Thoughts on the coming referendum on membership of the European Union.
The United Kingdom stands at one of the most significant and critical junctions in its long history as an island nation. On the 23rd June 2016 the UK will be voting in a referendum which will decide whether the UK stays in the European Union or chooses once again to be an independent sovereign nation outside the European Union.
The Second World War was fought and won by the UK and their Allies and in so doing preserved the independence of the UK as a nation, in the face of the military objectives of Hitler and the Third Reich. The cost of victory was huge – especially in terms of lives lost. And along the way there had been extraordinary and miraculous deliverances such as at Dunkirk, after the nation had been called to prayer by a God-fearing King.
When, as a nation, we, somewhat reluctantly, put our toe in the waters of Europe and entered the Common Market in 1975, it was a political experiment that promised much. Never again would we be vulnerable to war from any of our European brethren and the vast populations of all the European nations together would give us a market for our products which would guarantee prosperity for our businesses. It seemed an experiment worth exploring.
But now the nation is divided. We have a one-time opportunity to assess the success of the experiment and make a choice – either come out and plough our own furrow in the fields of international politics and government as a sovereign nation, or stay in. Which should it be? Will it be of greater strategic value to the nation and the world for us to remain inside Europe? Or should we pronounce the experiment a failure and walk away to fulfil our own destiny?
Those who are arguing for staying in Europe are issuing dire warnings of what it would be like for Britain if we came out. Those who are campaigning for Britain to leave (known as Brexit) are arguing equally passionately that, if we stay in, Britain will lose its sovereignty and we will no longer have any control over our laws or our borders. On many occasions now Britain has found that Brussels has trumped London, especially on legal matters, and imposed unwelcome decisions on the British people. There are a lot of question marks in peoples’ minds.
As I meditated on the situation and prayed about how I should vote, God turned my thoughts to the story of King Jehoshaphat, as it is told in Chapters 17-20 of 2 Chronicles.
Jehoshaphat was fundamentally a good King. We are told that the Lord was with him “because in his early years he walked in the ways his father David had followed” (17:3) and “his heart was devoted to the ways of the Lord” (17:6). He gave instructions to his officials to go throughout Judah “taking with them the Book of the Law of the Lord” (17:9) in order to teach the people. The result was amazing. “The fear of the Lord fell on all the Kingdoms of the lands surrounding Judah” (17:9) and they didn’t make war with him. The fear of the Lord became their holy protection and Jehoshaphat “had great wealth and honour” (18:1).
So how was it that a King who was so clearly heading in the right direction, got side-tracked? There were two occasions in his life when he got things badly wrong – both were through wrong alliances.
First, he allied himself in marriage with Ahab’s family. Ahab was one of the most evil Kings who had ever ruled neighbouring Israel. As a result, Jehoshaphat was compromised. So when King Ahab asked King Jehoshaphat to go to war with him against Ramoth Gilead, Jehoshaphat said “I am as you are, and my people as your people; we will join you in the war” (18:3). King Ahab died in the battle (18:33-34) but King Jehoshaphat returned safely to his palace – no doubt very relieved to have survived.
But Jehu the prophet met him on his way home and asked him a very profound question, “Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the Lord” (19:2) referring to Ahab and his evil wife Jezebel. “Because of this the wrath of the Lord is upon you. There is, however, some good in you, for you have rid the land of the Asherah poles and have set your heart on seeking God” (19:3).
Jehoshaphat had learned a very profound lesson and as a sign of his repentance “he went out again among the people and turned them back to the Lord, the God of their fathers” (19:4). In Jerusalem he spoke to the Levites, priests and heads of Israelite families and told them: “You must serve faithfully and wholeheartedly in the fear of the Lord” (19:9) and said “you are to warn the people not to sin against the Lord’ otherwise his wrath will come on you and your brothers. Do this and you will not sin” (19:10). Finally he said “Act with courage, and may the Lord be with those who do well” (19:11).
The whole of Chapter 20 describes what happened next. A vast army came against King Jehoshaphat and he led the people in faith, trusting in God for protection and victory. The Spirit of the Lord came upon Jahaziel the prophet and he said to the King, “This is what the Lord says to you: Do not be afraid or discouraged because of this vast army. For the battle is not yours, but God’s” (20:15) and “You will not have to fight this battle, Take up your positions, stand firm and see thee deliverance the Lord will give you” (20:17).
The story of the battle is remarkable. For “as they began to sing and praise, the Lord set ambushes against the men of Ammon and Moab and Mount Seir who were invading Judah, and they were defeated” (20:22). And the end result? “The fear of God came upon all the Kingdoms of the countries when they heard how the Lord had fought against the enemies of Israel. And the Kingdom of Jehoshaphat was at peace, for his God had given him rest on every side” (20:29-30).
It would be great if that was the end of the story. But there is one more devastating experience in Jehoshaphat’s life-story, that was also of his own making. Following the death of Ahab, with whom Jehoshaphat had been compromised through a marriage relationship, Ahaziah, his son, came to the throne. But we read that “he did evil in the eyes of the Lord, because he walked in the ways of his father and mother and the ways of Jeroboam son of Nebat, who caused Israel to sin. He served and worshiped Baal and provoked the Lord, the God of Israel, to anger, just as his father had done” (1 Kings 22:52-53).
So why did Jehoshaphat join hands with this very ungodly man in a business alliance? Because he saw it as a way of making money by constructing “a fleet of trading ships” (20:36) in a joint business enterprise that he, no doubt, thought would make him even more money than he had. But why did he need to do that when the Lord had blessed him with so much in terms of both “wealth and honour” (17:5) and with “peace on every side” (20:30)? Maybe it was pride, or greed or that he was still under the spiritual influence of being compromised with the family of Ahab – Scripture is silent on the reason. But it is not silent on the result of his enterprise!
Eliezer, the prophet, came and spoke to Jehoshaphat and said, “’Because you have made an alliance with Ahaziah, the Lord will destroy what you have made”. The ships were wrecked and were not able to sail for trade” (20:37).
Jehoshaphat’s business enterprise was doomed to failure because he had entered into an alliance with an ungodly partner. Shortly after this sad event Jehoshaphat died – what a sad conclusion this final episode proved to be to the life of a King that began well, had been made prosperous by the Lord and had known the blessing of God on his kingdom in time of war.
