Christianity, democracy and the peace makers - some reflections on geopolitical issues of our day

You migh want to read this bit by bit :) I has been written from the time after the US election in November 2020 until after the inauguration in January 2021.

How to be true Daniels - and still influence society through debate and ballots 
Parties, factions and division and the church
What is wrong is wrong - at both sides of the political scale, right?
Prophecies, demons, facts and conspiratory fantasies

How to be true Daniels - and still influence society through debate and ballots 
In a democracy we have to opportunity to partake in free elections and in debate due to some basic rights, as freedom of speech. We see in Scripture that Paul is mindful to his Roman entitlements on several occasions, like when he appeals his case to the Emperor after several years of imprisonment (Acts 16; Acts 25). Also, we see that if there was an opportunity for a Christian, who happened to be a slave when he received Jesus, to be a free man, Paul encourages them to use that opportunity. So basically, there shouldn't be any need for a Christian to refrain from partaking in the making of a society through the democratic entitlements that is due to them.

That being said, there is some basic guidelines in Scripture that will help us to navigate in this realm in a way that is godly, peace-promoting and respectful.

“¹ I urge you, first of all, to pray for all people. Ask God to help them; intercede on their behalf, and give thanks for them. ² Pray this way for kings and all who are in authority so that we can live peaceful and quiet lives marked by godliness and dignity. ³ This is good and pleases God our Savior, ⁴ who wants everyone to be saved and to understand the truth.” (1 Timothy 2:1-4)

 “¹⁷ Never pay back evil with more evil. Do things in such a way that everyone can see you are honorable. ¹⁸ Do all that you can to live in peace with everyone.” (Romans 12:17-18)

First of all, the main goal for a Christian, with regards to kings and all who are in authority is to promote peace. Most of that is done through some different entitlement than that which democracy can give us. We have the opportunity through the blood of Jesus to enter the very place from which God is ruling the whole universe; His own throne room. That is an entitlement that nobody can or should even try to take away from us. Secondly, in the same breath as Paul speaks about praying for kings and those in authority, which in our modern society would be policitians and administrations, he speaks about praying for all people, which points to the main transformational agent that God has given us: revival. Politics can can do a lot, but it cannot change the hearths of people. There is a temptation for a church in a state of spiritual fatigue, to begin to think that the reason for their non-apostolic and I should say almost apostate condition, is the society around them, and that change of politics to change their surroundings is the answer for that. To do so is try to put God's world upside down. If that becomes our way of thinking, we are in reality on our way down as far as our realm of influence is concerned. Not that politics isn't a part of how God promotes transformation. But it can never be a substitute for a revived church that lives and promotes revival. And revival has never had politics as its starting point in the sense that someone could pass revival as a law in the Congress. A kind of disburbing fact, if you would take the pain to study the history of revival, is that on the contrary, politics that is anti-Christian, seems to be a more powerful tool for revival than politics that is pro-Christian. Ironically, success in the God given goal and task to disciple nations and to see transformation, seems to be the greatest challenge Christianity will ever face. Use of authority soon changes into misuse of it, if not restrained by check and balances, even among Christians. There might be a good reason that Jesus pointed out that we are to be careful to put human being in some kind of exalted position (Matt 23.8-12).

I find the prophet Daniel a useful study on how to relate to people who are in authority and at the same time are ungodly and oppressive. Nebuchadnezzar wasn't the most favourable and agreeable guy you could think of, and his power was not was such that your life could easily be dependant upon his favour. Yet, we see that Daniel was not afraid of him leading to compromise his core values. Even when his very life was at stake, Daniel was firm in his practices of faith. But being bold and straightforward in his testimonies about the sovereign God of heaven and earth in the presence of this evil and proud king, Daniel was always polite and always expressing the best wishes for Nebuchadnezzar. If saving his own live was the main motivation of Daniel, why would he be without compromise when asked to worship other Gods, which got him both in the Lions' den and in the fiery fire? There has to be some other motivation behind him blessing a demonized witch-King. God still gave Daniel opportunities to testify and demonstrate the power of the living God, and in the end, he was even able to prophecy judgement over Nedbuchadnezzar without any repercussions. At his point, the king knew that Daniel only prayed for the well being of the king himself. He also knew that Daniel had a prophetic accuracy that far excelled that of the spiritists in his service. So the king actually received a message from Daniel that was hard to receive, and after the fulfillment of the prophecy of judgement and humiliation, we can see a change of attitude and belief in this former wicked king.

