Sunday, October 26, 2008

A Post from Peter Jones and truthXchange on the Upcoming Election

Our Christian faith touches on every aspect of life, including politics. Surely, what we believe will influence the way we vote.

At the same time, there is a sense in which Christians should be careful not to place too much stock in politics. Our trust is in the Lord, not a political leader or party.

There are a couple of issues that are particularly troubling about the Democratic party in the United States from a Christian standpoint. The first of these is its pro-abortion stance.

As Christians we confess in the Apostles' Creed that our Lord Jesus Christ was "conceived by the Holy Sprit." Our Lord sanctified the womb for all time by his conception and development in the womb. But abortion is a profane act that defiles the holy place of the womb. For that reason, Christians must oppose abortion and oppose a political party that is pro-abortion.

Second, ever since the late 1960s in the United State there has been a kind of new age, anti-Christian move to a new, eastern spirituality. This move toward a new spirituality away from the triune God is nothing new. It is as old as the Fall in Genesis 3. This rebellion against God and his anointed one (the Christ) is described in Psalm 2"

"The kings of the earth set themselves,
and the rulers take counsel together,
against the Lord and against his Anointed, saying,
'Let us burst their bonds apart
and cast away their cords from us.'"

This movement away from the Lord toward eastern mysticism and new age spiritualities is seen much more among Democrats than Republicans. This new age spirituality is not tolerant of Christianity, but hostile, and this is one of the reasons for the vitriole in American politics at the present time.

The present candidate of the Democratic party sat under a social gospel form of teaching for the last 20 years. The problem with this is that the social gospel is no gospel at all, but a rejection of the true gospel of Christ's death for sin and resurrection to the right hand of God. The social gospel changes the context of the gospel from God's judgment and salvation from sin, to salvation from political oppression. By changing the context of the gospel, the gospel itself is distorted and changed. Thus, the social gospel is no gospel at all. The social gospel is another form of rebellion against Jesus Christ, the Father's anointed one, who reigns at his right hand.

If the Democrats win, as Christians we are still commanded to give them honor as our leaders and pray for the nation's welfare under their leadership, trusting that the true Leader over heaven and earth has a plan that he will bring to pass through the ascendancy of this new leadership. --Bill


What Are the Odds that Alinsky Will Win? Alinsky Who?

Article by Peter Jones

Oct 23, 2008

InsideOut 52:

What Are the Odds that Alinsky Will Win? Alinsky Who?

America may soon make a massive turn to the Left.

In my comments on the culture I have studiously avoided partisan politics, but sometimes politics and essential issues of cultural, moral and religious identity become inextricably intertwined. This is one of those times.

Behind the daily headlines, a worldview conflict is taking place. Two iconic images evoke the on-going and unresolved ideological conflict that began in the troubled Sixties. One is the image of the young John McCain at death's door in a Hanoi prison. The other is of "Weatherman" Bill Ayers, a radical opponent of the same war, recently pictured standing on a crumpled American flag. In the Sixties John McCain was bombing Vietnam; Ayers was bombing America.

Without raising the pros and cons of Vietnam, it is clear that two deeply conflicting worldviews, not just political programs, now vie for control of the most powerful political office in the world. McCain is a (not very convincing) spokesman for the long history of the Judeo-Christian worldview. His opponent, Barack Obama is a (not very forthcoming) contemporary proponent of the Sixties revolution, whose clearly-stated intention was to turn America on its head.

I agree with Colin Powell who said that an "African American president would be electrifying"-but not just any African American. Is Obama's undefined program to "change the world" mere political rhetoric, or a deep commitment to far left political and spiritual revolution?

One does not have to look far to give this undefined vision real content. For the last sixteen years, I have written about the world-changing program that was conceived in the Sixties—the real American Revolution.

Though Obama was only eight when Bill Ayers blew up the Pentagon, he has been bathed in Ayers' radical ideology. He worked for Ayers in Chicago for eight years, helping distribute $100 million dollars of the Woods Fund for educational programs. These programs did not promote better math and science but a radical political consciousness based on Ayers' revolutionary, Marxist, anti-Christian, pan-sexual, pro-abortion theories. Obama's laudable rejection of violence does not separate him from the ideas themselves. Many argue that his political career was launched in Ayers' living room. We do know for sure that for twenty years Obama heard Marxist liberation theology, in a Christianized version, from his "mentor," Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who is a very liberal minister, and a friend of Louis Farrakhan.

The real world-changer, however, is the Marxist philosopher, Saul Alinsky, perhaps the first ever Chicago "community organizer," who sought to create a backyard revolution in the inner city in the 1930s, under the noses of the white power structures. His book, Rules for Radicals, published in 1971, instructed the Sixties revolutionaries how to take power. The mass of people, he said, "must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future [my italics]." To bring this revolution "requires that the organizer work inside the system" to undermine it and to hide his true goals by any means necessary, including lying and subterfuge, for the sake of the greater goal of undermining the dominance of the white establishment.

How successful was Alinsky? A convinced disciple, Hillary Clinton wrote her honors thesis at Wellesley on Alinsky, and while she presents herself as middle of the road politician, one senses that her radical views are just below the surface. She worked for a Marxist law firm after graduating from Yale, adopted the goal of liberating children from their parents, engaged in channeling in the white House with Jean Houston, and headed the American delegation to the 1995 Beijing Conference on Women, defending five genders.

Alinsky's teaching has influenced Barack Obama, who worked in Chicago with community organizer, Jerry Kellman, an Alinsky protégé. Obama speaks in generalities, appearing as a middle of the road politician while actually having the most radical voting record in the history of the Senate. Has he chosen, with the help of a compliant media, to hide his true goals of radical utopian socialism, interfaith religion and omni-gendered moral relativism? We shall have to wait and see (see the sobering letter from the America of AD 2012).

As an English citizen, I cannot vote in the USA, and politics is less important than the profound shifts in religious and moral convictions already taking place in Western culture. No matter who gets into the White House, the world is becoming more hostile to the Christian faith. We need to think clearly and speak with boldness about the real issues of truth, for the honor of King Jesus, for our true hope is founded upon the truth of Scripture: "kingship belongs to the Lord, and he rules over the nations" (Psalm 22:28).

No comments:

Post a Comment

Share This