“Parallels between History of the Arians and the New World Order Church”
I do not intend the following to be strictly theology. Further I am aware that I run the danger of “correlation = causation;” that is, simply because two situations are similar, it is not the case that one caused the other or that one is simply a new manifestation of the other. That is true. On the other hand, given the fact that theological issues are often at the roots of political and social decisions,[1] one is at least somewhat justified in using theological material, particularly the heroic struggles of the saints and martyrs, as “templates” in articulating a modern witness against prevalent evil. If one does this carefully and with an eye to ancient sources, one can note real similarities. Further, if the ancient sources suggest something like this can happen, one is on more solid ground. At the end of the essay I will explore Serbia as a test case.
Before I begin I should note with caution a few remarks concerning “apocalyptic theology.” The section of Christian theology that deals with the end times is called “eschatology.” Specifically it deals with the return of Christ. The Church has always confessed that Christ will bodily return at the end of history. What the church has not confessed as been a specific aberration of this teaching known as “dispensationalism.” Among its distinctives is that history is divided into at least seven epochs, or “dispensations,” and history will regress cumulatively with regard to morality and culture, and at the final moment of history, Christ will return to earth and secretly “rapture” his church to heaven. With the Church gone God can then get back to his original plan regarding the nation-state of Israel.
The short theology lesson was necessary to ward off any misunderstanding. The historical Church has always rejected this teaching. However, many of the holy fathers did suggest that history will darken and at times the world will get worse.[2] Therefore, any similarities between what I say and what some dispensationalists might says is purely accidental.
ST. ATHANASIOS’S SITUATION
St. Athanasios documents the recent history of the Arian attacks on the Orthodox Church. He notes how Arian leaders poisoned the mind of Emperor Constantius, who then carried out an intense, though ultimately brief persecution of the Orthodox Church. The attacks on Athanasios go from slander and libel to outright physical threat (and eventual exile). God eventually vindicates St. Athanasios in the end.
One should note that Arianism, while a cancerous heresy, did not become particularly dangerous until it was backed by the State. (This raises the problem of church-state relations, which is beyond the scope of this paper. Suffice to say the writer rejects the narrative of the Enlightenment, which advocates a complete divorce of church and state, practically leaving the state autonomous and immune to moral and theological critique. On the other hand, the church (by definition) is separate from the state because it is not the state.)
ST. ATHANASIOS WARNS OF THE COMING OF ANTICHRIST
The interesting thing about biblical and ancient sources on the antichrist figure is that they say relatively little about it. The later Russian fathers will expound in detail on what we should expect concerning antichrist.[3] St. Athanasios, though, in a manner similar to a skilled novelist, does not mention much concerning the reign and nature of antichrist.
He does not several indications of antichrist’s coming. He notes the Arian attacks on the church and writes, “It was an insurrection of impiety against godliness; it was zeal for the Arian heresy, and a prelude to the coming of Antichrist, for whom Constantius is thus preparing the way.[4]” One can note a warning in St. Athanasios’ text—and echoed by other fathers—that would normally go unnoticed: the danger is not so much having to live during Antichrist’s reign, but to miss the warning signs of the times. The Christian struggler is called to be watchful, sober, and not to be caught sleeping (or unaware, or perhaps living in some unrepentant sin).
ECUMENICISM: THE CHURCH OF ANTICHRIST[5]
Unfortunately, it is even difficult to speak about ecumenicism. The word has different connotations (and sometimes denotations) to different people.[6] I am using the word to denote the view that all traditions are faulty, no tradition has the truth, and the only way to know the truth is to gather at ecumenical meetings and find some “lowest-common denominator” upon which all can agree.
I expect many Protestant readers would agree that the above view is wrong (and epistemologically flawed). In order for the above view to work it must negate the teaching of Scripture that says “to contend for the faith once delivered to all the saints” (Jude 3). St Jude says there was a deposit of faith that was truly passed down to the church. Further, this faith is recognizable, which means it has boundaries. However else one interprets this passage, and regardless of whether one believes the Roman Catholic Church, the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Coptic Church, or the Chalcedonian Orthodox Church is the true inheritor of the deposit, it cannot be denied that there was a deposit.[7]
WHEN HERESY BECOMES POLITICALLY DANGEROUS
If that were all the ecumenical church were about, one should not worry too much. Most ecumenical bodies are liberal, and liberal churches, especially in the West, are losing members at an alarming (or encouraging, depending on one’s perspective!) rate. In other words, left to itself, the ecumenical church would die out in a generation. Unfortunately, after World War II the ecumenical church often found itself arm and arm with supranational bodies. Given the administrative, economic, and military power of these bodies (e.g., the European Union, the United Nations, NATO, the World Council of Churches, the International Criminal Court, etc.), the ecumenical church has become quite powerful in one sense (obviously it lacks the power of godliness in another sense).
