SBC Today Editor’s Note: This article’s length is a departure from our typical standard, but we believed it was important for it to appear in its entirety.

By Rev. Thomas Littleton

By now most of us have heard of former President Barack Obama’s covert operation “Organizing For Action.” OFA is a shadow government leading the resistance to President Trump’s voter mandated efforts to reverse many if not most of the Obama administration policies. Such well coordinated efforts by a “Shadow Government” are referred to as “The Deep State.” Wikipedia defines this type of electorate subversive manipulation thus: “In the United States, the deep state is an alleged entity that coordinates efforts by government employees and others to influence state policy without regard for democratically elected leadership.”

The Hand That Rocks the Evangelical Cradle

It shocks no one that the administration which has done more to undermine Constitutional Freedoms in the U.S. would wage a covert war to protect the radical policies it fought to put in place. What is shocking to many Christians are the radical renovations in and by evangelical leadership touted as a conservative response to Obama era challenges. In most cases the evangelical responses have proven to aid Obama’s dangerous polices rather than bolster defenses against them. The talking points in America have suddenly changed. Clarity over marriage and sexuality has been lost and language obscured in the face of Obergefell and nationwide attempts to open public school bathrooms to the sexually deviant at our children’s expense.

These Obama era policies have also impacted the doctrine of the Christian Church. The mission of the Church to preach the gospel of eternal salvation has given way to social justice /liberation theology and the Church itself is all but renamed as a “Faith Based Organization.” But who made these decisions for the Church? Who has written this new language and why? Whose unseen hand has orchestrated this overhaul of Christianity?

The Brazenly Contradicted Souls

As a Southern Baptist I will try to fairly assess a few of the players who, in fact, may be more “missional marionettes” than guiding hands. We will look later at the money and the actual hands in the proverbial Evangelical “Shadow Government.” The following paragraph may seem absurd at first but should prove to be quite accurate and disturbing.

Among Southern Baptist and conservative Reformed believers there is no name more trusted than Dr. Albert Mohler. Dr. Mohler is the long-time head of Southern Seminary in Louisville, KY. Due to his high office and reputation in the Southern Baptist Convention, Christians may find it hard to believe that Dr. Mohler would promote the pro homosexual ideology of the Obama era. However, in his promotion of urban ministry, Dr. Mohler also promotes a key player in the radical Human Rights Campaign’s LGBTQ “Equality and Inclusion” movement. “Absurd!” you may say. Yet facts do not lie; they are stubborn and inconvenient truths which often show the accepted wisdom to be false.

In 2008 Dr. Mohler (echoing a host of evangelical underlings) began to promote a key Urban Planning strategist, Richard Florida. Author of Rise of the Creative Class and Who is Your City, Florida is among the Human Rights Campaign’s favorite players in the pro homosexual Municipal Equality Index (MEI). Dr. Mohler offered this hearty endorsement of Richard Florida’s openly pro homosexual /inclusion of the LGBTQ “Creative Class” as necessary for success in Urban Planning and Community Development:

“Florida’s work is not without its critics, but the basic argument he presents is difficult to refute. For the intelligent Christian reader, the book raises several issues. The clustering of creative populations seems to correlate with areas evangelical churches have found difficult to reach. The creatives are clustered in more secular regions of the nation. All this should underline one major aspect of our Great Commission challenge in America and around the world.”

Now place this passionate endorsement of Richard Florida by Dr. Mohler alongside the assertions of Richard Florida himself in the 2017 HRC Municipal Equality Index.

“In short, LGBTQ equality is a moral imperative that pays—one that’s even more important than ever given the recent unprecedented rollback of hard won LGBTQ federal protections. The Municipal Equality Index highlights laws and policies that cities can use to make their community more LGBTQ-inclusive. It assesses cities on their non-discrimination laws, LGBTQ-inclusive employee practices, inclusiveness in city services and law enforcement; and their leadership’s outspoken commitment to equality. Taking these steps can help cities not only do the right thing, but create fairer economic opportunity for all.”

Either Dr. Mohler has failed to read the books he is reviewing here or he is endorsing Richard Florida’s pro homosexual assertions. Mohler’s admission that Florida’s pro LGBTQ concepts are “not without critics” would indicate he is aware of enough of them to know they are controversial and yet he concludes “the basic argument is hard to refute.” I have mentioned Richard Florida in a previous writing but other evangelical leaders have failed to match the Mohler infatuation with Florida’s LGBTQ Equality and Inclusion CULT.

The argument will be made that Dr. Mohler was not endorsing Florida’s pro-homosexual ideology but rather is exhorting the Church to fulfill the Great Commission via ‘city reaching.’ However, why then did Mohler outright abandon Reparative Therapy or so called “ex gay therapy” at the ERLC 2014 conference on “Homosexuality and the Future of Marriage” at the very time municipalities are working hard to pass local laws prohibiting and criminalizing such counseling with the broadest definition, including any NON AFFIRMING counsel on the part of PASTORS, Church counselors, Christian school counselors and EVEN PARENTS?  These city and county efforts to please, appease, and make the grade for the Human Rights Campaign Municipal Equality Index are an LGBTQ shakedown.

Personal commentary: Dr. Mohler, in your sweeping rejection of conversion therapy and withdrawal of support for ministers and ministries working with those who wish to find help from the church to leave homosexual desires behind them, you have given GREAT occasion to the enemies of the Gospel to deny those “strugglers” the help THEY need and often seek as these laws would turn a pastor or a parent into a criminal in the eyes of local courts for offering Biblical Counseling to a /their child. A classic case of throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater by an evangelical leader who spends more time doing book reviews and cultural posturing than in the life trenches under live fire from fallout. Can you admit the LGBTQ agenda is taking you and us farther than you anticipated and that you have failed to offer the conservative leadership Christians look to YOU for? By endorsing Richard Florida, abandoning Reparative Therapy and offering the rhetoric of appeasement have you played into the hands of the Gay Lobby, sir?

“Strange” Dare I Say It…“BEDFELLOWS”

Mohler protégé Dr Russell Moore of the Southern Baptist ERLC has been on the hot seat for some time among evangelicals who are paying attention to ERLC doublespeak and guilt projection on all issues related to Christian ethics and cultural engagement. The recent Nashville Statement offered great face saving opportunity on the LGBTQ issue for Moore, but his recent speech at the Acton Institute’s Acton University sheds unsettling light on the SBC leaders’ hidden ties and may point to the powers behind the Moore / Mohler enigma.

The Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty has long been at the forefront of cultural concern in the realm of religion. Its mission statement boasts “The Acton Institute is a think tank whose mission is to promote a free and virtuous society characterized by individual liberty and sustained by religious principles.”

Admittedly, Religious Principles is a broad term so it is only fair to ask which religion and whose principles are referred to. The best clue would be to look at Acton’s leadership. Its President is Catholic priest, Robert Sirico, and here is where some shocking revelations come into view. Rev. Sirico being a Catholic is reason enough for concern by some about the Acton/ Moore association but this ecumenical partnership pales in comparison to Rev. Sirico’s seldom mentioned past career.

Russell Moore and The Acton Institute’s “Gay Activist” Leader

According to Wikipedia and the gay pride historic book “Gay Seattle Stories of Exile and Belonging” by Gary L. Atkins, (page 161 and over a dozen mentions of Sirico in the second half of the book), in the 1970s, Robert Sirico was at the forefront of the gay activist movement in several cities on the West Coast. According to Atkins, Sirico was a major force in the “Pulpits of Healing” (chapter 9) movement to bring the homosexual community into acceptance in the Christian Community and in the churches. Sirico was raised on Coney Island but found his home among the radical West Coast homosexual rights movement on the cutting edge of its push for acceptance in the faith community. Only after Sirico left the area and a new Bishop came into power did this effort begin to payoff in the Catholic Diocese. By this time, Sirico was planting gay churches as part of the first homosexual denomination, Metropolitan Community Church. Sirico went from Pentecostal faith healer to homosexual activist pastor after admitting his homosexual desires since 13 years of age. In today’s culture he would be considered an LGBTQ Faith Activist which is a well paid career for thousands given the hundreds of millions annually funding the LGBTQ Equality organizations.

“Sirico was ordained a Pentecostal minister and established a healing ministry in Seattle around 1970/71. He became very popular and gained the support of several charismatic churches in the area. A foundation was established for the financial support of his ministry. During this time, according to Sirico, he believed that homosexuality was condemned by the Bible as a perversion. However, he soon found it ‘impossible’ to heal a person from being gay. He eventually made a public announcement that he was gay himself and intended to form a church for gays. This led to him losing the support of his healing ministry’s backers.

“In 1972, Sirico founded Seattle’s Metropolitan Community Church, which primarily ministered to gays. The church became a member of the Metropolitan Community Church (MCC).[7] MCC had been founded in 1968 as ‘the world’s first church group with a primary, positive ministry to gays, lesbians, bisexual, and transgender persons.’

“In April 1973, Sirico and the MCC picketed the Seattle Police Department, claiming there was a ‘vendetta’ by the Seattle Police Department against homosexuals. In October 1973, Sirico was arrested in Seattle for ‘walking in the roadway’ after crossing the street to come to the aid of a gay man he saw was being arrested. In jail, Sirico was reportedly singing ‘We Shall Overcome’ until he was bailed out by a parishioner. The citation was later struck down at trial and Sirico was let off with a warning by the judge.

“In July 1973, Sirico went to lead the newly founded Metropolitan Church of Cincinnati.

“Sirico was a proponent of gay marriage and performed same-sex marriages as a Protestant minister. In 1975, Sirico performed the first gay marriage in the history of Colorado at the First Unitarian Church in Denver.

“Sirico left Seattle for Los Angeles, where he became the director of the Los Angeles Gay Community Center. In 1976, police conducted a raid at one of the center’s events, a ‘male slave auction.’ Sirico stated the event was merely a fundraiser for the center and that the police raided it in order to ‘discredit the image of gay people in this community for legislative gains.’”

Most important to note that after a time Robert Sirico made a return to the Catholic Church of his youth. He speaks in many places of a political and ideological conversion but makes NO MENTION of a change in his bold self-identifying as a homosexual or his radical faith activist role in the embryonic days of the gay rights movement. In a 2010 interview, Father Sirico was asked by a conservative Catholic writer about his homosexual /activist/ gay clergy history. His response was suspiciously evasive:

“An agreement with a professional journalist to whom I have been giving a series of interviews about the details of this journey prevents me from cooperating in any kind of profile of my life with you. I can, however, respond to a number of your questions for the article you are writing which do not compromise this agreement.”

Sirico’s move across the ideological and political landscape is significant because, as we will see, he moved from ultra-liberal to Libertarian, whose policies mostly ignore moral and social issues like homosexuality and abortion, instead focusing on economic policy and smaller government. There’s no need to even speak to the issue of his radical past in the Libertarian camp. It is a non-issue. What IS an ISSUE is the role which we will soon see that Sirico’s organization plays in the CONSERVATIVE camp of the Southern Baptist and Presbyterians and among Reformed evangelicals.

It may seem unfair from an evangelical perspective to “judge” Rev. Sirico by his youthful past but the present mood among Catholic researchers considers this activist’s past serious enough to look longer and harder at his organization, Action Institute, and his ordination as a Catholic Priest in 1987. There have been numerous and persistent voices of concern over Sirico’s ordination to the Priesthood given his admitted homosexuality and radical past. His defiant statements like “two men in bed together is a holy experience… to hold one another close and confess together, Isn’t God Wonderful?” (Gay Seattle, page 162) The author goes on to say “Sirico refused to beg for understanding.”

Given that the ERLC Russell Moore is a speaker at Acton Institutes and his has even deeper (as we shall see) associations with Father Sirico, it would appear to be more than fair to ask if this has ANY INFLUENCE on Moore’s message for the ERLC on homosexuality? What is the ERLC/ Moore’s position on the radical history of Rev Sirico? He does not answer? Will our Southern Baptist spokesperson ANSWER?

Sirico’s past causes great concern among conservative Catholics. Here are several examples of their research.

Catholics Concerned About Father Robert Sirico

Randy Engels has written extensively on concerns over the Catholic Church welcoming and ordination of homosexuals to the priesthood. Her 5 volume series on this subject is titled The Rite of Sodomy: Homosexuality and the Roman Catholic Church.

Further research specific to Father Robert Sirico can be found here and here and another writer Thomas Herron here. In “Robert Sirico and the Sins that Cry to Heaven for Vengeance” are found more recent activities including efforts to alter / protect the history of Russell Moore’s ally, Rev Sirico.

There are several “accounts of Rev Sirico’s conversion” according to Engel but most speak to his political conversion, such as, “In the early part of the decade, Sirico held Left-leaning political and economic views, even becoming involved with Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden and their campaign for economic democracy. However, after reading Friedrich von Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom and Milton Friedman’s Capitalism and Freedom, he became a libertarian.”

Sirico wrote about his journey from leftist politics to free-market economics: “I suppose the fact that I spent time on the left of the political spectrum isn’t the surprising thing. I mean, I’m a New Yorker; I’m a child of the ’60s; I went to seminary in the early 1980s, when a baptized form of Marxism was next to godliness. When you take all of that into account, my sojourn on the left has about it almost the inevitability of Marxist dialectic.”

Do Roman Catholics Speak for The ERLC and The Gospel Coalition When Communication is KEY?

You may say that Catholics and Evangelicals have long and helpful history partnering on social issues like abortion and marriage but these are conservative – not Libertarian – shared values. The common ground would then appear to be the issue of “social Justice” and NOT theological partnerships. However, Father Sirico is not a conservative socially or politically and, according to his 2002 booklet “Catholicism’s Developing Social Teaching” (page 19), Sirico boasted that Catholic social policy IS THEOLOGY, not political policy.” So is Russell Moore partnering the ERLC with Acton Institute for Catholic Theology on Social Teaching? Fair Question? According to Father Sirico, Moore IS doing so.

To look closer and better understand the ties between the SBC’s Russell Moore, Al Mohler and other Evangelicals with Father Sirico and his Acton Institute, one need look no further than Joe Carter. A former military guy, Joe is a prolific writer and Senior Editor for the Acton Institute and Rev Sirico. Where it becomes strange and unsettling is that Carter is also an editor for The Gospel Coalition, according to the Acton bio, as well as Editor and Communications Specialist “go to guy” for the Russell Moore-led Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberties Commission.

THINKING THIS THROUGH together for a moment… Joe Carter came to the ERLC soon after Russell Moore’s ascent and radical altering of the standard conservative Southern Baptist messaging on key topics, especially LGBTQ issues. Carter serves as ERLC “Communications Specialist” while he still holds his Senior Editor job with Rev. Robert Sirico – the once radical left wing, Marxist gay activist Pentecostal (later) gay church pastor and founder of Metropolitan Community Churches (the world’s first gay denomination), who conducted some of the nations first gay marriages and boasted he would perform exorcisms to rebuke the heterosexual spirits from his opposition – who is now a Catholic Libertarian priest. If that is not disturbing we are simply NOT paying attention! Carter has also worked in high level editing positions with at least two other Catholic publications according to his biography.

The Gospel Coalition – Is This an Evangelical Progressive Movement Cloaked in Conservative Theology?

Currently there is immeasurable fallout over what appears to be a theological divide among Southern Baptists. Joe Carter is an Editor for The Gospel Coalition as mentioned above. This movement encompasses the Reformed camp of the SBC which has grown in number at least among young pastors under the leadership of Dr. Mohler and includes much of the heretofore conservative Presbyterian breakaway group – the PCA. The TGC movement also includes smaller reformed denominations and groups along with independents like John Macarthur and his vast network of affiliated churches. Formed around 2005, TGC is headed by then PCA rising star Tim Keller and D.A. Carson.

While The Gospel Coalition’s opening statement of its founding documents sounds great, a sobering consideration of its connections with Acton Institute and often progressive stance on conservative issues makes it reasonable to question why TGC is promoting a Liberation Theology of social justice and a biblically baseless “Theology of Place.” Add to this Joe Carter’s prolific messaging (TGC blog currently has 336 entries by Carter and at one point earlier this year was over 650 items by Carter) and it is a very honest assessment to say that Acton Institute and the radical Father Sirico have a huge reach into the Reformed camp of evangelicals, including the SBC and PCA.

Can we Biblically Judge the Tree by its Fruit?

Plainly put, a Libertarian, Catholic, political Institute founded by a controversial priest who helped birth the modern extreme radical West Coast homosexual rights movement and its invasion of the Christian faith community while working as a Pentecostal “Faith Healer” with Marxist leanings, a record of arrest and an “in your face” homosexual, founding gay churches and conducting some of the nation’s first gay marriages, is helping if not outright scripting the message of Reformed SBC (ERLC) /PCA / TGC Evangelicalism. If this is not a problem in our thinking then we do not understand that the battle for the soul of our culture is not waged with the liberal social justice mantra that TGC and these intoxicated talking heads like Russell Moore are regurgitating while espousing its loss. Rather, that battle for the “collective soul” of the church and our culture is a battle of words and ideas, to be waged with the eternal Word of God and the inspired message rooted firmly in God’s WORD.

Isn’t wrapping your progressive transformational strategies in conservative theological positions while promoting the message of a Libertarian, Catholic, former (?) radical homosexual activist akin to being a confidence man or a street hustler for TGC and ERLC? How is it NOT? These organizations have captivated a generation of young preachers and, with the advent of social media and a hearty web presence, the contorted message of the new evangelicalism has spread like wildfire. Who has vetted this message or its source or the strange affiliations in this transformational dance club? What toxic stew comes from brewing these ideologies together for a bowl of which the evangelical leaders in the reformed camp appear to willing to sell not only their birthright but also that of our denominations and our children’s future church? How is this considered kosher to a Holy God with a long history of rejecting mingled offerings?

Given that 2017 is the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation, the tangible irony here is almost suffocating. If Catholic conservatives are concerned about Father Sirico and his corrupt influence in the Catholic Church then Evangelicals ought to take note of the DEEP STATE inroads made by a VATICAN policy, US-based Think Tank among SBC and PCA leaders!

What Other Bonds Abound?

The key to understanding the tie that binds these bedfellows is the work of Acton Institute in the area Social Justice. According to the November 29th 2017 Acton Institute Conference in Rome, Globalization and Social Justice are movements to which the Jesuits have long contributed and inspired the church toward addressing. Today’s Social Justice mantra, whether chanted by liberal humanist “Christians,“ conservative Reformed, Catholic or interfaith participants, is INSEPARABLY LINKED with “the City Reaching movement,” cultural narrative realignments (a kinder/ gentler Christian “civility”), urban growth , “church planting,” and White House Faith-Based Partnerships. In short, Social Justice is the new gospel and, if your leadership complies, it is becoming Big Business for the church.

Olasky’s Rules for Compassion

Marvin Olasky is a powerful influence on evangelicals as editor-in-chief of World Magazine. He is also a Senior Fellow at the Acton Institute. Olasky’s history intersects with virtually all of the major ideologies corrupting the evangelical church. The biography of Olasky at NNDB states that he was born of a Jewish family, was an avowed atheist (at 14), a Marxist in High School and a “card carrying communist” as they used to say, in college. Like Sirico, Olasky’s political views changed mid life but in the case of Olasky, a spiritual conversion is professed. However, his Marxist ideologies may not have changed on his spiritual journey, given his role with Sirico and the Faith-Based ideology. It is said that Olasky’s book on “The Tragedy of American Compassion” inspired George W Bush’s compassionate conservatism branding and the Faith Based Partnerships first in Texas under then Governor Bush.

“In January 2001, [Olasky] saw the policies outlined in this book put into law with the creation of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. George W. Bush has called him ‘compassionate conservatism’s leading thinker’; in 1999, Olasky had chaired an advisory subcommittee on religion and public policy for the then-governor.’”

Acton and Sirico have played a major role as well in the hard sell of Faith-Based Partnerships, especially during the formation of the Obama administration under whose directives the LGBTQ compromises were hard wired into the programs and these directives have not changed under the Trump administration.

Although Olasky is credited with having inspired Compassionate Conservatism, the concept goes back to the mid 19th century with Fredrick Stahl‘s “Living Conservatism.” Stahl successfully persuaded Austrian and European Protestants to abandon their conservative convictions on the basis of a proposed softer approach to social issues while European Socialism took root. History appears to be repeating itself aided by the familiar talking points. Stahl, like Olasky was another person born into a Jewish family who converted to Christianity and, in Stahl’s case, history now bears out that he used his influence to weaken Christians in the evangelical churches in Prussia. The jury is out for now regarding Olasky’s influence, however, his work with Sirico, Acton and Faith Based Partnerships does not bode well for the Evangelicals over whom he exerts tremendous influence. One of those under the influence is Tim Keller. A closer look will help you decide for yourself.

Civil City Utopian Prophets and The Funding Machine

The following collaborations outlined as bullet points show the depths of Faith-Based involvement of Tim Keller and other evangelicals and institutions. Several have been mentioned in previous articles without mention of the role Acton played in them.

• Leading up to the 2009 infusion of untold billions of tax dollars by the Obama administration into the Faith Based Partnership overhaul – Tim Keller (page 80) and Friends, including the Acton Institute, worked with a Faith Based Partnership model in Orlando called “Seeking the Welfare of the City” (STWOTC) which resulted in the Polis Institute. Richard Florida’s pro homosexual ideology was promoted by the Human Rights Campaign and Albert Mohler played a key role (page 76) as has the Acton Institute. Acton still heavily promotes the “Welfare of the City” concept which centers around Faith Based Partnerships. If participants like churches and ministries want to find funding to “save their cities” through Community Development grants, they must be inclusive and welcoming of one of the more destructive influences within the communities they are asserting they wish to help. The erosion of the family and sexual liberation are two of the most compelling issues urban centers face.

