De Tocqueville was right about Islam

Reblogged from http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/de-tocqueville-was-right-about-islam/ 

Exclusive: Joshua Charles calls for honest dialogue to replace political correctness

Published: 2 days ago

Joshua Charles About | Email | Archive

Joshua Charles is the No. 1 New York Times best-selling co-author (with Glenn Beck) of "The Original Argument: The Federalists' Case for the Constitution, Adapted for the 21st Century." He is currently a research fellow at the Public Policy Institute at William Jessup University, where he is researching the writings of the American Founders, as well as many other champions of human liberty throughout history. He earns his MA in Government in 2014, and despite being a former concert pianist, will begin law school at Regent University in Fall 2014.

Terrorism is both a complicated subject and a simple subject. It has its complexities, but there are also really bright red lines of moral differentiation that we must not blur. The recent events in Paris have made this clear.

I have a number of Muslim friends. I admire most of them. I respect all of them. They’ve shown me kindness, and we are like-minded in many ways.

But, at some point, given incident after incident, you do have to wonder what the nature of Islam really is. Is it a religion of peace, as we are so often told? Or is it a religion of violence?

There is also the very real possibility that, as happens often in many religions, those who claim to be adherents don’t really understand what their religion actually teaches. Their desire to justify their religion (probably the one they grew up with) overrides their willingness to look at it objectively. I’ve seen this constantly with Catholics, with evangelicals, with Mormons, with Jews, etc. as well. It is a feature of human nature.

And the cold hard facts are that Muhammad was a violent man. Yes, there were some circumstances surrounding some of his life that may have justified some of his violence (i.e. self-defense). But Islam has almost always been spread by the sword. When you look at Jesus, there is not a single example of violence where human life is put in danger, or injuries meted out. The life of Muhammad provides countless examples. And even though I’m sure he was legitimately defending himself on occasion, why did he begin engaging in conquest of the surrounding lands during his own lifetime? Some psycho claiming to do violence in the name of Jesus cannot cite even one example of Jesus doing the same (quite the opposite). The same is not true about Muhammad.

I would encourage everyone to look up the Encyclopedia of Wars, which is a compendium put together by scholars, listing, as best they can, many of the wars in human history. Contrary to the modern stereotypical myths that religion has caused most wars, this scholarly work conclusively shows this is a lie. (That was not their purpose, but the conclusion followed from the results of their survey.) They found that only 6 percent of wars were religiously motivated. The key fact, however, is that if you took out the wars instigated by the dar al-Islam (“the House of Islam”), that number plummeted even further, to 2 percent. Thus, in this survey, Islam alone was responsible for two-thirds of religiously instigated wars in world history. This fact is even more glaring when you consider that many of these wars took place when Islam was not nearly as widespread as it is today.

I’m still open to considering other positions on these issues. There are thoughtful Muslims out there, and I believe they need to be listened to. However, we must not avoid the salient point: We really need to cut political correctness out of our dialogue. It is a dialogue killer. If you can’t stand your feelings getting hurt or your opinions being contradicted, then don’t engage in serious conversations. The West is losing its ability to stand for anything because it refuses to dialogue honestly.

And it is precisely because all over the world thousands of people continue to die at the hands of those claiming to do so in the name of Islam that we need to have honest conversations right now. Not hot-headed conversations. Not paranoid or bombastic conversations. Honest conversations. Let there be no more delay.

Given recent events, it seemed only appropriate that we consider the words of the great 19th century Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville on Islam.
“I studied the Quran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. So far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself.” (Letter to Arthur de Gobineau, Oct. 22, 1843)

De Tocqueville lived on the brink of a flowering age of democracy, and he knew it. He foresaw many great possibilities, but also many great dangers. Ultimately, however, he prophesied that Islam would be incompatible with such a world. We ought to consider his words in light of the fact that there is not one single bona fide democracy in the entire Islamic world today:
“Muhammad brought down from heaven and put into the Quran not religious doctrines only, but political maxims, criminal and civil laws, and scientific theories. The Gospels, on the other hand, deal only with the general relations between man and God and between man and man. Beyond that, they teach nothing and do not oblige people to believe anything. That alone, among a thousand reasons, is enough to show that Islam will not be able to hold its power long in ages of enlightenment and democracy, while Christianity is destined to reign in such ages, as in all others.” (“Democracy in America,” Book 1, Chapter 5)
Je suis Charlie.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/de-tocqueville-was-right-about-islam/#oIRMAL3M2dIobYfm.99

