Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

We recommend "Landscape" print layout.

Religious Liberals Unite For Reasons Only Secular Humanists Can Applaud 

By Carman Bradley

 
Background

Before tackling the broader and complex issue of what authentic Christians should (and should not) be witnessing and doing in the 21^st Century, it is crucial to reaffirm a few pillars of Christianity.    

Normally, condemned men were forced to carry a beam of the cross to the place of the crucifixion.  Jesus started out with his cross (John 19:17), but he was so weakened by public flogging that Simon from Cyrene, a passer-by, was pressed to carry it to the place called Golgotha.  The written notice of the charge against Him read: The King of the Jews.  Two other men, both criminals, were also executed with Jesus - one on His left and one on His right.  Those who passed by hurled insults at Him, shaking their heads and saying: “So! You are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, come down from the cross and save yourself!”

 
“Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing,” Jesus said (Luke 23:34). 

 
The people stood watching, and the rulers even sneered at Him.  They said, “He saved others; let Him save Himself if He is the Christ of God, the Chosen One.”  One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at Him: “Aren’t you the Christ? Save yourself and us!”  But the other criminal rebuked him.  “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence?  We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve.  But this man has done nothing wrong.”  Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” 

 
Jesus answered him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). 

 
At the sixth hour darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour, when Jesus cried out, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”  By now the sun stopped shining. 

 
Just before His last breath, Jesus called out, “Father into your hands I commit my spirit” (Luke 23:46). 

 
For the believer to fully appreciate Jesus Christ’s death as depicted here, he must accept four key cognitive pre-conditions. 

 
First, we accept that every Christian receives a spirit, but it is never said that she or he is a spirit.  This “spirit” like that which Jesus commits to God at His death is an incorporeal aspect of human nature.  When the Bible speaks of the origin of the spirit, it invariably ascribes it to God.  In both Testaments it is the human’s individual spirit which is the “spring of his innermost thoughts and intentions,” and the child of God must be renewed in spirit if he is to serve God acceptably. The following passages help illustrate the intricate relationship of our spirit and the Spirit of God:

 
Create in me a pure heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me.  Do not cast me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from me.  Restore to me the joy of your salvation and grant me a willing spirit, to sustain me.   (Psalm 51:10)                                

Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again…no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water [flesh] and the Spirit.  Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.  (John 3:3-6) [My underline]     

The spirit is not something which has mass or tangible image.  Nor can it be put into a bottle.  It exists nonetheless:

 
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control…Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires.  Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit.  (Galatians 5:22)       

                                                   
Second, is the pre-condition of believing in Heaven and Hell.  Upon death one of the criminals is going with Jesus to “Paradise.”  The other criminal is obviously going somewhere else.  Those who do not turn themselves over to Christ, accepting Him as Lord and Savior, do not go to “paradise.”  The so-called “hell” is the alternative, spiritual state of the ungodly.  The Apostle Matthew refers to “the fire of hell” (Matthew 5:22) as the final place of punishment.  The Apostle Luke wrote about a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day.  At his gate was a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table.  Even the dogs came and licked the beggar’s sores.  The time came for their deaths.  Angels carried Larazus to Paradise and the rich man went to torment in hell:

[The rich man called] Father Abraham have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.  But Abraham replied, ‘Son remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony.  And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’  He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house for I have five brothers.  Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’  Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’  ‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’  He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’  (Luke16: 19-31)

Religious liberals have all but smothered the issue of laws, judgment and consequences under some universal notion that God’s infinite and unconditional love assures all a place in Heaven.  This “cheap grace” heresy flies in the face of the Gospel of Jesus Christ where commandments, righteous rules, boundaries and consequences are in effect (Matthew 5:17-19).  God did not excuse Pharaoh in the time of Moses, nor the mocking criminal at the crucifixion.  Scripture tells us He will not receive us other than with a repentant heart and the accepted atoning blood of Jesus Christ.  

Third, and the most vital cognitive pre-condition, is acceptance of Jesus as the divine Son of God.  Jesus knew he was the Messiah and his actions reflected this.  His response to the believing criminal, demonstrates His authority, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.”  Throughout His short life, He consistently conducted Himself as God’s divine Son.  Therefore, in summary, before addressing the Resurrection, the description of Christ’s death tells us:

(1) His Spirit was placed in God’s hands;

(2) There is a Heaven and Hell; and

(3) Jesus has Divine authority on earth.

 
The Resurrection of Jesus lies at the heart of Christian faith.  Did God raise His Son or is this a hoax?  Authentic Christians profess the divinity of Jesus Christ, humanists proclaim Christianity to be a hoax, and religious liberals profess an apostate theology comprised from both worldviews.  The great second century Christian apologist, Origen, faced pagan critics on this issue in his day (245 A.D.).  The debate has always been part of post crucifixion history.  The Apostle Mark recorded (50-60 A.D.) Christ’s reprimand of his own disciples in the days following His resurrection. 

 
Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating: he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen Him after He had risen.  He then said to them, ‘Go out into the world and preach the good news to all creation.  Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe, will be condemned (Mark 16:14-16).

Fourth and last, is the Christian belief in Satan, who is never viewed as a scapegoat for the sinner in Scripture.  The archenemy of God [but in no ways equal], Satan is a created, but not human being.  He is referred to as “the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient” (Ephesians 2:2).  Satan is also “prince of the demons” (Matthew12:24).  The Apostle Paul referred to the devil and his works, “The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Jesus Christ” (2 Corinthians 4:4).  The Apostle John spoke of the devil, “We know that we are children of God and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one” (1 John 5:19).  For the conversion of Paul along the road to Damascus, Jesus demonstrated the nature of the Kingdom of God (light) and the kingdom of satan (darkness).  He said, “I am sending you [Paul] to them [Jews and Gentiles] to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those sanctified by faith in me” (Acts 26: 17-18).  In differentiating children of God from the lost, Jesus explains:

If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God, and now am here.  I have not come on my own, but He sent me.  Why is my language not clear to you?  Because you are unable to hear what I have to say.  You belong to your father the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire.  He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him.  When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.  Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!  Can any of you prove me guilty of sin?  If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me?  He who belongs to God hears what God says.  The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God (John 8:42-47).

Humanism denies the spiritual realm (i.e. God, Satan, judgment, heaven and hell) and concerns itself exclusively with the material realities of life. 

