Over the past couple of weeks, I have had the opportunity to share the Gospel with a man who is a professing atheist and a Marxist. This was a man who was not foreign to the Good News of Jesus. He had grown up in church and had a general idea of selected scripture. It was quite a learning opportunity for me. We arrived at an impasse , but we both walked away understanding each other's perspective. In the end, I found the source of his worldview very disturbing, yet all too common these days.
It seems that Carl Marx has become quite the hero in liberal education. There are many out there who knowingly, or unknowingly embrace his teachings. Socialism has become the "buzz word" since the election of President Obama. I have talked with people who partially (and sometimes unknowingly) embrace socialism. I have talked to those who laugh off the idea that we are headed for socialism as "Republican hysterics." Now, I can say that I have spoken with someone who truly embraces socialism for what it is and is not ashamed to admit it.
A few days ago, I began reading Hitler's Cross by Erwin Lutzer. I had always wondered what it took to convince a whole nation to follow after such a demonic leader. Lutzer does a good job of putting the process of acceptance into perspective. Hitler knew that his best chance to win the hearts of his people would come in a time of economic devastation. At the time, German economy was at it's worst and the people were starving. It seemed a ripe time for someone who desired to be "savior" to rescue his people. To quote Lutzer: "The people yearned for a leader who would do for them what democracy could not." Hitler was a good political leader. he revived the failing German economy in a span of 5 years. He brought crime under control. He created great social programs like his "Strength through joy" program, which gave millions of Germans vacations that they could not otherwise afford. Hitler did so much to appeal to the outward wants and needs of a nation. However, Hitler was obviously very devious and his motives impure.
To quote Lutzer again: "If he had died before World War ll, one historian mused, he would have gone down in history as "Adolph the Great, one of the outstanding figures in German history."
We all know the end of the story. Hitler purges Germany of the "impure" Jews while focusing his rage on anyone who would dare oppose him. His intention was to disassemble the church and place himself in supreme authority over everything. He banned crucifixes and Bibles from churches and ordered them replaced with swastikas and copies of Mein Kampf. Any preacher who dare preach the Cross of Christ would share the fate of the Jews in the concentration camps. Hitler was a man deeply entrenched in demonic activity.
We think to ourselves "that could never happen in the United States." Yet we have the ACLU who's determination is to stamp every symbol of Christianity from our society. No nativity scenes, no Christmas carols, no mention of Jesus Christ in schools, under the penalty of legal action. One of the things that my socialist friend shared with me is his belief that religion is the cause of all of the world's problems. (not too far from the truth) But more disturbing than that, he believed that if we allowed religion to continue that we would never have peace. In his mind, the only way for people to achieve true peace, we must be a socialistic society void of all faith in God. He was not shy about his opinion. He did not try to hide it or candy coat it. Fortunately, I do believe that his opinion is still in the minority, but I wonder---for how long? When the "Hate Crimes" bill passed, it (in effect) made it possible to criminally charge someone for preaching the Gospel. You might think this is far-fetched, but consider this scenario: a mentally unbalanced man attends a church service where a pastor teaches on the sin of homosexuality. He twists it in his head to believe that he needs to take action against homosexuals and commits a violent crime. This would set the pastor up for fines or imprisonment because his teachings "inspired" the act.
Approximately half of our society believe that pre-born children are not, in fact, children. Obviously a majority of the people believe that the government can better care for them financially than they can for themselves. ( I say obviously because of who we elected as our leader) We live in an era of irresponsibility. We think it would just be much easier if the government would provide for us what is too hard or expensive to provide for ourselves. We are setting ourselves up for destruction. I recommend Hitler's Cross to EVERYONE! It should be required reading at college and high school levels. We need to learn the mistakes of history...because right now it looks like we may be destined to repeat them.
This is so sad, but I fear that our country is on the way to socialism, without Christ this country is doomed to the same fate.
ReplyDeleteGreat write up, Lori~I agree that every person should read "Hitler's Cross" and the follow up, "A Nation That Forgets God", also by Lutzer and just released in January of this year.
ReplyDeleteRhonda, thanks for letting me borrow the book. "When a Nation Forgets God" will be my next read :)
ReplyDeleteI believe that people have a right to say what they will. But I do have a problem with people writing about history when they obviously did not do a bit of research on their own. Reading a book is not enough. There are problems in your article.
ReplyDelete#1. Karl Marx is spelled with a K not a C. Nit picky sure but how would you feel if someone spelled your name Lorrie? or Laurie? It does matter, as well, in case one of your readers was clueless and wanted to become clued in by reading up on Marx.
#2. Hitler was not socialist. He was fascist. There is a difference. Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines them as follows:
fascism - 1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
socialism - 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
To see socialism in action please read about the Ukrainian Famine of 1932-33. To see fascism in action please read anything related to the history of Germany under Hitler or Italy under Mussolini. There is also a great movie with Charlie Chaplin called the Great Dictator. Chaplin does a great job showing why Hitler was a nut case (or a very smart nut case!).
Fascism and socialism are at odds. In other words, they don't play nice. During WWII the Allied Powers were US, UK, Russia, etc. The Axis Powers (or the bad guys) were Germany, Italy, etc. Hitler and Stalin were not buddies.
I do believe most people think they are one and the same as Karl Marx, who wrote about socialism, was a German. Lenin put Marx's thoughts to play.
I don't intend this comment to be mean or condescending. I intend it to educate. I have a BA in History concentration on European with an emphasis on Russian History (meaning my passion is Russian History) and have struggled with the differences myself.
Also I should note that neither socialism nor fascism was too keen on God and the church. One reason being the church and God had far too much control over the people. Hope this helps.
In peace,
Heather
Heather--thank you for the corrections. The fact that my friend was a Socialist and Hitler was not did not come across clearly in my post. I failed to keep the two subjects distinct. My friend is not a fascist. His claims were solidly socialistic. Once again, he was not trying to sugar coat what he believed. I think if you go back and re-read, you will find that I never claimed that Hitler was a Socialist. I simply failed to define Hitlers stance.
ReplyDeleteThe intent of Lutzer was simply to attempt to explain how society can come to a place where they accept someone like Hitler. I believe that there are very few people in America today that would embrace his views. However, our government is working toward the same end at this point. Hitler made it impossible for Germans to receive private educations by making it impossible for the schools to function. His thought was that controlling the minds of the youth secured the future of his "theology." I firmly believe that UNICEF will destroy the rights of home educators should their UN Convention on the Rights of the Child become law here. Does this worry me? You bet. Do I see it as the same indoctrination that Hitler enforced? You bet I do.
I do not have a problem with you not agreeing with me. Feel free to spell check this :)