info@northernstyletrust.com Tel: (01493) 441891

WINDS OF CHANGE No. 1

Beyond The Storm . . . A Ripened Harvest

Whilst `change' is an ongoing process in the world in which we live, there is an increasing awareness all around us that there is a quickening pace to that change. This leaves people with a sense of insecurity, for it is not the `quickening pace' that comes through the human ageing process, but one that is sensed in most walks of life. On a wider canvas it can be seen in the continual outbreak of civil wars and the fighting in `far away places with strange sounding names'. This has left us with the new expression `compassion fatigue' - which really means closing our eyes to the enormous distress because we cannot cope with it! If we narrow our vision we can focus on the threats of school closures, due to the inability of teachers to deal with rebellious children, which is really a means of avoiding having to face the wider malaise, the breakdown of what is now commonly known as `family values'. In between, the reader can fill in the many and varied parts of the `canvas' for themselves.

Focussing now on the Christian community, we hear many warnings of changes to come - some talk of changes foretold through events happening in the heavens, whilst others listen to the many and varied messages that are expounded as we near the end of the millennium. There is, of course, always the danger of `self-fulfilling prophecies', with the possibility that through constant repetition some of the events spoken of might well come to pass. There is also the danger that in a fast moving world such as the one in which we live, much of what is said will simply fade away as new and more exciting events come into view. AND YET . . .there is much that is unfolding that does need to be taken seriously, and needs to be checked with the Scriptures to understand what God is saying in it all. For that we surely need to step back from the rhetoric and the heady pace of events.

It is our understanding that history is not a series of unconnected events, but it is an ongoing, unfolding story, which has the strong hand of God upon it and through which He outworks His will and purpose. If this is so, then history will reveal much of what we sense to be unfolding in our contemporary society, and when `sieved' through the Scriptures it will give us an understanding of what this process of change is leading to. We shall then be able to `understand the times and what Israel ought to do' - which task was given to the tribe of Issachar in the days of King David. But before we can `sieve' history through the Scriptures we need to set out the Scriptures which are pertinent to our contemporary times, and for that we need to turn to the Book of Daniel. The Book of Daniel has probably seen more attacks upon its integrity than any other Book in the Bible - including even the Book of Revelation! Volumes have been written in an attempt to show that it was written as history after the events had occurred, rather than prophecy which foretold those same events. Sunday School teachers, and even `preachers of the Word', enjoy the tales of the fiery furnace and the lion's den, which can be so easily understood. However, by chapter 7 the written word takes on a prophetic nature that cannot be understood by unspiritual men, who then critisise it, ridicule it, and try to disprove it. But the Word of God stands eternal and is oblivious to man's attempts to disprove it! Daniel himself said: (7:15)

" I, Daniel, was troubled in spirit, and the visions that passed through my mind disturbed me. "

Later on he says again: (Daniel 12:8-9)

" I heard, but I did not understand. So I asked, `My lord, what will the outcome of all this be?' He replied, `Go your way, Daniel, because the words are closed up and sealed until the end of time'. "

With the coming of Jesus, and with His sending the Holy Spirit to those who would walk in the truth, this `end of time' is now seen to be outworking. In Daniel chapter 7 we see the kingdoms of the world - which have already been mentioned in chapter 2 as a gigantic statue - but this time they are seen as four beasts. Daniel said: (verses 2-3)

" In my vision at night I looked, and there before me were the four winds of heaven churning up the great sea. Four great beasts, each different from the others, came up out of the sea. "

We need not search too deeply for the meaning of these four beasts because we are told in verses 16b-17 that Daniel learns the true meaning of this:

" So he told me and gave me the interpretation of these things. The four great beasts are four kingdoms that will rise from the earth . . . . "

Again we do not need to invent fanciful names for these kingdoms, for Scripture provides the answer. Indeed in chapter 8, where Daniel had a vision of a ram and a goat, we are clearly shown these kingdoms. They are also seen in chapter 2, where Daniel interprets King Nebuchadnezzar's dream, telling him: (Verses 38b-40a)

" You are that head of gold. After you, another kingdom will rise, inferior to yours. Next, a third kingdom, one of bronze, will rule over the whole earth. Finally, there will be a fourth kingdom . . . . "

In chapter 8 two of these kingdoms now take the shape of a ram and a goat. In verse 20 the ram represents the two kingdoms of Media and Persia, which conquered Babylon; and in verse 21 the shaggy goat represents the kingdom of Greece, which under Alexander the Great became the third kingdom. But, Daniel had a question: (Daniel 7:19-23)

" Then I wanted to know the true meaning of the fourth beast, which was different from the others and most terrifying, with its iron teeth and bronze claws - the beast that crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left. I also wanted to know about the ten horns on its head and about the other horn that came up, before which three of them fell - the horn that looked more imposing than the others and that had eyes and a mouth that spoke boastfully. As I watched, this horn was waging war against the saints and was defeating them, until the Ancient of Days came and pronounced judgement in favour of the saints of the Most High, and the time came when they possessed the Kingdom. "

The fourth beast, the fourth kingdom that will rule the world, obviously lasts until the time of the end, for it is seen waging war against the saints of the Most High until the time comes for them to possess the Kingdom. The expression here `saints of the Most High' refers to the nation of Israel, and it warns of wars to come against that nation until the time `they possessed the Kingdom.' This fourth beast is usually referred to as the Roman Empire, but its name is never actually spoken in the Bible, and in referring to the Roman Empire we could be in danger of looking for a re-emergence of the Roman Empire, rather than what God was showing Daniel. Undoubtably the fourth beast was seen once in the course of history as the Roman Empire, but that Empire, which stretched over centuries, was a changing and developing system of Empire which Daniel describes as `different from all the other beasts, and it had ten horns'. Unfortunately most of what we know about ancient Rome comes from Hollywood films, which totally distort the truth. Therefore, in order to understand what Daniel was saying, we need to put out of our minds the old Hollywood image and instead consider the system that ruled the then known world - the system that is ruling still today, which will develop exactly as Daniel prophesied. It is different from all the other beasts, yet it is recognisable in its form and structure as the fourth beast which will wage war against the saints of the Most High.

