From Michael D. Antonovich: “Dear Dr. Schwarz, Words cannot express my disappointment in reading about your retirement. You have been a leader—an unspoken leader who has championed political and religious liberty worldwide. You have also been a role model—when I was a college student your writings provided the beacon of light in charting my political philosophy through the rocks of the campus leftwing tyranny. It is my hope that you will continue to write about the threats to our liberties. God bless and best regards.”
      From Harry E. Walkup, M.D.: “Dear Dr. Noebel, Congratulations! Dr. Schwarz could not have selected a more worthy successor. I have followed your teachings for many years and look forward to your carrying the Christian torch. You and Dr. Schwarz had the one essential ingredient for the salvation of our great nation—TRUTH! With warmest personal regards and the best of success in your new assignment.”
      From Rev. Vernon Stoop, Jr.: “Dear Dr. Schwarz, It was with mixed emotions that I received your recent newsletter communication announcing your resignation from the presidency and leadership of Christian Anti-Communism Crusade after forty-five years. Over that period of time you have been a tremendous inspiration to me. Having served my present parish for forty-three years I have continued to espouse your doctrines of morality and Christian anti-communism. Indeed, you were quite instrumental in my choice of a seminary graduation thesis which happened to be on the subject of ‘Christianity versus Communism.’ My mixed emotions, however, come from the news that you announced David A. Noebel as your successor. Personally, I could think of no one more admirably suited to succeed you than David. For many years I have received his newsletter publication. His book Understanding the Times was in my possession early on and it was subsequently passed along to my associate Dr. Brown. Dr. Brown in turn attended one of the seminars of Summit Ministries on the subject of a Christian worldview. He subsequently returned and taught a course within our parish on that subject and we will be continuing to promote that cause in a variety of ways. Dr. Brown and I

likewise serve in para church ministries within the United Church of Christ on the subject of renewal. He is the president of ‘Friends For Life’ which is a group within the United Church of Christ that promotes pro-life issues. I in turn have served for the past twenty years as the executive director of Focus Renewal Ministries—which is a Holy Spirit directed renewal ministry within the United Church of Christ. Both of us have been swimming up stream within our denominational structure that tends to lean to the far left while we in turn attempt to maintain a standard of Christian Orthodoxy. Personally I am extremely impressed as to your choice of a successor and if the opportunity arises I’m hoping that you will pass along my desires for God’s blessings upon his endeavors. Likewise continued anointing upon you as you attempt to negotiate the twilight of your life with Holy Spirit directed empowerment.”
      In the next issue of The Schwarz Report we’ll continue with more letters and comments from friends who are expressing their heart-felt thanks to Dr. Schwarz for his lifetime effort and dedication to preserve that valuable commodity called freedom and in the process not be ashamed of his Christian commitment or its implications.
      It goes without saying that if you have been impacted by this ministry or if you have a particular anecdote to share about Dr. Schwarz or this ministry, please send these materials to us. And continue to remember us in your prayers and financial giving. Thanks for your willingness to stay the course and not grow weary in well doing. For the sake of our children and grandchildren, we dare not fall asleep at the switch. Hopefully, the horrendous slaughter of the 20th Century has been a major lesson for all of us. It should never happen again, but knowing human nature it most certainly will. As Christians we need to make sure we have done everything in our power to thwart the strategies and tactics of the Evil One whose whole career is to steal, kill and destroy (John 10:10).

David A. Noebel, for the editors

The Great Murderers of Mankind
by Dr. Fred C. Schwarz

      Jesus warned his followers that the day was coming when “whosoever kills you will think that he is doing God a service.” (John 16:2) The great murderers of mankind were not those who were motivated by hate, lust or greed, but those who believed they were doing service for their God.
      Consider the motivations and objectives of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot. With the possible exception of Hitler, all others believed that there is no God; that men and women are merely animals; that character, ideas, and talents are created by the experiences provided by the economic environment; that the provision of a new environment can create a “new man” with superior intellectual, physical and “moral” characteristics; that a unique organization, the Communist Party, has been given the authority to forcibly create and impose that new environment; and that they must devote their lives to the service of that Party and obey all its instructions.
      The God of Karl Marx was “History.” History was personalized and given a will. It not only recorded the past, but also created and predicted the future. The assurance that they knew “History’s will” provided them with a moral compass and program for day-to-day activity.
      “History” allegedly operated in accordance with certain laws. These were enshrined in the philosophy of Marx, called Dialectical Materialism. It taught that reality was invariably a state of conflict between two opposing forces and that the triumph of one of these forces was fore-ordained.

