New Caledonia

Our television news reports each night on the violent protests in New Caledonia. The presenters seem to be glad that France is sending gendarmes and soldiers to bring the situation under control. The New Zealand government is sending planes to rescue tourists. However, there is an elephant in the room, which everyone is ignoring.

What right does France have to be ruling a south pacific nation? I thought that the days of colonialism were over.

And the French don’t have a great record in this part of the world. They tested their nuclear bombs on a south pacific atoll with no concern for the people living in the area, because it was too risky to do it in their own back yard. They deliberately bombed a protest ship in New Zealand (Rainbow Warrior) killing a crew member without remorse. The perpetrators were let off.

The French should get out of the South Pacific and let the Kanak people decide how they want to live. The French don’t have any right to be there.

Why No Action (2)

Although forty-five years have gone by, the Commando Vision has not yet been fulfilled. God tried to do it several times, in 1987 - share market crash, 1997 - Asian crisis, 2008 - global financial crisis, 2021 - Covid crisis, but in each case, he had to hold back because his people were not ready.

Hearers of the vision picked up on the economic crisis, but they ignored the message about the Commando Armies. The latter were the key to victory and without them the church would be swamped. God has been unable to fulfil the vision because the commando units have not formed and prepared. His people never got ready, so he has been unable to complete his plans.

People listened, but they did not hear
A word that is not heard,
cannot be fulfilled.
God shared his strategy,
and people listened,
but they did not hear
Crash, Crash, Amen, Amen! they said,
but no one got ready.
So God could do nothing,
he could not fulfil his word.
A word that is not heard,
cannot be fulfilled.

The church has had forty years to prepare, but has done very little. Most Christians are still not in a place where they could cope with a real economic crisis. Very few could be strong during a time of disaster. Despite the advance warnings, we are not ready.

God still has the same plan, but an easy victory is no longer possible, because during the last 35 years, evil has become far more entrenched in the nation. A few years ago, I wrote an article that explains more clearly what is happening. I suggested that the next economic crisis will be the "Devil’s Depression", because the spiritual powers of evil now realise that they can cement in their position further while the church is unprepared. See Economic Turning Point.

Why has the Commando Unit message been missed? My thoughts are as follows.

• The Holy Spirit has done an amazing job of spreading this message. I am just amazed at how far it travelled. I used to get letters from people who had read or heard it saying that it resonated with them. These days, it is by email. And it still seems to get shared by someone on a platform every few years. For example, the operator of Inspirational Tapes did a special article on it, before he wound up his tape library. God certainly got it out there right from the beginning.

• There is always a gap between hearing and acting. We all hear tons of things that resonate with us, but we only act on a few of them. It often takes something extra to get people to take action. One vision might not be enough.

• Our society is extremely individualistic. I suspect that most people who received the vision did not have anyone with whom they could work together to form a commando unit. In a way, that was true of us. I presumed that someone would eventually come along, and waited for that to happen, but they never came, so we never did anything.

• I suspect that many people who received the vision did not know what to do with it. They might have wanted to respond, but they were confused about how to do it. This confusion might be the reason they did not act. I suspect that people needed clearer instructions or guidelines about how they should get started and how they should go on.

• Looking back, I suspect that the vision was not very clearly written. I mixed the vision up with the interpretation, which is not good practice. I suspect that the explanation of the commando units was not clear enough. Many people understood the economic crisis, but they did not understand how the commando units were relevant.

• I wrote the book called "Bride of Christ" and its sequel, Being Church Where We Live, to explain how the Commando Vision could be implemented in practice, but I suspect those links were not clear to people who understood the vision.

I believe that the biggest issue was the lack of people stepping up to be leaders of commando units. In any move of God, leadership is critical.

• Lots of people have heard or read the vision, but it might not be the people with influence. I only ever heard of one person who said that it was not from God. I suspect that the vision resonated with the people on the fringe, and they probably share it amongst themselves, but maybe it has not got to the leaders who could implement it. The leaders of the church possibly never heard it, and if they did, it probably did not resonate with them.

