Who Is Mohammed Elbaradei?

published with permission from Joel Rosenberg

Last week, few Westerners knew the name Mohammed ElBaradei. Today, this well-educated, genteel-sounding, Nobel laureate has suddenly emerged as the face of the protest movement in Egypt. But who is he really, and is he a force for genuine, positive change? Three clues tell us the answer is “no,” ElBaradei is not someone we can trust, and we do not want him running Egypt.

1. ElBaradei is an apologist for Iran. As head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, from 1997 to 2009, the Iranians repeatedly lied to ElBaradei’s face, and he either let them or didn’t know the difference. The Iranians dramatically accelerated their nuclear enrichment program in violation of U.N. resolutions and international law during those 12 years. But ElBaradei never seemed bothered. Iran built three secret nuclear facilities during this time, yet ElBaredei never seemed to notice (until other intelligence agencies called his attention to them). For more on this, please read:

• “How ElBaradei misled the world about Iran’s nuclear program: The outgoing IAEA chief intervened repeatedly to distort his inspectors’ reports on Iran’s nuclear sites.” – a useful summary of ElBaradei’s disastrous term at the IAEA.
• Wall Street Journal editorial column: ElBaradei’s Real Agenda – excerpt: “Mr. ElBaradei’s report culminates a career of freelancing and fecklessness which has crippled the reputation of the organization he directs. He has used his Nobel Prize to cultivate an image of a technocratic lawyer interested in peace and justice and above politics. In reality, he is a deeply political figure, animated by antipathy for the West and for Israel on what has increasingly become a single-minded crusade to rescue favored regimes from charges of proliferation.”
• Hoenlein: ElBaradei Distorted, Lied and Covered Up for Iran

2. ElBaredei is anti-Israel. During his tenure at the IAEA, Iranian leaders publicly and consistently called for the “annihilation” of Israel, denied the Holocaust of six million Jews during World War II, said that the Jewish State was doomed to destruction, that the fall of Israel was “imminent,” as was the coming of the Twelfth Imam which would coincide with the destruction of not just Israel but also the U.S. At the same time, the Iranians feverishly accelerated their illegal uranium enrichment program even as they developed ballistic missiles capable of reaching Israel and Europe. Yet in 2009, ElBaradei actually declared that Israel was the greatest threat to the peace and security of the Middle East, not Iran.

3. Third, ElBaradei is an apologist for the Muslim Brotherhood. For starters, the Brotherhood is openly supporting ElBaradei and saying they want to form a “unity” government with him, and he’s welcoming their support. What’s more, in an interview on CNN on January 30, 2011, ElBaradei flatly denied that the Muslim Brotherhood is a fundamentalist Islamic organization, claiming that this was “a myth that was sold by the Mubarak regime.” He went on to deny that if the Brotherhood gained control of the Egyptian government they wouldn’t create a Radical Islamic regime that would be similar to what happened in Iran in 1979. To be sure, the Brotherhood are Sunni Radicals and the Ayatollah Khomeini was a Shia Radical. But aside from those theological differences, the Brotherhood has been one of the most anti-Western, virulently jihadist organizations in the Middle East for decades. They have believed and taught that Islam is the answer, and violent jihad is the way. This was true of its founder Hassan al-Banna. This was true of its intellectual leader Sayyid Qutb in the 1950s and 1960s. This is true of its most famous and deadly disciples, Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri, an Egyptian national. It remains true with the Hamas terror movement in Gaza, which is an offshoot of the Egyptian Brotherhood. I document all this in my non-fiction book, Inside The Revolution.

Here’s the transcript of the stunning interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria (or watch this video — this portion begins at 7:12 minutes into the clip):

CNN’s FAREED ZAKARIA: Mohamed, one of the visions that haunts Americans is of the Iranian revolution, where a dictator, pro-American dictator, was replaced by an even worse regime that was even more anti-American and more threatening to the region.  People worry about the Muslim Brotherhood.  Are you confident that a post-Mubarak Egypt will not give rise to some kind of Islamic fundamentalist force that will undermine the democracy of Egypt?

MOHAMMED ELBARADEI: I’m quite confident of that, Fareed.  This is a myth that was sold by the Mubarak regime, that it’s either us, the ruthless dictators, or above them the al Qaeda types. You know, the Muslim Brotherhood has nothing to do with the Iranian model, has nothing to do with extremism, as we have seen it in Afghanistan and other places.  The Muslim Brotherhood is a religiously conservative group.  They are a minority in Egypt.  They are not a majority of the Egyptian people, but they have a lot of credibility because all the other liberal parties have been smothered for 30 years. They are in favor of a federalist state.  They are in favor of a wording on the base of constitution that….every Egyptian has the same rights, same obligation, that the state in no way will be a state based on religion.  And I have been reaching out to them.  We need to include them.  They are part of the Egyptian society, as much as the Marxist party here.  I think this myth that has been perpetuated and sold by the regime has no – has no iota of reality. As you know, Fareed, I’ve worked with Iranians, I’ve worked here.  There is 100 percent difference between the two societies.

ZAKARIA: If there were a democratic government with Muslim Brotherhood participation, do you believe that Egypt would still be at peace with Israel?

ELBARADEI: Of course.  I mean, I – again, the whole issue of peace in the Middle East is an issue which everybody – nobody wants to go to war, Fareed.

For more on the dangers posed by the Muslim Brotherhood:

• The Muslim Brotherhood: the enemy in its own words
• Muslim Brotherhood: ‘Prepare Egyptians for war with Israel’
• Jordan’s Muslim Brotherhood: “The leader of Jordan’s powerful Muslim Brotherhood warned Saturday that unrest in Egypt will spread across the Mideast and Arabs will topple leaders allied with the United States.”
• Egypt crisis: Muslim Brotherhood blames America for the unrest
• Chicago Tribune: A rare look at secretive Brotherhood in America: Muslims divided on Brotherhood; A group aiming to create Islamic states worldwide has established roots here, in large part under the guidance of Egypt-born Ahmed Elkadi
• Weekly Standard: The Muslim Brotherhood is No Friend

Why Fornication Is Peculiarly Evil

published with permission from Phil Johnson

At the heart of all the problems in the church at Corinth was a tendency to let the values of that debauched culture seep into the church. That’s something for missional Christians to consider today: cultural assimilation as a strategy for church growth in a pagan culture is fraught with serious dangers. Especially in a city filled with both temples and brothels—where fornication was literally deemed a religious rite—the worst thing the church could do would be to take a lax attitude toward sexual sin.

The vast majority of the Jewish community in Corinth had rejected the gospel (Acts 18:6). So the church was made up of mostly Gentiles who, of course, came from a culture that was not inclined to see sexual sin as unspiritual. Just the opposite. Most of the “religion” in Corinth involved temple prostitution and debauched sexual behavior.

