Category: Marxism/Cultural Marxism

When it comes to Liberal and Mainline denominations I seldom bother anymore to point out the Cultural Marxism or anti-Christ practices or philosophy that they embrace. What with the PCA Revoice Conferences, the Feminism emanating from the OPC, the R2K seen in the URC, and  Federal Vision in the CREC I about at the point of not bothering anymore to point out the Cultural Marxism or anti-Christ practices or philosophy in the “Conservative” and “Reformed” denominations.

Find below an overture from Chesapeake Presbytery of the PCA. For those not in the know, a Presbytery is a group of Churches all belonging to the same denomination as located in a similar geographic setting. Now Chesapeake Presbytery consists of Churches in the Baltimore and Annapolis area. As such I guess we shouldn’t be surprised churches in this area of the country tilting to the left given how far left Baltimore and Annapolis are in general.

However, this overture rises right out of the worldview of Cultural Marxism and Critical Race theory. There is nothing biblical or Christian about it except the Scripture which they wrench out of context and misapply. I don’t even think the Southern Baptists in their various overtures like this have been this bad.

Let’s take a peek at the overture.

Chesapeake Presbytery Overtures (CPO)

4 Whereas, all of mankind, men and women, are made in the image of God (Gen. 1.27) and

5 all fall short of the glory of God (Rom 3.23); and

10

BLMc responds,

There are zero Biblical Christians in the world who disagree with anything that is said above. The problem isn’t in the citation of Scripture. The problem is the way these clerics are applying Scripture.

Let’s take the last one for example. The Chesapeake Presbytery is suggesting that because St. Paul writes what he writes there, therefore the Church is duty-bound not to notice race just as apparently the church is duty-bound not to notice the sex of the parishioners. After all just as there is neither Greek nor Jew neither are there male and female.

Here in Galatians 3 St. Paul DOES affirm the distinctions of class, race, and gender. Paul is saying that despite these very real distinctions that exist that when it comes to Justification the ground at the cross is even. The very real distinctions that exist don’t prohibit one from being justified in Christ. However, being justified by Christ doesn’t make the distinctions go away — no not even in the Church. Once redeemed in Christ we remain redeemed men and women, freemen and slave, and Jew and Greek. Redemption doesn’t make creational categories disappear.

13

BLMc responds,

Do these clerics realize what they have said here? No partiality? No partiality ever…. at all? Partiality is always a sin?

Doesn’t the Church teach that boys should be partial to girls and girls should be partial to boys when it comes to marriage partners? Doesn’t the Church teach that its members should be partial to righteousness over sin? Doesn’t the Church show partiality when it disciplines one member for sinful behavior but not another when that sinful behavior isn’t present?

James’s point is NOT that Church should never be governed by partiality. James’s point, as seen clearly from the text, is that the wrong kind of partiality is always wrong. The fact that clerics from a group of Reformed Churches can’t get that basic exegesis right is shocking.

CPO,

16 Scripture, and wrongly cultivates castes of superiors and inferiors; and

BLMc responds,

Here we get to the meat of the matter. What we have going on here is the desire of the Chesapeake Presbytery to virtue signal. Can anyone really believe that there is one PCA church in America that has a problem with white supremacy? Oh… sure, if you want to define white supremacy the way the Cultural Marxists define it then it is likely the case that every PCA church in America has a problem with white supremacy. 

And therein lies one of the major problems of this whole overture. Chesapeake Presbytery never defines what white supremacy is. Neither does it define what racism is unless they are actually saying that partiality of any kind is by definition “racism.” Do they really believe that partiality equals racism? Jesus called 12 Jewish men to be His disciples. Was Jesus being racist in this partiality or maybe even a misogynist? The church in Acts set apart 7 men with Greek names to satisfy the complaint of the Greek Hellenist Jews about being shorted in the daily distribution. Was this an example of partiality and so racism? Jesus actually cast a racial epithet at a  Syrophoenician Woman (Mark offers “Canaanite woman”) calling her a dog and communicating that the children are to be preferred saying, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Was Jesus committing the sin of partiality and so racism here? St. Paul in Romans 9 showing partiality apparently commits the sin of racism when he writes, “For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race.” St. Paul doesn’t say this about any other peoples. Is St. Paul guilty of the sin of partiality and so racism? Is St. Paul, and Jesus both guilty of Hebrew Supremacism?

