What about the Cry of "Peace and Security"?

When Christians discuss where we are in the stream of time, there are certain “signs” we look for.

The major ones are listed in Matthew 24, Luke 21 and Revelation 6: 

• Large-scale wars
• Frequent earthquakes
• Widespread food shortage, poverty and inflation
  
• Pandemics
• The preaching of the Good News of the Kingdom earth-wide

If you’ve been paying attention, you know you can check all those off your list. But the sign marking the Last Days includes some other details that don’t get as much attention, such as this one: 

"Whenever they begin saying, 'Peace and Security!' then sudden destruction will come on them, as birth-pains on a woman with child; and they will not be able to get away from it." (1Thessalonians 5:3)

The greatest cry of “Peace!” in all history has to have been the elation, the dancing in the streets, that accompanied the end of World War Two.

Yet clearly, that event wasn’t what Paul was talking about, since the ‘sudden destruction’ hasn’t happened. It is hard to imagine a war that so dwarfs World War Two that its ending prompts a significantly louder cry of ‘Peace!’ – so loud that everyone knows it is the real fulfillment of the prophecy.

Perhaps the cry of ‘Peace and Security!’ at the end of World War II wasn't the sign simply because all the other signs, particularly the preaching of the Good News worldwide, weren't in place yet. Or, perhaps the cry of 'Peace and Security!' has to be different from merely the end of a war, no matter how great. 

In my novel Resurrection Day I speculated that 1 Thessalonians 5:3 could be fulfilled by a technological advance so great that the majority of mankind felt a personal improvement in their standard of living because of it. This is not unrealistic: we are on the cusp of advances in battery technology, graphene, thorium reactors and other marvels that potentially could, if used correctly, have people sighing with relief, however misguided their belief. By itself, however, no single whiz-bang invention is going have people declaring an outbreak of peace.

But here’s another thought: What about a different take on "Peace"? In 2018 the United Nations held a special meeting entitled, “A New Approach to Peace.” The agenda was described as peace-building and sustaining peace. They focused on “renewed efforts toward conflict prevention addressing the root causes of conflicts rather than the consequences of conflicts.” The agenda candidly admitted that, in spite of the UN’s best efforts, 

“Violent conflicts in many parts of the world are surging and becoming more complex, deadly and protracted.” There is a “troubling increase in the casualties among innocent civilians that have been the target of direct attacks, as well as unparalleled numbers of displaced populations.”

The United Nations, it said, “needs to adjust its capacities to build and sustain peace. It must engage with Member States long before conflict breaks out and be able to support them at all stages of conflict.”

Their real motivation appeared a couple paragraphs later: “More resources are spent on addressing the aftermath of conflicts than on preventing them from flaring up and escalating.”

One of the most effective ways to motivate someone to do something your way is to show them how it will save them or make them money.

In 2019 the president of El Salvador took a selfie during his speech from the UN's podium, telling the audience that social media had become more effective at bringing people together than any efforts by the UN.

The UN has been called ‘The World’s Largest Debating Society,’ and with good reason. If their success was measured by the number of empty words they’ve produced they would be ranked the most successful organization the world has ever seen. So my hopes are not too high that anything will result from this high level meeting.

 

But what if we look at the UN from a different perspective? 

 

Prior to the 20th century, there was no world peace organization. When a war ended, the victor dictated terms to the loser, and the world moved on. It was only after the horrors of World War One that multiple nations saw the need to sit down together and try to hammer out regulations to keep the peace everywhere, not just in the previously warring countries. That's huge: in all the thousands of years of human history, this peace and security effort is unique. 

 

The original organization, called the League of Nations, comprised 60 nations. It failed significantly when World War II broke out. But it was reorganized when that war ended. Today every government on Earth has joined it. Its ineffectiveness could, theoretically, be fixed. It could, with some adjustments, become an organization that is apparently useful, that seems to be actually creating peace and security. 

I'm not saying I'd put my faith in it. But as a Christian who carefully watches events to keep track of where we are in the stream of time, I’d be crazy to ignore it.

Please leave a polite comment. (Comments are monitored so, if you have an agenda, don't waste your time.) To read another of my columns on this subject, click here.

 

Bill K. Underwood is the author of several novels and one non-fiction self-help book, all available at Amazon.com. You can help support this site by purchasing a book.

