"We restored the vital center, replacing
outdated ideologies with a new vision anchored in basic, enduring values:
opportunity for all, responsibility from all, and a community of all Americans....
We must shape a 21st Century American revolution - of opportunity, responsibility,
and community. ... a new nation."
President Clinton,
2000 State of the Union message.
“One Church for One
World.” World Council of Churches, 1948
“. . . change will probably be
radical, if not total. Those whose lives are dedicated to serving
the Church of the past will resist these suggestions with a vehemence that
always emerges from threatened hierarchies and dying institutions…. But
the seeds of resurrection are present in the exile, and in time those seeds
will sprout and bloom. When they do, we will once again be able to see continuity
between the Church of the past and the purged and opened church of the future.”
Episcopal
Bishop John Shelby Spong, Why Christianity Must Change or Die
[1]
Year
2000 arrived, ushering in the United Nations’
"International Year of
the Culture of Peace.”
It brings new pressures to establish the global management system President
Clinton calls the
Third Way
– one that allows governments to yield responsibilities, but not control,
to their “private” and “civil” partners who will be required [2]
to implement the vision.
The church-state partnerships
touted by candidates Bush and Gore fit the picture. These
political alliances are
already being 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 21st Century community
usually lead the parade. They seek a global village of peace and social equality
– unified, not by faith in the Biblical God, but by faith in human nature and
a pluralistic god-spirit operating in and through each person.
Christian
evangelism doesn’t fit this utopian vision. 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.
This spiritual shift didn’t
start in the nineties. Liberal ecclesiastical leaders realized more than fifty
years 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:
-
Equate Biblical truth and evangelism with hate
and intolerance
-
Redefine Christianity
-
Hold Christians accountable to global standards
for mental health
-
Conform churches to the demands in UNESCO’s
Declaration on Religion in a Culture of Peace
-
Build the framework for global control
-
Establish the one world church
Equate Biblical Truth and Evangelism with Hate and Intolerance
It’s not surprising that Chicago’s liberal Council
of Religious Leaders opposes a Baptist plan to send 100,000 missionaries into
their domain next summer. Nor is it strange that the Southern Baptist Convention’s
refusal to cancel its plans fueled the fury of those who equate
Biblical values and evangelism with hate and intolerance.[3]
“The evangelical fervor of
the Southern Baptists, America’s largest Protestant denomination, remain undiminished
despite criticism over their controversial ‘prayer book,’” wrote Ramesh Chandran
in The Times of India News Service (12-9). The offensive prayer book
describing Hindu beliefs and culture – one of several prayer books written for
training purposes – dared to suggest that Hindu devotees had “darkness in their
hearts”[4]
and didn’t share in Christ’s promise of salvation.
Such Christian “intolerance”
and “exclusiveness” is outlawed by UNESCO’s Declaration on Tolerance[5]
and unacceptable to the Hindu, Muslim and Jewish leaders.
Naturally, they don’t want Christians to pray for their salvation or
write critical descriptions of their beliefs and culture in their training manuals.
Chicago’s
Council of Religious Leaders has joined Mr. Chandran on this spiritual battlefield.
Made up of 40 Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish institutions, this civil-minded
Council wrote a letter to the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) asking that
it “enter into discussion with us and reconsider your plans….” In other words,
it called for conflict resolution based on the consensus process and
aimed at
compromise and common ground.
Rabbi Ira
Youdovin, executive director of the Chicago Board of Rabbis, was the chief author
of this letter. He wrote,
“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]
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.’
“…those
who criticize Southern Baptist’ efforts to evangelize cities or groups always
preface their criticism by acknowledging Southern Baptists’ right to express
our belief. 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.
Redefine Christianity
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,
“I
am always fearful when we in the Christian Community move beyond the rightful
claim that Jesus is decisive for us, to the presupposition that non-Christians
… are outside God’s plan for salvation.”[9]
Bishop
Sprague apparently believed 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. And it should. 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:
“They are welcome to come, if they're coming to
join with us in acts of mercy and justice on behalf of this community in general,
and specifically on behalf of the marginalized and dispossessed…. We are not
interested in their coming to proselytize or to suggest, however well intentioned,
that Jews, Hindus, or others are second class."[10]
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 destroy 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.
“The
Biblical understanding of shalom (Hebrew word for peace),
is not merely the absence of conflict but everything that makes for people's
highest good. It works toward hope and wholeness in which people, individually
and collectively, experience health, prosperity, security, oneness with nature,
and spiritual renewal. In John 14:27, Jesus, in one of his final moments with
his disciples, offers peace... not as the world gives but as God gives
(NRSV). Shalom
is the transforming power of God at work through the church in individuals and
the community. Through the power of God, Communities of Shalom work for spiritual
renewal, community economic development, and healthy communities.”[11]
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.
“These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace,”
He told His disciples. “In the world you will have
tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.” (John 16:33)
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. This global "mental health" system has nothing to
do with God’s peace. Its “shalom” is only for those who conform to the new global
values. 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)
Hold Everyone Accountable to New Standards
for “MENTAL HEALTH”
Bishop
Sprague is not the first American church leader touting a public health program
that includes “mental health” based on politically correct standards. He and
his Shalom Community partners across America have joined hands with the World
Health Organization (WHO) and the US Department of Health and Human Services.
In its 1954 Biannual Report (58-196), the National
Council of Churches referred to its Commission on Religion and Health which
would address the “mental health problem.”