Given that you live in a democratic country, is there a way to partake in debate and use your right to vote without violating Christian virtues as decency, respectfullness and honesty? I think there is, but the pitfalls are many. Again, it comes back to exactly how important is an election. Definitely, it is important enough, that we should regard the right to vote more as a duty. We should encourage every citizen to vote, and we should work towards making voting available to citizen. But, as we partake in debates and campaigns, we should always remember that it might not be the candidate that we are campaigning for that is elected in the end. So, we should ask ourselves this question: If we should have the chance to address this person, would we be able to do so with respect that is due to this person, given that they represent government and authority (Rom 13), or would we rather want that some things we said or published on social media to be deleted? This is nothing about agreeing or disagreeing with the politics that the person holding an office is promoting. I don't think the prophet Daniel did for a moment agree with the methods of the spiritists he was put in charge of, but he still ended up saving their lives. Nor did he for sure agree on every aspect of the way Nedbuchadnezzar exercised his role as king. Yet, he addressed him and spoke of him in an honourable way. It is possible to strongly disagree with someone without ending up with a character assassination and caricature of their views and opinions. We should always ask this question: The way I portray my policial opponents' views, is it likely that they are going confirm that this is what they actually mean? It is easy draw a conclusion based on somebody's statement that they themselves would not have or advocate. If we take the habbit of wanting to misunderstand what the other party is saying and make to worst out of it, we make an environment for debate and discussion that is the opposite of peace and respect that the Bible requires from us. We need to remember that it is always easier to be the opposition, the outsiders who challenge those in office and in position. As soon as you enter the position and responsibility yourself, you soon realise that using politics as means of changing peoples lives and behaviours is a difficult task. You can facilitate and make incentives, both positive and negative ones, but that's about it. Also, things may happen in peoples lives that is not specially helpful, like illness, crime, abuse, neglectant parents and so on. There may be different political views on to what degree that is a public responsibility, but society may be going to pay for it somehow, so you'll have to decide how to deal with it. It would be helpful if we could humbly admit that running a country isn't exactly an easy matter. Policitians need our prayers, whoever they are.

A sartirical portrait of Trump in a Norwegian newspaper which 
doesn't leave neither Trump nor America much honor.

Now, this goes for everybody on all sides of the political scales. There is hardly such a thing as “two sides”, as the picture is far more complex than that, but both media and most people often like things to be simplified. The satirical portrait of the US president at the right, has somehow a clear message. There is the freedom to address some concerns and those who think that the US president is only about America, may not be very updated on recent history. And yet, we tend to get prejudiced when things happen that is not familiar to us. There are certain aspects of the American society that is quite different from Europe, and yet, some of the societal trends that is behind the fact that the American people made Mr. Trump their President, is at work in Europe, as well. So maybe we should try to understand rather than just ridicule. It doesn't help understanding nor dialogue to define half of the American population as idiots. Also, regardless of what you think of President Trump as a person, the 4 years of his Presidency, hasn't been as bad as the dark predictions that were made by his political opponents. Some will say it has been by far better than the former president, but that is not the point. Facts has is that President Trump hasn't pushed the world into a big war or anything like that. European countries and allies might dislike the fact that they are made economically responsible for their own military force and safety, but ridiculing the American President for doing so won't make the world a safer place. It might be that President Trump is right in his views that something has to be done about domestic issues in the US, lest we all should have a problem anyway. The problem in the US might not primarily be that Trump was elected President, as some view it a problem, but that politicians have been overlooking the domestic issues for all too long and do not really have any answers to them. It is strange that we Europeans should shake our heads because an American president would like to restrict and control immigration, and then, in Europe, we do the exact same thing for the exact same reasons. We shake our heads when people shout “build the wall”, and then we make the same wall to avoid to much immigration from the third world, and even more from muslim countries. It's about sustainability and stability. There is a limit to how many people a country can receive and integrate, and if integration fails, there are consequences that will change public opinion about immigration. It is so in Europe, and it is so in the US, which tells us that people aren't that different, after all. The Norwegian readers, the documentary UXA made by an American emigrant who travels back to the place he grew up, and finds it quite different, is a nice place to start. If we would spend a little time to reflect, we would acknowledge that the challenges that the American society is facing is not at all only American; it's the issue of working and middle class striving to survive, and it's about white entitlement and anger.

Sometimes leaders say embarrasing things and make their
achievements greater than reality. We could run to social
media to ridicule, or just shake our heads and be happy
that there is at least a vaccine coming, knowing that it is
not so much about who is President, but more about the
grace of God who has given human being such wisdom and
understanding.

I don't like satiricals, like that above, even though some may find it an effective way of communication. Above all, I don't think it to be in line with the requirements the Bible gives us to honor “the king”. I do acknowledge that some would say: “Exactly what is the problem: He thinks his is the King!” But that is not the point. If he actually were King with big K, our obligation to honor those in office remains the same. I've seen fellow believers who post film where they get their dog to paint T R U M P and then to pee on it. It seems that they think because they are right and he is wrong because they find him abusive and arrogant. So they use abusive and arrogant language to portray him. Firstly, I find that hypocritical and inconsistant, and secondly, just because we wouldn't get our heads chopped of for dishonoring those in position, it doesn't mean that we as Christians are free to dishonor.

Parties, factions and division and the church
You don't need to add politics and different views on how to run a society at large into the church to get parties and factions in it. Paul addresses the issue in the Church in Corinth, where different ministry gifts were the basis for division. Some preferred Paul. Others preferred Peter. And then you had the “me and Christ-alone” people. But still, how we relate to political parties and their leaders is somehow related to our preferences, doesn't it? Much of our political views are based on our upbringing and our preferences. If I am brought up in Scandianvia, it is likely that I would prefer some sort of welfare capitalism or some sort of mixed economy, while if I was brought up in the US, it would be more likely that I would prefer a more puritan form of capitalism, or raw capitalism some would call it. If I was brought up in China, I would maybe be ok with fewer civil rights as freedom of speech and the benefit of a rule of law where the judicial system is independent upon political powers. 

