The post 2023 Unfolded appeared first on Colin Dye.

JESUS & POLITICS

This one of the most controversial of all topics. There are those who think that the Christian faith only involves private spiritual matters and should have nothing to do with politics. There are others who think that Christianity is purely a matter of politics and social justice and it should control everything in society.

Should religion be kept out of politics?

Many people in the minority, Western World would say, “Yes”. They are usually influenced by a certain understanding of individualism, secularism and democratic freedom.

Some time ago I was interviewing some young people in Brazil for a TV discussion programme. When I posed the question, “Do you think religion has a place in politics?”, most replied with an emphatic, “No!” Doubtless they were thinking about the powerful Catholic and Evangelical lobbies at work in Brazilian politics and resisting such unwelcome interference. But my follow up questions were, “Do you think politicians in power should, love and care for the people they represent? Should they be honest, truthful and not look for personal gain? Would you like to see corruption rooted out of politics?” The answer to those questions was nearly always, “Yes!”

I pointed out that these values are not merely political. They are human questions and, in a real sense, they are also spiritual. It seems then that politics could benefit from many values traditionally associated with religion and spirituality.

The Modern, Secular State is a fairly recent phenomenon. Two main ideas lie behind this concept:

• Freedom of belief

The state should not attach itself any one religion and should not promote one religion above another. The government must not dictate the religious beliefs of the people. They should be free to believe, to disbelieve and to change what they believe. There should be no coercion, no forcing people to believe this religion or that religion.

• Religion is a matter of private opinion not public fact

This thinking is philosophically biased. It adopts an idea called, ‘materialism’. All that exists, all that we can know or be sure about, is the physical world. The existence of the spiritual realm or non-material forces is only a matter of opinion and therefore such ideas can have no real place in the public realm, and certainly not in how we organise ourselves politically.

The first idea, to my mind, is a good one. We should be free to choose our religious beliefs, or choose to have none. But the second idea, that religion or faith is entirely a private not a public matter, seems to me to be going too far. It means that religious faith or religious values should have no place in public life at all. One of the roles of religion in society is to inform people’s conscience, to remind society of moral duties and the higher values of life and living.

Religion should not dictate, but it can inform peoples’ conscience. For example, many people in British political history achieved remarkably enlightened goals because they had faith in God and a spiritual conscience. Their  Christian faith gave them a deep sense of responsibility to their fellow members of the human family. We see this with the great Evangelical social reformers of 19th Century Britain. William Wilberforce (1759-1833) helped end transatlantic slavery. The 7th Earl of Shaftesbury (1801-1885) was involved in the abolition of the slave trade, as well as improving conditions for the mentally ill, child labourers, factory workers, boy chimney sweepers, and the suppression of the opium trade.

The State cannot do everything. It certainly should not determine what its citizens believe in matters of conscience. In extreme forms of secularism, the State has become all powerful, and tends towards totalitarianism, a strange form of religious-type control. Perhaps there should be an understanding between these two bodies. One which is based on collaboration, not antagonism and a mutual calling to account.

When we ask the question, “Should religion be kept out of politics?” We could answer, in some respects, “Yes”, but in other ways “No”. Religion can have a part to play, provided it does not control people’s consciences or dictate their beliefs. But, there is another important question.

Should politics be kept out of religion?

For much of world history, religion and government or politics, were virtually one and the same thing. There was a union of religion and state or, at least, religion was given a prominent role in the state. This is still a dominant idea in many nations around the world today.

Politics itself is often driven by ideologies, many of which are not objectively proven and have totally failed to deliver. The problem really has to do with freedom. Freedom to think, freedom to discover, freedom to choose, freedom not to be dictated to by the state.

An example of a modern secular state is frace France/ “La laicité” reigns supreme. France is governed by the people, the lay people, not the curates or the religious people.

At one time we were looking to get permission in Paris to have a church building. We found insurmountable resistance from the authorities. Finally, we suggested that it might be a matter of freedom of religion. The official replied, “No monsieur. Here in France we have freedom of thought, not freedom of religion!”