Referring back to the the second chapter and Daniel's interpretation of King Nebuchadnezzar's dream of a giant statue, we see the fourth kingdom as `two legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of baked clay'. Later on, in his vision of the four beasts, he saw: (Daniel 7:7b)

" A fourth beast terrifying and frightening and very powerful. It had large iron teeth; it crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left. It was different from all the former beasts, and it had ten horns. "

Although the fourth beast can rightly be identified as the ancient Roman Empire, we have not yet seen the fulness of this fourth beast in history. It is therefore obvious that the fourth beast . . the fourth kingdom . . is a developing system, developing over a period of time. First, it is seen as two legs, developing into a beast that `will devour the whole earth, trampling it down and crushing it'. Next, it is seen as `ten horns that are ten kings' who will come from this kingdom. Finally, we see the last development of this beast: (Daniel 7:24b-25)

" After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones; he will subdue three kings. He will speak against the Most High and oppress His saints and try to change the times and the laws. The saints will be handed over to him for a time, times, and half a time. "

Here we have the developing fourth beast of the four kingdoms of this world's history, and then: (Daniel 7:27-28)

" . . . the sovereignty, power and greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be handed over to the saints, the people of the Most High. His Kingdom will be an everlasting Kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey Him. This is the end of the matter. I, Daniel, was deeply troubled by my thoughts, and my face turned pale, but I kept the matter to myself. "

To understand this more fully we need to look briefly at the known history of the fourth beast, known generally, but not Scripturally, as the Roman Empire. By the time of the New Testament period the Roman form of government had developed through five different forms of rule, beginning in 753 BC with the Tarquin kings right up to 59 BC and the Triumvirate. We find these five forms of Roman government recorded in Revelation 17, where it describes the mystery of the woman and the beast she rides, which has seven heads and seven horns. This is the beast of the fourth kingdom of Daniel 7:24, and the seven heads are the seven stages of government that have developed throughout the history of the fourth beast. These seven heads are not the hills on which the city of Rome stands, as is so often taught by Bible teachers. In Scriptural language, when spoken symbolically, hills or mountains speak of power and authority . . of rulership or of a kingdom. To therefore understand Revelation 17:9-10 correctly, the reader should not stop at the words `the seven heads are seven hills', then look for a city literally built on seven hills, and point to Rome - and in particular, the Vatican. The passage should be read in the correct context, then, like all Scripture, it will interpret itself: (Revelation 17:9b-11)

" The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for a little while. The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven, and is going to his destruction. "

If the seven hills were referring to the physical mountains on which Rome was built, then, logically, five of those hills must by now have fallen or have been physically removed. But clearly these verses are describing the forms of the developing power of the fourth beast of Daniel 7, and John was writing in the sixth period of the developing fourth beast - which at that time was the Roman Empire, with full imperialist power - or as John described it:

" . . . five have fallen, one is (that is, the Roman Empire under Caesar), the other has not yet come. "

From this understanding we shall see that the fourth beast of Daniel 7 is not the Roman Empire of `Hollywood imagination', but is a developing form of government which has seven heads, or forms. But in the New Testament times it was seen in its sixth form as the imperial Empire of Rome. The fourth beast is therefore a continuing form of kingdom rule without a chronological break, and it has been with us throughout history since its commencement after the fall of the third beast, the kingdom of Greece. This means that we are seeing not a revival of the old Roman Empire - which was but the sixth form or head of the fourth beast - but the form of the seventh head of this fourth beast. To see this more clearly we shall move into a period of well-known history, and then see it confirmed in Scripture.

Daniel 2 refers to the fourth beast as having `two legs of iron, with feet made of a mixture of iron and baked clay'. In other words, it contains the strength of iron but has the brittleness of clay, which is easily shattered. From this we can begin to see the development of the seventh head or form of the fourth beast. The development of the sixth head was seen in the Roman Empire at the time of John as completely imperialist, for it ruled the whole of the known world under the total control of the Caesars. But by the time of the Emperor Diocletian, in 285 AD, the Empire had already taken on the form of the `two legs' of Daniel 2, with its two Emperors `taking the purple' and ruling as colleagues. This was done to avoid any bloodshed and danger to the Empire upon the death of an Emperor, but a complete break came in 364 AD when the Emperor Valentinian divided the Roman Empire into two halves, one based in Rome, the other in Constantinople. The fourth beast was now the two-legged beast of Daniel 2!

From now on developing history is seen as a balance of power between East and West. The two `empires' move geographically from time to time as other `players' emerge, but essentially recorded history is but a fine tuning between the two legs of the fourth beast - with the western leg centered initially in Rome, and the eastern leg centered initially in Constantinople. With the rise of the Turkish Ottoman Empire in 1453, the eastern leg of the fourth beast was removed from Constantinople, the rulers and intelligentsia of the day moving northwards into Russia, where they quickly re-established themselves under the imperialist rule of the Tzars - `Tzar' having the same root meaning as `Caesar' - and there was even a time when Russia gave herself the official title of The Third Roman Empire! In the West, the centre of power also shifted as Rome fell, and for a while it was centered in France when Charlemagne was crowned Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire in 800 AD. But in 962 AD Otto the First of Germany defeated the Franks, and the balance of power then shifted to Germany, which became the Holy Roman Empire under the German Kaisers - `Kaiser' again having the same root meaning as `Caesar'. Modern history is but a continuation of this two-legged Empire of Imperialism, divided between East and West. Geographical and political centres may change from time to time, but essentially this is modern history where we can easily identify the two centres of power as the two legs of the statue of Daniel 2 - one leg seen in the democratic Western nations, the other leg in the one-time communist nations of the East, under the domination of Russia.

To further understand the political will of this fourth beast we can draw on memories from our schooldays - lessons of the old British Empire, with the proud boast that `the sun never sets on the British Empire'.