Even more broad reason for concern is that the Presbyterian Church of America’s (Tim Keller’s denomination) Reformed Theological Seminary was at the forefront of this STWOTC program development while both students and graduates helped in the implementation and the operation of Polis Institute. It now serves as an Urban laboratory of sorts for training future generation church leaders.

• As discussed in previous articles, the new mantra for evangelicals is “Civility.” Tim Keller, Rick Warren, three Christian universities, and a host of Faith Based Partnership players have convened and covenanted to “change the tone in the church toward homosexuals” and other minority groups. Given the inclusion of pro-gay urban planning in the new wave missional strategies and the agreement to change the conversation among church folk as they are “mobilized” for faith based partnerships, it is little wonder that The Gospel Coalition and denominational groups like the ERLC want someone like Father Sirico and Acton Institute to provide the talking points for the flock. Whether current or simply historical, Sirico would have great insight into how to make inroads into faith communities having done so in the 1970s. Inclusive inroads are requisite if the hopes of obtaining Faith-Based Partnership grants are to be realized.

Are Money Changers Funding Acton and an Evangelical Deep State?

• Another major player in what appears as an Evangelical Deep State is the National Christian Foundation of Alpharetta GA. According to its history with Conservative Transparency and a 2016 990 forms /report, the NCF has brought about $6 Billion into its Christian philanthropy circles since 2011 (page 15 of the 990 shows $1,396,381,203 in 2016 alone.) On requesting NCF to provide its donor and recipient list and history, the organization refused to supply any information whatsoever. Various philanthropic sites do track some of the money and its sources, but given that NCF is a “Donor ADVISED fund,” the agreement upon giving is the intention of the donor is to be recognized but not required in the distribution. What the Conservative Transparency tracking shows is that NCF giving in large part goes to political organizations like Acton Institute, Heritage Foundation, and a variety of organizations, many being Libertarian like Acton instead of conservative Christian organizations or ministries. NCF helps coordinate giving for the Frankfurt School / Marxist-inspired Civilitas Group in which Tim Keller and Rick Warren serve as Board Members.

Several left-wing exposés have been done of NCF, one by Mother Jones and another, ironically, by an LGBT activist group Two Care Center Against Religious Extremism. These researched articles show NFC again funding more politically focused organizations than ministries. (Acton is not on the LGBT investigation list perhaps by design.) AGAIN many of these organizations share the Libertarian views of Acton and are NOT Biblical, conservative groups. According to these reports, a great deal of the funding moves back and forth from NCF State Chapters and the national offices of NCF and lands back in the hands of local State Policy Institutes which are sister organizations of Acton.

A major common thread is the political Libertarian ideology and shared goals of encouraging Faith Based Partnership participation and engagement in the “Gospel of Generosity” and “philanthropic giving movement” touted by Tim Keller and other TGC partners as one of the arenas needing cultural redemption. A similar organization with shared influence from NCF founders admit to their inspiration from Charles Sheldon’s novel “In His Steps“ and it’s Social Justice mantra. Admission that the concept needed a Theology to maintain it begs the classic question which came first… the theology or the ideology that it supports? As with Acton and Rev. Sirico the answer is clear. To sell the ideology, the two must be presented as one. Is this an honest approach for objective Biblical teaching for fundraising?

A local NCF chapter in the Midwest has as its head a pastor who (according to his ordaining denomination, The Assemblies of God) has an “unusual ministry” as he pastors a church with five different addresses, one of which is an empty lot and no congregation or regular weekly service. This pastor was brought to our region to speak at a pastoral conference last year about Faith-Based Partnerships AND Philanthropy / NFC giving. Again he has no certain address, often no weekly service, and from social media indicators – little or no congregation. Who is vetting these people?

Who Cares? You Should!

Should the church be concerned that conservative denominations like the Southern Baptist Convention and the PCA have shared Public Relations/Editing and message coordination (Joe Carter) with Acton Institute? Should conservative Christians not be made aware that our public policy spokesmen like Russell Moore of the ERLC and influential movements like The Gospel Coalition have these strong ties to Acton? Is this influence of a Libertarian /Catholic political policy organization founded by a priest, Father Robert Sirico, who has a long undisclosed history of LGBTQ radical activism, a concern for evangelicals? It still causes concern among informed conservative Catholics!

Since 2012 a marked departure from classic Evangelical conservative stance has taken place and Russell Moore, Tim Keller and others have been peddling the new, more civil, culturally relevant tone on social issues. Given that their partners, like Acton and Sirico, all share the goals of harnessing Christian giving while promoting a Social Gospel and Faith Based Partnerships (FBP) it is fair to ask, “WHY?”

Marvin Olasky, crowned the father of the Bush FBP agenda, later heavily funded and loaded with LGBTQ activism in the Obama years, provides conservative Christians with unquestioned news “from a Christian world view” in World Magazine. Perhaps he should answer for his Fellowship with Acton Institute and Father Sirico knowing the LGBTQ infiltration of these circles and the programs he (Olasky) promotes.

Would Albert Mohler, the highly regarded head of Southern Seminary and SBC/TGC evangelical leader clarify exactly what part of Richard Florida and HRC’s pro gay urban planning he believes is so vital for the church that he endorses it along with other strategies of the homosexual agenda. There is little else in the Florida rhetoric except a heavy dose of Cultural Marxism. So what is the Appeal and what part of the ideology are we as the church to follow if NOT its push for LGBTQ “inclusion”?

Tim Keller, please tell us what is Biblical about the Marxist Frankfurt School or the socialist Vienna Circle under whose influence you have fallen? How far does “human flourishing, redeeming culture, and thriving cities” go in the churches before the Gospel is lost in the process of promoting human wisdom and compromise for the common good?

If possible it would help all conservative believers if any or all of you would step up and explain to those struggling to raise families, be faithful (even if not “relevant”) in their faith in and to the culture and the workplace in the MOST CHALLENGING TIMES Christians have ever faced in our nation. The doublespeak which would appear scripted by Acton Institute IS NOT HELPING!

Why Action, Sirico, Carter? Why Faith Based Tax Funds?

Why would you knowingly or ignorantly partner to offer this pagan brew and strange fire on Evangelical altars? Is this an Evangelical Deep State – operating behind the scenes? Please simply respond to the “Christian on the street” whose churches and families and futures your influence directly impacts! Those who mislead the Church ought to heed the warning of James while there is yet time to repent. ”My brethren, be not many teachers, knowing that we shall receive the severer judgement” James 3:1. Voices asking for accountability may seem faint and obscure while drowned out by the massive load of finely tuned and edited Rhetoric of Acton evangelical affiliates like ERLC/TGC… BUT given time and the fact that God’s flock have a better handle on Biblical truth than some suppose, those voices may not seem so faint for very long.

Thomas Littleton Evangelical Deep State Interview with Janet Mefferd

Posted in Introduction | 1 Comment


By. Rev. Thomas Littleton

Part One of this article was published on December 18, 2017. Over a month later, interest in the issues raised in the article remains high, and the questions over associations of evangelical leaders like Al Mohler, Tim Keller, Russell Moore, and Marvin Olasky continue to linger. Efforts to dismiss the well documented findings as the “ramblings of a crazed conspiracy theorist” by Ed Stetzer and others have failed to deflect attention on the facts. There are serious problems with the Ethics and Religious Liberties Commission and The Gospel Coalition’s rhetoric and common source of communications with Libertarian think tank, The Acton Institute. SBC and PCA pastors and ministers who have followed the Reformed theological leaders in these circles have little if any clue that they were actually following Jesuit / Catholic Liberation Theology and social policy wrapped in historic Reformed Protestant teaching.

Acton in Evangelical Seminaries

Acton Institute, mentioned in Part One of this research, is headed by Father Robert Sirico, who has a history as a radical “homosexual faith activist.” Acton Institute is celebrated by Philanthropy Roundtable as a key player since the 1990s in synthesizing religion and democratic capitalism. Acton’s blog boasts such bold goals as rethinking Liberation Theology and Marxism from updated and fresh approaches of application, while oddly accusing Trump supporters of folk Marxism. The ironies run much deeper.

According to the “The New Evangelical Social Engagement” by Brian Steensland and Philip Goff, Acton Institute founder Father Sirico, “’combining free market approaches with Catholic social thought,’ argues that ‘there is no social justice without economic freedom …Instead of a vast welfare state, social justice is about people fulfilling their responsibilities in justice to their neighbor.’ Therefore, with the support of the Kern Family Foundation, Acton has sponsored curriculum initiatives at thirteen evangelical seminaries.” (p. 63)

These seminaries include Dr. Albert Mohler’s Southern Seminary which sponsors The Commonweal Project. Note the “Social Gospel” with a strong emphasis on “Social Justice” in this initiative in the videos by Mohler and Os Guinness. With the help of Acton Institute and over a dozen partners of the same persuasions, Dr. Mohler appears to be endorsing a Rethink of Marxist social policy, while partners like “Poverty” – an Acton offshoot – are marketing a RETHINK of Missions to a ”Social Justice” mandate.

Other Reformed seminaries, including the PCA’s Reformed Theological Seminary and Beeson Seminary (now on its third Kern grant since 2015), are also using the Acton-inspired, Kern-funded Social Justice curriculum programs which are designed around the “Faith and Work” ideology famously touted by Tim Keller. Some seminary partners have possibly jumped on board with the popular ideology and trendy nature of the Social Justice mantra; however, “rethinking Liberation Theology” and a fresh approach to “Marxist-inspired ideology” on the part of Sirico/ Acton and Mohler/ Commonweal Project is a bridge too far to simply dismiss as poorly thought out eagerness for cultural engagement on their part.

The Kern Family Foundation

The Kern Family Foundation which is very active in funding education at every level is considered to be a well-anchored Christian funding source. However, the Kern website shows that their partners in K-12 “Bright Minds Good Hearts“ program funding include organizations like Teach for America, whose work in K-12 public education includes a well-defined focus on pro-LGBTQ policy with radical LGBTQ organizations like Human Rights Campaign, Campus Pride, The Trevor Network and the most radical Gay and Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN). Teach for America also promotes Gay Pride Month with GLSEN in public schools each June, even celebrating the notorious “Dear Colleague Letter” – the pro-transgender bathroom directive from the Obama White House in May 2016. The current focus of all such pro-LGBTQ efforts in public schools is on showcasing LGBTQ History.

Kern also shows its partnership with liberal education giant Public Broadcasting System (PBS) and the Frankfurt School inspired “Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture,” which is a major influence on Tim Keller and others in the Civilitas Group and Cultural Engagement camp. When asked about the funding in an email exchange on January 15th, the Kern Family Foundation denied the funding in the thirteen evangelical seminaries though it is widely touted in the news, press releases and on the websites (of Southern Seminary’s “Commonweal Project” for example) but Kern contacts did link us to Acton University’s site and confirmed the Acton / Kern Curriculum is in five evangelical universities as well.

Acton Institute and the Confusing Messages of Albert Mohler

Acton Institute’s and Father Sirico’s attachment to the conservative political and religious community is disturbing to Libertarians as well. According to a defender of Classical Liberalism, Sirico’s Acton Institute was and is heavily supported by Atlas Foundation, which had been a trusted ally of the Left until it began taking Conservative money. Sirico’s work with Atlas was not a problem because of his homosexual faith activist history which is recounted in detail in the research. The concern for the Classically Liberal researcher is the recent drift of both Atlas and Acton toward the Right from their historic “Libertarian values”— which pose no threat to the social agenda of the Left.  Sirico had gained the confidence of the Left:

“By 1977 Sirico was listed by the LA Times as the ‘organizer of Libertarians for Gay Rights. When it was later revealed that the ACLU once cooperated with the FBI in building files on radicals Sirico told the Times: ‘We turn out to be to the left of the ACLU.’”

Incidentally, the Classically Liberal article exposes Father Sirico as being “back in the closet”:

“Acton officials got heavily involved in the debate on gay marriage. With Sirico back in the closet the position they have been taking has been to pander to bigots on the Religious Right.”

“When or if Sirico tried to go back into the closet is hard to determine. But certainly by the time he was taking money from the anti-gay Templeton network it would have been prudent for him to be closeted. Certainly by 1997 Sirico was criticizing another priest for telling his congregation that he was gay. Sirico told the Grand Rapids Press that honesty about the matter was ‘irresponsible’ and that the priest should have kept it a secret between him and a few close friends.”

“Father Sirico is a perfect example. He went from a hard-core libertarian to promoting just the economic agenda. He then started covering up his past and went so far as to try to go back into the closet in regards to his own homosexuality. From pioneering gay marriage, to being silent on it, he now heads an organization with notorious antigay bigots who openly attack gay equality in the name of his organization.”

Father Sirico is not the only one who appears to be living in contradiction to himself.

Father Sirico is a Catholic priest who views his Jesuit-inspired Catholic social policy as being “theological” and NOT political. Dr. Mohler says the Catholic Church teaches a false gospel: “During a 2000 television interview on Larry King Live, Mohler said of the Holy See and the Pope: ‘As an evangelical, I believe that the Roman Catholic Church is a false church. It teaches a false gospel. And the Pope himself holds a false and unbiblical office.’”

And during a March 13, 2014 podcast of The Briefing: “Evangelical Christians simply cannot accept the legitimacy of the papacy and must resist and reject claims of papal authority. To do otherwise would be to compromise biblical truth and reverse the Reformation.”

Dr. Mohler has either changed his views on core Catholic teaching or is contradicting himself to the spiritual detriment of the students at Southern Seminary and of the Southern Baptist Convention. These statements are from 2013 which was the same year that the Acton Institute / Kern Family Foundation launched the Catholic Social Justice Curriculum in Southern and 12 other evangelical seminaries.

Moreover, Dr. Mohler “has denounced Pope Francis for moving the Catholic Church to the left and failing, during his address to Congress last autumn, to denounce abortion and gay marriage with the necessary zeal.” Pope Francis being the First Jesuit Pope would certainly support the curriculum of Acton and, true to long-term Jesuit efforts to undermine the Reformation, would be proud to see it in Southern and other Reformed seminaries. Pope Francis also shares the political leanings of a Marxist history with Rev. Sirico.

What does Dr. Mohler think of Marxism? From his blog, “No, Marxism has been as wrong as it is possible for a theory to be wrong. Addicted to ‘the self-deification of mankind,’ it continually bears witness to what Kolakowski calls ‘the farcical aspect of human bondage.’ Why then was Marxism like moral catnip–not so much among its proposed beneficiaries, the working classes, but among the educated elite? ‘One of the causes of the popularity of Marxism among educated people,’ Kolakowski notes, ‘was the fact that in its simple form it was very easy.’ Marxism–like Freudianism, like Darwinism, like Hegelianism–is a ‘one key fits all locks’ philosophy. All aspects of human experience can be referred to the operation of a single all-governing process which thereby offers the illusion of universal explanation.”

Dr. Mohler’s partner, Father Sirico, describes his journey as “I went to seminary in the early 1980s, when a baptized form of Marxism was next to godliness. When you take all of that into account, my sojourn on the left has about it almost the inevitability of Marxist dialectic.”

Even if Father Sirico and Acton Institute are now truly Libertarian, does this make them compatible partners with the conservative Reformed Christian SBC, ERLC, TGC or Southern and other Seminaries? Mohler has argued that  “libertarianism is idolatrous and as a comprehensive world view or fundamental guiding principle for human life is inconsistent with Christian ideals.” He is a proponent of personal liberty, but believes such liberties can run into problems when applied in the political sphere. The more limited economic libertarianism, on the other hand, Mohler says can be consistent with the “comprehensive world view that Christianity puts forward.” (Moody Radio, 3/5/2016). Again to Sirico, his and Acton’s social policy is theological not political or solely economic.

Given the end all be all assertions of the Social Justice mantra to answer human need and provide “Human Flourishing” by Mohler and Sirico, Russell Moore and Tim Keller, Ed Stetzer and every published messenger boy of The Gospel Coalition, are they not all offering the “illusion of universal explanation” in utter contradiction to the Gospel they espouse to be at its center? For all the shaming TGC, ERLC, Keller, Carter and others have done to evangelicals for supporting President Trump and Judge Roy Moore (the Alabama Senate race), it may be fairer to ask if the truly conservative evangelicals and reformed individuals in the SBC and PCA can survive the influence of ERLC, TGC, and the Acton influence in Reformed seminaries? In the case of the Alabama Senate race, Tim Keller, Russell Moore, and Joe Carter have once again aided and abetted the LGBTQ Human Rights Campaign to empower Leftists like Senator Doug Jones who beat Roy Moore the Alabama Senate election.

Father Sirico and Acton Institute have also had a very strong connection to the U.S. State Department, the Intelligence Community and the Vatican. On the Acton Institute Advisory Board was Jesuit Cardinal Avery Dulles, who was “the son of a prominent New York Presbyterian family whose father was John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State under President Eisenhower and whose uncle was Allen Dulles, director of the CIA. “…he had been a convert to Catholicism during his years at Harvard University after having declared himself an agnostic in his first year there….In 2001…Fr. Dulles was elevated by Pope John Paul II to being a Prince of the Church, Avery Cardinal Dulles. He was the first American theologian to be given that title without being made a bishop first.” This history as well make some nervous.

What Color is the Money; Any Green in The Rainbow?

Some would say that, as Christians eagerly seek to engage the world around us, it is easy in today’s culture to inadvertently partner with or fund organizations whose mission may be antithetical to our own. It may fairly be asserted that the motives of some of those involved are only to seek and avail themselves of any open door to inject Christian influence in important areas like education. However, organizations like the ERLC and The Gospel Coalition in partnership with Acton Institute, urge Christians to “disengage the culture” from historic Christian views on moral issues like gay marriage, LGBTQ inclusion, immigration reform, drug legalization, etc., while they are instead expected to “Seek Social Justice”* as the new approach to the all important mission of the Church. (*example of Acton influence on the same partners in 2010)

IRONICALLY, today’s young pastors in The Gospel Coalition and believers who follow them are trying to escape being viewed as Christian Right Wingers, and choosing to be Social Justice Warriors instead. As they strive to “love well” while “doing community,” they are actually falling for far Left Wing social policy which, in this case, is written by the right wing Heritage Foundation and Libertarian Jesuit/Catholic Acton Institute. It can really give one vertigo to watch the convergence of these political operatives on the unsuspecting Evangelical community.

Considering Libertarian Acton and its founder – Catholic priest, Father Sirico (who refuses to discuss his homosexuality when interviewed) – and millions in funding from the Kern Family Foundation for radical pro-LGBTQ partner, Teach for America, can we simply take their inclusive curriculum in 13 Evangelical seminaries, like RTS, Southern Seminary, Beeson and others, at conservative face value?

Are the commandments and warnings in both Old and New Testaments – “be not unequally yoked with believers” for “two cannot walk together except they are agreed” – null and void for today? Can we walk with God on mission when we and our partners in the quest have so little we agree upon?

More on Why Richard Florida so WRONG? Must the Church Create Bohemia to Succeed?

Among Dr. Mohler’s devout fan base there is a common thread of justifying his every action. In Deep State Part One, the most commonly disputed issue among the many respondents concerned Mohler’s promotion of the books and theories of the pro-LGBTQ Urban Planner, Richard Florida.

“Florida’s work is not without its critics, but the basic argument he presents is difficult to refute. For the intelligent Christian reader, the book raises several issues. The clustering of creative populations seems to correlate with areas evangelical churches have found difficult to reach.”

In Richard Florida’s books, Rise of the Creative Class and Who is Your City, “Creative Class” is a euphemism for “LGBTQ” community. Florida’s theory is that economically disadvantaged cities such as Detroit would experience revival if they were injected with the “creativity” of the LGBTQ community.

The following additional information should put an end to any justification of Florida’s failed ideology of “the Creative Class.” Here are the facts of Florida’s radical pro-LGBTQ concepts.

The main inspiration and mentor for Richard Florida is Marxist urban activist, Jane Jacobs, who was instrumental in the gay rights movement in both New York City and Toronto. Jacobs is a central figure celebrated in LGBTQ urban history. Today LGBTQ history walks are done in her name in cities internationally.

As Senior Editor of The Atlantic Monthly and a co-founder and editor at large of “CityLab,” Richard Florida tracks “Homophobia” by “Mapping” the places it is most prevalent globally. This information is then used to strong-arm cities and regions into taking a more affirming stance on LGBTQ inclusion with grant and economic development funds.

Census number Crunching is done by Richard Florida protégé, Gary Gates of the Williams Institute for LGBTQ Inclusion and Advancement. Gates submitted a brief in the Obergefell same-sex marriage decision which was cited in Justice Kennedy’s pivotal vote and opinion which made gay marriage legal in the United States, in spite of its complete lack of Constitutional Standing. Gates and Williams take Florida’s Creative Gay Class assertions to major places of influence, including census data gathering. The 2020 U.S. Census is a major focus for this work with Florida’s inclusive goals.

LGBTQ activists remain loyal to Richard Florida’s ideology for obvious reasons. However, Evangelicals who endorse the LGBTQ agenda are essentially asserting that the Church could thrive in Sodom and Gomorrah today if we would only apply the “wisdom of Richard Florida.” Dr. Mohler, Tim Keller, Ed Stetzer and others in The Gospel Coalition need to explain why they encourage our church planters and ministers and Christians in general toward these ideas in any way!

Acton and the Road to Serfdom: A Closer Look

Valid concerns exist about Acton Institute and the Reformed camp of Evangelicals now guiding the ERLC and The Gospel Coalition, the most obvious of which is the Catholic theology behind Acton’s Social Policy. According to the 2017 Acton conference in Rome, the social justice and economic policies Father Sirico is introducing to Reformed seminaries is a Jesuit contribution and Catholic historians openly assert that the mission of the Jesuits is to undermine the Reformation. Do TGC and ERLC leadership need to be reminded why the Reformation took place and that 2017 marks its 500th anniversary? Did the Reformation not involve theological differences and a divide that is even more profound today than it was 500 years ago?

