What Antisemitism is Not

Until recently most of us knew what antisemitism was: hatred of Jews just because they are Jews. For example intimidating, bullying, humiliating, hurting Jews – these are all expressions of antisemitism. Antisemitism is evil. So is racism and nationalism: hating another for no other reason but his or her skin color, ethnicity or religious affiliation. All of those social deviations are unfortunately alive and well still today. 

However we must take care that we are not pulled into a circle with hysterical gaslighters who are calling things that are not as if they were. Let it be clear that it is not antisemitism when Christians who understand the Gospel of Christ are warning that Christian Zionism is a bad theology, biblically unsupported. Likewise, antisemitism is not when peace loving people are calling Israel to account for the thousands of obliterated Palestinian lives, including the overwhelming number of children, since October last year. Millions of voices of students, Christian leaders who know better, journalists who are reporting facts, Israelis on the streets of Tel Aviv, and others who are demanding that the genocidal rampage be immediately stoped – who are in other words declaring that enough is enough – those are not the signs of the “alarming growth of antisemitism”. 

In short, hating Jews because they are Jews is an evil sin of antisemitism. But hating the sin of genocide and ongoing obliteration of Palestinians with impunity, administered by Israelis at this time, and tacitly and proactively approved by the powers that could stop it – this is not antisemitism. Calling evil by its proper name is not antisemitism. Warns the Old Testament prophet Isaiah (5:20): “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” If not sooner, all gaslighting will stop for good before the judgment seat of God. 

The Day That Changed Everything

Dear Friends,

Allow me to draw your attention to the interview “The Day That Changed Everything,” which I recorded only a few days ago with Baraa Deeb, a friend from Israel. More precisely, Baraa Deeb Natour is an Israeli citizen of Palestinian nationality and Arab origins. Baraa is a Christian, married to a Muslim husband, and they have two beautiful children.

Baraa is also a film production professional with experience working on both Israeli and Palestinian movie productions. Moreover, she teaches the Hebrew language and is a reconciliation activist with extensive experience in fostering closer relations between Jews and Arabs.

Baraa has embraced all these identities as she strives to build bridges of understanding between Jews and Arabs. She has been engaged in this endeavor for many years prior to October 7th of last year, and she continues to seek ways to do so in an environment that has become increasingly divided and hostile towards peace advocates like herself.

For those of you familiar with the Renewing Our Minds (ROM) ministry, let me also share that Baraa has been active within the ROM community in Croatia and across the Balkans for many years. Since 2007, when she attended ROM as a participant for the first time, she has served in the ROM teams multiple times and in various capacities.

Baraa is proud of her multiple identities. She sees them as a blessing that could help other people divided by various racial, ethnic, national, and religious divides. In this interview, we are discovering how Baraa manages to sustain herself in the hostile environment that does not necessarily welcome people like Baraa Deeb. We would also ask her – what are the differences between the days before October 7th last year and after? We also want to know what Baraa’s hopes and dreams are for the future of her land and the people.

At this time, please pray for Baraa, her family, and other friends known to our ROM family, who are living in Israel and Palestine, that the Lord may keep protecting them, strengthening them, and equip them to continue being salt and light in their divided land and communities.

Friends, please watch, listen, and share her life journey with your friends. And do not forget to subscribe and spread the word about this channel.

Much love and blessings. Tihomir Kukolja, Dum Spiro Spero Features Editor

Warning Against Fake Miracles

Something to Think About: Warning Against Fake Miracles.  Jesus did not raise the dead man into some kind of zombie-like or a Frankenstein-like existence. His brining to life a dead person was an act of complete recreation of life. It was a manifestation of the same creative power, the same Word, and the same authority that was spoken into the creation of the universe. And whichever person was healed by Jesus he/she was completely restored to the most optimal conditions of health this side of eternity. None of them was healed partially or only seemingly. In other words, a previously blind man was not restored to see only vaguely, a previously paralyzed man could not now walk only for a week, and a resurrected person did not die one week later. Nor did he walk out of his coffin as a mindless zombie. Whenever Jesus heals one witnesses the unimaginable creative power of God at work and not a cheap, spooky, incomplete magic. Take are you do not fall for the tricks of fake miracle workers.

Warning Against Fake Miracles

TWO YEARS INTO RUSSIAN AGGRESSION – Ukrainian Pastor Shares His Story

TWO YEARS INTO RUSSIAN AGGRESSION. Interview featuring Fyodor Raychynets, Head of the Department of Theology and Director of the Transformative Leadership Master’s Program, at the Ukrainian Evangelical Theological Seminary, Kyiv, Ukraine. In this 60 minute interview Pastor Raychynets reflects, honestly and reflectively, on the past two years of the full-scale Russian aggression against his country, people, and church communities, and on the impact this war has had so far on the ministry of Christian leaders and faith communities, and on him personally. Over the past three years pastor Raychynets lost his wife, his son and his mother. Despite all of it and the war that continues to devastate Ukraine he still finds courage and strength to continue to serve his community.

Podcast Version

A Letter to My Family of Friends

Photo: 20th ROM Anniversary Gathering, Ohrid, Macedonia 2019

A Letter to the ROM – Renewing Our Minds Alumni at the Beginning of 2024

My Dear Family of Friends Whom I Love and Miss Very Much,

It seems many of us are going through a soul-searching season. Is this a sign of going through a period of reflection and prayer? Or confusion and uncertainty? In my case it seems all of those and above. Just like most of you I too am trying to make sense of the rapid changes in the world affairs, and especially in decline in humanity, decency, empathy and respect for human life and dignity. The other day I overheard a conversation in a local coffee place. A young waitress was sharing her concern with another one: “Everything is going wrong. Russia, Ukraine, Israel, Palestine! What’s next? World War 3?”

I am sensing the atmosphere full of anxiety about what the year 2024 might deliver. I can feel it in the tense conversations between friends, rude commentaries on social media, in the ways our political and governmental leaders are treating each other. I am reading the signs of our times in the intoxicated headlines and hopelessness emphasized by the mainstream media too. I see it in the expressions of confusing values and worldviews. I can see that something has fundamentally gone awry in the generous avalanches of hate speech and threats so easily released by the populist leaders of the day.  In fact, right now one can feel deep rooted disorderliness and anxiety in almost all spheres of human interaction.  

One does not need to be a prophet to see that 2024 is going to be worse than the one we’ve just left behind. The nations are growing angry. Just look into the affairs of your own country and see how it has changed for the worse in a short time. The bad harbingers of the things the New Year is inheriting and will – no doubt – work on expanding them into some new deadly stories and momentums, helped by megalomaniac appetites of many would be authoritarians and dictators in making – many of them flirting with growing right wing populism, secular and religious nationalism and fascism of one kind or another. No wonder we are restless, our confusion deepens, our empathy is being tested. Our guts are telling us that the mess we are in will only escalate in 2024 and encourage the blast of some new cataclysmic developments whose designers are only waiting for an opportune time to strike.

