The National Church of Socialism

[Voegelin]

By Mark D. Tooley
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, December 28, 2007

The financially and demographically struggling National Council of Churches (NCC) is mulling over a new “Social Creed for the 21st Century” that will succinctly articulate its left-leaning political activism. Many of the NCC’s heterodox officials and activist supporters could not affirm traditional Christian theological creeds. For them, political creeds are the desired alternative.

This new creed is supposed to update the Social Creed of 1908 . . .

Now, as in 1908, the church council focuses nearly exclusively on the power of the state to impose its secularized vision of God’s Kingdom. Universal health care, more public education, more social security, redistributive tax policies, and restricted global trade. The only wars that seem to concern the NCC’s Creed writers are those waged by the U.S. That U.S. power, and not the United Nations, deters countless other wars goes unacknowledged. The role of church, family, cultural traditions, and other mediating institutions in creating a more just society are likewise and revealingly unmentioned.

Even more lost upon the clueless NCC is the disastrous impact on mainline churches by the Social Gospel, as embodied by the 1908 Creed, upon mainline churches. Setting aside the transcendent truths of Christianity, the Social Gospel’s proponents shrank and enervated America ’s once leading religious bodies by promoting materialistic and statist solutions to what are ultimately spiritual problems.

http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=65BE6DB3-3289-4E23-AF03-FEA15C6A43B8

**********************​

Related:​

From Strange Yokefellows (Executive Summary):​

In analyzing the council's financial statements, we found a number of surprising funding sources for a church group that has as its primary purpose seeking Christian unity. Among those institutions contributing at least $50,000 to the NCC in 2004-2005, ten of the sixteen were non-church bodies. These included:

• $344,514 from the National Religious Partnership for the Environment
• $300,000 from the Knight Foundation
• $225,000 from the Tides Foundation
• $150,000 from the Ford Foundation
• $141,450 from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation
• $100,000 from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund
• $85,000 from the AARP (formerly the American Association of Retired Persons)
• $80,000 from the Wyss Foundation
• $60,000 from the Sierra Club
• $50,000 from the Connect US Network

These gifts are far greater than the donations that the NCC receives from most of its member denominations. They suggest, for instance, that the council is more dependent financially upon the Ford Foundation than upon 32 of its 35 member denominations.

Most of the NCC-supporting groups share several characteristics: (a) They are not affiliated with an NCC member communion, or any other church body. (b) Christian unity and common witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ do not appear to be among their principal aims. (c) They have a much stronger interest in addressing social and political issues. (d) Their positions on those issues, insofar as they can be discerned, lean overwhelmingly toward the left . . .

In addition, there are groups that do not fund the NCC but that have been acknowledged by the council as its close partners in joint political efforts. These include:

• MoveOn.org, the political activist group founded in 1998 to oppose the impeachment of President Clinton
• TrueMajority, a leftist internet activist group established by ice cream magnate Ben Cohen.
• The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), a group that attempts to organize poor and minority communities to press for a liberal economic agenda.
• People for the American Way (PFAW), the organization founded in 1981 by Hollywood producer Norman Lear to oppose the emerging "Religious Right."

Full text of "Strange Yokefellows" at the Institute on Religion and Democracy here:

http://www.ird-renew.org/site/pp.asp?c=fvKVLfMVIsG&b=2270895

Background on the Tides Foundation, which gave the NCC $225,000, is here

 

[HumbleMan]

Funny, Voeg, when I read the bible (which is everyday), I see where Jesus called us to take care of the widows, the orphans, the hungry, the cold, the distraught, the ones with no hope. I see where we are to be servants. You don't have to have your hands tied behind your back to impart the gospel to people.

If all the people in congress who claimed to be Christian passed laws to reflect Christian principles, we'd have a great, strong country. One in which we propped ourselves up, took care of our people, and one which would shine light into the world.

Instead, our political system is based upon power. The matters of the heart are second to the matters of man. And that goes for both parties. We'd rather manipulate the legal system than stand on biblical principles. We'd rather propoganda artists to market trinkets that keep us happy and dulled, instead of encouraging us to critically think.

Not everything the NCC does is good, but at it's core, it does fall into the definition of what religion should be that's found in the bible.

