Be Offensive In Love (Part 2)

Posted on February 14, 2015 by ccpastormike

Thus says the Lord of hosts,“Do not listen to the words of the prophets who are prophesying to you. They are leading you into futility; They speak a vision of their own imagination, Not from the mouth of the Lord. “They keep saying to those who despise Me, ‘The Lord has said, “You will have peace”’; And as for everyone who walks in the stubbornness of his own heart, They say, ‘Calamity will not come upon you.’ Jeremiah 23:16-17

In part one of this series I introduced the idea that the definition of tolerance has been hijacked by cultural elitists and redefined. This new definition is part of a larger strategy with a clear endgame. Let me explain.

Tolerance used to mean defending the right of everyone to state their opinion in the public square of debate. Today tolerance has been redefined to mean that only opinions that are consistent with those ideals espoused by cultural elitists are permitted. Attempts are made to silence all contradictory viewpoints and some are silenced through the weapon of choice for these elitists – government activism. Here are some examples.

Army Lt. Colonel Christopher Downey is likely to be discharged after being administratively convicted of violating the military’s open policy concerning gays. What was Colonel Downey’s crime? He attempted to stop two lesbian Army officers from filming their erotic behavior that included kissing, groping, and disrobing each other while on the dance floor at an official Army officers dance and dinner event.

In another case in point, although certainly not surprising, California officials have once again passed irrational and convoluted legislation. The California legislature along with Governor Jerry Brown recently signed into law a bill that permits all public school children to self-identify their gender and based on that self-identification choose which restroom facilities they will use. This self-identification even allows boys to participate on girls sports teams and vice versa.

Perhaps the single issue that more than any other provides proof of the redefinition of tolerance is the culture war surrounding same-sex marriage. This is the most hotly contested issue of our day. But if cultural elitists have their way, all viewpoints that fall short of affirming and celebrating same-sex marriage will not only be silenced but criminalized.

Some may smirk at such an assertion but I would ask the doubters to consider that the Supreme Court is by all appearances poised to make same-sex marriage the law of the land. What remains to be seen is what price Christians who stand on the teaching of Scripture will pay to oppose this. I will share more specifically on this subject in the next installment. Stay tuned.

God bless you today friends.

Pastor You Must Be A Theologian (Part 1)

Posted on December 29, 2014 by ccpastormike

Of interest to many pastors, ministry leaders, and church support organizations is the rise in the number of people who consider themselves to be “nones” and/or “dones.” The “nones” group is comprised of people who respond to questions related to religious affiliation with “none.” The second group is comprised of people who are “done” with the Church as an institution. It is not my intention here to detail and discuss the myriad reasons for these responses. I mention them because I think they share a common root cause.

A large percentage of the nones have never darkened the door of a church. Their knowledge of Christianity is based solely on what they happen to observe on television or hear their friends or family discuss. The dones are on the other end of the spectrum. They have for the most part been raised in the Church, have been active in various roles, and still profess faith in God even though they no longer attend any Church services. Many opt instead for home fellowships or other gatherings of believers in an informal setting.

What do these groups have in common? Simply they both want a message that matters and neither group is hearing one. The nones among us are not necessarily anti-Christian. Indeed spirituality is at an all-time high in America so there is a large percentage of seekers among the nones. Unfortunately the modern Church is more concerned with feeding God’s people the latest self-help pop psychology wrapped in Christian garb than it is teaching God’s Word faithfully book by book and chapter by chapter in a systematic and comprehensive fashion. The competition is fierce in the self-help category with the likes of Oprah, Chopra, and Osteen carrying the day. No wonder nones aren’t listening to the religious equivalent of this group of new age icons.

The dones likewise long for a clear declaration of God’s truth through a matter-of-fact exposition of the text. A large number of pastors have rejected a deep dive into the Scriptures and an equally challenging presentation of the biblical texts. Their weekly offering of the Word falls well short of being spiritual food and nourishment for God’s people. This is so because God must be the focus of our exposition and Christ the answer to the issues we face. When the focus becomes people, their problems, and the steps they must take to regain their happy life, a concoction of spiritual poison has been brewed and dispensing that week after week will guarantee a Laodicean church.

King David declared in Psalm 19:7 that “the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.” This entire chapter is devoted to general (v. 1-6) and special (v. 7-13) revelation. The point in verse eight is that God’s Word is sure because it is trustworthy. It is trustworthy because it corresponds to reality. In other words, God’s Word speaks with razor sharpness concerning our common human condition and provides the same clarity when it comes to what remedy He has provided for us.

Pastors, it is time to scale again the mountaintop of biblical exposition and declaration. God has called you to that task, He has supplied you with all you need to perform it, and the people He has entrusted to your care must have it. We are called to be theologians and shepherds not a self-esteem masseuse or motivational coaches.

This is the first installment in a five-part series entitled “Pastor You Must Be A Theologian.” Stay tuned for more.

Sympathy For The Devil – Review of the Movie “Noah” by Dr. Brian Mattson

Posted on April 5, 2014 by ccpastormike

In Darren Aronofsky’s new star-gilt silver screen epic, Noah, Adam and Eve are luminescent and fleshless, right up until the moment they eat the forbidden fruit.

Such a notion isn’t found in the Bible, of course. This, among the multitude of Aronofsky’s other imaginative details like giant Lava Monsters, has caused many a reviewer’s head to be scratched. Conservative-minded evangelicals write off the film because of the “liberties” taken with the text of Genesis, while a more liberal-minded group stands in favor of cutting the director some slack. After all, we shouldn’t expect a professed atheist to have the same ideas of “respecting” sacred texts the way a Bible-believer would.

Both groups have missed the mark entirely. Aronofsky hasn’t “taken liberties” with anything.

The Bible is not his text.

In his defense, I suppose, the film wasn’t advertised as such. Nowhere is it said that this movie is an adaptation of Genesis. It was never advertised as “The Bible’s Noah,” or “The Biblical Story of Noah.” In our day and age we are so living in the leftover atmosphere of Christendom that when somebody says they want to do “Noah,” everybody assumes they mean a rendition of the Bible story. That isn’t what Aronofsky had in mind at all. I’m sure he was only too happy to let his studio go right on assuming that, since if they knew what he was really up to they never would have allowed him to make the movie.

Let’s go back to our luminescent first parents. I recognized the motif instantly as one common to the ancient religion of Gnosticism. Here’s a 2nd century A.D. description about what a sect called the Ophites believed:

“Adam and Eve formerly had light, luminous, and so to speak spiritual bodies, as they had been fashioned. But when they came here, the bodies became dark, fat, and idle.” –Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies, I, 30.9

It occurred to me that a mystical tradition more closely related to Judaism, called Kabbalah (which the singer Madonna made popular a decade ago or so), surely would have held a similar view, since it is essentially a form of Jewish Gnosticism. I dusted off (No, really: I had to dust it) my copy of Adolphe Franck’s 19th century work, The Kabbalah, and quickly confirmed my suspicions:

“Before they were beguiled by the subtleness of the serpent, Adam and Eve were not only exempt from the need of a body, but did not even have a body—that is to say, they were not of the earth.”

Franck quotes from the Zohar, one of Kabbalah’s sacred texts:

“When our forefather Adam inhabited the Garden of Eden, he was clothed, as all are in heaven, with a garment made of the higher light. When he was driven from the Garden of Eden and was compelled to submit to the needs of this world, what happened? God, the Scriptures tell us, made Adam and his wife tunics of skin and clothed them; for before this they had tunics of light, of that higher light used in Eden…”

Obscure stuff, I know. But curiosity overtook me and I dove right down the rabbit hole.

I discovered what Darren Aronofsky’s first feature film was: Pi. Want to know its subject matter? Do you? Are you sure?

Kabbalah.

If you think that’s a coincidence, you may want a loved one to schedule you a brain scan.

Have I got your attention? Good.

The world of Aronofsky’s Noah is a thoroughly Gnostic one: a graded universe of “higher” and “lower.” The “spiritual” is good, and way, way, way “up there” where the ineffable, unspeaking god dwells, and the “material” is bad, and way, way down here where our spirits are encased in material flesh. This is not only true of the fallen sons and daughters of Adam and Eve, but of fallen angels, who are explicitly depicted as being spirits trapped inside a material “body” of cooled molten lava.

Admittedly, they make pretty nifty movie characters, but they’re also notorious in Gnostic speculation. Gnostics call them Archons, lesser divine beings or angels who aid “The Creator” in forming the visible universe. And Kabbalah has a pantheon of angelic beings of its own all up and down the ladder of “divine being.” And fallen angels are never totally fallen in this brand of mysticism. To quote the Zohar again, a central Kabbalah text: “All things of which this world consists, the spirit as well as the body, will return to the principle and the root from which they came.” Funny. That’s exactly what happens to Aronofsky’s Lava Monsters. They redeem themselves, shed their outer material skin, and fly back to the heavens. Incidentally, I noticed that in the film, as the family is traveling through a desolate wasteland, Shem asks his father: “Is this a Zohar mine?” Yep. That’s the name of Kabbalah’s sacred text.

