‘Thy Kingdom Come’

‘Thy Kingdom Come’

©iStock.com/matthewmaude

Don’t let it become a vain repetition.

In the prayer outline Jesus Christ gave in Matthew 6, He told His disciples to pray, “Thy kingdom come.” Today, most people who offer this prayer do so without understanding what it really means.

“Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven,” Christ continued (verse 10). Looking at the world around us, it is clear that God’s will is not being carried out here on Earth today. World leaders recently met in New York for the 66th session of the United Nations General Assembly. For 66 years, world leaders have been working to make peace, yet there have been about 250 armed conflicts between nations since the UN began in 1945—an average of more than four per year.

God’s will, Herbert W. Armstrong wrote, “will not come for the whole world until the Kingdom of God does appear with the coming of Jesus Christ in supreme power and glory, as the King of kings and Lord of lords, ruling all nations in the Kingdom of God!

“The fact that the time is now near—the fact that it is sure!—that is the big good news today. That is the glorious silver lining behind the beclouded wretchedness of today. That is the world’s great hope right now” (co-worker letter, April 28, 1974).

To most people, including the traditional Christian denominations, Jesus Christ’s return to this Earth in power and glory is simply not real!

How real is the Second Coming of Jesus Christ to you?

The Bible’s first promise of a coming Savior who would come to replace Satan on the throne of this Earth is in Genesis 3. This was shortly after Adam and Eve rejected God’s government and decided for themselves what is right and wrong.

Notice especially “her seed” in Genesis 3:15. That refers to Christ. God would allow Satan to “bruise” Christ’s “heel” in causing Him to be crucified. But Christ would bruise Satan’s head by rising from the dead and finally deposing the devil as ruler of the world (see 2 Corinthians 4:4).

Once Adam committed his rebellious act against God, he disqualified himself from replacing Satan on the throne of this Earth, making Christ, as it says in Revelation 13:8, “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”

Throughout the Old Testament, numerous prophets and teachers of God prophesied of a future Messiah and King who would rule this Earth. Moses wrote about His coming in the books of the law. He said God would raise up a prophet from among the people of Israel (Deuteronomy 18:18). David wrote about it in several of the Psalms. Isaiah referred to it in numerous places throughout his book. So did Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Daniel said that Jesus Christ’s dominion would break in pieces and consume all other kingdoms.

Nearly all of the minor prophets refer to this soon-coming King. Micah said the Lord would reign over Israel in mount Zion forever. Zephaniah said, “The Lord thy God in the midst of thee is mighty; he will save, he will rejoice over thee with joy; he will rest in his love, he will joy over thee with singing” (Zephaniah 3:17). Haggai said the nations would shake in the lead-up to His coming. Zechariah said that even in the midst of great rebellion within the Church in this end time, God would send forth His servant, “the Branch.” Zechariah 14 describes that coming in great detail. Malachi said that the Eternal would come suddenly to the temple and that He would be like a refiner’s fire.

One reason so many Jews rejected Jesus Christ at His first coming is because they could not understand that most of these Old Testament prophecies foretold Christ’s Second Coming!

In the New Testament, Luke 1:33 continues with a similar theme, prophesying that Christ would reign on David’s throne forever. Whether in the Old Testament or the New, the Bible’s message is the same: Jesus Christ was born to rule this world as King of kings and Lord of lords!

When Pilate asked Jesus if He was born to be King, Christ responded, “Yes,” but added that His Kingdom was not of this world. This is why Christ did not take over the reigns of that government at His first coming.

Mark 13 and Matthew 24 describe bleak prophecies of events soon to unfold on this Earth as a sign of Christ’s coming. These prophecies could not be viewed with any kind of positive or hopeful focus unless we see what it leads tothe return of Jesus Christ to this Earth!

Here is Jesus Christ speaking to His disciples, already having come to the Earth in the flesh: “And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven” (Mark 13:26-27).

He will come again, He said, out of the clouds, with great power and glory. His angels will come with Him and they will gather the elect of God. This is the first resurrection.

“If I go,” Christ said in John 14, “I will come again.” That is an unbreakable promise! If only the theologians of this world would believe it.

Repeatedly throughout the gospels, Christ said the Kingdom of God is like unto—and then He proceeded to compare it to something you can visualize. The gospel message Jesus preached while on this Earth the first time was about what He would do at His Second Coming!

