Creation vs Evolution; Part 3

Many Infallible Proofs:

Creation and evolution can't both be true, at least one of them must be wrong. The Lord has left a trail of many infallible proofs that he created all life and there is a large body of scientific evidence that favors divine creation and that refutes evolution.

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree possible." (Charles Darwin, "The origin of species by means of natural selection")

"A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp.....moreover, for the most part these "experts" have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully." (Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician)

"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that life's complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did." (Dr. Harold Urey, Nobel Prize winner)

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution." (Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University.)

The enemy within:

Churches should be leaders in defending the authority and historical accuracy of the Bible but unfortunately some churches are part of the problem.

One pastor of a large mega church told hundreds of teenagers to accept without question whatever the “reigning paradigm” of science was and mocked those who questioned evolution from the pulpit. The reckless nature of these statements become apparent when we remember that “Eugenics” was the reigning paradigm of science in it's day.

Another pastor went so far as to start a campaign “ADD YOUR VOICE TO THIS EVANGELICAL APOLOGY TO DARWIN”. This pastor, eulogized Darwin as a “hero” for “revealing the unity of all living things”, praising him as “a tender soul”, and suggesting the absurd portrayal of Darwin as a liberator of the oppressed.

The religious authorities of his day held great power in England. Anglican clergymen practiced “natural theology” as a hobby–the only real biology of his time. The doctrine of a static and special creation of each species independent of the others under-girded the social order: everything forever in its proper place, gender, race and class, right up to her majesty, the Queen. This doctrine supported the notion that slaves belonged in the fields and women in the parlor, serving tea. Darwin’s nerdy findings were going up against the powers and the principalities of his time. (Ken Wilson, apologies to the memory of Charles Darwin)

This knight-in-shining-armor portrayal of Darwin is disturbing and completely fictional. Darwin's comments about higher races eliminating lower races has already been stated but Darwin's writings also reveal his belief in the supremacy of one sex over the other as well.

"The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by mans attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than the woman. Whether deep thought, reason, or imagination or merely the use of the senses and hands.....We may also infer.....The average mental power in man must be above that of woman." (Charles Darwin, "The descent of Man, pg. 566")

Yet, in what seemed to be a choreographed effort to milk the reader for sympathy, this pastor lamented the death of 3 of Darwin's 8 children, describing him as “a broken heart”, who suffered “a crushing blow” by the “cruel and drawn out” death of a child.

Childhood death was quite common in that day (and still is in Africa), even Abraham Lincoln lost 3 of his 4 children before they reached adulthood. While the loss of a child is understandably tragic, it has nothing to do with “if” Darwin should get an apology from Christendom or not. This pastor even refused to allow any critical discussion of Darwin:

“I won’t post any comments that say anything nasty about Darwin–not on his birthday”.

His Birthday?... Rather than a genuine apology, the entire article seemed to be just a cattle prod to shame evangelicals into abandoning creation.

Going against the flow of popular culture is difficult and some shrink back from the battle, fearing the scorn or craving the acceptance of those considered wise in the eyes of the world.

Conclusion:

There is far too much evidence to discuss here and that is not the point of this article. Rather than point out specific evidence against evolution, I hope to bring to light the reasons WHY evolution is so toxic, not just to Christian faith but to humanity itself. It takes time to carefully weigh the evidence on the balance scales of our minds and it takes time to learn how to debate with others, speaking firmly but respectfully. If you are aware of the deadly fruit of evolution's evil seeds then the answers to the questions: should I research creationism, should I debate evolution, become self evident.

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." (Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229)

I have included a list of resources for those who would like to research more into the scientific evidences supporting special Divine creation and refuting Darwinian Evolution.

There are numerous educational videos and books available on the ICR and AIG websites.