Acton also has the issue of its being a Libertarian, not a Conservative, political think tank. Do TGC and ERLC claim to promote Conservative theology? If we live out the Gospel should not our social and political engagement involve sharing the Gospel at the core? Why do TGC and the ERLC consistently land on the progressive (left of center) on every single social issue of concern to biblically faithful Christians? This is a very fair question that many in the ranks of the SBC and PCA are asking.

Acton is a political organization and TGC and ERLC leaders are also acting politically while they shame every believer in their realm for their conservative political engagement. Why is the ERLC located in Washington, DC if not to be engaged politically? Why do Russell Moore and Albert Mohler shame Christians in the Washington Post and other political media? Why is TGC so focused on church planting in and around the Beltway? Are Christians only allowed to engage the culture if we are moving left of center? Is it not political for the Kern funded Curriculum used in Reformed seminaries to be training students in Libertarian, Catholic, Jesuit, recycled Liberation Theology and Social Justice provided by a Political Think Tank like Action Institute? How is this not deceitful? How is it serving the Gospel or preserving and fulfilling the Great Commission?

Acton boasts its inspiration from Friedrich Von Hayek, author of “The Road to Serfdom.” Though the book is often referenced as a source exposing the tyranny of centralized planning and advocating for a free market economy, Hayek’s Fabian Society has a history raising many of the same questions raised by Father Sirico’s liberal history. According to many historians, Hayek’s book “moved American Conservatives in a more libertarian direction.” The Mont Pelerin Society appeared “when classic liberalism appeared dead” and “Hayek’s movement marked a decisive moment in liberalism resurgence, becoming the Fabian Society of renewed classical liberalism.” (Ayn Rand Cult, Jeff Walker, p. 292). It was the homosexual founder of the socialist Fabian Society, Edward Carpenter, whose book, The Intermediate Sex: A Study of Some Transitional Types of Men and Women, became a foundational text of the LGBT movement of the 20th century. (Socialism and LGBT Rights)

Centralized Planning or Not?

Consider the open collectivism being espoused by Tim Keller in the name of individual faith in action. How is the collective push of the Acton / Kern Curriculum toward a Faith and Work, Doctrine of Vocation and Halftime (the give back ideology of Bob Buford which is a continuation of LBJ / John Gardener’s Great Society), in fact, not centralized planning being done covertly inside the reformed seminary and eventually within the church walls?

Marvin Olasky, a Senior Fellow of the Acton Institute, is considered the father of Compassionate Conservatism who helped birth the Bush W. era Faith Based Partnership programs. Rev. Sirico seems to be calling for an end to these programs while espousing deeper involvement in Social Justice by evangelicals and Catholics. So whose funding (besides the massive corporate and private foundations) will pay for its expansion? Who gets to hold the purse strings if the funding is to be persuaded out of the churches and believers as they are sold wealth redistribution as a gospel mandate? And where does all of this circular and ideological, economic, theological, sociology, public relations, rebranding, blending of Reformation and Jesuit doctrine of Social Justice end – if not on an evangelical road to serfdom?

And who thinks it is intellectually honest to have taken the approach of a low flying stealth bomber upon trusting and unsuspecting evangelical borders in order to achieve these goals? If these are Gospel-centered mandates, there is no need for sleight of hand or radar masking technology. No shaming of Evangelicals out of even the use of the name “evangelical” or any other classic self-identification Christians may choose to actually identify as being part of the broader body of Christ. There is no need for the use of the same tired talking points to counter vintage Christianity in America and replace it with something devised by Acton or any other think tank in the Western Hemisphere. How is it that this new underground movement is now the historic Christian faith? They continue to tell us we must “rethink” our historic position on every major issue of the day. Which is it? How important is doctrine and theology to those at the ERLC and TGC if they have no caution or discernment about yoking with Acton (Sirico ) and Kern (who funds radical LGBTQ groups through Teach for America) and many other questionable partners? How much does Father Sirico’s reported closet homosexuality influence Acton’s Communications Officer, Joe Carter, who is simultaneously employed by the ERLC and the TGC?

And how do the ERLC and TGC assume we should respond to their efforts to redefine the faith for our families, our churches, our children and our grandchildren? Are we willing to sell the mission of the Church for liberal social justice? Are we blind to the realities Europe is facing with immigration and Islam while our evangelical leaders push for open borders with organizations funded by George Soros and Open Society Foundation? Do partners like Acton, Sirico, or the Kern Family Foundation share any of our biblically (as opposed to culturally relevant) views on human sexuality? Or are we failing to recognize the “beast” we are loosening with sexual liberation in the name of “loving our gay and lesbian neighbors,” Dr. Moore? Can you chart this path for us and for the Body of Christ and be guiltless before man and the Son of Man whose eyes are as a flame of fire and whose Word divides joint and marrow and discerns both the thoughts and intents of the heart?

It seems a moot point to ask how we got here given all we see the ERLC, TGC, Mohler, Keller and a host of others doing – acting like a rum-soaked Jack Sparrow with a broken compass, attempting to tell us where to find True North. There has never been a set of policies on the part of church leaders and its allies in government, think tanks, Institutes and halls of learning in the US that has so impacted both the mission and doctrine of the church and posed a more clear and present danger to collective religious freedom and living out personal deeply held Christian convictions. The question that remains is how do we, the Body of Christ, recover ourselves from the bondage of this misguided leadership?

Posted in Introduction | Leave a comment

Happy New Year From the LGBTQ ‘Rights’ Lobby aka HRC

Rev. Thomas Littleton

Living in Alabama has provided Christians and conservatives with a front row seat for the movements of the LGBTQ lobby. We saw Project One America launched by Human Rights Campaign in 2014 which lead to the formation and organization of HRC Alabama. This provided massive outside funding, staffing and training to focus on closing the deal on the LGBTQ package for Full Equality in the Heart of Dixie. Given Alabama’s long civil rights struggle, the effort has had a historic stage on which to play its public and political discourse.

All Politics are Local … Not Really

In the recent Roy Moore / GOP defeat (still in dispute from voter fraud allegations) in the State Senate special election, the local HRC leadership boasted of their role in securing the Democrat Doug Jones victory as the HRC and LGBTQ organizations had staffed his campaign. Here is that HRC quote on the extent of resources brought to the Jones campaign dated December 13th 2017.

“I don’t take the time to acknowledge the incredible work HRC does here in Alabama enough. But HRC had over 10 staffers working to elect Doug Jones here in Alabama. Coupled that with over 160 volunteers we logged over 580 hours of volunteer time for the campaign. Fellow board members flew in from Texas to help us on the ground, and steering committees from NYC, Atlanta, DC, and San Francisco logged hours in phone bank time for Doug Jones. HRC Alabama hosted over 20 volunteer events for the campaign. HRC partnered with Equality Alabama and others on all these efforts.
The point: Winning takes hard work, partnership, strategy and team work. Tonight it paid off. I am so grateful to all of you that volunteered, staff that came to help, and HRC family from all over the nation!”

Politicians Can Never Do Enough – Loyalty is Not a Virtue HRC Recognizes

The same LGBTQ lobby machinery on a smaller scale was used to elect a new Mayor, Randall Woodfin and unseat the City Council head in Birmingham, Alabama just a short time (October 4 2017) before. This is in spite of the fact that the previous Mayor William Bell was celebrated on the HRC blog in 2016 for rolling out the red carpet for a national HRC Board meeting in the city and, as an African American leader facilitated that welcome to include the piggybacking of LGBTQ equality on the Civil Rights history here. Bell’s city Council head Jonathan Austin (celebrated as well on the HRC 2017 victory blog ) had pushed through an LGBTQ antidiscrimination ordinance in the city just prior to the election guaranteeing protection in -access to public use- housing – and employment for LGBTQ in the city.

The ordinance includes intrusive limitations to the rights of Churches and religious organizations to allow access /use of their facilities and hiring of staff (with a narrow exception for those “performing a specific religious duty” ) to be done in keeping with the moral and spiritual convictions of the organizations faith. A Human Rights Commission paid for by taxpayers, and including members of HRC and paid activists, is being established to enforce the ordinance. Offenders will be brought before the tribunal /Commission and given a chance to recant of be recommended to the Municipal Court for trial and fines. Once more this is at taxpayers’ expense.

The Commission will then recommend the plaintiff to pro bono legal help for a Civil Court lawsuit. Birmingham residents have little knowledge of how their city is changing or of who is making it happen. Councilman Austin had introduced the ordinance in 2013 but was apparently too slow for the gay activists in getting it passed and failed in his reelection bid, as did Mayor Bell. Perhaps there is something to be learned from this HRC political betrayal for politicians everywhere. “What have you done for me lately?” appears to be the mantra of the LGBTQ rights lobby.

Local Focus by a National / International Cartel

HRC has big local plans nationwide for your city, county and state.

The $27 million (likely double that by now) budget was announced mid 2017 for 2018’s expansion of the Project One America nationwide. The local focus is continuing past criteria of grading your leadership while sharpening its efforts methods and emphasis in these three areas:

“ANTI-BULLYING  Beginning next year, the School District Anti-Bullying Policies standard will be replaced with a new bonus criterion—City Services Youth Bullying Prevention Policies. This category will reward cities with a maximum of two points for implementing policies that prohibit bullying on the express basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in all youth-facing city facilities and services.”

“RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS  To reflect the true scope of the citywide nondiscrimination laws assessed in Part I of the MEI scorecard, the 2018 MEI will deduct points for nondiscrimination ordinances that allow discrimination through religious exemptions that single out sexual orientation and/ or gender identity. Cities will lose one point for each Part I criterion to which a religious carve-out that singles out the LGBTQ community applies.”

“NEW CRITERIA Finally, the 2018 MEI will add two new bonus criteria—Single Occupancy All-Gender Facilities and Laws Protecting Youth from Conversion Therapy—as well as reintroduce the City Employee Domestic Partner Benefits standard as bonus points. Starting in 2018, cities that require all single-user sex-segregated facilities within the city like bathrooms and changing rooms to be all-gender will receive two bonus points. Cities that designate all single-occupancy facilities within its own buildings as all gender will receive half credit. All residents deserve the dignity and safety of equal access to facilities in accordance with their gender identity. Additionally, cities that enact laws to protect youth from the harmful and discredited practice of so-called “conversion therapy” will garner two bonus points. Conversion therapy refers to any effort to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity. It is based on the false notion that being LGBTQ is an illness that needs to be “cured.”


To be clear, your elected officials will be pressured to make your city compliant with ALL LGBTQ concepts of equality. This includes the “All Gender” bathroom access in all public restrooms, the abandonment of Reparative Therapy which, based on definitions from South Florida and other recent ordinances, will criminalize any non- affirming counsel on the part of church Pastors, School Counselors and even parents. Fines and punishment await those who dare tell a child that the LGBTQ lifestyle is harmful, sinful, or not recommended for healthy happy future. Perhaps the CDC should be indicted as well for its warnings on the health risk of LGBTQ.

In addition, Corporate America, which is under its own shakedown with the HRC Corporate Equality Index, is being used to apply pressure your local leadership. Gay lobby supporting corporation dangled a potential 60,000 new jobs before Birmingham residents and City Council in an announcement the same week as the local LGBTQ antidiscrimination ordinance vote came to the council room. HRC activists who spoke on behalf of their ordinance pointed to this “all important inclusive culture to attract corporations like Amazon to our city”.

No doubt 2018 is going to be an interesting year. Take a deep breath and consider doing something to “just say no” to the insanity – and the hijacking of your local representation.

Happy New Year.

3 January, 2018

Posted in Introduction | Leave a comment

Full Equality or Massive Mutual Loss – The Next Stop on the LGBTQ Train

Rev. Thomas Littleton

Birmingham, Alabama has a very long and legendary history in the struggle for racial equality. The Jim Crow Laws and fire hoses are burned into the collective global mind of two generations. Given the fact that the LGBTQ equality narrative has chosen Civil Rights as its host, it comes as no surprise that vast resources would be focused on our state by national organizations like the Human Rights Campaign. The Birmingham, Alabama Mayor, William Bell, welcomed the national board of HRC to Alabama in July 2015 and toured them through the local Civil Rights museum and historic sites pledging his, and the city’s, full support of the cause of LGBTQ equality.

On September 26, 2017, the mayor began to make good on that promise.

The City of Birmingham has now passed a Nondiscrimination Ordinance “to prohibit discrimination on the basis of a person’s real or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, or familial status; provide for a Human Rights Commission to act in an advisory role to the Mayor and the Council on matters related to eliminating discriminatory practices within the City; and provide for enforcement, and the hearing of all interested parties.”

After two weeks before the Council, the ordinance passed, adding LGBTQ sexual orientation, gender identity/ uncertainty/ fluidity (real or perceived) to the local laws of the city, establishing a Human Rights Commission of 11 panel members to serve as advisers to the Mayor and Council, and furthering “ongoing conversation” “toward future needs” of the “sexual underclass” citizens.

Selling Points

According to the representatives of Human Rights Campaign, Equality Alabama and the assortment of LGBTQ pride and activists groups who helped draft and drive the Ordinance, passage of the Equality Act by the City Council has:

“Ensured the safety of its citizens, especially previously unspecified minorities and children who select/identify as LGBTQAI and in particular “the young black or Hispanic gaybees who has no one to stand up for him/her (insert correct pronoun here) before.”

*The economic future of the city has now been secured as Birmingham becomes a leader as the first city in the State to provide such an ordinance. Businesses and corporations are “looking for and waiting for the city to prove their inclusiveness, welcoming, and tolerance as well as intolerance of sexual discrimination” according to the new era of sexual politics. (This ordinance and discussion comes as Amazon dangled a possible addition of 50,000 jobs in the area with a huge ad campaign the day before the ordinance vote.)

*Birmingham is now a cutting edge City on inclusion and opportunity.

Local Version of a National Goal

The Equality Act is the top priority for the ongoing massively funded march for sexual equality. According to HRC, The Equality Act “establishes explicit, permanent protections against discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity in matters of employment, housing, access to public places, federal funding, credit, education and jury service. In addition, it would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in federal funding and access to public places.”  It would do so by adding LGBTQ, sexual orientation and gender identity to the 1964 Civil Rights Act and every federal antidiscrimination law. (According the HRC, 7 in 10 Americans support The Equality Act when, in fact, few Americans even know about it.)

Real Religious Freedom or Limited Freedom for the Affirming and Compliant?

What was not discussed about the Birmingham Ordinance was the section (e) Exception (exemption) clause that allows said exceptions to “Religious corporations, associations, or societies that employ an individual of a particular religion to perform work CONNECTED WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES BY THE CORPORATION, ASSOCIATION, OR SOCIETY.” This would perhaps, for the moment, protect churches and ministries in the hiring of Pastoral staff but extends NO protections to other positions of employment. The issue of ACCESS is also central to the ordinance and offers no protections to churches or religious groups to deny hosting an LGBTQ wedding or event. HRC and other pro LGBTQ groups have a long history of fighting ANY and ALL religious exemptions and exceptions as “license to discriminate.”  In this ordinance, the language for the exception is VERY limited and opens the pathway to gaining future ground in forcing LGBTQ goals on religious groups with the backing of the city, city attorney, and under the shadow of both criminal and civil court action.

The Opposition Speaks?

Birmingham churches and religious groups who have not jumped the shark to affirm homosexuality were all but missing in action. ONE articulate African American pastor stood in line to offer reasoned opposition to the Ordinance. His points were well made but ignored. Pointing to the Civil Rights struggles in Birmingham’s history, he shamed the Council members for “allowing their history to have sexual and political agendas piggyback onto it and for being blackmailed by threats of being targeted by sexual activist groups come election time.” The pastor also made the point that “Sodom and the cities of the plain in Genesis 19 had allowed sexual minorities into the power structures of their civilization and that had not ended well.”

What IS Being Lost?

We are indeed in a new era as we allow for religious freedom and those who have “deeply held religious convictions” regarding family, sexuality, marriage, gender to be forced by laws at the local level, and in time federally, to be charged, convicted, fined and sued for living by those convictions in the workplace, the public square and EVEN in their own HOUSES OF WORSHIP. The greater irony that few in the LGBTQ advocacy camp pause to realize – as they celebrate these hard fought victories – is that once religious freedom is limited, narrowed, controlled and denied for some, Religious Freedom – a Core Value of the individual freedoms – is LOST for EVERYONE.

Behind the evening’s celebrations at a local venue there stood a silent reality ignored by the enthusiastic well-paid activists of HRC and Equality Alabama and other local LGBTQ groups – their hard work and efforts are paying off, but not the way they think or are celebrating. As Human Rights are redefined, personal liberties narrowed and denied, persecution and discrimination not stopped but reversed into the mainstream, and even the biological and health realities of gender and sexuality displaced by policy and politics, their own realities are changing without notice. Suddenly what it means to be human and what it means to be free is no longer fixed by a Bill of Rights recognized as endowed by their (our) Creator, but have fallen victim to their own emotional rhetoric and the hidden agendas of the money behind these movements. These young activists and their zeal for sexual liberation and celebrations to “live as their true selves” are being USED and, in the process, Freedom – theirs and ours – is quickly evaporating.

Posted in Introduction | Leave a comment

Cultural Marxism in the Church: From the Gospel of Jesus Christ to Sympathy for the Devil


Rosaria Champagne Butterfield is a former lesbian who was a tenured professor at Syracuse University where her primary areas of study were “Freud, Marx, Darwin,” “Critical Theory” and “Queer Theory.” In October of 2014, Rosaria Butterfield made her debut at the SBC’s Ethics & Religious Liberties Commission National Conference on “The Gospel, Homosexuality and the Future of Marriage.”  At this strange event to which homosexual activist organizations were invited, Rosaria Butterfield was introduced by Albert Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and interviewed by Russell Moore, President of the ERLC.  Dr. Mohler is a Founding Fellow of the Research Institute of the ERLC.

The alleged purpose of the ERLC is to protect religious liberty, however, the organization is also an NGO of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. Membership in this powerful globalist body requires not only agreement with, but also promotion of, the goals of the U.N., which include abortion and LGBT rights worldwide. Non-Governmental Organizations of the U.N. profess to advocate for causes like human rights, religious freedom and responsible government, however, the reality is that they execute political and corporate agendas by proxy.

So we are not surprised that the ERLC would feature speakers who advocate for gays and lesbians in the Church, on the pretext that these gays and lesbians embrace celibacy. Knowing how well celibacy has worked in the Catholic Church, the ERLC also featured an Oxford educated gay celibate priest in the Church of England. The Church of England also has consultative NGO status at the United Nations through the Anglican Communion.

The previous year in the UK, in July 2013, Parliament passed legislation to allow same-sex marriage in England and Wales.  On July 17 the Queen granted Royal Assent to the Bill which became The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013. The legislation was enacted on March 13, 2014, and the first same-sex marriages took place on March 29, 2014.

Following The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act of 2013, the House of Bishops of the Church of England published the Pillings Report on meetings held by a Working Group on Human Sexuality since July 2011.  The purpose of the Pillings Report was to sway the Anglican Bishops to sanction gay and lesbian marriages in the churches, since the Queen who is the Head of the Church of England gave Royal Assent and Parliament was hotly debating the legislation.  In the Bishops’ Working Group, the process of dialoguing to consensus seemed to be stalled on the thorny problem of what the Scriptures on homosexuality mean and if Scripture was the final word on human sexuality.

“It is worth, at this stage, setting out the nub of the disagreement – the sticking point, as we understand it, which has prevented us from coming closer as a result of our deliberations. It turns, as has the Church’s ongoing disagreement on questions of sexuality, on the meaning and authority of Scripture.” (p. 15)

The Pillings Report concluded that, although many verses and passages in Scripture condemn homosexuality, they only applied to the period of time in which they were written. “Inclusive Evangelicals” argued that the “faithful same-sex relationships” of contemporary culture are different than the sodomy God declared to be reprobate in their cultural context and therefore should not be condemned by the Church today:

“‘Including Evangelicals’… IEs, with others, have come to believe that there is place for faithful same sex relationships in the Church…. Careful study and conversation persuades them there are fresh exegetical challenges to long-held convictions about what Scripture teaches. This is undoubtedly influenced by the greater openness to same sex relationships in society as a whole and thus to the reality of lives most personally shaped by it…

“Debates on same sex relationships focus all too quickly on ‘The Texts’ – those six or seven passages in the Bible that actually speak of homosexuality or homosexual activity. IEs, along with other ‘revisionists’, are frequently asked to supply texts that support their view that Scripture supports same sex relationships. They cannot do so because there are none. But the lack of explicit biblical teaching on significant social and ethical issues is not the same as claiming there are no scriptural grounds to support a particular viewpoint…

“Christian history warns of the hazards of using texts alone to establish the biblical teaching on any issue… In more recent debate there has been a move away from a focus on individual texts towards a concern to read them in the context of the wider biblical narrative…

“Genesis 18–19 – The sin of Sodom. IEs question whether this notorious story has anything directly to say about faithful same sex relationships. However, its actual concern is very relevant to, and all too often ignored, in this debate. This concerns the covenant obligation to honour the stranger in the midst. What happens in Sodom is in direct contrast to what happened earlier at Abraham’s tent. That hospitality, not homosexuality, is the issue here is made clear by Lot’s protest to those who come demanding access to his guests. He does not say – ‘do not do this because homosexuality is wrong’, but ‘do not do this because they have come under my roof’ (19.8). In Ezekiel 16 the sin of Sodom is ‘pride’ and inhospitality. The message is clear. Hospitality offered leads to blessing. Hospitality rejected leads to destruction…

“Those few texts that have traditionally been presumed to establish a clear biblical ‘mind’ on this subject need more careful interpretation within the actual concerns of their own cultural context. When this is done their relevance to the contemporary debate is significantly called into question. IEs believe that in this area of human living and relating we have not read or taught Scripture well.