In democratic countries we have a lot of civil rights, which is mostly a hugh benefit. The principle of distribution of power is a key to avoid corruption that easily follow consolidation of power. If there is something that can be found to be objectively true, proven through history, is that power without restrictions corrupts, and that if by partaking in equal rights and oppurtinities, most people can make a living, war and violence is less likely. As such, any true democracy will try to keep check and balances in place to avoid corruptive politicians, administration, police, and any person or institution that exerts authority.

What is clear from Scripture is that there are certain things that weighs more than other. Unity of the church is important to God, and what unites us is our faith in and joint experience with God's Messiah, Jesus the Anointed one. We must be honest to acknowledge that there are anointed and disciples who live godly and surrendered lives allover the world in all kinds of societies, and they carry very different views on politics. Of course, not everywhere one are allowed to speak your mind publicly on political matters, but it is interesting still that Chinese Christians are more prayerful towards their political leaders than are many Christians in the Western world. Obviously, they need prayer, but prayer is what the Bible specifically require us to do, and rights, like the right to vote, is more like: “if you get the chance to, make use if it!”. But the Bible does not become irrelevant, even if you happen to live in a non democratic country. Revival is possible independant upon who runs the country in the political realm. China is a clear proof to support such a view. And so is church history. If the spreading of the gospel of the Kingdom was to dependent upon political support, we would all be doomed. The early church faced persecution from both religious and community authorities.

So, as Christians we should never make differences in political views among us destroy the unity in the church. That is not to say that we aren't allowed to debate political matters, but we'll have to make sure that we don't do so in a way that is judgemental and divisive. Actually, the church should be the place to demonstrate that you can live in peace even though we don't agree on issues like tax levels, or on whether health care should primarily be achieved through public or private means. The moment we demonize a brother or sister in the Lord for their political views we have given politics a level of importance that is not uniting us as a church. Like, for some Christians, the question of provoked abortion settles it all. For others, that question is important, but it is not the one question that alone decides which party to give their vote. As Christians we tend to like the matters that is either black or white. In the political realm, there is often a lot of painful compromises that you'll have to face. As a convinced pro-life Christian, I still see that there is more on the scale than the not yet born babies, as important as that is. Everybody knows that once you are pregnant, there is a baby due. A new life is on its way. And yet, that life doesn't start all by itself, does it? It takes two persons, lest it be a case of rape, to make it happen. But there is more to it than that from a biblical perspective on ethics: to have sex without the readiness to receive the outcome, is the sin, and it is actually condemned. To have an abortion doesn't make it any better, for sure. You don't fix a mistake by making a new one. But it does not seem that Christians are ready to make that sexual intercourse outside marriage a crime, it's just the abortion part of it that is defined as criminal. We argue from the Bible to protect the fetus in a mothers womb, and rightly so, but isn't the real crime to start off a life that you do not want to receive and care for? Why aren't we prepared to use the axe at the very root, where both the body of the man and the woman are envolved, and from a legal perspective their are equally both responsible? And from a biblical perspective, as men we should be ready to take the responsible given us to protect women and children, right? But I don't find any conservative political parties anywhere in the world that wants to put male responsibility for outside marriage sex into legislation. But if sex outside marriage was illegal and punishable, surely the number of abortions would go down, right? Or do we believe that people should just go around, have sex, and then give birth to babies in whatever context? Not so! We would want new citizens to be born into safe and sturdy marriages and to see healthy families. That is the biblical ideal.

And then there are Christians that would condemn the use of contraceptives for the very same reason that some of us condemn provoked abortion. Also, the same people will condemn sterilization, even after a couple have got many children, and are really struggling to support them with basic needs as food and clothes. These believers see it as a crime to have sex, even if married, and try to avoid to get pregnant. The idea is that we should leave it to God whether pregnancy happens or not. Some Christian will condemn the use of contraceptives that will not hinder eggs to be fertizilied, but will rather hinder the womb to receive the fertilized egg, saying that this is the same as having an provoked abortion. The idea is that the fertilized egg is itself a new life even though there hasn't been established any life support from the mother's womb, yet. But if any fertilized egg is a full creation as God sees it, you could get hold a bounch of eggs and sperm and start “create” human beings and thus populate heaven. What is my point? Just to be blatantly blunt or ignorant? Or rather, to say that there is a limit how far you go to use Scripture and theology to make a scientificly waterproof definition of life. The Bible talks about expecting a child, that is - being pregnant, it doesn't go into details of eggs and sperm. Pregnancy starts with an fertilized egg connecting to life support in the mothers womb. A lot of fertilized eggs are lost during the life of a married and sexually active woman. It doesn't mean that she goes through the pain of miscarriage each time, because she wouldn't know, as she is not yet pregnant. As I acknowledge that having an abortion isn't good for anybody, maybe with the exception of pregnancy resulting from rape, I also acknowledge that there is several ethical dilemmas in this area, and I wouldn't condemn a believer for voting for a political party that is not ready to make it illegal for women to have an abortion. They might think that there is better ways to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and thus abortions than what can be achieved through political means, and I would respect that. You address the problem at the very root of it rather than trying to cut the top of the tree. Some will say: “Well, laws are normative, so laws are important.” Yeah, sure. What about raising a generation of men who would not choose to set women in such a situation just for a little time of pleasure, and make that the norm? If laws are necessary to make that a norm, let's argue for them and be real men and not cowards. As it stands, neither men arguing for free access to provocted abortion or those who argue against it seem to pass the test at protecting women from unwanted pregnancies.