      Applying this philosophy, Marx concluded, “hitherto, every form of society has been based, as we have already seen, on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes.” (Communist Manifesto) These classes were the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The outcome of the struggle was certain. “What the Bourgeoisie, therefore, produces above all, is its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.” (Manifesto of the Communist Party, page 60, Progress Publishers, Moscow edition)
      Marx not only described, he prescribed. The workers were not only the observers and beneficiaries of history, they were also its instruments. It was their historic calling to destroy and bury the Bourgeois class. For this, the use of force was necessary. He called force the “midwife” who would deliver the infant, “Socialism,” from the womb of aging and decrepit Capitalism. He issued a rousing call for action.
      “The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose, but their chains. They have the world to win.” (page 96)
      Marx was a “classist” who predicted and prescribed classicide. He lacked the means to carry out the extermination of the Bourgeois class as he desired. However, he inspired others who created the means, the Communist Party, and thereby initiated the murder of millions. His dedicated disciple was young Russian intellectual, Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, who chose for himself the name of Lenin, and who brought the classicidal vision of Marx to fulfillment.

Jesus Christ, Karl Marx and Jacques Ellul, part 2
by Dr. Michael Bauman

      Ellul’s own anarchist assertions, he believes, are taught not only in the Old Testament in its entirety, but also in 1 Samuel 8, which he identifies as “the main text” on the issue of political power, a chapter he contends “boils down to three objections” to government, one being that “political power is always dictatorial, excessive, and unjust.”
      First, Ellul’s assertion that 1 Samuel 8 is the foundational Hebrew passage on this issue is highly debatable, if not roundly mistaken. One could argue, as Robert Filmer did three hundred years ago in his Patriarcha, that Genesis 1 and 2 formed the basis of Old Testament teaching on government and that from those chapters one discerns that the universe

itself is both hierarchical and monarchical (not anarchic). What the universe is, written large, as it were, the family is, written small. And government, Filmer argued, ought to take its cue from the family, of which it was intended to be the national manifestation or extension. The family, at least as Filmer understood Genesis, was monarchical in that the authority of the husband (or father) is singular and unrivaled. The king is, and ought to be, the father of his nation and should rule (and be honored) accordingly. The point here is not that Filmer’s monarchicalism is correct. (I do not think it is. John Locke disposed of that.) The point is that 1 Samuel 8 is not the unquestionably proper point of departure or locus of debate, as Ellul too easily assumes. Nor is the point insignificant for, as Aristotle taught us long ago, he who wishes to succeed must ask the right preliminary questions. The right question here is where properly to begin.
      In that light, both Filmer and Ellul notwithstanding, other  theologians argue that the place to begin is in Deuteronomy,

and that the Deuteronomic code itself is an extensive and elaborate constitution for ancient political power, dealing as it does with property rights, family relationships, labor, freedom, and crime and punishment. Among the numerous relevant passages to which those theologians point are Deuteronomy 17:8ff. (wherein the Israelites are commanded to obey the judicial decisions rendered by the judges and the Levites, upon pain of death), Deuteronomy 16:18ff. (wherein civil judges are expressly said to be given by God), and Deuteronomy 17:14ff. (which not only permits an Israelite monarchy and gives rules for its conduct, but actually indicates that God himself will select the king). Thus it is not true, as Ellul alleges, that before the incidents in 1 Samuel 8 “the people of Israel have been without political organization,” or that human government and political power are always evil and always opposed by God. Instead, the case was simply that Israel at that time did not have a human monarch at its head. Prior to 1 Samuel 8, Israel was a theocratic monarchy, not an instance of pre-Christian, divinely ordained anarchism. This point is underscored by practices in the age of judges that followed the second giving of the law, an age in which the theocratic monarchy was still (in theory at least) in full force, but in which major portions of political power had been delegated by God himself to human beings and widely dispersed among them. To the advocates of this view, the books of Deuteronomy and Judges are pivotal, not 1 Samuel 8.
      One could also equally well argue that Genesis 9, wherein capital punishment is prescribed and delegated to humans to enact at their discretion, is the God-ordained origin (and endorsement) of even the most extreme political power–that of the power of life and death over one’s fellows. Perhaps all Christian theorizing ought to being there, beneath God’s ancient imprimatur.
      Still other exegetes argue that by employing the suzerainty covenant ritual practiced by other nations while himself dealing with the chosen nation of Israel, God was indirectly (though not inadvertently or indiscriminately) endorsing human government and that such passages are crucial, not incidental, to our understanding of the Old Testament’s teaching on political power. Nor have I made mention of such diverse Old Testament texts as Exodus 18:13ff. (in which civil judges are appointed to administer God’s statutes); Exodus 21:23ff. (the famous lex talionis passage requiring human intervention for the proper administration of justice); or 2 Chronicles 19:5ff. (which indicates, among other things, that judges rule not for man but for God himself).