Do you remember (I used to present it year after year) my somewhat humorous presentation of the wistful maps of the Balkan countries? Occasionally I would call it “Identity Worth Dying For”. I’ve almost decided to stop sharing this presentation thinking it is becoming outdated and irrelevant, but how prophetic that presentation has become, it no longer represents the Balkan challenges alone. It has by now become a metaphor for the sick global state of affairs that are cataclysmically surfacing one after another worldwide. It is in the US whenever the crowds cheer with the messianic enthusiasm “Make America Great Again”. It is there in Russia whenever its current political and religious leaders are declaring their aggression against Ukraine a “holy war”. It is happening right now in the Middle East as the Israeli government is turning Gaza into another Hiroshima in the name of holy entitlement. It is there in the threatening attitudes of China and North Korea which too are waiting for their moment to come. It is prophetically there in your and my country, whenever political extremists who are upholding the far right or far left ideologies are adding locally and regionally their own contributions to the already spreading confusion. 

And it is when I am beholding our world in distress, so closely resembling the world of the 30s of the last century, that I am thinking about all of you, my beloved ROM family of friends. I remember the genuine enthusiasm by which we appreciated each other, learned together to be better people, dreamed of building better and healthier relationships between our ethnic, national, religious groups. We were ready to renew our minds, forgive, reconcile and change our homes, streets, towns, regions, countries. And we promised we would remain friends whatever may come. I know that many years have passed and most of us are at different places in our lives, facing all kinds of challenges. But I will ask nevertheless: how much of what we embraced at our ROM gatherings five, ten, fifteen, twenty years ago is still alive in us? I am asking because I know that whatever we learned together over those years will be tested to the uttermost, if it already hasn’t been, in the months and years ahead of us. I love the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and especially the words of Gimli spoken in a moment of crisis, which I will rephrase in the form of a question: “Has the fellowship failed?” I am encouraged by the thoughtful response of Aragon: “Not if we hold true to each other.”  In other words, I am wondering how our family of friends is holding up at the time of growing international crisis and testing? And what principles and values are inspiring our choices and worldviews today?

I was encouraged by a Palestinian friend from Israel who told me the other day: “I am constantly thinking of ROM and what I have learned there. I desire so much to do something in regard to our current situation but I do not know what.” Our Palestinian friend has in my heart become a metaphor for all of us who remember and, in some way, still live in the spirit of our ROM fellowship and desire to make our communities and neighborhoods a better place but are simply overwhelmed by the amount and force of injustice, untruthfulness, and relentlessness of evil around us. Do you find yourself wondering if there is anything we can do to make a difference in such a world? I would like to encourage you that we can if, in the words of Aragon, we find courage to “hold true to each other” and to the simple truths we have all learned through our ROM experiences, one of which is to keep our commitment to friendship alive regardless of the many divisions that are brutally tearing our world apart. Tragically we are living in the world in which increasingly friends are being turned into enemies and cheerleaders for nationalism, including religious nationalism, racism, violence, hate towards anyone who is different. We live in the world that has normalized hatred, injustice and demonization of anyone one does not like. Populist leaders are on the rise who are normalizing the use of profane, dehumanizing and lying language, as they are advocating extreme political agendas that are, as we speak, becoming real threats to democracy everywhere. Consequently, people are losing hope and sense of purpose in their lives, as the vicious cycle of injustice, violence and dehumanization of human lives only increases. 

In the spirit of everything we have learned within our fellowship of ROM for many years beginning with 1999, I count on you my friends you will continue to resist any of the listed social evils in the year we have just entered, in whatever form or shape they might take place in your country. The year 2024 is going to be a tough one. It will call you and me more than any previous one to become a Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Mother Teresa, Desmond Tutu, Boris Trajkovski, Martin Luther King, William Wilberforce. I am counting on you that your love for justice will be fine-tuned, and your modus operandi will reject the attraction of any form of nationalism, including religious nationalism, or attraction to anything that even hints at any kind of fascism or dictatorship. Likewise, in 2024 let us not allow ourselves to be swallowed by crowds, run over by crowds, follow the crowd mentality, or become crowd cheer leaders. And above all else, may we cherish our family of friends above any challenges that might suggest otherwise, and walk in the way of empathy, forgiveness and reconciliation even when those might look like foolishness in the eyes of others.

Finally, my friends, it wouldn’t be me if I would not call your attention to Jesus of Nazareth too. Remember, at each our ROM events we would direct your eyes to Jesus, for a simple reason that no one else and nothing else could equip us with such a conviction and resilience to do good and “love our neighbors” as Jesus. I am not talking about an ideologically, politically or nationalistically instrumentalized and weaponized Jesus, which is not Jesus at all. I would like to remind you of Jesus who, in his life and death consistently demonstrated what he taught when He said: “Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me” (Matthew 25:40), meaning that the only legitimate demonstration of our faith and our love for God comes through the acts of love and appreciation for the people around us, beginning with those who need us the most, and who hurt the most.

Elton Trueblood, whose “Strategy of Jesus” we would quote at each ROM Gathering, linked the person of Jesus with the community inspired by Him, and the actions of his followers who are making a difference in the world:

“There is no person in history who has impacted all of mankind more than Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus was deeply concerned for the continuation of His redemptive reconciling work after the close of His earthly existence, and His chosen method was the formation of a small band of committed friends. He did not form an army, establish a headquarters, or even write a book. All He did was to collect a few very common men and women, inspire them with the sense of His Spirit and vision, and build their lives into an intensive fellowship of affection, worship and work.

One of the truly shocking passages of the gospel is that in which Jesus indicates that there is absolutely no substitute for the tiny, loving, caring, reconciling society. If this fails, He suggests, all is failure; there is no other way. He told the little bedraggled fellowship that they were actually the salt of the earth and that if this salt should fail there would be no adequate preservative at all. He was staking all on one throw.

What we need is not intellectual theorizing or even preaching, but a demonstration. One of the most powerful ways of turning people’s loyalty to Christ is by loving others with the great love of God. We cannot revive faith by argument, but we might catch the imagination of puzzled men and women by an exhibition of a fellowship so intensely alive that every thoughtful person would be forced to respect it. 

If there should emerge in our day such a fellowship, wholly without artificiality and free from the dead hand of the past, it would be an exciting event of momentous importance. A society of genuine loving souls, set free from the self-seeking struggle for personal prestige and from all unreality, would be something unutterably priceless and powerful. A wise person would travel any distance to join it.”

My dear friends I am calling us to renew our commitment to be the ambassadors for a better world at the time when too many are working hard trying to dismantle the world we have been building with gentleness for many years. May we together, throughout the weeks and months of 2024 and beyond, be the kind of people whom Jesus called to be “the salt and the light” to the world. 

I would enjoy hearing from you soon. Let me know if this letter has spoken to you in some encouraging or reflective way.

Much love and Happy New Year from my whole family. Your friend and brother

Tihomir Kukolja, ROM – Renewing Our Minds Director 2001 – 2019

What are You Going to Do with Jesus?

