This is our 7th session in this series on What the Heck’s Wrong with Religions These Days. We’ve seen that the world religions, especially Islam and Christianity, are embroiled in a war on two fronts. The war on the home front is between radical fundamentalist versions of those religions on the one hand and liberal or even moderate expressions on the other hand. The other front in these religious conflicts is actually not against other religions so much as each fundamentalist version of religion ironically is actually primarily concerned with fighting the same enemy. That enemy, whether it’s called secularism, naturalism, empiricism, or social relativism, is the expansion of modern values of Western Humanism. We’ve seen that the current religious conflicts aren’t new. We saw that at certain times during the past 3500 years there have been major shifts in religious thought or expression and that those changes, together with wider social upheavals or perceived threats to established civilization, have created crises. Those crises have galvanized the religious establishment and their political counterparts in those civilizations, which have often used each other to accomplish their own purposes. The core issue of the conflicts is the integrity of each civilization and the spread of its fundamental ideals to others in the world.

In the 20th century, relations among civilizations have moved from one-directional Western dominance of all other civilizations to one of intense, sustained, and multidirectional interaction among all civilizations. Consequently, the present international system has expanded beyond the West and has become multi-civilizational.

Global politics has morphed Western civilization from the Western dominated world up to the 1920s, to the "Free world" of the 1950's, to the West of this new millennium. The problem is that many Westerners imagine that the people of the other civilizations of the world simply want to become what we are -- especially Americans. That’s untrue and it's important for us to understand that. There is another myth, particularly shared among Americans, and that is that the world is coming together into one diversely expressed universal civilization -- ours. But there isn’t a shared desire for the same form of government in every civilization. Democracy is not a shared aspiration in all civilizations. Capitalism is not a shared economic desire in every civilization. Language has not become more common, but more diverse. Simply look at Canada. Religious affiliations have not become a source of commonality, but of basic identity differentiation and greater conflict. The only religion that has grown appreciably in terms of the percentage of the world's population is Islam -- growing from 12% to 20% of the world's population in the past 50 years. Otherwise, folk and tribal religions have shrunk from 30% of the world's population to 4%. And non-religious or Atheist affiliation has grown from less than 1/2 % to 20% of the world's population. Western Christianity has remained steady, but shifted its base from Europe to Latin America and Africa during the past 50 years. During that time the world's proselytizing religions -- Islam and Christianity -- have remained in their traditional relationship of competition and conflict.

After the Cold War ended, Western political and economic analysts assumed that modern Western Culture would naturally become the universal culture of the world, simply because they thought that it was more highly evolved than others. There was a rude awakening though. Improved global trade and communications have failed to produce the mutual understanding, harmony and homogeneity that was expected. Indeed the fact is that trade and communications have simply increased mutual exposure, and with that, increased distrust, competition, and enmity. People increasingly define their identities by what they are not. In an increasingly global world, far from recognizing similarities, people are emphasizing their differences. Consequently, indigenization has increased. People have been returning to their own traditional roots and sacred spaces in reaction to their perception of the world becoming a single place. Modernization has triggered civilizational backlash. And so societal and ethnic self-consciousness has proliferated -- characterized by global religious revivals in virtually every continent and nation.

In short, the pendulum has swung. Western civilization is well known. The modernization of technology and trade, which the West developed, has been accepted. But the rest of what Western Civilization has to offer has been bitterly rejected -- not out of envy, but because others regard Western civilization as inferior and morally bankrupt. Christian Faith, Classical legacy, European languages, Separation of Church and State, Rule of Law, Social Pluralism, Representative Bodies, and Individualism -- these 8 -- are the basic components of Western Civilization. Westerners do well to take pride in them; others do not. The people of other civilizations value their own unique heritage and want nothing to do with becoming different. Consequently, sensing their resistance and the loss of ground relative to past Western ascendancy, people in the West -- and especially in America as the new core state -- are embroiled in an anxiety-driven culture war, motivated by the desire to stem the tide of our decline.

Conservatives, desperately trying to preserve those same elements of Western Civilization, press to ensure the integrity of traditional Christian Faith, the use of one national language, the bonding of Faith and government to strengthen traditional Western behavioral values, limit the rule of law with respect to economics so as to keep Western Economies ascendant, limit social pluralism for the sake of preserving Western cultural uniqueness, restrict certain representative bodies (such as unions) to strengthen the economic viability, and curtail individualism (especially when it comes to sex) in order to keep us altogether on the same path. In the process, the extent to which they go for the sake of preservation changes the roots of the very civilization they want so desperately to preserve.

