Christian' University Hosts One of America's Most Visible Leftist 'Pastors', Who Calls Himself a Christian Marxist<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
 
By General Clyde Autio (ret)
'The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing.' English philosopher Edmund Burke
 
As the nation's moral code and civility is giving way to Humanistic values, the last bastion of defense should reside within the Body of Christ specifically and the church in general.  However, the evidence appears to be that what most people call the Church community, at best, is more closely related to the culture at large than it is with the teachings of the Bible and at worst is allied with those who oppose biblical doctrines.  One must ask the question, 'Can the United States survive as a democratic republic if it surrenders to the progressives and humanists those attributes of the political and economic systems and form of government that has resulted in the United States being the country with the most freely expressed individual freedom and an economy that lifted more people out of poverty than any other economic system in the history of mankind?'  Even though the nation was never a Christian nation, in the sense that the government ruled in concert with the church, the founding fathers drew heavily upon the Bible, and sources who quoted the Bible for their writings, which mirror imaged their worldview and thinking.  Can one establish a link between the Bible, Christian thinking and the church with the reason for the rapid expansion of freedoms, economic growth and ascendency to having international power and influence?   If that correlation exists, then does it not follow that to remove those three cultural pillars the citizens of the United States will cease to enjoy individual constitutional liberties and that it will be the end of a self-governing republic?
 
The road map from being a nation where the Ten Commandments were displayed on stone at the court house, hung on the wall of classrooms and the church being involved in keeping lewd films out of the local theaters and preventing the town's tavern count from becoming excessive to a nation where Sunday morning and Wednesday evening belong to the business as usual crowd is easy to document.  What might be controversial are the specific mileposts along the route from honoring virtue to practicing depravity.  It is no longer a question of ungodliness reigning but how long will God be patient and longsuffering with our depravity. 
 
There is wide agreement that one of the major milestone markers toward depravity was the sixties.  That time period has been identified with rebellion, anti-war, anti-government and anti- just about any other cultural icon or building block.  The music industry took full advantage of the anti-social spirit and started a trend in music that transcended all traditional moral values and principles of conduct.  The sixties became a generational phenomenon of rebellion that has found a permanent home in the succeeding generations of liberalism and progressive socialists who have enjoyed a friendly news media in condemning the United States for every measure of success while they enjoyed their high tech toys, autos and freedoms provided by the success they demean. 
 
It is unfortunate that so much of the institutional church has seen fit to partner with this movement and has taken up the defense of women to have abortions at all stages of their pregnancy, to advocate homosexual rights and defend the presence of illegal aliens in the country.  In each of these cases, the church has been the purveyor of micro-Christianity in that they have not considered any of those hot-button issues in the total context of their broader and deeper aspects nor have they regarded traditional biblical teachings.  Too often it has been just the opposite, where those church leaders have criticized those who resorted to the Bible by using out of context snippets to show their compassion and to demean the apparent harshness of those who believe the biblical answers can only be achieved in the full context of what the Bible teaches. 
 
The use of micro thinking is the reason the abortion issue was won by the pro-choice movement.  The first part of the movement was to only allow women the right to choose to have an abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy.  The advocates for that position and the obliging new media chose words that would seemingly give them the high ground for compassion.  They were pro-choice, the baby was either a fetus or just a blob at that point, and their sympathy was to protect poor little Mary who had been traumatized once by being forcibly raped at knife point and it was not fair that she have to face a second trauma by carrying the resulting issue to full term and going through the birthing process.  The media considered those who were defending the unborn as being anti-choice, or against women's rights.  What has happened is that after early abortion was legalized the pro-abortion movement kept moving the goal posts on abortion restrictions until today partial birth abortions, often called live birth abortions, are accomplished with impunity.  That was not the intent of the court in the original decision.  Worse, we have reached the place where the discussion has been opened about the right to have post delivery 'abortions' which is another name for infanticide.  This is already receiving judicial reviews in Canada.  In the United States, post-birth abortion is a popular discussion topic promoted by a Princeton University professor of bio-ethics, Peter Singer, who supports the rights of parents to have a time period after birth in which they can choose to murder the infant. 
 
Had the courts, and many of the early proponents of the limited abortion ruling, foreseen the true end goal of the abortion movement it is doubtful that Roe vs. Wade would have been decided in favor of a woman's right to have an abortion.   Those who are the advocates for major social or legal changes will never reveal the full intent of their goal nor are they willing to discuss the subject in the total context of the real issue.  They also like to structure their argument so that it centers on some grievous situation that they can gain sympathy for their chosen issue, even though that seldom, if ever, gives a balanced viewpoint of the consequences of the decision based upon their micro-view. 
 
