Friday, October 31, 2008

Progressive Shades of Red #2

Barack Obama believes in the distribution of wealth, just as Marx did. He said, “We need to spread the wealth around.” This socialist practice has often been expressed by the statement, “Take from the rich and give to the poor.” This is a socialist philosophy that wants to “leveling the playing field” at the expense of those who have worked hard and accumulated wealth. Socialism is nothing more than a developing phase of communism—a darker shade of red. Communism is supposed to be the perfect world that socialism will usher in. And when it does, conflict will cease and we will all live in a peaceful world. Religious Marxists say that this new order will be the Kingdom of God.” When the communist kingdom comes, the slogan will no longer be, “from each according to his ability to each according to his need,” but just “to each according to his need.” The state will have confiscated the means of production and “spreading the wealth” by taxation and distribution. Socialists in the United States are vigorously engaged in this process by increases taxes and regulating the means of production. This is driving businesses overseas and causing people to be dependent on government. Communism produces a welfare state.

A child’s text book of some years ago had a story about two squirrels; one was industrious and the other was lazy. While the former worked hard storing nuts for winter the latter ran and played in the trees. Winter caught the lazy squirrel unprepared and the story faulted the industrious squirrel for “being selfish and not sharing.” This was an injection of Marxism into our educational system. Isn’t this what is happening in politics and government? Socialism and ultimately communism dictates that wealth be shared, no matter that the wealthy have worked for what they have and the needy class may not have worked or been frugal?

Hegel and Dialectical Idealism: Hegel (1770-1831) was a professor at Heidelberg and Berlin. He wrote books on ethics, aesthetics, history and religion. During this time he developed his dialectical logic. He believed that in all of society, each entity—be it a person, a party or a nation—holds its own preferred philosophy which is in conflict with that of every other. He called the preferred thought the thesis, its conflicting thought its antithesis and the emerging higher thought a synthesis. The thesis first creates its antithesis through conflict and then negates it, giving rise to a higher synthesis. This synthesis becomes a new thesis and the cycle continues—and will continue until the emergence of the “absolute ideal.”
Hegel supposed that everything functions dialectically—in nature, in thought and in relationships. The universe develops by a self-creating plan; human activity leads to property, which leads to law; and out of the conflict between the individual and the law develops the synthesis of ethics, by which the state is produced. The state is the embodiment of the absolute idea, and the ultimate state is a monarchy. Religion has moved from the worship of nature through a series of stages to Christianity where Christ represents the union between God and humanity—between spirit and matter. Philosophy is more comprehensive than religion, as it is the historical unfolding of the absolute. This thought process gave Hegel—and the world dialectical idealism— The Concordia Encyclopedia, Columbia University Press.

Feuerbach and Progressive Materialism: Feuerbach (1804-1872) was a German philosopher and a renegade theologian, but he abandoned theology and embraced philosophy, which brought him into agreement with Hegel. He later parted with Hegel’s ideal philosophy for naturalistic materialism. In other words, while Hegel built his philosophy on progressive thought and expected to achieve his ideal through thought, Feuerbach came to believe that thought and religious feelings are only products of man’s yearning on which no suitable philosophy could be built, but that the answer lay in man himself and in nature. Feuerbach then removed deity from his philosophy altogether, leaving only progressive materialism. Mao Tse-tung, who believed the same, said, “There is nothing in the world except matter in motion.”

