[ Previous | Home Page | 1996 Index | 1997 Index | 1998 Index | Next ]
Eschatology and a United Earth:
does our future blind us to opportunities?
by Justin D. Long
The future is something that nearly everyone is at least somewhat interested in. You might not be interested in the future in general, but you're certainly interested in the future of your checkbook balance, and how it can be increased... or the future of your children... or the future of your marriage... or your future house... or the future of the book you're writing... or the future of the ministry you're involved in.
Eschatology (the study of the end-times) and futurism (the study of the future in general) are both red-hot topics in their respect spheres. A whole section of the World Christian Encyclopedia is devoted to future events, as is our book, "Cosmos, Chaos & Gospel." But often our views on the future can blind us to the possibilities.
Ask yourself this question: How many times, when you're talking with a Christian in a local church, has the topic of the end times, the Antichrist, or some other related subject come up? By the same token, how many times has frontier missions--or missions at all--become the topic of casual conversation? At your local Christian bookstore, how many books are devoted to eschatology (the study of the endtimes) - and how many to missions among the unreached of the world?
It's interesting Christians can get so caught up in these issues, and forget about their basic commission. We've met many believers who are more interested in defending their rights and protecting their futures than they are in sharing the gospel. Is that right?
There are three separate issues that we want to address over the next three weeks: digital cash, interfaith dialogue and the advantages of a one world government. We'll look at these in sequence, and we welcome your comments.
Technology is something that, as we've touched on earlier, many people are afraid of--particularly those who are concerned about the biblical end-times and the rise of the Antichrist. There's a growing concern in many corners over the immediate future of "digital cash" or "e-cash"--electronic cash for "online" transactions over the Internet or via smart cards. This is particularly true as VISA debuts its "smart" cash card at the 1996 Olympics, enabling the elimination of paper money in favor of a digital card.
Proponets of e-cash point to the numerous benefits: it's one more weapon to monitor and track illegal transactions; it's safer than carrying around a lot of money; it's easier to use and easier to manage. I personally find the latter part appealing; I recently got a Debit Card which directly debits my checking account, and now I never have to worry about leaving my checkbook at home.
Opponents of e-cash point to an increasing invasion of privacy. Every transaction is put on a computer somewhere (but then, so are checks right now). Eventually, say many, e-cash will lead the way to a computer-contr olled system where large blocks of people can be exiled from the economic system--the veritable mark of the beast.
These are valid concerns: but do they prevent us from using a tool that can help us evangelize the world?
Historically, there have been many times when the world was largely ruled by a single empire, and the whole of the world shared certain common things. For example, when Jesus came, the world was ruled by the Romans. It had a common road system, a common trade language, a common currency, and a common government.
Of course, there were disadvantages--the Roman empire persecuted the Christians horribly, and set itself up as god to be worshipped. Still, that didn't stop Christians from spreading the Gospel, and may have in fact helped. Moreover, the many technological and practical advantages of a one-world government enabled the Gospel to spread quickly.
Peter, John and Paul undoubtedly used Roman currency without concern that it was the "mark of the Beast." Why? Because the mark is not an economic system--it is a religious allegiance. We of course cannot ever accept or condone such a change of allegiance.
But E-cash isn't the "mark" anymore than ATMs are. Perhaps, one day in the future, no one will be able to use E-cash without the "mark": but that's not the same as equating the two. As for invasion of privacy, nearly everything we say, do, and buy is being tracked now--but would we act any differently if no one was watching?