Similar strategies have been used by the homosexual and the illegal immigration movements.  The ink is seldom dry on a 'right' gained by the homosexual movement but what they are agitating for an expansion of that 'right'.  An example of this is that the ink had not dried on the removal of the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy before that group started to pressure the Department of Defense for the right to have same-sex marriages conducted in military chapels by military chaplains.  These mile posts are not the true goal of those who share that life style.  Those are only stepping stones that are being used to tear down all facets of traditional marriage and to gain for them absolute equality in all aspects of life.  As they have taken the approach of just one step at a time, they have been able to maintain the support of certain elements of the traditional Christian church. 
 
The American church, by becoming involved in movements that are bent on eradicating the traditional western culture, has lost much of its ability to be God's salt and light representative to a nation that is reaping the fruits of a half-century of rebellious conduct.  What we have learned is that the law developed by Sir Thomas Gresham, a financier during the Tudor Dynasty, 'Bad money drives out good money' equally applies to ideas and actions for both individuals and institutions.  The church has found it to be more comfortable to depart from its traditional moorings and biblical positions and to become more welcoming and adoptive of the common culture.  The day is past when the church will challenge the door of the culture by offering flaming sermons from their pulpits, such as Jonathan Edwards "Sinners in the Hands of An Angry God.'  Sadly, no longer can we find the equals to Jonathan Edwards, James Taylor, Robert Haldane, Hudson Taylor, John Wesley, Dwight Moody, Ira Sankey, and William Booth caliber of Gospel ministers, whose preaching of messages that would not compromise the Gospel and would become the sparks that brought about major revivals, awakenings, missions and building of churches where scores of people were brought to the Lord.  The trend has been towards those who would raise their hand to the winds of the culture and corporate structures to determine what might be the most marketable content for the church and to explore new renderings of the Bible by accepting Liberalism, Post-Modernism, New Age and scores of other reinterpretations of the teachings that had been proven by their success in movements such as the Protestant Reformation, Methodist Revival, The Great Awakening and the Second Great Awakening.  These men preached the whole Gospel and dealt with macro-Christianity and not the micro-Christianity that is finding itself trapped in the inability to be an honest broker for major contemporary issues.  It is doubtful that the church has fully digested the thought that ideas, like actions, have consequences.  That has resulted in much of its loss for being a stable pillar of the community where people can go to find the safety and permanence of the worship center they have known and trusted from their youth.
 
One of the major political issues that is finding its way into today's 'Christian' circle has to do with Illegal Immigration, a situation that cannot be resolved in the isolated framework that is so typical of micro-Christianity, full of compassion but short on considering the strategic problem.  At the heart of the popular presentation is the sad story of those sweet innocent youth who were illegally drug into this country by their parents who were only looking for the greener pastures of the United States and all they now want is a good education and equal opportunities.  The arguments seldom, if ever, considers all of the aspects and symptoms of the real problem, which Illegal Immigration is not.  It is only a symptom of a politically failed system that has other symptoms with far greater consequences and costs.  It is almost as if the Illegal Immigration problem is the poor step-child of the real problem caused by the absolute failure of unscrupulous politicians of both major parties to honor the oath of office that they swore to uphold upon their entry into that office.  It is a tragedy that should brand all of those who have chosen to ignore the laws they were entrusted to obey with a scarlet S be branded on all of their history. 
 
Neither side wants to solve the real problem because it has become such a beacon for attracting popular support for their various political causes.  On the one side are those who are willing to enjoy the benefits of cheap undocumented labor that not only lowers their direct labor costs but all of their fringe benefit costs.  On the other side, the Illegal Immigrants are seen as potential voters that will swell the polling records of a party that has seen a downward trend weaken that party with the loss of union membership and the revival of the conservative movement.     
 
What is the real problem?  It is the failure to maintain control of the nation's borders and to police the outdated visas and passports of aliens. 
 
Why can the Illegal Immigration problem not be solved in isolation?   Because, as long as the border remains open the flow will only be increased if those presently here find favorable accommodation.  There is a true limit to the number of immigrants, both legal and illegal, that the national infrastructure can support.  While there is some compassion and sympathy for the illegals, the discussion does not touch on the much larger symptoms that are creating much larger and more tragic human turmoil.  Not only are criminal job seekers, the term honest people cannot be used as illegal immigrants are law breakers, coming through the open borders but also are drugs, gang members, terrorists, weapons and other contraband.  In the balance of good and bad, the case that the open border is good or even acceptable cannot be proven. 
 
