Conforming the Church to the Rising World Order

Year 2000 ushered in the United Nations’ "International Year of the Culture of Peace.” It brought new pressures to establish the global management system President Clinton called the Third Way – one that allows governments to yield responsibilities, but not control, to their “private” and “civil” partners who will be required to implement the vision.[2]

Church-state alliances have been established from coast to coast, not by law, but by an army of willing and often well-meaning religious leaders. Those who share the UN vision of the 21^st Century community lead the parade. They seek a "global village" of "socialist" equality – unified, not by faith in the Biblical God, but by faith in elite leaders and their deceptive promises.[3]

Christian evangelism doesn’t fit this union. It offends people of other faiths. It threatens the religious leaders who have built their platform on humanitarian ideals rather than the Bible. And it clashes with the international standards for tolerance and "mental health."

Keep in mind, this spiritual shift didn’t start in the nineties. Liberal church leaders realized almost a century ago that Biblical absolutes, separateness, and evangelism would block their agenda. To clear the way, they built the foundations for today’s worldwide movement that would:

I’m not surprised that Chicago’s liberal Council of Religious Leaders opposed a Baptist plan to send thousands of volunteer missionaries into their domain in the summer of 2001. Nor is it strange that the Southern Baptist Convention’s refusal to cancel its plans fueled the fury of two groups: those who equate Biblical values and evangelism with hate and intolerance and those who feel they had been specifically targeted for conversion.[4]

Such Christian “intolerance” and “exclusiveness” was outlawed by UNESCO’s Declaration on Tolerance [5] and unacceptable to the Hindu, Muslim and Jewish leaders. Naturally, those non-christian leaders did not want Christians to pray for their salvation or write critical descriptions of their beliefs.

“While we are confident that your volunteers would come with entirely peaceful intentions, a campaign of the nature and scope you envision could contribute to a climate conducive to hate crimes.”[6]

[4]Hate crimes? Richard Land, president of the SBC’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission wrote an answer. Its warning should concern everyone who values our increasingly fragile Constitutional right to follow and express our convictions:

“To say that Southern Baptists should refrain from an evangelistic campaign because it might, as the council said, ‘contribute to a climate conducive to hate crimes,’ is not a very far step away from then claiming that the act of witnessing itself to those whom you believe need to be saved is a ‘hate crime.’...

“It seems they affirm our right to express our beliefs as long as we agree not to do so. As soon as we seek to practice what we preach, they severely criticize our 'arrogance' and our ‘presupposition’ that non-Christians ‘are outside God’s plan of salvation’…

“I grieve… that a Methodist minister would make such statements in response to fellow believers’ attempts to heed the Great Commission commandment of Jesus our Savior, who it should be remembered did say, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me.’ (John 14:6)[7]

You may question the wisdom of the ways the SBC trains its missionaries and handles its private training books. But its intention was to spread love, not hate, and its plans include feeding and clothing the poor. “We have a message that we think will bring encouragement and hope to people,” said Herb Hollinger, an SBC spokesman.[8]

Still, their message will bring little hope to those who seek socialist solidarity. The Chicago Council can’t build its kind of unity without silencing contrary voices.

Few things offend the liberal church establishment more than an uncompromising faith in Jesus Christ as the only way to God. It “smacks of a kind of non-Jesus-like arrogance,” said Bishop C. Joseph Sprague, a member of the Council of Religious leaders and the head of 425 churches in the United Methodist Church's Northern Illinois Conference. Referring to the SBC summer campaign, he continued,

Bishop Sprague apparently believes that people of every religious persuasion would be safe within God’s saving grace. If so, Christ’s death has little significance today, an evangelistic crusade would be futile, and the Bishop’s response would make perfect sense. This campaign could, he said, “upset the unity that has carefully developed between Protestants, Catholics and Jews in Chicago during the past few years.”[9]

He is right. It could! Bishop Sprague’s kind of community oneness permits diversity in the non-essentials, but it demands unity in some key areas that violate Biblical truth. It forbids divisive attitudes as well as Biblical values, and it sets its new social standards above God’s word.

Small wonder, then, that when World Net Daily asked the Methodist bishop if “preaching against homosexuality could be considered a hate crime,” he answered, "…it certainly can. It creates a climate in which hate can fester." [9]

As chairperson of the National Shalom Committee and founder of Communities of Shalom, Bishop Sprague is committed to a course of action that would guard his city against “the offense of the cross.” He has no objections to social action, but Baptist evangelism would be unacceptable:

At over 260 Shalom sites across the country (including Chicago) churches are working with their communities “toward systemic change.” Collaborating with community organizations and residents, they pursue benevolent social goals such as economic development, affordable housing, multicultural relationships, and “health and healing that addresses issues affecting physical, emotional, and social wholeness.”

“Spiritual and congregational development” is encouraged through “study circles” which pair “congregations from different faith traditions” in small groups “for dialogue.” Here they “grapple with public issues and build community.”