So what are the lessons that I sensed God has been showing me through Jehoshaphat’s story, that would help me with deciding how to vote in the forthcoming referendum?
- Jehoshaphat compromised his godly foundations through a marital alliance with King Ahab who worshiped Baal and who, with his wife Jezebel, had put the prophets of God to death. Having learned the lesson through the words of the prophet Jehu, his repentance was clear and definite as he called the nation back to the worship of the living God.
- At the end of his days Jehoshaphat entered into an alliance with Ahab’s son for purposes of trade. It was an unmitigated disaster.
As I prayed through these two stark facts, I sensed the Lord was showing me that when the UK first went in to the European Union it was like a marriage of convenience that seemed good to our leaders and the nation at the time. But that it was not what God wanted for this Christian nation, with its extraordinary and godly heritage going right back to the oldest legal document in history, the Magna Carta. In this, God and Christian teaching were put at the forefront of the nation “to be observed in good faith by our heirs in perpetuity.” And today we have a Queen who has not reneged on the vows of her Coronation, in which she acknowledged that the Bible contains “the law and the Gospel of God as the Rule for the whole life and government of Christian Princes . . . the most valuable thing that this world affords . . . Here is Wisdom; This is the royal Law; These are the lively Oracles of God.”
In centuries past the centrality of the Word of God and the Christian faith has been the solid mainstay of the UK’s life and government. Countless believers became martyrs for the cause of truth and God’s Word. The eighteenth century Wesleyan revival saved and transformed the nation. And in the nineteenth century countless believers left the shores of the UK to take the Gospel to the known world. People such as William Carey, Hudson Taylor and hundreds more, less well known but equally faithful, became true ambassadors for Christ. William Wilberforce led the way, as a Christian in politics, to the abolition of slavery and many other Christian leaders were active politically in the nineteenth century.
It is stated that “when asked by a diplomatic delegation how Britain had become powerful in the world, ‘our beloved Queen Victoria sent him, not the number of her fleet, not the number of her armies, not the account of her boundless merchandise, not the details of her inexhaustible wealth … but handing him a beautifully bound copy of the Bible, she said ‘Tell the Prince that this is the Secret of England’s Greatness’”.
In the twentieth century it was the UK which led the way in the two greatest conflicts the world has ever known to overcome an aggressor – and the hand of God was on the nation and her allies to become the victor. On several occasions Britain experienced a Jehoshaphat moment when it was clear that the Lord was with the people of the UK and their allies in holding the ground against a heinous and anti-semitic aggressor.
In May 1940, over 300,000 British soldiers were stranded on the beaches of Dunkirk with the German forces closing in on them from all directions. Churchill thought that maybe 20,000 would survive and told the nation, “There is only one hope. Let’s all pray for them.” Several generals aid that “only a miracle” could save them. On the 26th May 1940 King George the Sixth declared a “National Day of Prayer for Deliverance”. The Archbishop of Canterbury led prayers from Westminster Abbey that were broadcast to the whole nation. The British people stopped to pray – and God heard and God answered.
The miracle of Dunkirk happened as fog descended on the beaches, the German air force could not take off and for “nine days the now calm and foggy English Channel made it possible for anything that would float – tugboats, yachts, pleasure boats – even the smallest of craft, as well as naval vessels – to sail across the channel and ferry 335,000 troops from the shallow beaches of Dunkirk back to England.”
Winston Churchill called it a “miracle of deliverance”. And Archbishop William Temple declared, “Why has God preserved us? We may, and we must, believe that He, who has preserved our land in a manner so marvellous, has a purpose for us to serve in the preparation of His perfect Kingdom.”
And so the nation survived, retained its sovereignty and, after the war was over, began to rebuild and play its part in a newly emerging post-war world.
But the words of William Temple were soon forgotten, for a wind of change was blowing hard through the western nations and the moral foundation of law, based on the authority of the Word of God, was gradually being eroded as the so-called enlightenment began to reap a harvest of agnosticism and atheism. Things were changing so fast that most people didn’t notice how the centuries old spiritual foundations of the nation were also shaking.
Christianity was challenged by the lack of belief of a generation that was indulging itself in the ‘free love’ rebellion of the pop-music dominated sixties, as well as the different beliefs of thousands of immigrants that were beginning to come to our shores. Our tolerant society quickly reneged on its historic conviction that Jesus was the Way, the Truth and the Life, indeed the only way to God. Multi-faith services gave way to the mutual equivalence and acceptance of other religions and eventually to fear of offending those who believe differently, as the more radical elements began to wield an influence through terror based activities.
The world was changing too fast for anyone to notice what was really happening to the spiritual heart of the nation. All the changes were producing a soft and vulnerable amoral underbelly, which has now gone full circle. In my own childhood a non-marital man-woman relationship was referred to by both believers and non-believers alike, as ‘living in sin’ – but today the word ‘sin’ is an offensive word and no-one dare question any form of sexual behaviour, almost no matter how ungodly it may be, because that is their human right!
Morality in relationships and human behaviour is no longer an ingredient of law. And what is of great significance to the current debate is that, within the European Union, Britain has had to make its statute book subservient to the dictates of Brussels. We are no longer free to make our own laws, if others might say that any such changes could infringe a person’s human rights! Our elected parliament no longer has the authority that the electorate wants it to have. We are, literally, ‘out of control’ because, the ultimate control of our affairs is now in the hands of Europe. We have been compromised by a political version of a marital alliance.
Denmark, Ireland and Britain first joined the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1973. It seemed a good business deal (Remember Jehoshaphat and Ahaziah!). Under the Labour Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, there was a UK referendum on continued membership of the EEC in 1975. The electorate voted ‘Yes’ by 67.2% to 32.8% to stay in Europe. At the time no-one had any idea of the extent to which Brussels would eventually dictate so much of what has become life in the UK. We were deceived. And now, even if we wanted to, we could never, within the European Union, reverse even one of the laws which, as a nation, we might believe are wrong – for whatever reason. Inside the EU we have become a subservient nation and we are no longer a sovereign state.
After Jehoshaphat realised what he had done through his marital, political and military relationship with Ahab, God gave him an opportunity to repent and change direction once more. He took it and the subsequent years were the most prosperous and God-protected of his entire reign. In some ways I now see this coming referendum as being like an opportunity for the whole nation to repent of the decision it made in 1975, in ignorance of what membership of the EU would mean.