Christianity

Christianity recognizes the temporal and spiritual worlds and places greatest importance on the condition of man’s soul and on his or her eternal destiny in the spiritual realm.  The entire Gospel message is focused on seeking the kingdom of God through Jesus Christ.  Only in a secondary way, after this highest salvation purpose of Christianity, is the caring for the earthly necessities of life emphasized.  Jesus Christ put the priority this way:  

 
And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head.  And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made?  For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her.  And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me.  For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.  She hath done what she could: she is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying.  Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her (Mark 14:3-9).

 
O ye of little faith? Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.  But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof (Matthew 6:31-34).

 
Whatever acts or work that Christians do for their fellowman: compassion, charity and love for the poor; a heart for justice and peace, for example, should be done to glorify Christ.  The Apostle Paul stated this in his first letter to the church in Corinth:

 
Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God (I Corinthians 10:31).

 
Christians should regard their work, whether on the assembly line in a manufacturing plant or on the drafting a global aid plan in a UN office tower, as divinely appointed tasks, by which we fulfill God’s calling and serve Him.   Nowhere in scripture can we find authority for Christians to dishonour Jesus Christ, in any way, shape or form, to achieve some purpose.  Stated another way, nothing done for the sake of God’s kingdom will involve degrading Jesus Christ.  This is true no matter how urgent the need, no matter how appreciated the cooperation, no matter how strong the cultural or political tow of conformity within this world.

 
Let’s be clear on God’s kingdom.  The New Testament refers 158 times to some variation of the kingdom of God, including: the kingdom of the Heavens, Thy kingdom, His kingdom, My kingdom, the kingdom of their Father, the word of the kingdom, the sons of the kingdom, the kingdom of our father David, the kingdom of his beloved Son, His heavenly kingdom, the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the kingdom of Christ and of God, the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ. 

 
The kingdom of God is also the kingdom of Christ.  The kingdom of God is the divine authority and rule given by the Father to the Son (Luke 22:29).  When the Son has accomplished His rule – subdued all that is hostile to God, He will restore the kingdom to the Father:

 
Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father, when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power (I Corinthians 15:24).

 
The Book of Revelation shows that the kingdom of God is salvation through the power of God and the authority of His Son, Jesus Christ.  The text reads:

 
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.  And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.  And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death (Revelation 12:9-11).

 
The everlasting kingdom of Christ is synonymous with His rule (Luke 1:33).  When Jesus said that His kingdom was not of this world he meant that His rule was not derived from earthly authority but from God:

 
My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence (John 18:36).

 
Moreover, His kingship would not manifest itself like a human kingdom, but membership would be granted with child-like simplicity (Mark 10:15) to those who seek it (Matthew 6:33, Luke 12:31).  The kingdom is soteriological.  The purpose of the divine rule is the redemption of men and their deliverance from the powers of evil. 

 
This world or age we live in (so-called "post-modern era") is opposed to the working of God’s kingdom; the temporal cares and tribulations of this world choke the Word of the kingdom by holding the lost in darkness, by keeping the lost from the revelation of Jesus Christ.  In the Parable of the Tares Christ explained the dynamic:

 
Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:  But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.  But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.  So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?  He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?  But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.  Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn (Matthew 13:24-30).

 
When asked to explain this parable to the disciples, Jesus answered and said:

 
He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.  As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.  The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.  Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear (Matthew 13:37-43).

 
Membership in the kingdom of God delivers men from the sway of evil.  It brings to believers righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost (Romans 14:17).  The spiritual welfare of our neighbours must be our first and foremost burden.  All witnessing including acts of charity, compassion and justice must be towards that end – salvation in Jesus Christ.  The Great Commission did not send out the disciples of Christ to conquer war, poverty, injustice and disease.  Jesus said exactly:

 
All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen (Matthew 28:18-20).

 
All things temporal and spiritual hinge on Jesus Christ:

 
And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together (Colossians 1:17).

 
He is the Rivet of Life.  Men can preach about the kingdom but we cannot build it.  This is God’s deed.  Men can receive the kingdom (Mark 10:15; Luke 18:17) but we cannot establish it.  Men can reject the kingdom of Christ and refuse to receive it or enter it (Matthew 23:13), but they cannot destroy it.  They can look for it (Luke 23:51), pray for its coming (Matthew 6:10) and seek it (Matthew 6:33), but they cannot bring it.  The kingdom is altogether God’s deed.  Men may do things for the sake of the kingdom (Matthew 19:22; Luke 18:29), work for it (Colossians 4:11), suffer for it (II Thessalonians 1:5), but they are not said to act upon the kingdom itself.  They can inherit it (Matthew 25:34), but they cannot bestow it upon others.[i]  However, Christians are too act as the kingdom’s earthly ambassadors: 

 
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.  And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.  Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God (II Corinthians 5:17-20).

 
And here “ministry of reconciliation” implies, according to the NIV Bible:

 
We who are the recipients of divine reconciliation have the privilege and obligation of now being, like Paul in a sense, the heralds and instruments in God’s hands to minister the message of reconciliation throughout the world.[ii] 

 
Few believers would argue against the need, both nationally and internationally, to improve the level of Christian witness within society.  And few would contest assigning a “poor” or “seriously needs improvement” rating to the spiritual health and temporal conditions experienced worldwide.  After all, the harvest of souls in Canada and most of the Western World declines; national and global poverty festers; AIDS lingers; war and terror continues; justice tarries; human rights diminish; and our environment worsens.  For Christians to continue their status quo witness under these circumstances seems lame at best; otherwise sinfully indifferent, an act of immense denial.  Perpetuating our status quo behaviour will result in making few in-roads for God’s kingdom at a time when the world experiences worsening trials and tribulations; at a time when the grace and peace of Jesus Christ is never more needed; at a time when the harvest has never been more ready.  Perpetuating our status quo behaviour will also do little to abate the relentless temporal woes which are now unfolding into the 21^st Century.

 
Given the above hasty primer on key aspects of the Christian Worldview, the remainder of this essay will study the differences between the Christian methodology and: (1) the humanist approach; and (2) the plan of religious liberals, in attempting to rectify the spiritual and temporal global situation. 

Humanism

Wikipedia defines humanism and the place of religion in humanism, secular humanism and religious humanism.  StandForGod.Org has an essay on secular humanism and also explains the humanist notion of reaching utopia through mastery of science.  Robert L. Waggoner has written a valuable essay titled, “Organized humanism produces a growing anti-Christian Society.”  The following is a potpourri of quotations, personalities and organizations behind a secular humanist world government approach to achieving utopia on earth. 