At various ROM – Renewing Our Minds Gatherings over many years I would often teach and preach on the message of John chapter 9. My intention has always been to bring forward a practical exposition of the message that would culminate in the words of Jesus addressing the manipulative and arrogant religious leaders oh his days who would cynically asked: “What? Are we blind too?” To which Jesus responded: “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.” (John 9:40.41 NIV) It is a dangerous thing to have the honor of encountering Jesus, and then playing a dishonest game of pretending we have never met Him. In the words of C.S. Lewis (paraphrased) – we may pretend that we have not heard the telephone ringing and ignore to pick up the receiver, but this is not the same as if we genuinely did not hear the telephone ringing. In the end how we treat Jesus may mean a difference between life and death. This is a shortened version of about 60% of the original message delivered at the most recent ROM Gathering, held in Crikvenica, Croatia in June and July 2023. Remember – we truly see only when we see Jesus! Watch, listen and share.

My First Conversation with AI

This is the outcome of my first conversation with AI (GPT-4, free version). I would appreciate your observations. I will share my a bit later:

Q: What is the meaning of Peter’s statement in Acts 4: 12 that “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven (except Jesus) given to mankind by which we must be saved”?

AI: The statement you are referring to is found in Acts 4:12 of the New Testament, where Peter, one of Jesus’ disciples, declares, “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.” To understand the meaning of this statement, it’s helpful to consider the context in which it was spoken.

In Acts 4, Peter and John were brought before the religious authorities after healing a man who had been crippled from birth. The religious leaders questioned them about the authority by which they performed the healing, and Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, boldly proclaimed the message of Jesus Christ.

Peter’s statement reflects a central belief of early Christianity, which teaches that Jesus Christ is the unique and exclusive means of salvation for all people. It emphasizes the necessity of faith in Jesus as the way to receive forgiveness of sins and eternal life.

The phrase “no other name under heaven given to mankind” means that no other person, religious figure, or method can provide salvation. It asserts that Jesus is the only way to be reconciled with God and obtain salvation. This statement highlights the uniqueness and sufficiency of Jesus’ sacrificial death and resurrection for the salvation of humanity.

The Christian understanding is that Jesus, as the Son of God, is the only one who can reconcile humanity to God because of his perfect life, sacrificial death on the cross, and subsequent resurrection. According to Christian belief, through faith in Jesus, individuals can be forgiven of their sins, restored to a right relationship with God, and receive the gift of eternal life.

It’s important to note that this verse reflects the beliefs and teachings of early Christians and is a foundational principle of the Christian faith. Different religious traditions have their own perspectives on salvation, so interpretations may vary depending on one’s religious or theological background.

Q: Isn’t it selfish and somewhat arrogant on the part of some Christians to claim that there is no salvation in any other way but through faith in Jesus? What about people who do not believe in Jesus?

AI: The belief that salvation is found exclusively through faith in Jesus Christ can be perceived as exclusive by those who do not share that belief. It is essential to approach this topic with sensitivity and respect for different perspectives.

From the perspective of Christians, this belief is not meant to be selfish or arrogant but rather a reflection of their understanding of God’s revelation through Jesus. Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that through his life, death, and resurrection, he provides the way for humanity to be reconciled with God. Therefore, they see faith in Jesus as the path to salvation and eternal life.

However, it is important to note that Christians hold a range of beliefs and interpretations on this matter. Some Christians may emphasize the exclusivity of salvation through Jesus, while others may have a more inclusive or pluralistic understanding, believing that salvation may be possible through different paths.

Regarding people who do not believe in Jesus, Christians have diverse perspectives on this issue. Some Christians may hold the view that explicit faith in Jesus is necessary for salvation, while others may believe in the possibility of salvation for those who, through no fault of their own, have not had the opportunity to hear about Jesus or fully understand the Gospel message.

It is worth noting that interfaith dialogue and understanding are important for promoting respectful conversations and recognizing the diverse beliefs and experiences of different individuals and communities. Different religions and philosophical traditions have their own perspectives on salvation, and it is valuable to engage in respectful dialogue to better understand one another’s viewpoints.

Q: What would you say to those people who would call the exclusive claims of Jesus to be a hate speech?

AI: The perception of Jesus’ exclusive claims as hate speech is a subjective interpretation, and it’s important to approach discussions on this topic with respect and open-mindedness.

The teachings of Jesus, as recorded in the Bible, include both messages of love and inclusion as well as statements about the uniqueness of his role in salvation. Christians generally understand Jesus’ exclusive claims as an expression of their faith and an invitation to follow him. However, it’s crucial to distinguish between holding a belief and promoting hatred or discrimination towards others.

It is important to remember that Christianity, like any other religious or philosophical tradition, encompasses a wide range of interpretations and practices. Some individuals may use exclusive claims to promote intolerance or prejudice, but it is not representative of the core teachings of Jesus, who emphasized love, compassion, and forgiveness.

Engaging in respectful dialogue and understanding different perspectives can help foster an environment where differing beliefs can be discussed without resorting to hate speech or disrespectful behavior. It is also essential to recognize the diversity of views within Christianity itself, as different individuals and communities may interpret and apply these teachings differently.

In any conversation, it is beneficial to focus on building bridges of understanding, promoting empathy, and fostering respect for diverse beliefs and experiences.

Q: You mentioned “the core teachings of Jesus”. Are expressions of Christian nationalism, Christian supremacism, dominionism and alike compatible with the core teachings of Jesus and Christianity?

AI: Expressions of Christian nationalism, Christian supremacism, dominionism, and similar ideologies are not universally accepted or representative of the core teachings of Jesus and Christianity. It is important to recognize that Christianity is a diverse religion with a wide range of interpretations and beliefs. While some individuals or groups may claim to align their ideologies with Christianity, their views may not necessarily reflect the teachings of Jesus as understood by the majority of Christians.

The core teachings of Jesus, as found in the New Testament, emphasize love, compassion, humility, forgiveness, and the call to serve others. Jesus taught his followers to love their neighbors, care for the marginalized and oppressed, and promote peace and justice. His teachings often centered on the importance of treating others with kindness and respect, regardless of their background or beliefs.

Expressions of Christian nationalism, Christian supremacism, dominionism, or any ideologies that promote hatred, discrimination, or the imposition of one’s beliefs on others, can be seen as inconsistent with these core teachings. Such ideologies can distort the message of love and inclusivity that Jesus preached and the principles of justice and equality that are foundational to Christian ethics.

It is important to approach these topics with discernment, engage in critical thinking, and evaluate actions and ideologies in light of the broader teachings of Jesus and the principles of love, compassion, and respect for all people.

Q: It seems that there are many Christian nationalists nowadays to be found in the structures of political power in the US, predominantly among Republicans and in the Congress. It seems that they would like to see that some kind of Christianity becomes a dominant political and legislative force in the country? Would this be good for America and democracy?

AI: The question of whether the dominance of a specific religious or ideological force in a country’s political and legislative structures is beneficial for that country and its democracy is a complex and debated topic. It’s important to consider a range of perspectives on this issue.

In the case of Christian nationalism or any other form of religious nationalism, it is crucial to recognize that the separation of church and state is a foundational principle in many democratic societies, including the United States. The idea of religious freedom and the ability for diverse religious and non-religious perspectives to coexist is considered a cornerstone of democratic principles.

