Monday, June 27, 2016

Galloping Globalism Reigned In--For Now

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

The New York Times is reporting that Britain's "historic vote to leave the European Union is already threatening to unravel a democratic bloc of nations that have peacefully co-existed for decades"---asking, "Is the post-1945 order imposed on the world by the United States and its allies also unraveling?"

The New York Times says, "Britain's choice to retreat into what some critics of the vote suggest is a 'Little England' status is just one among many loosely linked developments suggesting the potential for a reordering of power, economic relationships, borders and ideologies around the globe."

The Times says slow economic growth has undercut confidence in traditional liberal economics, especially in the face of the dislocations caused by trade and surging immigration.

Because of this, the Times says, "Populism has sprouted throughout the West. Borders in the Middle East are being erased amid a rise in sectarianism. China is growing more assertive and Russia more adventurous. Refugees from poor and war-torn places are crossing land and sea in record numbers to get to better lives shown to them by modern communications.

"Now," the NYT explains, "Britain symbolizes the cracks in that post-war foundation," and they say it undermines world peace.

The more conservative New York Post sees Britain's vote differently.

Michael Goodwin, a managing editor, wrote, "As results poured in [from the vote] I caught myself humming a tune from Broadway's 'Hamilton'."

"The song," he says, "follows the decisive Battle of Yorktown in 1781, after which the Redcoats surrender and America is free. It's called a drinking song, and there's not much to it except these words, 'The world turned upside down'."

"It certainly has," he continues, "The world is also coming full circle because now it's the Brits who are free. It took them awhile, but they finally had their own Tea Party and their own Revolution."

The New York Post is as celebratory as the New York Times is pessimistic.

They define a parallel between what just happened in the UK and what's happening politically and socially in America.

Both the New York Times and the New York Post agree with the Yorktown song, "The world turned upside down,"---however, one newspaper sees it as the very foundations of peace and prosperity crumbling, while the other sees it as a new and dynamic commitment to freedom.

One thing for sure. The rapid expansion of globalism and a one world government, one world economy, and yes, a one world religion being advanced by secular progressives, has been reigned in.

For now.

Should biblical Christians be opposed to globalism? And if so, why?

Globalism is the extension of an influence to all parts of the world. To accomplish this there must be a one world market or deregulation resulting in internationalization.

The progressive Left strongly advocates globalism, including the religious Left. Hillary Clinton wrote the book, "It takes a Village to Raise a Child." The essence of the book is that life is bigger than anyone of us and we need help---we need a village---the child belongs to all of us.

On its surface, this makes sense to many. However, the history of globalism is about conquest and bondage.

The Assyrian Empire is a good example. From the late 25th or 24th Century BC to 605 BC, the Assyrians controlled vast swaths of Babylonia, Egypt and what we know as the Holy Land.

While the Assyrians were very advanced in many ways, they were also brutal warriors, who murdered, tortured and enslaved their enemies.

The Assyrians were globalists committed to world conquest. God used them to punish and exile the 10 northern tribes of Israel because of their wickedness (2 Kings 17).

Without doubt, the best know example of globalization is the account of the attempt to build the Tower of Babel. Construction began on the Tower in the 21st century BC.

God had directed His people to"fill the earth (Gen. 9:1), or scatter, multiply and organize accordingly, however, they chose to rebel.

Instead, they decided to centralize rather than disperse and "fill the earth," focusing on the creation of one city (Gen. 11:4).

Ironically, the construction effort was spearheaded by Noah's great-grandson, King Nimrod---whose name actually means "rebel" or to "revolt."

God, in response, confused their languages, thus forcing them to group together by dialect and language. This caused various communities to be born, giving rise to unique cultures (Gen. 11:8,9).

Genesis chapter 11 shows that God Himself created the policy of nations---borders, language and culture.

The New Testament book of Acts (17:26,27) tells us That God "hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord."

The purpose of nation states then is to restrain Satan's efforts at creating his kingdom on earth.

Another purpose for nations in God's plan is to be God's instruments on earth for meting out justice and providing protection for the people (Deut. 17: 14-17).

Boundaries are so important to nationhood and people's well-being that Moses wrote in Deuteronomy 27:17 "Cursed be he that removes his neighbor's landmark."

Remember Nebuchadnezzar's dream and Daniel's interpretation? (Daniel 2).

All the empires presented in the King's dream represent other attempts to institute one-world governments. Daniel's prophetic interpretation of the King's dream gave historical context but noted that the King's dream focused on a 5th and final world empire that is yet to come.

The final empire will be ruled by a man known as the Antichrist, also called the beast and the "lawless one" (Rev. 13:4; 2 Thess. 2:8). "He will have authority over every tribe, people, language, and nation, and he, along with the False Prophet, will force all people to take his mark.

This future global leader will control all financial transactions (Rev. 13:17) and all religious observance (Rev. 13:8). Refusal to worship the Antichrist means death; acquiescence means eternal punishment from God (Rev 13:15; 14:9-11).

Therefore, any attempt by man at globalization is, at the bottom line, wicked.

It's interesting that man's final attempt at globalization is based out of Babylon.

Christians should oppose globalization for this reason, but be informed that there will ultimately be a Kingdom that is "not of man," but of God.

God has a plan for globalization under the headship of the King and Redeemer Jesus Christ ( Rev.19-20).

It appears there will still be nations and boundaries under Christ's rule (Zechariah 2:10-11).

This kingdom will be a time of righteousness and true justice (Isaiah 11:3-5).

Isaiah 12:3,4 describes it like this: "Give thanks to the Lord, call on His name; make known among the nations what He has done, and proclaim that his name is exalted."

While the vote in England is a setback for those who advocate for one world government, there will be continuous attempts at globalization until the end.

Some have rightly identified that the desire for freedom that caused a majority of Brits to vote to leave the EU, is the same desire that is driving Americans to reject the politicians we deem to be part of the elitist ruling class in our own country.

The call to all biblical Christians is, I believe, stand and see that He is God.


Be Informed. Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Bold. Be Prayerful.

1 comment:

  1. So if they can leave the European Union, can we leave the United Nations?


Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.