The Western centre of power of the fourth beast in more recent history was seen to be vested in Great Britain - with the imperialist rule of the British Raj, who ruled with absolute power in such countries as India and was answerable only to the authority of the `Emperor' in London. And while this imperial system of the fourth beast retained its `two legs' there was a restraint placed upon it from developing into the fulness of the beast which had so terrified Daniel, but with the collapse of communism, and the break-up of the old Soviet Union, the second leg has been removed, paving the way for a rapid move forward into the final phase of the fourth beast of Daniel 7. This is the Scriptural setting into which we must place our contemporary history if we are to understand what is happening around us and be effective in God's will and purpose. There is, of course, the counter-argument (and we use that word in the correct sense) that this presentation of Scripture is too narrow and is restricting it to Western history, whereas the fourth beast of Daniel is seen to `devour the whole world'. Historical evidence, however, clearly points to the fact that the imperialist power of the developing fourth beast can only be seen in the developing history of the West - and only as it reaches its fulness in the West can it then reach out and `devour the whole world'!

With this setting of a Scriptural and historical framework in which to move, we need to focus our thoughts nearer to home. It has long been suggested by sociologists that our Western culture or social system is supported by five main pillars, which are: The family; education; a stable economy; a stable government; and religion. These five pillars, it is suggested, give society the stability the people need to inter-relate and live peaceable lives, for they form the bedrock of values that give stability to our social system. If indeed these five base pillars do function in this way, if one or more of them are disturbed there will be a resulting destabilising effect, which will in turn destabilise the other pillars, to the point of disintegration. It is the way of revolutionaries, who understand this principle very well, to work at pulling down these structures, for if this is not done the `new order' cannot be erected. An anarchical world of total disorder inevitably leads to a nihilistic world of self-destruction, in order that a new culture can be built - this will always be based on the five base pillars of a stable community, but in the so-called `care' of such revolutionaries it will be built with their `new masters' in control!

For some long period of time now we have seen in the Western social systems `revolutionary forces' at work, breaking down these five pillars. We are not concerned here with identifying these `revolutionary forces', but we can clearly see the outcome of their work as all five of the base pillars of society rapidly disintegrate with ever-increasing ferocity. We need not go into details for our readers can identify for themselves the reality of this principle. We have now reached the point where politicians, in their desperation, are attempting to prop up the last of the pillars by discovering `religion' - that is to say, the traditional Judaic/Christian religion - as the panacea for preventing the collapse of the system. We would suggest, however, that our Western culture can be said more correctly to be built upon Judaic/Greco principles - that is to say, based upon a mixture of Old Testament principles and Hellinistic philosophy, rather than upon Christian truth. There has indeed been a `Christianising' of the Western nations - that is to say, an awareness of the Person of Jesus as the Son of God - but the foundations of Western culture have been built upon an earlier bedrock than that of Christianity. Over the years there has been a process of thoroughly secularizing the first four pillars - a removing of the spiritual dimension - that has led to the secularization of the fifth pillar of religion itself as the Hellinistic principles (that of the perfecting of man through his own efforts) worked against the Judaic principles. There is NO bedrock of faith in Jesus in the culture of the West, and with the secularization of the fifth pillar, the whole structure, in a state of collapse, needs no revolutionary to pull it down. That work has been done by itself, and it is the unspoken anxiety within society that gave rise to our opening remarks that there is an awareness of a quickening pace of change.

However, if it is true that these five pillars uphold our Western social system, we would suggest that there are two other more powerful pillars which uphold and give strength to the other five, and it is to these two pillars that we would direct our thoughts. The two supporting pillars which uphold the whole of the structure of Western civilisation are the Monarchy and the Church, and for as long as these two remain there can be a continous collapse and rebuilding of the other five pillars which uphold our social system. But if indeed our Western culture has been built in part upon Judaic principles then we must see this confirmed by Scripture. If we turn to the first Book of Samuel we read in chapter 8 of how Samuel, now growing old, and reaching the end of his time as a judge of Israel, appointed his sons as judges over Israel: (1 Samuel 8:3)

" (But) his sons did not walk in his ways. They turned aside after dishonest gain and accepted bribes and perverted justice. "

This led to the foundation of the two pillars, an appropriation of which has formed the `encircling arms' upholding Western civilisation: (v4-5)

" So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. They said to him, `You are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways; now appoint a king to lead us, such as all the other nations have'. "

Faithful old Samuel told the people the consequences of what would follow, but to no avail: (v 19-22)

" But the people refused to listen to Samuel. `No!' they said. `We want a king over us. Then we shall be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.' When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the LORD. The LORD answered, `Listen to them and give them a king.' "

Within the history of Israel we see the pattern repeating itself: The spiritual authority anointing the secular authority, who will rule over the people - or as we understand it in our own Western culture, the Church and the Monarchy. To confirm this pattern which was used throughout the history of ancient Israel until the end of the Age of Kings, there are many such Scriptures: (1 Samuel 15:1)

" Samuel said to Saul, `I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over His people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD'. "

We then turn to the man after God's own heart: (1 Samuel 16:1b)

" Fill your horn with oil and be on your way; I am sending you (Samuel) to Jesse of Bethlehem. I have chosen one of his sons to be king. "

And upon his coming death, David appoints his son Solomon to rule after him: (1 Kings 1:32-35)

" King David said, `Call in Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet and Benaiah son of Jehoiada.' When they came before the king, he said to them: `Take your lord's servants with you and set Solomon my son on my own mule and take him down to Gihon. There shall Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anoint him king over Israel. Blow the trumpet and shout: `Long live King Solomon!' Then you are to go up with him, and he is to come and sit on my throne and reign in my place. I have appointed him ruler over Israel and Judah'. "

In the more distressing times that followed the break-up of Israel into two kingdoms, we see the same pattern at work, and this time Elijah the prophet is called to perform the anointing: (1 Kings 19:15-16)

" The LORD said to him (Elijah), `Go back the way you came and go to the Desert of Damascus. When you get there anoint Hazael king over Aram. Also anoint Jehu son of Nimshi king over Israel, and anoint Elisha son of Shaphat from Abel Meholah to succeed you as prophet'. "

And we hardly need mention the great prophecy, spoken through Isaiah, of the Spirit of the LORD anointing the One who was to come as King of the Jews: (Isaiah 61:1)

" The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on Me, because the LORD has anointed Me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent Me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release for the prisoners, to proclaim the year of the LORD's favour and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all who mourn . . . . "

