Idealism vs

Idealism vs. Realpolitic

by Brian Knowles

I think it is interesting to note that almost no one is with us in this war, despite the incredible evil of Saddam Hussein. Granted,some 30 or 40 nations have said that they are with us, but only three -- the US, the UK and Australia -- are doing the actual fighting. Whoops, I mean four. I found out that Polish soldiers have been doing a great job of supporting us too. And as usual, accidents and friendly fire are wreaking havoc.

Kofi Annan, completely out of sync, is still talking about putting inspectors back into Iraq. We have a quarter of a million "inspectors" in the region, but he still wants Hans Blix to stumble around finding nothing because he's not looking where it is.

Of course the ultimate propaganda triumph for Saddam -- be he alive or be he dead -- would be if we do not find his staches of WMD's. All the world will then turn against us. Tony Blair will be out of office and George Bush won't get reelected. On the other hand, if they use them against us -- God forbid -- the world will know they have them, but we'll be the worse off for it.

I'm not surprised at the perfidy of Russia, France and Germany. The Russians should stick to producing vodka, the French to pastries, and the Germans to high cholesterol sausages.

The world in general is losing its ability to think in terms of right and wrong. When Bush thinks that way, he's out of sync with almost all "sophisticated" world leaders. "Good" and "evil" are no longer words used in polite conversation in diplomatic circles. We are viewed as primitive because we think that way. In ancient Israel, certain sins were viewed as "evil." When the death penalty was administered for them, it was viewed as "putting away the evil from Israel" (cf. Deut. 22:22).

We can trace many of today's syndromes -- like moral relativism -- to historical events, i.e. the Enlightenment. Once the Europeans could throw out the Bible, and discard the Church, they were free of moral constraints. What used to be evil was simply redefined. Or it was defined down. The three nations listed above justify tolerating Saddam for two reasons: 1). He's not a direct threat to them (or so they think) and 2). They are making money off him. The fact that he pays off the parents of suicide bombers, invades his neighbors and slaughters hundreds of thousands, gasses the Kurds, and tortures and murders at will, doesn't faze the pragmatic Europeans and the impoverished Russians. (Russia's GNP is now less than that of the Netherlands -- but it's a dangerous nuclear power and international arms dealer.)

It is not always clear how things will play out. I think we're in for some surprises. Single, unexpected events have a way of changing the course of history. Just where the hand of God is at work is not evident at this point. Too much is dependent upon subjective speculation. The correct identity of nations is a MAJOR problem for prophecy buffs. There is almost no consensus among them about who is who. That's all over the map.

There are now myriad variations on the theme of "British-Israel." One guy is obsessed with the origin of nations, but he fits them all into one of the above variations. Another guy has another approach. The various Churches of God have yet others. Some people in England have another. Some bogus "Hebrew roots" non-scholars have yet another approach (i.e. the "two sticks" business). Walvoord and his derivatives take still another approach. It goes on and on. All of it involves the use of historical documents of varying quality. All of it involves exegesis of some sort. All of it involves interpretation of both the Biblical text and of history. Almost no one uses sound exegetical methodology to establish the meaning of the text.

For me, the best approach is to try to walk with God and be in a good relationship with him at all times. Then he'll guide me aright in each situation that arises. "Remember three things and you will not go astray: a seeing eye, a hearing ear, and all your deeds written in a book."