The entire movie is, figuratively, a “Zohar” mine.

If there was any doubt about these “Watchers,” Aronofsky gives several of them names: Semyaza, Magog, and Rameel. They’re all well-known demons in the Jewish mystical tradition, not only in Kabbalah but also in the book of 1 Enoch.

What!? Demons are redeemed? Adolphe Franck explains the cosmology of Kabbalah: “Nothing is absolutely bad; nothing is accursed forever—not even the archangel of evil or the venomous beast, as he is sometimes called. There will come a time when he will recover his name and his angelic nature.”

Okay. That’s weird. But, hey, everybody in the film seems to worship “The Creator,” right? Surely it’s got that in its favor!

Except that when Gnostics speak about “The Creator” they are not talking about God. Oh, here in an affluent world living off the fruits of Christendom the term “Creator” generally denotes the true and living God. But here’s a little “Gnosticism 101” for you: the Creator of the material world is an ignorant, arrogant, jealous, exclusive, violent, low-level, bastard son of a low level deity. He’s responsible for creating the “unspiritual” world of flesh and matter, and he himself is so ignorant of the spiritual world he fancies himself the “only God” and demands absolute obedience. They generally call him “Yahweh.” Or other names, too (Ialdabaoth, for example).

This Creator tries to keep Adam and Eve from the true knowledge of the divine and, when they disobey, flies into a rage and boots them from the garden.

In other words, in case you’re losing the plot here: The serpent was right all along. This “god,” “The Creator,” whom they are worshiping is withholding something from them that the serpent will provide: divinity itself.

The world of Gnostic mysticism is bewildering with a myriad of varieties. But, generally speaking, they hold in common that the serpent is “Sophia,” “Mother,” or “Wisdom.” The serpent represents the true divine, and the claims of “The Creator” are false.

So is the serpent a major character in the film?

Let’s go back to the movie. The action opens when Lamech is about to bless his son, Noah. Lamech, rather strangely for a patriarch of a family that follows God, takes out a sacred relic, the skin of the serpent from the Garden of Eden. He wraps it around his arm, stretches out his hand to touch his son—except, just then, a band of marauders interrupts them and the ceremony isn’t completed. Lamech gets killed, and the “villain” of the film, Tubal-Cain, steals the snakeskin. Noah, in other words, doesn’t get whatever benefit the serpent’s skin was to bestow.

The skin doesn’t light up magically on Tubal-Cain’s arm, so apparently he doesn’t get “enlightened,” either. And that’s why everybody in the film, including protagonist and antagonist, Noah and Tubal-Cain, is worshiping “The Creator.” They are all deluded. Let me clear something up here: lots of reviewers expressed some bewilderment over the fact there aren’t any likable characters and that they all seem to be worshiping the same God. Tubal-Cain and his clan are wicked and evil and, as it turns out, Noah’s pretty bad himself when he abandons Ham’s girlfriend and almost slays two newborn children. Some thought this was some kind of profound commentary on how there’s evil in all of us. Here’s an excerpt from the Zohar, the sacred text of Kabbalah:

“Two beings [Adam and Nachash—the Serpent] had intercourse with Eve [the Second woman], and she conceived from both and bore two children. Each followed one of the male parents, and their spirits parted, one to this side and one to the other, and similarly their characters. On the side of Cain are all the haunts of the evil species; from the side of Abel comes a more merciful class, yet not wholly beneficial — good wine mixed with bad.”

Sound familiar? Yes. Darren Aronofsky’s Noah, to the “T.”

Anyway, everybody is worshiping the evil deity. Who wants to destroy everybody. (By the way, in Kabbalah many worlds have already been created and destroyed.) Both Tubal-Cain and Noah have identical scenes, looking into the heavens and asking, “Why won’t you speak to me?” “The Creator” has abandoned them all because he intends to kill them all.

Noah had been given a vision of the coming deluge. He’s drowning, but sees animals floating to the surface to the safety of the ark. No indication whatsoever is given that Noah is to be saved; Noah conspicuously makes that part up during an awkward moment explaining things to his family. He is sinking while the animals, “the innocent,” are rising. “The Creator” who gives Noah his vision wants all the humans dead.

Many reviewers thought Noah’s change into a homicidal maniac on the ark, wanting to kill his son’s two newborn daughters, was a weird plot twist. It isn’t weird at all. In the Director’s view, Noah is worshiping a false, homicidal maniac of a god. The more faithful and “godly” Noah becomes, the more homicidal he becomes. He is becoming every bit the “image of god” that the “evil” guy who keeps talking about the “image of god,” Tubal-Cain, is.

But Noah fails “The Creator.” He cannot wipe out all life like his god wants him to do. “When I looked at those two girls, my heart was filled with nothing but love,” he says. Noah now has something “The Creator” doesn’t. Love. And Mercy. But where did he get it? And why now?

In the immediately preceding scene Noah killed Tubal-Cain and recovered the snakeskin relic: “Sophia,” “Wisdom,” the true light of the divine. Just a coincidence, I’m sure.

Okay, I’m almost done. The rainbows don’t come at the end because God makes a covenant with Noah. The rainbows appear when Noah sobers up and embraces the serpent. He wraps the skin around his arm, and blesses his family. It is not God that commissions them to now multiply and fill the earth, but Noah, in the first person, “I,” wearing the serpent talisman. (Oh, and by the way, it’s not accidental that the rainbows are all circular. The circle of the “One,” the Ein Sof, in Kabbalah, is the sign of monism.)

Notice this thematic change: Noah was in a drunken stupor the scene before. Now he is sober and “enlightened.” Filmmakers never do that by accident.

He’s transcended and outgrown that homicidal, jealous deity.

Let me issue a couple of caveats to all this: Gnostic speculation is a diverse thing. Some groups appear radically “dualist,” where “The Creator” really is a different “god” altogether. Others are more “monist,” where God exists in a series of descending emanations. Others have it that the lower deity “grows” and “matures” and himself ascends the “ladder” or “chain” of being to higher heights. Noah probably fits a little in each category. It’s hard to tell. My other caveat is this: there is no doubt a ton of Kabbalist imagery, quotations, and themes in this movie that I couldn’t pick up in a single sitting. For example, since Kabbalah takes its flights of fancy generally based on Hebrew letters and numbers, I did notice that the “Watchers” appeared to be deliberately shaped like Hebrew letters. But you could not pay me to go see this movie again so I could further drill into the Zohar mine to see what I could find. (On a purely cinematic viewpoint, I found most of it unbearably boring.)

What I can say on one viewing is this:

Darren Aronofsky has produced a retelling of the Noah story without reference to the Bible at all. This was not, as he claimed, just a storied tradition of run-of-the-mill Jewish “Midrash.” This was a thoroughly pagan retelling of the Noah story direct from Kabbalist and Gnostic sources. To my mind, there is simply no doubt about this.

So let me tell you what the real scandal in all of this is.

It isn’t that he made a film that departed from the biblical story. It isn’t that disappointed and overheated Christian critics had expectations set too high.

The scandal is this: of all the Christian leaders who went to great lengths to endorse this movie (for whatever reasons: “it’s a conversation starter,” “at least Hollywood is doing something on the Bible,” etc.), and all of the Christian leaders who panned it for “not following the Bible”…

Not one of them could identify a blatantly Gnostic subversion of the biblical story when it was right in front of their faces.

I believe Aronofsky did it as an experiment to make fools of us: “You are so ignorant that I can put Noah (granted, it’s Russell Crowe!) up on the big screen and portray him literally as the ‘seed of the Serpent’ and you all will watch my studio’s screening and endorse it.”

He’s having quite the laugh. And shame on everyone who bought it.

And what a Gnostic experiment! In Gnosticism, only the “elite” are “in the know” and have the secret knowledge. Everybody else are dupes and ignorant fools. The “event” of this movie is intended to illustrate the Gnostic premise. We are dupes and fools. Would Christendom awake, please?

In response, I have one simple suggestion:

Henceforth, not a single seminary degree is granted unless the student demonstrates that he has read, digested, and understood Irenaeus of Lyon’s Against Heresies.

Because it’s the 2nd century all over again.

Postscript

Some readers may think I’m being hard on people for not noticing the Gnosticism at the heart of this film. I am not expecting rank-and-file viewers to notice these things. I would expect exactly what we’ve seen: head-scratching confusion. I’ve got a whole different standard for Christian leaders: college and seminary professors, pastors, and Ph.Ds. If a serpent skin wrapped around the arm of a godly Bible character doesn’t set off any alarms… I don’t know what to say.