• Peter Drucker, the management guru, noted that visionary people assume that “ideas move mountains”, but they are wrong. He said that it is “bulldozers move mountains”. That is so true. Ideas don’t change things. In the Christian context, it is apostles who make things happen. There is a desperate shortage of real apostles in the modern church. There was an absence of people stepping up and looking to lead a commando unit. I suspect that most Christians expected someone else to do it.

• What Peter Drucker said made sense to me. I have written seven books that fit together to describe the church and the Kingdom of God. When I go back and read them, I am amazed at some of the insights and wonder where they have come from. No one has ever pointed out anything in them that is contrary to the scriptures. Yet, they have had almost no influence on the church in New Zealand. (Although they are being implemented by people in a few poorer nations). I just trust that they will be ready for the church remnant when the time comes that they need them.

• Strangely enough, I was recognized as a visionary in the government agency where I worked for many years. It had no eternal significance but the work provided sufficient income to support my family while I was doing the task I believe that God had called me to. I was asked by the head of this agency to write a vision for how it could do its work more efficiently in the modern world where information technology has become ubiquitous. When I shared my forty-page document, the senior managers were impressed and decided to implement the vision. Even though I have retired, some of my ex-colleagues are still working on the full implication of that vision. The big difference with this vision was that there were leaders/managers who committed to its implementation.

• Furthermore, when I shared the same vision at an international conference, people were amazed and thought it made sense. I was invited to one Asian nation to share the vision, and within a few years, they were well on the way to implementing it. Again, the difference was leaders stepping up to lead the implementation of the vision.

Leadership is essential for fulfilment of vision.

Why No Action (1)

I received a vision about a Commando Army in 1977. I can't remember the process by which I received it, but I have the version of the vision that I recorded on paper at that time. Usually, when I receive a vision, I do not actually see it with my eyes, but I can remember it, as if I had seen it. The Holy Spirit lodges the picture in my memory. Accordingly, I can still remember the vision.

I did not know what to do with this vision, but a few years later, when I was preaching on wealth and poverty at a church where a friend was the pastor, I shared the vision. My friend asked for a copy of it.

In 1982, David Pawson, an evangelist from the UK, was invited to speak in New Zealand. He had a reputation as a bible teacher, so people the people of Wellington were surprised when he said that he had a prophecy to share. He carried two burdens that God had given him for our nation. One burden was as follows:

God wants New Zealand back.
He wants New Zealand back as
a nation that will be a model to the nations
of a people who are living under the government of God.
God intends New Zealand to be one of those nations
where he demonstrates his Kingdom.
God wants New Zealand back.
He is wanting his people to reign with him.
Don't wait for eternity to begin to reign with him.
He is looking for a queen to reign with him now,
because New Zealand has a king and his name is King Jesus.
This country needs a change of government.
New Zealand is a nation that could be brought
under the government of God
and be a light to the nations.

This first burden was not understood; his second burden was simple:

God wants to bring revival to New Zealand for the first time.
God will bring revival through economic ruin.

He then asked, "Who is willing to pray for economic ruin, to make revival possible". This burden was not well received in Wellington.

I was unable to get to hear David Pawson in Dunedin, but my friend handed him a copy of the vision of a Commando Army because he believed that it confirmed his burden. David Pawson took the message of "revival through economic ruin" to some of his meetings in New Zealand. I did not know that David had shared it until another friend gave me a copy of a talk that he had given in Auckland, where he read out the commando vision before he spoke in a talk called "God Wants New Zealand Back".

David Pawson was well known in New Zealand through his Bible teaching tapes, so his authority was widely acknowledged. He took the Commando Army vision around New Zealand without me having anything to do with it.

The burden of David Pawson contained four important points.