Mr. Armstrong wrote in Mystery of the Ages, “How amazing—what a tragedy—that in church services and gospel preaching today, one seldom, if ever, hears of Christ as a coming king and world ruler. Spiritual principalities and powers of evil (Ephesians 6:12) are ruling the world today. It is these earthly governments of Satan that will be destroyed and replaced by Christ at His Second Coming. Christ’s Kingdom is of the World Tomorrow!”

In Revelation we find the same message, written several decades after Christ had come and gone: “And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever” (Revelation 11:15). Also read Revelation 19:6 and 22:7.

Whether in the writings of Moses, the book of Daniel, the New Testament gospels or the book of Revelation, the message about the Kingdom of God on Earth is consistent and repetitious.

The good news message of the coming Kingdom of God—it is this world’s only sure hope. It’s why true Christians, when they pray, begin with this earnest, heartfelt petition: Thy Kingdom come!

Barroso on Collision Course With Britain

Barroso on Collision Course With Britain

Patrick Hertzog/AFP/Getty Images

European Commission president wants more integration.

The European Union needs to become an economic union with euro bonds, must speed up decision making and should introduce a financial transaction tax, European Commission President José Manuel Barroso said in his State of the Union speech, September 28.

“We are today faced with the greatest challenge our union has known in all its history,” he said. “I think this is going to be a baptism of fire for a whole generation.” While most in Europe would support his calls for more integration, they are directly opposed to British government policy.

Barroso announced that the Commission had adopted a proposal for a financial transaction tax (ftt). A British Treasury spokesman has already said that the UK will “absolutely resist.” Britain said it would support an ftt that was introduced globally.

At the moment Britain can veto the proposal. But in his speech, Barroso said he wanted to get rid of that power. “A member state has the right not to move,” he said. “But not the right to block the moves of others.”

“Today we have a union where it is the slowest member that dictates the speed of all the other member states,” he said. Britain is that slowest member. Barroso said the EU should consider changing the treaties to stop this.

Barroso also said: “We need to complete our monetary union with an economic union. It was an illusion to think that we could have a common currency and single market with national approaches to economic and budgetary policy. Let’s avoid another illusion that we could have a common currency and single market with an inter-governmental approach …. We need to really integrate the euro area, we need to complete the monetary union with real economic union …. In the coming weeks, the Commission will … present a proposal for a single, coherent framework to deepen economic coordination and integration, particularly in the euro area.”

Given the EU’s unpopularity in Britain, there is no way the UK could go down the road Barroso is heading. It is also clear that Barroso wants to leave Britain in the dust. As the Trumpet has said for years, a parting of the ways is inevitable. At least a small group of EU nations will continue toward a unified Germany-dominated union.

Germany and America Clash Over Debt Crisis

Germany and America Clash Over Debt Crisis

John Thys/AFP/Getty Images

American-backed plan is “a stupid idea,” says German finance minister.

German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble has firmly rejected an American plan to tackle the euro crisis by using loans from the European Central Bank to expand the European Financial Stability Facility (efsf) from $440 billion to $2 trillion.

“The multitrillion package now taking shape for Euroland was largely concocted in Washington, in cahoots with the European Commission, and is being imposed on Germany by the full force of American diplomacy,” writes the Telegraph’s international business editor Ambrose Evans-Pritchard.

Germany is having none of it. Schäuble smacked the plan down September 27, saying, “I don’t understand how anyone in the European Commission can have such a stupid idea.” Ouch. He continued: “The result would be to endanger the aaa sovereign debt ratings of other member states. It makes no sense.”

U.S. President Barack Obama told a public meeting in California that the euro crisis is “scaring the world.” European leaders “are trying to take responsible actions but those actions haven’t been quite as quick as they need to be,” he said September 26.

Schäuble dismissed his comments, saying, “It’s always much easier to give advice to others than to decide for yourself. I am well prepared to give advice to the U.S. government.”

Schäuble’s tumid words were partly driven by the fact that the German parliament was due to vote on the expansion of the efsf’s powers on September 29. If members of parliament had thought the bailout mechanism was about to be expanded again, they may have voted no.

Nonetheless, Schäuble’s put-down is bold, to say the least, especially considering that the United States is keeping Europe’s banks afloat.

Then again, the U.S. is also being audacious pushing Europe toward a strategy that is failing in America. Germany will not be moved. Printing and borrowing money cannot solve any crisis. In the long run, German stubbornness will pay off.

Watch the German-Vatican Relationship

Watch the German-Vatican Relationship

Vincenzo Pinto/AFP/Getty Images

The Vatican’s history with Germany demands we keep a close eye on these two.

Pope Benedict xvi arrived home Sunday from a whirlwind four-day tour through Germany. Apparently the trip was a success, but not a rip-roaring, bring-the-house-down history-making event. “The pontiff put on a good show, but failed to electrify his audience,” was the way Spiegel Online put it.

Reading the mainstream media, one gets the distinct impression that the Vatican is a spent force. The pope, we’re led to believe, is a relic—more a popular curiosity than a serious, influential leader—who spends his days casting pearls before swine drunk on materialism and secularism.

At the Trumpet, our take on Pope Benedict and the Vatican is the precise opposite. For years, even decades now, we have explained to our readers that the Catholic Church will play a central role in the creation of a German-led European superstate. We’ve told readers to expect a Vatican-German alliance to develop, and to watch closely as this church-state combine forms. This forecast is rooted primarily in Bible prophecy. But it’s also rooted in the history of German-Vatican relations—and not just early history like that of Charlemagne, Otto the Great and the Habsburgs.

Most have forgotten today, but the Vatican was central to the rise of the Third Reich.

Take Eugenio Pacelli, the man who became Pope Pius xii, otherwise known as “Hitler’s pope.” Some are aware that Pope Pius xii turned a blind eye during World War ii as Italian Jews were driven past his doorstep in Rome, crammed into trains and dispatched to extermination camps in northern Europe. Some few know about the Vatican ratlines, the Catholic-controlled network through which key Nazi officials were smuggled out of Europe at the end of the war.

Very few, however, remember the role this Vatican official played in the rise of Nazi Germany.

It’s a remarkable history—one we must keep in mind.

As Benito Mussolini’s grip on Italy tightened during the 1920s, he proclaimed the Holy Roman Empire restored. In February 1929, Mussolini signed a pact with the Vatican, making Roman Catholicism the only recognized religion in fascist Italy. This agreement, known as the Lateran Treaty, delighted Pope Pius xi, who spoke of Mussolini as “a man sent by Providence.”

The creation of the Lateran Treaty had enormous impact on another budding authoritarian, a man determined to follow Mussolini’s example. Just days after the signing of the Lateran Treaty, Adolf Hitler wrote an article for the Völkischer Beobachter praising the agreement. Hitler held no political office at the time, but as he witnessed the role of the Vatican in Mussolini’s rise he realized the tremendous importance of having the Catholic Church as an ally. Like Charlemagne and emperors of the Holy Roman Empire before him, Hitler knew he needed the support of the Vatican if he was to exercise full control over Germany, Europe and eventually the world.

Enter Eugenio Pacelli. Pacelli was the papal nuncio (ambassador) to the German state from 1918 to 1930. In February 1930, Pacelli was appointed the Vatican’s secretary of state and moved back to Rome. As secretary of state, Pacelli’s primary goal was to sign an agreement with Germany. Thanks to his 11 years living in Germany, during which he developed a network of contacts and became intimate with the political machinations of government, Pacelli knew exactly which strings to pull to achieve his goal.

Almost immediately, Pacelli set about endorsing the Nationalist-Nazi-Catholic coalition that brought Hitler to the German chancellorship. For example, after he moved from Bavaria to Rome to take up his responsibilities as secretary of state in February 1930, Pacelli started spending time in the company of Monsignor Ludwig Kaas, a former Catholic priest and the leader of Germany’s Center Party, the nation’s Catholic party. Together, Pacelli and Kaas drafted a Reich Concordat, a formal treaty between Germany and the Vatican, and discussed strategies for bringing a government to power in Berlin that would look favorably on this concordat. Both Pius xi and Cardinal Pacelli encouraged Kaas and the Center Party leadership to explore the advantages of cooperation with the Nazis.

By the time Germany’s governing coalition fell apart in January 1933, Pacelli and his allies were ready to make their move. It was Catholic Center Party Deputy Franz von Papen who persuaded German President Paul von Hindenberg to grant Hitler the chancellorship of a Nationalist-Nazi-Catholic coalition in which Papen was to be vice chancellor.

In January 1933, thanks largely to the meddling of Cardinal Pacelli, Hitler was installed as Germany’s chancellor!

Although chancellor, Hitler was still handcuffed by Germany’s democratic rules. In an effort to circumvent democracy and establish his authoritarian rule, Hitler thrust the Enabling Act—an act that would grant him supreme, unchecked power—before the German parliament. At that point, all that stood between Hitler and dictatorship was the Center Party (predominantly Catholic) and the German National People’s Party.

Thankfully for him, Ludwig Kaas, an influential voice in the Center Party and long-time instrument of Pacelli and the Vatican, immediately embarked on a campaign to convince Center Party politicians to vote “yes” to the Enabling Act. On March 23, after a few weeks of campaigning, Hitler and Kaas stood before the Reichstag and implored politicians to support the Enabling Act. The plea was successful. When the Reichstag voted later that evening, the Center Party, followed by every political party except for the Social Democrats, voted yes.

It was remarkable; democracy had signed its own death warrant. On March 23, the Reichstag granted Hitler the power to pass laws and make treaties without the future consent of the government—or anyone else in Germany!

Once again the Vatican, particularly via Kaas, was essential in furthering Hitler’s ambition for supreme control of Germany. In fact, the day after the Enabling Act passed, Kaas visited Pacelli in Rome, where he, in his own words, “investigate[d] the possibilities for a comprehensive understanding between church and state.” As soon as he took office, Hitler showed his gratitude to Pope Pius xi and Cardinal Pacelli by forming a peace pact—the first of the Third Reich—with the Vatican.

Cardinal Pacelli and German Vice Chancellor Franz von Papen signed the historic Reich Concordat on July 20, 1933—less than four months after Hitler was officially granted the powers of a dictator.

In his book Adolf Hitler, author John Toland recalls the Vatican’s enthusiasm for entering into a relationship with the Third Reich. “The church agreed to keep priest and religion out of politics while Hitler, among other things, granted complete freedom to confessional schools throughout the country, a notable victory for German Catholics. His Holiness welcomed Hitler’s representative, Franz von Papen, most graciously and remarked how pleased he was that the German government now had at its head a man uncompromisingly opposed to communism and Russian nihilism in all its forms.”

Though it was early in his reign, Hitler had made public his disdain for Jews, his disregard for democracy and even his larger ambition for conquering Europe. In spite of all this, the Vatican was quick to endorse Hitler’s dictatorship.

“The Vatican was so appreciative of being recognized as a full partner that it asked God to bless the Reich,” Toland writes. “On a more practical level, it ordered German bishops to swear allegiance to the National Socialist regime. The new oath concluded with these significant words: ‘In the performance of my spiritual office and in my solicitude for the welfare and interest of the German Reich, I will endeavor to avoid all detrimental acts which might endanger it.’”

When you read this history you have to wonder: How successful would Hitler’s Nazi Party have been without the support of the Catholic Church?

In 1935, Heinrich Brüning, the man who in May 1932 had been squeezed from the chancellorship by Hitler and his supporters, revealed who he believed was primarily responsible for the alliance between the Nazis and the Vatican. “Behind the agreement with Hitler stood not the pope, but the Vatican bureaucracy and its leader, Pacelli,” he said. “He visualized an authoritarian state and an authoritarian church directed by the Vatican bureaucracy, the two to conclude an eternal league with one another.”

Many today have trouble admitting Hitler’s connection with the Vatican. Nevertheless, it is true: Without the support of the Vatican, Hitler very likely would never have gained supreme power over Germany. It was the same with Charlemagne, Otto the Great and the Habsburgs. Germany and the Vatican have a history of working together to subjugate Europe.

Doesn’t history demand we watch these two closely?

How to Win an Election in Russia

How to Win an Election in Russia

Getty Images

The bombshell announcement that was no surprise at all

That’s how they do it in Russia.

Here, the United States is gearing up for an ugly presidential election, and we have more than a year of pomp, theatrics, name-calling, mudslinging, attack ads and impossible promises to look forward to.

This past Saturday, Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev, Russia’s prime minister and president, announced that they would save the Russians the hassles of a truly free and fair election next year—and simply switch jobs.

At the annual conference of the ruling United Russia party on Saturday, President Medvedev said he would not run for reelection in 2012, and proposed that Mr. Putin return to that office for a third term. Putin accepted the invitation, and proposed Medvedev’s candidacy as prime minister, which Medvedev accepted.