Marx and Dialectic Materialism: Karl Marx (1818-1883) married Hegel’s dialectic and Feuerbach’s materialism, and developed his dialectic materialism. The struggle would no longer be in Hegel’s realm of ideas or in Feuerbach realm of the material, but in the realm of politics and economics. Marx called his philosophy dialectic materialism because of the dialectical conflict he saw between the thesis and it’s antithesis in the areas of politics and economics. Socialism was the thesis, capitalism its antithesis and pure communism the synthesis.
Communism is supposed to be the perfect state that socialism will usher in after the world has becomes a socialist state. When this happens, conflict will cease in a perfect world where all will enjoy common pleasures. The slogan will no longer be a socialist slogan, “from each according to his ability to each according to his need,” but a communist slogan, “to each according to his need.”
.
Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924) explained this philosophy in his book, One Step Forward Two Steps Backward. Change is a historical determinate and progress is made by advancing and retreating, gaining and losing, giving and taking, but never losing sight of its goal. Hegel had developed his dialectic idealism, Marx built his dialectic materialism upon it and, with Lenin’s prediction that they would get it in the church, this dialectic philosophy was ready to be converter into a dialectic theology to be called liberation theology—the present form of modernism that has possessed the postmodern church.


Understanding Dialectic Progression: Remember these two Marxist claims: 1) Everything is constantly changing and, 2) progress is inherent in change. A good way to understand the development of any philosophy is to look for examples. Friedrich Nietzsche dreamed of a super race and thought that by teaching people the proper philosophy—his philosophy—he could produce it. In order to expedite Nietzsche’s plan, Hitler added the elimination of nonconformists. Likewise, Marx dreamed of a perfect communist world and thought that by teaching people the proper philosophy—his philosophy, he could produce it. In order to expedite Marx’s plan, Lenin added the elimination of nonconformists. After all, the elimination of the nonconformists would assist the thesis (socialism) in the negation of its antithesis (capitalism) and would bring in a higher synthesis (communism). Following Lenin, this elimination reached its apex in Stalin, who killed millions of his own people because they were impeding the progress toward a perfect communist world.
Just as the middle class of society overthrew and replaced the unproductive feudal nobility and the colonists overthrew and replaced the government of the king, so the proletariat (working class) must overthrow and replace the bourgeoisie (bours-wa-ze) middle class capitalists, in order to establish a perfect socialist state—a step in the direction of a communist world.
This dialectic method of overthrowing the old and replacing it with the new is to be achieved by a relentless struggle in the economical and political realms. The outcome of the struggle is predetermined by the flow of history (this is Marx’s philosophy of history). Economics would bring about the distribution of wealth and political action (strikes, boycotts and violence) would overthrow capitalism.
Marx reasoned that the value of a commodity is determined by the labor required to manufacture it, and when it is sold for more than it cost to produce, the profit is called “surplus value.” This, said Marx, amounts to capitalists profiteering off of the labor of the workers, which amounts to bourgeois (bours-wa) exploitation of the proletariat. For this reason capitalism would have to be overthrown and replaced by socialism and the instruments of production put into the hands of the state. This action would benefit the working class by allowing them a share of the profit from the goods they manufacture. In other words, capitalism and private enterprise would have to go, private ownership of property would be banned, there would be no churches operating independently of the state and the state would eventually own and educate the children; parents would have no authority over them. In order for socialism to work, the state has to own and operate everything and the people have to be totally cooperative and submissive.
The problem with socialism is that it destroys the initiative to produce and excel by taking away the profit motive, leaving manufacturers without the means to produce, expand and employ additional workers; and it destroys the incentive of workers who see no opportunity for advancement. This means that the working class will have lost the means of their livelihood, because the state doesn’t have the expertise to run all the factories it confiscates. And this is why all nations that have aspired to communism have ended up in poverty and disgrace. When this happens, the capitalists, whom they failed to overthrow, have always come to bail them out with the profit they tried to destroy because they couldn’t have it.

Marx’s Dialectical Materialism and Liberation Theology: Hegel envisioned an absolute ideal, Marx struggled to build a communist world, and when the church adopted Marx’s philosophy and turned it into theology, they also engaged in a dialectic struggle against their antithesis—biblical theology—in an attempt to usher in a secular Kingdom of God. They all speak of an earthly goal, and neither of them believes that the Bible is absolutely true. They all deal with philosophy rather than reality.