 
Contender Ministries has an outstanding website addressing, among a host of topics, the humanist solution to world order.  There have been three Manifestos developed in recent history detailing the objectives of humanism.  In 1933, many of the most prominent humanists collaborated on the Humanist Manifesto.  In 1973, Humanist Manifesto II was released as an updated affirmation of its predecessor and approved by hundreds of humanists including Isaac Asimov and B.F. Skinner.  In 1999, Paul Kurtz founder and Chairman of the Council for Secular Humanism released the shorter Manifesto 2000, a modernized version asserting much the same objectives. 

 
The following is an extract from Manifesto II on the issue of religion specifically:

 
FIRST: In the best sense, religion may inspire dedication to the highest ethical ideals. The cultivation of moral devotion and creative imagination is an expression of genuine 'spiritual' experience and aspiration.

 
We believe, however, that traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human needs and experience do a disservice to the human species. Any account of nature should pass the tests of scientific evidence; in our judgment, the dogmas and myths of traditional religions do not do so. Even at this late date in human history, certain elementary facts based upon the critical use of scientific reason have to be restated. We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural; it is either meaningless or irrelevant to the question of survival and fulfillment of the human race. As nontheists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity. Nature may indeed be broader and deeper than we now know; any new discoveries, however, will but enlarge our knowledge of the natural.

 
Some humanists believe we should reinterpret traditional religions and reinvest them with meanings appropriate to the current situation. Such redefinitions, however, often perpetuate old dependencies and escapisms; they easily become obscurantist, impeding the free use of the intellect. We need, instead, radically new human purposes and goals.

 
We appreciate the need to preserve the best ethical teachings in the religious traditions of humankind, many of which we share in common. But we reject those features of traditional religious morality that deny humans a full appreciation of their own potentialities and responsibilities. Traditional religions often offer solace to humans, but, as often, they inhibit humans from helping themselves or experiencing their full potentialities. Such institutions, creeds, and rituals often impede the will to serve others. Too often traditional faiths encourage dependence rather than independence, obedience rather than affirmation, fear rather than courage. More recently they have generated concerned social action, with many signs of relevance appearing in the wake of the 'God Is Dead' theologies. But we can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species. While there is much that we do not know, humans are responsible for what we are or will become. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves.

 
SECOND: Promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful. They distract humans from present concerns, from self-actualization, and from rectifying social injustices. Modern science discredits such historic concepts as the 'ghost in the machine' and the 'separable soul.' Rather, science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces. As far as we know, the total personality is a function of the biological organism transacting in a social and cultural context. There is no credible evidence that life survives the death of the body. We continue to exist in our progeny and in the way that our lives have influenced others in our culture.

 
Traditional religions are surely not the only obstacles to human progress. Other ideologies also impede human advance. Some forms of political doctrine, for instance, function religiously, reflecting the worst features of orthodoxy and authoritarianism, especially when they sacrifice individuals on the altar of Utopian promises. Purely economic and political viewpoints, whether capitalist or communist, often function as religious and ideological dogma. Although humans undoubtedly need economic and political goals, they also need creative values by which to live.

 
Note: Isaac Asimov is a member of the World Federalist Movement.   Behavioural Psychologist B.F. Skinner released Walden II in 1948, in which he proposes "a perfect society or new and more perfect order" in which children are reared by the State, rather than by their parents and are trained from birth to demonstrate only desirable behavior and characteristics. Skinner's ideas would be widely implemented by educators in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s as Values Clarification and Outcome Based Education. [As an aside, before continuing this current article, StandForGod.Org has three essays that refute the theory of natural evolution: Creation of the Universe, Life, and Humankind.]

 
In 1996, The Report of the Commission on Global Governance was released in time for the World Conference on Global Governance in 1998.  The Commission is endorsed by the UN Secretary General and funded through two trust funds of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP).  In a summary analysis of the Repot, Henry Lamb , founder and chairman of Sovereignty International, wrote:

‘Mutual respect’ is broadly defined as ‘tolerance.’ ‘Some assertions of particular identities may in part be a reaction against globalization and homogenization, as well as modernization and secularization. Whatever the causes, their common stamp is intolerance.’ Individual achievement and personal responsibility are counter to the value of ‘mutual respect’ as suggested in the UN's World Core Curriculum, authored by Robert Muller, Chancellor of the UN University and former Deputy Secretary General to three UN Secretaries General. The Robert Muller School World Core Curriculum Manual (November, 1986) says: ‘The idea for the school grew out of a desire to provide experiences which would enable the students to become true planetary citizens through a global approach to education.’ The first principle of the curriculum is to: "Promote growth of the group idea, so that group good, group understanding, group interrelations and group goodwill replace all limited, self-centered objectives leading to group consciousness.’

 
As the world adopts these core values, the Commission believes a ‘global ethic’ will emerge. Global governance will ‘Embody this ethic in the evolving system of international norms, adapting, where necessary, existing norms of sovereignty and self-determination to changing realities.’ The effectiveness of this global ethic ‘will depend upon the ability of people and governments to transcend narrow self-interests and agree that the interests of humanity as a whole will be best served by acceptance of a set of common rights and responsibilities. Without the objectives and limits that a global ethic would provide, however, global civil society could become unfocused and even unruly. That could make effective global governance difficult.’[iii]

 
Note: Robert Muller is not only Chancellor of the UN University and former Deputy Secretary General to three UN Secretaries General, but also a member of the World Federalist Movement .

 
To reiterate for emphasis, the first goal of Muller's World Core Curriculum is:   

 
Assisting the child in becoming an integrated individual who can deal with personal experience while seeing himself as a part of 'the greater whole.' In other words, promote growth of the group idea, so that group good, group understanding, group interrelations and group goodwill replace all limited, self-centered objectives, leading to group consciousness.[iv]

 
And Muller’s World Core Curriculum Manual says:

 
The underlying philosophy upon which the Robert Muller School is based will be found in the teachings set forth in the books of Alice A. Bailey , by the Tibetan teacher, Djwhal Khul (published by Lucis Publishing Company, 113 University Place, 11th floor, New York, NY 10083) and the teachings of M. Morya as given in the Agni Yoga Series books (published by Agni Yoga Society, Inc., 319 West 107th Street, New York, NY 10025).[v]

 
Here, Tamara Hartzell has done an invaluable job in her e-book “In the Name of Purpose: Sacrificing the Truth on the Altar of Unity,” connecting the Global Governance concept (she labels the “counterfeit kingdom”) with the World Federalist, Robert Muller.  She writes:

 
They are achieving marked success in enticing the world into his counterfeit kingdom and its (New Age) New Spirituality that appears as 'light' and 'peace.' As mentioned earlier, Alice Bailey (A.A.B.) was approached by the spirit world to detail 'the Plan' in writing. These writings are the basis for the descriptions of this counterfeit kingdom 'of God' and its Plan to use world service to bring interfaith unity and 'peace' to the world.