Saudi Arabia, Iran and the Houtis - Avi Lipkin Part II

Saudi Arabia, Iran and the Houtis - Avi Lipkin Part I

How a French Atheist becomes a Christian Theologian

The 3 stages of Jihad - David Wood

UN Chief: “State of Palestine” Accepted to ICC

Reblogged from www.breakingisraelnews.com   

By Lea Speyer January 7, 2015 , 11:17 am

 

   

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon announced that the “State of Palestine” will officially join the ICC starting on April 1, 2015. (Photo: CTBTO)

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon announced on Wednesday that “Palestine” will officially join the International Criminal Court (ICC) on April 1.

Acceptance to the ICC will allow the Palestinians to pursue war crimes charges against Israel, a high-stakes move that has been condemned by Israel and the US.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas submitted some 20 applications to international treaties last week, one of them the Rome Statute that established the ICC in 2002. Signing the Rome Statue is the last formal step to becoming a permanent member of the international crimes tribunal.

Application to the ICC came a day after a Palestinian resolution calling for Israeli withdrawal from East Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria by the end of 2017 was rejected by the UN Security Council.

The unilateral resolution, submitted by Jordan on behalf of the Palestinian Authority, also called for the establishment of a Palestinian state based on pre-1967 borders.
In a statement posted on the UN’s website, the secretary-general said that “the statute will enter into force for the State of Palestine on April 1, 2015.” Ban said that he was acting as the “depositary” for the documents of ratification.

 

In response to the Palestinians newest strategy to pressure Israel into statehood, Israel threatened severe retaliation. The government has already acted on its threat, freezing more than $100 million in tax revenue collected on behalf of Ramallah.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Tuesday that the unilateral push for statehood has pushed off any prospect of peace for the time being.
Speaking to Channel 2 news, the prime minister added that any talk of evacuation of Jewish areas from Judea and Samaria were off the table. “I don’t see [evacuating settlers] as practical at the moment because any territory we vacate will be grabbed…I don’t see it happening,” he said.

Earlier this week, in anticipation of the Palestinians decision to file war crimes charges against Israel, the legal right NGO Shurat HaDin filed three more war crimes charges against members of Abbas’s Fatah party.

The Obama administration, which has expressed it opposition to Palestinian membership at the ICC, said that it has taken steps with Congress to review its annual $440 million aid package to the Palestinians.

Under American law, any Palestinian case against Israel brought before the ICC would trigger an immediate cutoff of all financial aid from the US to the Palestinians.
The ICC was established to prosecute individual perpetrators of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity at The Hague. “Palestine” will become the 123^rd member.

The Paris Islamic Terrorist Attack: Can It Happen Here…Again?

Reblogged from https://kingsjester.wordpress.com

Now, I made some commitments four years ago. I told you I’d end the war in Iraq — and we did. I said we’d end the war in Afghanistan — we are. I said we’d refocus on the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11 — and we have. And today, a new tower rises above the New York skyline, and Al Qaeda is on the path to defeat, and Usama bin Laden is dead. – United States President Barack Hussein Obama, October 18, 2012

Yesterday, Muslim Terrorism reared up its ugly head once again, this time in Paris, France. We have since found out that the perpetrators of this mass murder were members of al-Qaeda from the country of Yemen.
Upon further review of the incident, it was also noticed that three of the officers arrived on the scene we’re not even carrying firearms, due to the very strict gun control policy of the country of France.
France is a country controlled by Liberal Politically-Correct Government, as is the case presently in the United States of America.
Did their Liberal Policies lead to yesterday’s horrific massacre?
At least one French Political Leader thinks so.
Businessweek.com reports that

France’s Front National leader Marine Le Pen pinned the blame for the killing of 12 people in Paris today on Islamic radicals, as mainstream leaders tried to downplay the religious dimension of the attack.
While President Francois Hollande called for national unity in an attempt to deter the public from demonizing the country’s 5-million strong Muslim community, Le Pen said France has to confront the beliefs of the gunmen who stormed the offices of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo this morning.
“Time’s up for denial and hypocrisy,” Le Pen, who has railed against immigration, said in a video posted on her party’s website today. “The absolute rejection of Islamic fundamentalism must be proclaimed loudly and clearly.”