Vladimir Lenin, who lived in the generation following Marx, devised a way of getting Marxist philosophy into the church. He said, “We will find our greatest success to the extent that we inculcate Marxism as a kind of religion. Religious men and women are easy to convert and win, and so will easily accept our thinking if we wrap it up in a kind of religious terminology.” He also said, “Telling the truth is a bourgeois prejudice. Deception, on the other hand is often justified by the goal.” Lenin and his followers meant to destroy the church by getting Marxism into it one way or another—either by “wrapping it up” to look like something else or by force. They have succeeded in both. Lenin was right; after they got Marxism all wrapped up in religious terminology, churches and seminaries eagerly accepted it and called it liberation teleology.
Marxist action, whether secular or religious, militant or stealthy, always masquerades as liberating. There has to be a way found to convince the proletariat, whom the bourgeois capitalists have oppressed and the Marxist revolutionaries and “Christian” missionaries have come to liberate. The people will be liberated from poverty and capitalist oppressors through “class struggle,” and liberated for the purpose of forming a socialist state in which wealth will be distributed, everyone will be equal and there will be no further conflict. This will “free the captives” and fulfill the vision that is predetermined by history. In that day, pure communism (or if you prefer, the kingdom of God) will have arrived. All Christians had to do, once they had bought the wrapped-up lie, was to add a concept of God to this Marxist belief system and take it to the mission fields, pulpits and universities. In this way, nations would be “liberated” from the oppression of capitalism, and missionaries and ministers would be “liberated” from the oppression of biblical restraints. Then they would “do their theology as they go, rather than getting it from a book.”
During the past several decades liberationist professors have educated the missionaries and pastors in this new theology and they have in turn educated the nations and the churches. Liberation theology has become the new thesis that has created a conflict with its antithesis, biblical theology, which it must negate in order to usher in a new synthesis, a secular one-world religion. This is the essence of liberation theology, which is Marxist to the core. And this explains why Marxists and missionaries, who have been captivated by this philosophy, work side by side for the same cause on the mission fields: They are comrades, both advancing the Marx’s philosophy of history according to history’s “predetermined plan,” There is no place for Almighty God and His Word in this scheme.
This explains the rise of postmodernism in the mainline churches. Thank God there are many Bible-believing churches and millions of genuine Christians who have not succumbed to this modern virus of unbelief.

Wednesday I was listening to Neal Conan and Daniel Shore talking about the election on Talk of the Nation. Shore, long known as a far left of center news analyst said, “I like Obama, he thinks more like the Europeans than McCain does. When Obama is elected, Americans will also change to be more like the Europeans.” That’s why I said that a vote for Obama is a vote for socialism—in the progressive shades of red.

Friday, October 24, 2008

Progressive Shades of Red

I walked the trail in the autumn sun today, I was free, yet I carried a burden. How can any true American not be burdened about our nation with its political and economical conflicts. It grieves me to see how dismissive people are about what is happening in our nation. Our election is almost here and millions will be voting the dictates of their conscience—or their prejudice. Masses are just going along with the crowd with little knowledge and less concern about the importance and consequence of their vote. I keep thinking about Barak Obama’s socialism, his political religion and how he will “change” America if elected. His socialism having been presented in the news, I want to write a page about his political religion. He and his associates, to the extent that they are religious, have for many years been advocates of liberation theology, which is little more than religious Marxism.

· David Belsiger, a Christian author and publisher writes, “In the first place, liberation expresses the aspirations of oppressed people and classes, emphasizing the economic, social, and political process which puts them at odds with wealthy nations and oppressive classes.”[i]
· Ronald Nash, a Christian author, defines liberation theology as “a movement…that seeks radical change along Marxist lines in politics and economics.”[ii]

Following are a number of quotations from those who have espoused this peculiar belief system.