That may explain somewhat why the Corinthian church would receive into their membership a man who was fornicating with his father’s wife (1 Corinthians 5:1). Perhaps they thought they could connect with their culture better if they casually accepted the man’s sin without flinching. In fact, it seems clear that some of the people in the Corinthian church did indeed wear extreme tolerance like a badge of honor. First Corinthians 5:2 says people in the Corinthian assembly were puffed up. They actually took some sort of perverse pride in their liberality towards such a grossly immoral act.

Not only was this guy’s incest a supremely immoral and deeply shameful sin; it wasn’t really impressing even the most immoral people in the Corinthian culture. Incest was a sin that even shocked the grossest pagans of Corinth (v. 1).

Paul wasn’t gentle in his rebuke. He ordered the Corinthians to excommunicate the man (vv. 7, 13).

Notice: Paul wasn’t impressed with how sophisticated and missional the Corinthians were. In fact (this can hardly be stressed enough) Paul never encouraged the Corinthians to blend into their culture by adopting an easygoing familiarity with or an extra-tolerant attitude toward the distinctive sins of that culture. On the contrary, he stressed the importance of avoiding the sins associated with Corinthian paganism.

No, I take it back. “Avoiding” is too mild in light of what Paul actually told them: “Flee from sexual immorality” (1 Corinthians 6:18).

But first he hammers them with several these reasons why fornication is such an unholy, degrading, defiling sin. He gives several reasons:

First Corinthians 6:13: It dishonors the purpose for which God made our bodies. “The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord.” Fornication takes that which ought to be holy—that which was made uniquely in the image of God (with the express purpose of honoring Him)—and puts it to an unholy use instead. That’s wrong because (he says) “the body is . . . for the Lord.” That is the main thought and the central thread of 1 Corinthians 613-20. But there’s more.

In verses 15-17, he gives a second reason why fornication is such a serious sin: it defiles our spiritual union with Christ. “Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him.”

Do the math, he says. If you are one with Christ in an intimate spiritual union, and then through an act of fornication you become one flesh with a harlot in an intimate fleshly union, you have in effect defiled the body of Christ.

A couple of things to notice about this: First, our union with Christ is so perfect and so complete that it encompasses our whole person. It’s not limited to our spirit only apart from our flesh. The whole person, both body and spirit, are Christ’s by virtue of our spiritual union with Him.

Paul here stands in contrast to certain pseudo-Christian proto-Gnostics who taught that spirit is good and matter is evil. They taught that our spirit is redeemed, and made holy, and united with Christ, but the body is unredeemed and completely unholy and fit only for ultimate destruction. They said you could sin in the body without defiling your spirit.

Here Paul teaches otherwise. Notice that he doesn’t say the body is evil. Just the opposite. His whole point is that the body is made for a holy purpose: to glorify God. Verse 14: “God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power.” Christ rose bodily, and our bodies will also be raised and glorified in physical form. So there’s nothing inherently unholy about the body.

On the contrary, “the body is . . . for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.” God is not against the body; he is for it. He created it; and He is the one who made our bodies so that they are capable of enjoying pleasure. There’s nothing wrong with that pleasure. It’s a holy pleasure—as long as it is a fulfillment of, and not a corruption of, God’s purposes.

In fact, in verse 16, Paul is alluding to Genesis 2:24, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” That is God’s purpose for men and women. Sex in the context of lifelong marriage—the union of two partners devoted to one another above all others—is a holy pleasure. God designed it for our pleasure. It’s holy and honorable within the marriage relationship, and according to Hebrews 13:4, “the marriage bed [is] undefiled.”

But that same verse in Hebrews 13 says, “God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.” Paul says the same thing in verses 9-10 of 1 Corinthians 6. Neither “fornicators . . . nor adulterers . . . shall inherit the kingdom of God.” And those who defile their union with Christ by committing sins of sexual immorality are guilty of an abominable offense against Christ and (v. 18) “against his own body.” In other words, fornication is a unique and especially unholy sin, because it defiles our union with Christ.

But Paul is not finished. In verse 19 (this is where our passage starts) he says such sins of the body also desecrate the Temple of the Holy Spirit. Your body is the dwelling-place of the Spirit of God, and therefore for a Christian to debase the body is to profane a holy temple.

Now, put all this together. You want to know why fornication has always been regarded as a particularly heinous sin? Because it involves personal and direct transgressions against each Member of the Trinity. It debases and dishonors the body, which (v. 13) is “for the Lord.” God created it for His purposes. To use it for any other purpose—especially a purpose as evil as an act of fornication—is a sin against God the Father. It’s a sin against Christ as well (v. 15), because it takes our members, which are Christ’s by union with Him, and joins them to a harlot, defiling our holy union with Christ. And it’s a sin against the Holy Spirit (v. 19), because it desecrates the temple in which He dwells.

And notice Paul’s counsel to the Corinthians. He doesn’t urge them to get into a recovery program for sexual addicts. He doesn’t suggest that they get therapy. He just tells them to stop it.

No, again. It’s more urgent than that (v. 18): “Flee fornication.” Run from it. Avoid any and all temptations to it. Direct your feet, and your eyes, and your ears, and your thoughts to other things. This is a sin to flee. “Other vices may be conquered in fight; this one can be conquered only by flight.”

In Solomon’s words (Proverbs 5:8), “Keep your way far from her, and do not go near the door of her house.” Scripture says we should flee even the thought of adultery. Second Timothy 2:22: “Flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart.” First Peter 2:11 says “fleshly lusts . . . [wage] war against the soul.” Flee them. Abstain from them completely.

And notice: Paul finds the highest reason to avoid fornication in the atonement: “You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body” (v. 20).

Inside The Egyptian Revolution

published with permission by Joel Rosenberg

A protester burns a picture of Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak during clashes in Cairo January 28, 2011. Police and demonstrators fought running battles on the streets of Cairo on Friday in a fourth day of unprecedented protests by tens of thousands of Egyptians demanding an end to Mubarak’s three-decade rule. (REUTERS/Amr Abdallah Dalsh)

In the past several days, the dynamic of the protests in Egypt has changed rapidly, and not for the better. What started out as a genuine and positive pro-freedom movement is being steadily co-opted by the Muslim Brotherhood and other violent and extremist forces. There is now a growing risk that the overthrow of the Mubarak regime could lead either to an authoritarian military regime, or a Radical Islamist regime. We must pray neither scenario comes to pass. The people of Egypt would be further oppressed. The U.S., Israel and the West would be endangered. Bottom line: This is a very complex and fast-moving crisis, and it could get much worse.

Let me explain and put the situation in some context.