But now we know what it has meant and what it will mean, and we have a one-time opportunity to choose whether or not we are going to remain in alliance with a type of Ahab or Ahaziah, through which we lose both our sovereignty and the potential to be a God inspired nation. Or, we can choose to take back into our own hands the future destiny of our government, our laws and our finances.
You may say that it won’t make any difference, for our own government has not shown any desire to return to our spiritual foundations, an opinion with which I, sadly, have to agree. But the difference is this: with the UK inside Europe, if leaders were to rise up in the future with the intent of changing things, to bring the UK more in line with God’s laws, they would have no legal authority to change anything – because everything would be subservient to our masters in Brussels. Even if God were to raise up a modern day ‘Joseph’, ‘Daniel’ or a repentant ‘Jehoshaphat’, inside the EU they would be impotent.
But, released from the shackles of what I now see as an ungodly alliance, who knows what God could still do in and through this nation?
I do not believe that God has forgotten our history, or the blood of the Christian martyrs who have laid down their lives and I would agree with the implication of what Archbishop William Temple said during the second world war – that God still has a purpose for this nation in the times that are yet to come before Jesus returns.
There are those who are saying that for the economic benefit of the nation and our workers we need to remain within the trading community that is the EU. However, let us not forget the painful lesson that Jehoshaphat learned the hard way – that trading alliances with the wrong partners will not be a source of blessing.
So, for deeply spiritual reasons – reasons that you will not see talked about in the Newspapers, or hear about on TV, I have come to the conclusion that it is time for the UK to cut itself free from alliances which undermine our sovereignty and limit our capacity to make our own laws. On the 23rd of June I will be voting to leave the EU – but I’m already praying for those hidden ‘Jehoshaphats’, ‘Daniels’ and ‘Josephs’ to come to the fore of public life, and start steering our nation back to the godly roots from which it has currently wandered so far.
Well I didn’t have any trouble with it when I read it, what now seems ages ago. It was so helpful to me personally even though I am not immediately involved, living in Australia. I printed it off and sent it to my mentor, a dear old saint aged 92 living in a large Elderly Persons Village in Melbourne. She told me “It’s gone viral here!” and apparently it helped so many residents understand the ramifications viewed through a Biblical prism. I have sat under Peter’s teaching in the UK and read his books and feel entirely safe with his expose on this matter and the way he carefully and prayerfully approached the subject. Old news now I guess but just happened upon this while looking for something else.
Dear Peter
Thank you for your insight written in your “In or Out” blog. I passed it on to more people as being inspirational in general, but I also have a bit of trouble with it.
The South African Anglo Boer war started due to the discovery of Gold and Diamonds in the then Boer Republic. Around 1860/70 my forefathers build a mission station at Goedehoop Transvaal. They brought the Gospel to what the British would call “Savages”. Then about 1901, due to the scorched earth policy, the missionaries were rounded up and sent to the Volksrust concentration camp. In this process family members died, their livestock dispersed, fruit trees ring barked, their homesteads and possessions burned to the ground.
I receive seeds of the Kingdom daily and have been on Ellel healing retreats. These are an absolute blessing. Praise the Lord! However due to the imperialistic nature of the then British, I do have questions about the “God fearing Christian roots of the British Leadership (Nation) and Crown”. Is it true that the royal family is part of Freemasonry?
Obviously this is part of history and thank the Lord that we can forgive and move-on, but your explanation, how to deal with my questions above, will be truly appreciated.
Rolf Eggers, South Africa
Amen to all that you have written, Peter and thank you for this spiritual insight into our relationship with the EU. So refreshing to see someone with influence waiting on God for His guidance. Everyone else I have read or listened has made me more confused (except for Bob Mitchell of Shofar Ministries on Love of the Truth Radio talking about Brexit – well worth listening – sorry, I don’t know how to put a link here but it is is easy to find on Yotube) You have brought more clarity, Peter – thank you.
In my own childhood a non-marital man-woman relationship was referred to by both believers and non-believers alike, as ‘living in sin’ – but today the word ‘sin’ is an offensive word and no-one dare question any form of sexual behaviour, almost no matter how ungodly it may be, because that is their human right!
——————–
In those days too rampant racism and homophobia went largely unchallenged except perhaps by the liberals in the CoE and the likes of Methodists. Why wasn’t the Church standing up then loudly and clearly saying these things are sins. In the centuries when this country supposedly had strong spiritual foundations, we had in the 19th century child labour and exploitation and an avaricious imperialism of an appallingly racist nature and though clearly some Christians stood against it, in a society that was supposedly much more devout it seems very strange that it took until 1945 for something like the beginnings of social justice and fairness to come about in the UK by way of the NHS and the welfare system. And of course as much as the miracle of Dunkirk was important, we were very much on the winning side due to an alliance (0f convenience) with the USSR whose soldiers and people took enormous losses and in the words of Churchill tore the guts out of the German war machine
I would also as someone else has said make the point that most 60s immigration was of people from Christian countries – people like Enoch Powell and other racists were saying horrible things about people who were more likely that not black Christians. Living in sin – yes – but racism is just as much if not more of a sin.Incidentally this was Powell: “They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker”. That sounds awfully like the objectionable rhetoric of some of the leaders of Brexit today and is no more honourable now or then and i find it odd that Christians could want to be associated to such people.
I attend a Methodist Church and it is something I treasure that though I am sure some people did vote Leave, the overall tenor has been one of tolerance and diversity – an Indian family came to pray in the church after the Sunday service as they were very worried as to what this all meant – clearly the racists are now coming out of the woodwork. I pray that this country will heal especially from the surge in racism and the deep bitterness that this vote has brought about. The writer says that the EU has imposed unwelcome decisions on the British people – one might be tempted to say “Speak for yourself” in terms of labour laws and many other matters.
What absolute nonsense. I’ll just pick up on one fundamental error that stands out. The Magna Carta is far from the oldest legal document in history. It was itself based on the Textus Roffensis – an earlier legal document written by the Bishops of Rochester and still available for viewing at Rochester Cathedral. This includes the Law of Ethelbert which is acknowledged as the oldest legal code in English Law. As a typical little Englander you also seem to forget that many legal documents existed in Ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome among many other civilisations. You also seem to forget that the Old Testament from which you quote to support your green ink ramblings was written in the Middle East and has been used as the basis for many legal documents (before Magna Carta) in many countries and as the basis for three major religions. I suggest you go back to the drawing board and open your eyes, mind and ears before you have another pray and see what God tells you this time.
