Will The Tail Wag The Dog (US/UN)?

Around the world, President George W. Bush and his administration have been criticized for entering Iraq unilaterally. Of course, Britain was with him, but few other nations. Around the world, the cry has gone up that the US president should have waited for the United Nations to act -this in spite of the fact that the world waited for ten years for the Iraq to comply with UN resolutions! France, Germany and other European nations would have eventually come on side with the Americans, many argued. If one examines history, however, one will have to conclude that it is debatable that France would ever have stood with the America, an English-speaking nation. Up to now, France has not yet been able to get over the downfall of Emperor Napoleon and her perceived place as the centre of mankind's nation universe. Imagine, England, originally a backwater island nation, upstaging France so that today most of the world's commerce and education is done in English not French. In addition, English has emerged as the lingua franc of the whole electronic world through the Internet. Academically, anything of note is republished in English almost immediately if English is not its original language of publication. Scores of nations have English as their second language in their school system including, of late, France herself! These developments gall France to the core!

The question remains, did President Bush and Prime Minister Blair act wisely in going into Iraq with their armies?

I've asked myself this question over and over again. Certainly the coalition of the US and Britain and some other countries did a first class job initially in winning the war in Iraq and capturing Sadam Hussein. The UN has no armies. How could it have contained Iraq without the support of the US and Britain and their nofly zones? To say that the US should have waited until the UN gave permission for such military action in Iraq is like saying the tail should wag the dog! As a Canadian, I've been ashamed that our government made the decision not to go with the Americans and British into Iraq. The US is our closest ally and friend and our most important trading partner by far. I've been so thankful that not too great a US retaliation took place because of the Chretien government's decision. Surely this shows the kindness of America to a friend. No doubt our lumber and cattle disputes with the US were in no way helped through such an anti-American policy in this country. Thank God our new Prime Minister, Paul Martin, is an experienced diplomat and values our friendship with the United Staes highly.

Let's look at other places where we waited for the UN to act. Ruwanda is one notable example. While the UN had their debates in the General Assembly (which seems to be at least 75% anti-American), innocent people were slaughtered by the thousands (over 800,00 to be exact)in Ruwanda. In Kosovo, if NATO had not gone in, ethnic cleansing would have continued resulting in the murder and dislocation of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. NATO helped the UN in its pacification of Bosnia and Serbia. Honestly, at times, the UN reminds one of a toothless tiger (no armies, no money, no resolve!!). If it were not for the UN system of governance with a Security Council with permanent members who have veto power, the UN would have been relegated to the archives of history long ago. Often the only thing that has saved the UN is the ability of member states like the US and Britain to act unilaterally when necessary for world peace. I think Kofi Annan was ill-advised to rebuke President George W. Bush and the US recently about going into Iraq - it smacked of a pathetic effort to influence the American presidential election.

As a Christian, I am painfully aware that, as I look out on to our troubled world, there is no human being who can solve our problems anyway. They are simply too complicated and onerous! On a coming day when "the kingdom of this world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ, and he will reign forever and ever (Revelation 11:15)" - that is when the world will be delivered from despots, corrupt leaders, selfish industrialits, and cruel sadists who mercilessly keep their people in bondage. I, for one, wait for that day. Even so, come, Lord Jesus!

Should The Tail Wag the Dog (US/UN)?

Around the world, President George Bush and his administration have been criticized for entering Iraq unilaterally. Well, yes, Britain was with him, but few other nations. Still, not that many. Around the world, the cry went up that the US President should have waited for the United Nations to act - that in spite of the fact that the world had waited ten years for the UN to make up its mind about Iraq! France, Germany and other European nations would have eventually come on side, many argued. Listen, if you examine history, you'll have to conclude that France would never have come on side. Up to now, she has not been able to get over the downfall of Emperor Napoleon and her place at the centre of mankind's universe. Imagine, England, originally a backwater island nation, upstaging France so that now most of the world's commerce and education is done in English. In addition, English has emerged as the lingua franca of the whole world on the Internet. Anything of note is almost always published in English if English is not its original language of publication. Scores of nations have English as their second language in their school system. These developments gall France to the core!

The question remains, did President Bush and Prime Minister Blair act wisely in going into Iraq with their armies?

I've asked myself this question over and over again. Certainly the coalition of the US and Britain and some other countries did a first class job in winning the war in Iraq. The UN has no armies. How could it have contained Iraq without the support of the US? To say that the US should have waited until the UN gave permission for such military action in Iraq is like saying the tail should wag the dog. As a Canadian, I was ashamed that our government made the decision for us not to go into Iraq with the Americans. The US is our closest ally and friend and most important trading partner. I've been so thankful that not too great a US retaliation took place because of the Chretien government's decision. Surely this shows the kindness of America to a friend. No doubt our lumber and cattle disputes with the US were in no way helped through such an anti-American policy in this country. Thank God our new Prime Minister, Paul Martin, is an experienced diplomat and values our friendship with the United States highly.