“Is this that? IEs are not persuaded that those Scriptures that make reference to homosexual activity are describing contemporary expressions of faithful same sex relationships. Indeed the comparison can be deeply offensive. It is questionable whether the contemporary expression of faithful same sex relationships is known in the Bible at all.”

The purpose of this two year dialectic (2011-2013) was to gradually move Anglican congregants who held to the Scriptures, or traditional morals, closer to affirming what the Crown had declared to be legal. And so the “celibate” homosexual priest, Sam Allberry, was brought out of the closet to elicit sympathy for gay people who felt marginalized by the Church of England.  Using the Church of England’s strategy in the United States, religious leaders such as Albert Mohler and Russell Moore have promoted gay priest, Sam Allberry, and former lesbian, Rosaria Butterfield, to project guilt on Christians for excluding gays and lesbians from membership in the church.  Meanwhile, in June of 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states.

A dialectical war is being waged against Christians and Christian churches to draw them away from the Word of God to a new so-called “conservative view,” that is, to welcome “gay celibate Christians” and eventually “gay Christians” into Church membership. The dialectical process is a direct assault on the Word of God intended to gradually move the Church away from it through protracted conflict in order to wear down the resolve and steadfastness of the Saints until consensus is reached.

In Stage 1, the Word of God is ruthlessly attacked by outside forces demanding that it be interpreted to conform to the secular culture, leading seeker-friendly and doctrinally unstable churches to negotiate a compromise on the issue of homosexuality. Adherents representing both sides—Thesis and Antithesis—debate until a Synthesis of both sides of the issue is agreed upon.  At the end of Stage 1, the Word of God is compromised.

Thesis (Word of God) + Antithesis (Same-Sex Marriage) = Synthesis (Gay Celibate “Christians” in Church)

However, allowing “celibate gay Christians,” also referred to as “same-sex attracted” or SSA Christians, to join Christian churches is merely a ploy to open the church doors to “non-celibate” homosexuals. It has already happened in one major church that, after gay celibate Christians were allowed into the membership, it was found they could not or chose not to remain celibate. So the pastor dropped the condition of celibacy for “Gay Christians” to be received into the membership of the church. Thus the compromise (Synthesis) replaces the Thesis (Word of God), leading to yet another compromise—a new consensus or Synthesis.

Thesis (Gay Celibate Christians) + Antithesis (Same-Sex Marriage) = Synthesis (Gay Non-Celibate Christians in Church)

Eventually, non-celibate homosexuals will be married in that church, if they aren’t already. Thus, the Synthesis again becomes the new Thesis and the dialectic is carried forward until the Antithesis becomes the Synthesis, which is the predetermined outcome of the dialectical process for all Christian churches.

Thesis (Gay Non-Celibate “Christians” in Church) + Antithesis (Same-Sex Marriage) = Synthesis (Same-Sex Marriage in Church)

It is already happening that an organization promoted by The Gospel Coalition is advocating for sexually active LGBTs to be welcomed into Christian churches. And this will not be the end of the sexual revolution in the Church.  Emboldened by their success in legitimizing “gay Christians,” liberals are clamoring for the Christian Church to affirm yet “another relational orientation: polyamory.” “Polyamory” is a euphemism for adultery.

“But quietly, there are the thousands of faithful Christians who practice polyamory — living lives of giftedness, dignity, and worth, but receiving next-to-no spiritual support. This raises an important question. Where are the serious public conversations about this? Why aren’t most LGBTQ-affirming churches being equally vocal about their affirmation of polyamorous people?”

To launch this dialectical process in the U.S., the Church of England’s key dialectic partner, a homosexual priest, was invited to America, to the ERLC National Convention to promote the “new conservative” position on homosexuality in the Church, along with a former lesbian whose academic expertise was Cultural Marxism: Freud, Marx, Darwin, Critical Theory and Queer Theory. Typically, facilitators of the “gay Christian” dialectic have advanced degrees from liberal universities which are training centers for Cultural Marxists.


German philosopher Georg Hegel (1770-1831) hypothesized that history unfolds through dialectical processes of thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Karl Marx (1818-1883) adapted Hegel’s dialectical philosophy to the Communist Manifesto of agitating the masses toward world revolution.  But alas for Marx and his successors the proletariat did not revolt against the bourgeoisie as planned when they witnessed the brutality and carnage of Communism; therefore a different strategy was needed to overthrow Western Civilization. In 1923, the Communist International funded a group of Jewish intellectuals to set up the Institute of Social Science at Frankfurt am Main—where also the Jewish banking family, the House of Rothschild, had long been established.

Frankfurt School Cultural Marxism

“The early beginnings of the Frankfurt School emphasised the reformulation of Marxism. The Marxist proletariat revolution was not going according to plan, as signified by World War I (the working classes, rather than aligning with their class, gave preference to their nations and fought each other), and by the socialist regimes under Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin in Russia spawned by the 1917 Bolshevik revolution. Marxist intellectuals gathered in the Weimar Republic to discuss why the revolution had not taken place in Europe, and returned to the drawing board to perform a ‘searching reexamination of the very foundations of Marxist theory with the dual hope of explaining past errors and preparing for future action.’ The Frankfurt School was explicitly created to do this research and planning ‘to become a major force in the revitalization of Western European Marxism in the postwar years.’

“As they reworked Marxist theories they developed a new strain of Marxism that gave priority to the radical transformation of the cultural superstructure (foundations) of Western civilization. They perceived Christianity and Western cultural traditions as obstacles to the revolution, which needed to be severed at their roots. This Marxist ideology came to be called cultural Marxism, a non-violent but revolutionary collectivist ideology that seeks the gradual gain of power via the modification of laws, institutions, and social organisations.

“Other than [Karl Korsch (1886-1961)], there were three European Marxist theorists who had a significant impact on Frankfurt School cultural Marxism: in the initial founding stages, Georg Lukács (1885-1971), and in the later stages, Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937) and Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979), whose writings were particularly influential in the 1960s, especially on the British-created Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, or the Birmingham School (1964) and the counter-culture movement and the New Left.

“While he was Deputy Commissar Lukács sought to destroy society along with the traditional values of the West, writing: ‘I saw the revolutionary destruction of society as the one and only solution,’ and:’ ‘A worldwide overturning of values cannot take place without the annihilation of the old values and the creation of new ones by the revolutionaries.’ His methods became known as cultural terrorism.  One of these methods to undermine traditional Western culture was the introduction of a radical sex education program; ‘special lectures and supportive literature were developed to instruct Hungarian children’ about free love and sexual intercourse, to repudiate middle class family codes of monogamy, and ‘to deride and ignore the authority of parental authority, and precepts of traditional morality.’ In addition, the promiscuity and rebellion of women against patriarchy was promoted.

“Lukács participated in the 1922 Marxist work week in Thuringia, and thus helped found the Frankfurt School. In 1923 he published History and Class Consciousness, the same year that Korsch published his Marxism and Philosophy. Lukács argued that the Christian cultural institutions of the West were oppressive, intolerant, and had ‘blinded’ people ‘to their true class interests’ (Bill Lind, The Origins of Political Correctness). He wanted to destroy the cultural institutions of the West so that power would ‘fall into their laps like ripened fruit’ and the Communist state could be created.15

“Lukács also influenced the Frankfurt School development of Critical Theory.”

Thus, the founding Marxists of the Frankfurt Institute set out to destroy the traditional values of Western civilization by declaring war on the family: “…the introduction of a radical sex education program; ‘special lectures and supportive literature were developed to instruct Hungarian children’ about free love and sexual intercourse, to repudiate middle class family codes of monogamy, and ‘to deride and ignore the authority of parental authority, and precepts of traditional morality.’ In addition, the promiscuity and rebellion of women against patriarchy was promoted.” In Hungary, however, Georg Lukacs’ sexual revolution was aborted by Roman Catholics whose “bishops asked the community not to follow the world. Not to cooperate with the communists.” (Dr. Anca-Maria Cernea)

“Lukacs was well-suited to the Comintern task: he had been one of the Commissars of Culture during the short-lived Hungarian Soviet in Budapest in 1919; in fact, modern historians link the shortness of the Budapest experiment to Lukacs’ orders mandating sex education in the schools, easy access to contraception, and the loosening of divorce laws—all of which revulsed Hungary’s Roman Catholic population.” (The Frankfurt School: Bolshevik Intelligentsia)

“In 1918, a man named György Lukács became the minister of culture in the short-lived Communist government of Béla Kun in Hungary. Being of the opinion that Marxist theory could only be implemented where the family unit and sexual morals were broken down, Lukács implemented a bold program of social reform that mandated sex education in schools. The Hungarian people were horrified by this outrage, as well as other aspects of the Kun regime, and this Marxist government of Hungary lasted only about 180 days. Sadly, 1949 would bring a much longer lasting Communist regime…” (Cultural Marxism Versus The Church)

In 1933, the Frankfurt Marxist Jews fled Nazi Germany and were welcomed by the U.S. There they set up shop at Columbia University and proceeded to apply their “critical theory” to American culture.

The Frankfurt School and Critical Theory

“The Frankfurt School, also known as the Institute of Social Research (Institut für Sozialforschung), is a social and political philosophical movement of thought located in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. It is the original source of what is known as Critical Theory. The Institute was founded, thanks to a donation by Felix Weil in 1923, with the aim of developing Marxist studies in Germany. The Institute eventually generated a specific school of thought after 1933 when the Nazis forced it to close and move to the United States, where it found hospitality at Columbia University, New York.

“The academic influence of the ‘critical’ method is far reaching in terms of educational institutions in which such tradition is taught and in terms of the problems it addresses. Some of its core issues involve the critique of modernities and of capitalist society, the definition of social emancipation and the perceived pathologies of society. Critical theory provides a specific interpretation of Marxist philosophy and reinterprets some of its central economic and political notions such as commodification, reification, fetishization and critique of mass culture…”

Fast forward to 2017 in the United States of America:

How The Cultural Marxists Of The Frankfurt School Subverted American Education

“Perhaps you’ve wondered why so many college professors are so left-wing.  In your freshman year, you might have noted with dread—as I did—some of your fellow students ‘going with the flow’ and molding their beliefs to fit in.  Perhaps one of them was you, before you grew up and snapped out of it!  The Frankfurt School is the answer to why so many universities are Social Justice Warrior factories.

The origins of the Frankfurt School

“They found themselves unwelcome in Germany during the 1930s, and one of the two reasons was that all of them were Communists.  They moved to the USA, settling down in Columbia University.  How did they repay the country that gave them refuge?  By subverting it, of course.  If all this sounds like McCarthyist alarmism, note that the Communists themselves claim them.

“Because the proletariat just wasn’t interested in revolution, they rebranded Communism, taking out the elements of class struggle, and adding contributions from Freudian theory.  This was a mistake; Communism emphasized hard work and heroism; that much is respectable even if the rest of the ideology is badly flawed…”

Marx and Engels also mocked homosexuality; Stalin and Castro criminalized sodomy.  Today, however, Mariela Castro, the daughter of Raul Castro and a member of Parliament, is leading the LGBT movement which is supported by the Cuban government.

How Cultural Marxism took root

“They had two strategies:  ensconcing themselves into academia, and the criticism of society (hence ‘critical theory’).  Ultimately, this meant ideological subversion and basically badgering society to death.  (It seems incredible that they did so much without picking up a single rifle.)  They stressed moral relativism and the ‘question everything’ atmosphere that became the 1960s counterculture zeitgeist.  A few of their books, such as Eros and Civilization by Herbert Marcuse and The Authoritarian Personality by Theodor Adorno, have become classics in academia.

“Many of their students graduated and became professors elsewhere, just in time for the 1960s.  Young people are at the most impressionable time of their lives, so indoctrinating college students was a very effective strategy.  It’s little wonder that campuses became hotbeds of student activism!  College draft deferments surely helped them reach more students sympathetic to their message.

“Further, the ideological seeds of the Frankfurt School—along with the Communist Party USA—fell onto fertile ground.  There were several groups that they—cultural Marxists and garden variety Communists—infiltrated and subverted, for instance:

“There was already a feminist movement, mostly moderate and mostly simply about equal rights (a goal which was nearly complete by then).  Under leftist influence, second wave feminism began, which was anything but moderate and effectively about deconstructing society.

“There was already a beatnik counterculture.  With a little encouragement, this became a much larger youth counterculture, the hippies.  Having a significant toehold in academia put the Critical Theory folks in a very good position to influence the young Baby Boomers.

“There was already a civil rights movement, which the Communists had put a lot of effort into influencing.  This included figures such as W.E.B. DuBois, Paul Robeson, Stanley Levison (MLK’s top advisor), and Frank Marshall Davis (called ‘Pops’ in Obama’s autobiography).

“The gay movement was heavily influenced in the beginning by the Mattachine Society, founded by Harry Hay, of which most members were Communists.”

The Cultural Marxists were also ensconced in the churches, notably the United Methodist Church which was on the vanguard of promoting Gay Liberation. Their publication,  motive Magazine, was circulated from 1941 to 1972.  It was pro Gay and pro-Communist.  The final issue of motive  looks and sounds every bit like publications of the LGBTQ today.

“motive (always spelled with a lowercase “m”) was the official magazine for the Methodist Student Movement from its founding in 1941 and, for a few years at the end of its life, for the entire University Christian Movement (UCM). Much celebrated even at the time for its avant garde editorial and artistic vision, in 1966 Time magazine said it stood out among church publications “like a miniskirt at a church social.” It was the single runner-up to Life as Magazine of the Year in 1965. Ultimately, its strong stands on civil rights, Vietnam, and emerging gender issues became more than the Methodist Church officials could take. The magazine ceased publication in 1972. Even so, an entire generation of religious activists were shaped by its vision.”

That generation of activists included Hillary Rodham Clinton who now aspires to become a Methodist minister.

“A new Washington Post story about Hillary Clinton’s time as Secretary of State describes her as “a wonky Methodist who believes she is supposed to make good things happen.” Clinton has in the past credited motive magazine as an important formative influence.”

Returning to “How The Cultural Marxists Of The Frankfurt School Subverted American Education”…

Connecting the dots

“Earlier I had assumed that the Frankfurt School was an independent movement, with no particular encouragement or guidance from the USSR.  Actually, it’s a little more complicated than that.  Franz Leopold Neumann, identified by the Venona decrypts as a Soviet spy, was in contact with leading figures Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and also the spy Hede Massing, the wife of Paul Massing (another Frankfurt school figure).  Later, he became a professor at Columbia University…

“…KGB defector, Yuri Bezmenov noted that only 15% of the KGB’s efforts were spying; the other 85% went into ideological subversion; this is what he was assigned to do in India, until he got disgusted with it and escaped.  He explained,

“‘It’s a great brainwashing process, which goes very slow[ly] and is divided [into] four basic stages. The first one [is] demoralization; it takes from 15-20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years which [is required] to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy, exposed to the ideology of the enemy. In other words, Marxist-Leninist ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least three generations of American students, without being challenged, or counter-balanced by the basic values of Americanism (American patriotism).

“The result? The result you can see. Most of the people who graduated in the sixties (drop-outs or half-baked intellectuals) are now occupying the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media, [and the] educational system. You are stuck with them. You cannot get rid of them. They are contaminated; they are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern. You cannot change their mind[s], even if you expose them to authentic information, even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still cannot change the basic perception and the logic of behavior. In other words, these people… the process of demoralization is complete and irreversible. To [rid] society of these people, you need another twenty or fifteen years to educate a new generation of patriotically-minded and common sense people, who would be acting in favor and in the interests of United States society.’

Memetic warfare

“Even though the Soviet Union fell apart twenty five years ago, the memes they launched are still out there.  Many of the students the Frankfurt School taught became teachers and professors, who taught another batch of teachers and professors, and they’re now indoctrinating our youth.  Some others became ensconced in the media or in government positions.  This is what Italian Communist theoretician Antonio Gramsci called ‘the long march through the institutions.’ Only a fraction identifies with Communism, but they still practice the party line even if few are aware of where their views originated.

“If you’ve ever wondered where all of today’s Social Justice Warriors came from, now you know the story.”

The Cultural Marxists’ “long march through the institutions” has encountered little opposition as it marches through the Christian Church—which the Italian Communist, Antonio Gramsci, recognized was the foundation of Western Civilization and the foremost obstacle to Marxist revolution.

“Gramsci’s signal contribution was to liberate the Marxist project from the prison of economic dogma, thereby dramatically enhancing its ability to subvert Christian society… The civilized world, Gramsci deduced, had been thoroughly saturated with Christianity for 2,000 years and Christianity remains the dominant philosophical and moral system in Europe and North America. Practically speaking, civilization and Christianity were inextricably bound together. Christianity had become so thoroughly integrated into the daily lives of nearly everyone, including non-Christians living in Christian lands, it was so pervasive, that it formed an almost impenetrable barrier to the new, revolutionary civilization Marxists wish to create. Attempting to batter down that barrier proved unproductive, since it only generated powerful counter-revolutionary forces, consolidating them and making them potentially deadly. Therefore, in place of the frontal attack, how much more advantageous and less hazardous it would be to attack the enemy’s society subtly, with the aim of transforming the society’s collective mind gradually, over a period of a few generations, from its former Christian worldview into one more harmonious to Marxism.” (Gramsci’s Grand Plan)

Reformed Pastor Bret McAtee has written many short but informative articles exposing the ideology of Marxism/Cultural Marxism and its subversion of the Christian Church and Western culture. In the following essay, which is posted with permission, Pastor McAtee identifies the main tactics employed by cultural Marxists to subvert Christianity.

The Cultural Marxist Toolbox

“The small and powerless minorities which struggle against the false consciousness and its beneficiaries must be helped. Their continued existence is more important than the preservation of abused rights and liberties which grant constitutional power to those who oppress these minorities.” Herbert Marcuse, The Frankfurt School

“This ‘false consciousness,’ which one of the truly great Cultural Marxists railed against was the consciousness which has been shaped and formed by thousands of years of Christianity upon the West. It was this ‘false consciousness’ that Marcuse and his cohorts at the Frankfurt School desired to overthrow and so the oppressed must be protected from this ‘false consciousness’ even if it meant denying the proper protection of law to those who were designed as the ‘oppressors.’ In this quote Marcuse is styling his worldview and beliefs as the true consciousness vis-a-vis the false consciousness that he and his ideological soul mates were waging civilizational war against.

“This false consciousness would be overthrown by use of the tool-kit developed by the Cultural Marxists. These tools came to be known as,

Critical theory

“In Cultural Marxism via the work of critical theory, every aspect of a person’s identity is to be questioned, be it gender, sexual orientation, family, race, culture, religion, in order to benefit supposedly oppressed groups. By deconstructing heretofore stable and unchanging identity social categories (part of the false consciousness problem) those who were part of moral, ethnic, racial, and religious minority groups could pull down and destroy the whole idea of norms that arise in cultures that are comprised of distinct majorities.

“The underlying and enduring aspect of critical theory common to all its multitudinous expressions is the creation and application of interdisciplinary theories growing out of a worldview dedicated to overturning the false consciousness of traditional Christian thought and social order and so serving as an instrument of social transformation. Critical theory comes in all shapes, sizes, and expressions but the one thing it has in common is criticizing any residual influence of Christianity that remains on any and all of our Western institutions and disciplines. It typically expresses itself as the voice of the oppressed and the aggrieved and in doing so seeks to employ ‘social justice’ and ‘fairness’ as the sting within the theory. However, in order to do so Critical theory must invert and redefine almost all realities in order to be able to secure the superior position of the oppressed.

The New Proletariat

“The Cultural Marxists empirically observed that Marxism, in its classical expression, failed when it posited that there was automatic friction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Because of this observation, the Cultural Marxists understood that if the West was going to be a cake turned then what was required was the creation of both a new model and a new proletariat that would serve the purpose of providing the necessary friction and manpower in order to achieve Marxist transformation.

“The Cultural Marxists finally conceived of both new model and new proletariat when it changed the old class model of have vs. have not to the new model of oppressor vs. oppressed. The oppressed was thus to the agenda of Cultural Marxism what the working class proletariat was to the agenda of Classical Marxism. Just as in Classical Marxism there remained the sense of grievance in this new proletariat but instead of the grievance being based on an economic pivot Cultural Marxism chose the pivot of the unprivileged oppressed outcast as the tool by which to achieve social transformation in a Marxist direction. Having chosen that pivot it then worked to propagandize a large number of groups that they were both oppressed and that their identity as humans should be tied up with their oppression.

“Concretely speaking, the new Cultural Marxist proletariat — those who would do the yeoman work of the cultural Marxist march through the Institutions — would be comprised of all who would believe the critical theory propaganda that they were underprivileged and oppressed. Those successfully propagandized and recruited were feminists, ethnic minorities, and the sexually deviant. These were the new proletariat oppressed and they would fight against the new bourgeoisie who were cast as the oppressors. The new bourgeoisie were cast as Christian patriarchy, Heterosexual Married, the white majority (especially white males), people who insist that gender is binary (CIS-gender), and most emphatically Christians who rejected this Cultural Marxist social construct template. Ironically the new social construct that the cultural Marxist created used as one of its chief tools for social transformation the idea that previous normativity itself was merely social construct. In the cultural Marxist world, the oppressors were successful as oppressors because they had managed to force their social constructs on the oppressed. The work of the critical theory was to expose these putative social constructs for what they were.