In my 2009 non-fiction book Inside The Revolution: Why the followers of Jihad, Jefferson and Jesus are battling to dominate the Middle East and take over the world, I outlined a range of players in the region, who they are and what they want:

• The Radicals are extremist Muslims who want to overthrow every regime from North Africa to the Middle East to Central Asia and replace them with Islamist dictatorships who believe that “Islam is the answer and jihad is the way.” These include groups such as al Qaeda, Iranian Twelvers, Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the like.
• The Reformers are moderate Muslims who say, “Islam is the answer, but jihad is not the way; we need more freedom, more openness, more protection of human rights and civil rights, free elections, free markets, and the creation of full-blown Jeffersonian democracies, if at all possible.” In this group historically have been Kemal Mustafa Ataturk (the founder of modern, democratic Turkey; though sadly Turkey is now moving away from his model); Egyptian President Anwar Sadat (who made peace with Israel but was then assassinated by Radicals); Jordanian Kings Hussein (the father, who made peace with Israel and initiated a democratically elected parliament while retaining his authority as monarch) and Abdullah II (the son and current monarch who has been advancing his father’s reforms incrementally); Morrocan King Mohammed VI; the current leaders of Iraq such as President Jalal Talabani and Nouri al-Maliki; and the popular pro-democracy movement in Iran that we saw take to the streets by the millions last summer)
• The Revivalists are former Muslims who say, “Islam is not the answer, jihad is not the way, Jesus is the way — and the only way for our part of the world to move forward and make real and lasting social, economic and spiritual progress is to skip back in our history before Islam and revive what we once had: first century, New Testament, Biblical Christianity.” These followers of Jesus Christ in the Islamic world tend to be apolitical and are focused on evangelism, discipleship, church planting, pastor training and spiritual renewal. By using dual strategies of an air war (satellite TV, radio and the Internet) and a ground war (especially the house church movement), their numbers have swelled into the millions since 1979, despite widespread (and recently intensifying) persecution. I profile a number of their leaders in the book, though few of them are known by name in the West.

These first three are the revolutionary forces in the region, people and movements who advocate and push for dramatic, sweeping change.

Then there is another set of important players:

• The Resisters tend to be secular Arab nationalist leaders who oppose significant change of almost any kind. They may be Muslims but they certainly aren’t revolutionaries. They don’t want to build an Islamic empire. They want to build their own empires. They want to hold onto the power, wealth and prestige that they currently have, and gain more if they can. They strongly oppose revolutionary movements of all kinds. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is a classic Resister. So are leaders like Syrian President Bashar Assad, Libyan leader Moammar Ghadaffi, the leaders of Saudi Arabia, and so forth. Previously, Saddam Hussein fell into this camp.
• The Reticent tend to be weak-willed Arab leaders who seem constantly pulled in opposite directions. They don’t have strong convictions. At times they seem to want peace with Israel, for example, and even a modicum of political or social reform, but then other forces push back at them and they waffle or change their tune. At the moment, Palestinian Chairman Mahmoud Abbas is the best example of a Reticent leader. He has been offered historic deals by recent Israeli Prime Ministers to make peace and create a Palestinian state and have dramatic economic change and growth. He has occassionally shown real interest in positive change, but has never had the courage to say “yes.”
• Finally, and most importantly, are the Rank-and-File — these are the billion-plus everyday Muslims citizens who work hard, play by the rules, are trying to find decent jobs to feed and educate their families. They aren’t revolutionaries. They long for more freedom and opportunity, but mainly they keep their heads down and try not to be noticed and not be interfered with. They are the audience to which the revolutionaries are playing. They are watching the battle between the Radicals and the Reformers, and they are increasingly curious about the message of the Revivalists. And some of them are making their move and joining one of the revolutionary movements.

That said, let’s focus again on the crisis at hand. What we are witnessing in Egypt is an historic clash between true Reformer Muslims who want free elections and free markets, and Radical Muslims who want to use the protests to overthrow the Mubarak regime and install a violent, extremist Islamist government. The Revivalists in Egypt are, for the most part, staying underground. True to their nature, they are remaining apolitical and  are devoting themselves to much prayer for the future of their country and the souls of their friends and neighbors.

For the first few days of last week, most of the initial protestors on the streets of Egypt were peaceful, respectful, somewhat educated, and poor to middle class. I believe they were genuinely calling for an end to the Mubarak regime’s corruption and authoritarian rule in order to achieve more freedom, more opportunity, a better economy, more and better jobs, and a democratic government that would respect and protect their human rights and civil rights and set them free from the stagnant, stultified, oppressive Egyptian system they have suffered under for so long.

However, beginning on Thursday and accelerating throughout the day on Friday, the situation began to change dramatically.

The leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood (which began in Egypt in the 1920) had initially been caught off guard by sudden and intense rise of the protests and had not been involved in planning or developing these protests. But sensing an opportunity, they decided to move decisively and try to coopt the movement for their own purposes. They mobilized their followers throughout the country and told them to take to the streets.  That’s when the complexion of the protests took a turn for the worse, characterized by:

• Violent attacks directed at the police – Agence France Presse reported on Saturday that an estimated 60 percent of Egyptian police stations have been set on fire
• Rioting, instead of mere protesting
• The emergence of gangs on the streets wielding machetes and knives
• Government office buildings being set on fire
• Cars being set on fire
• The looting of the Egyptian Museum, with vandals ripping the heads off of two ancient mummies
• Looting of shops, businesses and homes
• Muslim Brotherhood members escaping from prison –[see this article as well]
• A rising civilian death toll as the police have been forced to defend themselves and protect other citizens — as of Sunday, there were more than 100 people dead, and more than 2,000 wounded

These are not the actions of a true pro-freedom movement. Almost none of this happened last summer when millions of Iranians took to the streets to protest the fraudulent re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. To the contrary, the Iranian people, to their great credit, initiated what was overwhelming a classic non-violent, principled protest movement against the Radical regime.

President Mubarak’s response to the protests has been badly overdone and typically authoritarian — shutting down the Internet, blocking social media like Facebook and Twitter, and now blocking even the Al Jazeera satellite TV network. What’s more, the police and army at times have been thuggish and brutal (though not always; their have been fascinating reports of policemen and soldiers embracing the protestors, encouraging them even).

So I find myself in a quandary. I strongly support the right of the Egyptian people to have free elections and free markets and true opportunity in the 21st century. What’s more, I want the Church to be free to share the gospel and win Muslims to faith in Jesus Christ, make disciples and plant new congregations without government oppression and without violent attacks by Radical Muslims. I do believe Mubarak has stayed too long. He has not responded to the yearning of the Egyptian people to be free. His day is coming to an end.