2 Chronicles 20
Yes thank you for publishing your point of view on this. I found it very helpful although for me with the concentration span of a goldfish very long. I know academics like it that way, and some things are too important to shortcut. My only concern with your view is the division of families, I understand your point that I think you were making about being overwhelmed by other faiths , and the double whammy of faith being a minority anyway without the added layer of oppressive multiculturalism. The problem I have is this that if we are to uphold human rights we cannot isolate one religion ie that of Islam and Europe has come to represent an influx of Muslim values . Of course I understand that that is not the case and that there are many religions and denominations in the whole context of Europe. But the question in my mind is about the trade aspect of it too in Malta you will be aware that they have the Shipwreck Church with the five altars representing each trade, Paul on his journeys ministered to the tradesmen, Jesus disciples were businessmen largely and certainly well educated, so to pull out of Europe is about the whole culture of Unity in Christ being in question. That is how I see it, People are talking about the tower of Babel and nations not mixing but the tower of Babel is a product of Old Testament theology, Christ indeed rewrote the Gospel of Hebrew into Greek and Paul carried it over the waters to Rome from where the direct line of the oldest road in the world probably still exist ie the Roman Road. We as Christians have prayed for centuries for Unity the EU as imperfect as it is , is a stepping stone towards that. It seems to me that rather than shunning and tearing down the tower of the EU we need to be embracing it and leading it to a place where each nation can have control of its own affairs whilst promising to uphold humanitarian aid, and fair trade, another thing that I thought about was the parable of the coins Jesus told us not to bury but to use and multiply in order to do that with food , goods , time , people and faith we need to be unified that we may truly pray for world peace, otherwise our prayers no longer have meaning. I do understand you deep reflection on it though. But I feel like to exit would cause such division that it could be the precursor to further War which would in a multicultural Britain start from within our own borders.
Hmmmm…very interesting article. My thoughts went a little deeper. For those of you who study Bible prophecy, the world is heading towards a one world government, one world religion and one world currency. The stage has been set and the players are in position. I believe this issue facing the UK has a lot to do with the end times and the rise of the Antichrist. The Bible predicts that 10 nations will come together and form an alliance. Many believe it is a European alliance. This is much deeper than many of you realize. I believe that the UK will not vote to stay out simply because of what is predicted in scripture as it pertains to end time prophecy. Think below the surface.
This blog is so very long and the scriptural arguments are from the old testament. We are under a new covenant.
The blog assumes that those who are voting to stay in are doing so for economic reasons alone and that is not the case for me
I am voting to stay in but if I was a minister of the faith or indeed writing from a Christian perspective I think personally my advice would be that folk individually seek wisdom from God. Could say an awful lot more about things like the Human Rights agenda and the way that European cousins are propping up the care and health services but I will resist. My final point is that the UK is not a Christian Nation…we have a faithful Queen who is I believe the protector of the Christian faith but the vast majority of the population do not profess to have a Christian faith.
Thank you Peter for your thoughts.
I am passionate, regardless of the good the EU has done, that the church of the U.K. doesn’t let the EU strip our country of its sovereignty. A state given by God as much as marriage is a state given by God.
I have expanded on this here to reach the faith communities: http://uksovereignty.weebly.com
Regards
Hi Peter,
I have been reading your blog & the Biblical account of Jehoshaphat with interest.
Can you give the Bible reference for Jehoshaphat repenting & being prosperous in his latter years please?
Thank you.
Frank, withdrawing from the European Union is not withdrawing from Europe. The European Union is a political project that, through very poor governance, has brought economic and social chaos to Europe. Europe would be a better place without the EU.
I have a property in Spain and my brother-in-law is Spanish. He is hoping that the UK votes to ‘Leave’ in the referendum. he can see what a disaster government from Brussels has been.
I agree, Nicholas, that there are nations in Europe with Christian roots as deep as ours. However, the European Union is not Europe and it may be that those nations, guided by our example, would set themselves free from a political construct that has brought economic and social chaos to the continent.
I hope that, once again we shall, “save ourselves by our exertions and Europe by our example.”
A little over 6 weeks ago I believe God called me to fast and pray regarding the referendum. I was to pray for three days every week. I now fast and pray from Sunday to Tuesday and will do so until the 21st June. I believe the Lord took me to Nehemiah, specifically to his fasting and praying in Chapter 1.
Without having read Peter’s article until yesterday, I find that his conclusions are the same as mine.
I hope we are both hearing God’s purpose for the UK. I still believe that God has a mighty purpose for the people of the UK and that following the building of the walls the people will hunger for the Word. Lord have mercy on us.
Leaving the EU won’t achieve the objective of returning to Christian roots, and no one said it would. Peter here has just shared his own thought and decision making process, and in so doing given a practical example of how he relates to God and involves Him in that process. Peter hasn’t told anyone what to do! I’m personally voting out because the EU as an organisation is corrupt and I don’t want my country to be subservient to that. Enjoy making your decision!
This a powerful blog and I agree with Peter’s analysis of our history. However, personally I feel Peter is not correct in his conclusions for the following reasons.
1. I always feel uncomfortable when anyone uses the Bible to make a narrow political point.
2. Like Peter I believe God saved Britain in the Second World War for purpose and we have betrayed that purpose but Britain is not Israel and it is questionable exegesis to take Scriptural passages applied to Israel and specifically apply them to a political argument such as the EU referendum.
3. It is wrong factually. Peter seems to be confused wrt the role of the EU and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The ECHR is part of Council of Europe, which as a separate organisation to the EU. Our Home Secretary Therasa May recently explained the difference and the attached video explains the situation https://youtu.be/2PwFcUySW-w.
I think all who love the Lord will agree with Peter that Britain needs to return to its Christian roots. The question is will leaving the EU achieve this objective?
Personally, I think not, I say this because:
1. It was the UK Parliament, without reference to the EU that passed nearly all of the anti Christian legislation of the last 50 years. For example, the Abortion Act and the Same sex Marriage Act etc.
