The last tenuous connection that tied the Bush Administration to traditional America is gone. President Smirk had persistently made a fool of himself, yes—had been caught lying countless times, tricked us into war, apparently listens to a prompter at press conferences via a bug in his ear—but beside him there was Laura, pristine, beautiful, elegant, maternal, a Norman Rockwell exemplar of what a Christian matron should be.
Until last week, at the annual White House correspondents dinner, where Laura lasciviously lowered herself to the disgusting level of Whoopi Goldberg, who made the infamous Bush jokes during the recent campaign, and Hillaroid, the nation’s leading cause of lower back pain, probably proving that Laura is still the same little girl she was when, according to Kitty Kelley, in her new book, Laura sold illegal narcotics to pay her way through college.
We don’t need to repeat Laura’s jokes about herself and her sex life, about the President and homosexuality. By now you have heard them ad vomitorium. Apparently the rationale was Karl Rove’s strategy of demonstrating that the Bushes are as corrupt as the Clintons with whom they are now in bed. The only differences between them remain that there are no new intern knee prints on the Oval Office carpet and Bush does not drop his pants and ask for sex, a refreshing change.
Traitor slut Jane Fonda was there. Remember that attendance is by invitation only so someone invited her. Was it alleged stallion milker Junior Bush? I don’t know what she thought. I’m guessing she loved this revelation that Laura and Dubya are as down and dirty as she. Communist Jane is not a White House correspondent; she was there no doubt to sell some copies of her book.
Despite all, President Smirk is still the hero in so-called fundamentalist Christian churches around the country. Apparently nothing he does—no sickening excess he commits—can change that. Smirk worship is so intense that I would not be surprised were the big celebrity churches to declare him a god like Tiberius. Criticism of Smirk elicits cries of “disloyalty” in the pulpits. A big chunk of “Christian” discussion these days concerns a catechism of demonstrations of Smirk’s staunch belief.
Why? What is wrong in the church? Why has so much of the church become an adjunct of the Republicrud Party? One of the conspiracy for world government’s main tactics is infiltration, by means of which it subverts and perverts an organization, thereby neutralizing opposition. Agents of the conspiracy join those organizations and impersonate real members.
So, for instance, Stalin at first killed all the priests he could catch. If he could kill enough of them, he thought, he could eliminate Christianity. He soon discovered that the more priests he killed, the more priests sprang up. The people’s respect for their priests was impossible to extirpate. So, ever pragmatic, Stalin elected to use that respect for Christianity against itself.
Instead of the “attack from outside,” Stalin created the “attack from inside.” Beautifully groomed, immensely appealing, bearded and perfumed “priests” appeared in the churches. They were not real priests, but Soviet secret police agents posing as priests. Yet, because they looked like priests, the people gave them respect and Stalin used them to keep the people under control. The scheme came to be known as the “Living Church.”
Stalin did the same thing in the churches here in the United States. For just one example, Harry F. Ward, top Methodist clergyman, professor at the Union Theological Seminary in New York, was in fact a Soviet agent. Josef Zack Kornfeder, a founder of the Communist Party, U.S.A., testified that Ward was so important he would travel to Moscow to discuss infiltration of the church with Stalin, but Kornfeder couldn’t figure out whether Stalin was telling Ward how to do it, or Ward was telling Stalin.
This is just one example, in one denomination. The Communists infiltrated them all. If you would like to read about it at length, get one of my books, The Actor, where you will find a few chapters about the Communist infiltration of the church in the United States. Simply call, toll-free, 1 (800) 470-8783.
I recall a period lasting some years, during which the effects of the Communist infiltration of American religion were already showing up in the protestant churches, and people who were not even necessarily Roman Catholics would say, “Maybe the Reds have the Protestant denominations, but at least the Catholic Church is standing firm.”
We now know that the situation in the Catholic Church is as bad as it is in any other. The reason it didn’t show up until later is probably the obvious fact that it takes so long to become a Catholic priest. You can rent a store and be a preacher tomorrow morning, but it takes many years of denial to become a Catholic priest. No one who does not believe in the doctrines of that church could undergo it, unless he were a lunatic Communist. Do you believe that the present sodomite invasion tearing the church apart is an accident? I don’t.
Inside the church, the communists steer it toward communist goals, by means of what used to be called the “social gospel.” Church members are told what to support, what to reject and whom to elect. Martin Luther King and his clones would be examples of such Communist infiltration.
But there is a problem you no doubt already have noticed. Such claptrap in the church certainly would work to con leftwing church goers, people who call themselves (il)”liberals,” who have been incurably brainwashed after thirteen—or eighteen, if they go to college—years in Communist public school.
It would have no effect on people who were able to avoid that school—because, for instance, they learned at home—or were strong enough to survive it. Indeed, the Communist program in the church would only serve to antagonize such people, who in general would be patriotic, however tepid their patriotism may be. They believe in God, which is always dangerous.
So, if you were a Communist, what would you do? You would have to do something; you can’t take the risk of leaving that many Americans without supervision. You never know; they might catch on. Millions of aroused Christians could confront you. So what would you do? How about applying the same principle you use on the left, twisting it so that it now applies to the right in a different, unrecognizable way? What is that organizing principle?