 
I [Djwhal Khul] … have a vision of the Plan … Through the cooperation of A.A.B. I put this plan - as far as was possible - before you, calling your attention to the New Group of World Servers.…

[T]he vision is a vision of group work, of group relationships, of group objectives, and of the group fusion to the larger Whole.[vi] —Alice Bailey & Djwhal Khul

[T]here is a group of human beings, integrating now … upon whom is laid the burden of leading humanity. They are starting movements that have in them the new vibration, they are saying things that are universal in their tone, they are enunciating principles that are cosmic, they are inclusive and not exclusive, they do not care what terminology a man uses; they insist that a man shall keep his own inner structure of truth to himself and not impose it on any one else … they demonstrate the universal light, they are servers …

[T]hey are tied by no dogmas or doctrines because they have the word which has come to them in the dark, which they have wrought out for themselves in the strife and stress of their own souls. They meet the need of their fellow men, and theirs is the message of Christ, ‘A new commandment I give you that you love one another.’…

A new commandment I give you’ can be summed up in ‘inclusiveness’, the hallmark of the New Age, the universal spirit, identification, oneness with all your fellowmen.…

How shall we fit ourselves to meet that requirement, to possess those characteristics which automatically put us into the group of world servers? You will never get there by talking about it … You will get there by doing the next thing correctly.[vii] —Alice Bailey & Djwhal Khul

 
The desire for people to stop talking and debating and just start doing and cooperating facilitates interfaith unity among all beliefs and religions. This is exactly what the spirit world has been working toward. In the name of purpose, people are being lured away from doctrine to focus on relationships.

He [‘Christ’] emphasized the necessity for cooperation, indicating that if we truly follow the Way, we shall put an end to competition, and substitute for it cooperation.…

Love, brotherhood, cooperation, service, self-sacrifice, inclusiveness, freedom from doctrine, recognition of divinity - these are the characteristics of the citizen of the kingdom, and these still remain our ideals.[viii] —Alice Bailey

 
As the Members of the Hierarchy [spirit realm] approach closer to us, the dream of brotherhood, of fellowship, of world cooperation and of a peace (based upon right human relations) becomes clearer in our minds. As They draw nearer we vision a new and vital world religion, a universal faith, at-one in its basic idealism with the past but different in its mode of expression.[ix] —Alice Bailey & Djwhal Khul (Parentheses in the original)

 
It is time that the church woke up to its true mission, which is to materialize the kingdom of God on earth, today, here and now.… People are no longer interested in a possible heavenly state or a probable hell. They need to learn that the kingdom is here, and must express itself on earth … The way into that kingdom is the way that Christ trod. It involves the sacrifice of the personal self for the good of the world, and the service of humanity …[x] —Alice Bailey

 
Christ died in order to bring to our notice that the way into the kingdom of God was the way of love and of service. He served and loved and wrought miracles, and gathered together the poor and the hungry.[xi] —Alice Bailey

 
True religion will come to be interpreted in terms of the will-to-good and its practical expression, goodwill.[xii] —Alice Bailey & Djwhal Khul

 
The true Church is the kingdom of God on earth … composed of all, regardless of race or creed, who live by the light within, who have discovered the fact of the mystical Christ in their hearts.… The members of the coming kingdom will think in terms of humanity as a whole; and as long as they are separative or nationalistic, or religiously bigoted, or commercially selfish, they have no place in that kingdom. The word spiritual will be given a far wider connotation than that which has been given in the old age … and we shall no longer regard one activity as spiritual and another as not. The question of motive, purpose and group usefulness will determine the spiritual nature of an activity.[xiii] —Alice Bailey [My bolding]

Love is unity, at-one-ment and synthesis. Separateness is hatred, aloneness and division. But man, being divine in nature, has to love …

Each one of us has to tread the way of the cross alone, and enter God’s kingdom by right of achievement. But the way is found in service to our fellow men …

It is through supreme service and sacrifice that we become followers of Christ and earn the right to enter into His kingdom, because we do not enter alone.…

He [‘Christ’] knew no separateness.… and the ‘great heresy of separateness’ was completely overcome by His all-inclusive spirit.”[xiv] —Alice Bailey

1. Countless men and women in every land will form themselves into groups for the promotion of goodwill and for the production of right human relations. So great will be their numbers that from being a small and relatively unimportant minority, they will be the largest and the most influential force in the world. Through them, the New Group of World Servers will be able to work successfully.

2. This active energy of loving understanding will mobilize a tremendous reaction against the potency of hate. To hate, to be separate, and to be exclusive will come to be regarded as the only sin …[xv] —Alice Bailey & Djwhal Khul

 
[If your spirit needs uplift after the likes of Alice Bailey & Djwhal Khul, no surprise. Read Mark 5: 35-41 and be blessed with  Peace and Grace in our awesome Jesus Christ!]

 
In 1991, Al Gore announced at a Communitarian conference in Washington "Seeing ourselves as separate is the central problem in our political thinking."[xvi]  Gore's conclusion was quoted in the book, Spiritual Politics, co-authored by Corinne McLaughlin, a follower of the Dhjwal Khul, the spirit guide channelled by occultist Alice Bailey.  Lest you think McLaughlin is too "far out" to be relevant, know that she was the first Task Force Coordinator for President Clinton's Council for Sustainable Development.[xvii]  She also taught her occult strategies at the Department of Education, Pentagon, and the EPA. She states in her book:

 
There really is only one sin--separateness.  War is more likely to spring from rampant nationalism, ethnocentrism, and intolerant religious fundamentalism--all extreme and separative attitudes ....

