Dear Berit,

Yes, please post my letter… and feel free to use my full name. (There aren’t very many Berit Kjos’, but I’ll bet there are a half-dozen Mike Millers in my zip-code alone.)

On the subject of Marxist dialectical strategies for change; My mother-in-law has a collection of old Look Magazines. In one of them from the 1950s is an interview with a US soldier-survivor of the North Korean prison camps. He said that most of his fellow prisoners didn’t survive intact (mentally), but a few did. He said there were 2 keys to survival. The first was a strong faith in God. The second was what he called “a closed mind”. He went on to explain what he meant by “closed mind”. He said the communist used a variety of tools to break you, and that their goal was not to kill you, but to transform you into a “communist drone”. In other words- brainwash & indoctrinate- which happens simultaneously. They would used sleep depravation, starvation, isolation, intermittent beatings (you never knew when they were coming), cognitive dissonance, torture, etc. What was their objective? To get the prisoner to “dialogue”. The US soldier said that the public was under the misunderstanding that the purpose of divulging only name, rank, and serial number was to keep the enemy from gathering intelligence. He said that was not the reason at all. The reason was to keep from engaging in the mind-altering dialogue which we knew the communist were using. Now these same techniques are being used on our own unsuspecting innocent children. The report-cards of children in our local school district have added 2 subject areas in which children are evaluated; they are flexibility and adaptability.

Lord have mercy on us.


Mike Miller

 Mike Miller []

From: Berit Kjos []
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 5:13 PM
To: 'Mike Miller'
Subject: RE: didactic vs dialectic dilemma


Mike, I totally agree with you! It is so sad!


I had a similar talk with the youth leader at “our” church. (It’s not our church, but we attend, because Andy has been chairman of the mission committee for about 12 years. We love the missionaries we serve, and want to support them – and if we leave, the pressures to cut support for foreign missionaries will surely increase.)  We met specifically to discuss The Shack, that horrid distortion of our God that has become the rage in churches around the world. We discussed other issues as well – and we didn’t agree on anything. Just like your discussion! It was all very friendly; I even found myself laughing several times, because we saw everything SO VERY DIFFERENTLY. Yet, I gave him a hug before he left, and we even prayed together – on our knees. He must have thought I was very weird and old-fashioned by the time he left.


Today’s paradigm shift is different from all other cultural and spiritual transformations. The Marxist dialectical strategies for change breaks down resistance to the horrendous brainwashing that is undermining Biblical Truth, certainty, faith and understanding of our true and sovereign Lord. Biblically illiterate, most subjects succumb because “common ground” and unbiblical unity sounds so good and nice. You and I become the misfits, the obstacle to the illusion of Christian oneness.


May I post your excellent letter? If so, you may not want me to mention your name. I could just call you a friend who shares my concern or something like that. Or simply “Mike.”  In any case, I know many others will be encouraged to see that they are not alone in this battle.


By His wonderful grace alone,



From: Mike Miller []
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 3:39 PM
Subject: didactic vs dialectic dilemma


Dear Berit,


I have been a longtime reader of your website. I’ve read most every article penned and posted by you… and many of your articles more than twice. I’ve read your books A Twist of Faith and Brave New Schools. Generally speaking, I’m in full agreement with your concerns about “reformed” education, Christendom, politics, shifting worldviews, etc.


I’m writing to you today to express my frustration & bewilderment. Yesterday, I shared a 2 hour lunch & conversation with the pastor of my church. I don’t quite know how to describe it except to say that it was the most frustrating meeting I think I’ve ever had with another individual. He is a very nice man, and was very pleasant with me and seemed genuinely interested in listening to my concerns. Likewise, I bent over backwards to make certain to deliver my concerns in a congenial tone, and to listen to his rationale with an open mind.


On the many issues we discussed, we came to agreement on almost nothing. It was almost as if we were speaking 2 different languages. Although we ended our meeting with a pleasant handshake, my anguish over what was said continues to fester within me, literally bringing me to the point of nausea late last night.