The lessons voters’ draw from the deadliest attack on French soil since World War II will shape the political debate as the country looks toward the 2017 election. Hollande, the most unpopular president in modern history, is struggling to make up ground on Le Pen, who’s seen her support surge as she blames immigrants for France’s near-record unemployment and deepening inequalities.

2012 Precedent
“Of all political parties, the Front National stands to gain most from this atrocity,” Jim Shields, head of French studies at Aston University in Birmingham, England, said in an interview. “Public agreement with the FN’s ideas has been rising steadily and this event will play into the party’s anti-immigration, anti-Islam agenda.”

When the Islamist terrorist Mohammed Merah carried out deadly attacks in Toulouse and Montauban in 2012, Le Pen was the presidential candidate who benefited most, Shields said.
The French government is trying to damp fears that the growing influence of Islam is eroding social cohesion. Le Pen led Hollande by as much as 15 percentage points in a September survey of voting intentions by Ifop for Le Figaro newspaper. The Front National topped Hollande’s Socialists and their predecessors, the UMP, in last year’s European elections.
Hollande, who Le Pen has previously attacked for underestimating the terrorist threat, today put the country on its highest alert while appealing to his countrymen to transcend their ethnic and religious divisions.

5 Million Muslims
“We’ll stick together and show that France is a country that knows how to react appropriately, showing firmness and national unity,” the president told reporters in eastern Paris, near the scene of the attack.
France is home to Europe’s largest Muslim community, making up about 7.7 percent of the population, and their numbers have been growing with children and grandchildren of those who arrived from the country’s former colonies in North Africa during the 20th century. Very few Muslims have reached top-level jobs in France, while second-and- third-generation French people of Arab descent say they often face discrimination.

Well, the actions of these Muslim Terrorists yesterday certainly will not help their cause any.
As I have shown in previous blogs, several verses of the Muslim holy book, the Quran, call for violence toward anyone who does not accept Islam as the one true faith. There are many verses within the Quran, which spell out in graphic detail the measures which the believer is supposed to take against non- believers, or infidels.

Just as President Obama’s attempts to negotiate with these barbarians have failed spectacularly so far, it appears that France’s attempts at appeasement have failed as well.
What is important factors that differentiates the United States of America from France is the fact that our citizens still possess the constitutional right to bear arms. Also, our police are still allowed to carry them, as well.
We all know the old saying that goes,

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

As the country of France found out yesterday, that goes for Muslim terrorist, as well.
Until He Comes,
KJ

Police officer killed in second terror attack in Paris. Elite French unit preparing operation

Reblogged from debka.com

DEBKAfile Special Report January 8, 2015, 1:22 PM (IDT)

Tags:  France on terror alert,  Islamists,

Cherif Kouachi, 32, (L) and his brother Said Kouachi, 34, (R)

A female police officer, one of two shot in the second terror attack in Paris, Thursday, Jan. 8, has died after being shot in the back in the Malakoff district. There were two gunmen – one seen with an assault rifle and a bullet-proof vest  Police captured one shooter, the second escaped – one witness said he fled into the Metro and disappeared on a train, another that he was picked up by a car. He is still at large along with the two Islamist killers, Said and Cherif Kouachi, who shot dead 12 people at the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris Wednesday. Unnamed sources say the brothers have been located in northern France, reported refueling their car at a gas pump. Elite French police unit in full combat gear is seen preparing for an operation. 

Somber crowds massed in the Place de la Republique at midday for a one minute of silence in tribute to the murdered journalists and police officers. We reported earlier that the youngest of three French nationals being sought by police for magazine massacre, turned himself in to the police, an official at the Paris prosecutor's office said.  French police were still in a huge manhunt for two of the attackers who escaped by car after shooting dead some of France's top cartoonists as well as two police officers, amid fears of further attacks. They were quickly identified by an identity card left in the getaway car, as two Paris-born brothers Said and Cherif Kouachi, of Algerian origin aged 34 and 32. Cherif was part of an Iraqi jihadi network dismantled in Paris and served 18 months in prison on terror charges in May 2008. The two returned from Syria in summer. The third, Hamyd Mourad, 18, is of no fixed abode or known nationality, turned himself in after seeing is name in social media.