 
Carl Teichrib has authored over 125 articles on globalization, and is currently President of the World Systems Research Group.  In his newsletter Forcing Change, under the title “Setting the Agenda Understanding the Big Picture” he comments on the World Federalist agenda:

 
[WFM Objective] Work closely with all faith bodies on issues of mutual agreement and for the creation of globally united religions for world federation.

 
Religions would find themselves co-opted into a global faith and ethics platform.

Teichrib writes in a note about these objectives:

Such a move constitutes the creation of a world religion, established to provide the backing and support of a world government. A ‘globally united religions for world federation’ would constitute the manipulation of an internationally imposed set of beliefs and values. If such a spiritual partnership were to occur (and this has been in the works), modern culture would place enormous pressure on Christianity to conform to the new global faith standard..[xviii]

The founders of Koinonia House Online, Chuck and Nancy Missler, have posted a great study of the United Nations’ plan for global government, which includes a system of global taxation; a standing U.N. army; a court of criminal justice; an expanded authority for the Secretary General; an Economic Security Council; U.N. authority over the global common areas (like the oceans); an end to the veto power of permanent Security Council members; and a new parliamentary body of "civil society" representatives (NGOs). 

 
The key arm of the United Nations impacting religion is the Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).   

 
Note: The first president of UNESCO was Fabian socialist, Sir Julian Huxley.  In addition to calls for a radical eugenic policy in UNESCO, Sir Julian Huxley said the following in explanation of why people quickly embraced Darwinism:

 
It is because the concept of a Creator-God interferes with our sexual mores. Thus, we have rationalized God out of existence. To us, He has become nothing more than the faint and disappearing smile of the cosmic Cheshire cat in Alice in Wonderland.[xix]

 
William Benton, Assistant U.S. Secretary of State, told a UNESCO meeting in 1946:

As long as the child breathes the poisoned air of nationalism, education in world-mindedness can produce only precarious results. As we have pointed out, it is frequently the family that infects the child with extreme nationalism. The school should therefore use the means described earlier to combat family attitudes that favor jingoism . . . . We shall presently recognize in nationalism the major obstacle to development of world-mindedness. We are at the beginning of a long process of breaking down the walls of national sovereignty. UNESCO must be the pioneer.[xx]

 
The following are extracts from the UNESCO Medium Term Strategy 2008-2013:

 
In all its fields of competence, UNESCO is constantly faced with an array of processes and issues that can hamper the realization of its objectives, undermine results already achieved and imperil the enjoyment of the human rights relevant to its spheres of competence – and that in some cases have already done so. For example, the impact of pandemics, civil strife, the polarization of cultural and religious identities, and new forms of violence and intolerance have often been of considerable concern. They may cause the destruction of educational institutions at all levels, a serious weakening of capacities in science, technology and communications, as well as a weakening of civil society capacities to respond to intolerance, discrimination against migrants, xenophobia and racism.

 
Interfaith dialogue will be strengthened with a view to ensuring that (i) shared values for respect of religious beliefs and tolerance are reflected in curricula and textbooks, and (ii) faith issues are addressed in a secular framework contributing to the objectives of dialogue.

 
A new challenge relates to the indissociable principles underlying UNESCO’s commitment to mutual understanding and respect for all peoples’ religions and cultural values and freedom of expression as expressed in UNESCO’s Executive Board expressed in 174 EX/Decision 46. Being by their very nature constituent elements of peace, the principles and values of cultural diversity and dialogue will help sensitize society as a whole, and in particular youth and the media to the need for respecting cultural diversity, religious beliefs and religious symbols, while upholding the exercise of freedom of expression in a spirit of mutual respect and mutual understanding.

 
Religious Liberalism

With the above backgrounds on Christianity and humanism, we can now approach so-called “liberal Christianity” with open eyes.  Warren Smith has documented what may be called “religious liberalism” in his book, Reinventing Jesus Christ: The New Gospel. He discusses the spirit realm’s goal for Oneness and warns about its final solution for those who do not comply:

 
Today it is very sad to see so many believers falling under the influence of the same spirit that influenced me when I was in the ‘new age.’ This spirit says that it is a time for ‘breakthroughs’ and for the fulfillment of our ‘destiny’; that there is something ‘new’ and exciting in the wind. This teaching claims that we are in the midst of a great ‘transition’ that will result in a ‘paradigm shift,’ and that through ‘new revelation’ and ‘personal experience’ God is in the process of taking the church to a ‘new dimension’ and to a whole ‘new level.’ Many Christian leaders these days are so sure that what they are hearing and experiencing is from God, they are rarely testing the spirits, or even considering the possibility that they are being deceived.

 
What had been called ‘new age’ is now being presented as ‘new gospel.’ These ‘new gospel’ teachings are not new and have actually been around for centuries in one form or another. Whether it was ancient gnosticism, the occultic teachings of Helena Blavatsky (1831–1891) and Alice A. Bailey (1880–1949), or the present day ‘new gospel’ channelings, the bottom line has always been the same — everyone is a part of God.

 
‘Concerned’ that humanity is in peril and facing possible extinction, this 'Christ' explains that his 'new gospel' will unify the world’s major religions and bring peace to the world. He has communicated these ‘new gospel’ teachings to his designated teachers, who in turn are now conveying  these same teachings to the rest of the world. This 'reinvented' Christ of the ‘new gospel’ teaches that all of humanity is the body of Christ. He, as the ‘Christ,’ is the head. This ‘Christ’ states humanity’s dilemma is that we have forgotten who we are. We are not 'sinners' separate from God. We are all part of the one body of Christ and the one body of God. Salvation does not come by grace from accepting Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Rather it is achieved — when we accept ourselves as Christ and when we accept ourselves as God.

 
The ‘new gospel’ teaches that when humanity collectively accepts and experiences itself as being a part of Christ and a part of God, we not only save ourselves, we save our world. The ‘Christ’ of the ‘new gospel’ warns that the hour is late. Peace must come. He will help. He has a plan. But everyone must play their part.[xxi]

 
What are religious liberals fundamentally asking of the Christian believers they wish to join in their global ecumenical approach to spiritual witness? 

Answer: “Whatever you do, don’t say that Jesus Christ died for these people and that He is going to one day judge all believers and non-believers (living and dead) at His appearing and His kingdom!”