“In order of this to happen then, the previous normativity must be shamed and countered by the recruitment and so rise of a new normativity. For example, heterosexual marriage must be challenged by other forms of sexuality as mainstreamed into the social order.  For example, since whites are oppressor then new slogans like ‘diversity is our strength,’ as combined with immigration policies which will decrease the overall percentage total of whites must be pursued. For example, if patriarchy is oppressive then matriarchy and anarchy is the solution. For example, if CIS-gender is merely a dominant social construct then transgenderism must be injected into the blood stream of the West. For example if Christianity is oppressive then a two pronged approach must be employed. First, Christianity must be emptied of its previous content and filled with the ideology of Cultural Marxism as its new content and second, those Christians who refuse to be re-programmed must be marginalized and diluted by bringing in teeming numbers of Muslim immigrants.

“The ground for all this was set by Theodore Adorno’s book ‘The Authoritarian Personality,’ wherein Adorno patholigizes what had always been considered normative. By the time Adorno is finished patriarchy, patriotism, familialism, and the Christian faith are all given the bum’s rush and characterized as signs of sickness. Of course the consequence of this, if taken seriously, is a social order that is rootless, international, alienated, and godless. These are the very characteristics which are descriptive of the West as a result of the canker that is cultural Marxism.

“The ground being set, the Cultural Marxist advance is made by use of the technique of shaming. Shaming occurs when labels are affixed to people for perfectly normal behavior. For example, if one is white and desirous of living in a homogeneous neighborhood or attend a homogeneous church one is shamed with catcalls of ‘racist,’ or ‘Islamaphobe,’ or ‘homophobe,’ or ‘Un-Christian.’ However when large influxes of differing people groups are relocated into Western cities (Lewiston, Maine comes to mind) with the natural result that these groups create their own sub-culture where homogeneity is characteristic this is called the benefit of multiculturalism. Shaming is saved for the majority White Christian. Normativity is reserved for the alien and the stranger.

Political Correctness

“A further tool for the advance of Cultural Marxism is the tool of Political correctness. Political correctness has many expressions but we will consider its use as a tool of thought control by way of linguistic manipulation. Political correctness controls thought by creating taboos in speech usage as enforced via social stigmatization. Words that cannot be said become words that will not be thought.  This thought control is ubiquitous on American campuses today as riots ensue when certain speech is to be expressed. The recent riots on University campuses against Charles Murray and before him Milo Yiannopoulos provide proof.

“This thought control is also achieved by seeking to control the language by scandalizing language that does not serve the purposes of the Cultural Marxist. Examples of this abound. Most recently the phrase ‘anchor baby’ created a firestorm. The Cultural Marxists insisted that this was a pejorative. However, it is only a pejorative if you assume their worldview. By insisting that this phrase dare not be uttered the Cultural Marxists were advancing their agenda and their worldview. Instead they began to insist that the phrased, ‘citizen children of unauthorized immigrants’ be used in its place. But of course, the very issue up for debate is whether such children should be citizens. By using their language they win the debate. Another example is ‘illegal immigrant.’ Despite the fact that those immigrants which are here illegally are indeed, by definition, ‘illegal immigrants,’ the Cultural Marxists demand that these people be referred to as ‘undocumented workers.’ Such language advances their worldview and agenda. Control the language, control the thinking. Control the language and the thinking control the outcome. One more example will suffice. What we today call ‘affirmative action,’ is the triumph of political correctness. ‘Affirmative action,’ is in reality ethnic discrimination but many can’t see that because of the thought control achieved by our cultural mind masters.

“In the end Cultural Marxism as an ideology has as a goal the elimination of all stigmatization except the stigmatization of those who believe that stigmatism has a proper and necessary role in any social order. In the Cultural Marxist world oppressed and oppressor categories will eliminated with the consequence that stigma will be ended. The pedophile and tranny will be just as normal as the heterosexual and the Christian. In reality what will happen is that God’s normal will be stigmatized and maybe even criminalized.”

These summaries of the history, agenda and tactics of Cultural Marxism are presented as an introduction to the following expose of the agents and strategies that Cultural Marxists within the Christian community are employing to subvert Christianity. The cultural Marxists who are invading the Church are not the strident Social Justice Warriors of the radical Left, but are a fifth column stealthily infiltrating the Church to destroy it from within. This expose will hopefully equip Christians to identify cultural Marxist infiltrators and recognize their tactics. Already, prominent church leaders, instead of upholding sound doctrine and protecting the Church, are promoting those who teach the Cultural Marxist doctrines of demons and heap criticism on Christians for having the mind of Christ regarding sexual perversion. Meanwhile, these same church leaders meet secretly with gay rights organizations which are demanding that Christian denominations remove homosexuality from their “sin list” and welcome sodomites into their membership.

The hour is late and the need is urgent for Christians to discern the spirits, whether they be of God, and to contend earnestly for the faith that was once delivered to the Saints.

“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.” Jude 1:3-4

“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” 1 John 4:1



Posted in Introduction | Leave a comment

The Gospel Coalition: Aging, Resourced, and Less (Historically) Reformed

By Thomas Littleton

Dredging through the social media aftermath of the 2017 SBC annual meetings in Phoenix might seem a thankless task and to some a sad waste of time.  However the presence of the much talked about “Alt-Right Resolution” had many wondering why the persistent racial reconciliation issues continue coming to the floor after years of effort to lay the tired horse of racial accusation to rest.  One plausible if not highly likely answer is there is more to come.  Making the issue of race central to the SBC discussion continues to provide an open door for all things civil rights related.  Understanding progressive methodology can avoid two serious missteps in the near future as well as aid in looking down the road at the goals of “modern day reformers” under the Baptist umbrella.

One very curious find from the social media outlets of convention attendees was the Founders Ministries interview with Tom Ascol and Mark Dever of The Gospel Coalition.  In this short video at about minute 14 is a discussion of Dever’s early friendship with Dr. Albert Mohler.  The information Dever shares is worth considering for a moment in the light of things like the Alt-Right resolution and other misfit progressive rhetoric in Phoenix and from the ERLC / Russell Moore and other TGC members.

In the interview Ascol mentions having boxes of letters from Dever and one in particular about a bright young seminary student who Dever is requesting prayer for.  That student was Al Mohler.  Dever describes the Mohler he knew at Southern for over a year and a half whose “biography has sort of changed over the years.”

Dever further says something to the effect that:

“Al was inconsistent in his own thinking. He became editor of the Christian Index in Georgia and I was in England, reading those editorials and was surprised how conservative they were.  He sort of nailed his colors to the door and those weren’t even his colors three years before.  I could see where conservative people at Southern thought he had turn coated and was being trained for a position.”

Dever describes Al as an orthodox evangelical student who was dealing with the liberal influences at Samford in Birmingham and was in a tension, not having a category for what the was hearing at a Baptist University.  “He gets to Southern and that is exacerbated.” Then in his doctoral work with Timothy George he is “learning about Augustine and Calvin and that causes even more tension.”

Dever adds “when I met Al he was not an inerrantist.  Also he was egalitarian. I don’t think he was comfortable” with the tension. “Al’s liberal friends were right that he changed. They were wrong that he changed for power.  He really did change.”  Is Dever saying Mohler left his liberal friends dazed and confused as well?

Perhaps not everyone will find this interview as revealing or insightful as some of us who remain baffled by Al Mohler and others like his protégé Russell Moore.  For old school conservatives who live with black and white perceptions of reality in the current proverbial wind tunnel of cultural upheaval, Mohler is a mixture at best.  He has without doubt one of the broadest platforms in evangelicalism, yet he and Moore and other Southern teammates often sound like a chorus from an out of tune brass section both confusing the listener and hurting the ears.  Moore’s ERLC debut was just the primer for this long, often painful symphony and his Democratic political background and non-protestant influences offer some insight into why he gives an uncertain sound.  Perhaps this background from friend Mark Dever sheds a bit of light on Al Mohler as well.

You may say that all young men go through this molding / shaping process during seminary and early ministry years.  For Mohler the swing has been dramatic and sudden enough to confuse even his close friends at the time.  Today some share the mixed emotions of my father in law about Mohler.

 “The theologian Mohler I love – but the politician and social commentator Mohler I hate and wish he would just shut up and spare himself and us the public shame of contradicting himself.”

What is more important than confusing his base is the much broader influence Dr. Mohler has on the evangelical world.  By being in reputation, a strong conservative in defense of inerrancy and making claims to the historic Baptist message, we find him apologizing to homosexuals on behalf of Baptists and standing firmly behind his man Dr. Moore as the ERLC repeatedly takes a left of center stand on issues like immigration and call for a stand down to the culture wars which Christians are not waging but having waged upon them.

The Coalition

The greater of Dr. Mohler’s show of influence is beyond the SBC with Dever to the larger reformed community through PCAs Tim Keller.  All are key players in The Gospel Coalition.  Because TGS is reformed it is almost universally assumed that it is also socially conservative.  If you still make this assumption perhaps you have not followed the Coalition very closely.  Colin Hansen (Young Restless and Reformed ) writes about TGC,

“The vision of the Coalition is to create a movement that by long-term effort could renew and reform evangelical thought and practice, both in the USA and worldwide. The Coalition seeks to motivate pastors and theologians to subscribe to a policy of social activism. The theological vision for ministry urges Christians to become a counterculture for the common good. The ‘doing of justice and mercy’ is an important aspect of the Coalition’s gospel centered ministry. ‘The resurrection of Jesus shows that he is going to redeem both the spiritual and the material. Therefore God is concerned not only for the salvation of souls but also for the relief of poverty, hunger, and injustice. “ YRR page 13

By admission of one of its primary early spokesmen TGC is a progressive global movement promoting Social Justice and the Common Good. This is the classic realm reserved for humanist “Christians” and those adept at Bible twisting who tout Jesus as a non-divine homeless man crying out for the cause of the underserved.

Guilty for Being a Non Minority?

This past week’s PCA annual meeting boasted a Korean moderator whose talk centered around “White Privilege.”  The SBC can expect the same issue in the near future given the ongoing push of these resolutions.  SBC spokesman Russell Moore gave the Alt-Right, White Supremacy agenda its final push prior to the affirming vote.

Classic Reformed vs Neo Calvinism

There is growing concern in the Presbyterian Church of America’s ranks and the smaller more traditional reformed circles about TGC ,Tim Keller and friends.  Keller, the cofounder of the Coalition, and Al Mohler are considered to be the new great thinkers of evangelicalism.  Keller is even called the new C.S. Lewis.  Keller began his soft shoe dance on homosexuality in 2013 saying “Christians can support gay marriage in the culture – just not in the church” (a dangerously flawed misunderstanding of the realities of redefining marriage ).  By 2015 Keller was unable to clearly state that homosexuality is a sin in a Veritas Forum interview. Earlier that year he served to develop a major evangelical compromise with other leaders by promoting the Civilitas Group.

The Civilitas Group Theory of Social Change was developed by the Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture at UVA. This past weeks PCA annual meeting boasted a Korean moderator who talking center around “White Privilege” at UVA.  The IASC celebrates its intellectual roots in the Marxist Frankfurt School which influenced TGC co-founder Keller and “like minded” evangelicals to “change the tone in the church on race (like addressing white privilege and supremacy), Islam, homosexuality and incivility in general,” while leaders in TGC are out to reform evangelical thought and practice world-wide.  They are on the cutting edge of pushing a left of center social agenda on the rest of church which largely takes them for conservative Biblical leaders with a Gospel driven vision.

According to many traditional reformed leaders outside TGC, Mohler, Keller, Dever, John Macarthur and others are not truly historically reformed but are a hodgepodge of theological diversions, some considered heretical by classically reformed standards, promoting a progressive social gospel wrapped in a new transforming theology.  They are highly ecumenical as in the case of partnering with troubled Charismatic Mark Driscoll and the now defrocked PCA embarrassment, Tullian Tchividjian. The full extent of these differences are better addressed at another time by a historically reformed conservative instead of this Baptist evangelist but the fruit or division and case for concern is easily made.

Church Planting or Growing a New Denomination?

In the past evangelicals did live up to our name – we evangelized.  Today TGC evangelism is less about planting seeds of the Gospel in human hearts than about planting churches.   TGC plants bear the DNA and ideology of their Coalition birth parents – right down to the new Calvinist theology and Communitarian gospel business model templates honed to for success. Emphasis on individual faith and conversion is exchanged for a collectivist identity offering “community” in whatever terms one wishes to define it. Streams of funding for such plants come from a variety of sources outside the movement.  Tim Keller is leaving his Redeemer City Church pulpit in July 2017 to focus on planting 1000 plus new churches in global cities by 2025.  TGC has Acts 29, 9Marks, involvement from NAMB and IMB leadership and pastors and a cross section of planting organizations and the PCA.

Perhaps one thing is being missed if we take a google earth shot of this situation.  Clearly those involved in both the SBC and PCA who are part of the new wave of The Gospel Coalition have placed themselves in a unique position of power and influence to reform both denominations with their ideology wrapped in theology.  They are driving much of the conversation and impacting many young /next gen ministers and creating a groundswell of conflicting progressive vs traditional ideologies.  With the planting of thousands of new churches bearing their imprint and DNA they have placed themselves in a win-win situation to either take over both denominations or have a ready made quasi-denomination immediately comprised of the church plants already bearing TGCs image. Either way, the significant goal of reforming / transforming the face of evangelicalism is accomplished.  Time will tell as these well placed pieces and players continue their efforts.

Posted in Introduction | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Evangelicals’ New Sexual Language: Where Did “Same-Sex Attraction” Talking Points Come From?

Rev Thomas Littleton

At the beginning of 2013 the Christian community in America began to be flooded with new terms and players using new words for human sexuality, gender and sexual norms. These new speakers like Sam Allberry, Rosaria Butterfield, and a small herd of others, began making the rounds at conferences and working to ever so gently to move the church toward a new “understanding” of sexual minorities (LGBTQ ) whose “civil rights” were on a fast track into the mainstream.  Although in conservative circles the assertion was that conventional Biblical perspectives were being retained and defended, the talking points were being changed and the language and terms were nuanced just in time for the massive redefining of sexual norms and marriage.  This new language came from respected heavy hitters in conservative evangelical circles like Albert Mohler and Timothy Keller whose influence on next gen pastors is immeasurable.  As their endeavor surfaces several glaring realities come into focus.

  • The church is being asked to rethink (a favorite progressive term for overhauling the past position) its rhetoric if not its stand on homosexuality and marriage.
  • The church leadership have constructed a unified approach to accomplish a task, for whom and to what ultimate end is not YET in focus.
  • The effort has brought to the “Conversation” some interesting players including a gay priest from the UK / Church of England whose ministry Living Out is pushing the “same-sex attracted”/ SSA language, inclusion and understanding, seasoned with a good dose of guilt and shame for the churches’ past failures to understand and distinguish SSA from homosexuality.
  • Another major player in the conversation is a former lesbian and (as yet) quiet liberal academic whose professional specialty and activist training was in Marxist/Freudian / Darwinian flavored Critical Theory specializing in “Queer Theory” – Rosaria Butterfield, who has no theological background to address the issue with the conservative church.
  • The church is suddenly being told that the “ick factor” recoil to same sex desires is “sin” and is being asked to abandon 2,000 plus years of Biblically-based language and understanding of homosexuality, sexual temptation and desires.

Why Change The Language NOW?

The earliest use of the term “SSA Christian” and “victim of the church” internal talking points for evangelicals appears to be from the preparations of statements for the 2010 third Lausanne Congress of World Evangelism in Cape Town South Africa. This would place the insertion of SSA language and the emotion packed narrative in the 2009 documents for the lead up to Cape Town 2010.  The ministry to homosexuals is based on Lausanne’s partnership with Exodus Global Alliance (a distinct organization, according to its web site, from Exodus International which famously abandoned the mission of rehabilitating homosexuals and apologized for hurting homosexuals in 2013). Exodus Global worked directly with the Lausanne committee to draft 4 essays on how the church is to minister to homosexuals.

Downloads are available here.


Essay 1 Sexuality, Truth and Grace

Essay 2 Homosexuality and the Church

Essay 3 God’s Work to Redeem People Involved in Homosexuality

Essay 4 Equipping the Church to Respond

Examples of The New Talking Points and Approach

According to the Lausanne Global Conversation, homosexuals number 155 million worldwide and represent an “unreached people group.” Here is some of the narrative on “Homosexuality and the Church”:

“Some of the souls who are impacted by same sex attraction are Christians, and some are not. People dealing with same-sex attraction wander the streets of communities all over the world, and many of them are perishing because no one has seen them as worthy of evangelism and ministry.”

“Each of these persons represents people marginalized in the church.”

“The church can learn something from the fact that so many prominent gay activists and personalities share a common upbringing in the church. Their struggles began, in some way, in the church.”

“As these people share their stories, it is clear that condemnation, warning and fear can work to restrain someone dealing with same sex attraction for a time. At some point, however, these tools no longer work. Christian rules, Christian regiment, and Christian tradition will only go so far.”

Time and space do not permit going into greater detail and quoting more sources but the contents above show the tone of the essays. Gays are victims – not of homosexuality but mostly of an unaffirming culture and church and an old school approach to the Gospel.  REPENTANCE and saving FAITH are not discussed as the remedy as millions of us have historically left sins behind us in traditional Christian faith. The CORE message of the new talking points?  The church is at fault and MUST change.

Exodus Global Alliance Spokesperson

Mike Goeke, pastor of Stonegate Fellowship since 2010 is now associate pastor of First Baptist San Francisco.  Goeke authored several of the Exodus essays including the quotes above. In his testimony “Homosexual and Married,“ Goeke recounts his homosexual desires and online indulgence until finally departing from his marriage to pursue life as a gay man. Eventually, Goeke abandoned gay theology and homosexuality and returned to his wife and family. Though parts of his testimony reflect a clear repentance yet his family and Christian community’s support and loving outreach hardly confirm his espoused view that the church is mishandling ministry to homosexuals. And the Exodus/ Lausanne collaborations plainly call the CHURCH to change by asserting its failure in compassion toward homosexuals.

Goeke cannot be making these assumptions and assertions in the Lausanne essays from personal experience since his wife and family prayed and waited and believed.  Somewhere in what should be an otherwise wonderful testimony is a confused narrative of mistreatment that did not come from the Christians in Goeke’s personal experience. Yet to date, as of 2017, he asserts that Christians retain homosexual or SSA desires well after conversion.

The approach to SSA Christianity mirrors the “once an alcoholic always an alcoholic” of Alcoholics Anonymous and does not reflect Biblical salvation. SSA begs acceptance by the church of a sexual orientation to homosexuality. Therefore, if orientation exists as an inborn trait, then homosexual attraction is something that cannot change and the church “must begin its journey toward acceptance” of the new science, understanding, language, and an era of inclusion. The only verdict yet to be determined is whether we in the church will continue to REQUIRE celibacy by the newly labeled victims of SSA as the determinate for inclusion in the faith and in the church and in leadership roles within it.

The following are a video and article that may help the reader decide if these talking points are Biblical or more driven by emotions and the changing times. A great deal is riding on the present considerations as no denomination has historically ever continued to grow as a result of affirming, including, welcoming LGBTQ and none have recovered from the onset of steep decline once the bridge is crossed.

Practical Steps For Church Based Same Sex Attraction Ministry

Biography of Mike Goeke, Executive Vice President, Exodus International

Posted in Introduction | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Westboro Baptist Straw Man: How The Media Aided Christians’ Self Loathing

By Thomas Littleton

Since the rise of Westboro Baptist into the global media spotlight, many Christians have been shamed into silence over the new sexual revolution. Even Baptists blush at the mention of the dreaded church. “We don’t want to be known as some Westboro Baptist ….” is a phrase often repeated by Christian leaders when speaking to the issues of marriage and sexual norms.  What could prove liberating for many evangelicals, especially Baptists, is to know that Westboro’s famed pastor Fred W. Phelps was a rather far left civil rights attorney who fought the infamous Jim Crow laws and whose filings once made up 1/3 of the federal docket for civil rights cases in Kansas. Phelps once sued President Ronald Reagan for appointing an ambassador to the Vatican on a charge of violating church /state separation.  Phelps won awards from his regional NAACP office and was eventually disbarred from practicing law.

Playing The Evangelical Villain?

Westboro Baptist has been a powerful tool in the hands of a liberal media to constantly accuse all things Baptist and all conservative Christians, as marriage, sexuality and gender are redefined. The fact is that Pastor Fred – the perfect “evangelical villain” – has a longer history as a defender of the oppressed and at times as an outspoken operative for the extreme left.  His rhetoric of the past is more fitted to today’s Soros-funded “Black Lives Matter” than the homophobic Baptist pastor role he appears to have played in his later years. Phelps continued a long yet failed effort at a political career in Kansas including 3 bids for governor, U S Senate and mayor of Topeka – all running as a Democrat. He supported Al Gore for President in 1988.  Westboro’s hateful preacher may be little more than a Saul Alinsky “Straw Man” and, if so, Christians have been powerfully and successfully shamed out of standing for God’s word in the public forum by a media myth.

Evangelicals need to get up to speed on how progressives work, what the goals and tactics of their slow boil revolution are AND how close our culture and the world is the tipping point of an irreversible descent into its long sought after “new world.”  That world has no place for the testimony of Christ and zero tolerance for the Christianity parodied by Fred Phelps as hateful and unreasonable, uneducated and out of step-out of date-out of touch with the new reality world view. According to the new world view, those type of Christians “DESERVE to be deprived of religious freedom and freedom of speech and routed from the lofty havens and refuge of outdated constitutional rights.”  Pastor Fred may have served his old clients as well as the LGBTQ community in helping mischaracterize Christian faith more than anyone in the recent media circus.  Christians and evangelical leaders have more often hidden their faces and hit the mute button as religious freedoms and constitutional protections have begun to evaporate rapidly, while comforting themselves with the strange consolation that we are in a ”post Christian America.”