First of all, the drain on all tax sources exceeds the tax contributions made by the illegals by many billions of dollars.  The Federation for American Immigration Reform has issued a report that the net tax cost of illegal immigrants annually exceeds one hundred billion dollars.  When the tax cost is added to the products produced by the 'cheap illegal immigration labor rates' the result is a much more expensive product than is visible to the taxpaying American public.  But the tax deficit of the illegal immigration is by far the least costly human suffering burden that results from the open borders.
 
The micro-Christian argument does not bring into the picture the cost in American productivity, incarceration, destroyed health and bodies by the open border drug trafficking, the potential threat to national security by the ingress of terrorists and terror class weapons; Fast and Furious, the federal government sanctioned illegal gun running program; the threat to Mexican citizens and their sovereignty by the drug cartels that have been fattened by American drug dollars; the loss of property rights and endangerment to American citizens who live along the border; and last, but not least, the lives of American law enforcement personnel who have had to wage gun wars on American soil and have their names placed on hit lists with rewards upward of one million dollars.  Without thoroughly discussing all aspects of the open borders problem it is folly for Christian organizations to become embroiled in an international problem over which they have no control or influence. 
 
There are millions of Mexican citizens living fearfully in their own homeland for every million illegal immigrants in the United States.  That is truly a human disaster of far larger proportion and the church is not only silent but has not accepted the challenge to remedy the terrorist conditions so that Mexican nationals can once again live at peace in their own country.  The Mexican Attorney General has identified over two hundred Mexicans killed by the guns illegally sanctioned for movement by the American government, as well as one American law officer's death.  Those tragedies are quickly brushed aside in a rush to bring back the focus to the illegal immigrants.
 
When a 'Christian' University hosts a conference that has one of America's most visible leftist 'pastors', who calls himself a Christian Marxist, as the key-note speaker they have taken a step in the direction of presenting unbalanced political opinions to their student body.  There are very few recognized authorities willing to speak as strongly to the right of this issue, and all other politically correct subjects, as there are those on the extreme left willing to give their opinion regarding the issue because of the disreputable branding they would receive from a left leaning and sympathetic media.  One has to have some kind of pretzel type of logic to accept the fact that a preacher can call himself a Christian/Marxist.  By their very definition these two terms are polar opposites and anyone who toys with accepting that nomenclature is either very naïve or is disingenuous about reality.  Marxists believe that all power and freedom is under the control of the government.  Christianity has always been the enemy of a totalitarian state because by its very nature it believes that man has his freedoms given to him by God.  Further, socialism in the United States has been the most alive and healthy on the university campuses. 
 
Would the university have done its students, their families, their faculty, their community, their state and their nation a better service if they would have focused on two other conferences before considering such a socialist infused conference?  While I am not in a position to judge the character of this university's student body, recently there have been a number of studies concerning their cultural peer group's knowledge and values.  The results of these studies indicate that their peers, if not also them, have a failing knowledge about American history and are relatively incapable of making acceptable moral judgments, both of which should be a prerequisite for a campus leadership to consider before offering such an inflammatory and divisive topic.  Information gained by such a conference can only be properly digested and useful if it falls into the hands of those who have the ability to sort out the good from the bad information and then have a capability to put that information into its proper context for whatever use it might have.  In general, one can say that by several measures, a major portion of the student body is legally considered to not have attained an age of political maturity.  The state of Ohio has ruled that youth under the age of twenty-one should not be entrusted with the right to purchase alcohol.  Few, if any governing bodies, have opened the requirements for seeking office to those under the age of 25.  It would seem obvious that rules and laws such as these are founded upon the failure of most members of that age group to have attained the maturity or experienced the challenges of life to the degree that their personal judgments can be trusted for not just short term consequences but especially for long term values.
 
Following is a quote from author William Dannon, concerning his new book entitled 'Failing Liberty 101, published by Hoover Institution Press: http://www.hooverpress.org/productdetails.cfm?PC=1524
"This book exposes a very real threat to America's future-a threat far more serious than any foreign enemy could ever pose. The most serious danger that the United States now faces, says William Damon, is that our country's future may end up in the hands of a citizenry incapable of sustaining the liberty that has been America's most precious legacy. In Failing Liberty 101, he argues that we are failing to prepare today's young people to be responsible American citizens-to the detriment of their life prospects and those of liberty in the United States of the future. He identifies the problems-the declines in civic purpose and patriotism, crises of faith, cynicism, self-absorption, ignorance, indifference to the common good-and shows that our disregard of civic and moral virtue as an educational priority is having a tangible effect on the attitudes, understanding, and behavior of large portions of the youth in our country today.
The author places the blame squarely on today's grown-up generation of parents, educators, opinion leaders, and public officials for failing to prepare young Americans properly for futures as citizens in a free society."
 
