Wherein Classical Marxism and 21st Century Christianity Become Indistinguishable

1.) “Princes and nations will disappear without violence from the earth, the human race will become one family and the world the abode of reasonable men.”

-Adam Weishaupt, quoted in Paul Johnson, Intellectuals (London: Orion Books Limited, 1993), p. 32.

2.) Capitalism developed the ever more inhuman polarization of the sexes. The cult of making distinctions, which serves only for oppression, is now being swept away by awareness of resemblance and identity.

M. Walser
Uber die neusten Stimmungen im Westen
In: Kursbuch, Bd. 20, 1970, S. 19-41.

3.) ”What will be the attitude of communism to existing nationalities?

The nationalities of the peoples associating themselves in accordance with the principle of community will be compelled to mingle with each other as a result of this association and hereby to dissolve themselves, just as the various estate and class distinctions must disappear through the abolition of their basis, private property.”

~ Frederick Engels in “The Principles of Communism”, 1847

4.) “The equality of races and nations is one of the most important elements of the moral strength and might of the Soviet state. Soviet anthropology develops the one correct concept, that all the races of mankind are biologically equal. The genuinely materialist conception of the origin of man and of races serves the struggle against racism, against all idealist, mystic conceptions of man, his past, present and future.”

—Mikhail Nesturkh, Soviet anthropologist, 1959
“The Origin of Man” (Moscow)Mikhail Nesturkh, Soviet anthropologist, 1959:

5.) “The aim of socialism is not only to abolish the present division of mankind into small states and end all national isolation; not only to bring the nations closer together but to merge them….”

Vladimir Lenin
The Rights of Nations to Self Determination — pg. 76

6.) “… Just as mankind can achieve the abolition of classes only by passing through the dictatorship of the proletariat, so mankind can achieve the inevitable merging of nations only by passing through the transition period of complete liberation of all oppressed nations, i.e., their right to secede. “

Vladimir Lenin 
The Rights of Nations to Self Determination

7.) “Hess had taught Marx that socialism was inseparable from internationalism. Marx writes in his Communist Manifesto that the proletariat has no fatherland. In his Red Catechism, Hess mocks the fatherland notion of the Germans, and he would have done the same with the fatherland notion of any other European nation. Hess criticized the Erfurt program of the German Social-Democrat Party for its unconditional recognition of the national principle. But Hess is an internationalist with a difference: Jewish patriotism must remain. He writes,

‘Whoever denies Jewish nationalism is not only an apostate, a renegade in the religious sense but a traitor to his people and to his family. Should it prove true that the emancipation of the Jews is incompatible with Jewish nationalism, then the Jew must sacrifice emancipation… The Jew must be, above all, a Jewish patriot.’

I agree with Hess’ patriotic ideas to the extent that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I am for every kind of patriotism – that of the Jews, the Arabs, the Germans, the Russians, the Americans. Patriotism is a virtue if it means the endeavor to promote economically, politically, spiritually, and religiously the welfare of one’s own nation, provided that it is done in friendship and cooperation with other nations.”

~Richard Wurmbrand, Marx & Satan, pp.54-55

8.) This from Igor Shafareivich’s “Socialist Phenomenon,” Shafareivich is commenting on that which is characteristic of all International Socialist expressions, 

a.) The national question: ‘National differences and antagonistic interests among various peoples are already vanishing more and more and more thanks to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the corresponding conditions of life. The supremacy of the proletariat will accelerate the disappearances of differences.’

9.) “Even the natural differences within species, like racial differences…, can and must be done away with historically.”
K. Marx’s Collected Works V:103,
As cited in S.F. Bloom’s The World of Nations: A
Study of the National Implications in the Work of Karl Marx, Columbia University Press, New York, 1941, pp. 11 & 15-19:

10.) Nikita Krushchev

“Full-scale Communist construction constitutes a new stage in the development of national relations in the U.S.S.R., in which the nations will draw still closer together until complete unity is achieved…. However, the obliteration of national distinctions and especially of language distinctions is a considerably longer process than the obliteration of class distinctions.”

11.) “The more Christianity spreads, the more these racial, ethnic, and national distinctions will be erased because no culture will be left untouched by the Gospel. When all (cultures) are affected, they will be one culture — Christendom.”