And finally, although there is no specific mention of an anointing, we see again the anointed Kingship of the Branch, at a time yet to come: (Zechariah 6:11-13)

" Take the silver and gold and make a crown, and set it on the head of the high priest, Joshua son of Jehozadak. Tell him this is what the Lord of Hosts says: `Behold the Man whose name is the Branch, and He will branch out from His place and build the Temple of the LORD. It is He who will build the Temple of the LORD, and He will be clothed in majesty and will sit and rule on His throne. And He will be a Priest on His throne. And there will be harmony between the two'. "

These twin pillars that uphold and undergird Western civilisation can be best seen at the coronation of England's kings and queens when the appointed head of the State Church crowns the new monarch. This scene has been seen countless times over the past thousand years of European history, and while its present secular power is vested in democratically elected Parliaments and Senates there is still the `shadow of the Monarchy' ever present. It is seen in the constitutional Monarchy, and also in the `Pretenders to the Throne', and State religion, whether `Established' or not, is ever-present in the historical religious establishment, centered in Rome and on the Pope, who in the past has claimed the sole right to anoint the kings and emperors of Europe. These are the twin pillars which have shaped and formed what is generally called `the West' - which is the second and sole remaining kingdom of the statue of Nebuchadnezzar's dream! (And here we are referring principally to the European West, although the shadow can still be seen in western republican systems.) Once again we need to step back briefly into history in order to trace the origins of these two pillars of Church and Monarch, which uphold the edifice of the nations of Western Europe, the Scriptural precedents of which we have seen in the anointing of the kings of ancient Israel.

We begin in the `twilight years' of the sixth phase of Daniel's fourth beast, known for the sake of convenience as the Roman Empire. This far-flung empire was stretched to the limits of the manpower of the Roman armies, and was at its weakest point along the long northern frontiers of the Province of Gaul. Beyond these frontiers dwelt the barbarous Germanic tribes, who were quickly recruited into the Roman Legions, not only to guard the frontiers but to police the province itself. This opened up the way for whole tribes to move into the Province of Gaul and settle there, and they were eventually given land in exchange for military service. This policy paved the way for later Germanic invasions into Gaul, and indeed to the very gates of Rome itself, and by the end of the fifth century Roman Gaul was largely populated by the northern Germanic tribes of the Franks, Burgundians and Visigoths. Over a period of time they became thoroughly Romanized and eager to adopt the language, culture and religion of Rome, thereby coming under the spiritual influence of the Roman Pontiff. As we know, by this time, through Constantine's conversion to Christianity, the Roman Empire had adopted Christianity as the official religion of the empire, thus beginning to form what would eventually become, as we know them today, the twin pillars of Western civilsation of Church and `State'. From those Germanic tribes would come the dominant Franks, who were responsible for the formation of what we would now call Western Europe. They came down into Roman Gaul from the north, settling in what is now Belgium and spreading along the middle Rhine Valley within a hundred years. By the end of the fifth century they were rulers of the whole of Gaul, having won total victory over the Visigoth and Burgundian kingdoms. The early kings of the Franks, springing from the warrior Merovius, formed the Merovingian dynasty, and from this line came the semi-mystical Clovis, who, it is said, became the founder of the kingly line that forged and ruled the kingdom of France, which was later carved out of the Roman Province of Gaul. It is also said that his name in his own language meant `battle of glory', and from the Latin form of his name, Chlodovechus, came the French name of Louis, which was the historic name for the Frankish kings of France who had sprung from the Merovingian dynasty.

History records that King Clovis converted to Christianity in 496 AD, and as his kingdom of Gaul lay under the spiritual authority of the Roman Pontiff he accepted, and came under, the Pope's authority in spiritual matters, and this was seen when Clovis was baptised at Rheims by Rethgius, a bishop of the Roman Church. Henceforth the Frankish kingdom of Gaul, under Clovis, a king of the Merovingian dynasty, became `converted' to the Roman religion, and under the spiritual authority of the Roman Pontiff. Under this spiritual authority, and with his own undoubted ability, the kingdom became unified and stable, for with the blessing of the Roman Church he quickly brought the surrounding petty warlords and kings under his authority. By the time of his death in 511 AD he had not only founded the kingdom of the Franks but he had also formed it as a `Christian' kingdom of the Franks. Merovingian Gaul was now spread over the vast area of the former Roman Province of Gaul, and as such it encompassed much of today's Germany as well as modern-day France. It also included the low countries of modern-day Holland and Belgium, and part of Switzerland. Within two hundred years, however, the Merovingian dynasty was weakening, and the petty kings who ruled under that dynasty's authority were growing in strength and power. Later they would develop into the many recognisable provinces that we saw in the kingdom of France of our schoolday history books - provinces such as Aquitainne, Burgundy and Provence (and many years later the Isle de France, centered on its capital Paris).

Because of the weakened state of this dynasty, a new leader of the Franks was raised up. His name was Charles Martel, the son of Pepin of Herstal, of the family line of the Arnulfings. From this family line came the Mayors of the Palace of Austrasia, and we need to understand the power and influence that came with this title. They were the real rulers, subordinate only to the titular head of the Province. Under Pepin the government of the provinces of Neustria, Burgundy and Austrasia had been brought together and Charles Martel therefore came into an inheritance of great power and authority! It was Charles Martel who stopped the seemingly invincible armies of Islam, gaining victory over them at the Battle of Poitiers in 732 AD. This Charles Martel, now the undisputed leader of the Frankish kingdom, was to give his name to the Carolingian dynasty, which now came to prominence in the old Roman Province of Gaul. Charles the `Hammer' was never crowned King of the Franks, however, but in 751 AD at Sissons his son Pepin the Third was crowned King of the Franks (with the approval of Pope Zacharius) by Boniface, who not only crowned Pepin but anointed him King of the Franks according to the Scriptural pattern we have seen. So with the Pope's blessing, and, therefore, the authority of the Church, the Carolingian dynasty was founded by the usurpation of the kingly line of the Merovingian dynasty - and it was this act of crowning and anointing the Carolingian king in 751 by the Church that gave rise to the acceptance of the sacred authority vested in the king. And so the earlier authority of a kingship that was based on the leadership of a German warlord was now replaced by a sense of delegated sovereignty, a sacred position, which was to form the basis of the future kings of Europe and the West. Equally, it gave to the Roman Pontiff the power to elevate men, and to depose those who would not accept the spiritual authority of Rome, insisting that kings must be judged by Divine law - of which the Roman Pontiff was the sole representative!