On 20 September 2011 Dennis Prager wrote an Op-Ed article entitled 'Why Young Americans Can't Think Morally: http://patriotpost.us/opinion/dennis-prager/2011/09/20/why-young-americans-cant-think-morally/  The basis for this article was his review of Christian Smith's Book, 'Souls In Transition', which Christianity Today announced at the winner of the Best Book in Christianity and Culture Award.  An extract from Prager's article gives a summary of the symptom and the cause, both of which should be of concern to Christian educators:
"Last week, David Brooks of The New York Times wrote a column on an academic study concerning the nearly complete lack of a moral vocabulary among most American young people. Below are some excerpts from Brooks' summary of the study of Americans aged 18 to 23. (It was led by "the eminent Notre Dame sociologist Christian Smith.")
"Smith and company asked about the young people's moral lives, and the results are depressing ...
"When asked to describe a moral dilemma they had faced, two-thirds of the young people either couldn't answer the question or described problems that are not moral at all ...
"Moral thinking didn't enter the picture, even when considering things like drunken driving, cheating in school or cheating on a partner ...
"The default position, which most of them came back to again and again, is that moral choices are just a matter of individual taste ...
"As one put it, 'I mean, I guess what makes something right is how I feel about it. But different people feel different ways, so I couldn't speak on behalf of anyone else as to what's right and wrong ...
"Morality was once revealed, inherited and shared, but now it's thought of as something that emerges in the privacy of your own heart."
Ever since I attended college, I have been convinced that either "studies" confirm what common sense suggests or that they are mistaken. I realized this when I was presented with study after study showing that boys and girls were not inherently different from one another, and they acted differently only because of sexist upbringings.
This latest study cited by David Brooks confirms what conservatives have known for a generation: Moral standards have been replaced by feelings. Of course, those on the left believe this only when a writer at a major liberal newspaper cites an "eminent sociologist."
What is disconcerting about Brooks' piece is that nowhere in what is an important column does he mention the reason for this disturbing trend -- namely, secularism.
The intellectual class and the left still believe that secularism is an unalloyed blessing. They are wrong. Secularism is good for government. But it is terrible for society (though still preferable to bad religion) and for the individual.
One key reason is what secularism does to moral standards. If moral standards are not rooted in God, they do not objectively exist. Good and evil are no more real than "yummy" and "yucky." They are simply a matter of personal preference. One of the foremost liberal philosophers, Richard Rorty, an atheist, acknowledged that for the secular liberal, "There is no answer to the question, 'Why not be cruel?'"
 
If there is any credence to the above two citations, and numerous prior evaluations of the failure of college students to pass American History, then one should insure that the fertile minds of young people are properly infused with the ability to properly handle divisive information that is rarely handled in a true right and left balanced platform..  Also, the positioning of the speakers on the agenda should be such that the platform is not pre-shaped by a heavy hitter during an opening exercise that has greater visibility than subsequent speakers are given. 
 
Equally important to the planning of such an agenda, especially at a Christian University, is a clarification of where the institution stands on the overall rule of law and constitutional conduct.  If the institution chooses to take no position are they saying that they have no position on illegal conduct?  Do they also have no position on the Fourth Amendment rights of the American border citizens who fear for their lives and are not able to protect their private property from the damage done by the invading hordes?  Do they not have a position regarding the listing of local law enforcement officers on drug cartel bounty posters?  Is the institution willing to put a limit on the breadth of their non-position statement as in any slippery slope you are only one step away from the next level of travesty.  Does the leadership, in that case, then ally their institution with a culture, not of law, but of man who can decide which laws they will accept or reject?  Would they be as free about giving their students the same right to decide which of the institutional rules should be obeyed?
 
While there are times that such controversial topics might be necessary to bring forth, the state of the nation today is such that we might all be better off if more time were dedicated to the good that has come from that nation that was born in 1776 and probably has a longer record of good deeds than the record of sins that are paraded in front of us on a daily basis.  At this very time is the reality of ongoing occupations calling for the destruction of the nation's central banking system, upheaval of the economy, elimination of free-will enterprise and a radical change in the government's role in redistribution of wealth. 
 
If I were to vote on such an issue I would vote in favor of the America I knew fifty years ago and not the America that people who are receiving financial support from those who have the stated purpose of destroying the nation.  Specifically, The Sojourners President and CEO, Jim Wallis, the illegal immigration conference key note speaker recently accepted a one hundred and fifty thousand contribution from George Soros.  This is not the first such contribution.  Some reports put the current amount Soros has given to Wallis' organization at four hundred and twenty-five thousand.
 
Such linkage with those who have a long history of trying to destroy the United States should cause one to be very cautious about the structure of a university conference key-noted by one who has spent years attempting to advance socialist causes.