To view the article on the author’s website click here – Dr. Brian Mattson

Catholicism—Christian? Or Cultic? by Dave Hunt

Posted on April 11, 2013 by ccpastormike

The evangelical church today is being seduced as never in its history. It faces a danger so grave that, although we have discussed this problem before, it must be addressed again with new insight and vigor. If evangelicals succumb to the seduction, as they increasingly are doing, then their gospel witness will be submerged in confusion and could eventually be lost—a tragic and new dimension to the apostasy from which the church and the world will never recover. Most astonishing and alarming is the fact that (with few exceptions) evangelical leaders and even the major cult watchers refuse to acknowledge this threat. We are therefore compelled to address the subject once again with renewed concern.

For decades evangelicals have diligently and faithfully attempted to identify, analyze and warn the church against cults . Included in the standard list are Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Science, Unity School of Christianity, Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church, etc. Yet the most seductive, dangerous, and largest cult (many times larger than all of the rest combined) is not included in the list! Most cult experts refuse to identify this horrendous cult as such! Instead, they accept it as “Christian.”

Worst of all, this cult (which preaches a false gospel that is sending hundreds of millions into a Christless eternity) is now embraced as a partner in “evangelizing the world” by many groups that preach the biblical gospel. Major denominations, such as the Anglican and the Episcopalian church, are involved in merger talks with this cult. The Assemblies of God hierarchy has been engaged in “fruitful dialogue” with this cult, whose members are now widely perceived as born-again Christians. As a consequence, the evangelical church faces an unprecedented crisis that threatens its very survival.

The above is a severe, solemn, and devastating charge to make—a charge that we have documented in the past and in support of which additional evidence will now be given. We challenge any church leader to a public debate who declares that this assertion is false. If proven wrong, we will publicly repent. But if this accusation is true, then a major shake-up in the evangelical church is required, including repentance by many of its most highly regarded leaders. We solicit your help in providing church leaders with the facts they need to identify this cult—facts of which I [Dave] was ignorant years ago when I, too, failed to identify the Roman Catholic Church as the cult that it is.

What is a “cult?” In his book, Rise of the Cults , Walter Martin defined cultism as “…any major deviation from orthodox Christianity relative to the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith.” Though unmentioned by Martin, Roman Catholicism is undeniably a “major deviation from orthodox Christianity” on many “cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith,” and thus, by his own definition, a cult. Recognition of this fact ignited the Reformation! To deny that Roman Catholicism is a cult is to repudiate the Reformation and mock the millions of martyrs who died at Rome’s hands, as though they gave their lives in vain.

But, says someone, since the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), the Roman Catholic Church no longer teaches and practices what it did at the time of the Reformation. That popular idea is false. To counter the Reformation, Rome’s foremost theologians met from 1545-63 in the Council of Trent. Its Canons and Decrees , which rejected every Reformation doctrine, remain the standard authoritative statement of Roman Catholicism, and adherence thereto is required by Catholic catechisms. Opening Vatican II, Pope John XXIII declared, “I do accept entirely all that has been decided and declared at the Council of Trent.” Vatican II went on to reaffirm Trent’s Canons and Decrees . No, Rome has notchanged since the Reformation—except superficially.

Were Luther, Calvin, and the other Reformers alive today, they would denounce Roman Catholicism as the largest and most dangerous cult on earth! Yet the Christian Research Institute and other counter-cult groups refuse to classify it as a cult. In the above book, Martin emphasized that the five major cults at that time had “a following exceeding 8.5 million persons ….” Yet he overlooked Roman Catholicism’s hundreds of millions!

Answers to Cultists at Your Door presents another example. Its authors, Bob and Gretchen Passantino, are described as “experts in cult research [who] have spent years in countercult ministry” (outside back cover of Witch Hunt ). They include such marks of a cult as the claim that it “is the only organization on earth that is following God’s will” and that its leader is “uniquely chosen by God to lead God’s people” and that it alone “offer[s] the Bible’s ‘true’ interpretation on all matters.” Again, the Roman Catholic Church fully fits all of the criteria. It claims to be the only true church, says that its pope is uniquely chosen to lead all of God’s people, and explains that only its hierarchy can interpret Scripture. Yet the Passantinos, like most other “cult experts,” fail to include Roman Catholicism as a cult, though it meets all their own tests!

Mormons must blindly obey Joseph Smith and his successors, JWs dare not question The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, and other cultists must submit to their leaders. Such authoritarianism is the primary mark of a cult. The same blind submission is required of all Catholics. Canon 212 of Catholicism’s Code of Canon Law requires that Catholics must give absolute obedience to their “sacred pastors.” Vatican II states repeatedly that only Catholicism’s hierarchy can interpret the Bible and that papal pronouncements must be obeyed without question. Canon 333 (Sec. 3) declares, “There is neither appeal nor recourse against a decision or decree of the Roman Pontiff.” Vatican watchdog Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s recent 7,500-word “Instruction” declares that dissent about church teachings cannot be “justified as a matter of following one’s conscience.” No cult demands surrender of mind and conscience more fully or arrogantly than Roman Catholicism.

Roman Catholicism is not only left out of the list of cults by the experts, but it is explicitly approved. For example, in Scripture Twisting , James W. Sire, longtime Editor-In-Chief of InterVarsity Press, defines a cult as having “ doctrines and/or practices that contradict those of the Scriptures as interpreted by traditional Christianity as represented by the major Catholic and Protestant denominations… ” (emphasis his). Sire makes Catholicism a standard of orthodoxy against which cults are to be judged. Yet he accuses the cults of twisting Scripture, a technique of which Rome is surely the ultimate master. Sire indicts Mormonism as a cult for adding other revelations to the Bible—but Rome has added far more new revelations to the Bible than the Mormon Church. Sire declares, “There is no guru class in biblical Christianity, no illuminati, no people through whom all proper interpretation must come”—yet that is exactly the situation in the Roman Catholic Church! How, then, does he make it the standard of orthodoxy?

Consider also The Agony of Deceit published by Moody. Each chapter is written by a leading evangelical about a specific false teaching within today’s church. While Agony mostly repeats much that was found in Seduction of Christianity five years earlier, it is another voice issuing many of the same warnings, for which we are thankful. Yet it, too, whitewashes Roman Catholicism. On page 65 it states, “Traditional Roman Catholicism…hold[s] to biblical inerrancy.” In fact, Catholicism explicitly denies biblical inerrancy! The next sentence does acknowledge that the “messages [of Protestantism and Catholicism] are poles apart,” but moves right on without identifying the vital differences.

Page 111 declares, “The Catholic church resisted the mounting heresies with regard to the Person of Christ, and…Protestants would continue to affirm Catholic Christology.” Again, terribly false! Catholicism’s Christology is heretical. It denies Christ’s exclusive role as mediator between God and man, making Mary “co-mediatrix”; it denies the exclusivity of His redemptive work, making Mary “co-redemptrix” (Vatican II credits Mary with a perpetual “salvific role; she continues to obtain by her constant intercession the graces we need for eternal salvation”); and it denies the sufficiency of His redemptive work, declaring that the redeemed must, in addition to Christ’s suffering for them upon the cross, suffer for their own sins here and/or in purgatory, etc. A great deal more heresy is involved in Catholic Christology, such as presenting Him as perpetually an infant or child subject to His mother, perpetually on the cross—but lack of space prevents further detail. The “Christ” of Roman Catholicism is just as false as its “Mary”—as much “another Jesus” as that of Mormonism or any other cult. Let’s admit it!

Several times in Agony it is stated that Protestants and Catholics embrace the same apostolic creeds. This is a partially true but seriously misleading statement. The implication is that the creeds are an all-encompassing statement of biblical Christianity, which they are not. Furthermore, there is a vast difference between the meaning that Catholics and Protestants attach to what the creeds say. For example, while affirming that Christ “suffered under Pontius Pilate,” Catholicism teaches that His suffering was insufficient. In addition to Christ’s suffering, we must each suffer for our sins in order to be saved. We can even suffer for the salvation of others. (The Apostolic Constitution of Jan. 1, 1967, Indulgentarium Doctrina , #1687, urges Catholics to carry “each one his own cross in expiation of their sins and of the sins of others…assist[ing] their brothers to obtain salvation from God.”) This is rank heresy to Protestants. Yet Agony implies that Catholics mean the same thing as Protestants by the creeds—an inexcusable and deadly error in a book by eminent Christian scholars written to point out errors within the church. Though this and the other books cited above contain much that commends them, their approval of Catholicism is tragically misleading.

