Posted on 08/17/2014 6:56:28 AM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
SOCIALISM INFECTING THE CLERGY
THREE hundred of the clergy of this country are declared to be allied with the Socialist movement by open profession, while many more are secretly in sympathy with the cause, but hesitate for prudential reasons to make an open avowal. Only a few years ago, it is stated, Socialist principles seemed to be confined to a small number of Unitarian preachers, "who, being radical in theology, readily became radical in sociology likewise." But now, we read in a statement issued by the Christian Socialist Fellowship, "not only do the Unitarians smell of the malady, but Episcopalians by the score, and numerous Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Disciples, Lutherans, Congregationalists, Universalists, and even Roman Catholics have become infected with the Socialist microbe and stricken with the disease." An active propaganda is contemplated by the ministers who have recently formed in New York what is to be known as the Ministers' Socialist Conference, which will hold closed sessions in order to avoid misrepresentation by the press. At a meeting held on April 29 a declaration of principles was adopted, and, as given to the press by the secretary, Rev. John D. Long, pastor of the Park Side Presbyterian Church, Brooklyn, embodies the following purposes:
"The United States Government according to the Constitution is a government of, by, and for the people. We go a step further and say that the people should also own the means of production and distribution. We realize that this can not be brought about suddenly, but everything is tending that way. The post-office system, the water supply, the public-school system, and several other things now run by the Government are applied Socialism. We believe that a republic is one step from a monarchy to Socialism, and by evolution helped by education Socialism is bound to come. It may, we believe, take a generation to establish Socialism in place of the present forms of government, as the people will gradually have to overcome long-cherished prejudices before they are prepared for the new order of things."Meantime the evolution is going on. We believe that the trustification of lines of business is collective ownership for the benefit of the corporations and will be followed by collective ownership for the benefit of the people. The Ministers' Socialist Conference does not concern itself with election campaigns or the nomination of Socialist candidates, but takes up Socialism in the broad sense as the coming order of things, which it can help to hasten by educating the people to the realization that Socialism is the highest form of social and industrial development. Socialism will not come in the form of a sudden revolution, but will come naturally and logically. We believe in living up to our obligations as citizens under the present form of govemment until Socialism takes its place."
A convention will be held in New York from June 1 to June 3, so it is announced, to make the organization a national one. Dr. Long, in speaking on an earlier occasion to a representative of The Sun, said of the motives behind this movement :
"The clergymen who have affiliated with the new organization have come to the conclusion that Christianity will not work under a competitive commercial system and that the inauguration of Socialism is necessary for civilized human beings. We regard Socialism as the economic expression of the Christian life and believe that it is now the duty of the Church to step in and advocate Christian Socialism in the United States. H. H. Rogers in a recent magazine article said that business is war; and if business is war and if, as another man said, war is hell, then business and the competitive system must also be hell. Several of the trustees of the largest corporations are also behind the new movement, but their relations to us are of the most confidential nature and they have enjoined me from mentioning their names."
From statements made by Dr. Long we gather the following historical account of the larger organization, whose membership includes laymen as well as ministers. Considerable attention has recently been attracted to the meetings of the New York branch of this body which have occurred on Sunday evenings at the Church of the Ascension. The publicity gained by these Socialistic discussions finally proved distasteful to the vestry, and last week it was voted to eliminate this subject from future church meetings. Dr. Long thus presents the facts :
"The formation of the National Christian Socialist Fellowship dates from a conference held in Louisville, Ky., two years ago. One year since, a much larger conference was held in Chicago, and this year, May 28 to 31, a national conference is to be held in New York City."The movement at its beginning established a paper called The Christian Socialist, which is published in Chicago by a couple of preachers, Rev. E. E. Carr and Rev. J. O. Bentall. . . . . . .
"The object of the Christian Socialist Fellowship is declared to be 'To permeate churches, denominations, and other religious institutions with the social message of Jesus; to show that Socialism is the economic expression of the Christian life; to end the class struggle by establishing industrial democracy, and to hasten the reign of justice and brotherhood upon earth.'
"It is asserted that the movement is not political, yet it is admitted that it is through political action that its principles are to become operative, and it is not denied that those most active in pushing the propaganda are also active members of the Socialist party."
I believe that this is the end result of allowing young men in the sixties and seventies who could not gain admittance to a technical graduate school flocking into seminaries to avoid the draft. People without a religious vocation other than devout cowardice graduating to a position as clergy.
Our SB church blends hymns and new songs, but we are careful to use only those that are Scripture-based, or there is no problem with the doctrines in the song. We don’t do the feel-good ones unless they proclaim a dynamic Gospel. I see the need for both contemporary and the older hymns. There are some hymns that we sang, as I was growing up in the 50s and 60s that if I ever hear them again it is too soon. They were terrible, and doctrinal fluff, really, but we sang them over and over again until I wanted to stop going to church. I like a blend of old and new. It seems to work at our church, although a few families have left to go down the street to a church where they sing ONLY the contemporary. Their choice. I don’t judge them for it as long as they are truly being “fed”. If not, they’ll see it soon enough, hopefully.
Good thoughts to ponder on this day, Sunday. thank-you for this insight.
“There is an irony here in that to a great extent, socialism is a form of Judeo-Christian heresy.