· “Liberation theology is an excellent new theology which reinterprets, in the light of the revolution, all terms of traditional theology: God, Christ, the priesthood, marriage, labor, everything.[iii]
· “Liberation Theology is an attempt to blend Marxism with Christianity by substituting political liberation for liberation from sin. When political and social transformation have occurred, the Kingdom of God will be established on earth…The mission of the church these days…is, above everything else, to preach communism. Communism, according to Marx, is a society in which there is no selfishness and injustice. It is the same as what Christians understand as the Kingdom of God.”[iv]
· “Liberation theology is a strategic alliance with Marxism in the process of liberating the continent.”[v]
· “Liberation theology is revolutionary socialism…militant Christianity.”[vi]

The above comments were made during the time of the Soviet Union’s involvement in national governments, particularly in Latin America and South Africa. With the fall of the Soviet Union, most of these nations held elections and established democratic governments, but they failed to abandon their Marxist views and forsake their liberation theology, and now communism is returning—as in the case of Hugo Chavez in Nicaragua. Both Marxism and liberation theology, which, as I have said, is religious Marxism, are deeply entrenched in our government, educational system, postmodern churches and society. After the breakup of the Soviet Union someone asked, “Whatever became of all those communists in Russia?” An insightful person replied, “They are teaching in American universities.”

Off to the left of center is socialism, the precursor of communism, with its concept of bigger, more powerful government, higher taxes, distribution of wealth and progressive shades of red. Smooth talking Barak Obama holds these views, as does his angry pastor, Jeremiah Wright. And then there are their destructive comrades, William Ayers, who confessed to being “an anarchist and a Marxist” on a video tape in 2002 and shown on Fox News on Nov. 22, 2008, Malcolm X, who died in his violence, James Cone, pastor Wright’s mentor and founder of the black power/black liberation movement, along with many contemporaries who are in step with Obama, passing through the progressive shades of red on their march toward communism. How many of our citizens know this? How many care? An old preacher, making a point in his training of a young associate advised, “Don’t ever underestimate the ignorance of your audience.”
[i] David W. Belsiger, Family Protection Scoreboard, Liberation Theology Edition
[ii] Ronald Nash, Christian author
[iii] Ernesto Cardenal, Nicaraguan priest and Minister of Cultural Affairs in the Sandinista Regime
[iv] Ibid.
[v] Christians for Socialism, A Liberation Theology Publication
[vi] The late Dorothy Soelle, A leading European Marxist and former professor at Union Theological Seminary


Notes:
This essay is somewhat political but I had to write it. If it displeases you, please share your displeasure with me. If it informs and helps you, share your approval.

I am working on a series of essays on Philippians, which has been called "The Epistle of Joy." This will keep us in the Word and give us some wonderful spiritual things to think about.

Please be patient with my blog posts. You can accesss them through the blog URL on my essays but I cannot receiving your comments. Somehow I am not properly connected to my server. I’ll try to work this out with the server soon because I am anxious to get feedback from my posts.

I asked recently if there is “anyone out there” and posted a couple of responses. I received another excellent response from Bill, who wrote, “It’s time for me to let you know I’m still ‘out there’. I think of you often and continue to mention your efforts in prayers.” Thank you so much Brother Bill, and I thank God also for your continuing interest and response.

Saturday, October 18, 2008

Mountain Tops and Valleys

Have you read the book or seen the animated movie “The Wind in the Willow?” The leading character, Mr. Toad, is driving his horse and carriage down a muddy road when the biggest and finest car he had ever seen hits a mud hole and splashed him all over. He just had to have a car like that. So he bought it and drove so fast and recklessly that he kept getting tickets and going to jail. Never being able to learn, he ended up in a prison cell chained to the wall for life. He was eventually released and went speeding out of town. But on a very sad day in prison he got so depressed that he cried and said, “O, I feel so sorry for myself.” Have you ever had a Mr. Toad moment? I must have had after writing my last essay. I always hope to get some sort of response. (You see, I am a lonely old toad who is not involved in the lives of others as I used to be in ministry. Sometimes I feel so sorry for myself). In my Mr. Toad moment, I wrote, “Hey! Is there anyone out there?” My heart leaped up when I received these two replies.