Resources:

The Institute for Creation Research (ICR): http://www.icr.org/

Answers in Genesis (AIG): http://www.answersingenesis.org/

ICR radio: http://www.icr.org/radio/stationfinder/

Creation Ministries International: http://creationontheweb.com/

Periodicals:

Creation: quarterly magazine, 56 pages (glossy) http://creationontheweb.com/

Answers Magazine: (AIG) published quarterly http://www.answersingenesis.org/

Videos:

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed: http://www.expelledthemovie.com/

Save the whales but damn the children

The 1st commandment is to love The Lord you God with all you heart, mind, soul and strength. The 2nd commandment is like the 1st: To love you neighbor as yourself. Jesus said that all the law and prophets hang on these 2 commandments. These commandments are pure, simple and perfect.

When a car tire is out of balance, it literally destroys itself. When our priorities are out of balance, we can destroy not just ourselves but others as well. Fame, wealth and beauty are highly esteemed in our culture but the sparkle is merely fools gold. Like cotton candy, these things have has an appearance of substance but they do not satisfy. The list of celebrities with self destructive lifestyles continues to grow. Heath Ledger's recent death is but one example in a long list of lives claimed by the emptiness promises of this world.

It is one thing when an unbalanced life destroys itself but it is entirely another matter when an unbalanced life destroys others. I have watched with growing grief and alarm as animal rights environmentalists, viciously malign, destitute and starving peoples around the world, to prevent them from hunting food to sustain their families or to use to barter for clothes, comfort or medicine. Environmentalists, far from the destitution of Africa, indoctrinate our young in an ideology that will forcibly deny food to needy children in the name of environmentalism.

I viewed a YouTube video recently showing how people in Africa were using trained rats to seek out land mines in mine fields. Using their keen sense of smell, and tethered on a very short leash between 2 men, the rats could safely locate the mines without detonating them. I wished them well in their quest to reclaim their land from the horrors of war. but was grieved and angered to see environmentalists curse them, with profanity drenched tirades objecting to using the rats in a dangerous situation. Here is a few brief samples:

I'd rather see some kid or better, a bunch of kids get ripped and blown to shreds than see an animal get killed. But yes, they are definatly to light to trigger the mines.

Whether or not they're 'saving people' I find it disgusting that they choose to use animals to do this.

i find humans worthless compared to the life of an animal. HUMANS put HUMANS's lives in danger, animals didnt. WHats the big deal, they skin dogs for fur, why not skin a human for fun, huh? Yeah, you can report me as spam as you are the higher class scum who thinks your better than everyone else.

Save the whales but damn the children. The godless nature of modern environmental places the value of mere animals on par with the value of the humans whom Jesus died to save. How have we come to tolerate such wickedness? The environmentalists are at a very safe distance from the horrors of war and I wonder how long they would cling to those ideologies if they had to locate the mines themselves. With an estimated 80 million land mines and scant medical care available, I suspect they would quickly be of another opinion.

Matthew 18: 1 - 6:
At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" He called a little child and had him stand among them. And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. "And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

Despite the clear biblical commandment to love thy neighbor, this diseased ideology has even infested the church under the name "Creation Care". Seasoned pastors who should know better, have turned their back on Biblical truth and upon people created in the image of God, to bow the knee to modern environmentalism. Lazarus has been laid at their doorstep, only to be turned away. Churches have been caught up in a heresy that has sought to save all manner of creatures at the expense of human beings created in the image of God. Jesus died to save humanity, not the whales.

A Word Regarding the United States when President Obama takes office

This is a word from The Lord I received on 1/19/2009 from a trusted and respected friend, who asked me to post this and pass it on. I believe it is worth reading, pondering and passing on.

A Word Regarding the United States when President Obama takes office. Given on 1/19/2009

Once when the oath of office has been taken, by the assuming one, then at that very second the hand of God will be removed from this nation. The people have chosen their king. They have turned to the arm of Man to be their savior and not the Lord Jesus. Turned to man, the assumed one who believes he is savior of this country. He who exalts himself as someone special.

Turned to man this man states that only the government will solve the problems of this nation. That the government brings in the Jubilee. The Lord speaks that this is idol worship. This nation has toppled from the heights of blessings because this man is looked on as a savior.

The remnant will not be able to stay the Lord’s judgment any longer. This country was a lamp set on a lamp stand, a city of light on a great hill. No longer. This light of the United States is now a darkness, and Jesus said if the light becomes dark how great is that darkness.

