We need… a one world government?

Jesus is coming back, will come to Jerusalem and install a one-world government. The hope of all those who hope they have backed the ‘winner’.

The antiChrist will soon appear and we will be in trouble (unless of course some theory drummed up around 1830 is correct that we are all whoosed out of here just in time), we will not be allowed to buy and sell, as a one-world government is installed. The nightmare ahead of us all.

Both the above of course are dependent on a certain way of reading the Scriptures and both are pretty deterministic. The first includes a very big part of ‘who God really is’ and therefore he rules in this way, the real ‘top down model’; the latter… well ‘drummed up’ and with a movement within it that flies in the face of the direction of movements in Scripture, which are consistently heaven to earth. So (‘perspectives’ remember) let’s push for an alternative one-world government scenario.

[Preamble: I read the Bible as wonderfully incomplete. The future is open; Revelation was for then and therefore is highly relevant for now – but is not predicting now, or the immediate future; the Fall of Jerusalem is such a pivotal point in history, and the point of Matt. 24 and parallels, blah blah blah…]

Not allowed to buy and to sell? Buying and selling describes transactional dealings, and of course is representative of how economies tick. But what if there was an alternative economy? One based on ‘giving’ and ‘receiving’, one that valued where I gave myself (my time) rather than rewarded me for perpetuating inequalities. Idealistic? Probably so, but then the nature of apocalyptic writings was to personify, concretify realities in extreme form (kind of the opposite of ‘idealify’). Are we likely to move toward a chip that allows a buying of goods in our local supermarket? Probably. Will that be a sign of the beast? Yes… in the same way that most economies have been marked by the beast for centuries. I would not worry too much about such a chip, as it is simply moving it from a card that is carried that is an extension of our bodies and placing it in our bodies. That is not a big jump, and in reality I think we need a much bigger jump in reverse direction any way! We are already complicit, and if that is a knowing compromise that we hold lightly and act differently to we really don’t have too much of an issue.

Global reparations. Boris Johnson (remember him?) recently said that no country can afford to make reparations for the issues of slavery and of climate destruction that have been made, hence Britain should not even be asked to go down that route. Maybe we could say, surely we are not our brother’s keeper. Responsible for others, other ethnicities? Surely not!

I actually am a bit of a globalist. We need some global responses to the problems we have created together (the word created there is something of an oxymoron as God said of creation ‘it is good’, maybe it should read ‘the problems we have destroyed together’… but that too does not read right!)

We actually need some form of one-world government. Not a rule from Jerusalem over the nations; certainly not a rule that oppresses – a Babylon / tower of babel. And probably / certainly not something with a headquarters somewhere. Maybe this is what Paul had in mind about phase 2 beyond ‘ekklesia in Jesus Christ in every context’. What if through stance (we see a new creation) a consistent revolution begins that pushes back against every self-centred / ethnic-centred / geo-political-centred stance, such as ‘Make xxx great again’, restore our sovereign borders and keep the others out (but let us live where we want cos we are not immigrants, but ‘ex-pats’). A revolution that changes the atmosphere, and brings on board some ready to risk it Asiarchs who see beyond their privileges to also seeing ‘new creation’.

Maybe that could be ekklesia 2.0? All kinds of people together, new economies, new ecologies, new…

Yes something not too pure, but within it and flowing into it those who follow the Lamb wherever he goes.

Not a ‘we’ll tell you what to do’ one-world government of antiChrist, nor that of the dream of Christians who backed the winner! Yeast in the bread. Could this be why Jesus prayed ‘don’t take them out of here’?

8 thoughts on “We need… a one world government?