My main point, here, is that I wouldn't sacrifice the unity among God's people over a disagreement on  which political party to give your vote, even if the question of abortion is at stake. If being a Christian is all about how zealous we are showing our pro-life stand, and fight for it with political measures, I think we kind of missed the point. In revival history, the Spirit of God has moved mightily and convicted people of their sin in the presence of a holy and loving God. And that tidal wave of repentance and surrender has always started with God's own people humbling themselves and repent from their own sin  and lukewarmness more than pointing on the sinful and unbelieving society around as the excuse why we don't see more of the kingdom.

I do respect that some may disagree with me in this, but I would prefer that Christian leaders would refrain from announcing their vote publicly, lest, of course they should themselves run for a political office of any kind. In doing so, they might find themselves to split what God has set them specifically to unite. A weakened church is not what is needed to see real transformation, which happens more effectively through changed hearts in every levels of societies than in Congress, even though in the end revival might often affect even politics.

What is wrong is wrong - at both sides of the political scale, right?
What I've found through a careful look at political debates, as it is seen in different media and social media, is that a partisan mind would often criticise their opponents, be it media or politicians, and still do the exact same thing as what they criticize, but with the opposite sign. So if we think somebody to be biased in their presentation, the solution seems to being biased the other way around, and and the idea seems to be that such a step is to bring balance into the equation. We criticise people to lie or at least to omit important aspects and information, and then we do exact the same thing. This pattern is not at all unique, but is still even more prevalent in the US political debate than what I find here in Europe, and there is some specific reasons for that. 

The top most picture on CNN after the inauguration
of Biden and Harris

In the US media has no obligation to make sure that both sides of a matter has their voice presented. In Scandinavia, media may be fined for not doing so. Just by watching how two different news channels in the US, CNN and Fox News have reported on the US election, it is very clear to me that they partake in their respective echochambers. So, the conservatives listen to Conservative news channels, and have their views confirmed. At the other side the liberals listen to Liberal news channels and have their views confirmed as well. At some degree, as human beings, that is how we operate. We like to be confirmed in our views and opinions, don't we? And we tend to be blind to the faults of our own and the faults of those we champion. 

The top most picture on CNN after the inauguration
of Biden and Harris

There are many examples of this “blindness” on both sides that I could use as an example, but as an illustration, lets look at the inauguration of Biden and Harris. There could be no doubt that there is very different biases behind the way these news channels choose to describe the day and the event. For Fox News the troubles in Portland is more important than the inauguration itself which is mentioned after a good many other cases, while CNN doesn't mention the turmoil at all. The funny and interesting thing about this, is that a Norwegian newspaper that many right wing people would say has been reporting very much on Trump, and negatively so, has a more balanced approach, reporting both evens side by side. 

The Norwegian news channel VG shows both sides of the matter,
side by side.

And the language used is a lot less coloured by ideological biases. While Fox News reports: “Portland erupts. Anti-Biden Antifa crowds swarms,” as if the whole city was on the edge of collapse, the Norwegian paper says: “Protests against Biden in Portland” adding that the protesters were representing both anarchists and antifascists. And the Norwegian paper didn't say that protesters were Trump supporters disguised as Antifa. As a comparison the only person mentioned specifically in Fox News after the insurrection on 6th of January, was the one BLM member that has been identified so far. If facts are presented with such an degree of bias, it is a hugh threat against our democracies, because nobody will trust anything as true and factual, but will rely on their chosen sources. What if we start believing that the the judiciary is as biased as media? For some zealous Trump supporters, that is already true. Media should be held accountable as to whether they present facts and whether they present more than one side of a matter. But to whom are they to be accountable? In court, facts are to rule, right? But if everybody can have their alternative facts, society will quickly deteriorate. 

This onesidedness and blindness manifests in every aspect of our perception and interpretation of reality Just look at the word “hate”. In many conservatives' mind, there is a lot of Trump-haters, while Trump himself and Republicans hate nobody and President Trump's rough and demeaning language is just “self defence”. It's an old rethorical game to present yourself as victim and outsider to receive people's sympathy, and just turn around any accusation against those who raise any. Honestly, it looks like small kids in kindergarden, but sadly it is effective for those who manage to do this skillfully. All what is needed is enough people in the society who feel equally badly treated and they'll associate with those who claims to be bullied for no reason. That being said, Democrats have not been trying to reach out their hands, either. I wouldn't expect them to help Republicans dismantle, like Obamacare, which seems to be one of Democrats' few political victories after 8 years with Obama as President. But they should have reflected on how their trying to link the President to

The moment where Pelosi, the head Democrat in the House of
Representatives, rips up President Trump's State of the Union
is disturbing.

