Skip to main content

Brexit and Hope for World Peace

    The League of Nations was called "man's last, best hope."  It was created after the end of "the war to end all wars," which we have, ironically enough, now termed World War I.  After the LoN clearly failed (cough cough...World War II...cough cough), the United Nations took its place.  Surely that would do the trick!  Right.  Well, World War III hasn't technically occurred, but the decades since WWII have certainly been marked by conflicts, police actions, U.N. "peacekeeping," and wars on things like "terror." International hostilities have been anything but alleviated.  Practically every part of the world has taken its turn either being at war or on the brink thereof.

    The European Union, while on a smaller scale and with more explicitly economic designs, was created for similar reasons as the LoN and the UN.  The EU was created with the dystopian dream of living in a world that is above things like greed, discrimination, and war.  It came with the desire to see peace as the common-sense alternative to the mutually-destructive notion of war.  Why can't we all get along, right?  We're past all that, right?  The EU has been slowly coming apart at the seams for a while now.  The impending exit of the United Kingdom is a symptom, rather than the beginning, of this.  While the EU has not yet crashed and burned, and while nations are not launching missiles at each other yet, the events of recent months seem to indicate that changes are coming.  Brexit could lead to major realignments within the the UK and Europe as a whole.  The EU has accomplished its purpose no better than the LoN and the UN did theirs.

    Well, world peace is certainly an honorable goal.  It should be the desire of the United States and the Church of Jesus Christ.  The question, however, is whether or not world peace is possible.  Every generation thinks that it is unique in history.  Every generation thinks that it will be the one to end the pain and suffering of war.  This generation is no better.  Indeed, we are probably far worse!  We think that we are living in a day of such public awareness and international accountability that WWIII couldn't happen.  We look back at all the geographical and political vacillation that has occurred in history (or maybe we don't, and that's half our problem) and we think that we are above and beyond that. Certainly in 20 years the world will look the same as it does today!  Right?!  

    My friends, we are not unique.  War is not obsolete.  Despite the peacekeeping organizations and the hippies and all that, the 20th century gave us no reason to think that the nations will stop killing each other.  The 21st century has extended no such hope either.  In 100 years the UN and EU may no longer exist, leaving, as the LoN, no more than a quaint and laughable memory of misguided, though laudable, intentions.  America, we are not exempt from this either.  We think that because we are the "home of the free and the land of the brave" that freedom and unity will forever reign on our shores. Our history suggests otherwise.  The religious, political, and racial struggles of our day are not significantly better or worse than those that caused the Civil War.  As the world has in general, we have been divided for most of our history.  American is not impervious to the dangers of self-implosion.  Our nation will likely follow all the great empires into the shadowy annals of history.    

    Why such a depressing outlook on history and the future?  The answer is simple: fallen human nature.  We are no better off than our forefathers because we share the same human nature.  The problem with mankind is not ignorance or poverty.  Wars are not caused by poor diplomacy or a lack of democracy.  War is caused by man's depraved nature.  It all boils down to that.  Man cannot cure man of that nature.  Men will always be greedy, hateful, and selfish.  Government may keep these traits in check through the order of law, but no national or supranational organization can remove them from man's heart.

    So, is world peace possible?  My answer might surprise you.  Yes, world peace is possible.  With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible (Matthew 19:26).  The key to world peace transcends humanity.  No man or group of men can change the heart, but God can.  The key to world peace is not political, but religious.  If a man is in Christ, says Paul, he is a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17).  This new creation is the only possible path to world peace.  In fact, we as Christians have this as a firm hope for the future.  Regardless of how you choose to interpret the prophetic passages of Scripture, it is clear that some day there will be a point where the world is at peace.  Isaiah 2:4 tells us, "He [the LORD] shall judge between the nations, and shall decide disputes for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword again nation, neither shall they learn war anymore."  As a postmillenialist I believe that this applies to a period in history before Christ's Second Coming.  I believe that relative world peace is not simply a possibility, but a certainty!  The answer to the impotence of man's peacekeeping efforts is the powerful plan of God!

    So, what does Brexit show us?  What we're seeing is the failure of mankind to effect peace on its own.  Eventually every man-based peace will crumble.  Who knows what the borders of Europe will look like in twenty, fifty, or heck, even ten, years from now?  What we can be assured of, however, is that, despite the best of efforts of mankind, God's plan for this Earth will be fulfilled.    

Comments

  1. If could articulate my thoughts on this, this I what I'd have written!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, l...

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repe...

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...