21st Century  “Christian Reconstructionist Theologian”

12.)  “We hear much about “identity politics” today. Christianity beat the movement to that concept by many centuries. Our identity is not ours to choose, however. Our identity is not determined by our genetics or our economic status. No, the Christian message about identity is an easy one: Christ is all and in all. He is our identity. His sacrifice redeems us, His intercession assures us, and as we live in recognition of His centrality in all things, the human-derived divisions that plague all of mankind are put aside. We come to one table, as one people, and the only lens we need for that is the one that shows us the Lord of glory, Jesus.”

21st Century Baptist High Profile “Apologist”




A Few Thoughts On Blasphemy

[Otto Scott] Well, there are still social sanctions against blasphemy, but the idols have changed.

[Rushdoony] Yes.

[Scott] You can’t blaspheme against certain minorities and that includes even discussing their behavior.

[Rushdoony] Yes, very good.

[Scott] Um, Judge Bork is being attacked because in the 1971 article. (In) 1971, he questioned the right to privacy as far as the Constitution is concerned. So he was committing blasphemy against Liberalism.

[Rushdoony] Very good. Excellent point… this is what blasphemy is about. And today, of course, as you have said Otto, we have reversed the moral order. We have made it blasphemy to speak ill of certain minority groups. And this is the problem.

RJR Lecture 

1.) Blasphemy is an inescapable category. All social orders and cultures have either defacto or dejure blasphemy laws.

2.) Once one identifies what subject matter is outside the bounds of sustained and harsh criticism for a social order there one has identified the sacred. Once the sacred is identified then you know what is and is not considered blasphemy in that social order.

3.) Blasphemy laws can be of a dejure nature and often when crafted so the violation of blasphemy means a severe legal penalty. However, more often blasphemy laws are defacto and are not visited with a severe legal penalty but rather are visited with social and economic ostracism. We are seeing this increasingly in the West as a violation of non-legislated speech codes can cost someone their reputation, career and so livelihood.

4.) When the God of the Bible is eliminated from that which cannot be blasphemed the consequence is most usually it is the State which cannot be blasphemed or whatever the State by law or by precedent says may not be blasphemed.  That the State sets the parameter for what can and cannot be blasphemed one only needs to look at the Statist youth centers where the children are taught whom the god and gods are in the social order who must not be blasphemed. For example, the whole work going on against “bullying of the LGBQT community,” is largely just a program to set up the LGBQT community and their behavior as sacred and so not to be blasphemed.

5.) Blasphemy laws are about thought control. If one cannot say something one generally does not think that something. There is a tight connection between what one is allowed to say and what someone will end up thinking. If one cannot verbally denigrate God one will not likely give much thought to denigrating God. This is the way political correctness is working today. When we are not allowed to say something because the saying of it is considered blasphemy then the thinking of those thoughts will eventually dry up. For example, people very seldom use the word “sodomite” anymore to describe same-gender relation. The reason is that is the word “sodomite” has successfully been turned into a blasphemous word. To use that word is to raise a hand against that behavior which has become considered sacred.

6.) It is interesting that in Scripture there is little distinction between the sinner who deliberately abuses the name of the Lord ( Lev. 24:10-16), and the one who deliberately flouts his commandments ( Numbers 15:30-31). So tightly is God’s character/name and God’s law bound together that the flouting of either is the flouting of both. For both blasphemy and for the one who deliberately flouts God’s law, the death penalty is prescribed.

7.) Clearly, the God of the Bible is not considered sacred in our social order. In point of fact, a good case could be made that in order to advance in this social order one must not hold God as sacred for to hold God as sacred so as to not blaspheme His name would mean to blaspheme what this current social order takes as sacred.

8.) Summarizing, when one discovers in a social order what can or cannot be harshly criticized (blasphemed) there one has discovered the sacred in that social order. Once one has discovered the sacred in the social order one begins to unravel what the religion of that social order is. Blasphemy is an inescapable concept for all social orders because God and religion are inescapable concepts in all social orders.

The Shape of Water — A Review

“The Shape of Water,” just won the Academy Award for best film of the year. Having viewed the film last night I found just one more Cultural Marxist attack on the norms and values of the Christendom norms that normed Western civilization in favor of the putative superiority of the alien, the stranger, and the other.

The storyline introduces us to a “wild creature that can’t be anything else.” The film informs us that the wild creature comes from the third world Amazon and was abducted from his previous god-like existence by the evil white man and was brought by force and ill-treatment in order to possibly advance science and to beat the Russians to the moon. Of course, the wild creature while wild is cast as morally superior to his captors, even if he does eat a housecat along the way.