Likewise, Liberals, following Western tradition, press to ensure heterogeneity of faiths, diversity of languages, the separation of Church and State, the rule of law (ACLU), safeguard social pluralism (including sexuality), promote representative bodies (including labor unions), and uphold individualism (including the right to choose abortion). In the process, the extent to which they go for the sake of diversity -- in an increasingly diversely cultured world -- waters down the very traditions of Western Civilization they wish to promote -- including the integrity of traditional Xn. Faith.

The problem is that both approaches jeopardize our civilization in the very process of trying to preserve it by the extremes to which they tend to go --demonizing each other, while in the process fulfilling each other's worst fears -- resulting in the potential demise of what we've know to be Western civilization. I believe that this is the catch 22 of our current situation.

But what are followers of Jesus Christ suppose to do about it? What we have been doing is following -- and in many cases leading -- the ideological extremes and becoming increasingly disaffected from each other in the process. This has clearly been underscored by the reactions to the recent decisions by the General Convention of the Episcopal Church. But, I wonder, if that were the way Jesus would have us behave -- siding with one civilization and trying to preserve it. Or would He have us be above all civilizations, yet involved for the good in each?

But something else has taken place instead. One complicating factor in the current struggle is rather new. And yet it’s also ancient. That complicating factor is anticipation of Apocalypse. Now the term Apocalypse refers to the end – the end of human history on this planet. It’s the ultimate biblical hope that God will wrap all things up one day, and that as that day draws nearer the struggle between Good and Evil will increase on planet Earth.

Now, in point of fact, Islam is not actually an apocalyptic religion. It does, however, have a strong view of afterlife. And in that sense, stretching the idea a bit, each Muslim has a sense of his own apocalypse – the end of his own life history on Earth, after which his state will forever be determined by the faithfulness of his life in this world. The certainty of one’s ultimate destiny, according to some Muslim teachings, can be assured by dying for Allah and his prophet, Mohammed, in jihad or holy war. In that sense, with the rise of Muslims’ consciousness of other religions and ways of life, a war exists to preserve and extend Islam. Many Muslims, particularly radical fundamentalists see this war as the holy war of our time. One’s role in that war will affect his ultimate destiny. I’m calling that point of view the Islamic version of an apocalyptic vision.

There is, on the other hand, a very clear apocalyptic aspect to the Christian faith, which has existed from the very beginning. Jesus taught about it. The Apostles preached and wrote about it. They believed that it would happen within their lifetime or soon thereafter. Virtually every book in the New Testament describes or refers to it. And this is the basic summary of that apocalyptic vision: God will bring everything to an end. As the time of the end draws nearer the powers of evil will increase – resulting in more widespread sin and intensified persecution of the followers of Jesus. Simultaneously, there will be an increase in wars, conflicts, natural disasters, famines and plagues. Satan’s Antichrist will rise up to dominate the world order -- to mislead people throughout the world to honor himself instead of Christ, and that Antichrist will focus even greater persecution on the faithful. At some point the saints on earth will be gathered up with Christ – raptured. But when evil reaches a crescendo, Christ will return and the last great battle will ensue between good and evil – called Armageddon. Then Christ will establish His Kingdom on Earth and will reign for a thousand years. That will last until Satan escapes to make one last stab at overturning God’s Rule – only to be defeated and sent to hell forever. The Last Judgment will follow, in which all the faithful will be taken into a new Heaven and new Earth – in perfect harmony with God – under Christ’s eternal rule.

Now, when Christ didn’t return during the first generation or so of the Church’s existence it created a bit of a theological crisis. Later, after the Roman Empire was largely converted to Christianity, the leaders of the Church resolved the crisis by reinterpreting the idea of Christ’s return and thousand-year reign to be understood, metaphorically, in terms of the Holy Roman Empire. The Church developed a doctrine now called “post-millennialism”, that’s the idea that Christ would come again after His thousand-year reign through His Body the Church. That’s probably the reason that the last great spike in apocalyptic thinking came about in the 1300’s. That was the time during which Muslims finally drove Christians out of the Eastern Empire, the black and bubonic plagues swept Europe, there was an economic depression, and a schism developed in the Western Church – with 2 popes vying to run the Church. Many saw that as the literal end of the 1,000-year reign of Christ (through the Church after Constantine) and anticipated the immanence of the apocalypse.

200 years later, with the Reformation, renewed visions of the apocalypse emerged. Protestants saw the Pope as Antichrist, and Catholics saw the Reformers in the same light. There were increased European wars and conflicts.