Of course, the ecumenical church is not strictly synonymous with the World Council of Churches (WCC). The former is a broad umbrella of mainstream Christian groups while the latter is a specific manifestation of this mentality in institutional form. The WCC’s nefarious origins are well-known and will not be repeated in great detail, suffice to say it was in part a brain-child of globalist John Rockefeller.[8]
A TEMPLATE FOR US TODAY
One is not presently arguing that the situations in St. Athanasios’ time and our time are necessarily the same. Nor is one arguing that today’s ecumenical church is the antichrist (or its modern forerunner) that Athanasios predicted.[9] What one can argue, though, is that Athanasios’ time provides a template of witness and resistance for our own time. While examples can be multiplied, a ready one is found for us in the disaster happening in present-day Serbia.
In the mid- to late 1990s Serbia found itself under the increasingly watchful eye of the Western bankers. Under the aegis of “stopping a genocide” (and implicitly allowing another one), the “West” (a collective name for most Western European countries and America, including a cabal of central banks, corporations, and globalists) had to find a way to access and exploit Serbia’s resources and key geopolitical location, something a nationalist like Slobodan Milosevic would not allow.[10]
Since then Serbia has degenerated into chaos. Her rulers openly hate their people, and want nothing more than to cater to the latest demands from Washington and Brussels. If it were simply political chaos and attacks on ethnic identity, there would be little to merit attention to this fact, since this is the norm in Europe. However, the attacks upon the nation are simultaneously attacks upon the faith of the people of that nation. Since the division of Kosovo from Serbia is a specifically postmodern question concerning identity[11], and ultimately, one’s commitments to “democracy” and the New World Order, one’s stance on Kosovo determines one’s stance on the New World Order.[12] Therefore, clergy who take hard stands on Kosovo are clergy that resist the New World Order[13]. Since this is an obstacle to the globalists in Belgrade and Brussels, such clergy must be removed.
Against the Nation, Against the Church
While it is chic to decry the nation-state, such attacks unwittingly (or knowingly) presuppose a globalist alternative—a globalism with acknowledged anti-Christian goals. Secondly, at least from the time of the Clinton Administration, Western governments have seen ethno-nationalist identities and religions claiming absolute truth as two wings of the same bird.[14] Logically, one cannot attack one without attacking the other. Christians may protest that the claims of Christ transcend that of the nation, and that is true, but such protests are irrelevant to those who deem what is and is not acceptable behavior. As the most vocal opponents of the New World Order are clergy, and since Byzantine times the clergy have been the pulse of the nation, the Regime saw that it must clamp down on the clergy. An obvious example is Bishop Arimije’s resistance to the Tadic regime.[15]
Lest this be seen as pro-Serb hagiography, the Media Elite agree with the assessment, but with obvious difference in how to solve the problem. Following the arrest of General Ratko Mladic, Geoffrey Robertson urges a hard crack-down on the Serbian clergy. He writes,
“Clean out the Serb orthodox church, whose priests blessed the death squads at Srebrenica. Without their blessing, I believe that some soldiers would have disobeyed their orders to shoot defenceless, hog-tied, men and boys. It is widely known that the church has harboured Hague fugitives in its monasteries and has been deeply implicit with the murderous aspects of Serb nationalism… They should remember … the fact that the wheels of international justice grind slowly but they grind exceedingly small.
As Trifkovic noted, this sounds like it is from a Soviet jurist in 1937.[16] Obviously, these facts are highly contested, not merely by Serb and Russian nationalists, but also by CIA analysts.[17] Further, Trifkovic notes elswhere concerning Bishop Artimije
chorus of condemnation and indignant disgust against Metropolitan Amfilohije came simultaneously from the usual standard-bearers of “all progressive humanity”—Helsinki human-rights groups, sociology professors, foreign-sponsored “independent analysts,” Soros-financed media outlets—and all had a common accusation: By daring to mention Sodom and Gomorrah, Metropolitan Amfilohije is “objectively” condoning violence and promoting discrimination. Ergo he is guilty of practicing violence and discrimination, of inspiring “far-right groups and all other extremists”: “Their goal is to force the Church into internal exile, just like under communism. This goal is the raison d’etre of many NGOs in Serbia. They always react swiftly and indignantly when the Church adopts a position, treating it as something inherently illegitimate. The Metropolitan’s scriptural reference threw them into rage, as witnessed by the media conglomerate B92, which has assumed the role of ideological prosecutors and star chamber. His reminder that ‘the tree that bears no fruit is cut down’ was twisted in the best tradition of the French Revolution and Bolshevism.”