  1. God does rule and reign as Sovereign over all as risen Lord but he (will use this pronoun for ease I know you dislike it sorry) also serves and lays down and pours himself out utterly so the hierarchy is also always inverted too assuming there is a hierarchy which there probably is. Although I don’t know and it certainly doesn’t look like earthly power? He is above and below all creation at same time perhaps and turns power on its head utterly when he says: They that would be master must be servant (himself), the first will be last and last first, blessed are the poor in spirit etc.etc. Just some thoughts that I’ve been having which are sort of relevant I think.
    Making a country great is okay in of itself it the ‘greatness’ means providing sanctuary for the poor wanderer and a fairer more genuinely compassionate country. I’m all for that type of greatness imagine if that was how we defined it but as you say that’s not what is meant but the Trump/Johnson/Meloni types just the exclusion of the other, protection of borders, language, race etc.That sort of Nationalism is dangerous and I detest it especially in light of its horrific consequences in the 20th century. Also I don’t mean the type of definition of pity/compassion etc. where people are just told everything they want to hear to appease them and shut them up and never provoke them to think for themselves but real duty of care for the vulnerable and impressionable whilst allowing innovation and enterprise to flourish and the artists to paint and the musicians to play, a righteous economy to grow etc etc. The only way to cause this is to be yeast in the dough as you say with the stance of a servant. I don’t know much about one world governments but seeking to gain positions of power to further our agendas wreaks of the religious spirit and Christendom. But then I don’t blame those who think like that when fighting to protect those who they believe are most vulnerable either it’s so complicated they think they’re doing Gods will? So much to mull over here Martin as ever and I’ve probably gone well off topic! Thank you

  2. I’m not a speaker of Spanish, but is this, ‘All kinds of people together, new economies, new ecologies, new…’ a kind of global ‘convivencia’ with attitude?

    1. A convivencia… now what language could that be… Are you posting here with attitude? Just asking!!

  3. I think I’m out of my depth with social media protocol and conventions. Are you being cheeky, ironic or taking the p…? Anyway, by ‘attitude’ I meant something that had vitality, purpose and magnanimity.

  4. Love the vision Martin. Funny, just before I opened this page I was reading about various oppressive things around the globe and thinking ‘why aren’t there more revolutions?’ It’s funny to me that the great masses of people pretty much go along with oppressive overlords be they capitalistic billionaires or sadistic heads of state. I watched a journalist reporting today on billionaires in the USA behaving badly (I’ll restrain myself from naming names) and he explained that we choose this. We could, as a matter of policy, set up an economic system that resists allowing such people to gain such power. Why don’t we? I guess we are easily dazzled by the trappings of wealth and power. Not sure where that leaves us.
    There is an understanding of human social structures where communities or societies seek a ‘strong man’ who will keep the community safe. That can evolve into a whole social structure that exists to support a warrior class like medieval Europe and others. Jesus, of course, is the complete contradiction of that as he gives up his life for others without a fight. Oops, a strong man who appears weak? That’s a step too far, hence all the recent Evangelical attempts to turn Jesus back into a carpenter (lifts weights and is ripped) warrior (often pictured carrying a gun).
    Such possibilities in this moment of transformation. We need to think hard about what we want and the directions to go. What kind of communities produce more equity? What kinds of communities honor each other? What kinds of communities provide for everyone’s needs? What kinds of communities care for the local environment? What kinds of communities provide health care to all? What kinds of communities have engaging work and employment for all including artists and other creative producers? Can we create communities where no one is homeless? Where no one lacks medical care? Where no one goes hungry? Where all are accepted and loved? I’ll bet we could if we wanted to. We can imagine it and design it. Oh, my bad, I guess that was what ekklesia is supposed to be and model. Well, who knew!
    PS: not to diss all the wonderful people who do great work in often terrible conditions. They are models and point us in the direction we shoujld go.

  5. Will the breakthrough ideas for the economy,housing food, equality and so on all come from Christians? If we pray for solutions and create space from them (pray), honour those who are humbly seeking technological/societal answers then who knows where they might pop up. Where a secular/sacred divide still dominates thinking then I guess not because we’ll be looking in the wrong direction. Praying for heaven to come here surely must reveal new ways of being if we are looking for them rather than escaping, but new ways of being human, new ways to be shared and freely given because God so loved the world-it flows from a place of love. Thanks for the kenarchy link a while back, Spencer Thompson’s essay on economics was an eye opener for a non-economist. Other ways of being are available!

  6. A lot of Christians over a number of years have seemed to get hung up about numbers and bar codes and microchipping. It doesn’t have to be that “apocalyptic.” In my days in the theatre in Leatherhead there were some events that never took place because we wouldn’t accept the terms of some contracts. That leaves you excluded from certain possibilities. We couldn’t make anyone change that, but I like to think that just being there and refusing to do business in that kind of way, and having the conversation with the agent as to why, was perhaps a bit of Ekklesia?

Comments are closed.