Therefore, the Lord speaks to us to repent and return to the light, the one true well of life and living water.

Colen Poeppelmeyer

1/19/2009

An Evangelical Bridge Too Far; From townhall.com

David R. Stokes
Sunday, December 28, 2008

The recent furor over President-Elect Barack Obama’s selection of California mega-church pastor Rick Warren to pray at the January 20^th inauguration yields a few clues about what evangelicals can expect during the next four years.

On the surface, playing the Warren card appears to be a masterstroke by Obama – one that further demonstrates impressive political skills. A day or so after the election, I was asked by someone about what Mr. Obama would do to prepare for his administration. I replied that I thought he would demonstrate significant savvy by – at least for the time being – ignoring the clamorous pleas from core constituencies, the kind of people who will support and vote for him no matter what. And I suggested he would reach out to those who view him with fear – or at least mild suspicion.

That’s pretty much what number 44 has done. He has confounded those who voted for “real change we can believe in” by putting together a crafty combination of a third Clinton term on most things, and a third Bush term on issues relating to the war in Iraq.

This brings me back to Rick Warren’s upcoming supplication in Washington. Evangelicals – especially younger ones – played a key role in Barack Obama’s ability to counter clear problems with his own church and pastor. They also, in many cases, overtly campaigned for him, his decidedly non-evangelical views on abortion and other traditional values issues notwithstanding.

Mr. Obama is viewed by many evangelicals as a new kind of politician - someone who can bridge the gap, or reach out, or maybe begin a dialogue. Just pick your mantra. But before any kind of modern-day Great Awakening is declared, some should take a serious look at how Rev. Warren’s selection to offer a simple prayer has become such a controversial matter.

Evangelicals, those who take the Bible and their faith seriously, need to realize that when it comes to issues like gay marriage – even abortion – there is not really any middle ground with those on the left, even the so-called Christian left.

Rick Warren has spent a great deal of time and money, investing his ministry in initiatives that are outside of the normal evangelical box. He has worked tirelessly in Africa and elsewhere on the issue of AIDS – and has cultivated a compassionate and understanding persona when it comes to dealing with issues and ministry challenges stemming from same-sex attraction.

What Warren has not done, nor will he ever do, is to reach the point where he declares that homosexual behavior is not sinful. He will not do this because he is a Biblicist.

No matter how understanding evangelicals are and how sincere some are to open a dialogue with same-sex marriage advocates and activists, there can be no real rapprochement without the willingness to change the way the Bible is read and interpreted.

And that would be an evangelical bridge too far.

Conservative evangelicals possess a belief-system rooted in a movement popularized nearly 100 years ago and that reached its peak at the mid-point of the roaring twenties. Fundamentalism - part dogma, part culture, part reaction to culture - and in large measure driven by several key and dynamic personalities - was at its high water mark as a social phenomenon. Though certainly no fan, in fact a persistent critic, of the movement, H. L. Mencken, the caustic journalistic sage of Baltimore, observed its clear influence, writing at the time: “Heave an egg out of a Pullman window, and you will hit a fundamentalist almost anywhere in the United States today.

From 1910-1915 a series of twelve books was published and widely distributed to conservative-minded Christians around the country under the title The Fundamentals. A year before the first edition appeared, a wealthy Californian had been inspired, listening to a sermon by Chicago preacher, A.C. Dixon, to “bring the Bible’s true message to its most faithful believers.” Very soon he developed the concept for the publishing of “a series of inexpensive paperback books, containing the best teachings of the best Bible teachers in the world.” After The Great War (1914-1918), a movement took root, one based on the ideas in The Fundamentals, and that would transcend “various conservative Christian traditions.”

During the 1920s, most of the great protestant denominations experienced internal convulsions over issues raised – sometimes vociferously – by fundamentalists in the ranks. Of particular concern to some was the growing tendency on the part of religious “liberals” to question long-held dogmas of the faith.