It is this background which resulted in Charlemagne being crowned Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire on Christmas Day 800 AD in St Peter's in Rome by Pope Leo the Third! It was noted by historians that at this coronation of Charlemagne `he was acclaimed by all the people of the Romans': `Charles Augustus, crowned by God, great and pacific Emperor of the Romans . . life and victory!' Afterwards the Pope prostrated himself before Charlemagne, acclaiming him as Emperor and Augustus. Such was the way of establishing the sacred and divine nature of kingship under the authority of the Church, headed by the Pope, who could therefore elevate and depose those who served him! However, Charlemagne's empire did not last, and the idea of an empire did not re-assert itself until one hundred and fifty years later, under the kingship of Otto the First of Germany, but it never rose again to the height of imperialism seen under Charlemagne. Following the death of Charlemagne, and the Treaty of Verdun in 843 AD, the empire now divided into three parts: the Kingdom of the West Franks (later to become France); the Middle Kingdom of the Franks; and the Kingdom of the East Franks (later to become Germany). And it was the elevation of Conrad, Duke of Franconia as king of the East Franks, instead of Charles the Simple of the Carolingian dynasty, that caused the foundation of the independent kingdom of the East Franks and the beginning of modern-day Europe.

It is here that we can trace the background to the wars that have waxed and waned continually over the battleground of the former Gaul, and increasingly they were fought over possesson of the Middle Kingdom of the Franks, and for the mantle of Charlemagne, Emperor of the Franks. The emergence of the German kingdom of the Franks came to fulness with the crowning and anointing of Otto the Great in Rome in 962 AD by the Pope, and he then took upon himself the mantle of Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. Space once again restricts us from further recording the formation of modern Europe, but enough has been set out to show in general terms that the history of Europe over the past one thousand years has been but a power struggle between two kingly lines, both of which were made sacred and semi-divine through the crowning and anointing by Roman Pontiffs, who by the very act of crowning and anointing those kings exercised spiritual authority over them.

Into that battle ground would be drawn the kingdom of Britannia, which, although an outpost of the Roman Empire, was not of Frankish descent. The early British kings were descended from a more ancient race of people, and were crowned and anointed as kings by a spiritual authority not subjected to Rome. But through the invasion and conquest of Britain by the Frankish Duke of Normandy, they would soon be drawn into the conflicts, both spiritual and secular, that would wax and wane throughout Europe as kings and Popes sought to extend their power over one another. The right to crown and anoint kings was claimed by the Popes; the right to appoint spiritual leaders, such as bishops, was claimed by the kings, who demanded absolute subjection to their sacred position. Through the Reformation, the Papal power was broken - but the ambition remains! Through the Enlightenment, the power of the Monarchy was broken - but the `Pretenders' wait in the shadows! The battle for Europe still continues, now seen within the European Parliament. The battle is still between two Frankish dynasties, Germany and France, with Britain being reluctantly drawn once again into the battle! Do not forget for one moment that a Roman Pontiff is awaiting a time when once again he will crown and anoint the successor to Charlemagne, and then seek to control the affairs of the Holy Roman Empire through him!

We need only briefly mention such Scriptures as Ezekiel 28, which reveals the spiritual `king of Tyre' working through the pride of the natural ruler of Tyre! Also, earlier in Isaiah 14, there is a prophecy spoken against the King of Babylon, which moves into revelation concerning a spiritual `star of the morning' who was brought low, to give us an understanding of the great spiritual `principalities, powers and rulers' who seek to control the affairs of the earth through the natural principalities, powers and rulers of the age! In his Letter to the Ephesians Paul warns us that our struggle is not against the natural rulers, but against the great dark spiritual forces in the heavenlies. It is through such Scriptures as these that we see the drama of the ages outworking itself through what the world calls history. And nowhere is it seen more clearly than in the powerful interplay between Church and Monarchy, the two pillars that uphold Western civilization, which will be used to fulfill the prophecies spoken of in the Book of Daniel - particularly concerning the fourth beast that so terrified Daniel. It is in this context that we need to place this brief overview of the formation of modern Europe so that we can begin to see the storm that is approaching.

We would now narrow our vision to the affairs of the little offshore island of Britannia - called by Pytheas of Marseilles, an early explorer of the 4th century, the `Pretanic Islands Albion and Herne'. In our brief overview of European history we have seen that the island of Britannia was an independent kingdom long before the Franks poured into Roman Gaul, and its kings were crowned and anointed by Christian authority long before the Roman Church came here through the person of Augustine. Although drawn into Europe through the Frankish Norman Conquest, and, therefore, coming under the religious authority of Rome, Papal power was losing its grip on Britannia long before the Reformation, and the twin pillars of `State' and Church are still fully in place in this country, totally independent from the `affairs' of Europe. There is in this `island fortress' a constitutional Monarchy, subject to Parliament, and an established Church of England - and the battle still rages to bring them to heel and subject them to Europe! At this point we would bring in a further verse of Scripture which we feel is pertinent to the time which is fast approaching: (2 Kings 25:1-9)

" Now Zedikiah rebelled against the King of Babylon. So in the ninth year of Zedikiah's reign, on the tenth day of the tenth month, Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon marched against Jerusalem with his whole army. He encamped outside the city and built siege works all around it. The city was kept under siege until the eleventh year of King Zedikiah. By the ninth day of the fourth month the famine in the city had become so severe that there was no food for the people to eat. Then the city wall was broken through, and the whole army fled at night through the gate between the two walls near the king's garden, though the Babylonians were surrounding the city. They fled towards the Arabah, but the Babylonian army pursued the king and overtook him in the plains of Jericho. All his soldiers were separated from him and scattered, and he was captured. He was taken to the King of Babylon at Riblah, where sentence was pronounced on him. They killed the sons of Zedikiah before his eyes. Then they put out his eyes, bound him with bronze shackles and took him to Babylon. "