Posted in Introduction | Leave a comment

How Evangelicals Lost the Culture War Before it Started: LGBTQ Infiltrators and Facilitators

Rev Thomas Littleton

Hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent to change the churches’ Biblical stand on LGBTQ.  In 2014, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) came to the deep south with $8.5 million to push Project One America with “A Christian Conversation Guide” training manual to organize and mobilize the LGBTQ community into the churches.  The Reformation Project and gay activist Mathew Vines have since made their way into many churches and onto Bible Colleges campuses like Biola University.  Just this week a LGBTQ group won Faculty approval on the Southern Baptist-affiliated Samford University.  Why is this happening?

Distracted and Played

While the Church is being manipulated and distracted, pre K-12 schools are being invaded by the LGBTQ.  The HRC with its “Welcoming Schools,” the Southern Poverty Leadership Conference’s “Teaching Tolerance” and Planned Parenthood’s “Comprehensive Sexuality Education” are making rapid headway into coercive compliance to the new norms  and redefining /countering everything we teach our children about family and sexual purity.  Meanwhile, church leaders have done nothing to inform or rally Christians to oppose this.

Evangelical Collaborators

What SHOULD surprise and SHOCK us is the inside facilitators who have been collaborating with the LGBTQ and exacerbating the issues.  During war time such activity would be considered treasonous and those involved dealt with harshly.  Looking at some hard facts will hopefully provide opportunity for those involved to step up and respond.

Behind the Rainbow Door – Is this an Orgy of Collaborators?

Civilitas Group – Can civility and common ground be the answer to aggressors wanting to redefine marriage, sexuality, gender and faith for our children’s generation?

In January 2015, a gathering of evangelical “thought leaders” organized by Doug Birdsall of the Lausanne Movement agreed that lack of civility and polarization is the biggest threat to society that exists today.  Launching their civility campaign based on the 2012 compromise of Dan Cathy CEO of Chik-Fil-A with the leaders of Campus Pride LGBTQ activist group, the Civilitas board is covenanting to make nice and lead the way to saving society by civil conversations, finding common ground and forming collaborations. Though settling the LGBTQ skirmish of a chicken retailer was motivated more to address PR troubles allowing expansion of its market base, it is held up as the model of Christian civility.  Civilitas also chooses to ignore that redefining marriage, sexuality and gender provide a more CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER to American /Western society.

Also signed on to Civilitas are Fuller Seminary, Wheaton College, and BIOLA University leadership. Biola only a few months later invited “gay theology” activist Mathew Vines to their campus and Biola’s apologetics department soon launched a “Rethink” of how apologetics approaches issues like LGBTQ.  Tim Keller of the PCA, Rick Warren of the SBC, Jim Daly of Focus on the Family coupled with the major players of the Obama Faith Based Partnership advisory team are also Civilitas Board members.  The group agreed to the development and use of a “Civilitas Theory of Social Change” by the sociology departments of Princeton, Yale and the University of Virginia’s Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture.  The IASC boasts intellectual inspiration from the famed Marxist Frankfurt Institute of Social Research.  Interestingly, the IASC director, James Davison Hunter, is credited with having popularized the use of the phrase “Culture War” to describe the past (and touted as non-civil) approach of evangelicals to the activist charged climate which such think tanks are themselves helping to fuel.

Russell Moore

The Southern Baptist ERLC head, Russell Moore, began his ascent to being a key evangelical spokesperson in 2013 and quickly made waves when he declared “the culture wars (a term promoted by IASC’s Hunter) were OVER and WE LOST.  We should back off, make nice (espousing Civility) and just love our gay and lesbian neighbors.” Soon thereafter Moore led the SBC and ERLC conference on “Homosexuality and the Future of Marriage” where a host of change agents with new language and talking points schooled the church on how shameful its attitudes toward homosexuality have been.  The conference came complete with Moore mentor, Dr. Albert Mohler of Southern Seminary, apologizing for 2,000 years of Christians’ being “WRONG on the issue of sexual orientation”.  This was a powerful emotional appeasement yet lacking any scientific or biological basis for such an assertion.  Also came the abandonment of Reparative Therapy which is a broad term regarding counseling for people wanting to exit the LGBTQ lifestyle.  This term may be applied to any Biblical or pastoral counseling that does not affirm homosexuality as a natural desire.  A federal bill is currently in play to outlaw Reparative Therapy nationwide as FRAUD.  The ERLC meetings also included broad new language for homosexuals such as Same Sex Attracted (SSA) Christians, immediately facilitating acceptance of the more controversial “gay Christian” and “Homosexual Christian” terminology.

Though the conversations ignored their presence, activist groups like the Human Rights Campaign, Reformation Project, Gay Christian Network, were physically present and welcomed by the ERLC, Dr. Moore and his staff to the conference.  The Human Rights Campaign was even promised a private session to meet with Russell Moore.  The ERLC staffers boasted to HRC and other activists that Moore as head of the SBC’s ERLC was “rebranding the organization”.  Moore is not finished declaring the loss of the much vilified Culture War or with rehearsing and representing the talking points of those who appointed him. (a private point I personally asked Dr. Albert Mohler in November 2014 – once it was apparent to him that the “marriage battle was lost” if he would then help the church rally against Planned Parenthood’s sexuality education CSE.  I found Dr. Mohler was quite familiar with CSE and referred me to the offices of the ERLC with my concerns, which were quickly dismissed and met with ongoing disinterest.)

Now the Human Rights Campaign and others stand ready to mandate Comprehensive Sexuality Education at the federal, state and local levels. If you are in this struggle with some understanding of the harmful, abusive, demonic origins of encouraged sexual exploration and promiscuity at “whatever age a student feels they are ready” and yet are wondering where your pastoral denominational leaderships are and IF they are aware – at least in the case of the Southern Baptist two top tier leaders – they know and appear to have given the order to ignore constituents and stand down.

Further Southern Baptist Collaboration Is the money worth the cost?

In 2009, Dr. Frank Page, a two-time President of the Southern Baptist Convention and present CEO of the Executive Committee, joined the Faith Based Partnership Board and Obama Reform Team of the Bush-era Faith-Based Partnership programs.  Brought to the table to develop the outline for these “partnerships for the common good” were a host of interfaith leaders and representatives from the Human Rights Campaign and leading LGBTQ funder, the ARCUS Foundation.

Later in the administration a transgendered board member was added.

Dr. Page and other conservatives agreed to this collaboration for the common good with possibly the most progressive White House in U.S. history and its activist partners who helped defeat any and all Religious Freedom Restoration Acts and legislation or the inclusion of any Religious Exemptions which would protect the religious liberties of conservative churches and ministries involved in Faith-Based Partnership funding.  How much of our current threat to Religious Liberty for Americans can be directly related to these very partnerships?  Did the “Stand Down” orders to evangelicals develop from a “Theory of Impetus” among this rainbow coalition of diverse high level partnerships? Thus far, the Trump administration has failed to address these ongoing threats to ministries which have become government contractors by taking on Faith-Based Partnership tax funding.  If the Trump administration continues to fund these programs with massive amounts of tax dollars, it is a serious tipping point on this trajectory.

Mega Church Mania Partners – Leadership Network and Hartford Institute led by Scott Thumma

Leadership Network recruits, resources, promotes and often helps fund the church plants of the best and brightest up and coming evangelical leaders.  Bothersome distinctions like theology and doctrine do not matter as Leadership Network has created a very large footprint in the evangelical community over the last 33 years.  With its “invitation only” approach for “innovative /entrepreneurial pastors” few outside its circles could have known its reach or goals until the publishing of the founder, Bob Buford’s book “Drucker and Me”.

The Faith Based Partnership / Multi Sector Collaborations of management theorist, Peter Drucker, are central to Leadership Network’s training and view of the Church as solely a social organization that creates community.  Doctrinal teaching and promotion of individual salvation are determined to be problematic, divisive and down played “for the common good.”   It is no secret that the much lauded and loathed Emergent Church movement, which further divided evangelicals along “postmodern” lines, was the construct, product and proud offspring of direct Leadership Network influence. Conservative denominations saw new superstar preachers created within their camps in the same fashion.

Where it Gets Weird

Leadership Network has long collaborated with the Hartford Institute, based at the Hartford Seminary, CT, and its head researcher, Scott Thumma.  Trend setting and tracking is done in collaborative research on church growth, mega churches and evangelical / cultural /statically driven work of Leadership Network and Hartford Institute. Scott Thumma of Hartford Institute and CEO of Leadership Network, Dave Travis along with in house LN researcher Warren Bird co-author books and white papers on such trends which they helped promote. Examples:

A New Decade of Megachurches

Beyond Megachurch Myths

Where the disturbing part of this collaboration comes into play is when you consider the additional work of the Hartford Institute—its “Gay Religion” research and efforts to wed conservative evangelicals to an antithetical homosexual identity.  Scott Thumma and Hartford not only work with leading organizations of influence among evangelical churches but also promote the gaying of all religious traditions. Scott’s work in particular is focused on “Negotiating a (Gay) Religious Identity: The Case of the Gay Evangelical”.

This effort which has been in play since at least the 1980s, involves the acceptance of BOTH conservative Biblical /evangelical view of homosexuality AND being a homosexual evangelical Christian. This dichotomy is synthesized through a “process of socialization” facilitated and negotiated with the help of groups like Hartford Institute.  The following quote from the 1991 article admits:

For many Evangelical Christians, a homosexual life-style and a conservative religious identity are simply incompatible… Members accomplish this change (reconciling the two opposites) through identity negotiation and socialization.  In other words, they negotiate the traditional religious identity, in very selective areas, through interaction with Good News (the case study group cited in the article).  Members are reconciled to their gayness, but still retain their Evangelical religious identity.”

Thus, Hartford Institute’s work helps a person who is LGBTQ to reconcile their conservative Biblical instruction with their gay identity, and the two acknowledged incompatible lifestyle become one. The individuals so helped are then sent to “evangelize straight churches” with this process.

So Civlitas, mentioned above, along with its partners, and Hartford Institute in its work with Leadership Network, are both engaging a process or theory of social change to move evangelical Christians toward common ground for the common good with the LGBTQ activism in our culture, the greater common goal appearing to be participation in the distribution of massive amounts of taxpayer funding.

Proclaiming the Generosity Gospel Coaching us toward Significance to redefine the Gospel and “harness” the churches / believers’ cash?

Bob Buford has boasted that much of his work with Leadership Network is focused on “turning the latent energy in American Christianity into active energy” including his assurance to Peter Karoff in Global Philanthropy Movement “The World We want” to “deliver legions of wealthy Christians primed to become big time philanthropists”.  Thus, Christian giving and legacy endows “The World We Want” philanthropic goals of a globally neutered set of collectivist religions who downplay individual salvation and sanctification for collectivist “better worldian” saving society utopianism!  Given his boast of targeting the biggest market share of Baby Boomer wealth estimated in Buford’s Half Time series of books to be some $41 trillion dollars (his year 2,000 estimate), it would be fair to say the plot thickens.

Lifeway Research guru Ed Stetzer and Scott Thumma Collaborate—Is Lifeway Research driven by numbers or an agenda?

Ed Stetzer became the darling of evangelical research and began his deep impact on Evangelicals at the Southern Baptist Convention’s North American Missions Board.  He moved on to the SBC publishing giant and retailer Lifeway and headed Lifeway Research.  He currently holds the Billy Graham Chair of Church, Mission and Evangelism at Wheaton College.

Stetzer wrote endorsements and the epilogue for Bob Buford’s Drucker and Me and has an admitted long association with Leadership Network.  His work with Christianity Today, his Exchange Forum there and his influence through seminaries, books, Christianity Today’s dozen or so sister publications, church planting strategy, Urban Church Planting and Gospel Project curriculum, give him a major role in determining how the churches think about growth, evangelism, and ministry in the future.  Quite often in Christianity Today articles, Stetzer refers to the research of Leadership Network and partners and Hartford Institute.  Here Stetzer refers to his relationship with Scott Thumma: “Wednesday evening I got an email from my friend Scott Thumma, one of the authors of the research I had quoted and one of the top mega-church researchers in the country.”

Lifeway? — No Way – Yes WAY

So, thinking this through a moment — the lead researcher for the SBC’s Lifeway Research is good friends and collaborator with the developer of “The Gay Christian Identity” which negotiates the reconciling of a Biblical view of homosexuality and LGBTQ identity.  Suddenly the host of mixed messages on LGBTQ issues coming from Stetzer, Moore and others begin to take on a more disturbing edge.  Is this why Stetzer’s Exchange blog hosts a journalist outed for a gay tryst  in 2012 to converse about “The Future of Evangelicalism” and asserts that homosexuality, which was once considered a CURSE, is now considered a CROSS (to be born by the SSA Christian) to one day perhaps being celebrated as a CROWN?  Why is such a conversation being facilitated into mainstream Christian media?  The same interview described the current attitude of the church on a range of issues from homosexuality, gay marriage, abortion, legalizing drugs and more as being like “unbaked cookies which need to be placed back in the oven and taken out in three to five years to see where we are.”  This interview was about 3 years ago and the conversation and collaborations are about 33 years in the making.

Seeking the Welfare of the City – Is it possible to reach our cities with the Gospel while partnering with the ideologies destroying them?

This collaboration began 2005 in Orlando with CRU and Lausanne Movement representative Vonette  Bright, PCAs  Reformed Theological Seminary (Orlando) and NY City pastor Tim Keller.  The Polis Report here is worth the time to read.  The Seeking the Welfare of the City movement partners with pro- Marxist, pro-gay Urban specialist, Richard Florida, whose ideology promotes the use of a Gay Index and Tolerance Index much like the HRC Equality Index.  (Richard Florida is also promoted by Bob Buford, Leadership Network, many Ed Stetzer interviews, Tim Keller, and a host of other curiously confused conservatives.)

Florida measures and rates cities by his indexes.  (The Gayest Cities in America)  Florida’s work with Smart Cities, Atlantic Magazine, City Lab and other urban centralized planning is renowned as the gold standard in economic development, urban renewal, historic preservation and community transformation.  Florida’s books, beginning with the Rise of the Creative Class, assert that such urban centers must attract the Creative Class in order to succeed.  This Creative elite includes gays, lesbians. bohemians, artists and musicians whose absence from inclusion in your project would doom it to failure.  In actuality, the reason for Florida’s success lies more in the fact that major private and government grant funding uses his indexes as a LITMUS test for who will receive funding.  A Florida protegee’ helps run the UCLA based Williams Institute whose work includes tracking the location of LGBTQ population clusters in order to help aid in what radical activists call “Queering the Census”.

So, the question begs – how can ministries like CRU, Reformed Theological Seminary, and Lausanne  collaborate with such partners?  Where is the common ground and the common good?  How can Tim Keller, who has imported the Seek the Welfare of the City and Richard Florida’s Marxist ideology into his global church planting and City to City work, collaborate with such progressive pro homosexual policy while espousing Civility as the answer for the Church to a full-frontal assault?

Is Ignorance Bliss or just Criminal?

How can any of these church leaders named above ignore what is taking place in public schools with LGBTQ activists, the Human Rights Campaign and Planned Parenthood? How can conservative ministers jump on the collective band wagon of urban planning and think its pro Marxist and pro homosexual ideologies are compatible with or can be “Christianized” by injecting few Bible verse justifications?  Whatever sells and whatever gets funded may be all the answer that is needed.  If that is the case then the honest thing to do would be to come out of the closet as humanists and no longer preach and write and minister as though you are a defender of and faithful to Biblical principle.

The Ecstasy Turning Agony.

Given Scott Thumma’s work with the heart of evangelicalism’s trend setters and the ideology to “negotiate a Gay Evangelical Identity,” the once reliable litmus test of sounding biblically orthodox in one’s position on homosexuality is no longer a meaningful measure, given that one can, as asserted, be both biblically conservative and gay or allow for a gay Christianity.  This is all being brought about admittedly by a process of socialization and a Theory of Social Change.  All this for the “Common Good” as the white knights of evangelicalism seek to save society by selling short the churches’ true role in it.  Faith Based money is the single common thread, the reorienting of the church toward the great “quest for equality” and the common goal of saving society is the touted pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.  Individualism is exchanged for the collective Christian identity.  Marx and Hegel would be proud.  The ONE whose Kingdom is not of this world is likely not watching with approval. And the Church is being called to partner with these delusions.

For the Church, we are left looking heavenward for some faithful leadership. How long, O Lord?

Leave a comment

The Silent Link to Human Sex Trafficking

sex-trafficking-wordcloudComprehensive Sex Education (CSE) has indoctrinated generations in the Sexual Rights Agenda. We have been duped by Sexual Rights/CSE propaganda  that convinces us that it is our only hope to decrease teen pregnancies, STDs, sexual abuse, and drop out rates.

Most federally funded CSE programs have been a sham since the 90’s, claiming to be “evidence-based” and “medically accurate.” However, a federal report released in July 2016 reveals that many of these popular Teen Pregnancy Prevention Programs (TPP) failed to replicate their “initial sterling” results. Valerie Huber, CEO/President of Ascend, a national Sexual Risk Avoidance organization, writes:

“After nearly a billion dollars, more than 80% of students in these “comprehensive” programs fared either worse or no better than their peers who were not in the program. Teens in some TPP-funded projects were even more likely to begin having sex, more likely to engage in oral sex, and more likely to get pregnant than their peers who weren’t in the classes.”

Watch The War on Children, The Comprehensive Sexuality Education Agenda

It is not surprising then to read that under the Obama Administration, human/child sex trafficking in the U.S. has exploded. For almost 8 years, the Obama Administration has fully funded the Sexual Rights Agenda either directly or indirectly with taxpayer dollars. Almost every federal agency, including Health and Human Services, the Department of Education, and the Department of Justice, has either promoted the Sexual Rights Agenda or turned a blind eye to it’s consequences. Except for the FBI.

The FBI is the primary federal agency that has diligently pursued human sex trafficking in the U.S. In 2015, pedophilia and human sex trafficking had reached an almost epidemic level as reported by the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division. According to Assistant Director Joseph Campbell:

“The level of pedophilia is just unprecedented right now. We have so many cases constantly of individuals in all walks of life, from the very wealthy … to all other levels engaged in child pornography, child exploitation … it just seems to be almost an at epidemic level.”

The vast majority of the children trafficked in the U.S. are not Mexican or Central American, but are American.”

The Department of Justice made the 2016 Dirty Dozen list as a Top Facilitators of Sexual Exploitation by the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, which states,

“From the time Obama took office in 2008, no enforcement actions against illegal obscenity have been initiated by DOJ, and in 2011 former Attorney General Eric Holder dismantled the Obscenity Prosecution Task Force.”

Still, these obscenity crimes only deal with adults, not minors. Today’s adults that engage in sexual exploitation were themselves minors just a few years ago!

What did they learn about sexual lifestyles and where did they learn it?

Comprehensive Sex Education (CSE) is the silent link that fuels the sexual exploitation of children, minors, women, men, and families. Through CSE indoctrination in our schools, children as young as Kindergarten are convinced that they have “rights” to sexual pleasure. CSE programs, under the guise of “anti-bullying,” “teen pregnancy and STD prevention,” “sex abuse prevention,” and now “equality” programs, often include sexually graphic content and/or pornography, which stimulates neurological/brain development towards sexual excitement.

Teachers trained in many CSE programs have the boundaries blurred between them and their students. They are trained to speak sexual and/or pornographic content to minors. Much of the content would get any of us locked up for sexual exploitation, yet it is mandated in many schools.

By normalizing sexual activity among and with children, they are setup for sexual exploitation. They expect to be approached for sexual favors and think nothing of exploring their sexuality before they can handle it. Our children are groomed and programed to look for sex in all of the worst places!

If we want to protect our children from sexual exploitation, pornographic CSE must be eliminated in our schools and communities. As legal minors, they deserve the legal protection promised them, whether they want it or not. That’s why they are minors!

Ignoring CSE’s link to sex trafficking just compounds the corruption and misery for future generations.

Posted in Introduction | Leave a comment

How the HRC and Gay Lobby Have Been Empowered by White House Faith-Based Partnerships

Rev Tom Littleton

March 25, 2017

Most people have heard the terminology of The White House Faith Based Neighborhood Partnerships (FBP) at least in the recent change in language when referring to churches and ministries who participate in social programs.

These organizations have almost universally come to be known as faith-based groups. A lesser known fact is that religious and Christian groups are participating in government funding program grants to provide social services to their community.

The concept is nothing new. Today’s programs actually date back to the George H Bush Charitable Choice program and the Clinton era welfare reforms. In early 2001 Bush W actually instituted the current White House program by executive order allowing access to public funds for churches and ministries/ religious groups who had a proven track record of helping their communities. However very little funding was budgeted toward it.

As the Obama administration took office LGBTQ groups like the Human Rights Campaign called for an end to the FBP as funding discriminatory groups. Instead the focus changed and HRC and other influential groups were invited to serve on the Presidents Inaugural Advisory Board to reform the program as soon vast amounts of tax money were about  to be infused into it.

See: LGBT Leaders Weigh Obama’s Faith-Based Initiative

A Faith Based department was formed within every federal agency to oversee the granting process and track, among other things, “the equitable distribution” of the programs and funding. As the advisory board took shape and reforms began, Fred Davies of the ARCUS Foundation and Harry Knox, founding director of Human Rights Campaign’s Religion and Faith  Program, became key players.  According to the conservative CBN news, the advisory board was primarily a liberal composition but some very conservative leaders chose to participate.

Breaking Down Obama’s Faith Council

The board also began to reflect President Obama’s interfaith outreach and liberal ecumenical religious taste.  As was true in all federal agencies the FBP program began to resemble the activist culture of the administration and those ministries participating in them would soon realize not only the impact of the inclusion their new partners  but also the obligations they now had as “government contractors.”