The goal of a healthy democracy is to ensure the equal rights, representation, and freedoms of all citizens, regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof. When any religious or ideological group seeks to impose its beliefs or gain dominance in the political sphere, it can potentially infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others.

Maintaining a pluralistic and inclusive society requires protecting the rights and freedoms of all individuals, regardless of their religious or non-religious affiliations. It involves fostering an environment where diverse perspectives can be heard, respected, and engaged in constructive dialogue. It also means ensuring that political and legislative decisions are made based on principles that serve the common good, uphold human rights, and promote equality and justice for all.

It is important for individuals, regardless of their religious or political affiliations, to critically examine the motivations, values, and potential consequences of any ideology or movement that seeks to dominate the political landscape. Open dialogue, respect for diverse viewpoints, and a commitment to democratic principles can help navigate these complex issues and promote a society that is fair, inclusive, and respectful of individual rights and freedoms.

Q: Would you agree that a large representation of the most violent people on the insurrection day on January 6, 2021 were Christian nationalists who wanted through the use of physical force to destroy the legitimate election results? 

AI: The events that occurred on January 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol were complex, involving a range of motivations and individuals with various beliefs. While there were individuals present who identified as Christian nationalists, it is important to avoid making broad generalizations or attributing the actions of a few to an entire group.

It is true that some individuals who participated in the events of that day claimed to act based on their Christian faith or nationalist sentiments. However, it is crucial to note that the actions of those individuals do not represent the beliefs or actions of all Christian nationalists or any particular religious or ideological group.

Violence and the attempt to undermine the democratic process through force are not consistent with the teachings of Jesus or the principles of non-violence and respect for the rule of law that many Christians adhere to. It is essential to separate the actions of individuals from the broader beliefs and teachings of a religious or ideological group.

It is important to approach discussions about these events with caution and seek to understand the complexities of the situation. It is not accurate or fair to make blanket statements about the motivations or beliefs of an entire group based on the actions of a few individuals.

Q: So, who were those people who brutalized the US Capitol  on January 6, 2021?

AI: The individuals who participated in the events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, were a diverse group with varying motivations and backgrounds. While it is challenging to provide a comprehensive characterization of every individual involved, there were several groups and individuals present that day.

Some participants were supporters of then-President Donald Trump, who had called for a rally in Washington, D.C., to protest the certification of the 2020 presidential election results. These supporters believed that the election had been marred by fraud and irregularities, despite multiple court rulings and investigations finding no evidence of widespread fraud that would have impacted the outcome.

Within the larger group, there were individuals who engaged in acts of violence, vandalism, and trespassing. Some sought to disrupt the certification process, while others expressed their grievances or demonstrated in support of their political beliefs. The motivations behind their actions varied and included anger, frustration, and a desire to challenge what they perceived as an unfair or illegitimate election outcome.

It is worth noting that subsequent investigations have highlighted the presence of various extremist groups, including some associated with white supremacy or other forms of extremism. These groups may have played a role in organizing or influencing certain individuals present that day.

It is important to approach discussions about the events of January 6 with care, recognizing that the actions of a specific group of individuals should not be used to stereotype or generalize about larger political or ideological movements. The events of that day were widely condemned, and the focus has been on accountability, investigating the actions of those involved, and safeguarding the democratic processes and institutions of the United States.

Q: I think that the most violent people on January 6, 2021 were people driven by Christian nationalism (which is an abuse of Christianity) and Q-Anon conspiracies. What do you think?

AI: It is true that some individuals who participated in the events on January 6, 2021, identified with Christian nationalism and espoused beliefs associated with Q-Anon conspiracies. However, it is essential to approach this topic with nuance and avoid making sweeping generalizations.

Christian nationalism is an ideology that combines aspects of Christianity with a particular nationalist agenda. It seeks to intertwine religious and national identity, often with a focus on preserving or restoring what is perceived as a Christian heritage within a nation. It is important to note that Christian nationalism does not represent the beliefs or actions of all Christians. Many Christians reject this ideology and emphasize principles of love, compassion, and respect for all people.

Similarly, Q-Anon is a conspiracy theory that gained attention during recent years, purporting to expose a hidden plot against the government and prominent figures. While it is true that some individuals who participated in the events on January 6 may have embraced Q-Anon beliefs, it is crucial to remember that Q-Anon is a fringe conspiracy theory that is not representative of mainstream political or religious beliefs.

It is important to approach these topics with care, recognizing that the actions of a few individuals do not define an entire religious or ideological group. Painting an entire religious or ideological movement with a broad brush based on the actions of a few risks oversimplification and unfair generalizations.

It is more accurate and constructive to focus on promoting understanding, dialogue, and respectful engagement among people of different backgrounds and beliefs, and to emphasize the values of empathy, critical thinking, and peaceful discourse.

Q: So then, who is primarily responsible for the attempted violent bringing down of the US government on January 6, 2021? Wouldn’t you agree that the mastermind behind everything was the former US President?

AI: The events of January 6, 2021, were the result of a complex combination of factors, and it is difficult to attribute the responsibility to a single individual or solely to the former US President. While the rhetoric and actions of political leaders can influence public sentiment and behavior, it is important to consider the broader context and the collective responsibility involved.

Investigations into the events are ongoing, and multiple factors have been identified, including false claims of election fraud, the influence of extremist ideologies, social media dynamics, and the actions of individuals who engaged in violence and lawlessness.

It is worth noting that political leaders, including the former US President, have a responsibility to uphold democratic norms, promote peaceful transitions of power, and condemn any form of violence or unlawful behavior. The words and actions of leaders can have significant impacts on public sentiment and behavior.

However, it is crucial to avoid oversimplification and recognize that responsibility for the events on January 6 extends beyond a single individual. Identifying the root causes, addressing systemic issues, and ensuring accountability for those involved are ongoing processes that require careful analysis and investigation.

Ultimately, the responsibility lies with those individuals who directly engaged in violent and unlawful actions on that day. Holding those individuals accountable, examining the factors that contributed to the events, and working towards strengthening democratic institutions and processes are important steps in moving forward.

Q: What would you say was the common political, ideological, social bond that binds together all violent participants of the January 6, 2021 insurrection?

AI: The common bond among the violent participants in the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol was their opposition to the certification of the 2020 presidential election results. This opposition stemmed from a belief held by many of these individuals that the election had been marred by fraud and irregularities, despite the lack of evidence supporting these claims.

While it is challenging to make sweeping generalizations about the diverse range of individuals involved, there were common threads in terms of their political and ideological leanings. Many of the participants were supporters of then-President Donald Trump and held grievances related to his loss in the election. They felt strongly about challenging what they perceived as an unfair or illegitimate outcome and sought to disrupt the certification process through their actions.

It is important to note that there were various groups and individuals involved, with differing levels of organization and extremist beliefs. Some participants were associated with far-right ideologies or conspiracy theories such as Q-Anon, while others were driven by a mix of political and social grievances.

The events of January 6 represented a convergence of individuals who shared a common opposition to the election results and a desire to challenge or overturn them. However, it is crucial to remember that the actions of the violent participants do not reflect the beliefs or actions of all those who had concerns about the election process or outcome.

