President Obama's special envoy to Egypt, Frank Wisner, told the international security conference in Germany, that Mr Mubarak was needed to oversee a transition to democracy.
What made the story top news was that the USA was disowning his comments. Meanwhile BBC News Hour interviewed an Israeli representative saying that they didn't actually want democracy in Egypt because it might result in a government that was hostile to Israel and therefore wanted Mubarak to stay because he was friendly towards them. So, who is supporting Mubarak? Israel?
Alongside this I am getting emails from Christians in Egypt, some with prophetic tone:
I sensed a strong urgency from the LORD saying: "As the people of Egypt presented their requests to Mubarak, I am calling on My people to rise up before me and present their requests to me for their nation". I went on to hear the LORD: "Let the Holy Council assemble".
The email then went on to become more political in nature telling of huge demonstrations, in a Mustapha Mahmoud Square which is somewhat smaller than Tahir:
The numbers had grown even more, POSSIBLY OVER A MILLION. As we drove home we saw the same slogans on banners all over the city, on cars, on walls, on shop windows.
Claiming there were banners all over the place saying things like:
- yes to stability, yes to Mubarak
- give change a chance
- we are sorry Mr. president
- we accept dialogue, we trust you
And then asking why the BBC and CNN and Al Jazeerah TV were not filming this. Good question and I asked the sender why these people had not uploaded video to You Tube to show the size of these demonstrations.
But that was not the end. I then got a second email from another source also claiming to have first hand evidence of these pro-Mubarak protests. The interesting thing about this second email from a different person was that some paragraphs were word for word identical to the first source. Hmmm... now that is facinating. I wonder if I will get a third and a fourth eye witness also with word for word identical paragraphs. I guess the more I get the more credible it will be.
Which brings me back to the BBC interviewing a representative of the US administration who was looking for a 'credible democracy' in Egypt. I guess like the credible threat of nuclear or chemical attacks from Iraq before the Gulf war. In English, when we hear credible in that context, we translate it to mean 'believable but untrue'. I don't think that's quite the way it is intended in American!
So where does that leave followers of Jesus? What does our Father want in this situation?
Paul in one of the epistles talks about being 'in the world, not of the world' and the early followers of Jesus really confused people. They were totally integrated into society, more so that other groups, yet at the same time they were obviously separated and didn't fight wars etc. They saw the 'Kingdom of God' as a present reality not a future hope.
Down through the centuries other Christians have take alternative positions: fighting wars (the infamous 'Crusades', which was the same word George Bush once used about the invision of Iraq), taking radical political positions (eg Desmund Tutu and Jim Wallis) and so on.
Jesus wept over Jerusalem, and I am sure our Father weeps today over what is happening in the world He has leant us. I believe we somehow need to get back to being 'relational Christians', totally engaged with the men and women in the society we live and expressing our Father's love for them, yet somehow separated from the political and other battles around us. The Kingdom of God is both present reality and future hope.
Posts