Russian interference in the 2016 election and their later impeachment, both of which were doomed to fail, would affect the collaborative climate between Republicans and Democrats. It hasn't turned out to be very helpful. When you say that Trump isn't a legitimate candidate for Presidency because he isn't a part of the policital elite, you frankly say that top positions in politics aren't for ordinary people. I am aware that Mr. Trump isn't exactly ordinary as such, but he still come to represent something different for a lot of people that had gone tired of politicians that didn't seem to care for their fight for a decent life. And it is wise to show some respect rather than ridicule and use abusive language, like “white trash”. Whether Trump's policies in length would actually help these supporters or not, is not really the most important point, here. It's the fact that a rejection of Mr. Trump as a legitimate candidate for Presidency was perceived as a rejection of them - his supporters, and that just made them feel that Mr. Trump was indeed their President even more. “We feel rejected. Our President feels rejected. We belong together, let's go together.” It's equally disappointing that Biden, while still President-elect finds it totally alright that the leaving President will not participate in the inauguration of his Presidency, saying that Mr. Trump really has nothing to do there. If Biden really wants to heal the country and bind the wounds, he shouldn't express such a level of disgust. You're punching a lot of people in the face, whom a considerable amount of people did not support the breaking into Capitol Hill. I can fully understand their anger against a President who use his power and his rhetorical skills to stir up people, and that after their blunt criminal actions which put all of America at a disturbing and embarrasing display, he states: “We love you. You are very special.” and “this is things that happen you try to steal the election”. President Trump did address the assault on Capitol as unacceptable later on, and even though that was all to little and too late, it would be redeeming to forgive and leave it there. The leaving President has declared that he will not participate in the in the inauguration, so somewhat it doesn't make any difference, practically. But for a lot of voters, it still does. They feel rejected. They feel that they have no part in the an important democratic event, because the candidate they voted for and that they hoped to be the winner, is not even welcomed. I don't find that to be very wise. You don't heal a mistake - Trump not wanting to participate - by using the same childlish level of rhetoric - “Well, you are not even welcome.”

Some would say that collaboration between President Trump and Democrats would be impossible, but that isn't exactly true. President Trump's recent claim to raise the one time support check from $600 to $2000 was endorsed by Democrats and rejected by Republicans. A quick study of American political history will show that the fundamental believes and political stands hasn't been static over time. While Republicans were those who fighted for freedom for slaves and Democrats in the South fighted for continual segregation, something changed during the Reagan period in the 80's. By then, the Dixiecrats who had left the Democrats, protesting against equally civil rights for every American, had switched over to the Republican party. During the years, the Democrats seemed to get a grip on minority groups as the African American and the Hispanics. Now, after seeing how Mr. Trump has been able to relate to the working class, there are voices in the Republican party that argue that the Republican party should become the new “Labour” party, addressing the issues of unemployment and accompanying social problems. Evidently, non of the sides of the political scale in the US has so far been successfully addressing these issues, and the one to successfully do so, might have a great chance to be in power. There should be no reason why Democrats and Republicans shouldn't cooperate for the best of their country, lest it be that they are more preoccupied with their own party than the country itself. Republicans argued strongly against increase of public spending. During 4 years with President Trump, the deficit in state budget has skyrocketed and few Republicans, if anybody, seems to have had any concerns. While Democrats and Republicans have had a really hard time to agree on a crisis package to try to remedy the corona situation, the politicians in the Norwegian "Congress" used one night to come to an agreement for them to release the first measures of relief, and their are many more parties than only two. When there is a real crisis the well being of the country matters. A partisan mind has to make way to agreement, resolve and action. The weakness of democracy when deadlocks between policital opponents and institutions of power make nothing happen. That's when people grow tired and they'll start asking for a strong man to get things done, whether that is done through democratic means or not.  

Even Fox News is not passing the test of telling
the “truth” for some Conservatives, any more.
The reason is that they don't agree on President
Trumps allegations of widespread voter fraud.
If anybody tells you something
you don't like, just yell: “Fake News!”
Problem solved....