We find in the narrative thus that the white man as the protagonist as embodied in evil white General, the bumbling white scientist, and the evil white project head. The only slightly favorable white straight male character is the Communist Russian scientist spy who works to help save the wild creature. Hence the film reinforces our modern Cultural Marxist narrative of the stupid and evil white man who oppresses everything he lays his hands on.

White women only fare slightly better. Except for the lead, which we will return to later, the three white women who have minuscule roles are cast in traditional female roles and are subtly mocked in the film. The film gives us the white wife of the chief villain who is mocked as the traditional white stay at home Mother of two who is subservient to her husband and whose only ability is the sex she provides for her husband and her ability to be at home with the children. In such a way patriarchy is also mocked in the film. A second bit white female role is of the secretary at work who likewise is portraying a traditional white female role of “our girl Friday.” The third bit white female role lead is that of a bitchy co-worker who is always complaining or casting demeaning insults at the lead mute female. There are the three white women bit-roles we are given in the film. White traditional women like white men take it on the chin in this Cultural Marxist film.

The leading lady of the film is a white female who while not beautiful is comely. She is cast as a white woman who is missing something (her voice) that only the wild creature from an exotic land can finally cure.  The supporting male role is filled by a middle-aged sodomite who aids the female lead in rescuing the wild creature from the grip of the evil white men. The supporting female role is played by a black female who is forever telling us about the deficiencies of her husband. Except for the wild creature, the Communist scientist spy, and the sodomite, males in the film are bumbling, or evil beings. More Cultural Marxist fare; straight non-Communist white men are evil while perverted wild males from other lands or sodomites or Communists are good.

I’m convinced the leading white lady is supposed to represent the every day western white woman who can only find her voice by throwing themselves sexually at the wild thing from an exotic land who heals her of her lost voice while imparting to her immortal life as living in his environment.  White women and poor misunderstood wild males from exotic lands can only save one another as they conspire to overcome the wicked white man by copulating. So, we have the Cultural Marxist film selling the idea that there is something lacking in comely white women that only the wild thing can heal while at the same time wild exotic things from other lands can only be rescued by white women. I would contend that this is an obvious push for White women to copulate with that which is wild and untamed (illegal or legal immigrants from other countries). Only then can white women find that which is lacking and be healed and only then can wild things from exotic lands find salvation.

It is not even subtle. All you European and American women the way to find your voice is by copulating with wild males from exotic countries who are totally other. The inter-species relationship in the film stands as a metaphor for white women who have no voice giving themselves to the wild things from exotic lands and so finding what is lacking in themselves and their whiteness. Only by the White women working in concert with minority women, and homosexual man can evil white men be defeated. In the film, the wild thing from an exotic land is always morally better, restorative and redemptive.  And all this cast as a romantic love story.

A few other ancillary observations regarding the film,

1.) The white male lead, who is cast as a detestable and hateable character makes a sexual advance on the leading white female. Of course, such an advance is crude, and as coming in the context of the white male lead being already married to a wife which the film shows filling her husband’s bedroom needs, what is being communicated is the hypocrisy of the patriarchal family. The film’s clear intent is to communicate to white women that wild things from exotic lands are superior to white men and that white men should be surrendered for wild things from exotic lands.

2.) The film uses the Christian Scriptures accounts of Samson and Ruth. The evil white man in the film casts himself as Samson bringing down the plot of the sodomite, Communist scientist spy, black female co-worker, and the mute white girl to release the wild thing from an exotic land. The film places the apartment of the mute girl over a theatre that is playing the film “Ruth.” Ruth, you will recall is the bible story of the woman who is thought to have left her Moabite people in order to be a foremother of the Messiah.

3.) This film is basically the film version cast as a Romantic love story of Theodore Adorno’s book “The Authoritarian Personality.” The patriarchal family in both the book and the film is cast as twisted and evil and the origin of much of what is wrong with Western civilization. To be trapped in this patriarchal family culture is to be mentally ill and so villainous.

4.) There may be even in the film an attempt to normalize bestiality as a sexual norm though I am convinced that the creature from the black lagoon is a stand-in not for sex with animals but as a stand-in for sex with wild things from exotic lands.