But in these consensus groups, everyone must follow certain guidelines. They must “seek common ground,” be willing to compromise, and come to consensus. To hold on to absolute truths and refuse to conform to the group values would be considered uncooperative and intolerant.

It’s an effective process. That’s why Marx promoted it and Lenin made it the cornerstone of the Soviet education system. It’s guaranteed to undermine Biblical faith and redefine Christianity. (See Mind Control)

The Shalom website includes the standard mission and vision statements that are part of the new global management systems. It quotes the Bible but puts Scriptures into a context that changes the meaning. It also shows why, from the bishop’s perspective, the Baptist plan would undermine his efforts to establish solidarity.

Notice the twisted truths. While Shalom is the Hebrew word for peace, John 14:27 points to a different kind of peace – an inner peace that can only be enjoyed by believers who trust and follow Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace. Unlike the world's peace, the peace He offers doesn’t depend on comfortable circumstances.

In contrast, “healthy communities” refers to a U.S. program linked to the World Health Organization, a specialized UN agency, which intends to impose its socialist uniformity on every community under the banner of peace. .... Its aim is to measure and monitor beliefs and values everywhere, then remediate all who refuse to compromise. To “promote the… optimal development of the mental health of the population,”[12] it must stamp out Biblical faith and obedience. (See The UN Plan for Your Mental Health)

The standards for 21^st Century spirituality are outlined in UNESCO’s 1994 “Declaration on the Role of Religion in the Promotion of a Culture of Peace.” You probably haven’t heard of this “soft” international law signed in Barcelona in December, 1994. Yet, its guidelines have spread throughout the world, fueled by multicultural education, interactive technology, books such as the Harry Potter series, the media, movies, television and last, but not least, American churches.

As you read these short excerpts from UNESCO's Declaration on the Role of Religion, try to remember where and when you last heard these politically correct attitudes or assertions:

In case you are wondering how UNESCO could possibly be linked to Chicago’s Council of Religious Leaders or to Methodist Bishop Sprague, lets go back to the fifties again. There we see both the roots of religious synthesis ( the blending and blurring of beliefs and convictions through the consensus process) and the hidden partnerships that link church leaders to powerful politicians who carry the “Christian” social and economic agenda into Congress and the White House.

In 1942, six years before the World Council of Churches was formally launched, its organizers within the Federal Council of Churches held a National Study conference at Wesleyan University in Ohio. Among the 30 delegates were 15 bishops, seven seminary presidents, and eight college and university presidents.

John Foster Dulles, who later became Secretary of State in the Eisenhower administration, chaired the conference. As head of the Federal Council's inter-Church “Commission to Study the Bases of a Just and Durable Peace,” Dulles submitted the conference report. It recommended:

That was 1942! Soon afterwards, Time magazine wrote a summary of the report. In its statement below, notice these words: “a new order... through voluntary cooperation within the framework of democracy or through explosive political revolution.” This solution, “voluntary cooperation within the framework of democracy” gives us a glimpse of the true meaning of nice-sounding words such as democracy, volunteerism, participation (involving everyone in the consensus process), partnerships, and civil society:

“Some of the conference’s economic opinions were almost as sensational as the extreme internationalism of its political program. It held that a ‘new order of economic life is both imminent and imperative' – a new order that is sure to come either ‘through voluntary cooperation within the framework of democracy or through explosive political revolution.’ ...it denounced various defects in the profit system for breeding war, demagogues and dictators…. Instead, 'the church must demand economic arrangements measured by human welfare…'[16]

In 1943, John Foster Dulles convened another Council of Churches conference. It endorsed “Six Pillars of Peace,” a plea for a world political organization – a United Nations. In his speech, recorded in the Council’s 1944 Biannual Report, Dulles said,

"Interest in this subject had been enormously increased by the declaration of the Moscow conference, which stressed the necessity of creating at the earliest possible moment a general international organization…. This statement, signed by more than 1,000 Protestant leaders, was given to the press and mailed to the President and members of Congress.”[17]

The most infamous of the Council leaders, Alger Hiss, was an active member of the Communist party. That didn’t keep him from serving President Roosevelt both in the State Department and as his adviser at the 1945 Yalta Peace Conference. Nor did it block his acceptance as coauthor of the UN charter and as Secretary General of the United Nations organizing conference in San Francisco in 1945. The Soviet connection may even have encouraged John Foster Dulles to recommend that Hiss head up the multimillion dollar Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Strong links to high places would speed their agenda.