That said, however, I don’t want to see the Muslim Brotherhood win. For all of Mubarak’s sins, he is not a Radical. He doesn’t want to launch a jihad against the U.S., Israel or the West. He has maintained the peace treaty with Israel. He has worked to counter the Hamas movement in Gaza. He is strongly opposed to the Iranian nuclear weapons program and has worked closely with the West to counter it. The Obama administration needs to be careful to support positive change in Egypt and support human rights there, without cutting the legs out from underneath Mubarak precipitously, the way President Carter did to the Shah of Iran in 1979. The Shah had his many flaws, no question about it. But Carter’s actions helped trigger the Islamic Revolution and led to the rise of the Ayatollah Khomeini, the loss of an American ally, and the rise of a terror-exporting country that has gained in lethality ever since. We dare not make the same mistakes with Egypt.

I am praying, therefore, that the Lord would be merciful to the people of Egypt, and that He would give wisdom to Mr. Mubarak and his senior advisors. My ideal at this point is that Mubarak would hand the keys to the kingdom to a group of Reformers, men truly committed to steadily expanding hope, growth and opportunity for all their people, and doing so in a way that creates order and stability, not an opening for the Muslim Brotherhood to seize control. This will not be easy. I am not convinced Egypt spymaster-turned-new-Vice President Omar Suleiman is the man to accomplish this. But I know that ultimately the Lord is in charge, and this — and nothing else — is what should give us all hope.

As the Hebrew Prophet Daniel once said while living under a brutal Middle Eastern dictator:

“Let the name of God be blessed forever and ever,
For wisdom and power belong to Him.
It is He who changes the times and the epochs;
He removes kings and establishes kings;
He gives wisdom to wise men
And knowledge to men of understanding.” (Daniel 2:20-21)

——————————————————-

Great Lion of God: Life of Paul (The Early Years – Part I)

S. Lewis Johnson Message of the Week

The Early Years – I: The Man of Tarsus
Dr. S. Lewis Johnson begins his series on the life of the Apostle Paul. Dr. Johnson provides background to his exposition, discussing the apostle’s personality and appearance as well as his home of Tarsus.

Scripture Reference: Acts 21:39

Click here to listen: The Early Years – I: The Man of Tarsus

Transcript Excerpt:

Our subject in this series of messages I have given in the bulletin as “The Great Lion of God: a historical doctrinal and devotional study of Saint Paul’s life and ministry”.  And so we’re going to study Paul and we’re going to study or try to study at least his life and his ministry and do it not only historically and not only doctrinally, but also devotionally.  So from time to time as the subjects make it proper, we want to emphasize all three of these aspects of the life and ministry of Paul.

Tonight we want to look at the first of two studies on the early years.  And the subject for tonight is “The Early Years -I – The Man of Tarsus”.  And I’d like to begin with a few words by way of introduction and then we want to look at Paul’s city, at Paul’s family, and at Paul’s schooling so that we’ll have some idea of the background of this magnificent servant of the Lord Jesus Christ.

…. you can read the full transcript here.

Revolution in Egypt? Is Jordan Next? Regional Instability Rising Rapidly

published with permission from Joel Rosenberg

Is Egypt about to erupt in a full-blown revolution that could lead to the fall of the Mubarak regime? Might Jordan’s government be next?

One thing’s for certain: no one predicted the demonstrations in Egypt would grow so big so fast. Momentum for the protests is growing. A Facebook page promoting the democracy protests grew from 20,000 members on Wednesday to 80,000 on Thursday. The government then reportedly shut down Facebook, and disrupted internet service in parts of the country. Twitter has been blocked. Police are beating protesters.

One key factor few are seeing at the moment: economics. Egyptians are suffering double-digit inflation and record food prices in recent years, and particularly in 2010. Most people are already dirt poor. Soaring food prices are causing them to fear they may not be able to feed their families. This is creating a “perfect storm” of anger against the Mubarak regime — it’s corrupt, authoritarian, anti-human rights, and resistant to all positive economic and political reform. It’s been bad for the thirty years Mubarak has been in power. But with high inflation, especially for food, Egyptians are being pushed over the brink.

Calls for Mubarak to step down growing. “Mohamed ElBaradei, the former head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog turned Egyptian reform campaigner, said he expected big demonstrations across Egypt on Friday, and that it was time for President Hosni Mubarak to go,” reported Reuters. “ElBaradei, 68, left Vienna, where he lives, for Cairo on Thursday to join a growing wave of protests against Mubarak inspired by Tunisia’s overthrow of their authoritarian president. He told Reuters he would not lead the street rallies, but that his role was ‘to manage the change politically.’” On Friday, however, ElBaradei was placed under house arrest in Egypt.

In my 2009 non-fiction book, Inside The Revolution, I described Mubarak as a “classic Resister” — he doesn’t want real change of any kind. He just wants to retain power, keep things stable, keep wealth and power for himself, and pass the keys to the kingdom on to his son, Gamal. But such resistance to positive change is inflaming the “rank-and-file,” every day Egyptians who feel increasingly desperate, and see others in the region (Tunisians, Iraqis, and the people of southern Sudan) as changing their governments and having more say in the affairs of state. They are yearning for something better, and now they’ve taken to the streets in hopes of getting it.

Meanwhile, protests have mounted in recent days in Jordan. Reports the AP:  “The economy saw a record deficit of $2 billion this year, inflation rising…to 6.1 percent just last month and rampant unemployment and poverty — estimated at 12 and 25 percent respectively. ‘The government buys cars and spends lavishly on its parties and travel, while many Jordanians are jobless or can barely put food on their tables to feed their hungry children,’ said civil servant Mahmoud Thiabat, 31, a father of three who earns $395 a month.”

In Egypt, I don’t see the protests being driven primarily by the Muslim Brotherhood (which started in Egypt in the 1920s) or by Radicals in general, though they’re certainly trying to take advantage. This would be a nightmare scenario we need to pray never happens. We don’t want this to be another Iranian Revolution where an Islamic Radical madman takes over. If Mubarak falls, we want to see a group of pro-democracy, pro-free market, serious Reformers come to power. In Jordan, there is a very high risk that Islamic Radicals would take over the regime. As I write in Inside The Revolution, “It is precisely because the Jordanians have made such progress [with positive political and economic reforms in the past two decades] that I am worried by the Radicals’ determination to launch a jihad there, seize the capital, and create a new anti-Israel, anti-Western base for Iran and al Qaeda. Therefore, I often pray for Jordan’s peace, prosperity and continued progress. I pray for King Abdullah’s health and safety, and I pray that the Lord would grant him the wisdom to know how best to move forward in such challenging times.”

Please keep praying for Egypt’s 80 million people — for freedom, for safety, for courage, and for the gospel to be spread to an entire nation desperately needing God’s love and plan for their lives.

Pray, too, for the people of Jordan and all the nations of the region as instability rises rapidly.

Note: For the past several years, The Joshua Fund has been supporting ministry leaders and projects in Egypt and Jordan to share the gospel, make disciples and strengthen the Church. Please pray these investments would be fruitful, and please help us if you can.

Now That We’ve Seen “AGENDA”, What Should Be The Christian’s Agenda?