Opposite the fundamentalists were the “modernists” – and they openly challenged things seen as precious to true believers everywhere. Harry Emerson Fosdick – a leading modernist protestant pastor – suggested an alternative narrative for the virgin birth. Jesus was likely (in his thinking) fathered by a soldier. The scriptural story could not possibly be true. And the resurrection – well, come on now – really? Rising from the dead – I mean, that’s just too incredible for “modern-intelligent” minds to accept.

And everything depended on what you believed about the Bible itself.

To fundamentalists it was the inspired Word of God. By this they meant the “verbal-plenary inspiration” of scripture. In other words, the “words” were inspired – and the book itself was in its entirety. And when it came to interpretation, fundamentalists opted for what they called, “the historical-grammatical” method – what the words meant in context and back then (think: “strict construction” of the U.S. Constitution – what did the founders and framers mean? Etc.).

Why is it important to know this? Well, because the evangelical movement grew out of fundamentalism. Led by people like Billy Graham and Harold John Ockenga – and schools like Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College – the idea was to keep the solid “doctrinal” stuff – Biblicism and the centrality of Jesus Christ and his “finished work,” while moving away from the strident, often belligerent, methods of the earlier generation of fundamentalists.

A new-breed of evangelical “whiz kids” took the religious Model-T of the fundamentalists and popularized it to a post-war/Cold War nation. They even had a saying in the Youth for Christ movement in those days (where Graham got his start): “Geared to the Times, but Anchored to the Rock.”

Rick Warren and millions of others today remain faithful to these ideas. Though attempts are made to build bridges – to reach out – it is only for the purpose of bringing people to a relationship with Jesus.

Though I hesitate to put words in Rick Warren’s mouth, or speak definitively as to where he stands – I am quite confident that his view of scripture is very much in line with the 1950s evangelicals – even the 1920s fundamentalists. It is a high view of the Bible – inspired of God, interpreted careful, and applied personally.

This is a view commonly shared by conservative evangelicals across the denominational landscape. And it is why some evangelicals need to face the music. No matter how much you try to love, reach out, dialogue, and build bridges, the other guys are not going to be happy short of the abandonment of the Bible as a serious document relevant to our times.

Unless evangelicals are willing to say that the Bible does not call homosexual behavior sinful, no amount of posturing will change anything.

It is sort of like the Israeli-PLO land-for-peace narrative. It will never work because the PLO does not think Israel should exist. Conceded acreage will not assuage that.

Nor will “reaching out” assuage those who believe that anyone who takes the Bible seriously on the matter of homosexuality is, ipso facto, a bigot filled with hate.

The Apostle Paul knew a thing or two about people and bridge building. He told the Corinthians that he was always willing to reinvent himself in order to connect with others. But the connection he desired with others was designed to bring them to a place of faith in Jesus.

Many evangelicals are firmly, optimistically, and sincerely on the Barack-Bridge, but they may soon realize that in order to cross it completely en route to the new promised land of change, they will have to lighten their load and leave some stuff behind.

And among the things discarded will be a lot of Bibles.

Thank you, President Bush

Thank you, President Bush for the service you have performed for our country. Some have forgotten that 9/11 was forcibly thrust upon you, but you have managed to defend US soil despite the 12,000+ attacks carried out worldwide by the Religion Of Peace since 9/11. You squelched the murder and mayhem of the barbarians at our gate who would take away our most cherished freedoms and our sacred right to worship the one true God. The media has badly mistreated you but you stayed the course and did your duty when it was both difficult and unpopular.

I can not say if the invasion of Iraq was a mistake or not. Without a doubt, Saddam was a mass murderer, dispensing genocide and torture to the citizens of Iraq in wholesale numbers and filling neighboring countries with death and fear. You were fully justified in believing that Saddam would have reduced America to ashes if it was in his power to do so. Carefully orchestrated terrorists would claim responsibility when the mushroom cloud appeared over New York and Saddam would have a tidy speech ready to blame the former Soviet block countries for not watching their nuclear stockpiles after the fall of Communism.

Adding insult to injury we discovered that in removing Saddam we also removed the only reason the Saudis were selling us oil for $20 a barrel. After that, we discovered that the Saudis did not consider us an ally but a cow to be milked.