Other arrests are taking place in circles linked to the two brothers.
Police published pictures of the two brothers Thursday morning calling for witnesses and describing the two men as "armed and dangerous."
During the attack, one of the assailants was captured on video outside the building shouting "Allahu Akbar!" (God is Greatest) as shots rang out. Another walked over to a police officer lying wounded on the street and shot him point-blank with an AK-47 assault rifle before the two calmly climbed into a black car and drove off.
The third man was not seen in any of the footage and it was not clear if he was directly involved in the attack.
A further four wounded victims are still fighting for their lives.

Tens of thousands joined impromptu rallies across France in memory of the victims and to support freedom of expression. There was no claim of responsibility. However, a witness quoted by 20 Minutes daily newspaper said one of the assailants cried out before getting into his car: "Tell the media that it is al Qaeda in Yemen!"

debkafile reported on Jan. 7 after the attack:
The heavily armed Islamist gunmen who murdered 12 people including police officers at the satirical Charlie Hebdo magazine in central Paris Wednesday, Jan. 7, got clear away and are feared by French and other European security agencies to be seeking out more targets. They are on the loose with AK-47 assault guns, a supply of ammo, and possibly a grenade launcher. Another 10 people were injured, 5 critically.
France has raised its terror alert to its highest level as it launches a massive manhunt for three killers. Its European neighbors have also taken precautions.
This act of terror raised a whole new set of concerns. The gunmen conducted themselves in the calm, deliberate manner of trained professional soldiers, rather than crazed suicidal jihadis. Their combat experience was evident, whether from fighting in the Islamic State’s battles in Iraq and Syria or other Islamist arenas.

Three years ago, Charlie Hebdo ran cartoons lampooning the Prophet Muhammad and in the current New Year, poked fun at ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
French security authorities infer that the terrorists, dressed in black and masked, were gunning for predetermined targets from the fact that they carried lists and asked for their targets by name when they passed through the corridors of the magazine building. They then shot the journalists on their list with cold-blooded precision.
According to one unconfirmed report, the Charlie Hebdo editor and lead cartoonist were among the victims.

President Francois Hollande, who arrived on the scene within minutes, commented that “40 people were saved.” They were evidently saved because they did not appear on the gunmen’s death list.

debkafile’s counter-terror sources note that this attack was the first instance in the war of terror, that Islamists murdered Western journalists for their views on religion in the heart of a West European capital.
Shouting "Allahu Akhbar!" and “We have avenged the Prophet’s honor!” theyleft the building and sped past a police force in the street, shooting accurately at the windscreens of their vehicles. They then jumped into a black getaway car which stood waiting with open doors. A short while later, they stole another vehicle and switched cars.
The president called an emergency cabinet meeting shortly after the attack. Our sources note that although French security and intelligence services have maintained a high terror alert for the past month after a series of incidents against Jewish targets, they failed to predict or forestall one of the most spectacular Islamic attacks seen in Europe in recent years.

11 dead, four wounded critically in shooting at headquarters of French satirical newspaper

Reblogged from www.jpost.com/International

Five others suffered gunshot wounds; Witness tells French TV channel iTELE that men with Kalashnikov guns entered Charlie Hebdo offices.

A policeman stands guard outside the French satirical weekly "Charlie Hebdo" in Paris, February 9, 2006.. (photo credit:REUTERS) 

Black-hooded gunmen shot dead at least 11 people at the Paris offices of the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo, a publication firebombed in the past after publishing cartoons lampooning Muslim leaders and the Prophet Mohammad, police said.

President Francois Hollande headed to the scene of the attack and the government said it was raising France's security level to the highest notch.

"This is a terrorist attack, there is no doubt about it," Hollande told reporters.

Another 10 people were injured in the incident and police union official Rocco Contento described the scene inside the offices as "carnage."

"About a half an hour ago two black-hooded men entered the building with Kalashnikovs (rifles)," witness Benoit Bringer told the TV station. "A few minutes later we heard lots of shots," he said, adding that the men were then seen fleeing the building.

France is already on high alert after calls last year from Islamist militants to attack its citizens and interests in reprisal for French military strikes on Islamist strongholds in the Middle East and Africa.