 

[xapis]

Where in the Bible does it say Christians are to use government to impose the Gospel on society as a whole?

 

[HumbleMan]

It doesn't. It says that if we're followers of Christ, our lives will reflect that. If the congress were Christian, they would vote with their Christian convictions. There's no where in the Constitution or in the amendments that says the government can't set up a safety net.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not for extended periods of welfare, or socialism (unless it's voluntary), but I do believe that if society, and the church, does not do it's job to take care of people, the state should for a period until society and the church reclaim it's duty.

 

[Voegelin]

But Norman Lear and PFAW, who are allied with the NCC, turn right around and say the "religious right" is out to create a theocracy, that extremists and "theocrats" (a word used by Senater Charles Schumer to describe those who supported judicial nominations he did not) violate that bed rock principle of the constitution (not found in the constitution): the separation of church and state.

I don't mind David Fenton, Wade Rathke, Teresa Heinz Kerry, Ben Cohen, the Ford Foundation, the Tides foundation, George Soros, Norman Lear and others funding anyone. Let liberal Christians and non-Christians (Soros describes himself as a an atheist) fund whoever they want.

But lets be a little more open about what is being done, shall we? And lets not claim the political activism of the Christians in the NCC is fine (which it is) but the political activism of other Christians is unconstitutional.

 

[HumbleMan]

No one claims that the religious right's political activism is unconstitutional, unless it does go against the constitution. The same with the religious left. But helping the poor, feeding the hungry, clothing the freezing is not unconstitutional. Neither is it to impart the gospel while you're doing it.

Norman Lear, Soros, and that bunch see the NCC as a political tool, I think, designed to keep the religious right from enforcing Christian law. I happen to agree, since I don't want to live under a Catholic, Reformed, or Dispensationalist government.

I also don't think God had the US electoral system in mind when it comes to exercising our faith. Remember, not all the judges Israel selected were just or had their eyes on God.

But to dismiss the NCC because of their donors is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There's many churches that take donations and tithes from questionable sources, but if God brings them increase, shouldn't it be used for God's purpose instead of turning it away?

 

[Daniel19]

I cought this story as well earlier today. I think it's incredibly interesting that the National Council of Churches (which was merged with the Federal Council of Churches in 1950) receives large donations from the Rockefeller family. The Federal Council of Churches received large donations from John D. Rockefeller as well.

The Rockefeller family has been involved with the churches for quite some time. Their motives for doing so might be seen by some as less than honorable. The Interchurch World Movement (spearheaded by John D. Rockefeller) in 1919 lasted for a very short time, but its influence and impression was long lasting in that the social gospel of today can be traced to this Rockefeller initiative. The goal of the IWM was to create class stability in an industrial society, and unite the churches into a corporate like structure similar to the modern day NCC to direct their activities. Even the World Council of Churches has links to the Rockefeller family. The Chateau de Bossey (which functions as the WCC Ecumenical institute) was built with money given by Rockefeller.

The Federal Council of Churches, as reported by Time magazine in 1942, adopted several goals for churches to adopt. The creation of a world government, world court, and an international police force were some of the goals. The Time article can be read online here in the archive.

 

[2theBone]

Never ceases to amaze me. People try to do good things in accordance with the teachings of Jesus and what do they get?

People call them "left-leaning" (or worse).

If I believed in Satan I'd call these Satanic attacks.......but they're not--they're just evil.

 

[Voegelin]

Even the World Council of Churches has links to the Rockefeller family. The Chateau de Bossey (which functions as the WCC Ecumenical institute) was built with money given by Rockefeller.

The WCC was also infilitrated by the KGB.

"A Report Prepared at the Request of the United States House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations"(1992):


Appendix:
Recent Revelations About
Soviet Active Measures. Manipulation of the Russian Orthodox Church
& the World Council of Churches:
How "Black," "Gray," and "White"
Active Measures Worked Together

 

[Daniel19]

I havn't seen that before, Voeglin. I'll have to check it out. I have looked at past assembly reports from the WCC, though. What I found was rather interesting. The 1961 third assembly of the WCC in New Delhi India, like the Federal Council of Churches in 1942, promoted a degradation of national sovereignty. World government was also mentioned in the assembly report.