The deviation by Catholicism from biblical Christianity goes to the heart of the faith, to salvation itself, and thus affects the eternal destiny of those who are deceived thereby. Roman Catholicism rejects salvation by faith and preaches a false gospel of works that cannot save—salvation is not in Christ but in the Church through submission to its edicts and sacraments. The Basic Catechism of Christian Doctrine calls the sacraments “the chief means of our salvation.”

The first of the seven sacraments is baptism, which is performed upon 98 percent of Catholics as infants. It is declared in Canon 849 to be the means “by which men and women are freed from their sins, are reborn as children of God….” The Basic Catechism declares that baptism “is necessary for salvation…cleanses us from original sin, makes us Christians….” Another sacrament is the Mass, which the Catechismdeclares to be “one and the same Sacrifice with that of the Cross, inasmuch as Christ…continues to offer himself…on the altar, through the ministry of his priests.” Canon 904 states that “the work of redemption is continually accomplished in the mystery of the Eucharistic Sacrifice,” thus denying Christ’s triumphant “It is finished!”

Let me remind you of Hugh Latimer’s last words, spoken through the flames to his companion who was bound to the same stake: “Be of good courage, master Ridley…for we shall by God’s grace this day light such a ‘candle’ in England as I pray shall never go out!” Tragically, the “candle” lit by hundreds of thousands of faithful martyrs burned at the stake, if not already out, is barely flickering and in danger of being snuffed completely. Paul Crouch, head of the largest Christian TV worldwide network, demeans the martyrs by calling the issues they died for mere semantics; and he makes a mockery of the Reformers by declaring orthodox the heresies that sparked the Reformation.

Those who believe Rome’s lies and follow her gospel of works for salvation are lost. Failing to recognize this fact, many evangelical leaders and cult experts have themselves been deceived by Rome and need to be confronted and informed. How tragic to assume that Catholics are Christians who merely have some peripheral beliefs and practices which seem peculiar to Protestants but which will not prevent them from being saved. A false gospel is a false gospel, and it damns those who believe it, whether preached by Mormonism or Catholicism. A cult is a cult. Roman Catholics, like the members of other cults, need to be treated with compassion, warned of cultic lies, and presented with the true gospel, which alone can save them.

If you are concerned about the growing cooperation between Catholic organizations and major evangelical ministries, please write to them and ask where they stand on this critical issue. The questions could be: 1) What is your organization’s position regarding Catholic doctrines? 2) What is your position regarding organizational participation with Catholics in matters of world evangelization? 3) Are you presently either officially or unofficially involved with any Catholic lay or clerical groups or organizations? If so, on what basis…and to what end?

http://www.thebereancall.org/content/catholicism-christian-or-cultic

Posted by permission of the Berean Call

Article first published in June, 1991

Education for a New World by Carl Teichrib, Editor.

Posted on November 16, 2012 by ccpastormike

Editor’s NOTE: Now that the new school year is on our doorstep, I chose to focus this issue on the role of education as a tool for social transformation. With this in mind, I would encourage you to access the Forcing Change archives and download the following editions; Volume 1, Issue 9 – “Education for Indoctrination: UNESCO and Seven Complex Lessons,” and Volume 1, Issue 3 – “Educating for Global Citizenship.”

Please keep in mind that education for social change transcends the school system – it has become a culturally embedded reality, impacting media and entertainment, churches, government programs, business practices, and law. In other words, we need to be alert and wise to the changes taking place both in school settings and society as a whole. And we need to be tactful and truthful in our response to the worldview challenges.

Assaults on Faith and Family
Parental Rights, Mandatory Training, and Re-Education

Note: This is a combination of articles by my friend, Berit Kjos. They were originally penned a few years ago. Nevertheless, the information is as important today as when first published.

“…some opponents of Humanism have accused us of wishing to overthrow the traditional Christian family. They are right. That is exactly what we intend to do.” – The British Humanist Association, 1969.1

“…if you give me any normal human being and a couple of weeks, …I can change his behavior from what it is not to whatever you want it to be…. I can turn him from a Christian into a Communist… We can control behavior.” – Psychology Professor James McConnell, 1966.2

“The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers…” – UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.3

“Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.” – Colossians 2:6-8

Don’t be deceived! The twenty-year-old plus, United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), has little to do with personal rights. It has everything to do with changing values and undermining the traditional family. Since it transfers parental authority to the state, Christian children are legally free to reject safe family guidelines. The state will back their choice! As Hillary Clinton wrote back in the nineties, It Takes a Village!

This process started long ago. Its milestones include the birth of the United Nations in 1945 and, starting in 1948, its consultative relationships with the new World Federation for Mental Health. The Federation’s founding document, Mental Health and World Citizenship, exposed the mind-changing agenda behind the social sciences:

“Studies of human development indicate the modifiability of human behaviour throughout life, especially during infancy, childhood and adolescence… Social institutions such as family and school impose their imprint early… It is the men and women in whom these patterns of attitude and behaviour have been incorporated who present the immediate resistance to social, economic and political changes.”4

The CRC is designed to erode that resistance!

For example, its Article 14 tells parents to “respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.” That might make sense if parents were free to teach them safe moral and spiritual boundaries. But it spells disaster in today’s boundary-free culture, which bombards our children with promiscuous, pornographic and pluralistic suggestions and images.

Article 14 includes this qualification:

“Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.”

But who are those “others” that need protection? All who despise the Bible and are offended by moral standards? That’s already happening! As one school administrator warned a student: “Leave your faith in the car.”5

Article 15 grants children the right to “freedom of association,” while Article 16 forbids “interference with his or her privacy… or correspondence.” Their freedom to choose would fling the doors open to every lewd kind of literature, texting, and internet communications.

Notice the strange twist. With ratification of this Convention, the state terminates parental rights to set wise boundaries and maintain moral standards. It “frees” children to follow their new pied pipers into a world of corruption, group thinking, and government control. Meanwhile, Christian children lose their traditional right to express their faith, since Christian beliefs and values are too divisive for today’s changing world.

This heartbreaking process is illustrated by a Canadian family. Since Canada has ratified this Convention on the Rights of the Child, it must conform to United Nations’ standards. [Editor’s Note: When a nation binds itself to an international treaty, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child, that nation technically and legally obligates itself to the furtherance of that mandate].

“The father had ordered the daughter… to remain off the Internet. She didn’t, chatting on websites her father had tried to block and then posting ‘inappropriate’ pictures of herself online, using a friend’s Internet portal. As punishment, the father refused to let her go on a scheduled school trip, so the 12-year-old went to Canada’s judicial system to get her way… [she] had access to the courts using a court-appointed attorney representing her in her parents’ custody dispute.”6

“Quebec Superior Court rejected the Gatineau father’s appeal of a lower court ruling that said his punishment was too severe for the wrongs he said his daughter committed. The father is ‘flabbergasted’.”7

Such biased verdicts complement the deceptive language in the UN’s celebrated Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Notice how it parallels the CRC: Its Article 18 guarantees “the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.” And Article 19 affirms “the right to freedom of opinion and expression…” But Article 29 warns that: “these rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”

In other words, UN “rights” won’t be granted to those who disagree with its goals. They include:

• A New World Order ruled by unelected globalists with a socialist agenda

• The end of national sovereignty, absolute truth and the traditional family

• Social solidarity and spiritual pluralism purged of “divisive” Christian values.

• A communitarian network of partnerships between three sectors: (1) government, (2) business, and (3) social. The latter includes community organizations, churches, families, etc. In this unequal partnership, the government becomes the controlling “partner.” It would set the standards, measure (assess) compliance, reward group “progress,” and punish resisters.

This agenda may sound good to utopians that put their hope in global change – and who ignore the duplicity of today’s powerful and pragmatic globalist change agents. Today’s clever disinformation “speaks” louder than the truth, especially to listeners trained to follow feelings rather than facts!

So it’s not surprising that “double-speak” is central to UN propaganda. UNESCO’s Declaration on the Role of Religion is a good example. It calls for tolerance and dialogue – but shows no tolerance toward Christianity. Its unchanging truths simply don’t fit UNESCO requirements:

“We will promote dialogue and harmony between and within religions… respecting the search for truth and wisdom that is outside our religion… We call upon the different religious and cultural traditions to join hands… and to cooperate with us.”8

The word “cooperate” is a benign way of saying “submit to the new global standards.” And any substandard results of that “search for truth” would soon be silenced by today’s ever-present dialectical “group-think.”

No Room For Resisters

The CRC brings this interfaith agenda right into our homes and schools. Following the UN pattern, its promised “rights” are reserved for those who embrace its socialist, anti-Christian values. The Preamble sets the stage:

“Considering that the child should be fully prepared to live an individual life in society, and brought up in the spirit of the ideals proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, and in particular in the spirit of peace, dignity, tolerance, freedom, equality and solidarity…”

Each of the CRC Articles listed below either opens the door to justify action by the State, or to impose global values as a replacement to Bible standards.