To their undying shame, the media undermined public resolve to stand toe to toe with terrorists by an endless parade of flag draped coffins and grieving mothers. The stories of courage and sacrifice of our fallen heroes was scraped off their shoes like mud by a news media who were more eager to sway elections than to win a war. Freedom will not be long held by a people who have forgotten that the Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of both tyrants and patriots.

The media did their best to lynch you with the “what did Bush know and when did he know it” smear campaign in the wake of 911 but then loudly protested coercive interrogation tactics when terrorist kingpins withheld information regarding imminent attacks. How weak and squeamish we must seem to Islamic mothers who breast feed their children on the glories of Jihad, a martyr's death as a human bomb.

Though 911 will likely define the history around your presidency, you have done more than just protect US soil. Thank you for restoring dignity to the office of the President of the United States which had been made a laughing stock by the dirty politics and cheap sex of one who came before you.

The evil seeds of the housing market crisis were planted more than 30 years ago. A bad idea planted during the Carter years and fertilized during the Clinton years was the The Community Reinvestment Act which forced banks to make good loans to people with bad credit. The liberals may not know how to run a country but they are highly skilled when it comes cover ups and shifting blame.

The media may have been your enemy but I want to believe that history will be your friend. The fairytale aura surrounding President-elect Obama will be short lived. Joe Biden was correct that people like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Vladimir Putin, Hugo Chavez, and Kim Jong-il will quite joyfully put President Obama and his paper thin resume through the shredder. They will not be impressed by his Harvard education, nor by a pretty speech nor will then President Obama have the luxury of voting “present”. Like Neville Chamberlain before him, who's lives will President Obama barter away for an empty promise of “peace in our time”.

The economic crisis will deepen if President Obama enacts his misguided Socialist and Marxist ideologies and all the glitter about “Hope” and “Change” will be shown to be fool's gold. After that many will appreciate the wisdom you brought to the office of President and the fortitude you have shown in the face of dissent and adversity. Well done President Bush, well done.

Surviving the Liberal Left

Today as America remembers the 7th anniversary of 9/11 I came across an article posted on the Reuters new service "No consensus on who was behind Sept 11 - global poll". Considering Osama Bin Laden's boasting of having coordinated the dastardly deed, his failed 1st attempt at mass murder in 1993 and the thousands of terrorist wannabes dancing in the streets of Jenin; I suspect we know whodunit.

Tragically, since 9/11, the "American" liberal left have increasingly sown doubt and division for the purpose of political gain while putting the lives of thousands of people worldwide in peril. The terrorists are grateful for their allies in the the liberal left as they have lost substantial credibility (the terrorists) since the outing of Pallywood. If you are not familiar with the term, Pallywood is the slang name applied to the staged propaganda "news footage" terrorist give to liberal western media outlets who then report it as fact. Perhaps my favorite is the Palestinian funeral procession of a man "killed" by the Israelis who jumps back on the bier when the pallbearers drop him.

Muslims blame the Jews for 9/11 (as they do for everything from sun spots to bad breath) but it's hard to take Islamic news agencies seriously when they freely peddle fictions like Jews murdering Christians to use their blood to make matzo bread for passover. I expect Muslims to hate America because they are spoon fed hatred for the west from birth but what can you say for "American" liberals? A number of them act like they are in competition with Muslims to put Americans in harms way? Rosie O'Donnell on nationwide TV accused our troops of torturing a forced confession out of Osama Bin Laden's right hand man. And thanks to Michael Moore some now believe that George Bush planned 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq. Even liberal church pastors are buying into the hate America mantra.

Rich Nathan, pastor of the 7000 member, Vineyard Church of Columbus, has joined the liberal left and has repeatedly scolded the evangelical Christian right from the pulpit as being "the most pro-war constituency in America". Mr. Nathan's biased remarks are not only rude and offensive but they are slanderous and inaccurate. I can not say that I know of one evangelical who is "pro war" but I know of many who are aware of the 11,900+ terrorist attacks worldwide in the 7 years since 9/11. We fight against a culture of death, where Muslim mothers praise the virtue of Jihad and send their children off to become human bombs in the name of "The Religion of Peace".