Let's look at other places where we waited for the UN to act. Ruwanda is one notable example. While the UN had their debates in the General Assembly (which seems to be at least 75 % anti-American), innocent people were slaughtered by the thousands (over 800,000 to be exact). In Kosovo, if NATO had not gone in, ethnic cleansing would continued to have gone on apace. NATO helped the UN in its pacification of Bosnia and Serbia. Honestly, the UN reminds me of a toothless tiger (no armies, no money, no resolve). If it were not for the UN system of governance with a Security Council which is functionally more important than the General Assembly, the UN would have been relegated to the archives of history long ago. Often the only thing that saves the UN is the ability of member states like the US and Britain to act unilaterally when necessary for the peace of the world. I think Kofi Annan was ill-advised to rebuke President Bush and the US recently about going into Iraq - it smacked of a pathetic effort to influence the American presidential election.

As a Christian, I am painfully aware as I look out ono the world that no human being can solve our problems anyway. They are simply too great! On a coming day when "the kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ, and He will reign forever and ever" (Revelation 11:15) - that is when the world will be delivered from despots, corrupt leaders, selfish industrialists, and cruel sadists who keep their people in bondage. I, for one, wait for that day. Even so, come, Lord Jesus!

Jesus The Thinker: November 2004 So it's ok to say no to God, eh?

I come from a church background that is fairly unencumbered with hierarchy. Other church groups (eg. Roman Catholic and Anglican) are known for their ecclesiastical hierarchy. For this reason, I'm finding it strange that the diocese of New Westminster here in B.C., Canada, can flagrantly flaunt the desires of the Anglican Church and seemingly get away with it. Also, it is inconceivable to me that a practicing gay could be elevated to bishop in the United States Episcopal Church over the protests of Anglican prelates around the world.

Surely, the key question in all of this is where the Church's authority lies. For centuries, the Anglican church has found comfort in its traditions and very strong hierarchical structure. That seems to be being undermined by this latest development in the Anglican communion.

The Archbishop Of Canterbury, ostensibly the practical head of the Anglican Church worldwide (technically the Queen is head of the Anglican Church), convened a commission to deal with developments in the U.S. and Canada. As I understand it, the Lambeth Commission was made up of leading prelates from around the world. They deliberated for some time and reached the conclusion that the two bishops in question should stop blessing same-sex marriages and that the U.S. gay bishop should abandon his gay lifestyle. If not, they were "requested" to leave the church. Curious, eh?
"Requested"??? Since when was that the Anglican way. Historically, the Anglican Church has simply ordered dissenters to leave. Take, for example, some of my spiritual forefathers in England (eg. John Bunyan) who were at odds with the established Church (Anglican). They were forced out. Has the Anglican Church lost its teeth and become a paper tiger?

Possibly the greatest question of all is, "Will the Bible be our guide for faith and practice or not?" The Bible is abundantly clear on the question of homosexuality (cf. Romans 1:18-32, I Corinthians 6:9-11). Although some may try to twist the Scriptures to their own ends, God is clear. Homosexuality is sinful, an abomination in the eyes of a holy God.A person is not born a homosexual, but becomes one by choice (even though it may be very early in his life). How, then, could a Christian clergyman bless "same-sex" unions. This is not to say that the Church should not love and welcome homosexuals. But it is clear in the Bible that a rebirth is necessary. By the power of Christ, they must be inwardly made anew (II Corinthians 5:17). Surely this is what the apostle Paul implies in I Corinthians six when he says, "Such were some of you (i.e. idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexual offenders, drunkards, swindlers, etc.). But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of God" (I Cor. 6:11).

So, in this whole question of church authority in the Anglican Church, one must maintain church discipline or else the whole structure may well begin to crumble.
We say to the two deviant bishops that their conduct might be summarized in the question, "So it's all right to say no to God, eh?" After all, if one can say no to God (the Bible), what's the difference if one goes against a preponderance of church
prelates?

Values To The Core!

Apparently one overarching issue emerged in the recent American elections. What the American people were most concerned about was not the economy or the war in Iraq or even social issues. They were preoccupied with moral values as they went to the polling stations to vote. What was the result? President George W. Bush, a born again conservative, was reelected handily and the Republicans, champions of morality, ended up with a firm grip on Congress. The Democrats are still reeling from the lashing the electorate gave them. Hopefully they have learned a few lessons about the way America thinks.
I for one am glad to see this "return" to morality. Surely we have gone to far to the left with Hollywood leading the charge to unseat old-fashioned values. The people have finally clearly said,"Enough! It is time to return to morality!" It amazes me that our politicians would be taken by surprise in this return to the basics! After all, whenever people feel threated (as we do right now with the war on terrorism and Iraq) they return to values which have emerged as tried and proven in time of crisis.
So, we congratulate President Bush on his timely victory. We say to our senators and congressmen, "God bless you, our prayers are with you!" It is to be hoped that President Bush will soon be called upon to appoint one or two outstanding jurists to the Supreme Court. Then perhaps America will lead the way in protecting the rights of the unborn and modifying laws on abortion. Can a nationwide ban on same-sex marriages not be far off either?
Jesus' words echo in our minds, do they not? He said, "Are you still so dull? Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man unclean'. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander
(Matthew 15:16-20).
Wise is the people who pay attention to what is going on in the heart (inner self). For that reason, Americans are now turning to Jesus in droves so that they may be remade inwardly through His saving power. Herein lies America's greatestest strength. Didn't our forefathers seek to impress this upon us by putting on our money the slogan "In God We Trust!" In other words, "Render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, but to God what belongs to God." There is no other hope for America and the electorate discerned this in the way they voted on Tuesday, November second. Values to the core!