ARTICLE 3. “…ensure that the institutions, services and facilities responsible for the care or protection of children shall conform with the standards established by competent authorities…”

ARTICLE 9. “…a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child…” Might faith in God’s unchanging Truth be considered incompatible with those “best interests”?

ARTICLE 12. “…assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.”

ARTICLE 17. “States Parties recognize the important function performed by the mass media and shall ensure that the child has access to information and material from a diversity of national and international sources, especially those aimed at the promotion of his or her social, spiritual and moral well-being and physical and mental health. To this end, States Parties shall…
(c) Encourage the production and dissemination of children’s books…
(e) Encourage the development of appropriate guidelines for the protection of the child from information and material injurious to his or her well-being.”

Article 17 is infused with many troubling points. First, the reference to “spiritual and moral wellbeing” is based on politically correct, not Christian, values. Second, in the dissemination of children’s books, what kind of message will be paraded? Today, most popular children book books immerse the reader in suggestions, images, beliefs and values that clash with Christian values. Finally, what material will children be protected from? Might those “injurious” materials include the Bible? Missionary stories? Traditional history books or other information that could clash with UN ideology? Probably!

Since the goal is change – establishing a New World Order – any hindrance to that vision is already censored in public schools. The Globalist Elite have no tolerance for the America we have treasured!

[Editor’s Note: The message conveyed by Berit extends beyond America’s boarders. Group think, collective action, political correctness, a global ethic, and top-down management have become dominant themes throughout much of the Western World – where, in the past, Biblical ethics and morality, individualism and responsibility, free enterprise, and traditional families have provided the backbone for strong communities and nations.]

Inciting Hatred For Resisters

This socialist revolution reminds me of the anger that followed the 1996 Oklahoma bombing. Day after day, the media’s accusing pens pointed to suspected foes of American togetherness – those whose “enraged rhetoric” had created a national “climate of hate and paranoia.” They ranged from “rabid” radio hosts and “extremists” to concerned Christian parents. “Their coalition,” wrote Time, “included well known-elements of far-right thought: tax protesters, Christian homeschoolers, conspiracy theorists… and self-reliant types who resent a Federal Government that seems to favor grizzly bears and wolves over humans…”9

Apparently, the controversial report from the Department of Homeland Security was simply one of many expression of the socialist agenda. Do you remember its amazing report on ‘Right-wing Extremism?’ It suggests that economic woes, “the return of military veterans” and “individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration”10 could lead to the “emergence of terrorist groups” and violence.

Notice what’s happening. In spite of their call to unity, our socialist leaders are stirring up division. That’s because this intentional vilification of ordinary, peace-loving Americans serves a useful purpose.

Hitler understood the importance of social division as a mechanism for cultural change. He, too, was determined to separate followers from resisters, and in the process he solidified the National Socialist worldview. Remember what he wrote in Mein Kampf:

“The art of truly great popular leaders in all ages has consisted chiefly in… concentrating always on a single adversary… It is part of a great leader’s genius to make even widely separated adversaries appear as if they belonged to one category…”11

[Editor’s Note: By branding critics as “saboteurs of progress,” it allows change agents to rally emotional support against “resisters.” This, in turn, places enormous pressure on opponents. Their voices become marginalized as the collective will of the people – shaped by the new worldview – no longer tolerate the “old values.” In the case of Hitler’s Germany, Mao’s China, and Lenin and Stalin’s Soviet Union, “resisters” become silenced for the general good of the new order.]

The Convention on the Rights of the Child is an invitation as well as a curse. It would “free” our children and grandchildren to be World Citizens, immune to the call of God and traditional parental values. But for those who refuse to compromise, it spells the end of freedom. Ordinary Americans are demonized as an enemy, while the actual enemy has become a friend. Thomas Sowell said it well:

“While the rest of us may be worried about violent Mexican drug gangs on our border… the Director of Homeland Security is worried about ‘right-wing extremists.’ …[S]omehow they just know that you right-wingers are itching to unleash terror somewhere…

“So-called ‘honor killings’ by Muslims in the United States… does not seem to arouse any concern by the Department of Homeland Security… When it comes to the thuggery of ACORN… the Department of Homeland Security apparently sees no evil, hears no evil and speaks no evil.”12

Saving The Earth

Article 29 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child states: “…the education of the child shall be directed to… (e) The development of respect for the natural environment.”

That vision could be good if it wasn’t wrapped in a political and spiritual agenda. But countless environmental and religious groups are now sharing their strategies for a new earth-centered ideology. Many so-called churches are persuaded that green religions are more beneficial than the “obsolete” certainties of the Bible. Al Gore leads the way. Ponder this quote from Earth in the Balance:

“The richness and diversity of our religious tradition throughout history is a spiritual resource long ignored by people of faith, who are often afraid to open their minds to teachings first offered outside their own system of belief.

“But the emergence of a civilization in which knowledge moves freely and almost instantaneously throughout the world has… spurred a renewed investigation of the wisdom distilled by all faiths. This panreligious perspective may prove especially important where our global civilization’s responsibility for the earth is concerned.” (pages 258-259)

Mocking truth is a sign of our times, and “fear” has become a common accusation against us. Yet, of all the world’s people, Christians have the least reason to fear. For our sovereign God reigns – all the more in the midst of today’s unholy changes:

“…in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” – Romans 8:37-39

Meanwhile, “Be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. Put on the whole armor of God…” – Ephesians 6:10-12

Mandatory Training

“The bourgeois family will vanish… Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty. But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social. And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate…? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention…” – Marx and Engels, Communist Manifesto.13

“John Dewey wrote… that the Bolsheviks were engaged in ‘a most interesting sociological experiment…’ using progressive educational ideas and practices to ‘counteract and transform… the influence of home and Church’.” – Dr. Dennis Cuddy.14

“Years before he had inflicted… dialectical materialism on a long-suffering world, Marx called for what had to be accomplished – the ‘ruthless destruction of everything existing.’ That destruction would wipe out religion, the family, morality… and everything that made Western civilization… The seemingly modest instrument was the [Frankfurt] Institute of Social Research… dedicated to neo-Marxism.’
…the greatest harm came when the Frankfurt School decamped to America, courtesy of John Dewey and Columbia University.” – Cry Havoc.15

Remember that proverbial frog in a pot of water? It finally died, since it didn’t notice the slow-rising heat. Few saw the early signs of the Neo-Marxist ideology that has invaded our schools and universities. But back in Teddy Roosevelt’s day, who would have guessed that a major goal of John Dewey’s “progressive education” was to weaken the traditional family, trade freedom for collectivism, and replace Christianity with an evolving form of “spiritual” solidarity?16

In his 1908 article, “Religion and our Schools,” Dewey wrote that “dogmatic beliefs” were “disappearing.” Decades later, while presiding over the American Humanist Association, he co-authored the 1933 Humanist Manifesto. Notice how his words reflect today’s emerging churches:

“Any religion that can hope to be a synthesizing and dynamic force for today, must be shaped for the needs of this age. To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present.”17

Fast-forward to the 21st century. The ever-present dialectic process now reigns in churches as well as schools. And in cities across America, Alinsky-trained “community organizers” work side-by-side with students doing their “service-learning” from coast to coast. Meanwhile, Christian families face rising opposition. For example,

“A 10-year-old homeschool girl described as ‘well liked, social and interactive with her peers, academically promising and intellectually at or superior to grade level’ has been told by a New Hampshire court official to attend a government school because she was too ‘vigorous’ in defense of her Christian faith. The decision… reasoned that the girl’s ‘vigorous defense of her religious beliefs to [a court assigned] counselor suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view.’…

“…a guardian ad litem [assigned to represent the interest of the child] concluded the girl ‘appeared to reflect her mother’s rigidity on questions of faith’ and that the girl’s interests ‘would be best served by exposure to a public school setting’ and ‘different points of view at a time when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief… in order to select, as a young adult, which of those systems will best suit her own needs’.”18

Did you catch that? The court tells us that this Christian girl – an excellent student – does not have the right to “choose” which religion best “suits her own needs” until she has examined many other “systems of beliefs.” Only as “a young adult” would she know enough about the world’s diverse religions to choose a suitable system.

Would that rule apply to Muslim children? Buddhist children? Hindu children?

Of course not! In today’s “progressive” global culture, the “enemy” is Christianity. Other religions are protected. After all, they are essential to the new vision of “unity in diversity.”

You see, today’s change agents consider Biblical Christianity a major obstacle to global solidarity. And nothing erodes Christian values more effectively than immersion into small groups led by trained facilitators who guide the diverse members toward a pre-planned unity of heart and mind.