While world socialism and economic redistribution [18] topped the Council agenda, global spirituality followed close behind. Speaking to the Methodist General Conference in 1948, Bishop G. Bromley Oxnam, President of the American wing of the newly formed World Council of Churches, announced the Council’s slogan: “One Church for One World.” [19] He continued,

“Methodism is determined to preach a gospel that insists that all men are brothers and children of one Father, to whom final loyalty is due.”[20]

Since then, the mindset of the American public has slowly conformed to the global standards. That, too, was planned long ago. When the International Congress on Mental Health met in London back in 1948, it presented a report titled “Mental Health and World Citizenship.” Listen to the message:

“Social institutions such as family and school impose their imprint early.... Thus prejudice, hostility or excessive nationalism may become deeply embedded in the developing personality... often at great human cost.... Change will be strongly resisted unless an attitude of acceptance has first been engendered.[21]

With church and education leaders paving the way, that “attitude of acceptance” is fast becoming the norm both in churches and communities. To the general public, politically correct spirituality and world government seem normal and necessary. Even in churches uniformity based on compromise has become more acceptable than Biblical unity based on the cross. Those who resist the new ideology are painted as enemies to peace and progress.

“I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you…. If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you…. because they do not know Him who sent Me.” John 15:20-21

Many churches today ignore those verses. They seem so obsolete and irrelevant. But reality tells us that -- in the years ahead -- those who resist “common ground” will face increasing pressures to keep silent or to compromise. History is repeating itself, and our models may be the forgotten pilgrims who fled to America three centuries ago. Like many faithful Christians today, they longed for freedom to follow the uncompromising truth that is no longer tolerated by religious leaders and a secular/pluralistic culture.

A little book called, Seeing the Invisible: Ordinary People of Extraordinary Faith, shows the similarities between politically correct 17^th Century England and our nation at the dawn of the third millennium:

“October 1662 was a dark month for the church of Jesus Christ in Scotland, comparable only to Black Bartholomew’s Day in England two months earlier. Then two thousand English pastors and teachers had been evicted for their unwillingness to comply with the terms of the Act of Uniformity. ...all Scottish preachers were required to seek preordination at the hands of the bishops -- a measure to which few could submit in good conscience…. Those who would not comply should lose their ministries forthwith….

"The compilers of this retrograde legislation imagined that most of Scotland’s preachers were like themselves, loving security and income above considerations of conscience. They anticipated that no more than ten men would prove awkward and refuse reordination. In the event, over four hundred Scottish preachers chose poverty, homelessness, suffering and even death rather than the path of compromise."[22]

The framework for global control is in place. So is the process for managing, molding and monitoring “healthy communities” and “healthy people” around the world.

Three centuries ago, this nation offered a shelter – a place of refuge from the persecution that has pursued God’s faithful followers since Christ died on the cross. When our nation shuts its doors to Biblical truth, where will Christians hide?

The answer is simple: in Jesus. The Bible tells us that “all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution.” (2 Timothy 3:12). But, in the midst of the struggles, He will fill us with a peace the world can never understand. By His grace, we will stand firm and immovable while demonstrating His gentle love to all who hunger and thirst for the everlasting peace and unity only found in Him.

1. John Shelby Spong, Why Christianity Must Change or Die (HarperSanFrancisco, 1998), pages 198-199.

2. Government partners must comply with Federal guidelines and standards, even when they clash with Biblical values. See Trading U.S. Rights for UN Rules and Federalism

3. For more information, read "Witnessing vs. Proselytizing" and "Is Evangelism Possible without Targeting?"

4. "Religious leaders fear Southern Baptist presence may spark hate crimes," Associated Press, 28 November 1999.

5. UNESCO’s Declaration of Principles on Tolerance

6. Frank York, "Is Christianity a 'hate crime?' World Net Daily, 3 December 1999.

7. Southern Baptist leaders disagree with Chicago’s Leaders’ hate Crimes Assertion,” Zondervan Newz Service, 1/3/00, at www.zondervan.com/zns.htm

8. "Religious leaders fear Southern Baptist presence may spark hate crimes," Associated Press, 28 November 1999.

9. Frank York, “Is Christianity a ‘hate crime’? World Net Daily, December 3, 1999.

10. Ibid.

11. http://gbgm-umc.org/programs/shalom/scondlev.htm

12.Nations for Mental Health: http://www.who.int/msa/nam/nam6.htm

13. Edgar C. Bundy, Collectivism in the Church (,1958), page 196-197, referring to the World Council of Churches’ 1954 Biannual Report, page to page 58.

14. Bundy, page 197-198.

15. Bundy,

16. Time, March 16, 1942.

17. Bundy, page 91.

18. Bundy, page 209. Here you see two of the three goals at the heart of Sustainable Development: Worldwide economic redistribution and socialist equality. The third is global management of the environment -- another means of managing human resources. See Local Agenda - The U.N. Plan for Your Community.

19. Bundy, 203.

20. Bundy, 204-205. Some members of the U.S. Congress were not pleased with the World Council agenda. Some found it downright dangerous. On July 21, 1953, Bishop Oxnam was called before the Committee on Un-American Activities of the House of Representatives. (page 207)

21. We have a copy of the report titled “Mental Health and World Citizenship.”

22. Faith Cook, Seeing the Invisible: Ordinary People of Extraordinary Faith (Durham, England: Evangelical Press, 1998), page 141.

by Berit Kjos - 2000 (updated in 2014)