The HRC and ARCUS were able use their place on the Obama reforms board to focus on LGBTQ anti-discrimination. These efforts included the establishment of the programs guidelines and direct engagement of developing the philosophy driving the funding. Being part of the board allowed HRC and ARCUS to represent pro LGBTQ outreaches but also to be on the front lines of forcing out or lobbing against anything deemed as a “license to discriminate”.  As a result of these partnerships activists gained significant advantage as the battle over redefining marriage heated up. The yoking together of conservatives, liberals and activist allowed leverage against  Religious Freedom Restoration Acts as they  became a renewed focus  in each state.

“Religious Exemptions” were quickly weakened or being done away with entirely becoming a relic of the “racist religious past.”  Given the pro gay posture of the Obama administration, the LGBTQ lobby was being assured great success in advancing their goals while weakening opposition.

One example of their major victories came in July 2014 with the Obama executive action amending EO 11478 and  EO 11246 to include LGBTQ non-discrimination for Federal Agencies and Contractors.

President Obama Signs a New Executive Order to Protect LGBT Workers

Some conservative Christian groups did write a letter to the President prior to the signing of this executive order calling for a “robust religious exemption” to protect the religious freedoms of those conservatives involved.  This letter outlines clearly the dangers posed by these rules for LGBTQ hiring and non-discrimination. No exemptions were included leaving the clear and present danger to religious freedoms in force.

Letter to Obama Requesting Religious Exemption from Anti-Discrimination Order

It is also to be noted that NONE of those ministers or groups calling for the exemptions began seeking an exit strategy once they failed to achieve the protections.  Instead, the words of participant Harry Knox of the HRC Religion and Faith Program leave a haunting echo for anyone paying attention. “The (FBP advisory) council’s makeup was reminiscent of the president’s continuing approach to creating dialog,”  It has yet to fully surface what kind of compromises by conservative evangelical and religious groups resulted from this ”dialog.”

For those hoping that the new administration might make provisions to restore and protect religious freedoms for conservative religious groups involved in Faith Based Partnerships, the news of January 31st 2017 was gravely disappointing.

Trump continues Obama order protecting LGBTQ federal workers

All that really remains at this point is to see how much funding will go into the new administrations FBP and how far the compromise of conservative participants will go.  The future of Religious Freedom in America to live out the convictions of conservative faith in the public square, even in our care of the poor and needy, might not be a very bright after all.

Posted in Introduction | Leave a comment

Protecting Sexual Minority Youth Or Promoting LGBT?

Tom Littleton

March 10, 2017

Today’s news is littered with stories of LGBT youth.  Their struggles and perceived need of protection are front page daily.  The cause is everywhere and the issues are multidimensional.  No stone is left unturned to seek out, find and meet the need of LGBT youth.  It only makes sense that the focus of those wanting to ensure the safety and rights of sexual minority youth would focus in schools and the arena of education.  Right?  But are we getting the real story and have the outcomes intended for children in public education been clearly stated.  Actually the goals and outcomes have been stated but are not part of the primary narrative for public consumption.

Since 2009 the Department of Education has become a hotbed of LGBT activism and this trickles down to the local school campus.  Former President Obama, according to the Gay and Lesbian Victory Institute, appointed almost 30 activists within the U S Department of Education.  This was in addition to hundreds more in every federal agency.  The most notable or perhaps notorious of these appointees was Kevin Jennings the homosexual founder of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.  GLSENs has helped form and promote gay clubs on Jr High and High school campuses across the country.   These clubs rally and train LGBT identifying youth to be activist and to engage “straight youth” as allies in on campus clubs called the Gay Straight Alliance.   These groups are hosted by sympathetic teachers and advocate for straight kids sympathies and support of LGBT rights.  Let us get this straight, a nationally known homosexual activist in his mid-50s with funding from foundations and corporations has had a federal job in the Department of Education to help spread his organizations ideology and narrative to train activist youth and engender sympathies among straight students in your local school.  It is likely your child or grandchild has been influenced by this effort.  Activist boast that “you will be less likely to resist change if you know and like someone who is gay, lesbian, bisexual, or trans.”

So what is the change they are talking about?   To put it plainly the goal is to redefine sexual norms for the next generation.  The method is simple.  You create an atmosphere where it is cool in school to be LGBT.  Then you engender sympathies and shame anyone who does not see it your way.  Then you add the concept of Q. You may have noticed the list of sexual minorities in the sexual alphabet soup is growing.  Q was added by the more radical elements to own the slur of the word Queer and thus empower the in your face approach of the radicals.  But in 2012 a new meaning for Q was added and at times you will see LGBTQQ so both meanings are represented.  It is hard to follow but it is almost certain your children know what all the letters stand for.  What is the second Q?  It stands for Questioning and who added it?  Planned Parenthood. the unseen big sister activist group working in education.  Their mission and definition of Q is to promote “Questioning”. The assertion is that it is “normal” to question your sexuality, orientation and gender “at any age” and questioning should lead to “exploration” of your sexuality, orientation and gender.  “You will know when you are ready”.  This is their only qualification for age of consent to embark on your personal sexual journey.  Make no mistake.  The goal in education is to make allies of your straight kids and encourage as many students as possible to explore the sexual boundaries and redefine them for themselves.  This is the new normal and the standard or sexual ethics determined for public education.  The hope is to achieve the goal Human Rights Campaign boasted of in 2014 “to create a thriving LGBTQ population”.  Getting the facts and going beyond the public narrative to the intended outcomes is a must for parents and grand parents lest we fail to see where LGBTQ activism in education intends to take our children and what it means for their sexual futures.

Rev Thomas Littleton

Leave a comment

How Russell Moore Assisted the LGBTQ Agenda


Rev. Thomas Littleton
Evangelist Reaching New York City
During the Height of the AIDS Crisis

An Open Letter to Dr. Russell Moore

I write this letter to you, Dr. Moore, at a time when your reputation within the SBC has taken a turn. Being aware that many voices are joining the public discourse, I wanted to hit pause in the critique and appeal to you directly and openly. I am a minister in evangelism which places me on the front lines of culture and with the people you and others often refer to as postmoderns, nones, and millennials. These designations are persons in evangelism we have always referred to with deep affection as the lost.

The one constant in your tone and talking points has been that we have lost this generation and did so in part because we engaged the culture war. According to you, we have lost that as well. In your efforts to repair the breech, restore the tarnished image of the SBC and obtain much needed credibility for the ERLC in the public square, you have lost something yourself. Lest I weary you and go beyond my area of experience, calling, and expertise, let me focus on how you have engaged one of the most needy people groups in the current cultural theater, the LGBTQ.

Most Revealing

As an evangelist, I worked in NYC during a decade of rabid activism and an unchecked AIDS epidemic. I have also ministered for 39 years on campuses and in cities around the globe. I know this segment of society and many in it very well.

Your Wall Street Journal interview in October of 2013 drew my attention and raised my concern immediately. You clearly did not understand this community, its history or its tactics. Perhaps being new to DC you failed to recognize the template I observed in NYC being overlaid in every federal agency by the Obama administration. LGBTQ activists were appointed in large, unprecedented numbers as hundreds of millions of dollars poured in to activate their radical agenda in America against the three Institutions of military, marriage, and faith. It appeared you were being played.

Picture yourself, Dr. Moore, as the newly appointed general placed at the head of 16 million troops fearful for their children’s future (most parents will agree with this, if honest), and concerned for religious freedoms, after decades of dealing with the true face of the gay rights movement, and your first words were: “We lost.”

Then we were ordered to “be winsome” and make more friends with those whose goals are to redefine marriage, family, faith, sexuality and gender for our five-year-olds. Here I speak about Planned Parenthood’s presence behind the LGBTQ movement with over a billion dollars per year (half of that tax dollars, and much of it Christian tax dollars), to accomplish long awaited cultural victories. Above all, the “outdated” institution of the church “needed to be done away with or its opposition crushed” to allow the advancement of their group.

You see, Dr. Moore, it is most likely you have taken this movement at face value or as it misrepresents itself. Following the manifesto of the late eighties, After the Ball, the gay rights movement has portrayed itself as victims (an intentional mask) not aggressors, and the worst offenders in this victimization are Christians and the Church. This approach over three decades has worked to disguise the movement, its tactics and its goals, hiding its silent partners like Planned Parenthood.

Ask the leadership of Focus on the Family when this hate-filled agenda came to their doorstep under the banner of the Human Rights Campaign and their For the Bible Tells Me So documentary, which was financed by the Huffington fortune. I have to ask how much you really know about this movement or its history. Your apparent naivete has allowed it to gain more ground during your tenure—even inside the church—than ever before.

My Personal ERLC Experience

After that October WSJ interview, I personally reached out to you as I was in the midst of a full-frontal assault from the LGBTQ activist community. My work with a Christian Arts and Historic Restoration legacy (something that would perfectly fit your view of engagement as an outreach to university students and the arts community) was being invaded. Our small but faithful group of volunteers needed allies to prevent an SBC minister’s legacy from becoming a platform for the LGBTQ funding of the NEA and private sector siblings, coupled with the National Park Service and Gill Foundation’s LGBTQ Heritage initiative for “Queering History.”

Again, as an evangelist, I was on the front line doing exactly what you say we should be doing—engaging. We looked for you, as an evangelical brother, who espoused the very kind of effort we were taking on, to help us. Our efforts to reach out for help were ignored as we watched a deceased fellow minister’s legacy be wrapped in an ongoing parade of gay artist works and the loss of ten years of ministry labor while suffering personal threats with no allies.

You had your talking points and were sticking to them, ignoring those whose real-life stories did not fit the narrative. We have met other ministers with the same experiences of abandonment by your ERLC as you pretend that the culture war is over.

Over the Top

Dr. Moore, for a time I gave you the benefit of the doubt in that you were new to DC and to the ERLC and were on a learning curve, albeit a costly one for your constituents in the SBC. I was still hopeful, and shared your desire to be more effective in our public engagement, but then you began your efforts toward public discourse in 2014. The ERLC appeared to be engaging the conversation not just about but with the LGBTQ on sexuality and marriage.

I was asked, by a Christian brother in convention leadership, to meet with the activist who came to our city and state to organize communities and jump start the Human Rights Campaign’s state offices. It was an unofficial sit down so as not to validate the activist while trying to understand better their intentions and methods, for which they had $8.5 million in new funding to engage churches in three Southern states.

Because of our candid approach to the meeting, we were told very openly that the goal was to silence opposition to gay marriage and to end the “traditional rhetoric that homosexuality is a sin and that we would go to hell if we engage in it.” The various groups who were partnering with HRC were sending gay couples and transgender or “gender bending” teens into our churches to “test reaction.” There were new training manuals and tool kits being developed to persuade “Conflicted Christians” out of long held Biblical views. (I have copies of these, Dr. Moore, if you care to become more informed.) But the next revelation is the most shocking.

I also found out about the ongoing dialogue between you and your offices on the one side, and the HRC and other LGBTQ activists on the other. The upcoming ERLC 2014 conference on the issues had created an excited buzz among LGBTQ activists especially on their social media. One of your conference speakers who was a “same sex attracted” or “Gay Christian” tweeted out mid-conference that “the Southern Baptist and gay community break bread together in Nashville.”

Some of your staff boasted to the LGBTQ representatives who had been welcomed to the conference that “Dr. Moore is rebranding the whole organization of the ERLC.” I watched the broad spectrum gay organizations hosted by the ERLC use their social media with the ERLC logo as a back drop to broadcast to their followers the excited news of their individual critiques of your conference, thus validating themselves no matter how radical or small or new to the public arena such organizations were. It dawned on me that, whether intentionally or not, Dr. Moore, you were allowing our ERLC to be used for the same type of platform we had fought to prevent our late SBC minister’s legacy from becoming—a platform to promote the radical LGBTQ faith agenda.

This was one of the most heart-sinking feelings I have ever had as a Southern Baptist, and one that came on the heels of my own personal loss, being threatened, invaded and unable to gain even an honest hearing from you. You were allowing all of our voices to be drowned out by your new talking points and rebranding efforts.

LGBTQ Furthers Agenda by Using ERLC

I then went to a former ERLC board member and personal friend to ask what was really going on. Their response was “I don’t know what he is thinking and he has a home full of young boys himself.” This response pointed to the most direct question of all: “Are we really aware of what is at stake in the struggle of our culture?” It is not just for Christians and SBC churches but for anyone who cares what we are leaving for the next generation or allowing to happen, on our watch, under our parenting and leadership.

So I ask you, Dr. Moore, what about your children and mine who are right now, not ten years from now, the aim of, not the lost cultural narrative, but organizations like Planned Parenthood, the major stealth partner in the LGBTQ movement? You are welcoming and dragging the SBC into these disingenuous and scripted conversations.

Do you know why PP redefined the meaning of Q in the alphabet soup of the new sexual minority big tent approach? Q means Queer. Its inclusion promotes the more radical elements of the movement, as they “own” the slur. But Planned Parenthood has substituted Questioning for Q, teaching our children it is normal and healthy to question their sexual orientation and gender AT ANY AGE. From K5 (and even Pre-K3 and Pre-K4 in some places), the rabid and aggressive PP agenda is on the march to redefine sexual norms and gender to our children in every arena of life, from education to recreation to houses of worship and in every source from which they obtain information, including Christian media and curriculum.

Do you understand this, Dr. Moore? Do you know with whom you have been associating? Do you at least understand their intentions, their history and their target generation? Personal efforts to follow up and raise these concerns with the ERLC and with you in late 2014 were met with this dismissive response: “We have a lot on our plate right now; we don’t have time for that.”

You have made your narrative based on the changing culture and, whether aware of it or not, made us and the ERLC the slave of public opinion and these false narratives which oppose the message of the cross. The cross says we are all sinners and that God Himself has intervened. The Bible still and forever says homosexuality is sin, which you agree with, but your assumption that the church is to blame for the tension between culture and the SBC ignores the fundamental opposition that exists between the Gospel Truth and a lost world.

We cannot advance the Kingdom by offering our children on the altars of a new sexual revolution fueled by progressive politics and the corporate foundation funding which is backing the very people to whom you roll out the welcome mat and portray as victims of the church. You have become a Prophet of Shame to Christians who want to be salt and light and to stand boldly and often under threat. Your opposition to preventing a second Clinton regime (and the would-be result of a continuation of Obama policy) is a total mystery to most thinking believers.

The idea that the LGBTQ agenda is a civil rights movement is false, yet you seem to have bought in. The culture war is not the construct of the Christian Right whose eulogy you and others so eagerly proclaim. This war is between light and darkness. The Christian ethic represents the Gospel Light which in our nation has had a great deal of impact on the culture in the past through the Religious Liberty you are commissioned to represent.

Who has bewitched you that you have not obeyed your calling? I love you and pray for you as many who share these concerns do. But I ask again what is going on with you? Why do you think we need schooling to correct our values or define our place in the public square? I point out that most of us live more in that realm than you do in light of your recent experience as a Seminary professor or in the offices at the ERLC.

You were not hired to improve the SBC’s poor image or to engage some public posture to rebrand us. Herein lies a possible insight into the core problem. Is the church’s mission and the SBC’s future success to be measured by how we poll in public perception or by the living epistles of those changed by the Gospel we preach?

Is the Great Commission nothing more than building Christian Community and delivering Social Justice to a collective victimized neighborhood so they might like us more one day and join our churches? Or is it the overall impact on cultural and national life resulting from the bold proclaiming of the Word of Truth, resulting in the individual salvation and transformation many of us in the church have both seen and experienced firsthand?

I say the latter.

Dr. Moore, the WSJ article of 2013 reminded me of the ten spies who came back with an evil report and discouraged the hearts of God’s people. Are you leading us into an Evangelical Wilderness? To watch you welcome to ERLC conferences the very people hired to target our churches and our children and to hear them boast that you are breaking bread together makes me wonder if you understand the communion of the saints at all. Do not imagine that you will remove the reproach of the Cross from Southern Baptist life without becoming the enemy of it.

Audio Interview of Thomas Littleton by Dr. Robert Lopez:

Can Christians Trust their Leaders? Part 2 (The Baptists)

Posted in Introduction | Leave a comment

Redefining Love on Valentine’s Day — Or Is It Just Sex You’re Speaking Of?


Rev. Thomas Littleton
Evangelist Reaching New York City
During the Height of the AIDS Crisis

12 February, 2017

Since 2014, a little-known Valentines conference has been held called “Time To Thrive.” It is a youth conference promoted for LGBTQ youth and youth serving professionals by a mega Equality group which itself remains unknown to many. The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) has become a power player within LGBTQ rights and marriage equality movement with a $50 million dollar yearly budget and multiple organizations including a political PAC.

What may be the most obscure arena for the HRC and is its focus in education? Its Time to Thrive Conference, now heading into its fourth year, has an amazingly bold missions statement. It reads, “By engaging a broad audience of youth-serving professionals, including K-12 educators, mental health providers, pediatricians, religious leaders, recreational athletic coaches, and youth development staff (Boys and Girls Clubs, YMCAs, scout leaders etc.), we can create a thriving LGBTQ youth population.”

All Encompassing Approach

So if we are clear on this, the plan is to engage leaders in all arenas that touch youth including their education, recreation, health care and faith. This approach is unprecedented, to say the least, with funding by corporate giants like AT&T and the NEA Teachers Union. The first HRC youth conference was held in Las Vegas, a fitting place for a youth conference, we suppose. This meeting’s key note speaker was the daughter of Hillary and Bill Clinton. By the second year, 2015, the Portland, Oregon conference boasted speakers from the DOJ, HHS and Department of Education. The usual list of affirming celebs and “out” celebrity children, sports and media types provided color and breakout sessions. Some unusual guest speakers included transgendered activists as young as 10. So indeed these conferences have been unique and held annually on Valentine’s Day. The 2017 conference is scheduled for April–perhaps to allow for the Trump administration to be settled in, since this year’s Time to Thrive will be in Washington D. C., thus maximizing access to the new administration appointees.

So, What is HRC Pitching in Education?

There is a product being sold to educators and to children and it has been around since 1964. The pitch is to push the overhaul of sex education for K 5-12. The plan is called Comprehensive Sexuality Education. The origin of the overhaul of sex-ed is a Plan Parenthood spin-off financed by Playboy publisher Hugh Hefner. Since the mid 60s, the idea of abstinence-based sex education has been repugnant to revolutionaries like Sexuality Education Council for the United States (SIECUS). The past administration has given the green light and tons of tax dollars to empower Planned Parenthood for this final stretch to full implementation of the radical overhaul. HRC has become a valued new partner in the push to redefine sexual norms, family, procreation/sexual/human rights in terms which serve the great global dreams of sexual liberation and birth rate containment.

What CSE asserts is that teaching abstinence is unhealthy (yes you read that correctly), non LGBTQ inclusive, gender biased, and dishonest. Activist legislators have kept a CSE mandate bill in the congressional que throughout the last eight years. How this law would impact education can be seen here. Federal funding for abstinence would become illegal.

So, What is Love?

Perhaps a better question is “What’s LOVE got to do with it?” when it comes to Planned Parenthood or HRC’s role in redefining sexual norms. According to the talking points on CES, it is an answer to the sexual repressive and discriminatory past. CSE is your child or grandchild’s “human right at any age” to know this liberating ideology, even against parental /family faith values while it uses your tax funds, public school system, and congressional powers to help their goals along. CSE normalizes the entire LGBTQ spectrum of sexuality. “Q” among activist culture was originally a radical owning of the word queer to empower by use of the vulgar slur. Planned Parenthood made the decision to add Q to the growing and inclusive list of sexual minorities around 2013. For them, Q stands for “Questioning” as PP asserts it is “Normal to QUESTION your sexual orientation and gender at ANY AGE.” If you are a parent concerned about your child becoming sexually active for any host of normal reasons, this is your worst nightmare. Exploration and experimentation are both encouraged and recommended.

Activist Youth Demanding Sexual Rights NOW

For those of us over 45, the women’s march in DC surrounding the Trump inauguration was reminiscent of the 60s and 70s feminist. The anatomically correct hats and spirited (raw) protest revealed the radical face of the movement many younger people had never seen. If HRC and PP have their way- this will be the face of future for YOUTH. Advocates for Youth, SIECUS , and  host of other organizations have engaged to train a generation of Youth Sexual Activist. Allies and organizers have tool kits to train our children to take to the halls, campuses, streets and capitols to demand their sexual enlightenment and freedom. The 60s generation of free sex and drugs never saw this kind of organizational skills or funding to accomplish its goals. Yet we are still picking up the proverbial pieces of the last sexual revolution as the next generation is having theirs launched for them.

So, repressing youth’s sexual desires or knowledge is unhealthy even at 5 years of age. If you fall under the new heading of a sexual minority you gain special access, consideration and protection. You can go into the restroom, locker room, shower of choice based on your self-identification of the moment (which is fluid and understandably subject to change). As a sexually-educated youth you can go to the school based clinic and obtain an IUD or birth control or abortion referral at 11 years old and it will either be free or billed to your family’s insurance without their knowledge or approval required. You can go to the school website and be a click away from any and all of these activist partners and services. If you are forced to leave home because your parents do not buy into your new liberation then you can be classified as homeless LGBTQ youth and be eligible for much more protection from anti-bullying advocates like Dan Savage and his “It Gets Better” campaign.

This is the future advocated for sexualized youth according to Planned Parenthood, SIECUS , HRC, and other partners. It is a dream world with little thought of sexual predators, the sex industry, pornography (which CSE considers healthy and encourages), STDs, HIV/AIDS suicide, mental illness, drugs and human collateral damage. All those ills come from non-affirmation after all. This is Love-liberated and offered to your 5 year old as his/her human right-according to the Human Rights Campaign if you follow their values for “Thriving Youth.”  LOVE, HRC style: Happy Valentine’s.