2. It was the Crown Prosecution Services of the UK at the behest of the UK Government who prosecuted Christian bakers, street preacher and hoteliers.
3. It was the European Court of Human Rights that has forced secularism upon Britain. It’s important to note that we will remain under the jurisdiction of this court even if the UK votes to leave the EU on June 23rd.
From the Christian morality point of view, leaving the EU will change nothing. I know the argument from the Christian Brexit side is that leaving the EU is an important first step in achieving this objective but what is the plan if the vote goes the other way?
Voting for Britain to leave the EU is an honourable position for a Christian to take but let us be careful if we invoke God in support of our case we present the facts accurately.
“if leaders were to rise up in the future with the intent of changing things, to bring the UK more in line with God’s laws, they would have no legal authority to change anything – because everything would be subservient to our masters in Brussels. Even if God were to raise up a modern day ‘Joseph’, ‘Daniel’ or a repentant ‘Jehoshaphat’, inside the EU they would be impotent.”
Alternatively, if leaders rose up that were intent on the reverse then there would be no moderating influence. (The Hitler argument I guess, and it could arise from this country as well as any other.) Maybe God does have a purpose for this nation. Maybe He has a purpose for the EU. Maybe He has a purpose for Syria. More likely He has a purpose for the whole world. I’m afraid I really don’t know.
Thank you Peter for your timely and very relevant message for our time. Your message was only confirmation that I had way back in 2007. While I was suffering from quite a lot of persecution personally from both the spirit of Jezebel and to my shock the religious spirit, which goes hand in hand because it tolerates Jezebel, I sought the Lord for independent confirmation. Very soon after, as if to answer my request, a visiting pastor to a church on the Fylde Coast, preached a message one step further called ” How did wicked Athalia become queen of Judah? Or How do Good Christian Churches die? Its basically saying the same thing, i.e. wrong alliances and compromising by wanting peace at ANY PRICE. I was awestruck when I heard this message, because it was exactly what God was saying to me including, your reference:
“Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the Lord?” (19:2) referring to Ahab and his evil wife Jezebel….’ ! I agree with every word that has been written by Peter Horrobin and we must listen to the warning bells, just as it has been spoken through the prophets such as Jeremiah and Ezekiel. God bless you Peter.
Expat living in Spain
??? you advocate a “shift from the dualistic position” (which is what the 23rd June vots is all about – in or out of the EU!) and then promote a “BOTH TOGETHER” position … i.e. voting to remain ! I find your comment truly bizzarre !
Well thought out and scriptural basis for leaving Europe. Thank you Peter.
The Lord is definitely concerned about our nation and it’s allegiances. I recently saw on the TV news that the Commission on Religion and Belief in Public Life were recommending leaving Christianity out of public life.
As I considered this the Lord popped Jeremiah 2v9-19 into my mind, which leaves us in no doubt that it matters a great deal that remaining true to Him is of great importance .
Dear Mr Horrobin,
a very insightful article. However I must disagree on two points: while HM our Queen has not personally reneged on her vows to ‘.. uphold the laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel’, indeed she has been a Christian influence – or is said to have been, especially where the issue of s-s marriages is concerned, ie the church not being forced to conduct this abomination – nevertheless she has signed into law practices that the Bible clearly condemns / commands against, ie homosexual behaviour; trading on the established day of rest; the systematic slaughter of nearly eight million of her subjects in that silent holocaust we call ‘A woman’s right to choose’.
She has been blessed with three jubilees in order to call this nation back to repentance and / or back to the ways of God. What would her God-fearing father have made of the laws passed in his daughter’s name?
Secondly, while admitting it was a controversial politician who forewarned of the dangers of uncontrolled immigration (he was ahead of his time in foreseeing the threat from Islam), not everything about post-war immigration has been negative. Black-majority churches are flourishing and I believe they will be instrumental in turning this nation back to the faith of our forebears that our dear old established church should have seen fit to do so, ie warning the nation of the forthcoming Judgement Day – whenever it is – instead of jumping onto the fashionable equality bandwagon by forcing through the legalisation of women bishops (apologies to female readers, nothing personal).
Thanks Nicholas for your long response to the blog. All that you’ve written is in line with what I wrote – good to have some additional insights though. Be blessed. Peter
Thanks Frank for your comments. I think you may have misinterpreted my comments as I am in no way proclaiming British supremacy and independence – I’m so sorry if that was the impression my blog gave you. The whole thrust of the article was about the danger of wrong alliances – sadly much of history tells us very powerfully how the wrong alliances can have devastating consequences. One of the fundamental issues at stake here is the freedom to make laws which are appropriate for your own nation. Too many times in recent years EU laws and decisions have trumped what was right. Blessings and thanks. Peter
Dear Peter. I am extremely disappointed by this blog. The current UK leadership isn’t any better than any other leadership in any other European nation. In my opinion stirring British nationalism is wrong and that is exactly what is going on in this post. Britain leaving the EU would have a devastating impact on European unity. In fact I feel personally rejected as being a Dutchman by this post. There no difference. People all over the world have lost the way. We are all in same battle which is not against flesh and blood but the dark powers and principalities in the unseen world. Moral decay is going on all over the world. In that respect modern Britain is no exception. The UK is not, and will never be, the centre of the world. Jesus wants them all, died for all and has risen from the grave for all. If British faith in Jesus would be that deeply embedded in the society you should stay and not walk away. Fighting the system from within is better than leaving it, as by leaving it you would frustrate the dialogue being no longer part of it, and the option to bring Christ to the nations around you. I am aware Britain has been a very blessed nation and many blessed ministries are rooted there. Yet, proclaiming British supremacy and independence is not the way. Feel free to respond. I’ve been an Ellel student for a while, both in England and The Netherlands. I’ve had a lot of good teaching and learned a lot of truth. Yet, this time I cannot agree with you.
Dear Mr. Horrobin,
I was directed to your article on the June ( EU ) referendum by a friend and read it with a mixture of keen interest and excitement.
Part of the reason for this lay in the fact that I had myself recently been reading in 2 Chronicles and following the line of the kings of Judah from Rehoboam onwards. The last few days have found me with Uzziah and today with the admirable Hezekiah.
During this series of meditations I have encountered and noted – again and again – the idea of ‘misalliance’, which is at the heart of your ‘thesis’.
