Post-Jihad Christendom is Near
I have written elsewhere (in Russian) on the true nature of the islamic-and-secular-humanist world as a united realm of Allah suffering under the war and slavery which now comes to its end. When you cease to be scared or fascinated by the "islamic theology", a lot of it suddenly starts to make sense – as long as you treat it, rightly, as an attempt of a 7 y.o. child to get away with lying and cheating. You learn that Allah really pretends to own the whole world, which is divided between the land of slavery and the land of war. He pretends to "set the law" because he scared some Yahweh images into believing that he has "divine sanctions" in his hands. He claims to predestine everything, but there is no logic or reason in this predestination; that's because he just says "it happened just as I planned" or "what I said earlier doesn't count", and no one dares to call him to account. He claims to have "mercy" and "grace" because he can beat or kill his victims or leave them alone, all at his whim, and suuurely he has "known in advance" everything that he just as surely "decided". And he has no tools on Yahweh's Earth but some hostages who develop a mystical love-hate feeling toward the terrorist.
Just as surely as the land of slavery is enslaved by Allah, the land of war is fighting his war… against itself. It happened as a judgement for our idolatry, common to all Christendom as a whole: when we learned to build machines and mechanisms and discover Yahweh's laws of nature (all these are a good gift), we tried to build "social structures", world orders, systems of government regulated by man-made rules and "laws", and factories and companies regulated in the same way.
There was no challenge like this in the Old Testament times, because there weren't enough gifts and knowledge to make it possible. As always, we can use Yahweh's revelation and Yahweh's law (remembering that there's no Law without grace) to know our sin and repent. What we shouldn't do is installing some selected "commandments", as if they were a kind of software update, into our current "social structure".
What we should then preach?
Probably before preaching anything, we have to train ourselves into reading long texts. Those of us who were brought up in Christian families, those who were regularly eating the food of Yahweh's word by His grace, do have all necessary experience. As of any "natural" abilities required, each and every Christian has them in his true, redeemed nature.
Many preachers strive to answer supposed "challenges of our time" by following news. Being (physically) myopic from my very childhood, I know spiritual myopia full well when I see it. Christians should look into heavens and extend their time spans of "actuality". One century is good enough to get started. Creation-to-now is the real "actuality" deserving our attention. It's usually called "the past".
Our current adversary, – Allah, had its cause within the Church. I believe the original problem is caused by us having two Seventh Ecumenical Councils; one that condemns iconic worship and the other that commends it. No, I don't question the original Protestant commitment to aniconic worship as what God prefers: I've happily thrown away my own icon some years ago, and now I praise Yahweh for His grace of enabling me to get over the old sinful ways.
The problem is, we should pay attention to the content of any argument or proposition first, and only then we may consider where it's headed, whose "weapon" it represents. Yahweh hates any argument against icons that, by its content, denies or perverts the Incarnation, because it presents Yahweh as a father of lies.
The first and most important Christian technology is a two-edged sword. A word judges the Christian, and we know it by how he understands it – one way or another. When a word meets another word, both swords sharpen each other. And when it "wounds" a Christian, it also always resurrects and strengthens him.
When you read Christianly, you pay attention to its propositional content and its ethical implications, and then you let the word judge you by being interpreted; then you may guess how it will judge other people and influence their behavior, but it's just that – a guess.
Allah can't use two-edged swords. (By the way, you can measure his power and his IQ by noticing the age of your children when his "secular" state tries to steal them. As far as I know, he's too afraid even of 7 y.o.'s in some countries). There are no Jedi knights among his slaves; when any argument is delivered by him, "force of argument" is the measure of scariness of some "sanction". Vain swearing becomes the rule; there is no "yes, yes" and "no, no" but a long scale of "probably, absolutely, certainly, suurely, 146%!" logical truth values.
If we follow his vile example, we lose the ability to weight a commandment against another commandment: we become too obsessed with "probability and force" of a formulation (i.e. with its scariness) to pay attention to the place of a commandment within the whole order of things. No, icons aren't permitted; and they aren't idolatry; what they really are? They are the new high places.
High places don't contaminate worship beyond the possibility of recovery. They don't even create new temptations and new sins, they just perpetuate every kind of sin and slavery of the people leaving under them. The main feature of the high places' history in the Old Testament times is this: it's boring to death. Such-and-such king, doing things after God's own heart, still didn't remove them… Repeat N times until you are bored.
Yahweh created a mirror of the "seculislamic" world for us, so we see our sins and repent. To take back the swords of our fathers, we have to do two things:
- Reject both Sevenths Ecumenical Councils as schismatic by their own nature.
