cruz (also running for the party nomination) pass through the crowd to be able to speak to the many press representatives present. On top of all that, the woman came onto the stage while they played “eye of the tiger” without the musician’s permission.

  4. 4 Marleen
    September 15, 2015 at 9:44 am

    Huckabee was later asked about blocking Cruz (again, on public property right outside a government building, right outside the door). Huckabee answered, unmoved, with his signature smile-smirk, that “it was our event.” Haunting; ownership of “the people’s” property. Evangelicals like him would be the new totalitarianism. Or is it that they are just schemers who know how to make a name for themselves, seekers of renown?

  5. 5 Marleen
    September 24, 2015 at 7:26 am

    There was another man in the last presidential election cycle (2012) who seemed to me to be out there mainly to keep his face present and sell more books or get more donations (even after the election) or get hired (in private business consultancy or motivational speaking or church) and so forth — not to primarily be responsible.

  6. 6 Marleen
    September 30, 2015 at 9:21 am

    I’m not able to find what you’re recommending at the link for Pawson; maybe it’s the device I’m using.

  7. September 30, 2015 at 9:45 am

    Hi Marleen. I went to Pawson’s site yesterday and there seemed to be a problem with the whole site. Nothing can be accessed.

  8. 8 Marleen
    October 1, 2015 at 1:05 am

    …involvement, initially behind the scenes – such as the US in Afghanistan after the Russian invasion helping to train and establish those who became Al Qaeda, followed by the Western invasion of Afghanistan with Al Qaeda now as the enemy.
    And we can’t ignore the two Bush family wars against Irag that destabilised that area enough to open the door for a group like ISIS, from whom the flood of people into Europe are fleeing.

    And where was the “Christian” church when national governments were throwing their resources into attacking the weaker Moslem nations? Were they part of the cheer squad, confusing national patriotism with Christian faith?

    I’ll let you consider what they were doing in your own nations.

    It breaks my heart how stupid going into Afghanistan was, even if it made a little more sense than Iraq (after 9/11). Anyone who was paying any attention to the news in the decades before should have known not to go in there (multiple reasons not to unless the only bad invaders are Soviets or commies). But maybe George was too busy drinking back then.

  9. 9 Marleen
    October 1, 2015 at 5:35 am

    Oh my God. Russia is worse. But we wasted our energy and resources on what we shouldn’t have been doing. Now we can’t (or don’t seem to be able to so far) stand up to Putin. I remember Christians being against helping the “opposition” in Syria. Now, the Russians are bombing the opposition there (rather than ISIL).

  10. 10 Marleen
    October 2, 2015 at 8:17 am

    http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/09/donald-trump-supports-russia-and-putin-entering-syria-to-kill-off-isis-and-protect-christians-from-islamic-terrorists/

    Oh, dear. So, this is out there. A note: the guy (seen in the first video) is incorrect on some factual matters (beyond what might seem less provable and more opinion). For instance, Trump wasn’t the “only person” against going into Iraq. He’s not even the only person running for president now who was against it.

    On the opinion side, I’m not against women voting. LOL

  11. October 6, 2015 at 8:46 am

    Marleen, the problems with David Pawson’s site seem to have been resolved. Maybe you could try the link again.

  12. 12 Marleen
    October 7, 2015 at 6:48 am

    I said: It breaks my heart how stupid going into Afghanistan was, even if it made a little more sense than Iraq (after 9/11). Anyone who was paying any attention to the news in the decades before should have known not to go in there (multiple reasons not to unless the only bad invaders are Soviets or commies). […]

    To be a little more specific, if it were the case that “the only bad invaders are [or had been in historical context there] Soviets or commies” then a more singular reason “not to go in there” would have been how constraining navigation of the terrain, geography, and culture would be for anyone not indigenous.


Comments are currently closed.

Blog Stats

  • 81,642 hits

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 244 other followers


%d bloggers like this: