TODAY'S TOPIC:

Tony Blair Is Not the Antichrist

by
Natalia J. Garland

Print Version

Tony Blair cannot be the Antichrist. If you are shocked by that statement, it is because: (A) You already firmly believe that Blair is the Antichrist, or (B) You are unaware that some Christians have developed a biblical formula that posits Blair as the Antichrist. I was unaware of these beliefs and rumors about Blair when I began writing the Post-Iraq Views of the New Year series. And, Blair's 10 Lessons did not strike me as anti-Christian. However, it recently came to my attention that some Christian individuals and groups have pinpointed Blair as the Antichrist or as a prototype of the Antichrist. Therefore, I shall attempt to address this issue. So, this essay is really an addendum to Part III of the Post-Iraq series.

My Concerns about End-times Predictions

There seem to be five major points associated with the designation of Blair as the Antichrist. (1) Biblical prophecy, especially from the Book of Daniel and from Revelation. (2) Blair's involvement with the European Union and the possibility of his becoming its first full-time president.* (3) Blair's conversion to Roman Catholicism which gives him access to the Pope and the Vatican. (4) His founding of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation. (5) His support of a peaceful co-existence between Palestine and Israel.

(1) It is beyond the scope of this essay to dig into biblical prophecy. My emphasis will be on this: there have been many false predictions of the end-times. Predictions are difficult to prove or disprove within any current world conditions. It is all a matter of biblical interpretation, and matching current events to the interpretation. If specific names, dates, and places are included in the prediction, such as is true of the assertions about Blair, then only the passing of time can indicate whether or not those beliefs become fulfilled in reality. For example, if Blair is a prototype of the Antichrist, we will not really know this until the real Antichrist appears and begins his unholy deeds.

If Blair, who is 56 years old, is the Antichrist, then he has relatively little time remaining (depending on his health) in which to gain dominance over the world's systems. That means many of us who are alive today will see this happen. If Blair is a prototype of the Antichrist, then Christians will continue to anticipate the appearance of the real Antichrist. Will the real one appear while Blair is still alive, or after his death? And, if Blair is a prototype, does that mean he is evil? Or is he just a hapless human sign of things to come?

End-times speculation is often drawn from the Book of Daniel and from Revelation, as well as various other biblical passages pertaining to prophecy or description of the last days. The interpretation of prophecy includes the assessment of geography, historical and political dynamics, and numbers (dates, adding numbers together, and the meaning of 666 or the mark of the beast). Then, current people, places, and events are plugged into the interpretation. The result is a formula-based prediction with a certain level of precision according to the context of each individual's end-time prediction.

It is not my intention to criticize the study of end-times. End-times is a part of the Bible and, therefore, a legitimate area of study. Christians need to know the Bible. However, I have three concerns about actual speculation on people, places, and events. (A) Such teachings can be incorrect and even disastrous (I am referring to cults such as the Jim Jones group). (B) It seems almost the entire focus of some churches, while the behavioral and spiritual aspects of redemption receive less attention. (C) In some instances, it has turned into a money-making undertaking with the selling of books and CD's. Now, there is nothing wrong with Christians making money from their knowledge. However, if it were absolutely essential that average Christians understand the details of the end-times, why not provide this information freely instead of charging $60.00 for a packaged deal on a book and a couple of CD's?

What if Blair is indeed the Antichrist? What should we do? If we tried to stop him, then we would be interfering with God's plan. If we did nothing, then we would be enablers or accomplices. What if Blair is not the Antichrist? Would certain Christians not be guilty of heresy? How many Christians have been misled by incompetent and overly confident preachers? Has mental or spiritual harm been done to Blair? It would seem, at best, that any emphasis on end-times should be used as an evangelistic tool. In other words, if people felt the shortness of life, or the overall brevity of time in a spiritual sense, then perhaps that would prompt conversion to Christianity and the transformation of lifestyle, relationships, and outlook.

(2) Apparently, some Christians interpret Blair's involvement with the European Union as the beginning of a one-world government over which the Antichrist will eventually rule. This means that the Antichrist will originate from or will station himself within Europe. There are some Christians--not just those who pinpoint Blair--who believe that Europe will be the center of Antichrist activity. If Blair becomes the full-time president of the European Union, then it is convenient to plug in his name as the Antichrist. What if Blair does not become its president? Would that change the interpretation of prophecy? Or, would Blair's name have to be removed from the biblical formula and someone else's name plugged in? If so, then error was committed and people were misled.

Is Blair politically ambitious? Possibly. Many world leaders desire power, control, authority, fame, wealth, importance. This is nothing new. Does Blair hope to be of service to Europe, the United States, and the world? We know that Blair was America's strongest partner in the war on terror. Even after the Iraq War became very unpopular, Blair remained America's friend and supporter. Did Blair attach himself to George W. Bush just to acquire world recognition? If so, why did Blair not detach from Bush as Bush became increasingly hated throughout America and the world? Why would the Antichrist maintain such conviction and loyalty?

One would have to believe that Blair was so malevolent as to want to kill terrorists only for the purpose of getting them out of the way to make his domination of the world easier. One would have to believe that Blair was so cunning as to seize solidarity with Americans in a time of great need only for the purpose of concealing his evil intentions.

However, Blair suffered politically for his alliance with Bush. He eventually resigned from his post as Prime Minister. Below are some selected quotations from his farewell speech to the British people.

(3) Blair converted to Catholicism after he ceased to be Prime Minister. Did he do this to reinforce involvement with the European Union? Most Europeans are Roman Catholic, with a growing population of Muslims. Did Blair want to attach himself to the Pope as a new political partner? Or, were there other reasons for his conversion? Blair is married to a Catholic woman, and they sent their children to Catholic schools. This is very uncommon in England, and it would probably require conviction and strength of character to go against the cultural norm.

Why did Blair not convert to Catholicism sooner? This was possibly due to his position as Prime Minister. British officials tend to belong to the Church of England. Blair identified himself as an Anglo-Catholic, which is a branch of the Church of England. It could be argued that Blair followed a religious path that was politically self-serving. Perhaps. However, Blair was in a tight spot. He was, nevertheless, a believer in Christ although not officially aligned with the Catholic Church. It would seem that his conversion to Catholicism was not a matter of belief in God, but of doctrine and church structure.

Nevertheless, Blair has been criticized by the Catholic Church for some of his liberal political views, and criticized by others for leaning toward some New Age practices. He and his wife are reported to own "magic pendants" and to have participated in a rebirthing ceremony. (Let us not forget that Nancy Reagan was involved in astrology.) But how does Blair describe his spiritual journey?

It seems, for Blair, that religion and the world make sense when there is a social aspect. Blair does not seem to fall into the contemplative or ascetic categories. And, his personal relationship with God seems obstructed by his feeling that God is remote. However, there are many Christians (and non-believers) who struggle with this same issue.

(4) During the writing of the Post-Iraq series, I could not find any information on the Tony Blair Faith Foundation. Either it did not have an internet presence, or the website was malfunctioning when I did my research. My major interest at that time, anyway, was in Blair's 10 Points and how these points could contribute to: (A) A definition of legitimate religion as opposed to religious fanaticism, (B) A definition of true faith as opposed to a true church, and (C) How these definitions could help people of different backgrounds to confront terrorism. However, in the process of writing today's essay, I located the website without any difficulty.

Those who view Blair as the Antichrist apparently think that he is using his Foundation to establish a one-world religion. According the Foundation's website, however, one of its goals is to develop understanding and cooperation among Christians, Jews, Muslims and people of other major religions for the purpose of working together to solve world problems. Another goal is to find ways to maintain one's faith in a modern and globalized world.

Nothing on the website seems aggressively or obviously anti-Christian. The Foundation, at worst, has a multi-faith and multicultural approach. In other words, it does not prefer one religion over another, but emphasizes education on different belief systems and cooperative service to others. How is this going to create a one-world religion? In order to do that, Blair would have to blend together the common social themes of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and form one generalized religion under his leadership (presumably his leadership as president of the E.U.). This would not be impossible, but Blair would have to work quickly to accomplish this in his lifetime. If Blair is a prototype of the Antichrist, then someone else would have to carry on the Foundation's work after his death or create another similar arrangement.

What is the difference between the work of Blair's Foundation and the work of an organized church? Blair's humanitarian projects involve multi-faith cooperation, while a church's projects (missionary work, service programs, etc.) include the saving of souls and the glorification of Jesus Christ. That is a great difference, but the former is not necessarily antagonistic to the latter.

However, we know that some Protestant groups--and it seems that evangelical Protestants are the ones who pinpoint Blair--have a history of anti-Catholicism and anti-Papery, and regard praying to the Virgin Mary and the saints as cult religion. One might suspect that the remnants of anti-Catholicism are at work in the negative speculation on Blair. Some Protestants also object to the A.A. concept of a Higher Power and the Twelve Steps.

The Faith Foundation is not Blair's only project. He also established the Tony Blair Sports Foundation. Those who pinpoint Blair seem not to mention how or if his Sports Foundation fits into any end-times prediction.

As mentioned earlier, some Christians believe that Europe will be the center of Antichrist activity. The Antichrist will create a new Roman Empire. Since Blair converted to Catholicism, that would seem to allow him greater acceptance among Europeans as well as access to the Vatican. Hence, his name is plugged into a biblical formula according to the one-world government and one-world religion perspective.

Before moving on to the final point, let me digress and say that some Christians are also anti-psychotherapy. There are some who believe that psychotherapy is demonic. To read more on this topic, see my essays: Doers of the Word which I wrote in December, 2005, and Freud Deserves Respect which I wrote in February, 2008.

(5) Blair is in favor of peaceful co-existence between Palestine and Israel. Now, support for Israel is a major component in some Protestant churches. For the purpose of today's essay, I am not agreeing or disagreeing with this stance. But, it must be noted that Blair's position on Palestine seems to complete the Antichrist picture for some Christians. Regarding peaceful relations, however, Blair contributed to the Northern Ireland Peace Process, and his work helped to develop the Good Friday Agreement.

Blair's Multi-Faith Setup

Beyond the biblical formulas--that is, the geographical and political interpretations--is there anything about Blair's Foundation that is actually anti-Christ. Would professing Christians be excluded, shunned, or persecuted? Would any Christian member be forced to deny that Jesus Christ is the Son of God? Let's see what the Foundation says about maintaining one's religion within its multi-faith setup.

The above three paragraphs seem to confirm the social aspect of Blair's spirituality, as well as his goal to solve world problems through an understanding of one another and through humanitarian projects. But how does the Foundation implement its multi-faith approach? The Foundation offers certain principles, projects, recommended readings, and resources for teachers who want to offer their students lessons on religion. This is an area where some churches (temples and mosques) and parents might feel uncomfortable.

Let's focus on the Art of Expression. The sections on charity and environment are practical and fit within the scope of the Foundation's stated goals. (I am overlooking whether or not global warming is a legitimate issue--for the sake of argument and in order to stay focused.) The Art of Expression, however, discusses truth and beauty. Truth is different from practical or cultural commonalities. For the Christian, there can be no truth except as taught by Jesus Christ. If the Bible is the Word of God, then Christians will not find truth in other religions.

As for finding beauty in art and sacred texts, this would be more appropriate for art history courses and literature courses. This kind of study is also more appropriate for older students who are already well-grounded in their own faith, or for adults who have no religion and who are searching. Those parts of the third section could be omitted. Let students learn about and understand one another through the processes of charitable and environmental studies and projects. The third section also includes a module on political themes. This should be the focus of free expression: discussion of freedom and oppression rather than truth and beauty. And, discussion of freedom of expression would have to include the study of democracy and constitutions. Perhaps it would be better if students studied the Great Books of Western Civilization instead of various sacred texts.

The result of a focus on religious truth and beauty, even if unintended, is that all religions might appear the same. There could be a leveling off of the negative aspects in order to find common positive aspects which would enable people to work together. Participants would have to place a priority on the Foundation's statement: "Multi-faith work is not about believing that all religions are the same or possess equally valid claims to truth."

Let us remember that George W. Bush had a universalist approach to religion. He said, "Well, first of all, I believe in an almighty God, and I believe that all the world, whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other religion, prays to the same God. That's what I believe." To read more on this topic, see my essay We Do Not All Worship the Same God which I wrote in October, 2007.

Is Blair attempting a one-world government and a one-world religion? Is he pro-religion but anti-Christ? Or, is he politically liberal in some areas? With a tendency toward multiculturalism? And perhaps a little kooky? Does Blair even have the capacity to be an effective Antichrist? Let's read what the biographer, Anthony Sheldon, wrote about him.

Perhaps, in his quest to address globalization, Blair has again managed to find a language that chimes with the global mood. Perhaps he has finally discovered his personal agenda. One might even wonder if his Foundation is an attempt at atonement for past failure, or to counteract accusations that he was a warmonger. If any pinpointing of the Antichrist is based on the content of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation website, then it cannot be concluded that Blair is the Antichrist. Either the biblical formula is incorrectly applied, or the formula itself is incorrect. If there are any hidden, sneaky, deceptively coded messages in the website, then I failed to detect them.

Other Explanations and Possibilities

It is not my intention to defend Tony Blair or his Foundation. I have simply tried to offer careful analysis and evaluation to determine if there is any accuracy to the speculation that Blair is the Antichrist. Such speculation, in turn, is based on claims which may be invalid from the start.

Not all Christians believe that Antichrist activity will be based in Europe or that it will involve a one-world government and one-world religion. Some believe that the Antichrist will rule only a portion of the world. There will be activity (wars, etc.) in the other parts of the world, but those activities will not be under the authority of the Antichrist. There are also some Christians who believe that the Antichrist will be Muslim and that he will reign over the Middle East. And, all these beliefs are backed up with biblical formulas. Which one is correct? Or are they all incorrect?

Although the development of a new world order is of great concern to Americans, such an arrangement could be effected apart from the Antichrist's dominion. We may or may not agree with Blair's political involvement in the European Union, and we may rightly question whether this will have a negative impact or influence on the sovereignty of America and other nations. This is a political issue which may or may not overlap with Antichrist activity.

Blair's Faith Foundation may have some troubling aspects, and it may or may not parallel with the development of a new political world order. The Foundation, nevertheless, does not directly express anti-Christ sentiments. However, we may question whether the Foundation is an effective way for different people to work together. It certainly is not the only way. There are other agencies through which good works are accomplished: Catholic Charities, World Vision, the Salvation Army, Habitat for Humanity, and the Peace Corps to mention just a few. Most Christian ministries also have service programs which help in the neighborhood, and some extend globally to all races and cultures.

It might behoove Christians, given the ongoing threats and acts of terrorism, to learn to work with non-Christians in order to create positive relationships, solve world problems, and overcome terrorism through collaboration. If some Christians feel disturbed by Blair's multi-faith approach, then perhaps they should concentrate on the maintenance and/or fortification of their church-based projects and on the saving of souls. If other Christians are convinced that Blair is the Antichrist, then it would seem imperative that they announce that we are in the last days and stress repentance.

Conclusion

To the best of my knowledge, the word antichrist is mentioned only four times in the Bible, all in I John and II John. If you refer to your concordance, then with some very simple cross-referencing you can follow a path backwards from II John to the Old Testament. This does not involve a study of prophecy, but only a reading of brief descriptions of what it means to be an antichrist.

It is my hope that the above passages might shine a light forward for those who feel confused over the various end-times and Antichrist predictions. I will avoid the temptation of personal interpretation--because I am not called or qualified to do that. It is for the reader to decide the meaning and application of the above passages as well as the validity of this essay. (Written 07/02/09: bibliography available.)

[*ADDED NOTE: The European Union has chosen Herman van Rompuy, the Prime Minister of Belgium, as its first Council President. Van Rompuy is a Christian Democrat. He favors both unity and diversity. In addition to the Euro, he favors establishing E.U. license plates and I.D. cards, and displaying more E.U. flags. However, he is against Turkey joining the E.U. because it is an Islamic country and he wants to maintain Europe's Christian heritage.] (Written 12/02/09)

Until we meet again..............stay sane.