Yet it seems that when it comes to much liberal speech, the liberals muzzle themselves.  On so many topics, the liberals are afraid to say what they honestly believe.  Why is this?

First, let's observe some concrete examples.  If you have the opportunity, as I have, to ask liberal Christian leaders (pastors, bishops, seminary theologians, etc.) what they believe about the basic tenets of Christianity and the Bible, you will find that they shy away from telling the truth in public.  They won't tell you completely what they truly believe, but rather they will give short answers, or use language in "code," or in some instances, they will straight out lie.

You know what I mean by short answers:  Simply a "yes" or "no" or "of course I do."  However, do you know what I mean when I say "code language?"  The liberals, for whatever reason, have created their own dictionary and lexicons for the meaning of words.  The purpose of this is an effort to speak in traditional Christian language so that it will sound authentic to the traditional Christian audience, but to speak without any of the traditional meaning behind the words.

For example, ask a liberal if Christ's resurrection is essential to the Christian faith, and the liberal will agree emphatically, "The resurrection is absolutely the keystone in the arch of Christianity," the liberal will say.  Sounds traditional enough, right?  Then see if you can get the liberal to describe in words exactly what "Christ's resurrection" means to him/her.  You will either get a nebulous answer as a means to avoid the question, or some "code language" that sounds traditional, or the liberal might right out lie and tell you just exactly what you believe, so as not to "offend" your beliefs. 

If the liberal came out of the closet and told you his/her honest belief, it would be that Jesus (a great person, closer to God than any other person--divinity conveniently omitted) was certainly crucified and died, but physically, actually, truly "came to life" in a physical form that the Disciples could see and feel?"  Naw!  No way!  In all honesty, the liberal would go on to say that the resurrection is symbolic of the Christian faith; the resurrection was a myth created by the writers of the Gospels as they wrote what the people needed to hear in order to follow a new religion . . . etc. . . . etc.  The rest of the liberals' dribble doesn't deserve the time or space to write it out! 

Why won't the liberals tell the truth?  What would happen if they did?  Well, if you're talking about the clergy, if they told the truth, they never would have been ordained.  Decades ago, if a liberal candidate for the clergy would have said the things above, the candidate would have been dismissed because the clergy leaders saw it as heresy and unacceptable beliefs, after all, such nonsense was completely contrary to the tenets of their churches.  The situation hasn't changed--the liberal candidate would still be dismissed for stating honest beliefs, but there's a big difference now:  In many denominations and/or geographic locations, the clergy leaders are themselves liberals, but still these leaders insist that the liberal clergy candidates must still profess the traditional Christian beliefs, even though they don't believe them in their traditional meanings.  The liberal leaders have taught the liberal students that it's not acceptable to speak their honestly-held beliefs in straightforward english, but rather the liberal students are taught the code meanings of the traditional words, so that on the surface, they all sound very traditional.

So what's the purpose of all this double talk?  Why the new meanings to the old words?

The complete answer to these questions is beyond the scope of this writing, but you'll find various versions to answer these questions everywhere in conservative writings.  For example, the answer is written in conservative analysis of the phenomenon of political correctness.  In a nutshell, the explanations make clear that if you want to manipulate the public and change belief systems, you must slip the change into the culture, without the culture noticing it.  The opposite of this would be to simply say it straight out, without couching the terminology, and be blunt--this would never work.  Society is slow to change, and if you try to change society abruptly, the result is a backlash, and a complete resistance to the intended change.  Thus, not only do you not accomplish the intended change, you cause an eternal road block to be erected that reminds everyone, forever, of the change you tried, and society will never let you forget that you tried it, and society will forever resist it.

An example of the wrong way to change things is the early 1990's Hillary-Care attempt to make a sweeping and massive change in the way that the federal government would control national health care.  The Hillary Clinton team told the public straight out what the team wanted to do, and the public said, "You've got to be kidding!"  And, forever now, a road block to this type of federalized health care has been erected.  These liberals learned their lesson, and all other wise liberals have learned from it as well.

Now, let's look at an example where the wise liberals have attempted to slip a cultural change in the back door, hoping the vast public would never notice.  The example is in Massachusetts where this past spring a handful of radical liberal bureaucrats from the state agencies of education and public health pushed the homosexual agenda straight at children.

If you haven't read about this incident of homosexual sex act education, click here to read a background article, complete with links to the details.  The story in summary is that these state-paid public servants were so much behind the homosexual agenda that they held a seminar at Tufts University, which was promoted by the public elementary schools and high schools (these schools bussed their students to the seminar) to increase the students' interest in homosexual behavior.  Students barely past puberty engaged in a discussion with these bureaucrats about how to perform homosexual sex acts which are too disgusting to repeat (see the link above).

Unbeknownst to the homosexual advocates, a parent sitting in the seminar tape recorded the session of the bureaucrats talking with the children, and then made the tape public.  The homosexual advocates immediately went to court to stop the tape from being made public, but the facts of their disgusting seminar had already been brought into the light.  The result was the expected backlash by the public who became aware of the facts, and the state agencies who employed these radical liberal bureaucrats disavowed any knowledge of what these employees were up to, saying their actions were not policies of the agencies, and Margot Abels of the state education agency was fired for her actions.

So what has Margot Abels got to say today?  She's suing the parent who tape recorded her sex talk with the children because the taping resulted in her being fired.  Click here to read the entire story from yesterday.

What have the liberals learned?  They've learned that they must be secretive when they disseminate their agenda.  And the "christian liberals" (an oxymoron?) are no different.  They know better than to come right out and say "Jesus was not divine at conception, and he certainly had an earthly father," as they would be quickly ushered out of the church. 

The radical "christian liberals" (who are more a political force in America than a religious force) have a variety of liberal agendas to disseminate in the American culture.  They are passionate about their cause, just like any political action committee.  And just like any liberal political group, they are certain that they know what is best for America, and they intend to force it down America's throat!

These forces have chosen the churches as a battleground for their efforts.  They have christianized a radical liberal political agenda, that they hope to use to infiltrate Christianity, and their entry point appears to be the mainline protestant denominations.

It took many, many years after the radical liberals attacked the churches, but finally some conservative clergy and members of the churches recognized the attack for what it was, and then they began to fight back. 

This liberal/conservative war is continually fought in the churches, but the vast majority of the church-going public is oblivious to even the existence of the war; and a primary reason why the majority is unaware of the war, is the language used in the battles.  For example, whereas the liberals continue to push their beliefs in a god not of the Bible using their "code language," knowing what the liberals are up to, the conservatives battle back by continuing to preach God of the Bible, but the vast majority of the people in the pews observe this, and simply sit by because they don't understand what the fighting is about.  To them, it sounds like both sides are saying exactly the same thing, because they don't understand that the "code language" used by the liberals actually has a meaning that is completely different than the traditional meaning.

So the liberals continue to try to slip their new theology into the minds of these unaware people, without them noticing what's being done to them.  The most effective route is of course to work on those with little traditional Christian knowledge, as they are formless and thus easy to mold.  They have little "old-time thinking" that must be purged.

And just as the homosexual educators in Massachusetts, the liberals in the church know where the fields are most fertile to grow their evil thoughts:  That's right--THE CHILDREN!!

Parents and Christian Educators BEWARE!!