In seems to me that in this case, the State has become not just bureaucratic or autocratic but quasi-theocratic in nature, bordering on seeing itself as all-powerful. A theocracy is when the state and religion are one. The rules of the government are the same as the rules of the religion, supposedly on behalf of God.

This was the situation in ancient times and in much of mediaeval history. In the Hebrew kingdoms, the people lived under a theocracy. The nation was controlled by religious law. The Laws of God were also the laws of the land. Religion controlled the whole of life. It enveloped national life, civil life, military life, family life and jurisprudence. The Law of Moses dictated what you could or could not eat, what kind of clothing you should wear, religious rituals, national religious festivals, local worship, moral provisions and all civil matters.

This idea of the ‘union of religion and state’ was also the general view of many of the great world empires of history. The Persian empire, the Roman Empire, the Christian Byzantine Empire, and the Islamic Empire, all had more or less the same view – One God, one people, one empire, one government under the rule of One Religion that was said to represent him on the earth.

All this was long before the emergence of the modern democratic state that upheld individual rights, and freedom for all. This explains why in those days, and in some cases today:

• That people engaged in religious wars – they were not only defending or advancing their country, or their territory – 5 they were also defending or advancing the cause of their God, their religion. This is still the motive behind many acts of violence and efforts of the “holy wars” of today.
• That people were tried and condemned to death for blasphemy, adultery, sodomy as well as perjury or theft. This is still happening today in certain parts of the world.

As a Christian I am obviously interested to know what does Jesus think about all of this. What did he teach? When I look into it, I find myself more drawn to him than ever.

What did Jesus have to say about politics?

Jesus was revolutionary for his time in that he taught a separation of powers, a separation of religion and state. Whether church, mosque, synagogue or temple. We find this in the Gospel story of the denarius, “Give to Cesar what is Cesar’s and give to God what is God’s.” Jesus gives this rapid and astute response to a trick question about taxation, in Matthew’s Gospel Chapter 22 and Verses 15–22.

His response introduced a revolutionary change in attitude to the ‘one state, one religion’ approach of the Old Testament. When asked by a delegation of Pharisees and Herodians (who were usually arch enemies) whether the Jews should pay taxes to Caesar or not, Jesus’ reply was monumental and introduced the new principle of separating the church, or religion, from the state. He also dealt with the trap they had set for him.

If he had said ‘Yes’, he would have been sanctioning Caesar’s authority and, by implication, Caesar’s religion. If he had said ‘No’, he would have been obeying the Mosaic law which decreed, “You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother” (Deuteronomy Chapter 17 Verses 14–15). He would have been in serious difficulty with the Roman Government of his day.

The denarius Jesus used to illustrate his teaching was an idolatrous and blasphemous coin. Denarii from both the period of Augustus and Tiberius ascribed glory to the emperor. During the time of Emperor Tiberius, a denarius had on the obverse an image of the emperor with the inscription, ‘Tiberius Caesar Augustus, Son of the Divine Augustus’. And on the opposite side of the coin, the reverse, was inscribed the words ‘Pontifex Maximus’, which mean, ‘the highest priest’.

The denarius, therefore, claimed that the emperor had religious, even divine status. As ever, Jesus showed that his personal authority was greater than the Law of Moses, and perhaps for the first time in history, the claims of state and religion wdere separated, “Give to Caesar what is Ceasar’s and give to God what is God’s”.

In other words, Jesus was saying that his followers should give civil obedience and respect to the king, but the king had no right to prescribe religious beliefs to his subjects. Instead of speaking about ‘one state, one religion’, Jesus instructed people to abide by the distinctive authorities of Caesar and God in their parallel, but distinctive, realms. He was not asking us to carve our lives into two sections, one a ‘spiritual life’ and the other a ‘secular life’. Rather, he was telling us to live one godly life, and to learn to distinguish, and obey, two different but overlapping, areas of authority over our ‘one’ life.

Jesus was also asking people to remember the One who is above all earthly rulers and authorities, the One to whom all kings and governors must give account, the God who created us all in his image. Just as that coin bore the image of Cesar, so your life bears the image of God. So, give to God what belongs to God.