Misalliance has, of course, been one of the most persistent causes of spiritual degradation over the centuries, whether in the case of God’s people under the Old Covenant ( both before and after the division of the kingdom ) or in the Church ( the “Israel of God” ) under the New. The temptation has proved irresistible – again and again – to believe that the people of the Kingdom of God can profitably ( and without either danger or compromise ) be united in common projects with those who belong to the “kingdom of this world”. There are, of course, areas in which a limited association can be mutually enriching and where humanitarian projects can draw upon shared concerns ( Wilberforce, whom you mention, associated profitably with William Pitt in his anti-slavery initiatives and William Tyndale used secular agents to distribute his translations of the Bible ); but the general axiom is – and must, I think, remain – that any degree of conformity with the world carries inherent dangers.
This is true for the individual and it is true in an extended, an augmented, sense for the Church.
I recall that in the reign of Amaziah ( Jehoshaphat’s great-great grandson I believe ), although that king had assembled an impressive standing army for the defence of Judah, he still felt the need of extra security and hired 100,000 mercenaries from Israel. An anonymous prophet condemned the move and told him, “these troops from Israel must not march with you…Even if you fight courageously…God will overthrow you…” ( 2 Chron. 25:8 ). Amaziah was suitably crestfallen; the deal had cost him a considerable sum of money and losing out on it would also involve a loss of face. But the prophet was adamant, and when Amaziah complained about the wasted cash, he told him plainly, “The Lord can give you much more than that.” Amaziah complied but the mercenaries were livid. They had obviously anticipated rich pickings and took out their frustration on the Judean towns, killing some 3,000 people and ransacking their houses. It was a mistake to compare with Jehoshaphat’s and with even more calamitous results. ( Amaziah never recovered. He turned to idolatry. A conspiracy in Jerusalem saw him fleeing to Lachish as a refugee and there his own people tracked him down and murdered him. )
These are salutary lessons and bring me to the point I want to lay before you: today, the Church in England is very loosely defined. The deleterious results of liberal theology and conformism have, in a very short space of time, altered the religious landscape of our country. In a sense, the church no longer understands what it is – has a genuine identity crisis. The idea that God is prepared to receive anybody on almost any terms has been so sedulously preached and cultivated, that to suggest otherwise is seen now as a fundamental betrayal of the Gospel, a contradiction of God’s all-embracing love and a shameful failure of compassion towards our fellow human beings. Many people now believe this misunderstanding of God to be the truth. Words such as ‘judgementalism’, ‘extremism’, ‘intolerance’ and ‘bigotry’ are regularly used to describe those who take their stand on the apostolic Gospel, and in many circles even the word ‘evangelical’ carries a disreputable connotation. Biblical concepts such a ‘sin’ have, as you point out, become part of a vocabulary largely obsolete and in many cases forbidden, while to voice criticism against any feature of contemporary ‘sexuality’ excites either shocked incomprehension, derision or, in some cases, self-righteous fury. The time is not far distant when it will provoke legal prosecutions and violence. In isolated cases it has done so already.
A key word ( in fact, an obsession ) in many churches these days is ‘inclusivism’, by which they often mean Universalism or religious syncretism. This, again, is nothing new. The magnetic attraction for ancient Israel of the Canaanite fertility cults often depended on a blurring of boundaries and of definitions, and on the almost compelling lure of sexual promiscuity, licensed ( or easily tolerated ) under Baal worship and practised with reckless promiscuity in the groves, the shrines and the ‘high-places’ dedicated to Asherah.
It is not difficult to see how these confusions arose. In the first place, animal symbolism was shared among a number of religions in the ancient near east, and the bull – used in Baal worship and prominent in Judaist thought as a symbol of strength – made confusion not merely possible but likely. ( After the partition of the kingdom, Jeroboam, who become ruler of Israel in the north, made two bull-calves – strategically placed in Bethel and Dan – and cried out “Behold your gods, oh Israel, which brought you up out of Egypt!” ) In the second, ba’al was an honorific title meaning ‘lord’ ( later taken over by Christianity and Islam in the opprobrious title Beelzebub ) and was sometimes employed as a reverential term ( or theonym ) for a god whose name – like that of Yahweh – was deemed too holy to be pronounced. It could also denote ‘husband’ – again, one of the metaphors employed by the prophets to represent the relationship between Jehovah and Israel – and survives in modern Hebrew and Arabic with the same connotation. Given these areas of potential confusion and the ever-present pull for fallen humankind towards sexual self-indulgence, it’s easy to see how Jews of Old Testament times slipped into a state of mind in which they sought ( indeed, at times found it almost ‘natural’ ) to amalgamate – and at the same time palliate – the strict requirements of the Mosaic law with the less demanding, flesh-gratifying traditions of the “gods of the nations”, provoking Jehovah to anger and drawing from men like Joshua the ultimatum for which ( among other things ) he is justly famous: “…if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.”
In truth, although the Jews of a later period “had no dealings with the Samaritans”, considering them a bastard race because they “Worshipped the Lord, but also served their own gods in accordance with the customs of the nations…” ( 2 Kings 33 ), they themselves were little better; they allowed a ‘composite’ religion – based on attenuated versions of the terms stated, again and again, in God’s original ‘covenant’ with their forefathers and on an easy tolerance of cult religions that emphasised ‘nature’ and the natural inclinations of the human heart ( Paul’s “beggarly elements” leading to “bondage” (Gal. 4:9 ) ).
I would submit that the current state of the Christian Church is, in this country at least, very much the same.
In the first place we are inventing a modified theology sympathetic to contemporary thought patterns in the secular world; we are becoming enslaved to conformism and losing, in the process, the core principles set out for Israel ( and through them for us ) from the time of Abram and Moses; principles brought to complete and perfect fruition in the person, life, death, resurrection and teachings of Jesus.
As with the ancient Jews, so with us: one of the major distractions – perhaps the greatest cause of compromise – has been our attitude to sexual relationships and the place of sexual intimacy in our lives. It is in these moral codes that people feel most restricted and from which they are most determined to free themselves. In so doing, they subject themselves and one another to a sustained process of reciprocal exploitation and abuse and also commit acts that are an abomination to God; a perversion of the natural order of things as ordained by Him. And these attitudes and practices – not only of perversion but of reckless promiscuity – are beginning to ruin our nation, to destroy our families and to cause a breakdown – already nearing the catastrophic – of trust and commitment between people in the most sensitive areas of their lives. Worse still, such attitudes are being justified in the name of healthy living and ‘dignified’ on the supposed grounds of godliness and Christian tolerance…sometimes with the clumsy, self-conscious manipulation of Scriptural texts by those who should ( and in some cases actually do ) know better!