Investigations into the events are ongoing, and it is important to let the legal process determine the full extent of individual motivations and involvement.

Q: What do you think and know about the last presidential elections? Were they stolen? 

AI: The 2020 presidential elections in the United States were extensively reviewed, investigated, and certified by numerous state and local officials, as well as the Department of Justice and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). 

Multiple courts, including the Supreme Court, rejected numerous legal challenges brought forth by supporters of then-President Donald Trump due to lack of evidence. Election officials from both political parties, as well as independent observers, attested to the integrity and security of the elections.

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) called the 2020 elections “the most secure in American history.” The Department of Justice also found no evidence of widespread voter fraud that could have affected the outcome of the election.

Claims of widespread election fraud or a stolen election lack substantial evidence. Independent fact-checkers, including organizations like Reuters, PolitiFact, and the Associated Press, have consistently debunked these claims. The election results were certified by the Electoral College, and Joe Biden was inaugurated as the 46th President of the United States on January 20, 2021.

It is essential to rely on credible sources of information, such as official election authorities, independent fact-checkers, and reputable news outlets, to understand the reality of the election processes and outcomes.

Q: I am Christian, but I strongly believe that a healthy democracy requires a firm adherence to the principles of church and state separation? What do you think about it?

AI: Your belief in the importance of church and state separation aligns with a key principle in many democratic societies, including the United States. The separation of church and state is rooted in the idea of protecting religious freedom, ensuring that the government does not establish or favor any particular religion, and allowing individuals to practice their faith freely.

By maintaining a clear distinction between religious institutions and governmental institutions, a healthy democracy can provide equal rights, representation, and freedoms to individuals of all religious beliefs or non-belief. It allows for the coexistence of diverse religious perspectives and protects against the potential for discrimination or the imposition of one religious group’s beliefs on others.

Church and state separation also helps to safeguard the autonomy and integrity of religious institutions. It allows religious communities to operate independently, free from government interference or control, and maintain their distinctive beliefs and practices.

It is worth noting that the interpretation and application of the principle of church and state separation may vary in different countries and contexts. The specifics of how this principle is understood and implemented can be subject to ongoing debate and interpretation.

Promoting and upholding the principles of church and state separation can contribute to a society that respects religious freedom, fosters inclusivity, and ensures equal treatment for all individuals, regardless of their religious or non-religious affiliations.

Q: It seems, if I understood you correctly, that you agree that so called Christian nationalism is not complementary nor complimentary to the way of Jesus?

AI: That is correct. Christian nationalism, as an ideology that combines aspects of Christianity with a particular nationalist agenda, is not inherently complementary or representative of the teachings of Jesus. While individuals may claim to align their beliefs with both Christianity and nationalism, it is important to critically examine whether those beliefs align with the core teachings of Jesus and the principles of love, compassion, and inclusivity that he espoused.

Jesus’ teachings emphasized love for one’s neighbor, care for the marginalized and oppressed, humility, forgiveness, and promoting peace and justice. His message transcended national and ethnic boundaries, calling for a transformation of the heart and a commitment to the well-being of all people, regardless of their background or beliefs.

Christian nationalism, on the other hand, often seeks to merge religious and national identities, elevating one nation or culture as superior or more favored by God. This can lead to exclusionary attitudes, discrimination against others, and a distortion of the message of love and inclusivity that Jesus preached.

It is important to recognize the distinction between the teachings of Jesus and any political or nationalist ideologies that claim to be Christian. Evaluating beliefs and actions in light of the core principles of Jesus’ teachings can help ensure a faithful and ethical understanding of Christianity.

Q: What about the left wing advocacy for societal embrace of transgenderism, homosexuality, family redefinition and alike? Are they compatible with the teachings of Jesus?

AI: The question of whether left-wing advocacy for issues such as transgender rights, LGBTQ+ equality, and family redefinition aligns with the teachings of Jesus can be subject to differing interpretations and perspectives among Christians. It is important to approach this topic with sensitivity, recognizing that individuals and religious communities may have diverse beliefs and interpretations.

Christian perspectives on these issues can vary, and different denominations and theologians hold differing views. Some Christians believe in embracing and affirming the dignity and rights of LGBTQ+ individuals, seeing it as an expression of love, inclusivity, and social justice. They may interpret the teachings of Jesus through the lens of compassion, acceptance, and the inherent worth of all individuals.

Others hold more traditional views based on specific interpretations of religious texts, seeing homosexuality or gender identity as inconsistent with their understanding of biblical teachings. These perspectives often emphasize the importance of upholding what they consider to be the traditional understanding of marriage and gender roles.

It is worth noting that Jesus did not directly address issues of sexual orientation, gender identity, or specific family structures in the context we understand them today. His teachings were focused on love, compassion, and the treatment of others with fairness and justice.

Ultimately, individual Christians and religious communities may interpret the teachings of Jesus in different ways when it comes to these complex and sensitive matters. It is important to engage in respectful dialogue, listening to different perspectives, and seeking understanding while upholding principles of love, empathy, and respect for all individuals.

Q: It seems you have a very high opinion about Jesus and his teachings?

AI: As an AI language model, I don’t hold personal opinions or beliefs. However, it is accurate to say that Jesus and his teachings have had a significant impact on the development of Western civilization and have been highly regarded by millions of people throughout history.

Jesus is considered the central figure of Christianity, and his teachings are recorded in the New Testament of the Bible. Many Christians view Jesus as the Son of God and believe that his teachings offer guidance for leading a righteous and meaningful life.

The teachings of Jesus, such as the Sermon on the Mount, emphasize principles of love, compassion, forgiveness, humility, and justice. They promote the well-being of others, advocate for the marginalized and oppressed, and encourage individuals to cultivate inner transformation and spiritual growth.

The influence of Jesus’ teachings extends beyond Christianity, as his ethical teachings have resonated with individuals from various religious and philosophical backgrounds. His teachings on love, compassion, and moral responsibility have been seen as universal values that transcend specific religious affiliations.

It is important to note that interpretations of Jesus’ teachings can vary among different Christian denominations and theologians. However, the overall impact and significance of his teachings in shaping ethical and moral frameworks cannot be understated.

Q: Obviously Jesus’ teachings and personal example are a force for good. To what extend would the world change for better should most people embrace Jesus and his teachings?

AI: The potential impact of people embracing Jesus and his teachings on the world would depend on various factors, including the interpretation and application of those teachings by individuals and communities. It is important to note that the effects of such an embrace would be subjective and influenced by individual perspectives and cultural contexts.

At its core, Jesus’ teachings emphasize love, compassion, forgiveness, and justice. If people genuinely embraced these principles and sought to live them out in their daily lives, it could lead to positive transformations in relationships, communities, and societies. These teachings encourage empathy, care for the marginalized, and a commitment to social justice, which could lead to greater equality, harmony, and well-being.

Embracing Jesus’ teachings could foster a sense of personal and communal responsibility, inspiring individuals to contribute to the betterment of society and promote the common good. It could encourage people to engage in acts of kindness, reconciliation, and service to others, promoting a culture of empathy, understanding, and cooperation.