Podcast: Download (Duration: 50:48 — 8.7MB)

“Come, let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose top will reach into heaven, and let us make for ourselves a name, otherwise we will be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth” (Genesis 11:4).

From the very beginning, mankind has generally sought to structure all aspects of life — government, religion, morality, etc. — according to his own human reasoning and desires rather than on God and His Word.  The consequences of that have always been disastrous and even deadly.

Many of you have now watched “Agenda”, the award-winning film that details how a man-based and Bible-rejecting worldview based on socialistic and communistic ideas is permeating American society and affecting everything: morality, economics, education, government, family, and even religion.

Now that we’ve interviewed the producer of “Agenda” and seen the DVD, the final question is: What should the Christian’s “agenda” be in response?  Should we re-double our efforts in civic engagement to push back against humanistic policies and politicians or should we just focus on the spiritual realm — evangelism, discipleship, and serving others?  Or, maybe it’s some of both?

We will discuss that important question this weekend on The Christian Worldview.  Also, be sure to read insightful viewer feedback on Agenda by visiting our website, TheChristianWorldview.org.

Cautions for Mere Christianity

published with permission from Kevin DeYoung

C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity is a classic. It is a winsome, thoughtful, well-written defense of the Christian faith. Some of its better known sections–like the famous liar, lunatic, Lord, trilemma–have become part of the way evangelicals think and speak. No doubt God has used Lewis and Mere Christianity to awaken affections for Christ, engage the mind for Christ, and remove obstacles for the Spirit to draw people to Christ. I’m thankful for all this. More than that, I’ve benefited from every Lewis book I’ve read.

But C.S. Lewis was not an evangelical. Mere Christianity shows why.

Let me highlight two significant problems.

Atonement, But How?

The first caution to raise concerns Lewis’ view of the atonement. Lewis believed Jesus died on the cross for sin, but he didn’t think it was important to understand the particulars of what Christ accomplished on the cross.

Now before I became a Christian I was under the impression that the first thing Christians had to believe was one particular theory as to what the point of this dying was. According to that theory God wanted to punish men for having deserted and joined the Great Rebel, but Christ volunteered to be punished instead, and so God let us off. Now I admit that even this theory does not seem quite so immoral and silly as it used to; but that is not the point I want to make. What I came to see later on was that neither this theory nor an other is Christianity. The central belief is that Christ’s death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start. Theories as to how it did this are another matter: A good many different theories have been held as to how it works; what all Christians are agreed on is that it does work. (57-58 [pagination varies by edition)

Later Lewis says that “Christ was killed for us” and “His death has washed out our sins” but “any theories we build up as to how Christ’s death did all this are, in my view, quite secondary” (59). This impatience of careful thinking about the atonement is bad enough, but then Lewis goes on to make clear that he rejects the understanding of the atonement evangelicals (and the Bible I would say) find most central and most glorious.

The one most people have heard is the one I mentioned before–the one about our being let off because Christ had volunteered to bear a punishment instead of us. Now on the face of it that is a very silly theory. If God was prepared to let us off, why on earth did He not do so? And what possible point could there be in punishing an innocent person? None at all that I can see, if you are thinking of punishment in the police-court sense. On the the other hand, if you think of a debt, there is plenty of point in a person who has some assets paying it on behalf of someone who has not. (59)

Pay careful attention to what Lewis says in that paragraph. He does believe in a substitutionary theory of the atonement, but he rejects penal substitution. He admits that penal substitution is not quite as silly as it once sounded, but he still does not accept it. Instead, he argues that Christ pays a debt (which is true), but not as a punishment for our sakes.

Lewis’ theology of the atonement is confusing (see for example this helpful Touchstone article), but I would argue his view is more like Christus victor or ransom to Satan than penal substitution. Aslan’s death, you may recall, was a sacrifice to the Witch and was explained rather ambiguously as “deeper magic.” This is not the place to defend the critical importance of penal substitution. My point is simply that Lewis does not teach it in Mere Christianity, and in fact undermines it.

An Early Inclusivist

The second problem with Mere Christianity is Lewis’ inclusivism. Evangelicals believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to God. Further, they believe that conscious faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation (assuming we are talking about sentient beings; all Christians allow that infants and the mentally disabled may be in a different category). Lewis, by contrast, believed in what we might roughly call “anonymous Christians.” That is, people may be saved through Christ without putting explicit faith in Christ.

There are people who do not accept the full Christian doctrine about Christ but who are so strongly attracted by Him that they are His in a much deeper sense than they themselves understand. There are people in other religions who are being led by God’s secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity, and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it. For example, a Buddhist of good will may be led to concentrate more and more on the Buddhist teaching about mercy and to leave in the background (though he might still say he believed) the Buddhist teaching on certain other points. (178)

No matter how much we may like Lewis, this is simply a profound misunderstanding of the Spirit’s mission (and a rejection of John 14:6). The work of the Holy Spirit is to bring glory to Christ by taking what is his–his teaching, the truth about his death and resurrection–and making it known. The Spirit does not work indiscriminately without the revelation of Christ in view. Arguably, the Holy Spirit’s most important work is to glorify Christ, and he does not do this apart from shining the spotlight on Christ for the elect to see and savor. Again, we see the inclusivist Lewis at the end on Narnia where Emeth, a worshiper of Tash, is accepted by Aslan for following him all along without knowing it.

All that to say, yes, I have some cautions when it comes to Mere Christianity. Good book. But some serious deficiencies.

The Osteen Moment — Your Own Moment Will Come Soon Enough

Joel Osteen didn’t get where he is today by staking out controversial positions on biblical and moral issues. America’s prophet of Your Best Life Now built his reputation and his international following on an updated version of prosperity theology, laced with ample doses of pop psychology. The ever-smiling and effervescent pastor of America’s largest congregation has done his best to avoid association with doctrinal matters. More to the point — he has done his best to avoid talking about sin.

Osteen would rather offer platitudes about attitudes. “God wants you to be a winner, not a whiner,” he asserts. Talking in any detail about sin would be to insert negativity into his relentlessly upbeat message.

But now, Osteen finds himself in the midst of controversy. Last night, Joel and Victoria Osteen appeared together on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight and, boxed in by Morgan, Joel Osteen reluctantly confessed that he believes homosexuality to be a sin.

“Yes, I’ve always believed, Piers, the Scripture shows that homosexuality it’s a sin,” he said. He added: “But you know, I’m not one of those that are out there to bash homosexuals and tell them that they’re terrible people and all of that. I mean, there are other sins in the Bible, too. I think sometimes the church — and I don’t mean this critically — but we focus on one issue or two issues, and there’s plenty of other ones. So, I don’t believe homosexuality is God’s best for a person’s life. I mean, sin means to miss the mark.”