Although this Scripture refers to the nation of Israel, who through wilful disobedience and rebellion towards God was taken into captivity in Babylon, we can take the principle and apply it to our contemporary situation in these `Pretanic Isles'. As we have seen, the five pillars upholding society are in a state of collapse, and a time of great change faces the people of this country as they sense that all that has been familiar and secure is being swept away. Yet those pillars can be re-formed, and peace and security can once again be brought about - for as long as the twin pillars of State (that is, Government and Monarchy) and Church continue to uphold the whole structure of the nation! But we know that our Monarchy is in a state of collapse, and Parliament has within it many who would be pleased to see a total abolition of the

Monarchy. The Church of England also is clearly in the same position, and there are powerful forces at work to ensure its disestablishment too. If these twin pillars that undergird the nation's sovereignty were to be removed these `Pretanic Isles' would once again be under the threat of being drawn into the maelstrom of Europe, and come under the authority of the twin pillars of `State' and Church in Europe. We are aware that large sections of the population are completely indifferent to the affairs of the Monarchy and of the Church, and particularly in certain Christian circles there are many who cannot understand why God allows an unscriptural and increasingly apostate `Church' to continue. This shows a complete lack of understanding of the natural structures through which God maintains stability in the nations of the world until His purposes are fulfilled and He brings in His Kingdom of Righteousness and Peace through His anointed King, Jesus.

Paul, when writing to Timothy, certainly knew of these twin pillars which uphold nations, for he wrote: (1 Timothy 2:1-4)

" I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone - for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Saviour, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. "

Paul certainly knew that a peaceful nation, ruled by righteous kings and priests, was a reflection of the Kingdom of God for which all creation longs. And if we look at what corrupt and sinful men have done with the authority vested in them, we will then surely speak only of revolution in order to sweep away such corruption. Revolution is not the message of the Kingdom of God! Do not doubt for one moment that what is being formed in the Councils of Europe are the twin pillars of `State' and Church, and do not doubt that dark spiritual rulers and principalities

are working through the affairs of the men who seek the enthronement of a king from their dynasty. This can be seen in the two dominant players in Europe, Germany and France, but waiting on the sidelines is a Roman Pontiff who will seek to regain Rome's power and authority over kings. Daniel's fourth beast, which so terrified him, is taking shape. We need to bring our thinking into that context in order to understand God's will for His people in these `Pretanic Isles', which are not, nor have ever been historically, under the authority of the Frankish kings and their spiritual `mentor'!

However, we would remind ourselves of a mighty wind of hurricane force that swept through the southern half of England in 1987, leaving devastation in the woods and forests, traces of which can still be seen today. Looking through the archives of the Meteological Office it was soon clear that the last record of winds of such force in England was the year that John Wesley was born. Among many Christians this was seen as a warning of the devastating winds of change that would sweep across this country at a time soon to come, but there was also the exhortation that a spiritual wind had blown throughout England in 1987, giving birth to many `John Wesleys', who in the Lord's time would be used for His purposes. Certainly it would seem that the storm is close, with the grave danger of the country's `king being taken captive into Babylon', with the collapse of the social and economic life of this country following on as it is drawn into the maelstrom of Europe. As these events unfold, therefore, we should be encouraged to know and trust in the faithfulness of God, that His `John Wesleys' are in place and scattered all over the country, being prepared for a time `beyond the storm' with the certainty that this storm will be used for `the ripened harvest' - and that could well be the revival we all long for!

May we conclude by taking the principle seen in the Book of Ezra and apply it to our contemporary scene, trusting that One greater than Cyrus will move to enable His people to complete the work that has to be done before His Coming!

In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, in order to fulfil the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah, the LORD moved the heart of Cyrus king of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his realm and to put it in writing: This is what Cyrus king of Persia says:

" ` The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and He has appointed me to build a Temple for Him at Jerusalem in Judah. Anyone of His people among you - may his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem in Judah and build the Temple of the LORD, the God of Israel, the God who is in Jerusalem. And the people in any place where survivors may now be living are to provide him with silver and gold, with goods and livestock, and with freewill offerings for the Temple of God in Jerusalem. '

Then the family heads of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests and Levites - everyone whose heart God had moved - prepared to go up and build the House of the LORD in Jerusalem. " (Ezra 1:1-5)

The canvas is large - it has to be, for the details of the future are known only to God! The details are His concern alone! Scripture gives us the understanding to enable us to see the larger picture, to know that history is but His painting in the fine detail! The historical pattern is evident for all to see, and as disciples of Jesus we are called to watch (and wait) and pray! And whilst we wait we trust in the faithfulness of God that He will gather in the ripened harvest with the `tools' that He has prepared His people to work with.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

ADDENDUM TO: `Beyond the Storm - the Ripened Harvest'

* This Addendum was later added to the file to make 1 booklet.

Some six weeks after the `Beyond the Storm' booklet was written and sent out, we were gleaning through a `quality newspaper' one gloomy Sunday afternoon and came across four interesting articles, which seemed to add weight to what had been written in the booklet. We share a resume of these articles with you, thankful that they were noticed after the booklet was sent out, lest we fall into the danger of newspaper exergesis rather than Scriptural revelation.

As might be expected following the Dublin Summit, the articles were concerned with the European Monetary Union discussions, and they seem to confirm the often-mentioned opinion that the `world' has perhaps more discernment than most of the Church. The first article was a review of a book called `Europe, a history' - a rather weighty tome of some 1365 pages! In it the author, Professor Davies, gives this opinion during a discussion with an interviewer: `The United Kingdom is doomed to disintegrate, a process as natural as human mortality' and `I think an awareness of the dynamics of the twentieth century shows that the United Kingdom has already begun to break up'. And entering into the realm of politics, as any historian must do, he says: `Britain is trying to buy time, but if there is, God forbid another Conservative government, for then it would accelerate the disintegration of the United Kingdom'. As these Addendum thoughts, and indeed the booklet `Beyond the Storm', are totally a-political, they are, of course, open to disagreement by those reading them, but we would stress again that we are not concerned with party politics.