This is the real challenge of the Christian faith. It’s not about what political party you favour, or which system of government you prefer. It’s about the claims of God over your whole life. The God who created you is the God who loves you, and wants to draw you to himself into a way of living that is not only a good life, but also brings glory to him.

The government of God

When we talk about Jesus and politics, sooner or later we have to consider what Jesus said about the ‘Government of God’. What is the government of God?

A record of Jesus’ trial before the Roman Governor, Ponitius Pilate is found in John’s Gospel Chapter 18 verses 28-37. Verses 33-37 read,

Then Pilate went back into his headquarters and called for Jesus to be brought to him. “Are you the king of the Jews?” he asked him. 36 Jesus answered, “My Kingdom is not an earthly kingdom. If it were, my followers would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jewish leaders. But my Kingdom is not of this world.” 37 Pilate said, “So you are a king?” Jesus responded, “You say I am a king. Actually, I was born and came into the world to testify to the truth. All who love the truth recognize that what I say is true.”

New Living Translation ®

The key part in what Jesus says here, is that his kingdom is not of this world. It means God’s government, his rule over our lives, does not come through earthly, human-based initiatives or governmental control. It is supernatural. It comes from above, from God. The conversation between Jesus and Pilate reveals a total confusion of issues on the part of the Jewish and Roman leaders.

The religious leaders were envious of Jesus’ popularity. They contrived to have him executed for insurrection because he claimed to be ‘king of the Jews’, a political title. This was the cynical use of politics by religious people. But Jesus’ kingdom is not political one, in the usual sense of the word. I has to do with the rule of God welcomed into people’s hearts. Pilate’s decision to condemn Jesus to death was to appease the religious people. No wonder people say religion and politics do not mix!

Religion and politics are different. They should never become one and the same. Politics is responsible for civil matters and religion has to do with spiritual matters. Political governors should uphold freedom of religion and freedom of belief for all. Religious leaders should be prepared to challenge the moral conscience and the policies of any government on spiritual grounds. And civil leaders should also call religious people to account as citizens.

The post JESUS & RELIGION (Part Three) appeared first on Colin Dye.

The kingdom of God – or the kingdom of heaven – is the main theme of Jesus. He teaches far more about it than any other topic.

WHAT IS THE KINGDOM?

The Greek word for kingdom, basileia, is derived from basileus – which means king. Basileia means sovereignty, royal power, dominion, kingly authority – the activity of ruling. It does not mean the country or people ruled by a king.

When we think about “kingdom’ in English today, we tend to mean a country or nation. But basileia means “God’s reign’ rather than “God’s realm’. It describes an activity of God, rather than a nation or a place. It turns our attention away from ourselves and towards him.

In an attempt to reflect this important truth and avoid any misunderstanding, we should think of “the Kingdom of God’ and “the Rule of God’ rather than.

This use of “kingdom’ as a ruling activity is seen in Old Testament passages like Psalm 22:28; 103:19; 145:8-13 & Daniel 4:25. They describe God’s kingdom in terms which stress the gracious way that he rules.

The idea of a ruling activity is especially clear in the New Testament in Matthew 6:10; Luke 11:2 & 19:11-15- where the coming of the kingdom is linked with the doing of God’s will.

The Jewish background

In the Old Testament, God is often portrayed both as the king of Israel – for example, Exodus 15:18; Deuteronomy 33:5; Isaiah 43:15; and as the king of all men – Jeremiah 46:18. His kingdom or reign is referred to in Deuteronomy 4:3; 1 Chronicles 29:11 & Obadiah 1:21.

There is a sense in which God’s kingdom or rule is both present and future in the Old Testament. God is presented as the present, ultimate ruler of men and women, but – in passages like Isaiah 24:23 – the prophets also looked forward to a time when it would be evident that God visibly ruled among his people.

By the time of Jesus, there was a widespread hope and expectation among Jews that God would decisively intervene, liberate them from their enemies and restore their fortunes. They believed that the Messiah – another David – would come and prepare the way for the visible kingdom or ruling of God among them.