It’s all so convenient. Sure, technically these are just proposals—nothing formal. But, realistically, this is about as close to a lock for an election you can get outside of North Korea.

Mr. Putin actually revealed that all the way back in 2007, Medvedev, before becoming president, agreed to step down after serving only one term. “[W]e actually discussed this variant of events while we were first forming our comradely alliance,” Putin said on Saturday.

The idea that Putin the strongman was only Russia’s second-most-powerful leader was always a farce. He was president from 2000 to 2008, but the constitution blocked him from running for a third consecutive four-year term. He picked Medvedev to succeed him. That’s how they do it in Russia.

For the last four years, then, President Medvedev has been something of a puppet while Putin assumed the prime ministership and chaired United Russia. In this position, Putin has enjoyed enhanced control of the legislature. Unsurprisingly, an amendment was successfully pushed into the constitution that bumped presidential terms to six years. Thus, the path is now cleared for Mr. Putin to stay in the Kremlin for another 12 years.

Most people in the West shed no tears after the Soviet Union dissolved and Russia stumbled and bumbled through the 1990s. Vladimir Putin, by contrast, called the ussr’s collapse the “greatest tragedy of the 20th century.” Like most of his countrymen, he views the 1990s as a decade of humiliation. When he took leadership of Russia in 2000, the shrewd ex-kgb agent aggressively went about setting things right again. And he made impressive gains.

During his two presidential terms, Putin wrestled a new brand of capitalism onto the Russian stage. In 1998, the country was bankrupt. During his eight years in the Kremlin, Russia’s economy grew at an average of 7 to 8 percent per year, and its currency appreciated 20 percent in value.

President Putin streamlined his nation’s political architecture in order to amass his personal power. He created policies whereby the Kremlin can prevent virtually whomever it pleases from participating in politics. He consolidated and nationalized his nation’s formidable energy resources and used them as foreign-policy weapons. He oversaw an oil-and-gas-driven economic revival that boosted Russia past Saudi Arabia in 2009 to become the world’s leading energy exporter.

Even with Medvedev in the presidency, Russia’s upward trajectory has continued. When nasa retired its space shuttles this summer, Russia gained a monopoly on station crew shuttle flights, a service that costs over $50 million per astronaut. Putin has rebuilt his country’s military, and just this month coaxed Ukraine into participating for the first time in a major military training drill jointly with Russian and Belarusian forces.

However, there is an ugly underbelly to this success story. In the process of lifting Russia from its 1990s stagnation, Putin has brutally quashed an uprising in Chechnya, silenced most independent Russian media, opened the Nord Stream pipeline running into Germany and tightening Moscow’s grip on Eastern Europe, attacked human rights organizations, and intimidated his rivals into silence. His government has been implicated in multiple seedy incidents: the poisoning of Ukraine’s pro-Western presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko before its 2004 elections; a broad-scale cyberattack against Estonia after it relocated a Soviet-era statue; the murder of journalist Anna Politkovskaya; the fatal poisoning of spy-turned-Putin-critic Alexander Litvinenko. In late 2009, Putin said the “reunification” of Georgia with Russia has “already been decided,” which many viewed as a call for restoration of Moscow’s control over Georgia. When the U.S. said it would build a missile shield in Eastern Europe, Russia threatened to bomb it.

In short, Vladimir Putin has orchestrated a staggering and rapid return to international prominence and power for Russia—and in classic Russian authoritarian style. Russia was walloped by the global economic downturn shortly after Putin left the presidency, but it is recovering, and throwing its weight around at international conferences. It is expanding its armed forces. It is establishing military bases on the Black Sea. It is conducting naval exercises in Asia and Latin America. It is constructing new pipelines to pump its natural gas and oil into other nations. It is helping with Iran’s nuclear program. It is pushing back at nato expansion. It is working with Central Asian countries to undermine U.S. and European proposals to build oil and gas pipelines that bypass Russia. It is joining its voice with China’s in calls to undercut the U.S. dollar.

In response to the news of Putin’s return to the Kremlin, Europeans are having Cold War nightmares. They haven’t forgotten their bloody history with Russia, and deeply fear the return of the Soviet bear. Putin’s heavy-handed tactics recall that history. Europeans well know: That’s how they do it in Russia.