However, it is important to recognize that people interpret and apply Jesus’ teachings in different ways, and historical examples have shown that even among those who claim to follow Jesus, there can be disagreements and divergent actions. Additionally, societal change requires more than just personal belief; it requires systemic efforts, dialogue, and engagement with complex social, economic, and political issues.

Ultimately, the impact of people embracing Jesus and his teachings on the world would be contingent upon the sincerity, depth, and collective application of those teachings. It is a complex and multifaceted process that involves individuals and communities striving to embody the values espoused by Jesus in their daily lives.

Misgivings of Systematic Theology

Something to Think About: Misgivings of Systematic Theology. Systematic theology is like GPS. If not fed with truthful information it will take us to a wrong destination. What example of a misconstructed systematic theology comes to your mind? 

Mind the Prophets Lest You Be Deceived

Why are so many dismissing lying prophets as something Biblically acceptable? This is why I am trying to address the following questions in this short presentation:

Can a true prophet declare publicly under a divine inspiration a questionable prophecy or a false statement about the last days events, or political or private or doctrinal matters, or anything else, and then change his or her mind, either by later editing out the embarrassing parts, or simply by deleting altogether a prophecy that failed to materialize? Can plagiarism, confusing theological inconsistencies, far stretched claims, failed prophecies, or vague or contradicting statements be excused under the claims of divine inspiration? 

My apologies for a somewhat blurred picture. Try to focus on the message and let me know your thoughts about this matter. 

The Unfortunate Spiritual Legacy

Waco 30 – Lessons from the Waco Tragedy, part 2

Author: Tihomir Kukolja

“In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son.” Hebrews 1:1.2. NIV “But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.” 2. Corinthians 3:16. NIV

Read here part one, The Truth that will Blow Your Mind 

The Truth that will Blow Your Mind

Rev. Ed Trevors, an Anglican priest from Canada, recently shared a sobering message: “A fake teacher is nothing without a congregation, without a group of people who want to hear their message. A fake teacher is nothing without the itching ears (reference to 2. Timothy 4:3). It’s not about sharing the truth anymore. It is about sharing what is soothing to those who are watching, to those who are listening, to those who are reading.” 1.  Who was the fertile audience with “itching ears” eager to embrace David Koresh and his message? 

David Thibodeau, one of the few survivors of the Waco inferno 30 years ago and the author of “Waco – A Survivor’s Story”, stated in his book that “apart from a few people, most of the Mount Carmelites had a Seventh-day Adventist background.” 2. More recently Dr. Stephen Currow, the Principal at Newbold College in England, seemed to agree: “There can be no denying that there are points of connection between Koresh’s Branch Davidians and the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Koresh himself had been a Seventh-day Adventist for a couple of years before joining the Branch Davidians.  The Branch Davidians trace their roots to the teachings of Victor Houteff, whose teachings were rejected by both his local Seventh-day Adventist church in Los Angeles (1930) and the corporate church (1934).” 3.

Was it a coincidence that all except one or two who died in the Waco fires on April 19, 1993 had very strong ties with the Seventh-day Adventist Church? How come the teachings of David Koresh attracted predominantly a certain brand of Adventists?

Advancing in the Light

There was much more to the conversion story of David Koresh’s followers than their fragile social and emotional makeup. Koresh and his key evangelist and manager Steve Schneider, who in the summer of 1988 converted a group of students from Newbold College in England – and through their influence recruited 30 other British Adventists – knew how to use a familiar, “prophetic” language and imagery, which they held in common with traditional Adventists? Albert A.C. White, a Newbold College Physics lecturer, wrote in his detailed report “From Seventh-day Adventism to David Koresh – The British Connection”: “Fanatical adherence to anything, even the Bible, is unhealthy. They (British followers of Koresh) were examples of Britons who were fanatical about the writings of Ellen G. White.” 4.

Most of Koresh’s new followers did not see their ideological transition as a radical change in their spiritual makeup. They thought that they were only advancing further, maturing spiritually, and upgrading their journey of faith. They believed that they were receiving “more light” and digging deeper into the already received “Present Truth.” Joining David Koresh, in their view, meant arriving at the final destination in their restless but honest search for the “Truth”.

This was certainly true about my friend and fellow student at Newbold College in 1988, Cliff Sellors (read part 1, The Truth that will Blow Your Mind) who would spend many hours each day reading the writings of Ellen G. White and listening to the recordings of her messages and assessing the inadequacies of his life in the light of her “inspired” statements. In his mind she was not “a lesser light that led to the greater light”, in the way Adventists like to neutralize her input into the formation of the Adventist belief system or deny that her statements are their final spiritual authority. For every practical purpose she was all the light that mattered. 

Once Cliff and other traditional Adventists, who were fanatical about their devotion to Ellen G. White, discovered David Koresh, they applied themselves to following him with the same kind of loyalty and devotion. And once they were in Koresh’s embrace, they believed he was the only true light that mattered. By identifying with Koresh’s teachings, they came to believe that they finally belonged to the truest “Remnant”. Ultimately “once a person thought Koresh was a prophet, he had them. Once a person thought he was God, there was no turning back”, wrote MarcBreault, once Koresh’s right-hand man who defected in 1989, in his book “Preacher of Death.” 5.

So, why were the traditional Ellen G. White-loving Adventists – including my friend Cliff Sellors and a few Newbold friends, and almost all of the 30 British followers who moved to Waco, Texas in the years before 1993 – willing to give their unconditional loyalty to a new prophet-messiah, the same kind of loyalty they had until recently given only to Ellen G. White?

When they heard familiar language, concepts, and imagery – which they loved very much and which, in their view, the mainstream Adventism had betrayed – their conversion was easy and quick. Although “the new light” brought into their lives plenty of misery and beliefs that were previously foreign and appalling to them, in their hearts they believed that they had finally become part of a superior movement that was restoring them back to their lost Adventist roots. 

Marc Breault described the reasoning behind his decision to join the Branch Davidians: “Well, the Seventh-day Adventist Church was founded by a prophet. Who says God can’t raise up another one!” 6. David Bunds, another former Branch Davidian who left the cult three years ahead of the deadly siege in April 1993, described recently in one of his YouTube releases, the link connecting the Branch Davidians and the Seventh-day Adventists: “We believed everything the Adventists believed, but we had additional doctrines (too). We felt superior.” 7.  Moreover, the overly committed and restless followers of Ellen G. White within the circles of the Adventist community, who were craving “more light” and “more truth”, shifted their allegiances because they believed that the absolute prophetic word of Ellen G. White was now upgraded and vindicated by the absolute prophetic word of a more radical prophet, David Koresh.

A Skeleton in the Closet

What was the skeleton in the closet shared by both groups, that made such a transition possible?

In the days when the Adventist movement was still in its infancy, it desperately sought to make sense out of the Great Disappointment. Thousands in the United States were expecting in vain for the Second Coming of Jesus to take place on October 22, 1844. A prophetic hand was needed to provide divine guidance out of the confusion and give the disappointed group a sense of new beginning, identity, and purpose. Ultimately, it was found in the dreams and visions of Ellen G. White, a young woman of Methodist pietistic upbringing, who would soon be recognized by the Adventists as their legitimate prophetic voice announced by the Book of Revelation as “the Spirit of Prophecy” (reference Revelation 19:10).