Representatives from churches around the world were present, one of whom was Rev. H. N. Riber (U.S.A). Riber, as reported by the third assembly summary,

"...desired paragraphs 61 and 62 [of the third assembly report] to be strengthened because Christians should be ahead of public opinion in requiring the nations to surrender sovereignty in preparation for world government."

Paragraphs 61 and 62 of the report state,

"61. But it must be said to new nations as to older ones that the evolution of an international order will require of all a measure of surrender of autonomy and sovereignty for the sake of the world community."

"62. Peace is dependent not only on goodwill and reconciliation, but in the first place upon the emerging of effective international institutions under the rule of law. Therefore, churches in their desire for peace must recognize the importance of the responsible use and development of international institutions, both in the United Nations and in regional affairs. The aim must be to establish a just system of world order..."

The World Council of Churches has over 300 member churches now. I think it's safe to say that the WCC has effectively become an arm of the United Nations. I should note too that the National Council of Churches is now a member of the WCC. We need to understand that the agendas that are being pushed today are not new. The same influences that are behind them today were present at their founding (one of them being the Rockefeller family).

The WCC report that I mentioned can be found online at www.archive.org in PDF format. It's title is "The New Delhi Report, The Third Assembly of the World Council of Churches."

On a side note, the fact that the Rockefeller family played an instrumental role with the WCC and NCC - and that both organizations work closely with United Nations agendas -, combined with the fact that that John D. Rockefeller Jr. donated the land upon which the United Nations stands is extremely interesting to say the least.

I noticed too that the latest "Social creed" from the NCC calls for a "strenghtened United Nations."

 

[Pepperoni]

If the congress were Christian, they would vote with their Christian convictions.

If the Congress were Christian, they wouldn't be in politics.

 

[Pepperoni]

If all the people in congress who claimed to be Christian passed laws to reflect Christian principles, we'd have a great, strong country.

But seriously, I think we took care of that with our interpretation of the First Amendment.

 

[BlueFalcon]

Never ceases to amaze me. People try to do good things in accordance with the teachings of Jesus and what do they get?

People call them "left-leaning" (or worse).

If I believed in Satan I'd call these Satanic attacks.......but they're not--they're just evil.

It's Christian to force someone to help someone else at what amounts to the point of a gun?

That's not Christian, that's tyranny.

 

[kiwimac]

1: I think a number of christians here would have had real trouble with the church in Acts.

2: It is the right thing to do to ensure that the poor, the dispossesed, the marginalised have support available to them.

3: Jesus makes it quite clear that when we help those who need it (regardless of HOW we choose to do that) we are helping Him.

 

[Voegelin]

3: Jesus makes it quite clear that when we help those who need it (regardless of HOW we choose to do that) we are helping Him.

That justifies most anything.

 

[Conspiracy Theory]

3: Jesus makes it quite clear that when we help those who need it (regardless of HOW we choose to do that) we are helping Him.

So, if I rob you at gunpoint it's acceptable as long as I give the money to the Salvation Army or a soup kitchen?

You're helping out people, and you're choosing to do it.

 

[2theBone]

It's Christian to force someone to help someone else at what amounts to the point of a gun?

That's not Christian, that's tyranny.

The Bible disagrees with you.

Acts 4:32-34
32 Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common.
33 With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all.
34 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold.

<Staff edit>

 

[HumbleMan]

I hope you're not equating Ananias and Sapphira with todays republican party.

No where in the bible did it command us to TAKE money or possessions from someone else, but instead we are to give voluntarily. That is the crux of what God wants from us, to be servantile, to take care of others. If our eyes are truly on God, and doing what He has called us to do, then we don't have to worry. It's when we take our eyes off of God and give into our own desires that we get in trouble.

 

[2theBone]

Apparently, your hope is in vain.

The first Christians were required to care for the poor or die.

That's clear as a bell in the Bible.

Nothing new.

That's why Sodom was destroyed, too......according to Ezekiel 16:48.

Today's republicans and other conservatives who fight against help for the poor should study on this.

 

[WolvesChristian]

Why are so many conservatives scared of Socialism? Socialism doesn't even exist in the US (and no, none of the Democratic candidates even come close to a true Socialist in the UK or European model). Just scaremongering because they think they're going to lose the White House...