Since it's miraculous rebirth in 1948 the tiny nation of Israel has born the brunt of relentless terrorist attacks on a daily basis. Regarding their many military conflicts with the Arabs, Golda Meir, their 4th Prime Minster said:

We don’t thrive on military acts. We do them because we have to, and thank God we are efficient.

We too are faced with with a prolonged war against stateless terrorists but America liberals are encouraging terrorists to keep fighting the good fight while demoralizing our citizens and our troops. In his misguided ambition Mr. Nathan went so far as join 138 "Christian" leaders to "apologize" to Muslims in the name of "the All-Merciful One" for the Crusades and for being proactive in trying to prevent another 9/11:

we want to begin by acknowledging that in the past (e.g. in the Crusades) and in the present (e.g. in excesses of the “war on terror”) many Christians have been guilty of sinning against our Muslim neighbors. Before we “shake your hand” in responding to your letter, we ask forgiveness of the All-Merciful One and of the Muslim community around the world.

Referring to God as the "All-Merciful One" sounds like they're afraid to say "Jesus" to Muslims, and leaves the impression that they think Muslims are not smart enough to see through a childish word play. As Muslim clerics have not come forth with a similar "apology" for the 11,900+ terrorist attacks since 9/11 or the abuses of the Ottoman empire, some of us can't get over the feeling that Muslim clerics are having a good laugh at our expense while they sharpen their swords for war.

If that were not enough, Rich Nathan hosted a 3 day "Justice Revival" back in April with Jim Wallis of Sojourners as the featured speaker. You may recall Barack Obama's radical pastor Jeremiah Wright. Jim Wallis defended Jeremiah Wright's radical "God d**n America" rantings referring to them as "prophetic truth telling". Jim Wallis has so distinguished himself in the hate America brigade that he has achieved the dubious honor of a pat on the head by the Aljazeera news website. Aljazeera, the favorite news agency of Islamic terrorists everywhere lavished high praise on Jim Wallis referring to him as an "American wise clergyman" for his denunciation of the "American extremist right". Aljazerra also recently gave Cindy Sheehan face time to bash America, stump for her run for political office (in America) and protest the trial of 40 Muslim Brotherhood terrorist suspects.

Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler lead to a far longer and far more costly WWII and to his enduring shame he bartered away strategic defensive positions of someone else's country (Czechoslovakia) for an empty promise of "peace in our time". No one seems to know who asked Rich Nathan or Jim Wallis to be our spokesmen or to make American evangelicals look like fools. They have given credibility to the lie that Islamic terrorists have valid reasons for wanting to commit mass murder in the name of "the religion of peace". The Arabs do not have peace because they do not want peace. Golda Meir said it so very well:

Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us.

These liberal pastors make like to bask in the sunshine of the praise of terrorists but they are putting the lives of thousands of people in danger. Lets hope these liberals figure that out before we see a mushroom cloud over New York.

Sojourning Socialists: an INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY editorial

Election '08: Barack Obama has joined forces with a white socialist he calls a "good friend" — the Rev. Jim Wallis, founder of "Sojourners." He too believes in "liberation theology," sans the black nationalism. In fact, Wallis is the white version of Jeremiah Wright, sans the black rage.

In addition to publishing "Sojourners" magazine, Wallis runs Call to Renewal — a network of liberal churches and activist groups "committed to ending poverty and racism."

Wright once joined Wallis at the U.S. Capitol in an anti-poverty "preach-in" sponsored by Call to Renewal.

Jim Wallis is more eloquent than Obama's former mentor, Jeremiah Wright, but preaches the same anti-American message.

Wallis and his Washington-based operation have essentially replaced Wright and his militantly Afrocentric Chicago church, which Obama expediently dumped in the heat of the primary race after videos surfaced of his fire-breathing preacher damning America.

The avuncular, noncombative Wallis offers Obama a voting bloc that Wright could never help deliver: white Christian evangelicals, if in Birkenstocks.

At the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Obama tapped Wallis to oversee the drafting of the faith-based plank of the party platform (which, by the way, champions outreach programs for "ex-offenders").