Sharon wrote: “What do you mean, is there anyone out here? What am I, chopped liver?” I assured her that she was not chopped liver but my precious daughter who calls me every Sunday and sends me email notes often.

Joe wrote: “Brother Lacy: As it has always been, the masses only complain when there is no bread to eat. As the wife waits for the complements of her husband, the mother those of her children, so the minister stands in silence, save for his own voice. Just burn the biscuits or misspeak some minor point, then be assured, that those now in silence will find their voice.
I love you brother, and the fine work that you engage in weekly. Just your last essay #104 is to be the basis for this Sunday’s lesson. I even sketched the train. I look forward to many more of your writings. I, like so many others forget to complement the cook, but I am grateful for being lead to you, and thereby am passing these great thoughts on to as many others that will listen.
Again thank you so much, and with prayers for you, and your labor, and your family that all may continue in our Masters service.—joe L. This also encouraged me because Joe is a faithful minister of Christ who often encourages me with kind words.

But now that my Mr. Toad moment has passed, I want to share a great message with you. Three men in the Bible, after having mountain top experiences beyond all others, went immediately into the valley and wished to die. They were Moses, Jonah and Elijah.

Moses: Early in Moses’ ministry (1446-1406 B. C.), he was ordered to go up on Mt. Sinai to receive God’s Law for the Hebrew nation. He went up with fear and trembling, had the experience of his life, and came down to find his people worshiping an idol god—a golden calf that they had made (Ex. 19, 20, 32). “The Lord said to Moses, ‘I have seen this people, and behold, they are an obstinate people. Now then let me alone…that I may destroy them.’ Then Moses entreated the Lord his God, and said, ‘...Turn from your burning anger and change Your mind...” So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.” But when Moses came down and saw the people engaged in pagan worship, he was enraged and said, “Whoever is for the Lord, come to me!” And the sons of Levi gathered together to him.” He had the Levites kill those who had worshipped the idol god. Then he interceded for the remnant saying, “But now, if You will, forgive their sins—and if not, please blot me out of Your book which you have written!” If Moses had failed in leading his people to the Promised Land, he would rather die than live.


Jonah: In the half century during which the prophet Jonah ministered (800-750 B. C.), there was a fierce conflict between the bordering nations of Israel and Assyria. In the midst of this conflict God sent Jonah, an Israelite, to preach to the Assyrians in order to bring them to repentance and end the conflict. Jonah, dissatisfied with his assignment, tried to run away by boarding a ship for Tarshish. After a severe storm and his experience in the whale, he arrived in Nineveh, the capitol city of Assyria. He preached fervently and all the people repented genuinely. But after his grand experience, Jonah reflected on the enmity between the two nations and was very unhappy with his assignment—and evidently his success. “It greatly displeased him and he became angry.” In his disappointment and in spite of his victory, he prayed, “Therefore now, O Lord, please take my life from me, for death is better to me than life” (Jonah 4:1-3).

Elijah: During Elijah’s ministry (848-797 B. C.), he found himself in a deep conflict with king Ahab and his queen Jezebel, who had many false prophets who were leading God’s people into the worship of Baal, an idol god. He challenged these prophets to a showdown on Mount Caramel (I Kings 19). After Elijah exposed the idolatrous prophets he executed them. When Jezebel heard of it, she sent a messenger to Elijah saying, “So may the gods do to me and even more, if I do not make your life as the life of one of them by tomorrow about this time.” Elijah, fearing for his life, fled into the wilderness. While sitting under a juniper tree, “he requested for himself that he might die and said, ‘It is enough; now, O Lord, take my life, for I am not better than my fathers.’”

There you have it—three strong men in the service of God, who had just accomplished victories beyond all others, had their Mr. Toad moment (if it is not too frivolous to say so). They requested to die. But this is life. One day you are on the mountain top and the next day you are in the valley, feeling like a failure.