Five or so years ago, I began to see “red flags” of concern emerge at my son’s public school. These “red flags” led me to begin to study curricula issues which in turn led me to study education reform. My study of education reform led me to related studies of the UN, planned societal transformation, the “emergent church” movement, progressivism, gradualism, Marxism, Hegelian dialectics, one world governance, interspirituality, and other topics.


While each of these subversive topics & techniques should be frightening to any God-fearing Christian and/or patriotic American, the most alarming & startling truism is the revelation that they are all connected & intertwined, even using the same lexicon. Other than the “common language” (which involves the redefinition of common words & phrases; semantic deception), there are other common threads that link each of these topics. One overarching “common thread” is a paradigm shift in the way truth (fact) is both interpreted and defined.


The “old” paradigm (worldview) believed in absolute truth. Therefore, the inevitable dilemmas of life were approached in a didactic manner; objectively weighing evidence and governing (or modifying) our opinions based on an objective assessment of both proven and self-evident truths.


The emerging paradigm (worldview) approaches the inevitable dilemmas of life from a much more subjective dialectic point of view. This “dialectic worldview” blurs any distinction between opinion and fact. The purpose of reasoned argument (debate) is to shift opinion based upon the didactic presentation of, and the objective assessment of facts (truths). When an individual believes that his/her opinion is equivalent to fact (truth), then reasoned debate becomes impossible because facts & truth become relative. Adherents to the dialectic paradigm simply modify or disregard fact (truth) that conflicts with their opinion.

Three years ago, my church lost their long-time pastor to retirement. The subsequent pastor search took 18 months. Of the voting congregation at my church (approx 300), I was only one of 2 that voted not to offer this man a contract. My reasons were varied, centering on some questionable things I’d read from some of his previous sermons and whom he listed as his primary mentors on his application; Brian McClaren & Leonard Sweet. Since his installation as our pastor, I’ve witnessed a number of “red flags” which have caused me concern as to where he’s leading our congregation. Alliances with humanitarian organizations such as World Vision and Habitat For Humanity, and an over-emphasis on phrases such as social justice, community, importance of relationship (with the group, not with God), and service have permeated our church.

The reason that I met with my pastor was to express my concerns about labyrinth instruction that has been introduced to the children at my church. I asked him about our responsibility to weigh what we taught in the church against the “sound doctrine” of the New Testament. He countered with, “I think the key question then is not what is an appropriate spiritual discipline, but are we seeing and looking for Jesus there.” I pointed out to him that it is an undeniable and well documented fact that labyrinths are used by various occult & esoteric religious traditions, and that the Old Testament is filled with stories demonstrating God’s displeasure with those who would blend these “worship practices” with Christian worship, even calling it an abomination. He essentially dismissed the entire Old Testament and all the apostles of the New Testament’s call for adherence to “sound doctrine” (truth), by saying that in his personal experience (opinion) he’s seen no danger and even witnessed spiritual growth in children participating in labyrinth walks. I asked him, “If you believe so strongly in these labyrinth walks as tools for spiritual growth, why have you only introduced it to the children (without their parents knowing, I might add)? Why not introduce it to the adult congregation to enhance their spiritual growth? (I know his rationale for this. A more mature Christian mind will reject this practice for the abomination it is. Children have been the primary targets for all subversive societal transformations throughout history.) He said that the children are growing-up in a new culture. “The culture of our childhood was too heavily focused on the cognitive approach to learning. This new generation is responding to a more experiential approach. Our church has a responsibility to make church more relevant.” It sounded to me like he’s been reading too much humanistic psychology (Rogers & Maslow) which is a philosophy in direct opposition to the Christian philosophy.

No matter what evidence, facts, or reason I employed, he was not going to change his mind. I came to realize that in fact we were speaking different languages. Expecting and adherent of a dialectic worldview to reason objectively based on fact (didactically) is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. My church is in trouble, and I don’t know how or if I’m up to the challenge of waking their slumber.

I haven’t written to specifically ask anything of you. I’m not sure yet what I will or can do. I just needed a trusted Christian shoulder to lean on. Thanks for being there.


Mike Miller