 
There can be no social space for the discriminatory Son of God in any humanist, World Federalist, United Nations or World Council of Religion Leaders plans.  Liberal ecumenism sees the calling upon the name Jesus Christ in public as a religiously exclusive act that runs counter to the goal of establishing high levels of cooperation and amity amongst a plurality of cultures and religions.  In liberal ecumenicalism Jesus Christ is to be “benched” for the betterment of the game being played in an environment described as a “modern, multi-cultural and interdependent global society.”  His name is to be barred from the list of ecumenically correct terminology for multi-faith celebration.  For liberal ecumenism to work, all religions need to be seen as inclusive and pointing towards the same deity, all harmonized in the name of humanity’s plan for global unity, goodwill, and world peace.  There is literally no hope of the notion of an exclusive, judgmental, divine Son of God, savior of Christians, judge-over-the-lost type deity carrying the day in a new unified, synchronized and enforced world order.  Alice Bailey & Djwhal Khul are likely right in the short term when they say:

 
True religion will come to be interpreted in terms of the will-to-good and its practical expression, goodwill...This active energy of loving understanding will mobilize a tremendous reaction against the potency of hate. To hate, to be separate, and to be exclusive will come to be regarded as the only sin.

 
Indeed, Christian ecumenicalism is not even working now nationally from an orthodox standpoint.  Among “professed” Canadian Christians there is no guarantee of agreement over the divinity of Christ.  The largest Protestant and most liberal denomination rejects this claim.  And in the United States mainline Protestants (liberal ecumenicals) were under fire for putting religious reconciliation with other religious faiths above giving testimony to the Gospel of Jesus Christ [soft language for "benching" the name Jesus Christ].  In response to the accusation, Rev. Dr. Robert Edgar, General Secretary, National Council of Churches USA, said:     

We disagree that you can't have dialogue unless you talk about Jesus. My belief is that dialogue is best built on relationships. People have to get to know each other, to trust each other, to like each other, and in some cases to even love each other before real learning and listening takes place.[xxii]

 
It is the position of the National Association of Evangelicals USA that Christians are obligated to witness the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Moreover, the guidelines for these so-called “Conservative” Christians urge believers to use dialogue with other faiths to spell out the differences compared with Christianity, and for example, to call Muslims to account for the lack of religious freedom in Muslim countries.

 
The distance between conservative and liberal on the matter of Christian witness is even more evident from the proclamation made by the World Council of Churches, in 2004.  At the end of their annual conference of general secretaries of world and regional ecumenical bodies from eight continents, held in NAIROBI, Kenya, the body released a letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.  The letter was signed by a number of general secretaries including Rev. Dr. Karen Hamilton of the Canadian Council of Churches and Rev. Dr. Robert W. Edgar representing the (US) National Council of Churches.  The letter, dated September 4, 2004, declared:

1 – that there exists a commonality of interest and purpose between the United Nations and ecumenical Christianity (World Council of Churches) based on a mutual wish to increase world peace, reduce poverty, increase world human rights and improve social justice;

2 – that the inherited structures of governance of the United Nations do not adequately reflect the present realities and needs of the world as a whole;

3 -   that the WCC wished to share in and contribute to solving world problems through an improved United Nations; and

4 -   that we are indeed living in one interdependent world where there can be no real peace and security for any if there is not peace and security for all.

 
The signatories called:

 
1 – for an all-faiths global day of prayer on the 21 September;

2 – for a reappraisal and assessment of the role of the United Nations in order to better structure it for the future; and

3 – for an annual “State of the World” address by the Secretary General to enhance the profile of the United Nations and to market an enhanced restructured UN as the solution to our global problems. 

 
[Click here for the complete letter to Mr. Kofi Annan]

 
Regarding an all-faiths global day of prayer, Rt. Rev. William E. Swing, President, United Religions Imitative (URI) also calls for a rally on 21 September.  He writes:

 
The International Day of Peace is launched. More and more people are sensing its importance and potential. It will soon be in full orbit and millions of people who yearn for a more peaceful world will participate in this day of all days. At that moment a day of truce will appear in power and all the people of earth will glimpse a better future for the whole human family."[xxiii]

 
On June 16, 2007, at the Standford Baccalaurate Celebration, Rt. Rev. William E. Swing said:

 
For the last 13 years I have wrestled with these questions every day. As a matter of fact, I spend all my days now working with Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, indigenous tribal peoples on these questions. The United Religions Initiative is my work, is the laboratory where I and a global host of others pursue peace among competing religions. Peace among religions is in everyone's self-interest. Look at Baghdad. When peace among religions breaks down, livable society crumbles. Peace among religions is in everyone's self-interest.

 
I have one graduation gift to offer you. There is an antidote to the disease of confrontational religious passion and religious failure. The antidote is generosity.

 
In the lesson read here today, the God-like person queries: 'Do you begrudge me my generosity?' Ah, there's the clue. The assumption is that the Creator of this universe is generous beyond imagining. Don't begrudge, don't limit, don't forbid the vast generosity that exists in the center of the universe and at the core of every molecule and potentially abides deep within the sacredness of all religions.[xxiv]

 
In August 1994, The Rt. Rev. Dr. John Shelby Spong and Rt. Rev. William E. Swing signed a Statement of Koinonia sent to the House of Episcopalian Bishops declaring:

 
We believe that sex is a gift of God.

 
We believe that some of us are created heterosexual and some of us are created homosexual.

 
We believe that homosexuality and heterosexuality are morally neutral, that both can be lived out with beauty, honor, holiness, and integrity and that both are capable of being lived out destructively.[xxv]

 
Note: Rt Rev. Dr. John Shelby Spong, Bishop of Newark, received the Humanist of the Year Award in 1999.

 
Note: The commonality of leadership in the Canadian Council of Churches and the World Federalist Movement Canada:

Canadian Council of Churches

President: The Rev. Dr. James Christie, United Church

Vice-President: The Very Rev. Dr. Marion Pardy, United Church

General Secretary: The Rev. Dr. Karen Hamilton, United Church

 
World Federalist Movement

President: The Very Rev. Dr. Lois M. Wilson, United Church

Council Chair: The Rev. Dr. James Christie, United Church

Council Member: The Rev. Dr. Karen Hamilton, United Church

 
Note: The following quotations detail the involvement of Rev. Dr. Robert Edgar, General Secretary, National Council of Churches USA, to religious liberalism, the political left and world federalism:     

 
Matthew Suggs, writing for The Spotlight, said in 1991:

 
For instance, one of the key figures in the ‘environmental crisis’ is former Rep. Robert Edgar (D-Pa.). He said that environmental problems lie in national sovereignty and that only a world government can ‘save’ the environment. 