Pressed even harder by Morgan, Osteen was asked if singer Elton John is a sinner. He responded: “Well, it’s strictly back to what the Scripture says. I mean, I can’t — I can’t grab one part and say God wants you to be blessed and live an abundant life, and not grab the other part that says, you know what? You know, live — live that kind of life. So it comes back to the Scripture. I’m not the judge. You know, God didn’t tell me to go around judging everybody.”

Morgan appeared shocked at Osteen’s statements and accused the pastor of being hateful and judgmental. He also asked what Osteen would say directly to Elton John or any other homosexual. Osteen made no reference to the Gospel at all, but he did say that God would give strength in the struggle.

At one dramatic moment, Morgan rebutted Osteen’s claim to be non-judgmental: “I’m not so sure though, you see. I think you are a kind of judge. And I — I think you can’t abrogate that responsibility. I think what — because of your influence — there’s seven million — eight million viewers every Sunday, when you say things like homosexuality is a sin, it’s a big statement to make. You are a judge, and you’re encouraging your congregation to believe that.”

To Morgan, making any moral judgment amounts to judgmentalism. Of course, this leads logically to total moral insanity, since the only way to avoid being identified with judgmentalism is to make no moral judgments whatsoever — which no sane person can do.

Osteen’s statements, verbally cushioned in every way he could imagine, fell far short of the full wealth of biblical conviction. Nevertheless, he experienced what might be called the “Osteen Moment,” when his entire ministry, in the public eye, came down to his answer to Piers Morgan’s forced question. To his credit, Osteen did answer his question, and by staking his position on the Bible’s teaching that homosexual acts are sinful, he took the only road available to anyone with any substantial commitment to the truthfulness of the Bible.

Piers Morgan’s response was entirely predictable — as was the eruption of press coverage hyped by CNN itself. The network claimed that the Osteen interview was Morgan’s “most controversial” since he took over the time slot previously held by Larry King Live.

Compare Osteen’s comments last night to this report from The Boston Globe in 2006:

“I don’t think it’s God’s best,” the handsome Holy Roller said of homosexuality. “I never feel like homosexuality is God’s best.”

When pressed on the issue, Osteen said, “I don’t feel like that’s my thrust . . . you know, some of the issues that divide us, and I’m here to let people know that God is for them and he’s on their side.”

Joel Osteen found himself forced to answer a question that every Christian — and certainly every Christian leader — will be forced to answer. When that moment comes, and come it will, those who express confidence in the Bible’s teaching that homosexuality is a sin will find themselves facing the same shock and censure from the very same quarters.

What happened last night on Piers Morgan Tonight is a sign of things to come. After this interview, Joel Osteen will never be seen in the same way by the secular media and a good segment of the public. His efforts to avoid talking about sin failed him, and he ran out of options. Thankfully, he did not deny that homosexuality is a sin. We can only have hoped that he would have given a more bold answer, followed by an equal boldness in the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

In any event, Joel Osteen had his moment last night. Most Christians will not face that question on national television, but on a college campus, in a family discussion, in the workplace, or in the heat of debate. But, whatever the circumstances, that moment will soon come.

---

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

Transcript, Piers Morgan Tonight, CNN, Wednesday, January 26, 2011.

WANTED: Your Feedback

This Saturday, January 29th from 8-9am CT LIVE, we will be discussing “Now That We’ve Seen Agenda, What Should Be The Christian’s Agenda?”

If you ordered and watched the “Agenda” film, email us a paragraph or two on or before this Friday (January 28th) about what you thought of the content, and more importantly, the conclusions of the film.  Our email address is feedback@TheChristianWorldview.org.

We’ve received interesting and thoughtful listener feedback on the film from all over the country and we’ve included some of it for your consideration below.

Listener Comments:

René:

Hi David!  Thanks for the opportunity to give feedback on AGENDA.  The first time I watched it, I had to watch it in two different sittings.  Not that it wasn’t good, but because the information was so deep and “heavy” (if you will) that it was hard to grasp it all in one sitting.  Many of the things Curtis points out I had already heard on Conservative radio.  But the kicker was the number of people that have influence or have had influence over President Obama and their ties to the Communist Party AND their place in our government today.  This was shocking.  As Curtis stated, I don’t believe that all Democrats are Communists, but they are unknowingly playing right into their agenda.  I was so overwhelmed by the importance of getting this information out to the public, that I ordered 10 copies (I even printed the 45 goals from The Naked Communist to go with it).  I gave them mostly to Christians that I know very well.  These are the comments I received:  “It was hard to watch”   “I just don’t believe there’s a real organized effort by Communists out there to take over”  “I just couldn’t get through it”  “I agree totally with what was presented in the film, but what do we do?”   From some, no comments at all.

You know, David, I saw a change in attitude once the election was over.  It was as if Christians said “whew, now we’ve got some conservatives back in power and we don’t have to worry anymore!”    Nothing could be further from the truth.  I was very disappointed that my Christian friends did not see the urgency that I did.  It’s almost an attitude of “if I ignore it, it’ll go away.”  But it won’t.  No one in my circle of friends watches the culture and its’ affect on the church the way I do and it’s very disheartening.  I keep singing the same song “we’re going to lose our religious freedoms if we don’t fight.”  But no one wants to hear it.  I feel very alone in my beliefs – even among Christians.

I am extremely happy that I bought this DVD.  I believe in it and believe in the message.  I have watched it a dozen times at least, just as Dr. Noebel suggested.  I will continue to pass it along to those that will listen and I’m so glad God blessed Curtis Bowers with the vision to produce this film and the courage to make it happen.  God bless you and your ministry, David.

Sean:

Hey David,

I figured I’d give you somewhat of a review on the documentary “Agenda” that you interviewed and promoted.  I’m not going to get highly detailed because I don’t want this to be an essay, but I was quite disappointed with the film… especially the “answer/solution” portion.  I know I don’t know Curtis Bowers in person, nor do I know a lot about the original letter to the editor controversy, but this film was only outlining what was already going on (had been accomplished) and what will soon be accomplished.  These are all things most Americans are well aware of, even if they don’t wish to admit it.  The issue with this film that WILL cause the most controversy to me is, the anti-Christ, anti-Biblical ending and solution.