Now, get up from under that juniper tree and let’s get on with our journey to the Promised Land!

Saturday, October 11, 2008

Our Forever Helper

Jesus said, “Let not your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me… And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; that is the Spirit of truth… you know Him because He abides with you, and will be in you…” (John 14:1, 16-17).

From this Scripture learn: (1) Jesus doesn’t want us to be troubled. (2) Faith in God and Jesus is the preventive for a troubled heart. (3) Jesus entreated the Father concerning our need for help and the Father sent us the Holy Spirit as a Helper, (Other translations say “Comforter” or “Counselor,” who will be with us forever.

Someone is sure to say that Jesus was talking to His apostles and that what He said does not apply to us. I must reply that, while the apostles were endowed with greater powers for the original work they had to do, the New Testament abounds with references to the Spirit’s presence and help in the lives of all those who “walk according to the Spirit” (Rom. 8:4). If you have any doubt, get your concordance and look up the references to the Holy Spirit. You will find that He has been given to us as a gift, that He indwells us, fills, comforts and guides us. The question is not whether He given us the Holy Spirit but whether we are being led by the Holy Spirit. (See 2008 essays #33 and #34 where I dealt with all the New Testament verses that mention the Holy Spirit in our lives. If you didn’t keep copies and want them, let me know and I will send them to you.) That being established let us turn to the three statements above.

1. Jesus doesn’t want us to be troubled. He came as the Prince of Peace, bringing peace to the world, especially to His followers. If we are not at peace with ourselves, our families and our associates it is because we do not “pursue the things that make for peace” (Rom. 14:19). When Jesus said to the waves, “Peace, be still,” they obeyed Him. We are instructed to “Be of one mind, live in peace” (2 Cor. 13:11). If we are to be free from trouble and enjoy the peace Jesus has for us, we too must obey His voice and calm down.

2. Faith in God and Jesus is the remedy for troubled hearts. Any time we can truly trust our Lord to give us freedom and peace, He will do it. The deficiency is not on His part but on ours. “Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, shall guard your minds and hearts in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 4:6-7).

3. Jesus entreated the Father concerning our need for help and the Father sent the Holy Spirit to be with us and in us forever. Stop doubting this and trust Jesus who said, “I will ask” and “He will give.” There is no alternative. We will either take Jesus at His word or else live with the burden of doubt and trouble.

Saturday, October 4, 2008

The Tragedy of Manufactured Crisis

Most people live a kind of dream life without serious concern or analytical thought regarding serious matters. They would rather follow the political piper than think for themselves. Nations have been lost in this manner and America is now on the brink. The masses accept, without question, what their party says and what they hear on TV and at their favorite meeting places. I was reminded of this recently while viewing some excellent articles on the “American Thinker,” a conservative web site. Concerning our present financial crisis, the political campaigns and the propaganda that surrounds us, I am quite certain that we need more American thinkers. If you want to read an excellent article that gives the history of the socialist take over of America during the past forty year, as well as our present plight, you will find it on http://www.americanthinker.com/. On the first page you will see “Bonus Articles.” Scroll down to September 28 and read “Barak Obama and the Tragedy of Manufactured Crisis.” This will give you names, dates, activities and progress of the socialist influences in our National affairs. (My computer says “ctrl+click the following link.” If the site doesn’t open for you, type “American Thinker in your Google search.”

Did you see on the news Friday that Ohio has started voting already and will be voting for a week? The Democrats are running busses, hauling voters to their polling places. I heard one woman say, “We’re stealing the election!” Another said, when asked if she had been instructed to vote for a certain candidate, “Yes, we were told to vote for Obama.” Obama is notorious for voter registration as well as voter fraud. That’s what he learned and taught in his community organizing in Chicago. He, along with his socialist comrades, intends to win this election by any means. And he will unless millions awake from their fairy-tale dream and do the right thing for their nation.