- In the Eighth Ecumenical Council (hey, we are in it right now,
there's nothing to "organize" or "conduct") declare an addition to
our Creed:
- There is another God than Allah, and Jesus Christ is his Son.
- Declare two "canon laws" to facilitate further decisions of the
church:
- 1. No human-created text except the Bible can be declared as irreversible and unalterable, and no human-made bylaw can require obedience against one's own conscience.
- 2. If some allegedly universal decision of the Church, after 40 years of "settlement period", is still unacceptable to a single local church whose people call themselves "Christians", the whole decision is reversed as schismatic. There is be no need to "organize" or "conduct" this reversal.
We thank our Father for a perfect mirror of our sin, giving us enough knowledge and power to repent of it.
Allah is just the black hole containing delusions and fears that we have to each other. Getting rid of it, we can suddenly see the whole lot of things "clicking" and a whole lot of nightmares eliminating.
Our whole language is littered with terms and concept missing from the Bible, but hypnotizing us into believing lies. Maybe we'll eventually use them for self-identification, but now it should be made clear:
If Allah would be the real God, we would be atheists.
If Islam is a "religion", we'd better be secular.
If Allah needs moral code or criminal code, we don't need either.
If Allah is traditionalist, we aren't. If Allah supports family values, we don't share them. If Allah's female and male slaves have to keep some chastity, we'd say: better to be an adulteress or adulterer under God then a lawful wife or husband under Allah.
If Allah is for capitalism, we aren't. And if Allah is for communal living, we're against it. If Allah is against feminism, we'd better embrace and welcome feminism than go to Allah for protection. If and when Allah punishes homosexuals, abortionists, thieves, murderers -- we'd rather welcome them.
If Allah is "militant", we'd better be pacifist then be militant "just like he is". If Allah offers a "religion of peace", we'd better declare a war than pretend to have "another religion of peace" here.
If Allah is "inclusivist", pretending to own the whole universe, we should better have nothing but the Cross as an answer; away with our comprehensive worldviews, as long as it means "we have a comprehensive worldview and an universal pretenses, like Allah does".
If Allah is "exclusivist", declaring his "salvation" for those who have done such-and-such things (and he is always "free" to extend his "mercy and grace" by changing the rules and betraying his victims), we'd better be inclusivist:
"What if I don't come to the Table of our Lord?" – "Well duh, you won't eat His bread and drink His wine. Just what the hell do you expect when we invite you for a free lunch and you don't come? Do you think we still serve Allah here, pointing the gun on your head? We just wanted you to know where you get the free lunch when you need it."
"Can someone not be baptized and still be saved?" – "Well, look at our leftists and our nudists. What do you think – can you be naked and remain alive? Surely, and they don't even get raped! We just wanted to let you know that we have a free clothes for you."
"Can someone have such-and-such error in his creed and still be a Christian?" – "You bet. Can you draw a map of your native city or country, using just your memory? If you can't, does it mean you have no native city or you don't know it? And if you're lost in any of our cities, and you have no directions – you just ask anyone in the street, and he will probably help you."
"What do you think, am I saved?" – "Ah that's easy. Are you a Christian?" – "Well, hm, I don't really know, and I'm not sure…" -- "Then I'm not sure whether you are saved or not. Got the principle? Hopefully it's easy to apply it. You are saved by Yahweh's name, and it's a dangerous thing to wear in vain, but you already know that much".
"Will I end up in hell for my sins? Will I end up in heaven with all my sins as they are?" – "Sorry bro, we have no idea where you'll end up, though our Father definitely has. We judge words and works, not Yahweh's man or woman "as a whole". Until our Father announces His decision, there is no TOTAL judgement and no FINAL verdict."
If we believe predestination "just like Allah described it", we'd better be Arminians. If we believe mercy and grace "just like Allah promises is", we'd better believe salvation by works. If we avoid icons and statues, just like Allah forbade his victims – we'd better worship a powerless golden calf than willfully give up into the terrorist's hands.
If we believe the rule of Law "just like Allah requires it", we'd better be anarchists. Absence of law is better than impersonal law.
If we believe in Yahweh's omniscience "just like Allah pretends to know everything", hey, we'd better believe randomness and chance than this kind of omniscience. If we rely on Yahweh's providence and care "as Allah promises to his victims", better believe in your own hand and your own power: it's foolish, of course, but at least your own power is real and creative.
If we believe in creation "just like Allah requires it", we'd better believe in evolution. If we believe in social order and in responsibility of rulers "just like Allah expects it", we'd better believe in social disorder and irresponsibility.