The Marxist Practice of PRAXIS

But there’s more to this manipulation. The path to pluralism calls for a strategic blend of group consensus [an evolving THEORY] and collective PRACTICE: active immersion into a community with diverse social and moral values. Such “service-learning” has become a norm in schools, colleges, and service organizations everywhere.

Based on Hegelian dialectics, Marxist ideology, and Antonio Gramsci’s gradualism, this manipulative process spread around the world during the 20th century. Its blend of an evolving consensus or THEORY and collective PRACTICE would be called PRAXIS. It would seal the new lessons in “open” minds, while undermining all forms of traditional certainties. It would shift the public mindset from the solid rock of Truth and facts to the shifting sands of collective opinion.

Karl Marx first mentioned PRAXIS in 1844. According to the double-speak of the Encyclopedia of Marxism, it’s “just another word for practice in the sense in which practice is understood by Marxists.” And according to various Marxist documents, Marx saw it as the continual interaction of “theory-and-practice, in which neither theory nor practice are intelligible in isolation from the other.”19

In other words, the group must continually confirm its evolving theories with corresponding practice. Its members must be ready to compromise for the sake of consensus (the evolving THEORY), and then PRACTICE its new views through some kind of group action or service – followed by a time of group REFLECTION. The process is repeated again and again, ad infinitum.

Not all groups fit this mold. Many Christian groups are grounded in facts, truth and certainty. They seek God, not change! They act on His Word, not popular opinions. Their hope cannot be quenched by the world’s changing opinions: “This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast…” Hebrews 6:19

The Marxist View of Christianity – The “Religion” of His Time

To Karl Marx, Christianity was detestable! He hated it! And since its various expressions had spread throughout Europe, it had to be eradicated. So, in his Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law, he wrote,

“Man makes religion, religion does not make man… Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of spiritless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”20

From a Communist perspective, it makes sense. But from a Biblical perspective, it’s nonsense! Marx believed in continual change. Christians believe in unchanging Truth, which clashes with that dialectical progression. Christianity can’t be squeezed into the Marxist revolutionary process. Nor can Marxism fit into God’s churches without perverting both Truth and faith. The two are incompatible!

The Encyclopedia of Marxism rationalizes the word “absolute” to fit its evolving theories:

“…the progress of knowledge never comes to an end, so the absolute is relative. However, even a relative truth may nevertheless contain some grain of the whole absolute truth, so there is an absolute within the relative.”21

This distinction is important. Apart from God’s unchanging Truth, there is no concrete hope or certainty to stand on, because man’s unending desire to redefine reality knows no bounds. Few examples are more disturbing than the distortions of God’s Word in today’s postmodern churches.

Training our Youth in Marxist Praxis

An Internet survey of American colleges will quickly expose the acceptance and popularity of Praxis. Take the University of Wisconsin. Its page on “Service Learning Pedagogy” sounds innocent enough. It seems to reflect the Christian tradition of loving and serving the poor and needy, but it actually fits right into the Marxist formula for change: Facilitated Dialogue (establishing a pre-planned, transformational OBJECTIVE) or THEORY + PRACTICE (practical experience that changes values) = PRAXIS. Its website affirms this process:

“The process of critical reflection is an essential element of service learning. It enhances student learning by connecting the service and the academic experiences. It links THEORY with PRACTICE.”22

The real purpose is calculated change. Whether the students’ assignment involves homeless shelters, drug and addiction issues, community organizing, medical care, or environmental issues, they will be led toward emotional involvement with those who “hurt,” be they humans, animals or a “fragile earth.” They learn to evaluate reality through subjective feelings, which can easily be manipulated. Like the students in the infamous Clinton’s Governor School, they are trained to see life from an irrational – often a revolutionary – perspective.

When students are immersed in morally “diverse” contexts that mock Biblical values, they are likely to emerge with a disturbing familiarity with unforgettable corruption. They learn to “tolerate” practices that mock our God, empathize with those who face the painful consequences of bad choices, and accept social evils as a normal condition.

The actual transformation in student values will usually be measured by assessments done before and after each service-learning experience. These assessments are key to documenting the effectiveness of the program. The website for Minnesota State Colleges and Universities shows the significance of “reflection” and “assessments:

“Service-learning is not volunteerism. Reflection allows students to think critically about their experience, including how the experience affected them emotionally and how their values may have changed… Student assessments may include pre-service and post-service assessments…”23

This transformational strategy may sound kind and compassionate to its numerous supporters, but it virtually immunizes most participants against God’s moral guidelines. And those who don’t flow with the changing values will pay the high cost of low assessments and poor grades.

Julea Ward, a Christian student at Eastern Michigan University, was expelled from graduate school “for not affirming homosexual behavior as acceptable.”24 Though she wasn’t involved in formal “service-learning,” she illustrates the general university attitude toward Christian values.

This seductive PRAXIS is now the norm in “service learning” programs from elementary schools through college – and on through adulthood. With President Obama’s universal service plans, and the Serve America Act as a plank, generations will be exposed to manipulative, mind-changing experiences.

Redefining Rights and Freedom

The 10-year old girl mentioned earlier illustrates a battle that has raged in Germany since the days of Hitler: Should parents have the right and authority to raise their children according to their Christian faith? The Convention on the Rights of the Child was designed to end that right in America and elsewhere. Of course, in modern Germany, parents never had such a right:

“A critical hearing is scheduled in Germany in that nation’s war against homeschoolers to determine whether a family can continue to control the education of its high-performing son, 14. …the Schmidts have been fined about $18,300 for homeschooling, and since they are unable to pay all of the fines, they have been subjected to a government lien on their home. ‘Testing [of] both children showed that they have extraordinary academic abilities… The tests also showed the children to be socially competent. This is critical as the Germans still hold to the disproven belief that homeschool children are socially retarded.’…

“Several hundred families are believed to be homeschooling in Germany. Virtually all are in some type of court proceeding or living underground. One family even fled to the U.S…

“…one of the first acts by Adolf Hitler when he moved into power was to create the governmental Ministry of Education and give it control of all schools and school-related issues… In 1937, the dictator said, ‘…we have set before ourselves the task of inoculating our youth with the spirit of this community of the people at a very early age… And this new Reich… will itself take youth and give to youth its own education and its own upbringing’.”25

Like persecuted Christians around the world, we must make a choice: will we please the world and follow its ways – or please God and follow His Way? Since America is rapidly embracing Neo-Marxist ideals, Christians who refuse to conform may soon reap the wrath of the world.

Please stay alert to this transformation. The pressure to compromise our Biblical values starts in elementary school or earlier. Once the anchor to Truth is torn away, most young minds will flow with the strongest currents. Dear friends, don’t let go of that anchor! Warn your children! And train them to trust, follow and “abide” in our wonderful Shepherd.

Re-Education

“The purpose of education and the schools is to change the thoughts, feelings and actions of students.” – Benjamin Bloom.26

“As the home and church decline in influence… schools must begin to provide adequately for the emotional and moral development of children… The school… must assume a direct responsibility for the attitudes and values of child development. The child advocate, psychologist, social technician, and medical technician should all reach aggressively into the community, send workers out to children’s homes…” – Joint Commission on Mental Health of Children.27

“A proposal for new social studies curriculum in Texas public schools removes a mention of Christmas in a sixth-grade lesson, replacing it with a Hindu religious festival…” – Houston Chronicle.28

“…the breakdown of traditional families, far from being a ‘crisis,’ is actually a… triumph for human rights against ‘patriarchy’.” – UN Population Fund leader.29

The traditional Christian family has been a continual obstacle to the globalist vision of solidarity. And for over sixty years, the United Nations and its mental health gurus have fought hard to eradicate those old “poisonous certainties” that stood in their way. They seem to be gaining ground!

Since Hitler outlawed homeschooling about 70 years ago, German parents have faced the harshest battles. Now other nations are catching up. Notice the government attitudes in the following examples:

“A critical hearing is scheduled in Germany in that nation’s war against homeschoolers to determine whether a family can continue to control the education of its high-performing son, 14… ‘One of the fundamental rights of parents is the right to educate their children according to the dictates of their own religious beliefs’.”30

That “fundamental right” is fast being replaced by government-defined “community” or “collective rights.” The fact that those homeschooled children have “extraordinary academic abilities” and are “socially competent” doesn’t matter. Today’s rising global system doesn’t want “competent” Christian leaders. Not in Sweden, not in America – not anywhere!

“A North Carolina judge has ordered three children to attend public schools this fall because the homeschooling their mother has provided over the last four years needs to be ‘challenged.’ The children, however, have tested above their grade levels – by as much as two years… The judge… explained his goal …to make sure they have a ‘more well-rounded education.’ …the judge also said public school would ‘prepare these kids for the real world and college’ and allow them ‘socialization’.”31

Such socialization tactics “worked well” in the Soviet Union. Based on the Marxist/Hegelian dialectic process, they include collective thinking, manipulative peer pressure, denial of absolutes, shameless “tolerance” for immorality, and irrational intolerance for contrary views.