• God will establish his kingdom in New Zealand
• This will be a model that other nations can follow
• A great revival will advance the kingdom of God rapidly
• The revival will come through economic ruin.

The burden he shared has mostly been misunderstood or forgotten. This is sad, because God was providing a wonderful strategy by which he could bring about a great victory. He was challenging and warning his people, so they could prepare in advance.

In my next post, I will explain why this vision has not been fulfilled.

Proving the Existence of God

Many Christians are sharing this interview of Stephen Meyer by Piers Morgan. It is a very interesting discussion. Stephen Meyer does a good job of exposing the weakness in modern cosmogonies and the theory of evolution.

My only concern is that I think it is too strong to say that he has proved that God exists. Proof is a fairly slippery concept. Mathematical proof is different from scientific proof, which is different from the legal concept of “beyond reasonable doubt”.

The scientific method uses repeatable experiments to confirm or disprove concepts. This method cannot tell us anything about the origins of the universe, or the origins of animal life, or the existence of God, because it is not possible to do an experiment that would test any of these theories. The best that can be done is to establish an experiment to test various small steps in the evolutionary process, but scientists can never test the whole thing to prove that the entire process works. Likewise, it is not possible to create an experiment replicating the origin of the universe or the existence of God.

So scientists fall back on adopting a theory that explains all facts about the world as we currently have them (subject to Occam’s razor). But that is not sufficient to establish the truth. Most current theories cannot explain everything, hence the need for dark matter. Worse still, a theory that provides a plausible explanation for every fact currently known could prove to be inadequate when further facts about the universe emerge. Plausibility does not equate to truth.

A general definition of proof is evidence sufficient to establish the truth of a proposition. The problem with the evidence that Stephen Meyer produces is that it might be sufficient to persuade a Christian, but it is probably not sufficient to persuade someone who has not received a revelation from God.

Stephen Meyer does not prove the existence of a Christian God. All he can do is point to the existence of a very powerful being, who is personal in some way. But judging on the history of human life, this God could be capricious, rather than good. We can only get to a God of love through revelation by the Holy Spirit.

My view is that it is impossible for a finite human to prove or disprove the existence of an infinite God. I believe that we should be humble about the origins of the universe, because we cannot know that much about it origins without revelation from God, and he has not given us much detail about how he did it. Because we are finite, and our thinking is distorted by sin, we cannot know God apart from revelation from him.

Esther

The book of Esther is interesting because, throughout the book, God is not mentioned, although he is clearly behind some of the events described. God rescues Esther and her Uncle Mordecai from an evil political leader called Haman. This is an inspiring event, but there are a couple of difficulties with the book.

The first tricky issue is that Esther was chosen to be a member of the king’s harem (Esther 2:8) As an exile in Persia, Esther only had the rights of a slave. If she had refused to join the harem, she would have been killed. She chose to save her life and submit to the king. God blessed her decision, so we have to assume that he did not have a problem with her choice. He understood that she had very limited scope for action.

The second problem is more difficult, due to unjustified violence. Haman told the King of Persia that the Jews were keeping themselves separate and were a risk to his empire. He claimed that they did not obey the king’s commands (Est 3:8). Haman persuaded the king to issue a decree that the Jews could be massacred on a particular day without any recriminations.

The royal secretaries were summoned. They wrote out in the script of each province and in the language of each people all Haman’s orders to the king’s satraps, the governors of the various provinces and the nobles of the various peoples. These were written in the name of King Xerxes himself and sealed with his own ring. Dispatches were sent by couriers to all the king’s provinces with the order to destroy, kill and annihilate all the Jews—young and old, women and children—on a single day, the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, the month of Adar, and to plunder their goods. A copy of the text of the edict was to be issued as law in every province and made known to the people of every nationality so they would be ready for that day (Est 3:12-14).