Let me explain before this gets taken for its word and just starts a debate…  I think I can count on one hand the number of times “Jesus Christ” was mentioned in this film, and it wasn’t until the last few clips–and then it was turned on it’s head by anti-Christ/Biblical statements about “voting, being heard, writing letters to Congressman, and fighting/war”.  I think the biggest upset is the “patriotic Christian America” mind-set behind the film, and it’s painfully un-Christ like.  Jesus didn’t command us to get into politics, in fact if you want a real slap in the face on this and war—go read the writings of the Early Church fathers during their times living under Roman control.  They were the men/women who lived immediately after Christ’s death and the apostles death (and some during their lives) who were converts and martyrs for the faith.  I don’t have to be “outside” the Bible to make my case though…

Jesus was quite clear in his *teaching* in the Sermon on the Mount to “…not resist an evil man…”  and “…turn the other cheek…”, and disarmed Peter during His betrayal.  This is very anti-American (or what used to be even Republican).  It really boils down to who the real authority is, God and His Word, or man and his country (dirt).  It also boils down to who REALLY gives us our freedom, because it surely isn’t land, people, governments, etc… go re-read through Acts if you think that’s true, because it was clear that Peter/Paul/Barnabas were clearly standing against the government and knew who their real protection was from… God.  I hear a lot of issues from soldiers when it comes to this too, but I also know soldiers who’ve left the armed forces when really applying the words of Christ, and been horribly upset by their possible killing of others and effectively sending another person to hell.  I hear soldiers get upset for claiming to “give us” their lives to defend us, when I know God is the one who defends me, I just happen to BE in a country where I have the freedom to preach, speak about Christ etc…(for however much longer that is).  But the point is also that those “defending” us may be used against us…to protect us from us…  that’s the whole point that occurs when Revolution happens.  The very thing they fought for they may destroy one day in the name of “Patriotism.”  So in the end we learn who our real freedoms come from… and that’s God, not man and his weapons of warfare.  If we die… we die, this life is dead, we’re dead to the world, we are to live in Christ and dying is gain.  If God wants to keep us alive and free to preach, He will(read Acts again).

The biggest issue I have along with the solution, is the solution to return to men for answers and fixes.  I think I heard “God” mentioned by 2-3 people in end of the film, but they were still tying on war.

God is the answer, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the answer.  We need more preachers of holiness against sin, more men of God, less people sitting in churches, more people out preaching the truth about repentance and faith… then the country will NATURALLY change because people will stand for what they believe passively, but strongly.  Satan has lulled the church to sleep with soft hearted messages, no preaching against sin, no talk of judgment, it’s a wonder if anyone in the church buildings really do believe there really is a hell and anyone without Christ is going there…  I think Leonard Ravenhill said he’d be surprised if more than 2% of professing Christians were actually born-again and spreading the Truth.

Get into your Bible (ALONE! key word, ALONE!), read it and APPLY it… Jesus said “Doers” of the law would be justified, those that “do” the will of His Father in Heaven, and 1 John preaches practical holiness and it’s need to speak against willfull sinners who won’t repent… kick them out for the sake of their own soul that they might return to Him and be saved.

…Thanks for reading this…  I hope it can be an encouragement to realize that our hope is not found in man, but in A Man, THE Son of Man, the Son of God… Jesus Christ, even if it means our death. God Bless.

Kimberly:

It was a HUGE benefit to go back over our nation’s history and see the clashes of worldview. I believe this is our nation’s most perilous hour because so many are unaware of the intense spiritual war for the soul of America and its people.  David Kupelian’s book How Evil Works helped me identify the consistent patterns of coercion, intimidation, confusion and deceit that the Left often uses.  Now is the time for the faithful remnant to rise up with true compassion and hold fast to the eternal truths of life, liberty, and personal responsibility.

No amount of darkness can overcome the smallest flame of Light!!!!  Truth, Love, and Virtue have already conquered at the cross of Jesus Christ!  Through faith, prayer and unwavering steadfastness we can grind down the lies of the culture of death.  I coordinate a “40 Days for Life” vigil at a suburb in Chicago. Just read Abby Johnson’s book unPlanned. I believe we are at the beginning of a great spiritual revival!!! Our God is Mighty and He Reigns!!!

Brad:

I watched Agenda and found it to be an outstanding film. The film does a superlative job of combining research depth, analytical insight, and sounding the alarm for Christians to become involved and engaged in the worldview war around us. Too many Christians and their pastors are indifferent to the worldview battle that is both spiritual in nature and overwhelming our culture. Although we should be prayerful about our current circumstances, we need to be engaged in this battle or surely we will find ourselves surrounded by the very forces from which we have declined to confront.

Jesus taught us to transform the culture (John 17:13-18). When Jesus added humanity to His divinity, He showed us the model that we can be “in the world but not of the world”. Dr. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a Lutheran pastor and vociferous opponent of Hitler’s Third Reich, said “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.” In a free society that is increasingly secular, the tolerance of sin leads to the advancement of sin and culminates in the conquest by sin.

Linda S:

A call to our nation! I believe this is a video EVERY church needs to show to its congregation! So much information compiled thoughtfully, intelligently, and showing facts with a Biblical worldview. Lots of information to take in, but the nice thing about having a video on this issue is that I can replay it at my convenience to reacquaint myself with each segment discussed. Curtis Bowers connected the dots and really impressed on the viewer the seriousness of where this “agenda” is/has sucked the life from this country, attacked the schools, which in-turn is the ultimate attack on our kids, and thus building a new culture for this new agenda and the left’s new America. He also went a step further than other speakers or videos, which was to bring up the question on the mind of the viewer, “What can we do?”, and he brought answers of his own plus the thoughts/opinions of the different guests interviewed during this documentary.

Agenda was a well produced, creatively photographed film, which kept my attention with good use of graphics without being manipulative. Impressive line up of people interviewed, and was fun to see how many of his own children helped him film, be grippers, and other uses of their talents; would never have known it wasn’t done by professionals. A Must See!! This could be the tool by which groups keep active, join neighborhood gatherings, and spur one another on in this grassroots effort to be informed as WE THE PEOPLE press Government for accountability.

John:

Very well done and thought out documentary. I have always been taught to try and be logical about things such as these, when it come to any sort of media presentation. I use the adage it is not as good as they say and it is not as bad as they say, it is somewhere in between. But this documentary makes a strong and enlightening argument about why we are on this fast downhill slide of moral decay in our country. I have only watched the documentary once but one image that stands out for me is the political time line that shows how the two party system has shifted to the left together. It is like they are attached by the politically correct belaying of society. This brings to light my disappointment of the last republican administrations failures and over spending. I have always been aware that big government is not good for a free nation and capitalism. This doc shook me and now I know why, not just aware of it any longer. It wraps all the moral issues we face and how we have gotten here, in a package that is hard to stomach. I am young in my sanctification and do not have any good answers to combat this flood of socialistic policies that is eating away the country I grew up in. I was one of them. A wretched, self loving, pagan and can understand how the lost get easily allured to the dark side. But I will be joining the revolution and am looking forward to your other responses.  Thank you for bring this to my attention.

Vincent:

I ordered and watched this video and have seen the gradual steps that the communists have taken to grind America down. I have to keep in mind that it is not my will but God’s! What we are commanded to do is Preach the Gospel to everyone we come in contact with and pray. We can voice our opinions (Biblically) about agendas and policies that disagree with what is taught in the Bible, but our priority should be to spread the Gospel!