The results can be disastrous. Students trained to scorn God’s guidelines and conform to the crowd are anything but free. Most are soon driven by evolving new notions that undermine all truth and certainty. Loosed from moral constraints, many are bound by their own lusts, obsessions, and (ultimately) despair.

A Model School for Future Leaders

Bill Clinton’s “Governor’s School” – one of many across America during the eighties – demonstrates the tragic results. For six weeks each summer, it isolated selected Arkansas high school students from the outside world and immersed them in liberal ideology, sensual literature, group dialogue, and mystical thrills – both real and imagined.32

“Students do me a favor,” urged author Ellen Gilchrist, a guest speaker at the school. “Totally ignore your parents. Listen to them, but then forget them. Because you need to start using your own stuff, your real stuff that you have.”33

Her aim was to free students from “obsolete” family values, not promote personal independence. They must reject the old ways and become “open-minded” – ready to accept the unthinkable practices that would bombard their minds.

By the time they left the Governor’s School, their utopian dreams seemed more real than the actual world. Like the planned results of Soviet brainwashing, they had been weaned from truth, facts and reality. With seared consciences, new ideals, and volatile emotions, they would now face the old world they had left behind only six weeks earlier.

The Marxist change agents behind this transformation are too numerous to list, but behavioral psychologist Kurt Lewin gives us a simple formula. Linked to infamous psychological research institutes in London (Tavistock) and Germany (Frankfurt Institute), Lewin moved to America when Hitler began his reign. His influence spread through MIT and other universities, then paved the way for “sensitivity training” and the formation of National Training Laboratories that would prepare transformational tactics and textbooks for public schools.

Lewin outlined his program with a 3-step formula:

• UNFREEZING minds: Questioning the old ways through facilitated dialogue, peer pressure, and group “experience” – real or imagined.

• MOVING the students to the new level: Using cognitive dissonance (mental, moral and emotional confusion), peer pressure, and manipulated consensus to loyalties from the old ways and to the new.

• FREEZING group minds on the new level: The new views become the norm. They feel good! The old views become offensive as well as wrong!34

For the students, the transition back to reality – to home, family and normal life – was painful. For some it was lethal.

“When I came back home, I sort of wrote a suicide note to myself,” confessed LeAndrew Crawford. “Not actually wanting to kill myself, but wanting to kill the reality of what society had been teaching me for so long… I was totally down, because my family just didn’t feel like my family… I didn’t want to be back.” [See footnote 33]

Brandon Hawk did kill himself within a year. Hearing about his death, other concerned parents contacted Brandon’s parents.

“They see the same thing in their kids that we saw in Brandon,” the father explained. “They just sort of walk off and leave the family.” [See footnote 33]

But Brandon wasn’t the only one who chose death rather than life. After the third suicide, the Joint Interim Education Committee of the Arkansas legislature held hearings that exposed some of the problems. Perhaps the most revealing testimony came from Brandon’s mother, who read from her son’s log. In his first entry, he wrote,

“‘Moms are the best people around, and my mom is the best mom on earth.’ But three weeks later, he wrote: ‘My mom is so closed minded I feel like we will have a standoff soon over issues.’ And his final entry stated: ‘After I came back from the [three day, July 4] break, my friends and I could tell that we had suddenly been transformed into free thinkers’.” [See footnote 33]

Another mother testified that, “My son came back from Governor’s School and his favorite line was ‘There are no absolutes; there are no absolutes.” [See footnote 33]

It didn’t take long to change the students’ minds and hearts, did it? Yet few teachers or parents are aware of this subversive agenda.

Back in 1982, Professor Benjamin Bloom, an internationally known behaviorist, defined “good teaching” as “challenging the students’ fixed beliefs and getting them to discuss issues.”35 (Sounds like Kurt Lewin, doesn’t it?) He added,

“The evidence collected thus far suggests that a single hour of classroom activity under certain conditions may bring about a major reorganization in cognitive as well as affective (attitudes, values and beliefs) behaviors.”36

The most revealing evidence that this scheme really “works” comes from those who participated in the Clinton’s Governor’s School. In light of today’s rapid changes, it makes sense to remember their testimonies as recorded in the documentary video titled The Guiding Hand:

1. ISOLATE STUDENTS FROM TRADITIONAL FAMILY VALUES

“For the six weeks … they are not allowed to go home except for July the Fourth. They are discouraged from calling home…. They can receive mail but they are encouraged to have as little contact with the outside world as possible.” (Shelvie Cole, Brandon’s mother)

“I felt that I needed not to talk about it. I don’t know why. Maybe because we were supposed to stay here and the fact that we couldn’t leave… No one… who had gone before would talk to me about it.” (Kelli Wood, former student)

The “effectiveness” of such mandatory separation may help explain why (1) educational change agents want to put 3-year-olds in pre-school programs and (2) why “Obama says American kids spend too little time in school.”37

2. REINFORCE NEW LIBERAL, ANTI-CHRISTIAN VALUES

“We watched movies like Harvey Milk. We learned about gay life – those things that your parents say, ‘This is wrong… You shouldn’t see this type of thing because, hey, that’s just not right…’“ (LeAndrew Crawford, former student)

“[The instructors] tear down their authority figure system and… help establish another one… They convince the students that ‘You are the elite. The reason why you’re not going to be understood when you go home – not by your parents, your friends, your pastor or anybody – is because you have been treated to thought that they can’t handle.’ …[This] intellectual and cultural elitism gives them the right… to say, ‘We know better than you’.” (Mark Lowery, former director for Governor’s School publicity)

3. EMPHASIZE FEELING-CENTERED (affective, not cognitive) TEACHING:

“Rather than learning what 2 and 2 equals, they would be asked what they feel about 2+2. Right now we have a move going on in our Arkansas schools called restructuring, where they are trying to get away from more objective, substantive learning into this subjective area of feelings.” (Mark Lowery)

“You would think that there would be some academic challenges… getting ready for college… The main textbook that I remember from there is a book called Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and the book is totally Hindu religion defined.” (Steve Roberts, former student)

4. SHAPE A PERSONAL, ALL-INCLUSIVE SPIRITUALITY:

“A lot of places… even Christian camps, you get that stress about ‘What am I doing wrong?’ …There it was like, hey, I can talk to God! Me and God are one, the world is one… Jump up and down, you know, just twirl around. It was kind of like that Baha’i idea. How you have Islam, Baha’i, Muslim, Christianity… They’re all different kinds of trees, but underneath, its root system grows together [and] is the same god.” (Steven Allen, student)

5. INSTILL THE TARGET BELIEFS – A ‘NEW’ SOCIAL AND POLITICAL AGENDA:

The next quote fits Bill Clinton’s experience. He was selected as a potential future leader – a Rhodes scholar – worthy of the required indoctrination:

“I think the whole intent of the Governor’s School in taking 350 – 400 students per summer, is to pick out the four, five or six students that could be political leaders and then to mold their minds in this more liberal and humanistic thinking… [T]o be considered intellectual…you have to be a liberal thinker…” (Mark Lowery, former director)

“They’re bringing a political agenda in the guise of academic excellence… It was something that was well orchestrated, well organized, it was mind-bending and manipulative.” (Steve Roberts)

“Prominent themes promoted by this school include radical homosexuality, socialism, pacifism and a consistent hostility toward Western civilization and culture, especially Biblical foundations.” (Jeoffrey Botkin)

6. BUILD ALLEGIANCE TO THE NEW COMMUNITY:

“You could dress just about any way you want. We had almost naked people. It was real liberal… an awful lot of cursing.” (Mike Oonk, former student)

“The students… say, ‘This is the perfect place. I never want to go home.’ I caught myself saying that several times.” (Mike Oonk) [See footnote 33]

Indoctrinating students with diverse beliefs, socialist values, utopian dreams, and idealized love leads to deception, disillusionment, corruption and chaos. But that fits the battle plan for global transformation just fine. Today’s change agents need chaos and crisis to justify their oppressive action. Not only does it unravel the old social order, it gives an illusion of newfound freedom – from family values as well moral restrains.38

“It would be impossible for me to describe to you just how exciting and unusual this educational adventure is,” said Bill Clinton. [See footnote 33]

It wasn’t exciting for re-programmed students who returned home. But that problem may soon be resolved. Through “service-learning” and other long-term re-learning projects, today’s students can stay rooted in the new environment – even if they sleep at home.