This was a terrible menace to the future of God’s people. Fortunately, Esther was able to intervene with the king and explain that her life and the lives of her people were in jeopardy. The king was enraged, and Haman was hung (Est 7:5-10). The king issued a new edict giving the Jews the right to defend themselves against any attack on them or their property.

The king’s edict granted the Jews in every city the right to assemble and protect themselves; to destroy, kill and annihilate the armed men of any nationality or province who might attack them and their women and children and to plunder the property of their enemies... A copy of the text of the edict was to be issued as law in every province and made known to the people of every nationality (Est 8:11,13).

This new edict turned the situation around. The people of Persia became afraid of the Jews, and any who had planned to attack them quickly changed their minds. On the day when they were due to be attacked, the Jews gathered together to protect themselves (Est 9:2-3). The Jewish response was extremely harsh.

The Jews struck down all their enemies with the sword, killing and destroying them,and they did what they pleased to those who hated them (Est 9:5).

Eight hundred people were killed in the Citadel of Suza, where the king lived. Seventy-five thousand people were killed in the rest of Persia on the 13th and 14th day of the month of Adar.

Mordicai established these days as a feast for the Jews.

Mordecai recorded these events, and he sent letters to all the Jews throughout the provinces of King Xerxes, near and far, to have them celebrate annually the fourteenth and fifteenth days of the month of Adar as the time when the Jews got relief from their enemies, and as the month when their sorrow was turned into joy and their mourning into a day of celebration. He wrote them to observe the days as days of feasting and joy and giving presents of food to one another and gifts to the poor (Est 9:20-21).

This feast is called Purim, and it is celebrated by the Jews to this day. However, it is different from the main feasts of Israel (Passover, Weeks, Trumpets, Tabernacles). These were formally instituted by God (Lev 23), whereas Purim was instituted by a human appointed by a pagan king (not by God). The decree was confirmed by Queen Esther (Est 9:32). Feasts initiated by God have more vailidity.

Several things should be noted about the events behind this nasty event in Persia.

• Standards of justice were low in the Persian Empire. As exiles in the land, the Jews were bound to obey the decrees of the Persian king, but they also subject to a higher law. They were not entitled to act according to the commands of the king, if they were contrary to the Torah.

• God did not command the Jewish people to attack and kill their enemies in Persia. The king had given an edict that allowed this response, but the decision to attack and kill people was taken by the people themselves. They effectively chose to become a lynch mob.

• The violent action of the people could not be justified by the Jewish law. The Torah allows people to defend themselves if they are attacked, but it does not allow pre-emptive attacks against potential enemies.

• The Jews organised for the ten sons of Haman to be killed on the gallows. According to the Torah, children are not to be punished for the sins of fathers (Deut 24:16; Ezek 18:17-18).

• Celebration of unjustified violence is a dangerous practice for a nation, as it opens it up to spirits of violence.

• The Purim event is used by modern Israel to justify pre-emptive violence against its enemies. This practice is wrong because it is contrary to the Torah’s teaching on Defence and War.

The book of Esther must not be used as a justification for pre-emptive military strikes. For God's people, war must always be a last resort, preceded by strenuous to make peace.

Jeremiah

Jeremiah said about Judah,

This is the nation that has not listened to the voice of Yahweh its God...
Truthfulness has perished... (Jer 7:28 Goldingay).

Apt for this time.

Rampant Militarism

The UK Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, said recently,

Defending against Russia’s brutal ambitions is vital for our security and for all of Europe. If Putin is allowed to succeed in this war of aggression, he will not stop at the Polish border.

Many western politicians are saying something similar. This is part of a shocking militaristic shift is taking place across the Western world. It is the most serious in Europe. Most of the fear is unjustified, but it could make politicians do stupid things.

New Zealand is isolated, so there is not much to fear here. However, the government is talking about the need to buy big ticket military equipment from the United States to protect us. They would get far better bang for the buck if they bought a few dozen Iranian drones of the type that the Houthis are using in the Red Sea. They would protect us from invading ships with minimal cost. Modern technology makes defence much cheaper than it was, but the big weapons companies prefer to push expensive boondoggles.