Possible Conclusions
Above anything else, I do not want to “predict” what is going to happen next. I simply do not know. I will suggest what one can expect to happen, and upon these suggestions, make some tentative conclusions. If Tadic continues his anti-Serbian rule, dividing the country even more[18], he will drive the moderates in Serbia to increasingly pro-Russian positions, even to the extremes of several parties arguing for the merger of Russia and Serbia as one country.[19] As the economic situation worsens in Europe, and few see it getting better[20], moderate Serbs are likely to say “hell with the EU. They will never let us in, and even if they do, we will end up like Greece or Portugal.” As NATO is bogged down in various wars across the globe, and most NATO members are growing weary of the project, NATO will cease to be a viable option to Serbs. The latter two realities will cement Russia as the only real alternative to the West.
The religious question remains an interesting question. Serbia, as some have noted, was highly secular at the end of the Cold War. (The sad irony is it was closer to Hillary Clinton’s vision of an open-society before she started bombing). There are signs of hope, though. The funeral for Patriarch Pavle revealed something in the spiritual psyche that even secularism was unable to remove. Another moment is when Serb nationalists protested the gay pride march in Belgrade. The Regime mandated that Belgrade demonstrate their obeisance to “Europe” and “human rights” by having a gay pride march, something anathema in all Orthodox countries. The response was classic.[21] (Follow the link, but one should really watch the YouTube video.)
The struggle is not over. As C. S. Lewis said, “If the game can be played, it can be lost.” But it can also be won.
[2] Cf. Fr Seraphim Rose, Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future, Platina, CA: St. Herman’s Press, 1997. One will note that I spend relatively little time discussing “the return of Christ.” I do not have much to add that is not found in 1 Thessalonians 4. Christians usually go astray when the speak beyond the limits of Scripture and Tradition.
[4] St. Athanasios, “History of the Arians,” Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (series II), vol. 4 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004), 287.
[5] Despite the title of this paper, I don’t intend to speak too much about antichrist’s reign, of which Scripture says little. Rather, I speak on coming of antichrist, and of signs that precede his coming. I am relying on the testimony both of Scripture and the holy fathers, the latter as the vehicle of Scripture’s truth today.
[6] Something similar can be said for the word “Protestant.” While both evangelical Protestants and the liberal unbelieving bishop in New Jersey are both outside the Orthodox Church (with which they would agree by definition), one must admit that there is a substantial difference between the two groups.
[7] While I am dancing through exegetical minefields, I will add another premise to the argument. If one takes seriously Christ’s words to Peter in Matthew 16, then one must draw the further conclusion that this church (and deposit) is still present today!
[8] “The Founding of the Theological Education Fund—1958: Ghana Assembly International Missionary Council,” Ministerial Formation Ecumenical Theological Education, Ecumenical Institute/WCC Geneva 110 (April 2008), 13.
[9] That is a valid position, though one I am not ready to defend. Today’s ecumenical churches are by and large Arian in terms of liturgy and theology.
[10] For the larger story, see William Engdhal’s Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order (Baton Rouge, LA: ), 2009.
[12] Obviously, few people are ultimately consistent with their presuppositions. Some may support the division of Kosovo yet still resist the globalists. They are inconsistent.
[14] Former Secretary of Defense William Cohen identified religious absolutism with extreme nationalism and that both must be stopped (or bombed). He mentioned this in an address to Naval graduates. I currently cannot locate this address online.
[17] John Schindler, Unholy Terror: Bosnia, Al Qa’ida, and the Rise of Global Jihad. ( St Paul, MN: Zenith Press, 2007). Also see Thomas E. Woods, 33 Questions About American History You are Not Supposed to Ask (New York: Crown Forum, 2007), pp. 38-44; 252-259.
[19] “New Party in Serbia Supports Merging With Russia.” Russia Today. 31 August 2010. http://rt.com/politics/party-serbia-merging-russia/. When this first came out, few seriously entertained the notion. As the current Belgrade regime continues to support cultural and national suicide, the merger with Russia is becoming more and more understandable.
The Lecture Hall of Tyrannus 