In his well-documented 1958 book, Collectivism in the Church,
Edgar C. Bundy explains,
“Because ‘mental health’ has become available as
a lever to be used for promoting political and ideological designs, a word on
the subject is in order. No one is against adequate care for people who are,
beyond reasonable doubt, insane…..
“Something new has come into the subject of insanity,
however, within the past several years. People who are normal in every sense
of the word but who hold unpopular political ideas, such as opposition to world
government and to the United Nations, Federal aid to education, and socialism,
are now being branded by their political opponents as 'lunatics,' 'nuts'
and 'idiots.'
"Some of the mental health legislation which has
recently been introduced on state and Federal levels gives such wide latitude
of interpretations to psychiatrists and politicians… that it is conceivable
that anyone who takes a stand for the sovereignty of the United States, in favor
of Congressional investigations, in opposition to fluoridation of public water
supplies, and in favor of state’s rights could be committed to an asylum in
order to silence opposition.”[13]
Do you
find this hard to believe? Concerned that these warnings might be realized,
U.S. Congressman Usher L. Burdick of North Dakota submitted Resolution 98 to
the 85th Congress. Here are a few points in his resolution:
"WHEREAS … the language of this bill is subject
to misinterpretations which could jeopardize Constitutional rights of the individual;
and
"WHEREAS among the psychiatrists are those who advocate
an ideology foreign to the United States, as set forth in 'Mental Health and
World Citizenship,' the statement of the 1948 International Congress on Mental
Health; and
"WHEREAS the mental health organizations are sponsoring
in the several states commitment legislation which violates the rights guaranteed
to every citizen under the Constitution of the United States….
"RESOLVED by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring) That the Congress of the United States make a complete investigation
into all ramifications and implications of mental health legislative programs
which are currently being promoted."[14]
If only
the current Congress would take the same precautions.
Right now, a far more sophisticated system for measuring and monitoring
“the mental health of the population” is being implemented through WHO-federal-and-state
partnerships that work in local communities to accomplish what Congress would
never permit, the mainstream media may never tell, and the public may not realize
until the system is in place.
Conform the Church to UNESCO’s Guidelines
The standards
for 21st 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:
-
“Religions have… led to division, hatred, and
war.”
-
“Peace entails that we understand that we are
all interdependent…. collectively
responsible for the common good.”
-
“Our communities of faith have a responsibility
to encourage conduct imbued with wisdom, compassion, sharing, charity,
solidarity, and love; inspiring one and all to choose the path of
freedom and responsibility. Religions must be a source of helpful energy.”
-
“We should distinguish fanaticism from religious
zeal.”
-
“We
will favor peace by countering the tendencies of individuals and communities
to assume or even to teach that they are inherently superior to others.”
-
“We will promote dialogue and harmony
between and within religions… respecting the search for truth and
wisdom that is outside our religion. We will establish dialogue with
all, striving for a sincere fellowship….”
-
“…we will build a culture of peace based on
non-violence, tolerance, dialogue, mutual understanding, and justice.
We call upon the institutions of our civil society, the United Nations
System, governments, governmental and non-governmental organizations, corporations,
and the mass media, to strengthen their commitments to peace and to listen
to the cries of the victims….”
-
"We call upon the different religious
and cultural traditions to join hands… and to cooperate with us….”
[Emphasis added]
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.
Build the
Framework for Global Control
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:
-
a world government of delegated powers
-
immediate limitations on national sovereignty
-
international control of all armies and navies
-
a universal system of money
-
worldwide freedom of immigration
-
a democratically controlled international bank
-
even distribution of the world’s natural wealth.[15]
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.’ Without
condemning the profit motive as such, 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…. People in and out of the churches were urged to
'remain united and vigorous to achieve such [an] 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 a secret member of the Communist party. [Finally
the truth about soviet spy Alger Hiss] That didn’t keep him from
serving President Roosevelt both in the State Department and as his adviser
at the 1945 Yalta Peace Conference where the ailing Roosevelt was persuaded
to yield Eastern Europe to Stalin.
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.
Establish the One World Church
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….
“Fifty-two years from
now, when man has reached the year 2000 and has won, let us pray, the justice,
the brotherhood and peace of his dreams, let us hope that the contribution of
the people called Methodist may have been so significant that history may proudly
record, “A Man Named Wesley Passed this Way!”[20]
We have
reached year 2000, and Bishop Oxnam’s followers still await the fulfillment
of his dream. But they are closer. 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” has now been engendered. To the
general public, politically correct spirituality and world government seem normal
and necessary.
Uniformity
based on compromise has become far more acceptable – even in churches -- than
Biblical unity based on the cross.
And those who, like the Baptist evangelists,
resist the new ideology are painted as enemies to peace and progress.
Today,
as two thousand years ago, contrary convictions disturb religious leaders whose
goals demand solidarity and compliance. That’s why Jesus’ warning has continued
to encourage Christians through the centuries:
“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 ignore those
verses. They seem so obsolete and irrelevant. But that’s changing. Those who
resist “common ground” spirituality, will face increasing pressures to keep
still or to compromise. History
is repeating itself, and our models may be the forgotten faithful who fled to
America three centuries ago seeking freedom to follow the uncompromising truth
no longer tolerated by their religious leaders.
A little
book called, Seeing the Invisible: Ordinary People of Extraordinary Faith,
shows the similarities between politically correct 17th 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. Now 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, their pulpits being declared vacant….
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 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.