The secular left doesn’t merely have a disagreement with Christianity. These are not people with whom one may reason, compromise or even disagree. They are dedicated to evil. They demand nothing less than the abolition of the biblical worldview, and the destruction of Christ’s followers right along with it.

Now is the time to fight back. If you are someone, Christian or not, who refuses to see Christianity wiped out (like it ever could be) and your children indoctrinated into pure evil, then sitting on the sidelines is no longer an option.

Listen to Thomas Littleton interview on Janet Mefferds program:

Leave a comment

Russell Moore and the Politics of Shame

  Rev Thomas Littleton
Evangelist Reaching New York City
During the Height of the AIDS Crisis

11 September, 2017

Some glaring fault lines have appeared in the conversation about Russell Moore, many of which were exposed by the recent essay in The Federalist written by one of Moore’s fans, Nathan Leamer of the R Street Institute. Since being crowned head of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) in 2013, Dr. Moore has been no stranger to controversy, much of which he brings upon himself.  His tendency has been to pervert the classic Christian world view and mix it with language which panders to the left while he openly admonished evangelicals to disengage the culture war as we entered the most hostile attacks in the national history.

This may actually be a careful strategy that resembles the “tactics “of Moore’s most popular target and the source of his current troubles, President elect Donald Trump.  Trump skillfully uses controversy to grab headlines and keep himself and his campaign on the front page.  Trump is a thick skinned veteran of the New York gossip columns.  Trump, therefore, plays the media as one adept with his NYC and DC survival skills.  Moore may miss the goal and lack the skills to pull this off.

Dr. Moore began his reign by providing us a taste of both his winsomeness and new tone for the ERLC and evangelicals’ cultural engagement.  But today for Moore, the thought of a Trump presidency seems to have caused the evaporation of his winsome veneer exposing a “Prophet of Shame.”  After Trump’s unexpected win, Moore’s pandering to the political Left seems to have gone into hyperdrive.  Moore wants Christians who have supported Trump to hide their faces.  Yet Trump’s clarity is appealing while Moore’s shame and double speak is divisive.  Christian radio host Janet Mefferd pointed out that Trump inherited many evangelicals later in the campaign, and he was not their first choice.  But Moore seems determined to let the facts escape him.  Others in the SBC and conservative Evangelical circles echo the same “Blame Game” toward evangelicals who supported Trump’s campaign.  Ed Stetzer implies that electing Trump has created a climate of racism for which white evangelicals must explain themselves to Christians of Color.”  So, what is really going on?  What are the fault lines Moore and others are missing?

Here Are a Few:

Moore is attempting to rebrand the ERLC and the evangelical tone.  He is speaking mostly to the next generation of believers whom the Southern Baptist Convention fears losing – people like Nathan Leamer.  Moore critics are not, as Leamer suggests “a small but vocal minority.  They are the people who pay Moore’s salary and fund his organization.  Former Senator Mike Huckabee points out that Baptist are “paying Moore to insult them.”  Moore is failing because he is trying to pour new wine into old wine skins (Mark 2:22 ).  Both the young and old may be alienated in the end.  Dr. Moore, why not start a new organization (wine skin) with the purpose of rebranding the conversation rather than confusing the present one and furthering the age divide?

Moore is the crown prince of evangelical contradiction.  He welcomes confusing partners like LGBTQ activists who want to redefine marriage while he ignores, shuns, and shames seasoned conservatives who understand that the LGBTQ debate is merely a tool that uses the LGBT community so that progressives can redefine sexual norms and even personhood.  After more than three years in Washington, D.C. does Dr. Moore understand this yet?  Progressives USE minorities.  They do not help them.

Russell Moore misidentifies his victims.  When Moore insults the “Christian Right,” he is actually speaking of the Conservative Christian who craves clarity and conviction on Faith Values.  He attacks these voters as if they were the machinery behind the conservative political movement.  When Christian voters allow this misidentification and assault, they are thus stigmatized by the press, progressives, and the new brand of social justice Christian voter.  The fact is most conservatives’ theology tends to be more compatible with social policy than is the brand of Moore and his followers.  Doesn’t Russell Moore need to get his labels right before applying them?

Moore is attempting to build the ERLC’s new foundation on the shifting sands of culture.  It is not possible to maintain real integrity to our espoused theological conservatism and yet be socially pandering if not outright grasping every progressive object floating on the surface of the current cultural floodtide.  Moore, if not confused himself does allow his language to confuse others.  Moore embraces immigration policies, for example, that favor the left’s ideology as if he does not know of George Soros’ existence or has never heard of open borders.  In short Moore quickly adopts talking points loaded with activist policy and expects his base to follow while he espouses faithfulness to Biblical values wrapped in this new terminology.  Is this fair to expect thinking people to follow along?

Moore has not at all “been balanced in speaking truth to power while achieving real political victories,” as Leamer claims.  Leamer fails to enumerate even one of those “victories.”  Also, as he reminds us, the ERLC’s job is, in part, “to promote Religious Liberty”.  By this standard alone, both Moore’s vision and the organization he inherited, are failures.  There has been far greater endangerment – and loss — of religious freedom on Moore’s watch than at any other time in American history.   As to “Trump holding a Bond Reunion without him” -Russell Moore is no James Bond.  He is not a man accustomed to life in the field but rather in the theological halls of learning.  He also lacks a license to kill the conservative Christian base, though he does seem to be attempting to read its eulogy.  Dr. Moore, what is your job in 10 words or less?  Please stick to it.

In short, Moore is accountable to the base who funds him.  He is accountable to the denomination under whose banner he sails and to the individual Christians and ministers who reach out to him with concern.  Trump’s evangelical support was in large part, a vote against Hillary Clinton’s progressive “March to the Sea” to divide and conquer Christian values in the public square.  Moore seems to fail to get this.  He continues using the wrong talking points, the wrong language, the wrong allies, and is on the wrong side of the mountains of culture.  If the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who will prepare himself to battle? (“One” Corinthians 14:8 )

Leave a comment

Where is the Conservative Evangelical Voice in Today’s Cultural Tsunami?

Rev. Thomas Littleton 
Evangelist Reaching New York City
  During the Height of the AIDS Crisis

22 September, 2016

You may not self-identify as an evangelical or even be a fan of the Reagan Revolution revivalists, but if you are a conservative in America you are a stakeholder with those who stand against the progressive tidal wave sweeping our nation.

In the past, evangelicals have been at least a predictable part of the base. This is no longer the case. Now greatly divided and hosting a variety of scripted talking points, the former powerhouse of the “Moral Majority” style conservatism is sending forth an uncertain sound to its constituents.

Once highly visible and vocal representatives carried the torch into the mainstream media and cultural debate like warriors in the arena of Rome. These gladiators of the Faith may not have all been void of egos and self-interest, but they were outspoken with clarity. We would have a very difficult time today pointing out even one such champion as D James Kennedy of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) or Jerry Falwell of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). Perhaps many even on the conservative side will say “Good riddance” but let me sound a word of caution before any celebration on the right.

First, let us consider what has replaced the once clarion call rallying the faithful to be heard in the forum and at the polls. Those voices have been replaced by echoes.


The conservative Christian denominations are re-branding and their political rhetoric is softening in the name of Christian love and social justice. Today the mantra most often heard is, “We want to be known for what we are FOR, NOT what we are AGAINST.” Born out of the “compassionate conservatism” of the Bush era is a new evangelical tune. It may market nicely and keep the proverbial heat off the backs of evangelical leaders, but this presents a problem however given the timing of this new détente and the business with which the conservative evangelical community is now occupying itself.

Having adopted the new mantra amid the hot bed of progressive activism means that evangelicals have allowed themselves to be emotionally blackmailed into not openly opposing anything. No issue is more telling than the redefinition of marriage and the broader conservative Christian community’s virtual nonresponse or to the sweeping LGBT agenda being forced upon us all. So, if the Evangelicals are NOT engaging the war being waged against them, and they have instead crafted a unified policy of non-engagement, then the question begs: who gave the non-marching orders? What is being done instead? And, of course, the big one….WHY?


I am a very conservative SBC minister and have not been the most politically engaged, yet I could not help but notice the sudden change in our own in-house talking points in 2013. The SBC’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission announced a leadership change and with it came sweeping new disengagement. Many understood it to be the sounding of retreat, if not full surrender to a “lost culture war.”  Russell Moore – long time seminary professor at the flagship SBC institution Southern Seminary – took the reins of the ERLC and declared an end to hostilities between the LGBT community and the SBC. Given the coming tsunami of gay marriage and transgender access rights, the timing of this retreat was something between a tactical error and outright sabotage of the conservative evangelical base.

Perhaps this just what you get when you send an academic into the gladiators arena? Of note should be Moore’s replacement for engagement in the political arena. Moore began to sound the Social Justice mantra of leftist Christianity known as Communitarianism. Instead of being culture warriors we are now to be bleeding hearts for helping the poor and downtrodden of society and – guess who our partners are to be in fulfilling this not so great commission? Answer – the LGBT powerhouses of the Human Rights Campaign and the ARCUS Foundation to name a couple. And whose money will these new “partners” be spending? Yours and mine. Absurd? Impossible? Never? Take a deep breath and read on.


The Faith Based Neighborhood Partnerships (FBNP) under the Obama administration has created a host of odd bedfellows pursuing federal, local and private grant money for “the common good”. These programs began under the Bush administration, but were reformed under Obama and (unequally) yoked together in the President’s Inaugural Advisory Board was the SBC Executive Committee’s Frank Page and activist organization heads of the HRC and ARCUS (Islamist) along with the usual suspects of the left. The result is a misfit strategy for the conservative evangelical camp who are actually undergoing a revival of conservative theology while at the same time becoming more socially progressive. The end product is a sort of spiritual bipolar disorder which defies common sense. Interestingly, the FBNP reforms went beyond assembling the eclectic group of partners to actually establishing a Faith Based Department within every federal agency. Here are just a few of the things which prove problematic for conservative evangelicals in these partnerships:

  • The reforms call for OVERSIGHT by the funding agency and the recipient is viewed as a government contractor.
  • The sweeping LGBT non-discrimination order of President Obama did not include the needed Religious Exemption clause sought by Rick Warren and other SBC pastors signed on to the programs. HRC and ARCUS spend millions fighting such exemptions.
  • The Reforms actually forbid any faith based religious activity, such as Bible studies, prayer, or passing out religious materials/instruction while administering the programs. The evangelicals market these programs as ministry but “ministry” is forbidden.
  • The end game for the administration is control. The flood of tax money poured into the programs actually goes away in time leaving only the private funding from foundations and corporations, and of course the church’s resources are exploited and its mission redefined under federal government control. Also the clever coordination of dance “partners” with the evangelicals have given unprecedented leverage for the LGBT activists to force their agenda on and into the heart of the evangelical camp. This effort is complete with tool kits, like communist training manuals scripted to enlighten the poor conservative believers into changing their minds on homosexuality and helping “conflict them” if they do not. Here is the ARCUS Foundation funded tool kit. Human Rights Campaign has its own version called a Christian Conversation Guide. The unwitting target of this persuasive effort would never suspect he or she is being manipulated by the well trained LGBT activists.


By this time it is fair to ask where this well planned takeover came from ? The ideology is nothing new for those working toward Socialist Democracy. It is easier to co-opt the church than to try and destroy it. The compassionate conservatism mantra comes from Austrian Friedrich Julius Stahl. It was first successfully marketed to the conservative evangelical community in the mid 1800’s, destroying its influence as salt and light in the culture by reducing its public stance with Stahl’s “living conservatism.)

The modern blueprint for the new evangelical paradigm comes from another Austrian-management expert Peter Drucker. After decades of focus in the board rooms of America’s fortune 500 companies, Drucker turned his attention to non-profits and churches. His partner for this endeavor was a former corporate client and Texas cable TV millionaire Bob Buford. Buford founded Leadership Network to seek out “innovative” and (I might add) ambitious young pastors and evangelical leaders to train in the Drucker management style.

Under the banner of Welfare Reforms in 1996-97, the Clinton administration helped launch the torpedo which is all but sinking the evangelical’s “good ole Gospel ship” in a sea of social justice activism while loading it with stowaway partners like HRC, ARCUS, Muslims and Leftists. All of them busy with efforts of their own to diminish the evangelical voice. The Welfare Reforms crafted the emerging future of religious organization in the US.  This banquet table was spread at the Rockefeller Brothers Conference Center and sponsored by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

The blueprint lays the groundwork for the government to dump all social and human services and welfare on the unsuspecting churches and faith based non-profits while gaining oversight of them, thus muting any opposition to the advance of the progressive agendas sweeping our nation. Healthcare is moving toward FBNP providing the core of community care inside church walls. This is in addition to the School Based Health Clinics that the Department of Education has planned for years.

And who is the unseen “partner” in this plan? Planned Parenthood. The Center for American Progress is loving the participation of the evangelical community in Healthcare Reforms. This is an indication of the vulnerability evangelicals have incurred while unwittingly chasing grants among questionable partners. FEMA and HUD have also made huge inroads with similar programs.


So, how must the evangelical leadership go about “harnessing the untapped energy” of the conservative church? Enter again the work of Buford’s Leadership Network (LN) and the Drucker ideology. Social justice is the new mantra. Saving Society is the new mission of the evangelicals. In April 2014, Buford published his tell all (or perhaps boast all) book about LN’s founding in 1984. LN’s by invitation only Drucker discipleship program began a comprehensive renovation of evangelicalism, now 30 plus years in the running. The depth of impact for this clandestine “movement” cannot be measured or overstated on the evangelical community.

The ultimate end was to bring these leaders into the Drucker model and to yoke the church in Peter Drucker’s “Three Legged Stool” of Government – Corporate- Church/Non-profit partnerships. Among the most successful of these LN disciples is the SBCs Rick Warren and another up and coming SBC influencer, Ed Stetzer. Warren’s international PEACE Plan is now global and the next stage in its development is PEACE Local which brings a host of human and social services into the church with outside funding and the all-important government oversight.

LN trainee Ed Stetzer has become a key figure in his work with the overhaul of the Southern Baptist vision by providing “research” corresponding with the goals of Drucker for non-profits and developing curriculum like Lifeway’s (Stetzer’s most recent employer) The Gospel Project. Leadership Network, through in house talking heads, is able to promote Urbanization, Healthcare Reform, and Saving Society (the original name proposed for Buford’s LN biographical boast). As a result, the evangelical community has, for over 30 years, has fallen victim to this unseen force from within. It should come as no surprise that Stetzer and others use their platforms and blogs to promote the future of evangelicalism.

Including more compassion on how homosexuality and the LGBT agenda is viewed. The Stetzer facilitated “conversation” asserts the evangelical view of LGBT (and even abortion) is like “unbaked cookies needing to be placed back in the oven for 3 -5 years and taken out to see where we are.”

This is a prime example of how the ARCUS funded tool kit “My Mind Was Changed” is engaged in the places conservative evangelicals get their news. Stetzer and other LN disciples also promote Urban church planting as the key missions strategy of both domestic and foreign missions while promoting pro-LGBT, pro-Marxist “Urbanologist” Richard Florida to the planters. Eager postmodern pastoral trainees and seminary graduates embrace Florida’s pro-LGBT , bohemian and gay indexes to ensure the success of the evangelical endeavors when promoted and facilitated by trusted SBC leadership.

Once such unthinkable discussion for conservative evangelicals have now become all too common place. The conservative Presbyterians (PCA ) are equally as submerged in the LN / Drucker philosophy of ministry, with talking heads from the LN stable like Atlanta’s Randy Pope and the ever popular Tim Keller of New York City. Keller is a huge and outspoken advocate of Richard Florida. Randy Pope and Warren are both leaders among conservative denominational pastors, pushing their churches toward full implementation of in house church based social services and welfare with faith based partnerships.


Independent mega churches like Willow Creek (pastored by Bill Hybels) are also LN innovation products. It is much easier for those evangelicals outside the doctrinal and mission accountability to implement the new paradigm. Our own home church fellowship of Shades Mountain Independent Church in Hoover, Alabama was once one of the most reliably conservative churches in the greater Birmingham area. To our shock and amazement the trusted congregational leadership had been taking the congregation down the avenue of Drucker partnerships since at least 2011.

SMI was endangering its conservative voice by hosting and supporting ministries which have and continue to take Government tax/ grants from HUD, and seeking passionately through staff led ministries to enter the indigent health care funding fray. In tandem with this new vision has been a willingness to soften the church’s stance on LGBT issues, as such partnerships provide both the incentive and necessity.

Is there a remedy for this sad state of affairs among conservatives? Can our once trusted evangelical partners recover themselves from these money laced traps? Time will tell – it helps knowing the evangelicals are spending your tax money while MIA.

Rev Thomas Littleton is an evangelist with four decades experience in missions and outreach globally. He and his wife have a six year old son for whose future they engage the issues of our time. 

Listen to Thomas Littleton interview on Janet Mefferd’s program:


Leave a comment

Faith-Based Healthcare Clinics Prove a Slippery Slope

  Rev. Thomas Littleton
  Evangelist Reaching New York City
  During the Height of the AIDS Crisis

20 October, 2016

Healthcare in the US remains in flux since the passing of the Affordable Healthcare Act (AHA). One primary area of need still unanswered and lacking in adequate infrastructure is the area of indigent care. Historically, the uninsured and those who find health insurance unaffordable have flooded and overwhelmed hospital emergency rooms by utilizing the ER as a walk-in clinic. This vacuum of unanswered delivery for this level of care has created a flurry of would be participants in the provision of services and for the funding allocated for it.

Among the hopefuls for this indigent care funding are churches and faith based non-profits who possibly view meeting this need as a ministry opportunity. Historically, denominations and religious groups have, at times, been involved unencumbered in operating hospitals and even church based clinics. However, new guidelines suck as LGBT non-discrimination are proving to faith based and church participants in healthcare that we have entered a danger zone of hidden agendas and progressive politics driving healthcare decision making and policy.

Health Care the Golden Opportunity for Progressives

Progressive organizations have not been snoozing through the opportunity to infuse their goals into the guideline for providers in faith based partnerships as shown in this celebratory Todd article. According to the CAP article implementation of the AHA would “not be possible without Faith Based partners.” The additional mention of FBP involvement in Health and Human Services (HHS) and School Based Health Clinics (SBHC) is even more disturbing due to the close partnerships between HHS and Planned Parenthood and affiliated organizations who aspire to provide “School Based Primary Care” for both students and families in poor communities.

The Obama administration overhauled the Faith Based Partnerships in 2009/2010 and poured billions of tax dollars into them. The Whitehouse Toolkit for grant hopefuls outlines the establishment of a faith based office within EVERY federal agency in order to oversee the partners receiving federal funding. Oversight is the key principle to understanding the dangers for conservative Christian providers.  A quick look at the advisory board assembled is a major red flag since LGBT groups, Human Rights Campaign, and ARCUS Foundation were included . In health care a plethora of non-discrimination policies are firmly in place and include the pro LGBT activist HHS interpretations of best practices for both physical and mental health and well-being.

A Bloody Discrimination?

A disturbing insight into the outcome of such activism would be a recent push for “Blood Equality.” Since the Orlando gay nightclub attack the Huffington Post and others have been mainstreaming a cry to “stop the ban on queer blood.” AIDS was first identified in 1981 and by 1985 testing was firmly in place to prevent tainted blood from entering the general public’s blood supply. The concept of restricting those who engage in “at risk behavior” has not been one of discrimination but of best practice for the public welfare and fully supported by the CDC and the CID. The Red Cross and blood banks across the country have supported this policy in the face of some inadequate responses of the FDA in whose oversight these concerns remained.

The main concern today in our activist’s health care is if such policies seen as discriminatory and offensive to some. The future may look grim for those who require blood transfusions or emergency surgery as we pave the way for an international repeat of the UK Tainted Blood Scandal.

Strategic Error

Churches, ministries and denominational organizations are rushing into the indigent health care windfall with little consideration of the long term outcomes. Indigent focus and funding then broadens to become the underserved community, then encompasses the working poor who abandon the care of private practice for “Cheaper Care.” Once the private practices disappear then the cycle of underserved community begins all over again and the Walmart Effect has moved from small town America into healthcare until no other options are left but government run public clinics with private partners like faith based organizations. Young graduates leaving medical universities are caught in the trap of diminishing private options, profit driven corporate models and the faith based non-profits. Often the newly graduated professionals work for low pay with more grant funded reductions in student loans as enticement for long hours and low wages.

Large churches are now openly using our offerings and pledges to obtain matching funds or seed money for more government and private grants. Curriculum is admittedly designed as training for our families and children to be mobilized to man the “ministries.” It’s as if to say, “Give me your money to use as seed funds for your taxes and then volunteer in my clinic where your church is competing with you.” And who else is in the room? Every progressive activist on the dream list of the current administration and possibly the next.

Is There an Exit Strategy?

The greater concerns beyond co-mingling missions with the Obama administration are the dangers to religious freedom, church autonomy, and silencing the conservative voice in the cultural debate, thus causing political correctness to rule ending in Doctors being fired for giving honest health advice. No doubt the church could do a better job than government in providing care but the guidelines restricting “religious activities” within grant funded programs takes the faith out of faith based on this slippery slope. If ministry is not allowed then the church is left being nothing more than a conduit for social programs and one more government Health and Human Services contractor.

Ask your local pastor and denominational leader if they are involved and if they know the dangers posed by FBP to health care. Look up the 990 reports of your favorite parachurch ministry and see whose funding is on the annual reports. You may be shocked. Search the CDCs LGBT health pages and understand why honesty in treating real life medical issues is important even to the LGBT community. What will the future “look like” if healthcare is politically and profit driven with evangelicals as well funded enablers of a failing system? Let’s consider if the church becomes one more hated layer in the frustrating chain of socialized medicine. If the money is the only incentive left then buyer beware. The government (tax) money goes away and the churches resources are exploited. It was in the fine print.