UN Chief says Religious Bigotry is poisoning Society

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said he was “appalled” by those who are resorting to religious bigotry for “political gains”, underlining that such “intolerance and opportunism” poisons society.

“Violence against people because of their religious identity or beliefs is an assault on the core values of the United Nations. Such bigotry is also one of today’s greatest threats.” 

Ban spoke in a video message for the high-level forum on global anti-Semitism at the United Nations.

He voiced concern that alongside a global rise in anti-Semitism, the world is also seeing many other alarming forms of discrimination – in particular hatred and stereotyping directed at today’s refugees and migrants.

“I am appalled by those who fan the flames of religious bigotry for political gain. Such intolerance and opportunism does more than poisoning young minds and hearts, it poisons all of society. Time and again, history has shown that those who attack one minority today will target another tomorrow,” Ban said in his message.

Ban’s strong message came days after UN human rights chief Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein lashed out at Donald Trump and Dutch politician Geert Wilders, saying the call by such leaders to ban immigrants from Islamic countries puts them in the same league as the terrorist organization ISIS.

“Geert Wilders released his grotesque eleven-point manifesto only days ago, and a month ago he spoke along similar lines in Cleveland, in the United States,” the UN official said.

“And yet what Wilders shares in common with Trump, (Hungarian prime minister) Orban, (British politician Nigel) Farage, he also shares with Da’esh (ISIS),” Al Hussein had said.

The rights chief had said that the “humiliating racial and religious prejudice” fanned by the likes of Wilders has become “municipal or even national policy” in some countries.

Ban said even though anti-Semitism is one of the world’s oldest, most pervasive and deadliest forms of hatred, Jews continue to be targeted for murder and abuse solely because they are Jews, despite the lessons of history and the “horror” of the Holocaust. [Read the original story here…]

Bill K. Underwood is the author of several novels and one non-fiction self-help book, all available at Amazon.com.

 

The UN’s coming attack on Religion, Part 3

In Part One we discussed the unprecedented move of the UN not only in castigating the Catholic Church for hiding its pedophile priests instead of protecting children, but going beyond that and criticizing their doctrines on homosexuality, abortion, celibacy and birth control. It ended with the question, Does the UN have any teeth?

The UN and religion, Part 2

Is the UN a paper tiger? Does it have any teeth?

It is not an academic question. There will come a time when it will need teeth.

A Texan might describe the UN as 'all hat and no cattle.' Sometimes it seems like they can't agree on when to break for lunch. Since its inception the General Assembly has passed over 14,000 resolutions. Unfortunately, nearly all of them have been “non-binding.”

 So basically they are suggestions.

---

The Security Council is different. Their edicts have teeth. They have 15 members, 5 of which are permanent members: France, Russia, England, China, and the U.S. The other 10 are filled in rotation by General Assembly members. Only the “Permanent 5” have veto power.

For most of its existence, that has meant deadlock: nearly everything the U.S wanted Russia vetoed, and vice versa. But not always.

In the summer of 1950 the ambassador from the Soviet Union boycotted the UN because of its refusal to admit Communist China. The U.S. used that absence to pass a resolution and, on June 25, the Security Council began sending UN troops to Korea.

The incident prompted the General Assembly to pass resolution 377-A. 377-A states that, in cases where the Security council is deadlocked in a crisis, the General Assembly may issue any recommendations it deems necessary to restore peace and security.

Since that time, the UN has sent blue-helmet-wearing soldiers on 60 missions, 16 of which are still ongoing. 10 years ago, 36,000 military personnel wore the blue helmet. Last year, over 100,000 did.

The UN doesn’t have a standing army. When they need troops, they borrow them from members. There are two problems with this arrangement:

• Response time: Countries are slow to supply the promised troops – 4 to 6 months, typically; not a good thing in an emergency.
• Loyalty. Borrowed soldiers tend to be loyal to their own country first, to the blue helmet second.

One solution the UN has tried is hiring mercenaries, contractors such as Halliburton or Blackwater. These names may be familiar to you. They have been in the news for their less than ethical record in conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq and other places.

There have been instances of these ‘security employees’ kidnapping, torturing, even murdering both combatants and innocent bystanders. When the crimes came to light, their bosses whisked the offenders to another country.

Loyalty is an even bigger problem with mercenaries than with rank and file soldiers. A mercenary’s first loyalty is to his paycheck. His second is likely to his own country. Loyalty to the UN, if it exists at all, would be far down the list.