British Prime Minister David Cameron described the attack as sickening.

Late last year, a man shouting "Allahu Akbar" ("God is greatest") injured 13 by ramming a vehicle into a crowd in the eastern city of Dijon. Prime Minister Manuel Valls said at the time France had "never before faced such a high threat linked to terrorism."

A firebomb attack gutted the headquarters of Charlie Hebdo, a publication that has always courted controversy with satirical attacks on political and religious leaders, in November 2011 after it put an image of the Prophet Mohammad on its cover.

The last tweet on Charlie Hebdo's account mocked Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State, which has taken control of large swathes of Iraq and Syria.

Let's stop idolizing the first century church and love our own churches a little more

Reblogged from Elizabeth Prata ´s the-end-time.blogspot.com.  

           

A Georgia church. EPrata photo

It's fashionable today to hate the church. People like to come across as wise sages, decrying the ecclesiology of the western church. Many people note that church is shallow, entertainment-driven, and lukewarm, with worthless shepherds leading clueless goats. Some even go so far as to say that most churches should be closed. They say they love Jesus but hate religion. They say that they love Christ but disparage the church.


Reasons are given for today's fallen churches.

-Many believers are growing tired of the celebrity culture in our churches.
-Many believers are fed up with the incessant entertainment and worldly amusements found in the churches.
-Many believers are not being fed from the Word of God.
-Many believers are put off by the attempt to cater solely to youth, while ignoring their needs.
-Many believers are tired of just being bench warmers, with no role to play.
-Many believers are weary of the constant need to be “relevant” at the expense of biblical orthodoxy.
-Many believers are looking for the real deal. They want an encounter with almighty God, not just a razzmatazz stage production.
-Many believers are desiring genuine Holy Ghost revival, not just pep talks, self-help seminars, and a me-centered gospel.
-Many believers are starving for the reality of First Century Christianity

You hear more and more that the First Century church is what we should get back to.

A Georgia church interior. EPrata photo

Now before I launch into a defense of the present-day church, I want to say that I agree with the sadness with which many people survey the ecclesiastical landscape in western and eastern Christianity and bemoan its pitiable state. I don't wear rose-colored glasses. I'm just as aware as the next woman of the Mark Driscolls, Joyce Meyers, zip-lining pastors, Steven Furticks, mega-church, Perry Nobles, flat screen hollowness, smoke saturated praise bands. I know.

I've seen a collapse of church attendance, church doctrine, and individual fervor for Jesus just in the ten years I've been a church-goer. In my short tenure I've personally been impacted by a worthless shepherd spiritually abusing his flock, and a serial plagiarist lying to his flock- and neither of them cared. I've seen people fall away, become apathetic, or simply go through the ministry motions. I've seen false doctrine creep into hearts and women be drawn away by false teachers while their husbands look the other way. It's all sad. I've cried many a tear.

Yes it's getting hard to find a church near you that is reasonably doctrinal, and lives what they believe. But for every one mega-church shenanigans, there are 100 small, rural churches clicking along, preaching, loving, believing, having stale cookies in the basement on Wednesday nights. Like mine. None of the things that understandably make us sad makes me want to say any such thing like, "Church today stinks, I want the early church." Here are my reasons.

The number one reason to stop lusting after the first century church is that Jesus put us here, now. None of this is a surprise to Him. He put us here in this time and in this nation.

And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, (Acts 17:26)

In His sovereignty and His plan, He didn't birth us in Jerusalem to see a risen Jesus and become a part of the early church. So get over it.
That first church was an ordinary church.
~John MacArthur
Second, since He did put us here now, what are we to do? Believe. Persevere. Be His lights in a dying culture that hates us. Stop worrying about the way things are in church - and I agree it's bad - but keep on keeping on.

I understand people have had to leave churches because of spiritual abuse, molesting pastors, or doctrinal disasters. I know and I agree in those and other tragic cases there is a warranted reason to leave and seek another place to worship. I also know that many people say that there simply aren't churches in their area that they'd put their trust in or allow their kids to attend. In those cases people have made do with forming their own bible studies in their living rooms and have taken advantage of technology to stay fed, until other options become available.