This is where we are headed, dear friends! During this last year, three students at a top-rated high school in California committed suicide – one of the many consequences of today’s emotional confusion. One evening, as desperate parents met with school officials to seek solutions, a fourth student attempted suicide at the nearest railroad crossing. He was pulled off the track seconds before the train thundered down the track.39

Standing Firm in this Social and Spiritual War

The school offered no real solutions. But our God does! Please take these guidelines to heart:

• Pray! For as Jesus said, “…apart from Me you can do nothing.” (John 15:5)

• Prepare yourself. “Be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. Put on the whole Armor of God…” Eph. 6:10-11

• Equip your children to discern evil and resist compromise. “Do not be deceived…” 1 Cor.15:33

• Trust God, not yourself. “O our God… we have no power against this great multitude that is coming against us; nor do we know what to do, but our eyes are upon You.” 2 Chron. 20:12

• Inform and warn all who will listen. “I now send you, to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light…” Acts 26:17-18

“Thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord…” 1 Corinthians 15:57

“…do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.” – Romans 12:2

Endnotes:
1 “Marriage and the Family,” The British Humanist Association, 1969. Cited by Dr. Dennis L. Cuddy, The Globalists
(Oklahoma City: Hearthstone Publishing, 2001), p.124.
2 Dr. Dennis L. Cuddy, The Globalists (Oklahoma City: Hearthstone Publishing, 2001), pp.133-134.
3 Our Creative Diversity, 1995, page 46. Note: I picked up this UNESCO publication in Istanbul during the 1996 UN
Conference on Human Settlements. It was a real eye-opener.
4 Mental Health and World Citizenship, pp.7-8. Distributed by the National Association For Mental Health, Inc.
5 “Student Told: ‘Leave Your Faith in the Car,” WorldNetDaily, 6-3-04.
6 “Dad Grounds Daughter, But Court Ungrounds Her,” WorldNetDaily, 06/18/2008.
7 “Quebec dad sued by daughter after grounding loses his appeal,” CBC News, online edition, April 7, 2009.
8 See, “UNESCO’s Declaration on the Role of Religion” at www.crossroad.to/Quotes/globalism/declaration-on-religion.htm
9 Philip Weiss, “Outcasts Digging in for the Apocalypse,” Time, 5-1-1995; p.48.
10 “Homeland Security on guard for ‘right-wing extremists’,” WorldNetDaily, 04/12/2009.
11 See, “The Enemy of the People” at www.crossroad.to/text/articles/teotp1196.html
12 Thomas Sowell, “Are You an Extremists?” www.TownHall.com, April 21, 2009.
13 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party, downloadable at www.marxists.org .
14 Dennis L. Cuddy., quoting John Dewey, “Impressions of Soviet Russia,” The New Republic, December 5, 1928, pp.65-66.
15 Cry Havoc by Ralph de Toledano, Reviewed by Nathanael Blake, Human Events, 5-15-2007.
16 See, “Marching toward Global Solidarity” at http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/006/solidarity-1.html
17 The Humanist Manifesto, 1933. http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto1.html
18 Bob Unruh, “Court orders Christian child into government education,” WorldNetDaily, 8-28-09.
19 Encyclopedia of Marxism at www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/r.htm
20 Karl Marx, “Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law,” cited in Encyclopedia of Marxism.
21 Encyclopedia of Marxism, www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/a/b.htm#absolute
22 “Service Learning Pedagogy,” University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, www4.uwm.edu/isl/faculty/pedagogy.htm
23 Minnesota State Colleges and Universities, Office of the Chancellor, Service Learning.
24 “University Removes Student Who Refuses to Affirm Homosexual Practices” at ReveLife.com, May 31, 2009.
25 Bob Unruh, “State could take custody of teen homeschooler,” WorldNetDaily, 8-29-2009.
26 Benjamin Bloom, A” Our Children Learning, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1981), p.180.
27 Joint Commission on Mental Health of Children. The unabridged report is no longer available, but the 1969 report is
summarized at Education Resources Information Center (eric.ed.gov).
28 For more on this, please see the Houston Chronicle, online edition, September 11, 2009.
29 Matthew Cullinan Hoffman, “United Nations Population Fund leader says family breakdown is a triumph for Human
Rights,” February 3, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com)
30 Bob Unruh, “State could take custody of teen homeschooler” WorldNetDaily, 08/28/2009.
31 For more, see Bob Unruh, “Judge Orders Homeschoolers into Public District classrooms,” WorldNetDaily, 03/11/2009.
32 From The Guiding Hand, a video produced by Geoffrey Botkin in 1992.
33 Ibid. Quoting Ellen Gilchrist, author of In the Land of Dreamy Dreams, quoted by a student.
34 Kurt Lewin, “Group Decision and Social Change” at www.crossroad.to/Quotes/brainwashing/kurt-lewin-change.htm
35 Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, The Classification of Educational Goals, Affective Goals ( McKay Publishers, 1956), p. 55.
36 Ibid., p.88.
37 “Obama would curtail summer vacation” at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090927/ap_on_re_us/us_more_school
38 See, “Paradigm Shift” at http://www.crossroad.to/charts/paradigm_shift.html
39 3rd Caltrain Teen Suicide Spurs Action” at http://cbs5.com/local/caltrain.teenager.suicide.2.1141695.html

Quotes on Education for Transformation

1. “I have suggested that the textbooks be rewritten in terms of right human relations and not from the present nationalistic and separative angles… To all of these I would like to add that one of our immediate educational objectives must be the elimination of the competitive spirit and the substitution of the cooperative consciousness.” – Alice Bailey [a leading occultist who influenced Robert Muller, founder of the United Nations World Core Curriculum], Education in the New Age (Lucis Trust), p.74.

2. “Educational institutions play an important part in most societies as agents of social control, cultural change, and, not least, social selection.” – A.H. Halsey, “Education and Social Selection,” Power and Ideology in Education (Oxford University Press, 1977), p.167.

3. “…since the world to-day is in process of becoming one, and since a major aim of UNESCO must be to help in the speedy and satisfactory realisation of this process, UNESCO must pay special attention to international education – to education as a function of a world society.” – Julian Huxley [first UNESCO Director-General], UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy (Public Affairs Press, 1947), pp.29-30.

4. “The task of education for the immediate future is to assist in activating an ethic of planetary sensitivity that will assist us in practicing disciplines that protect us from the allurements of our morbid commodity culture… We must pass from a human-centred to an earth-centred sense of reality and value.” – Budd Hall and Edmund Sullivan [Professors of Transformational Learning], “Transformative Education and Environmental Action in the Ecozoic Era,” Empowerment for Sustainable Development (International Institute for Sustainable Development, 1995), p.102.

5. “…global education must transcend material, scientific and intellectual achievements and reach deliberately into the moral and spiritual spheres.” – Dr. Robert Muller [former UN official and developer of the World Core Curriculum], New Genesis: Shaping a Global Spirituality (World Happiness and Cooperation, 1982), p.8.

6. “The principle of the oneness of humanity must be wholeheartedly embraced by those in whose hands the responsibility for decision making rests, and its related tenets – including the concept of world citizenship – must be propagated through both education systems and the media.” – Jaime Duhart [representative of the Baha’i International Community], Social Priorities of Civil Society: Speeches by Non-Governmental Organizations at the World Summit for Social Development (UN NGLS, 1996), p.2.

Carl Teichrib is the editor of Forcing Change (www.forcingchange.org), a monthly online publication detailing the changing worldview and transforming agendas now shaping society, the church, and nation.

FC is a monthly, online publication dedicated to documenting and analyzing the socio-religious transformations now sweeping our Western world.

Forcing Change is a membership subscription service, with an annual fee of $54.95 US. Membership in Forcing Change allows access to the full range of FC publications, including special reports, audio and media presentations, FC back issues, expert documents, and more. FC receives neither government funding nor the financial backing of any other institutions; rather, FC operates solely on subscription/membership support. To learn more about Forcing Change, including member benefits, go to www.forcingchange.org.

Note from Berit: May I suggest you subscribe to this great online magazine. This vital information will help us prepare for the challenges we will be facing in the years ahead.

Benefits of Forcing Change membership…

Access to every issue of Forcing Change, our fully documented monthly publication.
Membership-only admittance to a large assortment of source documents, including many rare items, all in downloadable PDF.
Access to specialized e-reports such as The Power Puzzle: A Compilation of Documents on Global Governance.
Direct access to media files, reading lists, audio features, and more!

Membership in Forcing Change allows access to the full range of FC publications, including e-reports, audio and media presentations, Forcing Change back issues, downloadable expert documents, and more. FC receives neither government funding nor the financial backing of any other institutions; rather, Forcing Change operates solely on subscription/membership support. To learn more about Forcing Change, including membership benefits, go to

www.forcingchange.org

Forcing Change, P.O. Box 31

Plumas, Manitoba, Canada, R0J-1P0

http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/forcing-change/12/8-education.htm

Article used by permission.