Nowadays apocalyptic thinking is at a fever pitch again – especially among Fundamentalist Protestants in the U.S. America has always drawn more than its fair share of apocalyptic cults, of course. From the beginning there have been those, who came here to establish God’s kingdom on earth. And more recently, while there are general reasons for it, one of the foremost of which is Americans’ preoccupation with our selves, such that, once we’re saved God must be ready to end all of history. Another reason for the rise of apocalypticism is that some of the largest seminaries in this country are explicitly pre-millennialist – that is, they teach that Christ will return before His 1,000-year rule begins. Since preachers teach it, people have been looking for signs of the apocalypse. More generally, though, recent signs, often cited for the immanence of the apocalypse, include the following: Israel’s miraculous restoration after almost 2,000 years, the hatred of the Jewish people and the state of Israel by the Muslim states surrounding them, the rise of the UN as a mechanism for the one world order that some believe will be the medium of Antichrist’s rule, various wars, natural disasters, AIDS, genocides, the rise of hostility toward Christianity among liberals and humanists, as well as the rise of Islamic terrorism. There are books galore that have been written on the subject of the end coming and a plethora of websites dedicated to counting up what their creators call fulfilled prophecies, by which they count down to the return of the Lord and Armageddon.

The rise and political influence of fundamentalist Christianity in the U.S. is focused on three central issues: moral purity in the culture, doctrinal purity in the religion, and that, which galvanizes both – preparation for the apocalypse. It is precisely because of the widespread view of as many as 30% of Americans that the Apocalypse is upon us that such people have a clear theological vision for America. They reason that God has made America strong and prosperous in order to defend Israel in the last days, and that is why America’s foreign policies must be focused upon supporting Israel in the face of terrorism, because that terrorism is inspired by Satan. They reason that America must be morally pure and Christians must be doctrinally pure in order to stand against the rise of the Antichrist – Probably in the form of Humanism, which they see as the likely harbinger of Antichrist. They see the need for what’s called “Biblical Reconstructionism” – to reconstruct the U.S. Constitution around biblical moral teachings. They see the U.N. as something to be resisted or disbanded outright in order to prevent it from becoming an effective tool of the Antichrist, whom they believe inspires everything from radical Muslim terrorism to American liberalism and Humanism. It is a clear agenda and one that has a clear enemy – Satan, himself. America must be strong, morally pure, steadfastly pro-Israel, theologically pure, publicly faithful to God, and ready to stand alone if we are going to be the sword of God in the fight against Antichrist – against Satan – in the Battle of Armageddon, which is a popular conviction.

The culture wars within the U.S., with secular European nations, and against Fundamentalist Islam are the result, at least in part, of this apocalyptic American Fundamentalist Christian agenda. It is the one that the Roves in the current administration have nothing but contempt for, but use – in order to accomplish their own purposes.

The question is “What are followers of Jesus Christ suppose to do about it, though?” What we have been doing is following -- and in many cases leading -- the ideological extremes and becoming increasingly disaffected from each other in the process. But, I wonder, if that’s the way Jesus would have us behave -- siding with one civilization and trying to preserve it. Or, instead, would Jesus have us be above all civilizations, yet involved for the good in each?

I trust that we, as Christians, believe in God’s revelation in Scripture. We believe the Baptismal Covenant and the Creeds. And all of them point to Christ’s return – to God consummating human history on this planet. And so I ask you, as followers of Christ, what, if anything, is wrong with the ideology that I’ve just described and which so many modern day American Christians subscribe to?

When the Apostles, after the resurrection, asked Jesus if it was finally time for Him to establish God’s Kingdom on Earth, Jesus said, “(Acts 1:7 & 8) He replied, "It is not for you to know the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

It is not the job of Christians to be trying to determine when the end will come. It is a vain effort – inspired not by God but by sensationalism and self-interest. Jesus never taught us that His followers should change their strategy in ministering the Gospel and helping those in need just because they think that the end is nigh. Least of all are we to fall into the deluded temptation that we can use one nation’s power or power politics in a nation to force God’s hand or His ways on others. That too is vain pride, ironically a tool of evil, which can only turn others against Christ for the wrong reasons.

Likewise, in Mark 9:38, “John said to him, ‘Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.’ But Jesus said, ‘Do not stop him; for no one who does a deed of power in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. Whoever is not against us is for us. For truly I tell you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ will by no means lose the reward.’” Often, those who theologically disagree with us still try to follow what Jesus taught, and that includes secular humanists. Christians ought not to try to find enemies to fight instead of serving the mission that He called upon us to do.