[Washington, DC] The Center for Security Policy, a Washington think tank comprised of former national security experts, has put out a dire warning about Christians engaging in Interfaith Dialogue.
Written by national security experts, Bill Johnson (not of Bethel Church Redding ) and James Simpson, the report highlights the intentional use of Interfaith Dialogue by both Marxists and Islamic Extremists to weaken American resolve to protect its national sovereignty, culture and Judeo-Christian values. The Center for Security Policy is not a Christian organization, but one founded in 1988 by more than 30 national security experts, the chief founders of which served the Reagan Administration. These experts, who ranged from service to the National Security Administration to the Senate Intelligence Committee, created the organization to defend liberty in the face of invasive, subversive ideologies.
The 35-page white paper by Johnson and Simpson on the danger of interfaith dialogue to American freedom and national interests is entitled Michigan Faith Communities in the Cross-Hairs.
The paper begins:
Islam’s goal in the West, as articulated in the Muslim Brotherhood’s Explanatory Memorandum, is to destroy the legal and political institutions of our society and replace them with the rule of shariah (Islamic Law). To accomplish this goal, U.S. Muslim political leaders have partnered with the Left, giving them otherwise unavailable access to the many institutions controlled by the Left.
As described further on, and as most of us know through our own experience, this control extends to many U.S. mainline churches and synagogues, which the Left has turned into little more than propaganda shops for the latest leftwing fad. In so doing, they have opened the door to Islam to first present itself to Christians and Jews in a non-threatening manner and then to begin the process of “dawah,” that is, the proselytizing or preaching of Islam. Today, even some evangelical churches have fallen for the trap. It is called “Interfaith Dialogue.”
From a national security perspective, Johnson and Simpson seem to echo many of the concerns expressed about interfaith dialogue (IFD) during the summer of 2017, when apologist James White engaged in an IFD with Yasir Qahdi. White claimed that Qahdi was an Islamic moderate and that the dialogue was justifiable on the grounds that the Gospel was presented. Others, like Janet Mefferd, Brannon Howse, and Steve Camp demonstrated (quite factually) that White’s claim that Qahdi was a “moderate” was spurious. Other evangelicals were uncomfortable on religious grounds, unsure of the wisdom (or lack thereof) of finding common ground and having “fellowship” (a term used in the event’s advertising) with those whom the Scripture says we have no fellowship (2 Corinthians 6:14-17). The warning of the Center for Security Policy seems to echo the concerns of many following the White-Qahdi dialogue.
Howse repeatedly mentioned White, referring to him as “Gomer Pyle,” “Forrest Gump,” a “moron,” insinuating he was unintelligent, and claiming that he wouldn’t be able to find a job in the private sector in an episode of a political-talk webcast, The Haggman Report. Ironically, James White is one of the signers and contributors to the Dallas Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel, which has attempted to thwart the advance of Cultural Marxism in the evangelical church. While White has been stalwart on the issue of so-called Social Justice, Howse is trying to demonstrate that White’s Interfaith Dialogue is a part of the same overarching plan to commandeer Judeo-Christian culture by promoting Marxism. Regardless of Howse’s bluster and characteristic causticness, there seems to be some truth to the connection between Interfaith Dialogue and the advance of Marxism.
It is probably not a connection that Dallas Statement signers will be eager to investigate if for no other reason, it is Brannon Howse who has raised the issue (he has a stormy past with many, if not most, of the original signers of the statement). Nonetheless, Howse’s claims of a connection between Social Justice and Interfaith Dialogue seem supported by the 35-page dossier provided by the Center for Security Policy.
Using the advance of Islam in Michigan as a microcosm and test-case for the United States, Johnson and Simpson claim that IFD is responsible for the Islamic takeover of much of Michigan, writing, “Whatever their actual numbers, Muslims are having a profound impact on Michigan’s faith communities. Interfaith Dialogue can take credit for much of this.”
It continues:
Furthermore, in practice, Interfaith Dialogue has become a vehicle for Muslims who preach and practice an ideology of uncompromising domination and subjugation to draw Christians, sometimes well-meaning, sometimes with ulterior motives, into acceptance of Islam, without any corresponding acceptance of Christianity. Interfaith Dialogue is often referred to as “Building Bridges,” and some programs are specifically so-named.
Discussing the World Council of Churches (hereafter called “WCC”), the paper connects the dots between Interfaith Dialogue and Marxism:
East Bloc intelligence agencies and the Soviet KGB targeted the WCC for infiltration as early as 1961 or before. With their influence came Liberation Theology, a KGB-spawned invention which turned Christian doctrine into Marxist theology. It was introduced first in Latin America, not coincidentally by a Peruvian Catholic priest, Gustavo Gutiérrez, and a few others, where conservative Catholicism stood in the way of communist efforts to overthrow rightwing authoritarian governments. At the same time, the WCC began discussing Interfaith Dialogue at its international conferences in 1961, 1963, 1964, 1967, 1968 and 1970, and adopted it as a program in 1971.
The paper continues:
Interfaith Dialogue is nothing more than a communist-contrived influence operation that continues the Cultural Marxist attack on Western Civilization. The American hard Left has partnered with Islam in an unholy alliance we call the Red-Green Axis. Their mutual goal is the subversion of Western laws, culture, and traditions, and our nation’s ultimate destruction, in preparation for the imposition of totalitarian rule.
It will be interesting to see if and how James White responds to the accusations that IFD are a part of a greater strategy to subvert Western culture and Judeo-Christian society. In spite of coming from Howse, who White does not consider astute on matters relating to Islam, the alleged tie between Islamic IFD and Marxism seems credible. If not, the accusations presented by the Center for Security Policy at least seem credible enough to give a thorough response.
As someone who has watched White with admiration as he’s handled issues (albeit belatedly and unoriginally) relating to Social Justice with articulation and intelligence, and also as someone who disagreed with his IFD (and in particular, how it was done) on Biblical grounds, I’m eager to see if James White is willing to reconsider the wisdom of engaging in dialogue over debate.
The paper from the Center for Security Policy, explaining the connections between Islamic IFD and American cultural subversion seems compelling.
You can see it here.