The Trumpet has long said that Russian democracy is a sham. When Medvedev assumed the presidency, we predicted that though Medvedev would keep the seat warm, Putin would return: “Putin has marshaled the return of Russia to great-power status, and he is not about to become hands-off,” we wrote on Nov. 12, 2008. “Bible prophecy shows that Russia’s resurgence will be a catalyst for the emergence of a unified European superstate—and subsequently contribute to an enormously destructive world war.”

Russia is still armed to the hilt with nuclear weapons. And now, to make matters worse, Europe is deeply dependent on Russian energy. This situation calls to mind an electrifying biblical prophecy. Back in 2003, Vladimir Putin secured tremendous personal power in national elections—power he has since expanded even further. At that time, our editor in chief pointed to this prophecy. In his January 2004 Trumpet cover story, “Russia Frightens Europe—and Fulfills Bible Prophecy,” he wrote, “The Russian election is triggering a fear that will hasten the uniting of the European Union. The Russian election will cause Germany and other European nations to want a stronger leader. Throughout history, Germany has often sought a strong leader. Bible prophecy says it will do so again—for the last time!”

Read Mr. Flurry’s entire article to see how Europe’s fear over Russia’s growing power is directly prophesied in the Bible. Those prophecies clearly describe how Russia’s resurgence will actually help ignite and draw together a European superstate—and subsequently contribute to an enormously destructive world war. Our booklet Russia and China in Prophecy explains the whole picture.

The return of Russia as a fearsome totalitarian power was forecast in Scripture. We’re seeing it before our eyes.

Shocking home invasion reveals generations of hatred

Philadelphia appears to be a simmering cauldron of anger. On September 9, dozens of teenagers carrying bats, pipes and at least one firearm descended on the Port Richmond community. The angry mob of black and Hispanic youths was looking for a couple of white teenagers who had allegedly pushed an African-American youth off his bike at a nearby playground a couple of hours earlier.

As the unruly mob entered the community, two fearful white teens caught in their path began running for their life, begging homeowner Mark LaVelle to let them into his house.

Just as LaVelle slammed his door shut, the aggressive mob surged up his porch. LaVelle yelled for his wife to hide their children in the bedroom and call the police.

The angry mob began banging on his windows and door. Someone shouted, “Something’s going to happen now!”

Then someone kicked the door so hard it slammed open, and some of the angry teenagers came flooding in. The scene quickly descended into chaos, as the Philadelphia Daily News reports:

“The first guy hits me with a pipe. The second guy knocks me in the face. All I’m hearing is my wife and kids screaming,” said LaVelle, who feared that the next time they saw him, he would be in a casket.He said that he was able to push the attackers out the door, but then a third man—who had a gun—tried to extend his arm. LaVelle grabbed onto the gunman’s lower arm and shoulder so he couldn’t raise the weapon. Then, police sirens screamed in the neighborhood, and the mob turned and ran.

As reported by the Philadelphia Daily News, police apprehended some of the youths, and LaVelle was able to identify three of the attackers.

But, as if this assault wasn’t shocking enough by itself, the insanity wasn’t—and isn’t—over.

LaVelle said that the next day, the mother of the juvenile [with the gun] came back with some other people, banging on his door, screaming. LaVelle, who was at a charity sports event, was called back to the house by one of his sons.When he got home, LaVelle said, the mother yelled at him, “You … got my kid locked up! You got my son locked up because he’s black, you’re white!” The mother claimed that her son had been “a witness,” not an attacker. To that, LaVelle said if that were true, it would come out in court.But the mother, according to LaVelle, then yelled: “If you make it to court! I know where you live!”

Wow. As if this man hadn’t gone through enough. He didn’t even know the white teens who were being chased two hours after the African-American youth was knocked off his bike. Now this man lives in fear that someone is going to kill him as revenge—revenge for the dastardly act of opening his door.

Look at this disproportionate act of violence. One youth allegedly gets pushed off his bicycle, and a mob descends on a nearby community with bats, pipes and guns. Philadelphia is simmering with hatred ready to boil over.

If the attack was racially motivated—as it seems certain it was—you can see where the teenagers took their cue from: their parents.

Multigenerational hatred is not only still extant in America, it is getting worse. For the Bible’s perspective on where incidents like this are leading, read “America: Why Race Riots Are Inevitable.”