The UN’s ‘working group’ on mercenaries has, for the past 10 years, been consistently recommending against hiring mercenaries, at least until a mercenary code of conduct is agreed to. Though that issue is still not resolved, they continue to employ mercenaries.

If borrowed soldiers are too slow, and mercenaries are unethical, what is the solution? Many members of the UN believe the solution is for the UN to have its own standing army: soldiers whose loyalty is not to a paycheck, nor to their birth country, but to the UN itself. Watch the news for developments on that front. (Revelation 17:12)

Now, what does any of this have to do with the UN attacking religion?

The UN has a love/hate relationship with religion. They refer to them as FBOs – faith-based organizations.

From the beginning, religion has lent legitimacy to the UN. After World War One, Pope Benedict XV pushed for the creation of the predecessor to the UN, the League of Nations. The Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America went so far as to suggest that the League would be a better peacemaker than God’s Kingdom. Since then, various popes have said:

• “If ever an assembly of men, gathered at a critical crossroad in history, needed the help of prayer, it is this Assembly of the United Nations.” – Pius XII
• It is a “duty of all peoples to accept the autonomous force of the United Nations as an international police.” – John XXIII
• “This organization represents the obligatory path of modern civilization and of world peace.” - Paul VI
• The UN is “the supreme forum of peace and justice.” – John Paul II
• “My presence at this Assembly is a sign of esteem for the United Nations.” - Benedict XVI
• “I look forward to continuing cooperation between the United Nations and the Holy See, under the wise leadership of His Holiness Pope Francis.” – UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon

Another reason the UN loves FBOs is that they are better suited for humanitarian aid. They are often first on the scenes of disasters with medical care, food and water… the UN simply doesn’t do anything fast enough to be useful in an emergency.

But: the UN also hates FBOs. They refer to governments based on a religious text, such as the Koran, as “theocracies,” and they don’t mean that in a good way. They mean that theocracies such as Iran, as opposed to Magna Carta-based governments, are radical and difficult to reason with. In the last year, the UN’s news agencies have pointed out that:

• Christians are slaughtering Muslims in Central African Republic
• Muslims are slaughtering Christians in Pakistan
• Sunni Muslims are slaughtering Shia Muslims in Iraq
• Muslims and Catholics are slaughtering each other in the Philippines
• Buddhists and Muslims are slaughtering each other in Myanmar
• Muslims and Coptic Christians are slaughtering each other in Egypt

A recent study showed that fully one third of the world’s governments, comprising 75% of the world’s population, severely restrict religion. Worldwide, religious hostilities are up 24% since 2011.

Another reason the UN hates FBOs: FBOs meddle. If a special interest group can’t get the laws they want at a national level – issues such as abortion rights, birth control, same-sex marriage, drugs, stem cells – they dub themselves an FBO and take their case to the UN.

In 2008, after studying the problem for several years the UN created an agency called Global Interfaith Network for Population and Development that brought together over 400 different FBOs.

It’s getting out of control. And, as noted in Part 1 of this series, pendulums always swing back. Some in the UN are beginning to see that their faith in Faith-Based Organizations was misplaced. They argue that “religion is too contentious and should not be involved in public life,” and cite the many UN representatives that have been killed in the Middle East, Africa and other trouble spots in the name of “religion.”

There’s another UN-linked threat to religion: The growth in funding for FBOs is threatening the NGOs – non-governmental organizations, such as Red Cross, Red Crescent, and women’s rights groups, that have had influential and lucrative partnerships with the UN. As the FBOs start impacting the NGOs pocketbooks, we should expect to see NGOs lobbying for the UN to turn a cold shoulder to religion.

Finally, the latest accusation is that more than 70% of the NGOs and FBOs working with the UN are ‘Christian.’ So now Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, and Jewish organizations are pressuring the UN to correct what they perceive as a bias toward Christian programs.

Can you see how one or more of these issues might finally drive the Secretary General of the U.N. to step up to the microphone and order the destruction of religion, similar to what I fictionalized in my novel Resurrection Day.  

Okay, so maybe it won’t happen exactly like that. But, as we’ll see in the final part of this series, it will happen…

 Read Part One of this series.

Read another of my columns about the U.N.

Bill K. Underwood is the author of several novels and one non-fiction self-help book, all available at Amazon.com. You can help support this site by purchasing a book.