Specifically he claimed that the present U.S. governmental system is faulty because members are responsible to only one country and serve for only a period of several years. He said that ‘a system such as this cannot be expected to deal with long-term international problems such as acid rain.’

 
Edgar was taken seriously, with a lot of Establishment media attention and reports by scholars to back up his assertions. For instance, Philip Isley, the president of the World Constitution and Parliament Association, claims that ‘these problems, which threaten to destroy or severely cripple the future of all people on Earth, cannot be solved on a local basis, nor by negotiations among sovereign nations whether inside or outside of the United Nations.’

 
One-worlders hold that the governments of the planet are about to reach a point of critical instability, so the theory goes, will be brought on by some massive crisis, or a series of crisis, that will shake the very foundation of the present nation-state system such as a good war. It is at that moment that these analysts believe they will be able to seize the opportunity and actually influence the evolution to a new society in the direction of their choice - the fact that Marx and Lenin said the same thing notwithstanding.  Ervin Lazio, head of the UN Institute for Training and Research, says 'In the coming period of transformation we shall, indeed, have a chance to be masters of our own destiny.’[xxvi]

 
Seventeen years later, on September 16, 2008, Rev. Dr. Edgar led a coalition of religions in a belated response to the Katrina disaster.  Under the title “Interfaith solidarity: religious leaders agree that justice must prevail in hurricane recovery,” an article on the National Council of Churches website reads:

 
More than 100 religious leaders from a wide range of traditions – including the president and general secretary of the National Council of Churches and heads of NCC member communions – have criticized ‘the slow pace of recovery’ from devastating hurricanes and have called for a ‘moral response’ to national disasters. ‘Three years after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita struck and the levees breached,’ said 108 evangelical, Protestant, Catholic, Jewish and Muslim leaders, ‘the slow pace of recovery and the new needs caused by Ike and Gustav’s destruction have created a moral crisis along the Gulf Coast that demands a powerful response from people of faith.’ In a statement issued Monday in the wake of Hurricanes Gustav and Ike, the leaders said, ‘Our God is a God of justice, of humanity and of healing, and this moral injustice calls each of us to bold action in support of the common good.  We must act to justly rebuild communities, restore the Gulf Coast, and empower families to overcome the devastation they suffered in our nation’s worst natural disasters.’

 
While the nation has learned to better prepare for this latest hurricane, whether by inaction or injustice, we have still failed to protect the wellbeing of Gulf Coast survivors, new residents and their families, especially the children, the poor, the sick, and the vulnerable through just long term rebuilding policies which fully support human rights. The collapse of local institutions, homelessness, internal displacement, poverty, abusive labor practices and environmental degradation mean they continue to suffer and struggle unduly. A spiritual wound remains open across the region, one felt in God's creation and every community across this country.  

 
As people of faith and as Americans we believe in transcendent human dignity and place our trust in basic human rights. Many of the survivors of these disasters lack the resources to return to their communities to reunite with their families. Many families still have not recovered and have not been able to resume their lives with the dignity and safety that are their right.  New residents who came to work in the recovery face hardships and abuses.[xxvii] 

 
Last, on the subject of Rev. Dr. Robert Edgar and the National Council of Churches USA.  John S.A. Lomperis and Alan F.H. Wisdom, authors of Strange Yokefellows: The National Council of Churches and Its Growing Non-Church Constituency, report the following:

 
There are regular hints that in matters of doctrine and morals, too, the NCC is out of step with large parts of its claimed constituency. In May 2004 Rothang Chhangte, delivering the report of the NCC Interfaith Relations Committee to the NCC Executive Board, denounced the 'exclusivism' of evangelicals who believe that 'Jesus is the only way' and want to see 'all the world …come to Christ.'[xxviii]

 
In a recent op-ed, the NCC’s Edgar and retired United Methodist Bishop Felton May advised readers to study the scriptures of other religions alongside the Bible. They reasoned, 'And since the words of Jesus tells us we are all ‘children of the Father’ it might not be a bad idea to start reading and studying the Koran, the Torah, and the Upanishads.'[xxix]

 
On a number of occasions, the council has celebrated and recommended interfaith worship that would strike many Christians as unacceptably syncretistic. All of these tendencies toward universalism run counter to the official teachings of most member denominations, which affirm Jesus Christ as the sole Savior offered to all humankind.[xxx]

 
The same kind of disjunction between the views of NCC staff and the stated positions of the council and its member communions reappeared soon after Bob Edgar took office as general secretary. In November 2000, Edgar removed his signature from  'A Christian Declaration on Marriage,' explaining that he did not agree with the declaration’s definition of marriage as 'a holy union of one man and one woman.' Edgar affirmed, on the contrary, that he supported same-sex marriage—'a blessing of partnership, marriage of people who love each other.' xxxi]

 
In his recent book Middle Church, extensively promoted on the NCC website, Edgar insists, 'I do not—repeat, not—believe there is anything unhealthy or unclean about homosexuality or homosexual people.' He voices his hope that 'our society ends its discrimination against homosexuals and embraces them with love.' The NCC general secretary adds, 'I believe abortion should remain each woman’s choice.'[xxxii]

 
He has boasted of his 'pro-choice' voting record in Congress.[xxxiii]

 
Indeed, the plan’s proposed 'integrating goal' for the NCC’s work over the next four years was very much a political agenda. It would have the council 'aggressively promote in the next quadrennium a vision of common life as an alternative to that prevalent in contemporary American culture.' This vision included 'the imperative of peacemaking,' 'the imperative to overcome poverty,' 'the imperative to protect the environment,' and—lastly and most vaguely—'a recognition that the churches are called and empowered by the Spirit to be a sign of genuine community in the way they live with one another.' The first three points were precise parallels of Bob Edgar’s frequent summarization of the NCC’s priorities: 'the three Ps: peace, poverty, and Planet Earth.'[xxxiv]

 
The Ford Foundation is a big player in bankrolling the left. The list of its grantees reads in parts like an honor roll of political and cultural progressives. In receiving a six-figure grant from the Ford Foundation, the NCC joins ... the World Federalist Movement (advocating world government through a strengthened United Nations), the World Conference of Religions for Peace, the Ploughshares Foundation, the Latin America Working Group and the Washington Office on Latin America, the Ms. Foundation for Women, the Feminist Majority Foundation, the SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Health Coalition, the International Planned Parenthood Foundation, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the Planned Parenthood-connected Guttmacher Institute, the Population Council (conducting research in support of “reproductive rights”), the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Catholics for the Right to Decide (a pro-abortion rights group in Brazil), the Iliff School of Theology, the Gay Men’s Health Crisis, the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, and various labor union and pro-Palestinian groups. There are very few groups among the Ford grantees that could be regarded as either religious or conservative—and none that we could see that was both religious and conservative. This foundation has also contributed to the NCC through the Connect US Network 23

 
The last ecumenical organization to consider in profiling religious liberals is The World Council of Religious Leaders, positioned at the very top of the global unity hierarchy.  