I've found that there is a different climate for debate when I try to participate on social media with some of my American acquaintances, also. For me personally, some of the goals is to get a better grip of how people think “over there” and why, and yes, for a great part I am quite ignorant, but still honestly curious on things I don't understand. But I soon discover that the purpose of political postings on, like Facebook, is not an invitation to a debate, but rather to have a voice into their respective echochambers. For example, I tried to address my concerns with people I regards as sentient people, who state that they really believes that President Trump did not lose the election, and that Biden's win was all caused by widespread election fraud. So I tried to point out that America sees themselves as the very mother of modern democracy, a city upon a hill, an example for others to follow, and yet, in 2020, they do not believe that they are even capable of holding a free and fair election, and that I was both concerned and surprised. I was then told that most Americans on Facebook would appreciate if I would pray for the country and not “bash” it. Now, I was again a bit surprised at the response. Firstly, I do believe that the US is capable of holding a free, open and fair election in 2020. So I ain't bashing nobody. The ones that are bashing their own country, is the very ones that do not believe that their country is able to hold a free and fair election. But, of course, if all your reasoning is based on widespread election fraud being a necessary fact, just as sure as the earth is round and not flat, that kind of response gives sense. Other responses go like this: “But you don't live here, so you don't get it.” Fine! I just try to understand what is going on and suddenly you find yourself in a war-zone of propaganda. Posting statements of factual incidents with no reference at all seems to work fine, like: “Some were arrested for worshipping on the street” Just don't ask for any reference. They'll tell you off. And then when they reluctantly give you one, it is some source you have never heard of before, and which clearly states that the reason for the arrest was not worship, but that the worshippers refused to use masks when in public area. So, the masks were the problem all they way, not public worship. “Why should I care, by the way? I don't even live over here!” they say. Well, at which point has American society, democracy, and politics been only about the US? They boast that they are the saviour of the world, a city upon a hill, and when we, who are those who depend upon them, being in a military alliance, care what is going on in their country, we are treated as intruders and interferering busybodies. Here's another one: “You seem to be reading MSM. They won't tell you the truth.” Firstly, I need to find of what the acronym MSM means to get hold of the the tribal language. Ah, Mainstream Media. Well, I read both CNN and Fox News to compare, so who should I believe, then? Only you? Only Mr. Trump? Well, I won't get any answer to such questions. There is no need. This isn't about getting the whole picture, or engage in debate with anybody who asks inquiring questions, it's about defending what some understand to be true American, and to that end anything goes. There is no lengthy discussions. What we learned at school to look at several sides of a matter, see positives and negatives, and then conclude, is all gone. All is tabloid one liners that oversimplifies matters and most importantly: bash political opponents and make their demons become bigger. Maybe it's the nature of social media, but if that is where people their information from and that is the level of debate they partake in, our modern democracies are in deep trouble, and we should be concerned. 

“Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…” (Winston Churchill S Churchill, 11th of November 1947).

I might be ignorant about how things are in the US, but I am not stupid, either. As a certified ethical hacker, I do know about both the possibilities and limitations of hacking. When you end up allegeding that Venezuela, which the same people portray as the worst example of a socialist disaster, has the geniuses needed to effectively change the outcome of the US election by hacking computers that are not even connected to the Internet, it is more about desperation than desire to bring out the facts. And when there is a manual recount which confirms that computerized counting of ballots, you should be able to conclude that hacking is not the issue, right? Unless you are desperately trying to deny simple facts. And when Republicans appointed officials say that there is no voter fraud involved, that is when it is time to simply admit that this time it didn't work out as some of us wanted, lest we actually do not believe in democracy at all. The video that shows former President Trump's phone call with Georgias top elecetion officials should be desturbing to anybody who believe in fairness, openness, and a power sharing democracy.

It is my conviction that we will save more humans lives in the end by partaking peacefully in and protecting democracy, than if we should introduce a Christian worldview and Christian values by other political means, even though if that means that provoked abortion may be found to be made legal. Norway was made a “Christian country” by chopping off the heads of those who didn't want to repent. Church history is full of very disturbing accounts of the Church' misuse of policital power. It hasn't been where Christianity has been shining, to say the least. A lot of it is frankly speaking sickening.   

Prophecies, demons, facts and conspiratory fantasies

Independent fact chechers portrayed as demonic and devilish.
It's an extension of the "Fake News" approach. Facts we don't
like can thus easily be rejected. I wouldn't want to be in a
Church where the leadership had the freedom to operate like
this. 

There has been prophecies given concerning the 2020 US election by some quite prominent Christian leaders, some of whom I deeply respect. To make the story short they have prophecied that President Trump should be elected for a second term, which we all know by now is not going to happen. It's human to make a mistake, and it's Christian to admit it and ask for forgiveness when it happens. One of those prophetic leaders that I have been following, is Kris Vallatton, which is a leader of Bethel Church in Redding, California. He was quite quick to announce his asking for forgiveness, actually as early as 7th of November. Cleary, he was bashed by Trump supporting Christians for doing so, because quite soon afterwards he withdrew the video with his asking for forgiveness for being wrong in his prophecies about Trump. Reading the comments on his Facebook wall where he expressed hope that maybe he wouldn't be mistaken, makes that quite clear. He did say, though, that we would republish the original statement, should it turn out that Trump was not given a second term as President. He did so 7th of January, one day after the shocking scenes that was aired on probably most television stations around the world. For me, Kris is a role model for being quick to respond to an inaccurate prophecy. Again, he states that he expects that some will criticise and dishonor him for admitting his mistake and asking for forgiveness, which confirms the fact that he was put under considerable preasure after his first statement at 7th of November 2020. I know that many Americans will disagree with me, but honestly, Kris was right in his 7th November statement, and those other ones that waited for after 6th of January to make a statement continued in their error for another 2 months, against clear facts and buzzing around in their “prophetic” fantasies.