"This is a very faith-friendly convention," Wallis said. "I think Democrats have really gone through an important change." But their newfound faith is not one most mainline Christians would even recognize, let alone embrace.

Like Wright and Obama, Wallis believes that biblical faith compels radical social action. Their political ministry is called the "social gospel," but it's really just socialism dressed up in a cheap tunic. They refuse to separate personal faith from political activism, whether at home or abroad.

In the '80s, for example, Wallis and Wright rallied to the cause of the communist regime in Nicaragua, and protested the U.S. arming of the Contra rebels. Wallis, in fact, marshaled thousands of "Witnesses for Peace" and joined them in Nicaragua, making it known they were willing to take a bullet to stop the anti-communist insurgency.

Wallis is more eloquent than Wright, but he preaches the same anti-American message. According to discoverthenetworks.org, he once called the U.S. "the great power, the great seducer, the great captor and destroyer of human life, the great master of humanity and history in its totalitarian claims and designs."

Like Obama, Wallis got his start in Chicago, where he too was involved in community organizing. He forged ties with black gang leaders, including at least one known cop-killer.

While agitating in Chicago, Wallis published a newspaper called the "Post-American," which was printed by the same radicals who put out the Black Panther paper. Now in D.C., he presides at funerals of gangbangers and runs a commune in the ghetto that romanticizes blight and mocks efforts at urban renewal.

"I don't know which is the worst evil," he said in a 1994 interview with the Los Angeles Times magazine, "the crackhouse or the gentrified house."

Wallis agrees with Obama that American racism and capitalism are to blame for inner-city poverty, and echoes his oft-repeated call for "economic justice." They share a spread-the-wealth vision, including subsidizing the working poor beyond expanded tax credits and minimum-wage hikes.

"The Bible says prosperity has to be shared," Wallis said in a January 2000 interview with IBD. "It's very simple."

"So far the rising tide is lifting all the yachts, but not the boats the poor inner-city kids are in," he said, adding that the stock market has created a "casino economy."

Wallis likes to think of himself and his sojourners as "progressives." But "they're really just socialists," said David Kelley, director of the Objectivist Center in New York.

Wallis may couch his Bolshevist views today. But in 1979, he was quoted in the journal "Mission Tracks" saying he hoped that "more Christians will come to view the world through Marxist eyes."

Obama is one who's seen the light. While delivering the keynote address for Wallis at his Call to Renewal 2006 conference in Washington, he condemned the "idolatry of the free market" and professed: "I believe in the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change."

Wallis says Obama is the kind of leader he's been searching for, one who's "responsive to social movements." "Barack Obama talks about 'being our brother's keeper' and how he finds a faith that does justice to be compelling to him," he said in a recent interview.

But it's not just "movements" that Wallis has in mind. He recently wrote the foreword to a leftist book titled, "The Revolution: A Field Manual for Changing Our World."

Wallis is also an anti-military pacifist who fasted for 47 days to protest last decade's popular Gulf War.

Like his fellow traveler Obama, he believes 21st Century America is guilty of "structural injustice and social oppression" aimed at blacks. His Sojourners magazine features radical professor Cornel West as a contributing editor. West, a black Marxist, is working as an adviser to Obama's campaign.

Wallis put another radical professor, James Cone, on his Sojourners editorial board. Cone is Wright's mentor and the father of black liberation theology, a Marxist version of Christianity that worships a white-hating black Jesus.

"Together," Cone said, "black religion and Marxist philosophy may show us a way to build a completely new society."

Wallis, who once regularly attended black liberation churches in his hometown of Detroit, has no problem with that. He says his mission is to "sojourn with others in different faith and traditions" toward a common goal of "social justice."

Now he's hoping to sojourn his way into the White House with Obama, whose favorite scripture happens to be a verse from Chronicles referencing sojourners: "For we are strangers before thee, and sojourners, as were all our fathers." (He quotes from it in his first memoir; in fact, it sits strangely alone on what should be his dedication page.)

Such foes of capitalism and apologists for communism belong in communes, not national leadership. Better they sojourn their way completely out of American politics.