Some Jews expected another leader who would be an even greater earthly ruler then King David. Others looked forward to a heavenly kingdom and the emergence of “the Son of Man’ as foretold in Daniel 7. Most people probably had no clear idea what the kingdom would be like: they simply hoped and believed that it would soon be present.

John’s announcement

Matthew 3:2 records John the Baptist’s first announcement that God’s kingdom was close at hand. It is hard for us to realise how sensational this announcement would have been at that time. John’s message would have had massive significance as the Jews expected that the coming of the kingdom of God would be the turning point of history. They were right. It was. But the kingdom did not take the form that they expected.

The Jewish religious leaders were right to believe that the arrival of the kingdom meant God would no longer reign from a distance. But they failed to grasp this meant that he would not continue to rule through blanket rules – through the Law. Instead, God’s coming in person to establish his kingdom meant that he now ruled personally – through the Son and the Spirit.

They were also correct in their belief that the kingdom would rout their enemy, but – sadly – they had mistaken their real enemy.

They were also right to believe that the kingdom would reach all round the earth. However, they were wrong to think that this would happen immediately or by force. In Christ, God had not come to impose his rule on all people, merely to rule those who would willingly accept his reign.

Matthew 3:1-12 and Luke 3:7-20 show how John the Baptist taught that the coming kingdom or rule of God would:

• Mean judgement, sifting and purification for all humanity ?

• Bring a moral challenge which could not be ignored? be connected with the activity of Jesus?

• Mean that people must repent and be baptised

THE PRESENT KINGDOM

Jesus began his ministry by announcing in Mark 1:14-15 that the time had come and the kingdom of God was at hand. This must mean that some great event was about to take place.

In Matthew 12:28 and Luke 11:20, Jesus repeats his claim that the kingdom has come and evidences this by casting out demons. This authority over evil spirits shows both that the kingdom of heaven has broken into the rule of the evil one, and also that the true king rules more effectively.

When Jesus sent the 72 disciples out to preach, in Luke 10:1-20, they announced the arrival of the kingdom: as a result, “Satan fell like lightning from heaven’. All Jesus’ miraculous activity proves that the kingdom has come.

When John the Baptist began to doubt whether Jesus was the One he had been sent to announce, he sent his disciples to search out the answer. Matthew 11:2-5 & Luke 7:18-23 describes what convinced them that Jesus was the One who was ushering in the kingdom.

Jesus not only promised miracles in the future and forgiveness at the day of judgement, he also offered them both in the present – through himself. The kingdom came in and with Jesus. As the long-expected Messiah, Jesus is central to everything the Gospels announce about the kingdom, and the kingdom is central to everything Jesus teaches.

In teaching that the kingdom had arrived, had come, had begun, was among people and was a present reality, Jesus also taught – in Matthew 11:11-12; Luke 7:28 & 16:16 – that some violence was associated with the arrival of the kingdom.

This does not mean that the kingdom was being established by physical violence. Rather, Jesus was pointing out the hostility of the world to the kingdom. John had already suffered and been imprisoned, and Jesus was warning those who would accept his rule that they must expect hostility – not just in the future, but also in the present.

THE FUTURE KINGDOM

As well as teaching that the kingdom had come, Jesus also taught that the kingdom was “not yet’. For example, in Matthew 5:1-10, many of the kingdom benefits are set in the future. Although “the blessed’ already possess the kingdom, there is something still to come in the future – comfort, inheritance, mercy and so on.

Jesus’ prayer in Matthew 6:10 is also both present and future. If the kingdom had fully come, we would not need to pray for it to come.

In Matthew 7:21-22, Jesus refers to a future day of reckoning when he is speaking about entering the kingdom. It is much the same in Matthew 8:11 & Luke 13:28-29.

Throughout Jesus’ ministry, he looked forward to a day when the kingdom would come. We can see this in Matthew 13:42-43; 16:27-28; 20:21; 26:29; Mark 9:1; 10:37; 14:25 & Luke 22:18.

As we study and examine God’s rule, we must always keep these two elements in mind. The kingdom is both “now’ and “not yet’. We can experience God’s rule now but we also look forward to knowing it in the future. There is much for us now, but there is more still to come.