The film is an ideological Cultural Marxist attack on Christianity, White Males, patriarchy, Western Civilization, the whole idea of distinct nations, and normative sexuality cast as a Romance. In other words, typical Hollywood fare.




Wherein MD and BLMc Have a Conversation on Trump, Politics, and Worldviews

A chap named MD stopped by with a comment on my “Trumpism as Religion” post and left some comments. I’ve decided to post his comments here and interact with those comments since they are revelatory of the way Worldviews work as well as how language gets distorted depending on what worldview context in which the language lies. I don’t know who MD is, and so far as I know I’ve never interacted with MD before.

MD writes,

Bret, I disagree with you almost completely on religion and politics, but I think you’re on to something here, though not the something you have in mind. So please allow me to offer an alternative explanation.

Bret responds,

I am humbled that you would read here at Iron Ink MD, though you disagree with me almost completely on religion and politics.

MD writes,

In general, for most of the past 50 years (since Nixon’s southern strategy), the conservatives have run on resentment — it’s the fault of the blacks, the Hispanics, the immigrants, the gays, etc. — whereas the liberals have run on optimism — we can give you health care, a good social safety net, and otherwise improve your lives.

Bret responds,

I am of the age now where I can actually remember the campaigns of the last 50 years with greater and lesser clarity. 1968 and 1972 remain a bit fuzzy.

Already though we see the imposition of worldviews. MD has it in his worldview that conservatives have run campaigns on resentment while the liberals have run on optimism. Of course only a liberal with a non-Constitutional world and life view could reason like that. 

I, quite to the contrary of MD would insist that it is his liberals who have consistently run on resentment since 1968. Those student riots during the Democratic convention in 1968 sure looked like resentment to me as well as the riots at the Trump rallies during  2016. Democrat resentment swelled against Nixon’s law and order campaign and against Trump’s law and order campaign in 2016. 

Indeed Democrats have campaigned on resentment against our social order, resentment against previous mores and taboo boundaries long established, resentment against law and order, resentment against our 2nd amendment rights, resentment against women as seen by their forcing them out of the home and into the workforce and they have done all this while labeling this resentment as “optimism,” and casting those who were running on optimism as those who run on resentment. This reminds of the scripture,

20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

I would go so far as to say that the Democrats are the party of resentment but as they think their resentment is the norm everyone who disagrees with their resentment are those who are filled with resentment.

MD writes,

There have been exceptions, and the GOP has used coded language rather than stating it as bluntly as I just did, but I would say that’s generally true.   You yourself proved my point in your third-t0-last paragraph in which you offer a list of things you’d like Trump to do.  Every single one of them involves doing bad things to people you don’t like.  There wasn’t a single line item on it in which you wanted him to do good things for people; it was all nasty things you wanted him to do to people.

Bret responds,

Here is another worldview example. It is true I don’t want the Government to do good things for people.  Being a Constitutionalist and believing in the 9th and 10th amendment I do not think it is the role of the Federal Government to do people “good.” The role of the Federal Government is limited to those matters which are enumerated and delegated to the Federal Government powers. The Government does not exist to do people good in the way MD thinks. The good the Federal Government does is to stay out of the affairs of the American people except where enumerated and delegated by the US Constitution.

Secondly, only a liberal would see this list I cite as “doing bad things to people.” Here is the paragraph from the last Iron Ink entry which MD questions,

“If Trump were to cut the budget, kick sodomites out of the military, bar women entry into the military, turn off all loans to Israel, kick out the United Nations, turn off funds to states and cities who claim sanctuary status, implement their own version of Eisenhower’s “Operation Wetback,” or any number of other sundry things I would say … “I was wrong about Trump. He really is anti-NWO.”

Let us review these,

1.) Cut the budget — This would be doing good things to people since the when the government subsidizes negative behavior the consequence is more negative behavior. Cutting the budget would go a long way to re-introducing personal and individual responsibility for one’s actions. That is a monumentally good thing. 

2.) Kicking sodomites out of the military — This would be a good thing to people who are not sodomite since they no longer would have to survive the advance of sodomites in the military. It would also be a good thing for the nation as a whole because the presence of sodomites in the military cannot help but weaken the moral fiber of the military. 

3.) Barring women from the military — Again this is good for the military because women in combat positions decrease the fighting ability of the military. Also, it is good for women since they will not be killed in battle.

4.) Turn off all International loans — This would be good for the American people since that money could either be returned to their pockets or that money could be used to pay down our national debt. 