Sadly, while I sympathise with your position concerning the desirability of our splitting from the EU, it’s not possible to see ‘Europe’ as an equivalent of Israel under Ahab ( “ a type of Ahab or Ahaziah” in your words ) or to turn on them the denunciations of Jehu the seer. Many of the countries of Europe have a Christian tradition whose roots are at least as deep as ours and who have been much blessed and favoured by God in earlier time; and if it comes to depravity I’m not sure but that we could teach many of them at least as much as they have discovered for themselves! In loose living, from what I’ve observed, we are, in some ways, ‘market leaders’ and ‘trend setters’. For that reason, I am not able to see our union with Europe as an alliance any more “ungodly” than any other alliance made by well-meaning politicians, though I believe it to have been ill-advised. But I think it’s hardly fair or accurate to say that we are currently allied to “a heinous and anti-semitic aggressor…”; nor am I convinced that the presence of a Jehoshaphat in a ‘free’ UK would be substantially more ( or less ) powerful than in a UK still “subservient to our masters in Brussels”.
When Jehoshaphat, facing the “vast army” from Edom, stood up at the temple of the Lord in the assembly of Judah, he declared: “Lord, the God of our ancestors, are you not the God who is in heaven? You rule over all the kingdoms of the nations. Power and might are in your hand and no one can withstand you.” If Jehoshaphat was able to trust Almighty God and to be strong in His strength in what seemed an impossible position, how can it be said that, in our current situation, a latter day equivalent – merely because we were inside the EU – would be “impotent”? Surely that defeats the very argument on which at least a substantial part of your thesis rests: that God is a God of deliverance and of irresistible power. Shall we be less bound by “shackles” if we leave Europe? Would it be easier for a latter-day Joseph, Daniel, Jehoshaphat, to promote Christian values under the government of one of our main political parties than as members of the EU? Are terms like ‘easy’ and ‘difficult’ and ‘impossible’ even relevant to a discussion of what might be achieved by God if he decided to act in executive power? Are we saying that the “wrath of God is upon” us for our decision to join the EU and that if we vote, in the end, to leave it, God will again bless us? I don’t think I could see Brexit as an act of repentance ( except in the very literal sense of an about-turn – a change of mind and of attitude ); certainly not as a renunciation of sin: i.e. from something that would incur God’s wrath, as, according to Jehu, Jehoshaphat’s alliance with Ahab had.
My point is this: yes – great as it would be to have a champion comparable to one of the biblical figures you mention come to the fore in public life, the real solution lies elsewhere. It lies in the Church. We need people to rise up in the church against the pernicious pseudo-doctrine of inclusivism and against the corruption of God’s words by people with vested interests in making a plain text seem to mean something different. We need people who are going to insist on the preaching of the full, the true Gospel – of repentance from sin, of faith in Jesus Christ, of belief in the efficacy of His atoning sacrifice and His glorious resurrection; of the power of His Holy Spirit, of the return of Christ “in power and great glory” and of the Day of Judgement.
We need leaders who will begin to speak again after the manner of those whose testimony characterised the times of our great national revivals. That manner of speaking is now obsolete; would attract animosity if it were revived. Those who perhaps would buck the current trend feel apprehensive and intimidated by the weight of popular opinion, which has now infiltrated – and all but taken over – much Christian thinking; has imposed on the church what is, effectively, a gagging order. Teachers and preachers who feel inclined ( compelled, even ) to break that strangle-hold anticipate being dubbed intolerant, literalist, bigoted, doctrinaire, arrogant, harsh, simplistic….’evangelical’. They fear being judged ‘politically incorrect’ and maybe being prosecuted for it. Still cherishing within them the word of truth, which is for some ( as for Jeremiah ) “like a fire shut up in ( their ) bones”, they have not yet reached the stage he reached – at which they are so “weary of holding it in” that they, quite literally, “cannot”. So they contain themselves, accept silence and withdrawal or offer courteous lip-service to the new status quo, painfully aware that the Church has, in many cases, adopted “another gospel”, ( thus incurring Paul’s anathema ) but afraid of declaring the uniqueness of that which was embodied in Christ, committed to Paul and preached by the apostles; and even more afraid of claiming its pre-eminence.
I am not in a position to judge these people. I am too much to blame myself onthe same charge. But I’m afraid the apostles would be ashamed of us – reluctant, maybe, even to believe that we were fellow Christians. And what would the martyrs say to us? Would they not be appalled? The truths which we are afraid or ashamed to proclaim are those for which they died!
How would we stand beside Peter ( often patronised from the pulpit for his clumsy impetuosity and scathed for his denial of Christ ), when he declared in one of his great post-pentecostal sermons: “Neither is their salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven whereby we must be saved…”?
How would we stand beside Stephen, who – as he was about to give his life for the sake of the Gospel – denounced his own race, telling them: “You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors…They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him…”?
How would we stand beside Paul who explained to the Athenian academics: “…we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone…In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day in which he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”
It’s after the examples of these men and many others – and in the same Spirit as that by which they spoke – that we should be declaring God’s truth.
The truth is that, while a Jehoshaphat ( a king and a politician ) would be good, our real need is for another John the Baptist: a man whose language was as direct and earthy as his clothes and as ‘primitive’ as his diet; someone who was prepared to be a “voice in the wilderness”, to rough it, to speak the truth without fear or favour or unnecessary embellishment, to preach a “baptism of repentance”; a tough man…a road-mender – someone willing “to prepare a highway in the desert” for the coming King; a scene-shifter, able to re-define the landscape, making the “rough smooth” and the “crooked straight” – to deny the academics their manipulative sophistries; someone prepared to “decrease” in the presence of Christ, in order that Christ might “increase”; someone able – by his very presence and his manner – to raise valleys and reduce mountains…to “exalt the humble and meek” and “bring down the mighty from their seats…”.