If we believe in eternal life "just like Allah sees it", we'd better be annihilationists. If we believe in heaven and hell "just like Allah threatened it", we'd better believe in no heaven and no hell. If we have taboos and limits "just as Allah victims do", we'd better overstep them right now than obey them.
If we reject Judaism and Judaisers "just like Allah hates it", we'd better be Judaists than do something like that. The question of "Entangling alliances with Israel" is just an attempt to escape the real question of our entangling alliance with Allah, which we are cancelling right now.
If we honor our father and mother "just like Allah would like it", we'd better rebel against theme, steal from them or kill them. Today the worst dishonor we could give to any image of Yahweh is to honor Allah in any relation, as if we were in Allah's covenant.
If we bring up our children "just like Allah's victims bring up theirs", there's something seriously wrong with us. We should cease to bring up slaves and rethink what we're doing.
Do we believe in holy places and holy sites? There is no desecration possible, because all Creation is cleaned by the holy Blood. And there was no desecration possible, ever: the purpose of Law is not to protect things and places from desecration, it's to protect people who could die if they're careless, because of their own uncleanliness. And we have nothing like that past uncleanliness here and now, because after the Cross, there is no death without resurrection.
That's why we wear our two-edged swords without fear of killing ourselves and our brothers and sisters "by accident": not only because there is no accidents, but because the promise of Resurrection universally applies: if we kill or wound ourselves or each other, the Father will resurrect us. That's why our theological arguments or political life can be rightly regarded as a kind of sport, a contest of runners, as Paul sees it: the pain is real, but there is no "fatality" or "eternity" uncontrolled by the Father. That's why lethality of a sword is temporal, and we don't really care that much on who would be the first and who would be the last. Or rather, we enjoy the process just as much as we're interested in the result. There is no "too deep in hell to be resurrected", or "too high in heaven to avoid death", because Christ reaches any depth and height.
There can be no ultimate postmillenialists and amillenialists, because the history itself is neither linear, nor cyclic, nor spiral – but fractal, from start to eternity having the pieces all the way down typologically resembling the whole. Didn't you read it in C.S.Lewis, writing it off as some error or misconception?
There are really no antinomian Christians wanting to have no law but their sinful selves. They just want to have the Law applied to them as it always is: by consent of the governed. Any separation of this inescapable reality from any rules and regulations – be it within a company, home, army, or in the public square… – creates some grades and levels of sins-and-crime when there should be no grades and levels but life and death: immoral-criminal-discommended-offensive.
The name "Christian" guards and limits the Church and judges the world by itself. When you "preach the Gospel" to a person, do you tell him what to do, or even "what to believe", or what "prayer" he should say? Just quit it. If he wants to know something, he would ask – explain your hope if you can, keep silent if you can't. If he wants to get rid of a terrorist holding him as a hostage, you can use your sword – but please don't forget that you are not judging the victim, nor are you fighting against the victim. You are fighting the terrorist.
As of the sacraments, do you say to your newly-rescued brother that he should (or should not) do such and such, perhaps in order to "be saved" or "show the memorial of your salvation" or as a sign that he is already saved? Just quit it. There are various ways to speak about sacraments, these aspects are of various importance. But when you pick up the terrorists' victim, be it Beslan's or Nord-Ost's, you don't teach them any medical techniques, you just offer them Yahweh's help from heavens. You baptize your brother and sister, and you offer bread and wine to them, and there's is no "you should" and "or otherwise!", there's always "come and welcome". Surely you don't have any doctrine that you hide from your brothers; as always, you should explain where you see your "hope and change", or honestly say "I don't know" if you have no explanation.
When we assume the name of Christians, the holy Name alone unites us and gathers us, guards us and trains us, rewards us and punishes us. Another name, be it "Libertarian", "Paulbot", "Calvinist", "radical", "islamophobic" or whatever, should be owned proudly – that's the historic Christian practice, to proudly take a derogatory name. This act transforms the world, fixing what was wrong with it when the name was derogatory. But we should throw off that additional name as soon as it becomes the name of vainglory, respected and honorable among the people – just when it happens, we become "mere Christians" again.
We don't talk, don't commune and don't argue like Allah's victims:
During the total wars (which were the "liturgies of Allah" in this world) every document is regarded primarily as helping some "side" in the war, and only then its content is examined and cross-examined in order to design a "refutation" which would condemn the other side as liers.