Even after every legal options were exhausted and the electoral vote was given on 14th of December, some Christian leaders with incorrect prophecies to admit, remained silent, apparently waiting for some “miracle” to happen. They didn't hear from God in their initial prophecies. Which can happen to any of us. That is why the Bible tells us to test prophecies and keep what is good and right instead of stoning those who happen to do a mistake, like they did in the old covenant. But here, obvious facts was not enough to make those who prophecied incorrectly to admit their error, nor were they able to receive correction from God in this period. It's not so much an accusation as mere stating the facts. All of us that really believe that the prophetic is a large part of what we as God's people are called to be, need to learn from this. I truly believe that the church has a calling to hear from God also concerning things that happens in nature and society, and the biggest issue, here, is not that some made a mistake; to be a disciple means that mistakes are inevitable. What makes room for making those mistakes, be it a word of knowledge doing a treasure hunt at the local shopping centre or a prophecy about the next election or the next pandemic we might face. 

Another Christian leader, whom I am not so well acquainted with, is Jeremiah Johnson. He has given a public statement where he admits being incorrect with his prophecies concerning the election and the fact that President Trump was not reelected as many had hoped and wanted. This is his conclusion:

“God Himself anointed Donald Trump in 2016 and then removed him from office in 2020 because of his own pride and arrogance. Joe Biden’s becoming the 46th President of the United States is meant to humble not only Donald Trump but all those who worshipped him more than they kept their focus on Jesus Christ. For the record, if I myself inadvertently persuaded anyone to do this by sharing my prophetic dreams and interpretations with the world, I repent and ask for your forgiveness. I have stated all along, “Political figures can never solve spiritual issues.” Regardless of who sits in the oval office, we have a sin problem in America that the One who sits above the circle of the earth is calling us to give an account for.”

After he made his public statement asking for forgiveness for his mistake, and even saying something as radical as that God removed Trump from office, Jeremiah later has given this statement on his Facebook wall:

“Over the last 72 hours, I have received multiple death threats and thousands upon thousands of emails from Christians saying the nastiest and most vulgar things I have ever heard toward my family and ministry. I have been labeled a coward, sellout, a traitor to the Holy Spirit, and cussed out at least 500 times. We have lost ministry partners every hour and counting.
After publicly repenting on January 7th, I fully expected to be called a false prophet etc in some circles but I could have never dreamed in my wildest imagination that so much satanic attack and witchcraft would come from charismatic/prophetic people. I have been flabbergasted at the barrage of continued conspiracy theories being sent every minute our way and the pure hatred being unleashed.
To my great heartache, I’m convinced parts of the prophetic/charismatic movement are far SICKER than I could have ever dreamed of. I truthfully never realized how absolutely triggered and ballistic thousands and thousands of saints get about Donald Trump. It’s terrifying! It’s full of idolatry!
If I helped to prop up this idealogy concerning him, I will need to repent again and stir up even more hell.
On a personal level, I am just beyond relieved that President Trump was only an assignment for a season and never a mandate. Revival is never dependent upon who sits in the White House but rather who sits on the Throne in Heaven. I will continue to preach the Cross and the power of the resurrection. I will continue to help prepare the Bride to meet our Bridegroom.
As we head into 2021, expect me to be more committed to the gospel and making disciples than ever before. By God’s grace I will walk in a greater measure of humility and repentance than ever before. I will learn from my mistakes and seek correction from Godly leaders always.
I’m going to read the Sermon on the Mount now.”  (Jeremiah Johnson) 

I don't know if a lot of Christians have at any point acutally worshipped Donald Trump. I find it hard to believe. But what I do believe is that some has put more into a Presidential election than I can find biblical support for, and if an Presidential election make people react like Jeremiah describes in his post, it is definitely not sound and desperately needs correction. I do believe that some Christian Trump supporters have used unequal weigths. They have chosen to focus on the errors of some leaders, while willingly excuse the errors of others, because somehow the one we like more has more access to forgiveness than the other, and anyway, the MSM is lying, so why can't our President. My question is, when we know how the election did turn out: How many American Christians will be just as eagerly praying for Joe Biden and Harris as they have prayed for Trump and Pence? Do Biden and Harris need it any less? Of course not! Obviously, they are going to do mistakes, as has President Trump. They might not successfully address the underlying issues that creates hopelessness, anger and alienation, tearing the US society and democracy appart. And it might be that what they call MSM would not be as blindly supportive when Biden and Harris are in position and responsible. At least, in Scandinavia, the media has been just as hard on administrations from the left side of the scale as they have been on the right side of it. And in Norway, even harder at times, I would say. 