This means that we should work to establish God’s kingdom now, yet we should work knowing that the kingdom will not be fully established until some future date.

Too many believers focus on either the present or the future. Some are pre-occupied with serving God on earth, yet lack the hope and joy which comes from looking to the coming kingdom. Others are so pre-occupied with “the last day’ that they do not establish the kingdom around them on earth. A true understanding and application of the kingdom embraces both the present and the future – as Christ did.

The post Looking into Jesus' teaching on the Kingdom of God appeared first on Colin Dye.

“But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.” Matthew 6.33?
 

Do you want to find the secret of happiness? Don’t look for it!

 

 
The Sermon on the Mount sets out the attitudes – not the actions – which characterise true disciples. The introduction to the sermon, 5:3-12, is usually called ?the beatitudes?, and this is a list of eight basic attitudes which Jesus develops, illustrates and explains throughout the rest of his sermon. (It is sometimes debated as to exactly how many beatitudes there are. Some speak of seven, nine, or ten beatitudes, but ?if we regard verses 10-12 of Matthew 5 as one beatitude – the number appears to be eight.)


Each ?beatitude? begins with the Greek word makarios – which is usually translated as either ?blessed? or ?happy?. Makarios is nothing to do with ?blessings?. Instead, it comes from the Greek word mak which means ?large? or ?lengthy? and carries the idea of someone with a big smile on their face. It is the word used by Mary in Luke 1:48 and is best understood by ?very fortunate? or even ?to be congratulated?.
The beatitudes or ?beautiful attitudes? give a general character description of those disciples who are living ?in the kingdom?. As we read them, we see what we are meant to look like as a result of God?s personal rule in our life.?If we live fully under the personal rule of God, we can expect to be characterised by these eight attitudes.

The post Don't seek Happiness, seek the Kingdom of God! appeared first on Colin Dye.

Boko Haram Islamic Nigeria Militant

In today’s “secular society’ anyone who takes the Bible seriously is usually dismissed as a “religious fundamentalist’ and often grouped with other so-called fundamentalists, especially those who hold to radical Islam. In this way Bible believing Christians are said to be no different from the kind of Muslims who were responsible for the 7/7 bombings in London or indeed Boko Haram terrorists.

There have, at times, been Christian fundamentalists who resorted to violence in the pursuit of their cause. For example, some calling themselves Christians committed murder in their battle against abortion in the USA. The Oklahoma bombers of 1995 were said to have been influenced by extremist “Christian’ militia groups. Both Protestant and Catholic paramilitary organisations were involved in terrorism during the “troubles’ in Northern Ireland.

But those who do such things deny the clear and unambiguous teaching of Jesus who said, “My kingdom is not of this world, otherwise my children would fight”, and who also said, “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you.” But the issue is not so clear when it comes to Islam whose founder declared in what is claimed to be a direct word from Allah in Surah 47:4, “So, when you meet those who disbelieve, smite (their) necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them).”

If fundamentalism means taking a religious text seriously, then we need more Christian fundamentalism, not less, and the term should be used as a complement reserved for those Christians who are truly following Christ in today’s world. But the term is not used in this way at all.

Through an examination of the Koran, other Islamic texts and the example of the prophet Muhammad, this documentary argues, through a sober and methodical presentation, that violence against non-Muslims is and has always been an integral aspect of Islam. Features interviews with noted experts on Islam including Robert Spencer, Serge Trifkovic, Bar Ye’or, Abdullah Al-Araby, and former terrorist Walid Shoebat.

You can watch the full video here

Fundamentalism refers to a tendency said to be found in all major religions today which, not only interprets religious texts literally, but also seeks to implement religious teaching through aggressive political means – the very opposite to the teaching of Jesus who repudiated such politicising of the gospel.

