The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum The Doctrine of the Atonement

It’s also important to know that agents of change do not only exist in the political and cultural sphere, but also in the religious sphere. Once again, consider Machen and Old Princeton which was essentially high jacked by the Federal Council of Churches in 1908 to push the Social Gospel/the Progressive movement as summarized in their The Social Creed of the Churches. If I’m following the history right, the Higher Critics were influential in all this. I’m sure there are various parallels with what the PCA and others are experiencing on the denominational side. There’s surely some concentrated influencing and organization behind the scenes in these kind of power struggles. These entities remain highly active today. There are various ways to fundamentally and radically transform society. A fallen citizenry, even a blinded denominational assembly, is ripe for manipulation and ultimately destruction and history keeps on repeating…

“ John D. Rockefeller, Jr., and the Interchurch World Movement of 1919–1920: A Different Angle on the Ecumenical Movement 1982
Abstract: There is a certain irony in the title of Eldon G. Ernst’s Moment of Truth for Protestant America, the standard interpretation of the Interchurch World Movement (IWM) of 1919–1920, because this broad and generally perceptive study of the IWM is based primarily upon an elaborate falsification of the historical record. That falsification was perpetrated in a document entitled “History of the Interchurch World Movement” prepared under the direction of Raymond B. Fosdick. Fosdick, who was the lawyer and long-term adviser of John D. Rockefeller, Jr., had the document compiled precisely to conceal the real role Rockefeller played in the organization. Research in Rockefeller’s papers reveals the truth about his role and thereby illumines a significant aspect of the ecumenical movement and its relationship to wider historical trends. This overlooked aspect from the background of the liberal side of the fundamentalist controversy is particularly pertinent today as tensions mount between those who identify themselves as “liberals” and those who claim to lead a “moral majority” of resurgent conservatism. Perhaps Washington Gladden, the old social gospel advocate, was not entirely wrong when he referred to a Rockefeller contribution as “tainted money,” however idealistic Rockefeller’s motives may have been.”