Understood Jack. And for the most part i would agree with your views in many places. There are nuances of where i might not so much. And these are areas we will likely see differently in. But can have a place in general to observe.
911
I agree for example that pastors should not use the pulpit to belittle the views of other pastors. At the same time, I can see some of the honest concerns over 911 approaches even from our own forum. I don’t dismiss them as trying to stir up issues if they are genuine notices of concern that makes sense as to why. Namely, there is a risk to use controveral 911 (already controversial in the public domain–many think its conspiracy theory to begin with) and even more controversial to focus on some of its even more controversal elements such as no planes.
To me it is very reasonable to disagree with using such a theme to help the world at large see deception if this is such an unsettled issue in the hearts of likely most Americans. To that, it makes sense why some pastor would take issue (although shaming would not be the way to do it in my estimation). To me it makes sense why some on our forum would. Reasonably. Not because of strife but just because they are honestly processing differently and notice concerns that can be table talk with merit.
I too won’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. I would just see it as not the best use of history as well as not the best thing for pastors to shame over it. In my honest view, what disclosing the deception of 911 (which i agree is) is at least on equal par with is “reveal” as it is “deceive.” The axiomatic tension and difference on that point will be a matter of ones perspective. I tend to see our age far more discript by “reveal” than “deception” because we see deception on front stree so much clearer in “reveal” it makes sense to be like: chicken or the egg? The reason i would lean with “reveal” is because i would axiomatically view the rubric of our age to be the one sliding into Revelation. And one main thematic overture to spell that out in the clouds, as it were, would be: reveal.
CHRISTIAN NATIONALISM
I agree the view poinst on this are widly off throughout the various Christian camps. I do not see America as a Chrsitian nation to begin with. However i don’t throw that baby out with the bathwater either. I believe the concern in many churches is: can we make a difference for the betterance of our fellow citizens in our assaulted country. If by the label of Christian Nationalism some operate in the sphere for lack of a better POV, i would see (beyond the rhetoric) they are honestly hopeful to proverbially meet darkness with light. Or to take it out of the New Age distortion of that language: Prov 14:34, 12:10, 3:27 (keeping CRT and Transgenderism out of schools is good to your neighbor), And Jeremiah 29:7. To view that light as potentially not allowable light…well…i believe that is where the real debate is.
AMERICA’S FUTURE
Thanks for sharing your view Jack. And i would say most if not all on this forum would share that view with you. However, I would be one swiming upstream in that sense. What happens in the future with America is in God’s hands. So your view and this forum’s view on the future of America tanking is also shared by pastors outside this church. Those that don’t share that tend to be Qanon-ish. But I don’t let Q status guide my observations on the matter. As i would dare to say neither do you nor this forum.
I think we are all considering biblically what we are looking at. I believe though labeling America as done, in my estimation a cessationist, a little too gimicky (like believing we know the future). And although some valuable teaching even from Macarthur as to why one could come to terms with a Romans 1 evolving of sinful nation crash view upon this country, I would see something like that as excellent exegesis serving as potential prophecy…which Macarthur does not believe is occuring today (that one can prophesy the future). So i would see us coming to this conclusion in spades (the evidence is clear and is out there that America is doomed). And it may indeed be accurate.
However, i tend to see America as Babylon the Great. So i believe we remain till the end and then tank like no other. We are a great qaulifier for that being the most powerful country in world history to date. But there are reaonsable arguments against this view. So i could be wrong. But i bring this up not to argue the point, for we will differ. But i bring it up because of the different axioms we might be coming from in respect to other issues like: a) the place of deception today vs. “revealing,” b) the tension of National Christianity and why some might have reasonable biblical intent although under the wrong ideological premise, and c) what exactly this transition period in the age of grace means. Those are all different paradigms i beieve.
My view is not only is America not done, but will become an even more super power while the church is here likely to see it does not go over so well in our forum. But, I don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
In part i would agree. But i don’t look at that as useless discussion if it addresses larger arenas of consideration. I do not believe that every conversation should cease and just focus on Christ and the bible. Throughout the ages it took hundereds of years to see in refined fashion several doctrines we hold dear today. I would just see the point of distinction between NAR and SOF is “deception” vs “reveal.” We can say they don’t matter because the country is done and we are going home soon so just focus on Christ. And as the heading of this update is dealing with calm, i’d just say it is calm too that we might be here a while and under a banner of a tonage of reveal to come. And in that sense yes it leaves a movie and cult in the dust…but might be a beautiful calm if the church trojectory leans toward “revealings.” Whether than ends America or gives her a popeye pipe with spinach in it. 
Just saying. In any case so glad you are willing and gifted in conversation brother. It is very precious. Blessing.