I enjoy your program; many times it leads me to prayer.

Linda:

This was the best documentary I have ever watched and after I get it back from everybody I have loaned it to, I will watch it again and again. It makes me sad to see this once great nation stoop so low in morality and ethical behavior as it is at this time. I do believe God has removed His hand of protection form this country and has given the nation over to do the evil and corrupt things of their reprobate minds. He knows His children and I think He will come for us at any time. We do need to get ready, watch. and listen for the sound of the Trumpet.

Thank you for all you are doing and I pray that God will bless and keep you safe till He comes.

Bill:

David,

We have watched this film 4 times and continue to learn more each time. The communist threat with its legion of useful idiots is not new as they have been percolating their evil brew for over 100 years. However, the rotten fruit of their work is now plentiful and easy to see.

We agree with Curtis Bowers that we must prayerfully reach out to our children and any young people with whom we have influence to help them see and understand the Truth and then contrast that Truth with the lies fostered upon them by their culture.

David, we are reminded of your podcast in July about maintaining a Biblical prospective above and among the bad news. Satan’s reach with his legions of useful idiots should not be a surprise to us. In order to maintain our peace and be useful to the Kingdom, we must focus on Christ and what He would have us do.

Saving the United States from internal destruction may or may not be in God’s plans but bringing souls to Christ is.

Hans:

Just wanted to give you an European prospective to this excellent documentary. Most of my knowledge about the third Reich, communism in Russia and Eastern Europe came from relatives who served during the war in those countries, were prisoners of war, members of the Gestapo or through the media in Germany. In addition I had ample opportunity to inform myself through books that addressed the themes mentioned in AGENDA before coming to the U.S. 31 years ago.

What’s documented in AGENDA hasn’t necessarily caught me by surprise, but the boldness of the perpetrators is almost unbelievable. The filmmaker is absolutely correct that socialism is almost always the forerunner to communism. Why we are persuing this knowing through history that it never worked before is beyond me.

Unlike another commentator I feel that the documentary ended appropriately with good suggestions on how to right the ship. ____ _____ quoted 2 Chronicles 7:14 and reminded us to pray for our nation first and foremost. Also, it was clearly stated that change has to start with each individual. Well done. Thank you for making such information available. I will make sure to let my men’s group and many others in my sphere of influence in on this.

Marcey:

This movie was eye-opening and extremely thorough.  It had an amazing way of connecting the dots of this hidden agenda.  Keeping in context that we know our true enemies are Satan, sin, the flesh, etc., it helped me to understand that Marxism is a VERY real enemy to our world.  The movie helped me to see that not only has there been an agenda to tear apart the family, but that as Christians we have not been as aware of our enemies as we should have been.  We have been too content to just exist and get by.  To survive and “do our best.”  I fear we have lost sight of our job to share the only thing that would have made and will make a lasting effect on this crisis…sharing the Gospel.

David G:

A number of years ago I read a book called, N. E. A. Trojan Horse in American Education by Samuel L. Blumenfeld.  After watching “Agenda” I was reminded of many of the same concerns Blumenfeld expressed.  I have been a teacher in the public school system for twenty-seven years and have observed a marked degradation in scholastics, not to mention morality and ethics.  Most of the educators I know seem completely unaware of the ideology driving the political forces behind these changes.  It has been a subtle downward slide, not unlike the “frog in the pot”.  What is especially disheartening to me is that most Christian teachers I know seem to be just as ignorant of the sinister powers driving these changes.  Any suggestion of evil intent is shrugged off as “conspiracy theories”.  There is no doubt that much of the changes we are seeing taking place in our culture are a direct result of the social, moral and educational breakdown of the public school system.  Our children are being taught what to think instead of how to think.  However, this is not a time for despair.  God’s Word tells us these things will happen. We should be encouraged to be all the more diligent in our efforts to share the Truth and to glorify God with our lives.  The fields are white for harvest and the time is short.  We are here for such a time as this.

Send us your feedback… feedback@TheChristianWorldview.org

In His Own Words: A Radical Pro-Abortion President

published with permission from Dr. Albert Mohler

When Barack Obama was running for President, he was described by some observers as one of the most radical candidates in the nation’s history, in terms of support for abortion. Once in office, President Obama has done little to dispel that judgment. Even as the President is tracking to the middle on many issues, this is not the case when it comes to abortion.

This past Saturday, on the 38th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, the President issued a statement that is remarkable, even for presidents who support legalized abortion. The President’s statement included not one word that indicated any recognition that abortion in in any case or in any sense a tragedy. There was not even a passing reference to the unborn child. President Obama did not even use the language used disingenuously by President Bill Clinton — the pledge that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.”

“Today marks the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, and affirms a fundamental principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters,” the President stated. That “fundamental principle” was not actually the principle claimed by the Supreme Court, which located the “right” to abortion with the woman, not with a family.

The President continued: “I am committed to protecting this constitutional right. I also remain committed to policies, initiatives, and programs that help prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant women and mothers, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption.” So, the President of the United States puts his high office behind his hope to “encourage healthy relationships,” but not behind any effort even to reduce the number of abortions in this country. Currently, in America one out of five pregnancies ends in abortion.

As he concluded his brief statement, the President said: “And on this anniversary, I hope that we will recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights, the same freedoms, and the same opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.”

That paragraph is just a recitation of the feminist argument that was enshrined in Roe v. Wade — that women, no more than men, should be encumbered by the professional and personal limitations required by a pregnancy. That logic is enshrined as orthodoxy within the Democratic Party, and President Obama is one of its most ardent defenders.

Ever since Barack Obama emerged on the national political scene he has been promoted and protected by a corps of preachers and religious leaders who have tried their best to explain that he is not so pro-abortion as he seems. Nevertheless, his record is all too clear — as is this most recent statement. There was not one expression of abortion as a national tragedy, even as a report recently indicated that almost 60 percent of all pregnancies among African American women in New York City end in abortion.

How can any President of the United States fail to address his unspeakable tragedy? There was no hope expressed that abortion would be rare, only the expression that he would remain “committed to protecting this constitutional right.” The only words that even insinuate any hypothetical reduction in abortion were addressed to reducing “unintended pregnancies” and promoting adoption. But no goal of reducing abortion was stated, or even obliquely suggested. No reference at all was made of the unborn child. There was no lament — not even a throw-away line that would cost him nothing in terms of his support from abortion rights forces.

These words were not imposed upon this President. This is his own personal statement. It is one of the most revealing — and tragic — statements made by any political figure in our times.

“Obama Recalls Roe v. Wade, Backs Abortion Rights,” USA Today, Saturday, January 22, 2011. Interestingly, though the White House released the President’s statement on Saturday, no posting of it appears at the White House Web site as of early Monday morning.

Next Page »