Military fever is stronger in Australia, where people seem to be looking for a war with China. This is odd because Australia is working flat out to dig minerals out and ship them to China, so I can't see why they would want to invade Australia. The Chinese are already getting everything that they need from Australia cheaply without the need to rule unruly Australians. I don’t think that they are stupid enough to take that on.

Australia has formed an AUKUS partnership with the US and the UK. I am not sure why Australians would trust the United Kingdom to protect them. The Brits cannot even get its aircraft carriers out of port without them breaking down, so I don’t see how they can have much influence in the soutehern Pacific.

In the United States, the militiarismic fears are far worse. Many Americans seem to believe that war with China is inevitable. Given that they could not win in Vietnam, Korea, Syria, Afghanistan or Ukraine, I am not sure why they think that they could beat China.

I believe that most political leaders don’t believe their narrative about the Russian threat. However, they are all under serious political pressure, so touting an external bogeyman is a good way to increase their political support. For example, Rishi Sunak is predicted to massively lose in the upcoming UK parliamentary election, but he understands that a war in the Falklands helped Margaret Thatcher get re-elected, so he is trying the next best thing.

I believe that western political leaders are being cynical. They know the Russian threat is not real, but they talk it up anyway to maintain political power. That is a dangerous game.

The truth is that Russia has no interest in invading Europe. James Richard summed this up well in an article that I read today.

First off, the theory that Putin will invade other countries if he wins in Ukraine is nonsense. The Russian army lacks the men and materiel to occupy Ukraine while simultaneously invading other countries.

This isn’t the Soviet Union with its massive tank armies poised to roll over Western Europe. And Soviet communism is long dead, so there’s no ideological basis for Russia to invade Europe. These days, Russia is a conservative, Orthodox Christian nation.

But more importantly, Putin has absolutely no incentive to invade any of these nations, which are NATO members. What do they have that he wants?

All it would do is trigger Article 5 of the NATO Charter, which stipulates that an attack on one member is an attack on all, inviting a massive NATO response. At that point, you’re on the fast track to nuclear war.
Putin is fully aware of that.

Fearmongers like to point to what Putin once said in a speech:
“Whoever doesn’t miss the Soviet Union doesn’t have a heart.”
They take that as proof that he wants to recreate the Soviet Union.

But they conveniently omit what he said next:
“Whoever wants it back doesn’t have a brain.”
Whatever you think of Putin, he definitely has a brain. He has no intention to restore the Soviet Union.

To reach Germany, Russia would have to cross Poland. That involves crossing at least two large rivers (Oder and Bug). It took the Soviet Union two years of violent war with the loss of millions of soldiers (that sapped Hitler’s military power) before it could get to the place where it could invade Germany during World War 2. The Soviet Union had far greater population and economic resources than Russia. So an invasion of Germany is probably an impossibility, especially with modern satellite surveillance, missiles and drones, which makes it impossible to concentrate a large force for an attack.

If Russia gets control of the four Eastern oblasts that have voted to join it, it will need to station large numbers of troops there for a long time to protect against terrorist attacks. It will need a de-militarised zone between it and the Dnieper to protect those oblasts from artillery and missile attacks. This would make any invasion further west almost impossible.

As Putin has said (I have read his speeches, and he is clear about his objectives), Europe has nothing that Russia needs. It already has the biggest territory of any country in the world. It has all the minerals, oil and grain-growing land that it needs. There is no benefit to it in trying to control hostile nations. Putin learnt that when he was posted to Germany.

On the other side of the equation, the West is incapable of fighting a war against Russia. They have run out of artillery tubes and shells for the support of Ukraine. They don’t have the industrial capacity to produce sufficient for Ukraine, let alone a peer-to-peer war.