5.) Kick out the United Nations — The UN idea has forever been connected with the Marxist New World Order dream. It is a Marxist organization carrying out a Marxist agenda. It would be good for the world as well as the US to be done with the UN.

6.) Turn off funds to States and Cities that claim sanctuary status — As the presence of illegal aliens reduce wages for Americans, increases pressure on the social safety net, increases the national deficit, and contributes to the elimination of the middle class, it would be good for US citizens to have the FEDS turn off funds to States and Cities.

7.) Implement an Eisenhower version of “Operation Wetback.” See above #6.

So, while MD sees me advocating doing bad things to people I don’t like. I see me advocating following the law and doing a good thing to people who likewise are following the law. MD wants to do good to illegal immigrants, sodomites, feminists, Marxists, citizens of other nations, etc and the reason MD calls what I advocate bad is because his liberal worldview calls those things bad. Again,

20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

So, it is only in a liberal (cultural Marxist) worldview where the things I advocated which MD complains about as “nasty,” are seen as nasty. The question that needs to be asked of each of us is — ‘by what standard is nasty, counted as nasty?’ I would contend that MD’s worldview forces him to call what is good by a scriptural account as nasty.

So MD as proven my point. He advocates for nasty things to be done to people and calls the good things I call for “nasty.” 

20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

MD writes,

It reminds me of the guy who found a genie in a bottle.  The genie said, “You can have anything you want but your neighbor gets twice as much.”  The man thought for a minute and said, “Can you make me blind in one eye?”

Bret responds,

And MD reminds me of the guy who found a genie in a bottle. The genie said, “You can have anything you want.” Whereupon MD said, “I want perversion to be normalized. I want the Marxist utopian dream to come to pass. I want women and men to be non-distinguishable. I want the Federal Government to be an ever-present Genie always doing what I want.” Finally, the Genie stopped him and said …”Dude, even reality has boundaries.” 

MD wrote,

And what happened with Trump’s election is that everything aligned just right so that we now have a president whose entire administration is based on the politics of resentment.  He’s not a Judas goat so much as the culmination of fifty years of conservatives running for office on a platform of resentment.  And your real quarrel with him is that your list of people you want punished doesn’t precisely match up with his, though you’re certainly getting more from him than you would have from Hillary Clinton.

Bret responds,

The politics of resentment MD according to how your worldview defines resentment. Had the Hilda-beast been elected the politics of resentment would have really gone into high gear. Christians bakers, florists, and photographers would have been continued to be resented. Resentment against any idea of limited Government would have been overthrown. Resentment against heterosexual marriage would have continued to be exercised. MD thinks that he can demonize conservatives by characterizing them as practicing the politics of resentment when in point of fact it is the left which created the whole category of resentment and envy. The left could not exist if it were not for its practicing the politics of resentment. Yet, the left is crafty, and like the terrorist who is being chased by plainclothes law officers, the left turns and screams while pointing at the law officers and says, “the Terrorists are trying to get me. HELP.”

MD writes,

And the reason he’s (Trump) going to make the GOP, and conservatism, irrelevant is that people are now actually seeing what a government based on spite looks like.  Before, it was all theoretical.  Now, it’s playing out in practice.

Bret responds,

This is really quite bad political analysis. As anyone can tell you who knows me I carry no brief for the GOP, or for modern conservatism (so-called). However, the GOP and modern conservatism most certainly will not be seen as irrelevant because the electorate finally sees what a Government based on spite looks like. That thinking is a liberal fairy-tale. The GOP and conservatism will be seen as irrelevant because the politics of resentment and envy which is characteristic of the left’s cultural Marxist base will finally have overwhelmed traditional Americanism in terms of sheer numbers.  Our political landscape is now almost completely dictated by demographics and it is the weight of these demographics and the resentment the cultural Marxist left has seeded in those demographics which will finally make the GOP and modern conservatism irrelevant.

MD writes,

And now that people are actually in danger of losing their health care and social security, they’re running for the exit.  Maybe in 2018 and 2020 they’ll give optimism a chance.