Although most of the early Adventists were either former Baptists or pietist Methodists, in order to maintain the credibility of the new movement, they had to shape their theology around a very flexible concept of revelation and inspiration, which by default had to provide a space for some new truths required to transform a defeat of the 1844 Great Disappointment into a new prophetically purposed beginning. This construct of Biblical interpretation had to be big enough to embrace the prophetic statements of Ellen G. White with which it would be hard to argue, such as “I was shown” or “the Lord told me”, or “thus saith the Lord”.

In 1882 Ellen G. White warned: “You are rebelling against God as certainly as were Korah, Dathan and Abiram. You know how stubborn they were in their own opinions. They decided that their judgment was better than that of Moses. I am presenting to you that which the Lord has presented to me.” 8. On another occasion she used the opening statement of the Letter to the Hebrews and applied it to herself: “In ancient times God spoke to men by the mouth of prophets and apostles. In these days He speaks to them by the Testimonies of His Spirit.” 9.  

Consequently, into existence came the teachings never heard before. The most notable one was “The Shut Door Doctrine.” It declared that only the Adventists who were expecting Jesus to return in 1844 were worthy of salvation. They believed that the door of mercy had been closed to everyone else, including the “backsliding” Adventists who were not willing to accept “the new truth”.  “The light behind them went out leaving their feet in perfect darkness… It was just as impossible for them to get on the path again and go to the City, as all the wicked world which God had rejected” – wrote Ellen G. White in the Word to the Little Flock in 1846. 10.

Then, thanks to the graphic dreams and visions of Ellen G. White that followed shortly thereafter, this doctrine evolved into the “Doctrine of Investigative Judgment”, more recently rebranded into “The Sanctuary Doctrine”. This doctrine continues to claim even today, but in an ever-softer way, that October 22, 1844 was indeed a Biblical date of distinctive importance, but misunderstood by the pre-Adventist movement of William Miller. The 24^th statement of the current version of Adventist Fundamental Beliefs (Christ’s Ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary) states: “In 1844, at the end of the prophetic period of 2300 days, He entered the second and last phase of His atoning ministry.” 11.

According to the gradually rebranded doctrine, instead of coming to the Earth on October 22, 1844 Jesus entered the Most Holy Place in Heaven to begin the investigative judgment of all “professed Christians” who have ever lived on this planet. However, the part that previously claimed “under the inspiration” that the door of grace gradually disappeared as if it had never existed.

At the same time many other concepts were developed in those early days of Adventist formation, before they became an organized denomination in 1864. Adventists came to believe that they were the only ones who mattered to God in his plan of salvation, and that all culminating events at the end of human history would revolve around them, because only Adventists who emerged victorious out of the Great Disappointment represented the true Remnant acceptable to Christ. 

They also believed that at the very end, just before Jesus Christ comes again, they would remain to be the only true believers, persecuted under the beastly “Sunday Law”. They believed that their distinctive doctrines were the mark of the true and remnant Church of God, and that the only trustworthy interpreter of the word of God was their prophet Ellen G. White. They also believed that they were “The Third Angel” of the book of Revelation (chapter 14), destined to give the final call to all true Christians in other denominations “to come out of the Babylon” (Revelation 18:4).  For many decades the Adventist Church acted as if it needed no one else but itself. If today many modern Adventists do not appear so rigid, this is only because the Church has over the years softened considerably its shield of exclusivity and self-righteousness.  

None of those peculiar beliefs would have ever survived if it were not for the solidifying visions of Ellen G. White, and the application of an elastic view of inspiration and revelation. Even today, many Adventist pastors never preach a sermon without stating multiple times “sister White said” this or that. Even today, in the eyes of traditional Adventists, any truth of the Bible is only as true and as clear as it is validated through the interpretations of her many Testimonies. Even today many Adventists reason: “If sister White said it, who am I to dispute it”. 

Here a Little and There a Little

The Branch Davidians – an Adventist breakout group dating back to the 1930s (The Shepherd’s Rod) – picked up on the kind of Adventism described above, which they believed to be a true, historic kind of Adventism. They too claimed Ellen G. White was their first prophet. Along with her they inherited the same flexible view of inspiration and revelation. The difference between the two was that the Davidians – and David Koresh especially – radicalized the entire Adventist spiritual inheritance beyond the wildest imagination of Adventist pioneers.

It is important to notice that both groups believed that God, despite the fact that they were living under the age of the New Covenant, continued to reveal himself and his plans progressively through the ministry of his modern-day prophets. According to the words of Ellen G. White, God continued to reveal his plans to his “Church” through the administration of her prophetic gift “here a little and there a little”, as the church was “ready” to receive. “I do not write one article in the paper, expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision – the precious rays of light shining from the throne” – wrote Ellen G. White. 12.

David Koresh radicalized the inherited concept of the progressive revelation of truth. David Thibodeau, one of the survivors of the Waco siege, wrote in his book: “We understood that David’s truth was progressive, always evolving, revealing more and more of itself.” 13. Branch Davidians gladly inherited and embraced the Adventist view of progressive revelation, and then made out of it their own, wild thing. 

When visiting the Mount Carmel Center in Waco today, on the walls of the church hall – built on the same ground where fire consumed almost an entire generation of Branch Davidians 30 years ago – one will find photographs, maps and descriptions depicting a dialectic progression of how, in their view, God was progressively leading “his Church” through many centuries, always revealing “more truth” and “more light”. The progressive prophetic line leads from the days of the apostles, across the Reformation and Martin Luther and John Wesley, until the days of the Baptist preacher William Miller and the Seventh-day Adventist Movement – when, according to the monument displayed at the entrance of the camp, the baton of truth was passed on to the Davidians and “the seven shepherds of the Advent Movement”, of which – according to the Davidians – the first one was Ellen G. White and the last one was David Koresh. 

Frontline on PBS shared online an interesting article written by playwright and former Adventist David Valdes Greenwood in 1993, under the title “Waco – The Fire Next Time”. He writes, “When Koresh looked at Adventism, he saw a church that did not adhere strictly enough to White’s teachings and, moreover, adhered too strictly to the dogma that she was the only prophet. Koresh co-opted White’s theory of “Present Truth”, which holds that not all of God’s truths were made clear in the Bible, so the revelation of additional meanings must be made manifest in a living prophet. Koresh saw himself and White as being on a continuum.” 14.

It needs to be said, however, that it was not the size of the shared platform of beliefs that attracted Koresh’s converts from within Adventist circles. The Seventh-day Adventist Church, like most other Christian churches, finds most of his teachings disgusting, pathological and blasphemous. Whatever one might think of the Adventist Church and some of its distinctive beliefs, theologically speaking the Church today is largely in tune with the mainstream Protestant theology. The perversions of Koresh’s prophetic interpretations, his messianic claims, his twisted teachings, and polygamist practices that included sexual relationships with underage girls, and his belief in the literal Armageddon in which he and his followers would fight a real physical war with real guns against the wicked earthly and spiritual powers – none of those had anything in common with the teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. 