However, politics are inevitably fused with history, the natural events through which God works according to His will and purpose. Unfortunately Professor Davies is writing from his natural perspective as an historian, for as he starts BRITISH history from the late 17th century (as do most historians) he cannot have the awareness of some earlier forces that shaped this country and manifested themselves as the British Empire of modern history. Likewise, Professor Davies can have no understanding of the spiritual powers that rule over the affairs of men. Nevertheless the main thrust of his thinking is in line with the message of the booklet `Beyond the Storm' - that the United Kingdom has entered into a period of judgement which will bring it to the brink of disintegration and destruction UNLESS the Church moves the hand of God in prayer! In another report on the same general theme, an alternative scenario to a united Europe is given. In mentioning the growing concern over European integration it quotes Charles Blankart, a professor at the economics faculty of Humbolt University in east Berlin:

" The whole thing is madness. The plain truth is that the French don't really aspire to a single currency. What they really want is to do away with the D-mark. "

What they are saying (in our words) is that the war in Europe is between two Frankish kingdoms, with Britain in danger, through its disintegration, of being drawn into that war! The report goes on to mention a Report prepared by the London based `Centre for the Study of Financial Innovation'. The Report is entitled `The Crash of 2003':

" In it, Germany under Chancellor Stoiber, who succeeds Kohl, takes an increasingly hard line over the economic difficulties and weaknesses of France, still in the mire three yers after the start of Emu. The single currency, rather than beckoning Europe towards the sunny uplands of a new prosperity, becomes a millstone around the neck of the French. Finally, in early 2003, France makes a plea to Germany for financial assistance. It is refused. Chirac, still at the Elysee Palace, tells the German government he has no option but to withdraw from the single currency and reissue the franc. Emu is followed by deep-seated monetary and political disunity. "

The `Report' is of course speculation, albeit based on events which have been condensed and then extended in time. However, those who recall the position from which we have been speaking for the past seven years can easily add up figures and see that the year 2003 mentioned in the Report is seven years forward from where we are today - speaking clearly of seven years of increasing famine, culminating in a calamitous `Crash of 2003'!

The third article is a Political Comment concerning our present party politics and picks up on a remark made by Sir Geoffrey Howe:

" I think John Major's mistake was to try to build his European policy on a majority in one party. That has never been the case. When we joined Europe in 1971, there were 25 people on the back benches throughout that time arguing against it. But we carried it through because we were able to mobilise a substantial part of the Labour party as well. "

The commentator goes on to express how, regardless of the claims the Euro sceptics make, the overwhelming consensus of opinion across the political parties is pro-European:

" Outside the Palace of Westminster, the Europhiles can look to support from the present leadership of both the CBI and the TUC, much of big business, the bulk of the City, a reasonable slice of the media (the liberal press, many broadcasters and probably the financial papers) plus swathes of `the great and the good' - that unspoken coalition of churchmen, civil servants, academics and senior professionals, which goes under the loose heading of `the Establishment'. "

The commentator continues to talk of the two positions - the pro and the anti European groups: (the emphasis ours)

" Between these two positions there is no room for compromise. It is the basic fault line in British politics, much wider and deeper than the line which divides the two big parties. Where you stand on either side of it will not be a matter of reasoned debate, but a visceral, emotional attachment; a statement of the kind of person you are and the kind of country you want to live in. And this is the second and tantalising conclusion that one may draw from Lord Howe's analysis: That we may be about to see one of those fundamental once-in-a-century realignments of political forces in this country. "

Such comments as these are of course in line with some of the comments in the first article - the interview with Professor Davies and his opinions concerning the disintegration of the United Kingdom. The last commentator continues his reasoning by suggesting that `realignment of political forces' is similar to that last seen in the 18th century, and again we quote his words:

" And what is this other grand coalition beginning to take shape before our wondering eyes. Is it not, in modern garb, the Whigs? "

As we must confess to not paying much attention to school-day history lessons, we had to search history books once again to understand the commentators words, and here we use some quotations from Winston Churchill's `History of the English Speaking People's:

"It was a misfortune for Britain in these years that the Parliamentary Opposition was at its weakest. A generation in the wilderness had demoralised the Whig Party, which had not been effectively in office since 1783. Among themselves the Whigs were deeply divided, and none of them had any better or broader plans for post-war reconstruction than the Tories. Indeed, their interests were essentially the same. Like their rivals, they represented the landed class, and also the City of London. The only issues upon which they seriously quarrelled with the government were Catholic Emancipation and the enfranchisement of the middle classes in the rising industrial towns. In the 1790's the Whigs had favoured the cause of Parliamentary Reform. It had been a useful stick with which to beat the administration of the younger Pitt. But they had been badly scared by the headlong course of events in France. Their leaders only gradually and reluctantly regained their reforming zeal. In the meantime, as Hazlitt put it, the two parties were like competing stage-coaches which splashed each other with mud but went by the same road to the same place.

During the ten years' reign of King George the Fourth the old party grouping in politics was fast dissolving. For more than a century Whig and Tory on different contentious issues had faced and fought one another in the House of Commons. Whig also fought Whig. Modern scholars, delving deeply into family connections and commercial interests, have sought to show that there was no such thing as a two-party system in eighteenth-century Britain. If caution must be the hall-mark of history, all that may be said is that the men in power were vigorously opposed by the men who were out, while in between stood large numbers of neutral-minded gentlemen placidly prepared to support whichever group held office. It is not much of a conclusion to come to about a great age of Parliamentary debate. The ins and outs might as well have names, and why not employ the names of Whig and Tory which their supporters cast at one another? At any rate in the 1820's Government of Tory complexion had been in power almost without interruption for thirty years.