Western nations just don’t have the military capacity to fight a serious war. The UK military is the smallest it has been since 1720. Many of its soldiers are only suitable for guarding Buckingham Palace. I gather Germany’s forces are equally weak. I understand that French forces are only fit for beating up rebels in its old colonies in Africa.

The United States is having difficulty recruiting into its military, and polls say many people do not want to fight in a war in Europe. Many of its troops are on foreign bases where they tend to get soft because Mcdonald's and Coke are available on the base, along with other junk food. The United States probably has the military equipment needed for a war, but the task of getting it to Europe in sufficient quantities would be almost impossible.

European leaders say that they want to build up their military, but they do not have the financial resources to achieve that goal. Without increasing taxation, which would not be accepted, they don’t have the ability to seriously re-arm. They are struggling to find money to support Ukraine, given all the other pressing problems that they have to deal with. I understand that Germany is borrowing money to get to two percent of its GDP on defence spending. That is not sustainable.

Although political leaders are talking a big game and calling for preparation for war, I believe the leaders of their military will tell them that it cannot be done. So, we are in a situation where there is much talk about war for political gain, but either side is capable of doing it.

I presume that these militarily weak nations, if they want to go to war, will pick a fight with weak African nations that they know they can beat. I suspect the United States is more likely to invade Mexico than pick a fight with China that it probably cannot win.

United States Invades Israel

The entire world is outraged by the behaviour of Israel. The callous slaughter of women and children is brutal. The destruction of buildings and land is barbaric. I believe that the time will come when the United States will be forced to invade its favourite ally to rein it in and stop the wanton violence. I am not sure how soon.

Daniel explains that the King of the North (the United States) will respond to the outrageous behaviour of the Israeli government by sending military forces against it in an attempt to recover the situation and restore peace.

Then the King of the North will come and spread out, and he will seize the fortifications of an armed fortress. The military forces of the South will not be able to stand, even their special services will not have the strength to resist (Dan 11:15).

The United States will come to the Middle East. It will either invade Gaza directly to establish a beachhead, or it will enter Egypt and take over a military base on the Egyptian side of the border with Israel.

The one who comes against him will do as he pleases, and no one will be able to stand against him; he will be able to stand in the Glorious Land, but with destruction in his hand (Dan 11:16).

The military forces encountered will be unable to resist. The President of the United States will be able to do as he pleases, ignoring pressure from other nations and flouting the decisions of international organisations. The "Glorious Land" is a reference to Israel.

The United States will establish a military base in Israel, possibly in Gaza. Daniel explains that the Israeli Defence Forces will have to surrender the President of the United States because “destruction in his hand”. This is a reference to overwhelming military power. It might even be a threat to use nuclear power against Israel if it does not submit to the President’s demands.

The United States will have all of its massive power behind its demands. Israel could be surrounded by a dozen aircraft carriers with their supporting fleet. The President has the power to destroy Israel.

He will set his face to come with the power of his whole kingdom, bringing with him a proposal of peace which he will put into effect (Dan 11:17a).

Some English translations describe this peace proposal as “equitable conditions”. This could be a reference to a peace plan that would provide equity between the Jewish and Palestinian people. The President of the United States will be determined to “put this plan into effect”.

In an attempt to establish the peace deal, the United States will create a formal alliance with Israel, which it has not previously had.

And he shall make the daughter into a wife to weaken her position, but this will not succeed, nor will she be for him (Dan 11:17b).

The United States will formalise an alliance with Israel in return for peace and prosperity for the Palestinian people. It will be hoped that this will weaken Israeli hostility to the Palestinian people.

The United States will attempt to bring peace to the Middle East peace through this alliance (In traditional cultures, alliances were cemented by the marriage of sons and daughters). However, these plans will fail when Israel refuses to go along with the Western plans for peace. They will twist the treaty and continue oppressing the Palestinian people.

More at Whats Going On.