The gospel is about proclamation and persuasion, not coercion or control. In Luke 20:22-25, Jesus separated the claims of church and state showing that state or government had no right to determine the religious views of its citizens.Whenever the church lost sight of this, disaster was not far behind – whether we speak of the efforts of Constantine, the first Christian Roman Emperor, or John Calvin and his attempts to introduce a form of theocracy in Geneva during the Reformation, or the botched attempts of more recent times, such as the efforts of the Right wing Moral Majority to “make society Christian’ through aggressive Christian political campaigning in the USA. Such an approach denies to people created with free will their God-given right to choose their religious beliefs according to their own conscience.

This is why the term “fundamentalist’ does not apply to us, or indeed, most evangelicals in Britain today. While we uphold the “fundamentals’ of the Christian faith, we are not fundamentalist in the modern meaning of the word.

If a Christian is to be called “fundamentalist’ with all the intended negative and derogatory overtones of the word, simply because he or she takes the words of Christ in the Gospels literally, is it right to place that person in the same category as a Muslim “fundamentalist’ who takes the teaching of Muhammad and that of the Qur’an equally seriously?

The issue here is not merely that of sincerity.We ought to give the benefit of the doubt to all so-called fundamentalists and be ready to believe that they may be sincere, at least, even if they are wrong or misguided. But the issue is concerning the truth or viability of their views when tested and subjected to close scrutiny. I would suggest that, without hesitation, any rightminded person would respect the “fundamentalist’ Christian who seeks to take literally the words of Christ where he says,

“…love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you…” (Matthew 5:44).

Or, for that matter the words of St Paul who in Romans 11:14 & 17-19, echoes Christ’s teaching,

“Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse….Repay no one evil for evil… do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to God’s wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord. “

Surely, the same amount of respect should not be shown to those who seek to live their lives by the literal, and natural, understanding of such texts of the Qur’an as, “Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam), take (hold of) them and kill them wherever you find them…” Surah 4:89.

This shows that the indiscriminate use of the term “fundamentalist’ to apply to all people of faith who take their religious texts seriously is so superficial as to be intellectually lazy, if not downright dishonest.

These issues are being hotly debated today.With the rise of modern Muslim fundamentalism and its connection to global terror, many both from within Islam and external commentators on these events are at pains to disassociate Islamic extremism from the “true nature of Islam’. Moderate Islam has yet to rise up and prove itself to be the “true Islam’ of the Qur’an and of Islamic history.

This leaves us with the stark differences between Khalifa of Islamist ideology or the kingdom of God as taught by the Christ of the gospels. The choice is simple – you can accept or reject either one or both of these alternatives, but one thing is sure, you cannot with integrity dismiss them both as the empty claims of fanatical or fundamentalist religion.

The post Boko Haram Explains Why It Kills Christians, Desire for an Islamic Nigeria appeared first on Colin Dye.

Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them.

Key Thought

Fear and anxiety concerning the provision for your needs is a demonstration of a lack of trust in God and His Fatherly nature. But He knows your every need and is ready to make abundant and lavish provision as you seek Him above all else in your life.

Prayer

Dear Lord, I place my life into your hands today. I choose to focus on your kingdom and your will for me and trust you to supply every need of mine now and always.

Discipleship Steps

The difference between disciples of the kingdom and those in the world is simple but stark. We put God and the pursuit of His purposes above all ambition and every desire for abundance. At the base of our lives is the confidence that God is the source of our supply. This means we orientate our lives around His kingdom priorities and don?t let the selfish or anxious desires for things choke out the life of God in us. Renew your commitment to the kingdom today.

Read: Matthew 6:25-34

Great is your faithfulness, O God!

Lyrics:
Great is thy faithfulness, O God my father
There is no shadow of turning with Thee
Thou changest not, Thy compassions, they fail not
As Thou hast been, Thou forever will be
Great is thy faithfulness
Great is thy faithfulness
Morning by morning new mercies I see
All I have needed thy hands hath provided
Great is thy faithfulness, Lord unto me
Summer and winter, and springtime and harvest;
Sun , moon and stars in their courses above
Join with all nature in manifold witness
To thy great faithfulness, mercy and love
Great is thy faithfulness
Great is thy faithfulness
Morning by morning new mercies I see
All I have needed thy hands hath provided
Great is thy faithfulness, Lord unto me.
Pardon for sin and a peace that endureth
Thine own dear presence to cheer and to guide
Strength for today and bright hope for tomorrow
Blessings all mine, with ten thousand beside
Great is thy faithfulness
Great is thy faithfulness
Morning by morning new mercies I see
and All I have needed thy hands hath provided
Great is thy faithfulness,
Great is thy faithfulness
Great is thy faithfulness
Lord unto me..