It exists as a method of the oldest of sins, vanity, which has plagued mankind since its beginnings, in the form of men trying to pretend they “are like God”.
Socialism in a nutshell begins with the Book of Genesis, in which socialists put “mankind” in the place of God throughout; yet in a corrupted form, they keep the myth.
For them, the Garden of Eden becomes The State of Nature, from which mankind was ejected for embracing the knowledge of good and evil. So, one precept of socialism is that good and evil must be ‘normalized’, made equal, so they cease to exist as such. When this happens, socialists theorize, mankind can return to Eden, or The State of Nature.
This is pretty much the basis of radical environmentalism as well, that mankind must give up on civilization to return to nature, that our current state is unnatural and must be stopped.
The real hazard is that true clergy, Catholic, Orthodox, conservative Protestant, and Jewish, need to realize that socialism *is* heresy, in its deepest manifestation, because it rejects God, it shuns God, and it despises God.
But, as a twisted parody of Judeo-Christianity, it often seems on the surface to embrace the same goals as religion, so the temptation is ecumenism. But ecumenism cannot happen with evil, and religion is corrupted in the effort.
A pragmatic approach, that “It does not matter who gives bread to the poor, as long as they are fed”, ignores that religion gives the faith, and the bread, and the water; but socialism *promises* the bread and the water, but only delivers liquor, narcotics and perversion, at the demand that faith and righteousness be discarded.
So look on clergy that embrace socialism as either being ignorant of the truth, or worse, that they have embraced the axiom of socialism, and now despise God.”
The draft was continuous from 1940 through 1973, what data do you have about incompetents flooding into seminaries, to avoid the draft?
Oh, it happened, believe me. I met one, preaching at a charismatic church in Canada. He left the country right after declaring his conscientious objector status.
Evidently, there was an anti-war activist professor at a Western Washingon University that gave instruction to young draft dodgers on how to do it. The instruction involved teaching them to work themselves into a frenzy and speak in tongues. The preacher admitted this, but claimed that his speaking in tongues was real, even though he wasn’t even a Christian before receiving this “gift”.
Analysis of seminary enrollments at Schools of Theology provides the basis for the contention by the Association of Theological Schools and personal interviews with United Methodist clergy and bishops from 1972 to 1983.
I didn’t say it didn’t happen, and your example of one, isn’t even an example of it, he left the country to avoid the draft, and then became a Canadian preacher.
All that also fits with his being an actual, sincere, and committed conscientious objector as he originally claimed.
The poster ricmc2175 has made two sweeping anti-Christian minister posts on this thread, and I while the first one is easy to dismiss, the second screams for some facts to support it.
We go a step further and say that the people should also own the means of production and distribution.This is the foundational deceit of socialism - the fatuous claim that the government is identical with “the people.” Thomas Paine’s reputation is not one of being an advocate of Christianity, but it was interesting to read Michael Novak’s claim in his Writing From Left to Right that the reason Paine went to France (where he was imprisoned) was to persuade the revolutionary regime there not to establish atheism there because there was no possible foundation for human rights apart from God’s authority.
Anyway, in his Common Sense Thomas Paine puts paid to the idea that the government is the same thing as “the people” (or, as he puts it, “society”):SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.
I assume you saw post 18.
Which Christian denomination are you an ordained minister of?
“We regard Socialism as the economic expression of the Christian life and believe that it is now the duty of the Church to step in and advocate Christian Socialism in the United States.”
If they are advocating socialism then they are no longer a church. They should lose their tax exemption.
I am an ordained United Methodist elder.
I guess your two attacks on Christian clergy is more focused on the denomination that you are clergy of?
No, you don’t understand. The guy was only interested in getting out of the draft. He did not get his conscientious objector status and so left for Canada.
The professor was a William Ayers type that made it his job to advise students on avoiding the draft.
So he left the country to avoid being drafted, what does that have to do with the claim of men becoming American Christian ministers merely to avoid being drafted, and then devoting the rest of their life to Christian ministry?
Expressing an opinion is not an attack. Sharing personal experience is not an attack. Sharing data is not an attack. Interesting that your question was only meant to lead to an ad hominem logical error. Nor is my experience as a pastor and member of various clerical consortia, conferences and associations confined to only United Methodist clergy. If and only if you have some factual data to call into question my conclusion would I be interested in further debate. If you wish to continue your ad hominem, please do not waste my time.
Throwing the nasty and strange, and unsubstantiated attacks you did against Christian clergy, was an attack, and you haven’t posted any data.
You made specific claims, it is up to you to show the data, while your first claim was just nasty nonsense, your second claim was also silly nonsense, but at least you should be able to come up with some sort of data to defend it.
Tell us about the masses of Christian clergy that couldn’t get into “a technical graduate school” that “had no religious vocation”, yet who became Ministers and Priests, and devoted the rest of their lives to it, merely to avoid the draft for a couple of years.
“”the end result of allowing young men in the sixties and seventies who could not gain admittance to a technical graduate school flocking into seminaries to avoid the draft. People without a religious vocation other than devout cowardice graduating to a position as clergy.”””
He became a Christian to try to get out of the draft. He was more of a con artist than a minister.
I thought you said that he fled to Canada and became a minister?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.