Christian Right Needs to Play Role in Providing Leadership in Establishing Proper Forms of World Goverment

Tony,

I would like to thank you for contacting me and informing me about World Federalists.

I apologize for my initial curt responses to your invitation to dialogue.

I have felt a need to nurture a friendship with you and glean perspective from what you have learned in your walk in life, especially as it pertains to seeking to help establish a "Democratic World Government," meaning an elected, responsible, check-and-balance limited, freedom-enhancing global government.

Because of the spooky (and very real) prophecies of a beast that treads down all the earth and makes war with the saints, those of a Christian background tend to have built in a huge mental and spiritual resistance to any form of global government that has any sort of recognition in this current wicked world.  Hence, people like me tend to overreact and place every such current attempt of any size in deep suspicion.

However, the great irony is that it has been the Christians lack of participation in offering a viable alternative governance that has created the void that the UN is filling with its atheists and Marxists leanings.  Because they pause and wait for the kingdom of God to be established by Messiah himself, they have stayed largely removed from the whole process.  The reason Messiah is involved in the process of delivering them from the captivity into which they will have fallen will be because they did not build the kingdom of God themselves nor sufficiently oppose the kingdom of devil, which today takes the form of Marxists-based drive toward a "new world order."  It is their own folly that he is delivering them from -- after they realize with deep sorrow their foolishness.

The Jews were anticipating a literal government and wanted nothing to do with Jesus' spiritual kingdom teachings.

Now the Gentiles (western world Christianity, and Mormonism in particular) think of the kingdom as spiritual and want nothing to do with Messiah's literal kingdom.  Hence they reject him, only on different terms.

Do you catch what I mean?

Anyway, let's do stay in touch.

Sterling

From: "Sterling D. Allan" <sterlingda@greaterthings.com>
To: <christopher.currie@fmglobal.com>
Cc: "keys e-group" <keys-l@spiritweb.org>; "David's Outcasts e-group" <davids_outcasts@listbot.com>; "SDA Friends list" <SDA_friends@listbot.com>
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2000 9:12 AM
Subject: Re: Who says we have no choice?

The travesty as I see it is that the Christian Right so often fights against ANY form of world government, building an idol out of national sovereignty. Their arguments against any form of world government are as ridiculous as those in the founding of America who were against the formation of the United States of America.

Meanwhile, those on the left see the need and reality of a world government as a no-brainer, and hence are even more convinced in their animosity toward the Christian right.

What the real issue is is not whether or not we should have world government -- for the fact that we have nations interacting as we do says that their is government of some kind by very definition of the word. The real issue is WHAT KIND of world government will we have?

And in answer to that question, the Christian Right and the New Age Left both have a tremendous amount of good to contribute to the equation if they would but let go of their animosity and look for reasonable balance. The main concerns of the Christian right are well founded about the New World Order having too many trappings of global dictatorship, without the proper checks and balances and with too many leanings toward socialism -- which form of government is contrary to principles of agency. Meanwhile, the New Age Left has some important points to make about the need to have cooperation among nations in addressing the problems of our global society.

The left-brain male element of the Religious right and the right-brain female element of the New Age left need to work for harmony rather than division and contention.

That is how I see it.

Sterling