The post Seek First the Kingdom of God appeared first on Colin Dye.

Above, the cross symbolizes the Kingdom of God, below, the flag of the Khilafah, or Islamic state. One is a kingdom of Light, the other, a kingdom of darkness.

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Ephesians 6:12

The battle is clearly spiritual because the kingdom we belong to is also spiritual. Jesus made the nature of his kingdom absolutely clear when he said to Pilate while under arrest to the Romans:

“My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.” John 18:36

Jesus began his ministry with the bold statement:

“The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel.” Mark 1:15

He announced that fact after hundreds of years of preparation by the prophets. God had finally come to fulfil the promise of the kingdom. But it was some time before his disciples began to understand the true nature of the kingdom Jesus came to bring. They were expecting an earthly, geographical kingdom centred on the nation of Israel. They were anxious to throw off the yoke of Rome and to go back to the days of King David and enjoy the theocratic rule of God in which the laws of Moses were the laws of the land. But Jesus did not set about establishing that sort of kingdom. And his disciples were confused.
Jesus revealed the true rule of God, and never sought to establish an earthly political kingdom.
Even John the Baptist became troubled when he was imprisoned, thinking to himself, “What has happened? The Messiah has come, but why am I in prison?” Jesus was doing some preaching, but where was the political power that Israel expected? Where was the military action required to throw off the yoke of Rome? So John began to have doubts along those lines, and sent a message to Jesus asking, “Are you really the Messiah, or do we have to wait for someone else?” It appears that John the Baptist had a wrong understanding of the kingdom of God.
But in Britain today, the greatest example of this wrong idea of the kingdom of God does not come from false Jewish Messianic ideals. It comes from the Islamic misunderstanding of the kingdom, the khilafa. We need to see the difference between the genuine kingdom of God and its counterfeit. How can Islam claim to represent the kingdom of God, when it rejects Jesus Christ as the son of God, Saviour and only true God and King? How can they claim to represent God when the Bible makes it clear that God has set his Son on the throne of the kingdom?
We totally reject the charge of Islamophobia – which is often just a word used to put off people from being critical of Islam while Muslims remain free to criticise anyone they choose.
I believe we in Britain are being faced with a prophetic choice – either we submit to the kingdom of God, or we will have to surrender to the rules of Sharia, which ultimately means the Islamic khilafa. We need to be aware that Britain is heading towards becoming a full-blown Muslim nation. When you take into account immigration, birth rates and conversions to Islam it is only a matter of time, if the current trends continue, before Britain will be ug nder the dominant influence of Islam. It is already taking place – some say it is already too late.

Ken Livingstone:"I will make London a beacon of Islam"

If the Bible is true, then Islam is a false religion.

The Qur’an denies every cardinal and distinctive Christian truth from the Trinity to the divinity of Christ, from the rule of God to the atonement. By any account, the Islam of the Qur’an is an oppressive religion. Moderate Muslims, and there are many of them, simply cannot withstand the strength and vocal force of the radicals who insist on every verse in the Qura’n being applied today, including the teaching on violent jihad, the sword and bloodshed. But greater blood has been shed for us – the blood of Jesus shed for our sins and for the sins of the whole world. Truth is more powerful than error: there is only one God and Jesus Christ is his Son. That is the truth which we must stand up and proclaim and which will ultimately prevail.

The post Khilafa or Kingdom? appeared first on Colin Dye.

Jesus could sleep in the midst of the storm...

The post Shaking of the nations and stirring in the Church appeared first on Colin Dye.

The end of the euro?

The post Understanding the times: the current financial crisis… appeared first on Colin Dye.

The post When peace comes to a city appeared first on Colin Dye.