      In short, that 1 Samuel 8 is the pivotal Old Testament text is not at all clear. While theologians commonly find starting points other than 1 Samuel 8, and while those starting points (and the conclusions to which they lead) differ, anarchism is rarely named among them, as Ellul argues it ought to be.
      Yet, even if one were to begin with 1 Samuel 8, one could not conclude, as does Ellul, that it endorses anarchism or that it teaches that “political power is always dictatorial, excessive, and unjust.” The passage in question deals with Israel’s decision to have a human king once Samuel is gone. Their desire for a human king is spiritually wicked, not because political power is always and everywhere inescapably evil, or because monarchy is inherently vile, but because the Israelites already have God as their king. It simply and plainly is untrue that in 1 Samuel 8 “monarchical organization is formally condemned” or that this chapter condemns it “with ad hoc arguments that are always valid.” This chapter makes no statement whatever about the allegedly universal perversity or dictatorial propensities of political power in general, or of monarchies in particular. Ellul’s anarchism cannot be found anywhere in this text. By contending otherwise, Ellul is failing in precisely the same way about which he himself warned others: “Anytime we read the Bible to find arguments or justifications, we wallow in Christian ideology.”
      Ellul’s anarchism runs counter not only to the Old Testament, but also to the Jewish tradition and liturgy to which it gives rise. Jewish believers, for example, consider it their sacred duty to pray for the welfare of the civil government and of the society of the land in which they happen to live. This duty has been enjoined upon them by the prophet Jeremiah (29:7) and reinforced by the Mishnah (Avot 3:2: “pray for the welfare of the government”). The Jewish prayer for the welfare of the ruling powers of state, be they royal, executive, representative, or judicial, is a part of the Sabbath morning service and is recited after the reading of the Torah and before the Law scrolls are returned to the ark. According to the Metsudah Siddur, this prayer traditionally begins: “He Who grants deliverance to kings, and dominion to princes, His kingship is a kingship of all worlds; He Who rescued David, His servant, from the evil sword, Who put a road through the sea, and a path amid the mighty waters; may He bless, preserve, and guard, help, exalt, and make great, and raise high our Sovereign.” Clearly, these are not the petitions of anarchism.

The Three Faces of Marxism (conclusion)
by Dr. Ronald H. Nash

      Most so-called Christian Marxists have rejected Marxism-Leninism and grounded their synthesis of Marxism and Christianity on the Humanistic interpretation of Marx. However, a major change is in the winds. In some places, Christian Marxism is now being used to push nations in the direction of Marxist-Leninist totalitarianism. Liberation theology is being taken over by Marxist-Leninists.
      For decades, Marxist-Leninists opposed the Humanistic version of Marx and its evolving dialogue with sympathetic Christians. With the advent of liberation theology, however, and its growing influence in the so-called Third World, Fidel Castro has taught his Soviet counterparts how they can use Christian Marxism.
      Peasants and workers with strong religious convictions have often been the strongest opponents of communism. This has certainly been the case in two of the most heavily Roman Catholic nations in the world, Poland and Nicaragua. But thanks largely to Castro, hard-line Marxist-Leninists now see a way of defusing religious opposition to communism in countries like Nicaragua. The initial resistance that many workers and peasants have to communism, an opposition grounded on their religious convictions, can be weakened by teaching them that Marx’s values were really Christian values. What can make the situation even more promising is if workers and peasants are taught the Christian version of Marx by their own priests or pastors. After much of the initial opposition to Marxism is worn down, efforts can be made to win the new Marxist converts to the more radical views of Marxism-Leninism. In this way, liberation theology can be used as an anesthetic while the patient’s Christianity is removed. Liberation theology becomes the Trojan Horse by which Marxism-Leninism gains access to nations that would otherwise have rejected it on religious grounds.
      According to many close observers of the scene, including former supporters of the Sandinistas, this is precisely what is happening in Nicaragua. As one former ally of the Sandinistas puts it:

Of course, this awareness of the importance of Christians for the revolution did not involve a change in Marxist philosophy, nor did it signal an openness or new tolerance toward religion. It simply meant a new consciousness of the need to use Christians and, as a corollary, a tactical decision not to present an openly

antireligious face. . . .[R]evolutionary Christians [in Nicaragua] have encouraged other Christians to support the Sandinista government. They have done this by reinterpreting Christian beliefs in ways that lead to an endorsement of the main Marxist-Leninist tenets regarding man and society. They have advanced the view that true Christianity is, in fact, Marxism.

      Liberation theology therefore aids Marxism-Leninism by helping to remove or weaken religious opposition that is usually the biggest obstacle to a Communist takeover in traditionally Catholic nations like Nicaragua. Of course, once Marxist-Leninist totalitarianism does gain control over a nation, all pretense of support for religious freedom and tolerance soon ends.
      As observers of the Nicaragua situation point out, the cooperation between Christians and Marxists in that country has resulted in many Christians abandoning their religious faith and becoming converts to atheistic Marxism. It is interesting to note that in his book Christians and Marxists, self-styled evangelical José Míguez-Bonino shows little interest in inviting Marxists to become Christians. One searches in vain through his “dialogues” with Marxists for any declaration of the gospel.
      According to Humberto Belli, revolutionary Christians in Nicaragua

have lent credibility to the Sandinista contention that they [the Sandinistas] are not Marxist-Leninists but a novel regime where Christianity and revolution can walk together. They have served as a visible front to attack the Christian churches and to undermine their authority and teachings, thus minimizing for the Sandinistas the potentially high cost of a more direct confrontation . . . [and they have hidden] from the view of Christians abroad, the fact that there is religious persecution in Nicaragua today.

      While liberation theology in Nicaragua originally inspired Christians to oppose a right-wing dictatorship, it has become a tool that is now being used to justify support for a left-wing dictatorship. In Nicaragua, at least, the Marxist-Leninists have found a Trojan Horse that let them inside the gates of power.
      This essay has examined three interpretations of Marx. Attempts to interpret Marxism as a force that could bring about Socialistic democracies that would respect human

r    “For the past 10 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) has gotten a bad rap.  Despite the fact that 95% of the CO2 emitted each year is produced by nature, environmentalists started referring to CO2 as a pollutant in 1988 after some scientists claimed that the 30% rise in atmospheric CO2 over the last 150 years was attributable to humans and was causing global warming.  In response, Vice President Al Gore in his 1992 book Earth in the Balance called for ‘carbon taxes,’ stating that ‘killing the atmosphere with carbon dioxide and other pollutants...is a wilful expansion of our dysfunctional civilization into vulnerable parts of the natural world.’  The evidence shows neither that a modest warming will threaten human life through environmental catastrophe nor that the recent rise in CO2 levels is responsible for the measured rise in global temperature.  Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.  It is tasteless, colorless, nontoxic to humans at concentrations up to 13 times present levels and is essential to life.  Plants breathe CO2, and as they grow and reproduce, they exhale oxygen, making the earth habitable for humans.  Instead of a disaster, the expected doubling of CO2 due to human activities will produce a number of benefits over the next century.”  H. Sterling Burnett and Merrill Matthews, Jr., “Mr. Gore, Carbon Dioxide is not a Pollutant,” Human Events, March 6, 1998, p. 22  