Let's take a good look at the first century church. Did they have to suffer through any of these issues? Oh yes, they did, and more.

In looking at Mr Muehlenberg's list of reasons to hate the 21st century church, there is nothing on that list the first century Christian's didn't grapple with.

Celebrities? They had 'em.

For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not mere men? What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, (1 Corinthians 3:4-5)

A Georgia church steeple. EPrata photo

Not that Paul or Apollos thought themselves as celebrities, but the seeds were there to exalt men beyond their station and/or to follow them unto fractioning. There were first century unblieving church celebrities, Diotrephes was named by in 3 John 1:9 as someone who likes to put himself first-

I have written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority. So if I come, I will bring up what he is doing, talking wicked nonsense against us. And not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers, and also stops those who want to and puts them out of the church.

Sounds like Diotrephes could have written Mark Driscoll's Mars Hill excommunication letters.

As far as being "fed up with the incessant entertainment and worldly amusements found in the churches" I dare say there were a few believers in the Corinthian church fed up with Lord's table orgies.

There were some believers - whole families even - not being fed the truth, as well. (2 Timothy 2:18, Titus 1:11).

"There were also believers who felt they were bench warmers, with no role to play"...(and whose fault is that?) In the first century church, they found a role to play, and were chastised for it. (1 Corinthians 14:26-33). There have always been bench-warning, resentful believers lusting after another's gifts or a bigger 'role to play.'

If you want a first century church, then do what they did, continually devote yourself...even when the football game is on.

What was that first church like? ... They were involved in what we would consider to be ordinary actions, ordinary realities. Verse 42, “They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.” Dear friends, those are the means of grace. Those are the ordinary things that every church should be engaged in. This is the life of the church. There’s nothing in there about entertainment. Nothing in there is spectacular. There’s nothing in there revivalistic. There’s nothing in there that catapults someone to some other spiritual level. ~John MacArthur, The Ordinary Church

Mr Muehlenberg wrote, "Many believers are starving for the reality of First Century Christianity". This is a sentiment echoed not just by him but many others. So let's look at that reality.

A Maine church. EPrata photo

Immediately, Peter and John were put in jail. (Acts 4:3)

Immediately, the first century church sacrificed their belongings. (Acts 4:32). Do you know why?

Because Jerusalem had swelled with Jews from distant lands for Passover and then the crucifixion happened. Then Pentecost. Many thousands of the people who formed the first church were from those distant places. Acts 2:9-11 lists them,

Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians.

They were converted, and they stayed. Thousands upon thousands of men and families stayed in Rome after they became believers. Because, really, what was there to go back to? Peter was preaching in Rome. The apostles were there, teaching. So the first century church had to support them. If you want the reality of the first century, then come together as a local church, each person in your church open your home to believing immigrants, and sell all you have to support them.

The days of purity were short. Along came Ananias and Sapphira and polluted the church by bringing sin into it. The incident is recorded in Acts 5. Days? Weeks? Most timelines I looked at place the killing of Ananias and Sapphira within the same year as Pentecost. So within 365 days at most, probably within mere weeks, corrupting sin was exposed in the church.

Let's set the scene. You're a young man excitedly arriving to worship. You see Ananias arrive too, you know him. Ananias lays a money bag at Peter's feet. Awww. Then Peter points at Ananias, calls him a liar, and he is smote on the spot! You're shocked. Terrified! (Acts 5:5b). You bundle Ananias up and bury him. Not exactly how you had planned to spend your worship day.

You return to continue worship a few hours later, and then the same things happens! Ananias' wife Sapphira arrives. You know her, seen her around. They own that big wheat field just outside of town. Peter points to her and SHE falls down dead too! You're called on to bundle her up and bury her as well. (Acts 5:7-10). Everyone is terrified. (Acts 5:11)

That is the reality of a first century church. A God who personally kills hypocrites in front of your eyes.

And it wasn't just that one time. Many partakers in the Lord's Table defiling became weak or died because of that, as a judgment (1 Corinthians 11:29-30). Jesus personally threatened to kill the false prophetess 'Jezebel's spiritual daughters if they didn't repent. That was the reality. Smiting from the finger of Jesus.

Could you say, "I want to go to another church, I don't think Peter should have pointed out Ananias' sin in front of everyone, that just wasn't loving." No. There wasn't a church down the road. For a long time, there were only seven churches in Israel and Asia.