Lacy Williams

Friday, October 3, 2008

Christian Groups Host Mahmud Ahmadinejad

When I heard on the news recently that American Christians were hosting the Iranian president, Mahmud Ahmadinejad, I wondered which church would do such a thing. Soon I learned that they were two “Peace and Justice” Movements—The Friends and the Mennonites. Being familiar with these groups and their publications, I was no longer surprised. Following is an excerpt, with slight modifications, from my book, Beyond the Intention of Jesus, which I researched in the 1980’s and 90’s and published in 2004.

“Peace and justice Movements, including the Mennonites and Friends (Quakers), have gone completely over to the Marxist analysis of society and the theology of liberation. Two words have become popular in these movements—peace and justice. To them ‘peace’ means the cessation of resistance against socialism, even Marxist socialism (communism). ‘Justice’ means the elimination of capitalism and the distribution of wealth. American churches picked up these words and used them as if they suddenly understood them for the first time. They harped on peace and justice without understanding what they mean in this context. Gullible people should be informed of their errors. If you are for peace, then I assume that you are willing to capitulate with the communists, right? And if you believe in justice, I assume that you are willing to relinquish your wealth so others may have “their fair share,” right? Well, if not, why do you parrot the Marxist on peace and justice as the Mennonites and Friends do?
“At an Illinois Sunday School Convention in Peoria in 1989, I registered and began to look around. The nearest booth was operated by the Lombard Mennonite Peace Center. I went through their material, picked up a couple of tracts and got into a conversation with the young man in the booth. “Do you teach liberation theologies as your missionaries in Latin America do?” I asked. He didn’t answer me directly but revealed his color (which incidentally was red) by immediately defending Marxist Nicaragua and condemned the anti-communists—a subject which I hadn’t even mentioned.
“When we tried to work in El Salvador,” he said, “we had lots of trouble, but when we went to Nicaragua we had no trouble at all.” If one is in Rome doing as the Romans do he is not likely to have any trouble with the Romans.
“I replied by saying, ‘But the Soviet Union is shipping arms to Nicaragua and is building a big runway there.’
“Russia doesn’t have a runway in Nicaragua,” he snapped.
I knew the runway was being built but his propaganda didn’t allow him to know it. In his tract, “Conversion to the Kingdom of God,” I read, “There is from Jesus’ point of view, much reason to criticize the popular evangelists and their call to be born again. The prayer of Jesus is not, ‘Lord save some souls today;’ but ‘Thy Kingdom come.’” The Kingdom of God, they say, is universal socialism. This statement sums up all I have been trying to say about the advocates of liberation theology. They have stated their own case and indicted themselves better than I could ever have done. The tract also spoke of “humanistic anti-communism.” Doesn’t everyone, except the Marxists, know that communism, not anti-communism, is humanistic?) The tract continued, “In out time and place the best translation of the early Christian confession that ‘Jesus is Lord’ may be, ‘Jesus is President’…What reason is there to believe that He (God) would not chose the title of the strongest political authority to identify Jesus today?
“Notice the emphases these groups place on ‘politics and economics.’ With them, everything regarding the Kingdom of God is political and economical. You and I are being asked to stop trying to ‘save some souls today’ and assist these liberal groups and their Marxist comrades in their socialist conquest. While faithful evangelists are on the mission field preaching the Gospel of Christ, trying to save souls, as Jesus commissioned, the Quakers, Mennonites, ecologists, liberationists et al, are there opposing them in the name of a “human Jesus. They say that Jesus Christ, the Son of God and Lord of all, should be spoken of today as the “strongest political authority”—Jesus, president of a political kingdom.’”

Ahmadinejad is not a communist, neither are the unbelieving Friends and Mennonites Christian, according to the biblical use of the term. Confessing Jesus Christ as the Son of God, not as president of a political kingdom, is the mark of a true Christian.

Now you know who it was that hosted the Iranian president.