Bret responds,

Only in a twisted liberal Worldview could the centralized bureaucracy and Governmental Tyranny required for the euphemistic malapropisms called “universal health care” and “social security” be considered “optimism.” It is so surreal that the only response it can be met with is a hearty belly laugh were it not for the case that so many people have swallowed this bilge. Over and over again in the 20th century, we’ve heard the utopian promise that if we will just give optimism a chance then we will be able to get something for nothing and over and over again the Government has placed its long ugly tentacles in the fiber of our lives only for the citizenry to be sickened and jaundiced by governmental remedies and cures found in government programs like government healthcare and government social security. 

And how did the liberals get people to believe in these fairy-tale promises? You guessed it … by practicing the politics of resentment and envy. By placing words in the left’s upside down, inside out, and backward worldview with the result that honoring the mores and taboos of the past end up being labeled as practicing resentment. Semantic and linguistic deception were birthed by the left.

MD writes,

Now, here’s where I split from your conclusion:  When Trump got the GOP nomination in 2016, I knew he would destroy the Republican Party and conservatism.  I just didn’t realize he’d have to get elected first.  And because I don’t agree with using government to punish people, I just hope he doesn’t drive the country itself off a cliff first.  I would really hate for the next Democratic administration to spend all four years doing little but clean up the mess his incompetence and cluelessness will leave.  Candidly, that may be part of the GOP strategy —  to make a mess so big that the Democrats’ energy once they return to power will all be spent on that rather than on actual governance.  Perhaps we should have this conversation again in 2021.

Bret responds,

1.) It is my prayer that both the Republican party and the Democratic party implode as they are really just different words for the same establishment. 

2.) You really need to examine the past few election cycles at the State levels. The Democrats have been getting their heads handed to them. I think it is just as reasonable to argue that the Democrats are on the edge of extinction as the Republicans are.

3.) You do believe that government should punish people. You just think that when the Government is punishing Christian cake bakers and florists and photographers that does not really count as punishment. You either know this and so are lying to advance your cause, or you don’t know this and so are just one of the useful idiots that Lenin talked about.

Anabaptist Leveling

A harmonious, complementary, interracial marriage between a believing husband and a believing wife is nearly a perfect microcosm of God’s cosmic purpose for the church. Paul does not explicitly make this connection, but in following his logic it seems to be a beautiful implication of his thinking. The nations are brought together in Christ, and in Christ, the church is gathering various ethnicities into one Body. Husbands and wives are a microcosm of the Spirit-filled church unity.

Therefore, local churches should be quick to celebrate a husband and wife with diverse ethnic heritages who are living out a harmonious complementarian marriage under Christ. Such a marriage is an especially beautiful picture of the powerful work of Christ, and of his intention for the church and the cosmos

 Tony Reinke
Content Strategist
Desiring God Ministries
Minneapolis, Minnesota



A harmonious, complementary, same-sex marriage between a believing husband and a believing husband is nearly a perfect microcosm of God’s cosmic purpose for the church. Paul does not explicitly make this connection, but in following his logic it seems to be a beautiful implication of his thinking. The sexes are brought together in Christ, and in Christ, the church is gathering both sexes into one Body. Husbands and husbands are a microcosm of the Spirit-filled church unity.

Therefore, local churches should be quick to celebrate a husband and husband with the same sexual heritages who are living out a harmonious complementarian marriage under Christ. Such a marriage is an especially beautiful picture of the powerful work of Christ, and of his intention for the church and the cosmos.

Tony Rumprun
Content Strategist
Desiring  Perversion Ministries
SanFrancisco, California


A harmonious, complementary, interracial marriage between a believing husband and a believing 6-year-old is nearly a perfect microcosm of God’s cosmic purpose for the church. Paul does not explicitly make this connection, but in following his logic it seems to be a beautiful implication of his thinking. The generations are brought together in Christ, and in Christ, the church is gathering various generations into one Body. Husbands and child brides are a microcosm of the Spirit-filled church unity.

Therefore, local churches should be quick to celebrate a husband and child wife with diverse generational heritages who are living out a harmonious complementarian marriage under Christ. Such a marriage is an especially beautiful picture of the powerful work of Christ, and of his intention for the church and the cosmos.

Pervous Paidosfililia
Comet Pizza Strategist
Desiring Children Ministries
Washington DC


Regarding the kingdom of God (which is spiritual) there is no distinction or difference between man and woman, servant and master, poor and rich, great and small. Nevertheless, there does have to be some order among us, and Jesus Christ did not mean to eliminate it, as some flighty and scatterbrained dreamers [believe].”

John Calvin
Sermon on 1 Corinthians 11:2-3