According to their website:

 
The World Council of Religious Leaders aims to serve as a model and guide for the creation of a community of world religions. It seeks to inspire women and men of all faiths in the pursuit of peace and mutual understanding. It will undertake initiatives that will assist the United Nations and its agencies by providing the spiritual resources of the world's religious traditions in the prevention, resolution and healing of conflicts, and in addressing global social and environmental problems. By promoting the universal human values shared by all religious traditions and by uniting the human community for times of world prayer and meditation, the Council seeks to aid in the development of the inner qualities and external conditions needed for the creation of a more peaceful, just and sustainable world society.

 
The role of religious leaders has never been more important in helping to set a new direction for the human community. The World Council will encourage the religious traditions and the United Nations to work in closer cooperation in building a community of the world's religions to work for the benefit of the global family. In a fragile world that grows increasingly violent, we are coming together to further dialogue and to build a foundation of trust so that religious leaders can be an effective and powerful vehicle for peace.[xxxv]

 
After the Millennium World Peace Summit of Religious and Spiritual Leaders in New York, Berit Kjos asks a rhetorical question: What kind of unity did these religious leaders envision?  And answers:

 
Not all spiritual leaders were welcome. The new global 'democracy' calls for worldwide representation -- but only by those who conform to the UN vision of solidarity. Dissenting voices could cause conflict and expose the lack of consensus.  As Rabbi Arthur Schneier, president of the Appeal of Conscience Foundation, said, 'But being politically incorrect is not acceptable.'

 
Traditional values that clash with the new global standards for tolerance have become tantamount to hate, and Christians who cling to biblical boundaries are labeled both intolerant and hateful -- no matter how kind their actions. Today's social leaders have redefined hate, identified a new group of haters, and are gathering public support for monitoring and punishing the guilty.[xxxvi]

 
Clearly, the most entrenched feature of the status quo witness nationally or internationally, as addressed in this essay, is the tremendously damaging and divisive clash between orthodox believers and religious liberals.  The orthodox wish is to unite on a national and global basis to renew (actually revive) a spirit of repentance for righteousness sake and for accepting the exclusive salvation gift in Jesus Christ.  The orthodox see the total end of man's inhumanity to man only occurring with the full establishment of God's kingdom; in the interm, the best path to reducing war, poverty, injustice and the like, is by bringing more men and women to obedience and salvation in Christ.  The orthodox approach does not negate addressing in realtime the temporal issues of the day.  These are hugely important, but can never be allowed to eclipse the overarching Christian calling to give witness to the power and authority vested in the name of Jesus Christ.  On the other hand, religious liberals seek national and global unity for the sake of peace and prosperity through a spirit of inclusiveness that dismantles traditional barriers that separate – moral barriers, truth barriers, religious barriers, and salvation barriers.  But there is a spiritual paradox that cannot be escaped.  It bears saying again and again until the point is understood.  Jesus Christ cannot be divided (1 Corinthians 1:13).  The Holy Spirit is not double-minded on the matter of homosexism or sexual liberation (Romans 1:18-32).  God the Father has not created a multitude of truths from which mankind can select based on ethnicity or geographic birthplace.  And the Son of God is not a faith tradition.  Jesus Christ cannot be demoted to the dignity of a human sage - a Mahatma Gandhi.  The spirit behind one of these views (liberal or orthodox) is not of God.  The articles “Jesus Christ Cannot Be Mocked” and “What is in the Name – Jesus Christ? ” indeed, all the essays on the StandForGod.Org website, contrast these two incompatible schools of belief and challenge lukewarm believers who are positioned in the middle to end their indifference. 

 
Scripture records Christ stating that the kingdom of God cannot be divided against itself.  In other words the Holy Spirit cannot be behind both the liberal and the orthodox perspectives on Christianity.  Clergy administering God’s matrimonial blessings upon same-sex couples are either performing blasphemous acts that grieve the Holy Spirit or their witness is hugely pleasing to the Holy Spirit ending two millennia of Christians getting it wrong.  In the Book of Matthew, Christ also said in effect that the extent to which the unorthodox bind the true Gospel witness in Canadian Christendom, our influence for the kingdom is spoiled.  The scripture reads:

 
Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw.  And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David?  But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.  And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.  But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.  Or else how can one enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house. He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

 
Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.  And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.  Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit (Matthew 12:22-33).

 
Both the liberal and the orthodox want the status quo witness to be breached.  The status quo is simply untenable regardless of viewpoint.  Denominations vexed with religious liberalism are finding it more and more difficult to continue in what can only be described as a temporally unified condition and spiritually compromised, lukewarm state.  Believers will have to unite, either with the bearers of religious liberalism or with those calling for purity and greater orthodoxy in witness.  Moreover, both theological camps must separate for authenticity and harmony of membership and to move forward on theologically divergent paths.  We see this dynamic unfolding within the Anglican Church and Presbyterian Church.  As stated many times the United Church has pioneered and perfected religious liberalism in Canada to an extent virtually indistinguishable from Gnosticism. 

 
So what is holding Christendom back?  What has to be done to properly breach the status quo?  What’s the recipe for revival? 

 
The short answer:

 
A purification of the Body, a spiritual mêlée of epic consequence equal to that recorded in the Book in Exodus (32:21-29).  Only this time the idol to be destroyed is not a golden calf but the very idea that mankind can resolve the world’s troubling issues without universal acknowledgement of Jesus Christ as Lord (Philippians 2:1-11; Romans 14:9; Isaiah 46:18-25). 

Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.  He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.  The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.  Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.  Who hath ears to hear, let him hear (Matthew 13:36-43).

Unite For Reasons Jesus Christ Can Applaud 

 
Copyright © 2008 StandForGod.Org