A closed church. EPrata photo

Let's look at more of the reality of that first century church. You've arrived at your church in Sardis, expecting in a self-satisfied way that your week of ministry work will be accepted, and you'll get a heaping dose of theology to go along with that self-satisfaction. As the pastor walks to the front of the room and sits down, he says, "Today I don't have a sermon. Instead I will read a letter from John, dictated to him by JESUS."

A shock goes through the congregation. And he begins this way:

‘I know your works. You have the reputation of being alive, but you are dead. 2 Wake up, and strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God." (Revelation 3:1-3)

Dead? Our church is DEAD?! You thought it was alive but the One who knows says it's dead. Quite a reality check that day for the church at Sardis.

You're in the church at Laodicea. Same scenario. Preacher goes to the front, and says instead of a sermon we will read a letter from John. He begins by telling you Jesus is so upset with you that he wants to vomit you out of His mouth. In all your comfortable riches, you never expected that. You're shocked. And upset. You want to leave this stinkin' church, and go to another, better one. Except...there isn't one.

A Canadian church. EPrata photo

Still in the first century, because John didn't die until sometime between 96 and 100 AD, you're at Thyatira. You settle in for a nice sermon and some fellowship after. Mmm, the roast smells good over there in the fire pit. The elder goes to the front, and tells you that instead of a sermon that day, he will read a letter from John dictated by Jesus. He then proceeds to tell you that the Lord of the Church HAS THIS AGAINST YOU. He is against you. They had been tolerating sin and Jesus was angry about it, and threatened to kill some women dead! If I was sitting there and reading a letter recently dictated by Jesus to John and heard my Lord had something against me, I'd just die of shame. Not the pleasant Sunday they were expecting. Anger, wrath, and threats of smiting. That was the reality of the first century church.

I've seen this quote by the eminent theologian A.W. Tozer used in support of the lust to go back to the first century church.

“If the Holy Spirit was withdrawn from the church today, 95 percent of what we do would go on and no one would know the difference. If the Holy Spirit had been withdrawn from the New Testament church, 95 percent of what they did would stop, and everybody would know the difference.”

Except we have seen that is not true. The church at Sardis was dead, and no one knew it. Ministries (works) were ongoing but none were advancing the kingdom. They had reputation only, no Spirit. The church at Laodicea had excluded Jesus, and no one knew it. He was outside knocking on the door to be let in. (Revelation 3:20)

The first century church is the same as our church, because it is made up of people who sin. Ananias' sin exposed wasn't the first sin in the church, because we're all sinners. It was just the first one that was exposed. Every local body since Pentecost has had all things in common, and that commonality is the faith in our risen Lord by His atoning work on the cross and subsequent resurrection. We have the Spirit in common. The Spirit wasn't stronger then, it's us who are weaker now.

Some of us. Some are still strong. It's life in the church, ordinary, regular, worshiping and learning church. I like my church. I stand amazed at the work the Spirit is doing in our local body. No we don't have resurrections from the dead or walls shaking with power. But we have the Spirit growing us, families staying together, pastor who prays on his knees, dedicated deacons and teachers. We have the faithful core who shows up every Sunday, and who give sacrificially when someone is in need. Just like the first century church.

In addition, we have a beautiful building in which to worship. We have freedom from persecution that took so many brothers and sisters in terror and in blood. We have the bible! The first century church did not have the advantage of the complete written New Testament! That didn't begin happening until around 170AD and wasn't affirmed until AD 363. Even then...printed materials were rarely in the hands of the people that didn't happen until the printing press made mass production possible after 1436.

In this very good article by Mark Jones, "Loving Christ But Hating His Bride?" Mr Jones said,

We must keep firmly in mind just how much Christ loves his church. That fact alone should transform the way in which we think about the church of Christ, which he purchased with his own blood.

The church grass isn't greener on the other side of the centuries. If Jesus had put me in Rome in 30AD, I'd love the church. Since He put me in Georgia in 2015, I love the church. We do the same things the first century worshipers did: we study, we break bread, we share, we pray. We also sin, we fuss, we stray and get corrected, we worship in truth, we share...we're the church. And because it's the way Jesus designed it, I wouldn't have it any other way.