Christian documents are not like that, because our King is the Prince of Peace. They "work" by judging anyone who reads them, then they are judged and evaluated by their readers, and only then do they work as a kind of "force". This is the basis of our unalienable right to "petition governments for redress of grievances": the point of it all is not about scaring the other side (government) into seeking the middle ground. Instead we make the document into a witness between us and our rulers, and then Yahweh examines all witnesses – again, by the content, because it's emphatically not about force and power: for who has the force before Yahweh?
If a document condemns me, it's good for me (as Yahweh will resurrect me). If a document praises me, it's sweet and tasty for my soul, even if not too useful in large amounts. But this "sidedness" is not the most interesting part of it. And while we proclaim the end of the total Jihad (both "secular" and "religious"), while we declare the eternal banishment of Allah by the righteous King of Kings – we have the privelege to emphatically avoid any emphasis on "sidedness". You can't skim this kind of text, mechanically selecting its "main propositions" and "ethical directions". You can't describe it in modern "news" at all: the medium won't bear the message. And we should rejoice in it.
Post-Jihad world is a post-moralistic world. Today's "atheists" tell us, "you think only you religious people are moral!". We really shouldn't talk back – that's what Jihad actually is – we should listen and say something unexpected. "Do we think so? Hell yeah, you're right. We promise to repent and don't ever think of us as moral, or religious, or both. If "there is an opinion" that only religious people are moral, it's not our opinion – and we know its author full well, and we say "go away" to him. There is the only Name which we willfully wear; all other names should be given by outer world and owned until they wear out.
Post-Jihad world is also a post-copyright world. Our supposed individual "rights" to our texts is a parody on the Old Israel's land ownership, with its jubilee years and all that stuff. Liberal critical scholars, when they move the real landmarks of Yahweh, are really asking us to QUIT putting our allegedly permanent landmarks into our own texts. In the world of Jihad, centralized copying technologies and huge propaganda machines are very important; the post-Jihad future is manifested here by samizdat and by the Internet.
We should listen to our liberal higher criticist friends and enjoy the fullness of freedom we have on our intellectual land market. Credits and references and specifying quotation sources fully are good and just, but they mean another things entirely: indebtness of gratitude instead of the indebtness of slavery which is forbidden to Christians. My friends, don't limit yourself to copying and sharing anything. Enjoy the freedom to collect texts, break them into pieces, retell them, rephrase them, translate them, rethink them, purifying them and removing all the dross in order to resell the silver. That's how the Spirit works.
What our supposed "adversaries" are trying to do in this world of total Jihad? They try to show us that they aren't that happy here, like they are supposed to be. Muslims show us what we try not to know about Muslims: they are hostages and we should plan the rescue operation. All other "social groups" are telling similar things about themselves, perhaps not always in words (Christians are the true people of the Word), but in gestures and actions.
And now, how should we understand the culture around us? The answer is: easily. We look at anything in our surrounding culture from the peaceful perspective of content and faithfulness instead of the perspective of "propaganda" which helps some "side". And we immediately see that everything is screaming about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and all allegedly "earthly and natural" hopes, even when they masquerade as nostalgic about some mythic past, have their fulfillment in our common future, when we cease to rebel and the authority of Jesus Christ will bring peace.
The "ideological wars" will cease as well, not because propositional truths are unimportant. After all, the head is the head, and the heart is the heart, and the head is "first among equals", and any decision and choice belongs to the head. The real reason is the purpose of Allah in the whole Yahweh's economy: it's the mirror on our wall, and all the "isms" we see on both "secular" and "religious" side of it, are reflections of our sins.
Allah is not the rightful owner of any land, territory or people made by Yahweh. What he temporarily "owns" are the borders which we make for our alleged security and safety – and his "ownership" is ending now. Do you remember the Berlin Wall? Something like this is going to happen all over the world.
We have no "blueprints" for new "social structure". We do remember the instruction of Bible: when the altar is built for Yahweh, no human hand should touch its stones, no instrument should alter them. We are not builders, we are the material: children of Abraham made of stones.
We are also Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin, returning to the Shire, Middle Earth, after a long war. Our lands are littered with "touch not", "taste not", "handle not" doctrines of daemons, Orkish talks and Saruman's laws. Is it really the problem then? Are Shirriffs our enemies, or just our enslaved neighbours?
We should pray for our liberation, and there is no conceivable "danger" that could stop it if Yahweh decides to give it to us. We can participate in our political battles, but as the people of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, we know that first comes story and truth, then comes judgement and limits and righteousness, and the force follows in the end.
Our Father who art in heaven, please free us from the yoke of Allah, in the name of thy Son Jesus Christ.