r         “The one group in the Western world of which a significant percentage supported Communism was secular intellectuals.  Many secular intellectuals assessed Communism and capitalism not by their moral results but by their presumed motives.  Communism, these people believed, emanated from noble motives—equality, justice, concern for the downtrodden; while capitalism, they believed emanated from selfish motives—profit.  That capitalism has been the socioeconomic engine of every democracy and has 

produced unprecedented wealth for virtually all its citizens, while Communism led to the slaughter of more people than any ideology in history (including Nazism—the Nazis had less time) has meant little to many intellectuals.  Legions of Western professors, writers and artists have at various times passionately embraced murderous Communist regimes such as those of Stalin and Mao, and despotic regimes such as those of Ho and Castro.  Why?  In large part because of their tendency to value motives more than behavior—a tendency that accounts for their belief in the inferiority of the religious moral character.”   Dennis Prager, The Prager Perspective, February 15, 1998, p. 3

r     “Throughout that [cold] war, we were confronted with the phenomenon of the ‘Treason of the Intellectuals,’ where large segments of our intelligentsia collaborated intellectually and politically with our enemies.  The treason took several forms, whose effects were to aid the political and ideological dimensions of the Soviet and international communism cold war against us.  Ultimately, it was not just a war between us here and them over there.  It was a war between two visions of society, two philosophies of life.  It was a moral conflict between truth and falsehood at two different levels.  The question is: Where did these debilitating and dangerous policies come from?  What is it that generates the treason of the intellectuals?  The answer, I submit, is our educational system, and in particular, our elite universities, which are the most subversive institutions in American society today—more than the media, more than the movies, more than all the other influences.  Because the rot starts in the head, and only then it spreads throughout the body.”  John Lenczowski, “The Treason of the Intellectuals,” in Henry M. Morris, That Their Words May Be Used Against Them, p. 427, 428

r    “Parents can work hard to educate their children to be patriots and morally upright citizens.  But four years of college of the kind I experienced—where I was surrounded by a culture of drugs, sexual libertinism, political radicalism and little homework—can destroy the efforts of the best parents in America.  Add to that a few years of graduate school and the counter-cultural influence can prove to be irremediable.  In one fell swoop, through these various premises, the intellectuals deny the existence of God; they deny that God made human life a series of moral choices; and they assert that they, through the supremacy of their human reason, and not God, are the creative intelligence of this world.  But I would guess that 95 percent of the social scientists in America’s elite universities—or could it be 99 percent?—would not sign the Declaration of Independence if they were honest about it.  They simply do not believe in the first paragraph.  They do not believe that rights come from any Creator.  And thus, they cannot believe in the fundamental tenet of American democracy: majority rule with minority rights.  Because unless rights come from a higher authority, one with the capability to endow rights unconditionally, the majority can always attach conditions to rights or deny them to whichever minority group it chooses to victimize.”  John Lenczowski, “The Treason of the Intellectuals,” in Henry M. Morris, That Their Words May Be Used Against Them, p. 428.

r    “[Hanoi} Jane Fonda sounds the tocsin calling patriots to action.  ‘Most Americans don’t know their tax money is being used for that, and most Americans don’t want it,’ she declares.  Ms. Fonda, we are given to understand, has a long record of being attuned to the values of most Americans.  The current cause for her alarm is that Congress has appropriated $50 million per year to encourage sex education programs that promote abstinence until marriage.  Ms. Fonda is not without support from disinterested patriots.  She has teamed up with Durex Consumer Products, the world’s largest marketer of condoms (Shiek, Ramses, and Avanti brands), to launch a nationwide ‘Truth for Youth’ program.  Says Ms. Fonda, ‘Abstinence until marriage is based on an unreal world that isn’t out there.’  Not if the Fonda-Durex team has its way.”  First Things, March 1998, p. 75    

r         “I would counsel secular humanists to spend much less of their time accumulating proof texts on the failings and horrors of religion and much more on what, humanly speaking, must be the great concern for us late twentieth-century survivors of the horrors perpetrated in Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia in the 1930s and 1940s: the face of man after Auschwitz....Obviously secularism and the advance of science have been no unmixed blessing.  The great horrors of our time have been the work of secular anthropocentric societies.  The eminent secular thinkers who inspired us in our youth never prepared us for what happened.”  Seymour Cain, Free Inquiry, Winter 1993/94, p. 57