When John spoke, people listened; and even though his message was tough, people flocked to him. “You brood of vipers,” he told them, “who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance…The axe has been laid to the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.” And when they asked for examples of “good fruit”, he promptly supplied a string of them: practical axioms for decent living. He told them that the coming Messiah would come armed with a “winnowing fork…to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into the barns” and then “burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. And that was the “good news”!
And still they flocked to him.
It’s a lie of the Devil – promoted by those who, whatever their vestments, are supporting the Devil’s work – that preaching the simple core truths of the Gospel, telling people that they are sinners and need a Saviour, and so on, will empty the churches. It’s simply not true – even though it may sound as if it should be.
There IS a widespread spiritual hunger today, despite our hell-bent materialism and cynicism and hedonism. It’s a hunger for a way out of it all. People are finding that many of the tastiest items with which they’ve gorged themselves and dulled their palates are ‘dead-sea fruit’, that turn to ashes even as they taste them; God has allowed us the desires of our hearts but “sent leanness into our souls”.
People don’t look to ‘The Church’ anymore, because the church is often as blank in its response as the minds of the seekers, who know that they have deep needs – unsatisfied, insatiable and mostly indefinable – but who don’t even know how to frame the very questions they need to ask. In many cases they no longer have even the most basic introduction to the true faith – and how could one ‘imagine’ the Gospel, anyway? Therefore ‘religion’ is, to many of them, like a ‘dead’ language. Its supposed values are not in a currency that they understand or that can be spent in today’s ‘markets’.
John the Baptist was a lion-heart. He was something more than a prophet, something more than a preacher. He stood for righteousness and was not afraid ( or if he was, he conquered his fear ) to declare publicly what he knew to be God’s truth – on moral issues as well as on spiritual ones.
He rebuked Herod because of his immoral life and he paid for it with his own.
It’s this kind of person we want and need…as much a champion as David ever was before Goliath.
John seemed like a reincarnation of Elijah; and Jesus, referring to the Jewish maxim that before Messiah would come, Elijah must first return, declared that that prophecy had been fulfilled in John. Elijah, who confronted King Ahab and his disgusting wife, Jezebel, who faced – and faced-down, even more sensationally – the formidable prophets of Baal – 450 of them together with 400 prophets of Asherah – on Mount Carmel, was able to raise a challenge that reverberates with a profound and inescapable resonance over the centuries, in the prophetic tradition of the Jews,: “How long will you waver between two opinions? If the Lord is God, follow him, but if Baal is God, follow him.”
The question remains the same; so does the issue upon which it focuses. The Church – the Nation – needs people who will explain the issue and put the question.
To be such a person, the discharge of such a duty comes ( of course ) at a price. God’s triumph on Carmel came at a price for Elijah. He lapsed into a prolonged depression. He feared the consequences of his victory; he felt – and declared – himself useless and in the end begged God that he might die. Graciously God allowed his retirement, and his death followed not long after. But what a champion!
It was a similar situation for John the Baptist. Imprisoned by Herod, awaiting a particularly grisly execution, he began to entertain shreds of doubt even about whether or not Jesus was the true Messiah! Jesus sought to reassure him, by sending a consolatory message, but who knows whether, even then, John recovered his spirits?
Neither Elijah nor John was super-human. They had a job to do. They did it. It cost them. Maybe John himself is part of the ‘martyred throng’ seen by his namesake in one of his visions on Patmos, crying continuously “with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?” The only answer they receive is that they must “wait a little longer, until the full number of their fellow-servants” also destined for martyrdom have been also killed.
Is it alarmist or melodramatic to suggest that even in this country the time may soon come when those who will speak out plainly for the Gospel must risk not merely abuse and ridicule and ostracism, but maybe serious deprivation, violence, even death!
It’s a sobering thought, but also a glorious one.
We have played safe for too long. The time has come for Christians to show their colours and if one of the colours turns out to be blood red, so be it. The apostles counted it a privilege to suffer for Christ. Are UK Christians ready for that yet?
In their answer may lie the key to the future of our country – in or out of Europe.
( This rather length and hastily-constructed ‘epistle’ is intended primarily as a positive response to your article on the EU Referendum. If you are able to respond, I’m sure I would benefit from your further comments, and if you should find it appropriate to share any of my ideas with your wider audience, please feel free to do so. I appreciate what you wrote as wise, considered and balanced. Although this letter may seem to you extremist and maybe immoderate, I believe its content to be valid. )
Yours in Christ,
Nicholas Blyth
An excellent and helpful perspective on this very important and strategic subject. Thank you.
This should be sentt to David Cameron and the 2 Archbishops.
I hope someone will!
The EU is a vampire feeding on the life blood of the nations. It devours our souls, our sovereignty and our faith. We should serve no foreign gods or any other nation
Thank you very much Peter. I have forwarded this to friends who have found it very helpful also. A godly perspective. I would consider it prophetic. Thank you for taking the time to express a Christian perspective. Thanks be to God that there is always a way back through repentance, we need to repent as a nation and individually. I believe there is going to be a National Day of prayer on St George’s day this year. Lets come before our gracious and merciful Father for our nation. God bless you.
So insightful Peter! It was a great read for me today. Being in the United States I see all the same patterns as in the U. K. Glad our God is on the throne and hears our prayers.
God bless you and your,
Maureen Iverson
An excellent overview and very much appreciated. Thank you Peter.
A wonderfully insightful, piece. Here is God’s Wisdom. Thank you Peter.
Thank you Peter. Not that I needed any further convincing, as I have already decided ‘out’ but it is good to have Scripture to help those who haven’t yet decided.
Thank you Peter for this blog. It has all seemed very confusing as we get told conflicting opinions from the politicians and I was hoping that you would write something about this subject. Brilliant…it helps so much to put it all in perspective. God Bless you.
the tower of babel is a simple reminder that GOD divided the nations.who are we to try to put them back together,or the question should be.what force is trying to put the nations together again?
Surprised by the shallowness of this long post having appreciated much of the authors work over the years!
Perhaps a shift from the ‘dualistic ‘ position of either /or to a position of BOTH TOGETHER may bring european man to a more mature position.
British ‘right-wise’ stance is to be recovered whilst contending with the EEC relationship in a global existence that we now have.
As mankind moves civilisation from Order through Disorder to Reorder, we evangelicals must not get stuck in the ‘Order’ stage as we feel the effects of Disorder hit!