As part of Jeremiah's statement where he asks for forgiveness for his inaccurate prophecy, he shares some dreams that he uses as a background for his conclusion, to explain that there has been some kind of development. He decribes a dream where he and Trump is in a boat in swamp and where alligators which is interpreted as demonic attacks on Trump and the US. Instead of taking any alarm and warning of the danger, Trump in the dream laughingly claimed to drain the swamp of his enemies. That did not succeed, though, and both Jeremiah and Trump was killed by the alligators while Jeremiah says “I could literally hear hoards of demons laughing and cheering.” There is something about this that I find a bit disturbing. I will not try to define what Jeremiah Johnson has meant to say or not meant to say, because he's the only one that has the right to do so. But, as with the Democrats' rather condescending approach to President Trump, it is not so much about what is intentional or not. It's also about how will people read this. If God really removed Trump from Office because of pride and arrogance, who was on which side in the election? Also, the demonic and pride and arrogance goes together, doesn't it? The pride and arrogance is what has disturbed me with the whole thing with the US elections, and it goes with both sides of the political scale. But my question is also how would Democrats read this? “Well, you see, God is really a Republican and he loves Donald Trump, and would have preferred him, but because of his pride and arrogance, he changed his mind. He is very sorry about it, though.” If the demons' attack is against Trump and the US, like that is sort of the same thing, were is the President Biden in this? Is he both part of the demonic attack, and yet an authority that is appointed by God (Rom 13)? All I am saying is that there is a lot more for Jeremiah Johnson to clarify in his statement concerning the coming administration, because there is seems to be a great need to help Christians relate to it in a honorable and biblical way. As with the former administration: It is not everything we agree with, and we might strongly disagree, also. Like for me personally, there are elements with Trump's policies that I agree with and there are things that I disagree with. Anyhow, there is limits on what we are free to express, not because there is limits on freedom of speech, but because of the fear of the Lord. You shouldnt't approach the new President with: “Hello, Mr. Demonic Attack.” You would put yourself outside the circles of influence, and you end up “cursing the ruler of your people” (Ex 22.28). 

Just my own attempt to give some definitions. The point is: there is a lot between pure capitalism
and communism

Looking the US election and the campaigns and debate that preceeds, I find myself wondering if it hasn't been better if those who partake could abstain from making a hellish portrait of how the society would look like if the other party would be in power. Now, since the Democrats did win this time, I've looked at how some Republicans view this. From a teacher in high school that was interviewed by a Norwegian newspaper, we learn that:

“Our country will go to hell if Biden wins. He'll make the country socialistic and he'll take away our freedom. The Democrats will take away the power from us, and they'll ruin our businesses and our lives. And corruption is massive. Democrats is evil tyrants, and we will not allow them to steal this election.”

The few very wealthy is taking greater part of the
total income - which leaves more and more families
under finanical pressure.

Well, the one thing that is a fact in this, is that the Democrats did wanted to take away the power from the Republicans. That is why you run a race for Presidency and for Congress. But the language used is quite vivid and this is a high school teacher. The notion seems to be that here is nothing between the capitalism of the US today and the socialism of Venezuela or Cuba. Capitalism without any restrictions makes it possible to get filthy rich from other people losing their homes, as some did during the finance crisis in 2008. President Trump might call it “smart”, but the question is more of: is it ethical? Capitalism without clear restrictions makes it possible for a pharmacy company to make a lot of people drug addicts, because you might get convicted in court, but in the end you'll earn more money than you loose, and the only ones that go to jail, are the ones that have become drug addicted from medications that they got from their familiy doctor. The freedom of some might easily become the slavery of another. There is a balance of power to be maintained, and financial power is a part of that power balance. Yet, Trump seems to have addressed some issues that neither Democrats nor Republicans have been able to address adequately. If jobs are lost and people lose their income and way of contributing to the progress of their own and that of the society, you've got a big problem. You need to create new jobs. If you don't like the idea of starting up coal mines for environmental reasons, you have to come up with some other idea on how to help people re-orientate and help them get back into business. You cannot do it for them, but you can support and facilitate. So, is there something good politicians can learn from President Trump? I believe there is. And I think it's time for both Democrats and Republicans to look into it, putting a partisan mind aside. That is what I pray for, anyway. Many of the tough questions that needs both answers and practical solution isn't unique for the US. A lot of European countries are facing many of the same issues, as well. The best way to keep a healthy democracy is to make sure that there is a working and middle class that is able to make it. If not, they will in the end call for the “strong man”. We can try to choke the protests by locking accounts on social media, but the only thing you get from that is to fertilize the earth for all kinds of conspiracy theories to grow. Even a former Foreign Minister representing the left side of politics in Norway expressed his concerns with Twitter locking the account of a democratically elected President. What Trump has done after the election in November, is without any doubt unacceptable. He hasn't respected neither the election outcome, nor the state judiciary, nor the Supreme Court and nor his own Vice President, actually putting the life of his Vice President in danger. But there is political means of handling this, and Democrats and Republicans alike need to agree if any steps towards impeachment are to be taken. It's the Republicans that will have to decide what they'll do with former President Trump, and who will have to judge what they feel became the outcome. They'll have to decide what they are going to be. If they decide still to be a Trumpist party, yet another failed attempt of impeachment will only serve the ends of Trump and what the Democrats find totally unacceptable. Impeachment may be more about who is to make the judgement than what the judgement should be. It might be that we'll see that other institutions than the Senate will deal with Trump's behaviour after the election. What seems true, whatever opinion we might have on this, is that there is rioters that claim to have been acting upon the former Presidents “orders”, like Jenna Ryan, a Texas real estate broker who took a private plane to Washington to join the attack on the US Capitol. She is a confessing Christian, and one of those who seems to have been mislead by the idea that she could do anything, because they believed that President Trump would whatever necessary to stay in power, and would use that power to pardon her and the other rioters. 

If we believe that a breakdown of democracy and war is impossible, we are proud and ignorant. It's time to be humble, and it's time to seek God and pray for our countries and pray for revival. It's a historical fact that revivals have saved societies that have degenerated. That is why there still is so much hope.