In fact, the militant apocalyptic teachings of Koresh, his obsession with guns and desperate desire to physically fight against the ungodly powers, and his own identification with the Old Testament figure of the liberating Persian king Cyrus, alias Koresh, resonate today much closer with the conspiratorial and militant beliefs and teachings of various hybrid evangelical, dispensationalist, dominionist, Christian supremacist and so called NAR – New Apostolic Reformation teachers, apostles and prophets whose influence has skyrocketed during the years of the presidency of the former US president Donald Trump. It ought not to be surprising then that the current Branch Pastor Charles Pace, who is currently serving as The Branch – The Lord Our Righteousness Church leader, was thrilled when he saw that Donald Trump was bringing his first presidential campaign to Waco right at the time of the Waco Siege 30^th anniversary. Apparently, he called Donald Trump “the anointed of God”, and “the battering ram that God is using to bring down the Deep State of Babylon.” 15.

On the other hand, The Seventh-day Adventist Church of today would undersign without any difficulty all the creeds of the historical Christian faith. When compared with the Branch Davidian Seventh-day Adventists, still a cult numbering only a handful, the Seventh-day Adventist Church is a well-organized worldwide denomination of 25 million members worldwide. 16.

Not a Coincidence

However, it must be noted, it was not a coincidence that most of Koresh’s followers, however few in numbers, were of Seventh-day Adventist background. The late Roy Branson, a former editor of Spectrum, reflected in his May 1993 editorial: “We began to learn more about the people who died at Ranch Apocalypse: sisters in their 20s from an Adventist family in California; a former student at Andrews University; young adults from Australia; several former ministerial students from Newbold College and their lifelong Adventist relatives. These were not third-generation children of the Shepherd’s Rods (Branch Davidians). We didn’t start the fire, but the tinder was ours.” 17.

The tinder was Adventist not only in that at least 90 percent of the deceased victims of the Waco tragedy came directly from Seventh-day Adventist churches, but that much of the Branch Davidian spiritual software was made of the metastasized mutations of traditional Adventist material. The early eschatological and theological wonderings of the Adventist pioneers, as they were seeking to format their new identity and purpose out of a disappointing non-arrival of Jesus Christ on October 22, 1844, introduced a culture of modern-day American prophets as the most authoritative voice in Biblical interpretations, and developed very flexible and uniquely progressive concepts of revelation. Soon some new beliefs and concepts, official and not-so-official, were born about the spiritual superiority of the “exclusive truths” given to Adventists, and their central place in the final days of the world’s history. 

In short, the early Adventists, by the dictate of their survival, created a special brand of eschatology that affected their understanding of Christology, ecclesiology, and missiology. Thanks to their elitist and self-centered approach to Christian faith, for many years many other Christians could not make up their minds what to make of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. 

Today, and especially in the days of a prolonged Covid-19 Pandemic, the Seventh-day Adventist Church faces a serious crisis of identity, still balancing its walk along the lines of cognitive dissonance, trying to rebrand itself as an historic Christian denomination rooted in the Reformation. At the same time it is trying to pursue an impossible task of trying not to offend its conservative and traditional constituency that fights with all its might to conform the church to what it believes to be the only true Adventism – the one of its confusing infancy years.

A challenge remains worthy of our pondering: as long as a church denomination or movement is not firmly rooted in the truth that God has spoken conclusively, with finality and without strings attached through His Son Jesus Christ, once and for all, but instead intently seeks to deliver “new truths” and “new light”, or seeks new demonstrations of truth guided by some tense and subjective experiences, it will eventually witness someone opening a Pandora’s box of the most extreme Biblical interpretations and beliefs, and its followers will become an easy target for any deception and delusion under the hijacked but powerful claim: “Thus saith the Lord!”

Postscript

David Koresh and his Branch Davidian predecessors harvested the Adventist view of elastic or progressive revelation. Initially, to the Adventists this kind of view of revelation provided a very much needed opportunity for theological maneuvering to blend together the historical Christian doctrines with their new doctrines designed to justify the initial disappointment with the non-appearance of Jesus in the clouds of Heaven on October 22, 1844. 

David Koresh applied and radicalized the shared theological fallacy about the supposed continuation of the progressive character of God’s revelation and inspiration, and gradually created a theological monster. His followers never stopped seeing themselves anything else but Adventists of a superior status. In the mind of Koresh and the minds of his followers they were sent to be the reformers of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, with a mission to bring it back to its original roots and mission. In the eyes of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, Branch Davidians and their messiah Koresh were an embarrassing nuisance who had nothing in common with the official worldwide Adventist Church. 

While the Seventh-day Adventist Church cannot be blamed for the tragic outcome of the Waco siege in 1993 just because David Koresh applied a shared progressive concept of revelation, the tragic outcome of the Branch Davidian’s drama thirty years ago ought to serve as a wakeup call that even the most innocent artificially created theological constructs may be lethal in the hands of charismatic, narcissistic, seductive and manipulating lunatics weaponized by false prophetic or messianic claims. 

Watch the part one here – The Truth that Will Blow Your Mind

References:

1.      https://youtu.be/GeEZRLnK7nE, Rev. Ed Trevors, Jordan and Trump and Itchy Ears, April 12, 2023.

• David Thibodeau, Waco A Survivor’s Story: Hachette Books, Hachette Book Group, New York, US, Revised edition 2018. 
• WACO 30th Anniversary: Continuities and Discontinuities, Dr. Steve Currow, https://adventist.uk/news/article/go/2023-03-24/1501/
• The British Connection – Remembering Waco, March 14, 2018, Spectrum Magazine.https://spectrummagazine.org/article/2018/03/14/british-connection
• Martin King and Marc Breault, Preached of Death, Pinguin Books Ltd, London, England, 1993.
• Martin King and Marc Breault, Preached of Death, Pinguin Books Ltd, London, England, 1993.
• Escaping David Koresh: How Do You Get a Cult Out of Your Brain? Part 2 https://youtu.be/dYGQ-SNbF7E
• Ellen G. White, Testimonies vol. 5: Ellen G. white to Battle Creek Church, 1882.
• Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church, vol. 4. Testimony 27, 1876.
• The Day Star, January 24, 1846. Letter from sister Harmon. https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/501.1
• Adventist Fundamental Beliefs, https://www.adventist.org/beliefs/
• Ellen G. White, Testimonies, Volume 5. https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/663.997
• David Thibodeau, Waco A Survivor’s Story: Hachette Books, Hachette Book Group, New York, US, Revised edition 2018. 
• https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/apocalypse/readings/waco.html PBS, Waco – The Fire Next Time
• Independent: The infamous Texas siege with a ‘straight line’ to QAnon, right-wing militias, and January 6. Josh Marcus. April 21, 2023. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/waco-siege-anniversary-qanon-militia-b2322161.html
• Seventh-day Adventist World Statistics 2021, https://www.adventist.org/statistics/t
• Spectrum Magazine. https://spectrummagazine.org/article/2018/01/31/we-didnt-start-fire-tinder-was-ours

Spectrum Magazine.https://spectrummagazine.org/article/2018/01/31/we-didnt-start-fire-tinder-was-ours