It is the humanist principle that man is the measure of all things, in Voltaire’s phrase; the old Satanist principle that man is god. That the Communists certainly believe they are gods is easy to see in their attempt to create New Soviet Man. The Satanic principle says it will correct God’s “mistakes,” that it will create man all over again, this time in a new image. How would that perverted principle apply to fundamentalist Christianity?
The central fact of Christianity is that Jesus did it all. By submitting Himself to crucifixion, He saved us from ourselves. We don’t need to do any more. We can’t do any more. Jesus did it all. If you are saved for eternity, you were saved “before the foundation of the world.” There is nothing you can do about it. God does not need your help.
Indeed, if Jesus saves you, you are saved. You can’t lose your salvation, however stupid, sinful and destructive you are—even if you enter banking or politics—because Jesus will not lose even one of them he has been given. There is nothing you can do to save yourself, however many stars are in your crown. No one else can save you. The preacher cannot save you. Scripture cannot save you.
If you are saved, who are you? You are a member of any kindred, tongue, people or nation, because God is not a respecter of persons. You could be any color. You could be anywhere. You may never have laid eyes on a missionary or read scripture. Indeed, you may be so benighted you have never heard of Jesus Christ, because what you do is utterly irrelevant. God, Jesus, decides. You do not.
Where did I get all this? Are these the unauthorized ravings of Alan Stang? No, Alan Stang is irrelevant. I got it from scripture. It is what scripture says. God does it this way because this is His pleasure. No one knows why. The purpose of scripture is to comfort and instruct people who are saved, not to save people who are not. Scripture edifies; it does not save.
You don’t get to heaven because of your works. Your works may be a sign that you have been chosen to go there, because by their fruits shall ye know them. A preacher and a congregation who believe all this will be modest and at peace, resting in the hands of our savior, Jesus Christ.
In relatively recent years, however, the church has been invaded by an utterly alien, unchristian belief: the belief that man saves himself, the belief that works do not so much prove you have been chosen, but instead that works buy your ticket. To get to heaven in this bizarre scenario, you have to improve yourself, develop a purpose-driven life and lay up those stars.
So clear is scripture on the subject that the authors of this aberration admit Jesus did it all—gave us grace—but what He did is useless unless we “accept” Him, unless we “make a decision” for Him, etc., the trouble with which is that such decisions are themselves works. My thought is somewhat analogous to the dictum of Groucho Marx, who said he wouldn’t want to belong to any group that would accept him as a member.
Likewise, I would be terrified if I had to depend on a God who has to depend on a man as sinful, as weak and wavering as I am to accept Him. My God, the God of scripture, is a God of total, awesome power, who need not depend on anything, who does things according to His pleasure. My totally powerful God chose me, because I was incapable of choosing Him.
The advocates of the aberration say the doctrine set forth above—from scripture—is a “hellish doctrine,” to quote Jimmy Swaggart. Suppose someone wants with all his heart to be with Jesus in eternity. To be denied that delight because he has not been chosen before the foundation of the world, denied because he can do nothing about it, is immeasurably cruel, according to this argument.
But the fact that such a man wants to be with Jesus in eternity is a fruit, and by their fruits shall ye know them. Look at all the people who do not want to be with Jesus in eternity. They look at scripture and their eyeballs rebound from the page. They say they want no part of it. Fine, let us take them all at their word. If you believe a man who says he wants no part of it has not been chosen, shouldn’t you also believe that maybe a man who says he does want to be there has?
What do victims of this aberration do in the world? A television preacher once told me, “I save 30,000 souls a month.” Math was always my weakest subject. Wouldn’t that mean he saved 1,000 souls a day?” One inevitable result of such massive “soul-saving” campaigns is to gasify the preacher to the point of hubris and explosion.
Soon we have the church involved in all kinds of activities unrelated to scripture. No longer is the church focused on Jesus Christ, but on the preacher and the congregants, whom it recreates. The church wants to be in the swim. The state government arrives with incorporation, which makes the church a creature of the state. The federal government arrives with handouts that make it a creature of Washington.
The church accepts. It becomes polite, emasculated, unmanly. The last thing it would do on this earth is offend. The preacher gets his hair styled and routinely wears makeup; you never know when a photo op will show up. The church becomes an adjunct, a front, for the federal government, that feeds it.
In the last act of this version of humanism the church pretends to denounce, it believes it wields influence it doesn’t have and never did. The President is the symbol, the manifestation, of that spurious influence. Gradually, the church begins to worship President Smirk. The process began with the humanist principle that man can remake himself, that God proposes but man decides.
That is where the frenzy of ersatz soul-saving has brought us. The reason this is so important is that, because of it, it becomes realistic to speculate about the demise, the destruction, of our country. The Christians in those churches could save it—the country, not the souls—if they read what scripture actually says.
As it is, I do not exaggerate when I say that the celebrity churches are happily marching us in lockstep into Communist slavery.
“Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.”