r    “There was something unique about the experiment of Communism.  For the first time in history, man attempted to eradicate God fully, claiming that he held all potential within himself.  And yet Communism drew ‘believers’ in the same way as the Christianity it abhorred: both Marxist ideology and faith in Christ proved to have the capacity to fire man’s imagination, to engender his loyalty, to inspire and to command a willingness to sacrifice.  One belief system is based on a materialistic view of man, the other on a spiritual view.  Whittaker Chambers, a man who knew the compelling attraction of both, claims that two faiths have been on trial in this century: faith in God and faith in Man.  Communism is a manifestation of the latter.  ‘It is, in fact, man’s second oldest faith,’ he explains.  ‘Its promise was whispered in the first days of Creation under the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil: “Ye shall be as gods.”  It is the great alternative faith of mankind.  Like all great faiths, its force derives from a simple vision.  Other ages have had great visions.  They have

always been different versions of the same vision: the vision of God and man’s relationship to God.  The communist vision is the vision of man without God.’” Barbara von der Heydt, Candles Behind the Wall (1993), p. xvi

r     “On college and university campuses all over the country, student governments funnel tens of millions of dollars into left/liberal causes, and they have been doing this for 25 years.  Many of the most extreme leftwing movements in America derive significant financial support from the fees that nearly all college students are required to pay, and which go into the hands of the small cliques of students who control the student government.”  The Phyllis Schlafly Report, April 1994, p. 2

r    “The [California Supreme] Court’s ruling [Smith v. Regents of the University of California] listed 14 ‘frankly political or ideological’ groups to which the student government, called the Associated Students at the University of California (ASUC), had given funds from mandatory student fees: ‘Amnesty International, Berkeley Students for Peace, Campus NOW, Campus Abortion Rights Action League, Gay and Lesbian League, Progressive Student Organization, REAP (Radical Education and Action Project), Spartacus Youth League, Students Against Intervention in El Salvador, Students for Economic Democracy, UC Berkeley Feminist Alliance and Women Organized Against Sexual Harassment, UC Sierra Club, Conservation and National Resources Organization and Greenpeace Berkeley.’” The Phyllis Schlafly Report, April 1994, p. 2

r    “The situation in the [American] universities was appalling.  The Marxists and socialists who had been refuted by historical events were now the tenured establishment of the academic world.  Marxism had produced the bloodiest and most oppressive regimes in human history—but after the fall [of the Berlin Wall], as one wit commented, more Marxists could be found on the faculties of American colleges than in the entire former Communist bloc.  The American Historical Association was run by Marxists, as was the professional literature association, whose field had been transformed into a kind of pseudosociology of race-gender-class oppression.”  David Horowitz, Radical Son(1997), p. 405

r    “Radical politics had become the intellectual currency of academic thought.  With no trace of embarrassment, Richard Rorty, one of the most prominent figures in academic philosophy, even boasted that ‘the power base of the Left in America is in the universities,’ by which he meant not the students (who were generally apathetic if not conservative), but the faculties, administrations, and departments, who tried to recruit students to their [leftwing] political agendas.”  David Horowitz, Radical Son, (1997), p. 405

r         “Conservatives [Kirk, Sowell, Oakeshott, etc.] who had been historically vindicated by the Twentieth Century’s epic struggle against Marxism totalitarianism were generally consigned to obscurity, while radicals who had denigrated and betrayed Western freedom—political hacks like Angela Davis, intellectual commissars like Antonio Gramsci, and embittered nihilists like Michel Foucault—were given places of honor in the academic canon.”  David Horowitz, Radical Son (1997), p. 406

r    “Who are the liberation theologians?... [T]here are feminist liberation theologies, black liberation theologies, Hispanic liberation theologies, neo-orthodox liberation theologies, evangelical liberation theologies, Roman Catholic liberation theologies.  Liberation theology is taught in virtually every seminary in mainline Christianity in North America.  And more, it threatens to eclipse the preaching of the Word from the pulpits of the American churches.”  Paul C. McGlasson, Another Gospel: A Confrontation with Liberation Theology, p. 16