This Government had successfully piloted the country through the longest and most dangerous war in which Britain had yet been engaged. It had also survived, though with tarnishing reputation, five years of peace-time unrest. But the Industrial Revolution posed a set of technical administrative problems which no aristocratic and agricultural party, Whig or Tory, was capable of handling. The nineteenth century called for fresh interpretation of the duties of government. New principles and doctrines were arising which were to break up the old political parties and in the Victorian age reshape and recreate them. These developments took time, but already the party built up by the younger Pitt was feeling their stir and stress. "

It would take time for that stress to break the old system down, and in his `History' Churchill works through this period and takes us into the early 1800's and the trouble breaking out in the eastern Mediterranean between Turkey and Greece:

" Here lay the origins of the `Eastern Question', as it was called, which increasingly preoccupied and baffled the Powers of Europe down to the First World War. After complicated negotiations Britain, France, and Russia agreed in 1827 on terms to be put to the Turks. British and French squadrons were sent to Greek waters to enforce them. This was the last achievement of Canning's diplomacy. The next act in the Greek drama was played after his death. Canning's colleagues had become increasingly critical of the activities of their Foreign Secretary. Wellington was particularly disturbed by what he regarded as Canning's headlong courses. The two wings of the administration were only held together by the conciliatory character of the Prime Minister, and in February 1827 Liverpool had a stroke. A major political crisis followed. Canning abroad and Huskisson at home had alienated the old Tories in the party. Who was now to lead the Government? The whole future of the Tories was at stake. Were they to go upon the road of Wellington or Canning? The choice of Prime Minister still lay with the Crown, and George the Fourth hesitated for a month before making his decision. The Whigs could offer no alternative administration. They were divided among themselves and without hope of gaining a majority from the existing electorate. So it had to be one or the other of the Tory wings. Many members of Liverpool's Cabinet, including Wellington and Eldon, declined to serve under Canning. On the other hand, Canning could command the support of a number of the leading Whigs. Should a Whig-Tory coalition be formed? That would break up the old party loyalties on which the Governments of the realm had for so long been based. Or should pure Tory rule be tried? That would be unpopular in the House of Commons and unacceptable to the country outside. Or could some neutral personage be found who might preside benignly and ineffectively over the fractious scene? Exciting weeks and long conversations followed round the dinner-tables of Windsor Castle. It soon became plain that no Government could be constructed which did not include Canning and his friends, and that Canning would accept all or nothing. His final argument convinced the King. `Sire', he said, `your father broke the domination of the Whigs. I hope your Majesty will not endure that of the Tories.' `No', George the Fourth replied, `I'll be damned if I do.' In April 1827 Canning became Prime Minister, and for a brief hundred days held supreme political power. Canning's Ministry signalled the coming dissolution of the eighteenth-century political system. He held office by courtesy of a section of the Whigs. The only able Tory leader in the House of Commons whom he had lost was Robert Peel. Peel resigned partly for personal reasons and partly because he knew that Canning was in favour of Catholic Emancipation. But the Opposition Tories and the die-hard Whigs harassed the new Government. Had Canning been granted a longer spell of life the group he led might have found a new political allegience."

We make no apology for quoting extensively from the work of Winston Churchill, for it has been done to illustrate that the political commentators' opinions we have quoted earlier have some grounding in political history. There are parallels between recent past history and what is happening today - turmoil in Europe, and concern in England that we will be drawn into that turmoil through a possible break-up, coalition and realignment of the present political system - all of which would lead to great disturbance in the lives of the people of this country. We finish the third article with the commentator's concluding remarks:

" And what is this other grand coalition beginning to take shape before our wondering eyes - this coming together of Blairites, wet Tories, assorted peers, business chiefs and trade unionists? Is it not, in modern garb, that same odd assembly of political panjandrums, ambitious placemen, gradual reformers, radicals, non-comformists and lovers of all things foreign - especially the French - which used to be known as the Whigs? It would be absurd to push this analogy too far - to suggest that the politics of Pitt and Walpole are being resurrected in an era of universal suffrage. But there is something about this European debate which is almost primordial, which wipes away the 19th century labels of Socialist, Liberal and even Conservative, and takes us back to the most fundamental debate of our democracy - the sovereignty of Parliament and our relations with the Continent. When the stakes are this high, mere party labels are so much matchwood. That is the significance of Lord Howe's observation. And just because realignment has been the great chimera of postwar British politics - has been glimpsed and lost so often - it does not mean that now, on the hard rock of European monetary union, the system is not finally beginning to crack. "

The fourth article concerns `our cousins over the sea' and talks of America's decision to deal with its Budget deficit, which now stands at five trillion US dollars `and growing every day'. There are serious proposals to deal with the problem by passing an Amendment to the Constitution, thereby enforcing monetary discipline by law. The first attempt to do so was defeated, but with the increased Republican majority in both Houses it could go through in the Spring. The USA is striving for zero deficit by the year 2002 - which is in line with `The Crash of 2003' Report mentioned in the earlier article. The fourth article says of this huge deficit:

" The interest on it alone is consuming an ever-growing share of Government spending - dwarfing important domestic programmes. That is a burden the next generation will have to bear, because their parents were too irresponsible to live within their means. If huge cuts are not made in spending in the next decade or so, the next generation could be paying upwards of 80% of their earnings in taxes by the middle of the next millennium. They are being undemocratically penalised by the 1960's generation, whose attitude towards fiscal policy has been as disastrous as their attitude toward virtually everything else. "

Whether or not the Amendment goes through, America is facing the same burden that is causing so much unrest throughout Europe. A `financial yoke' is being put in place in order to bring about monetary union - a yoke which has to come, but one which could cause the people to rise up and throw off a yoke which is not of their making! And bringing it back to the European scene, that would take us back to a revolutionary scenario last seen in France in the eighteenth century! We brought in this article in order to ask the queston: Could the financial problems of America, and their suggested Amendment to the Constitution, become a yoke imposed upon America which will cause it to let go of its position as `world policeman' so that events in Europe will come to full flowering? Certainly the difficulties and the parallels in time co-incide. The rest is indeed in God's hands as His righteous judgement on the West continues to unfold!

These are, of course, gleanings from the newspapers on a day in late December, a time when by its very nature the gloomy weather could cause us to look for the worst. However, we suggest they should be sieved through Scripture, and maybe they warn of what lies ahead. Certainly there is ample historical precedent to point that way. We, however, are concerned with the Scriptural implications, and have set these facts out in order to warn or confirm to believers that a storm is coming. But we need to look `Beyond the Storm to the Ripened Harvest' - and then LOOK UP, for our redemption draws that much nearer!

* * * * * * * *

Return to winds of change