Maybe someone should explain why globalism and a one world government is bad.
I know the Left Behind book series tells us that a one world government will inevitably be one that is horribly mismanaged, incompetent, commit atrocities and fail comically at every turn and attempt to exterminate all Christians in addition to being led by Satan incarnate... But since that fantasy series isn't anything other than fantasy, I don't see any real reason for me to take it seriously.
Left Behind is fantasy, BUT... (and this is what has my attention)
About 30-35 years ago when I first became religiously interested, I started out by attending protestant churches. Hal Lindsey, and others, were a big deal, back then (and I'm guessing probably still are) in those circles. There was (or appeared to me to be, anyway) a common consesus of the end-of-the-world scenario. There would be a global economic crises (check - we have that going on), which would lead to a one-world overarching government and one-world banking system, which would lead to the rise of the final anti-christ. Usually, the Antichrist was interpreted as being the Roman Catholic Pope (a common theme going back to the Reformation). Suddenly, from the
Vatican comes this white-paper (see, I learn!) that looks like it was torn from the pages of the most virulently anti-Catholic conspiracy theorist of that era...
Also, as part of all that, was usually included: the ecuminical movement/World Council of Churches would try to force all christians to become Roman Catholic or under control of the anti-christ (Never mind that the RC is not a member...); Earthquakes (check) unusuall weather patterns (check), plagues and pestilences, wars and rumors of wars (although I can't think of a time in human history that could not be applied to). War in the middle east, leading to Armeggedon (ok - the middle east is a powder keg, and undergoing major, violent changes right now)...
So, I'm trying to figure out what to make of all this. I'm well aware of the problems associated with Protestentism, and Sola Scriptura interpretations (but, just because an interpretation is based on sola-scriptora methodology doesn't guarantee it's wrong, either). I've lived through at least four end-of-the-world dates, so I'm not impressed with date-guessing. But,
this paper dovetails too well with those things I listened to (and accepted wholesale, at the time)
for me to ignore. The guy in the cheap suit down in the church basement with his scary power-point presentation full of ten-headed monsters suddenly seems a tad more credible...
And that's not something I'm comfortable with. I know Orthodoxy does not dogmatically/officially/universally attempt to interpret "the signs" - at least not since 1492. I know Millenialism and the Rapture (as understood from 17th century protestantism) are specifically rejected. I know, also, that Protestants lean towards a futuristic approach in eschatology, I
think Roman Catholicism tends to lean towards Preterism, and (most) Orthodox lean towards a blend; some things have occurred, some things are yet to come.
And, yes, I know we Orthodox aren't supposed to worry ourselves overmuch with eschatology, but just to seek to work out our salvation with trembling and dread and hope in the Holy Spirit; but, still: we were given prophecies for a reason. I think I'm less bothered by the possibility that we are living in or near the last days than I am by the appearance that the Protestant interpretations - which I've moved away from - have perhaps? "called it right" on this one?
So, eschatologically speaking, what IS to be made of this proposal from the Vatican? Does current Orthodox eschatological thinking generally concur with the above scenario? My understanding was otherwise..