If partiality equals racism and the Chesapeake Presbytery desires to condemn all partiality as racism then we are looking at Jesus and St. Paul being condemned by the PCA. But as Jesus and St. Paul, by the Chesapeake Presbytery definition, were not white supremacists but only Hebrew supremacists then I imagine it is all good.

CPO,

30 Whereas, the historical roots and current tensions within families, churches, and communities 31 are causing disruption and discord in congregations; and

BLMc responds,

It is the Chesapeake Presbytery, practicing Cultural Marxist thinking that is the only one causing disruption and discord in congregations. It is the Chesapeake Presbytery as it has embraced Critical Race Theory (as seen by the mere existence of this Overture) that is causing disruption and discord in congregations. 

The usage of this kind of overture has one purpose and one purpose only and that is to continue the ongoing guilting of Christian white people. Oh, the CPO gives a requisite nod to “racism in general” but by going after “White Supremacism particularly” we see from the CPO that these clerics are really verklempt with how terrible white Christians are.

CPO,

45 Supremacy;

BLMc responds,

1.) Is it ok if we consult with theologians as well as historians and social scientists?

2.) You will notice now that the issue of “racism” has been completely dropped. It had earlier made an appearance in the overture. Now the issue is solely “White Supremacy.” Apparently only white Christians have this problem of Supremacy. Apparently there is no such thing as “Black Supremacy,” or “Brown Supremacy,” or “Yellow Supremacy.” Nope, only “White Supremacy” is a problem that has to have a study committee spending 15K to look at. This tells me that the Chesapeake Presbytery has already bought into the narrative that only white people have this problem because only white people have power plus privilege. If other races don’t have power plus privilege per the current Cultural Marxist narrative then it is not possible for them to be either racist or take Supremacists stances.

CPO finishes with details.

1 b. Consider the historical background and impact regarding this topic;

BLMc responds,

Here is where they can come back with historical distortions on “slavery,””lynching,” “Jim Crow,” “Segregation,” and “Red-lining.” On all these we will get the Cultural Marxist narrative that seeks to guilt white Christians into appeasement.

CP finishes this overture from Cultural Marxist hell,

12 Attested by /s/ RE Timothy M. Persons, stated clerk

BLMc

Aren’t there any other clergy members in America besides me sick of this bilge

Clive Staples Lewis

Lewis presupposes here by his use of “reason” the idea that there is a spiritual component to man that cannot be explained and accounted for by those who insist that man is nothing but matter in motion and that matter is all there is. The idea of materialism is the worldview of Scientific cosmology – Darwinism. In point of fact, the consistent Darwinist can not even account for “reason” in their materialistic worldview, as Lewis points out. If, ontologically speaking, man is composed of more than just matter than his rational explanations of the universe and of himself can possibly obtain since man’s reason has reason to believe in a universe that is objective to himself. Without this denial of materialism all of man’s thinking, like all of man’s living is just so much time + chance + circumstance. There is no objective reason for any of it.

Lewis cannot fit materialistic science into a materialistic “Scientific” cosmology because in that cosmology man does not have a mind but only has materialistic brain matter. That brain matter is merely a materialistic organ that secretes thought the way the liver secretes bile. A biochemical organ that merely secretes thought hardly gives one reason to think it is worthy of any serious consideration. One day it might secrete one kind of thought depending upon how the biochemistry of the body is running. The next day it might secrete the exact other types of thought. Brains that are only materialistic cannot give an account of their reality let alone accounts of the Universe.

Without Biblical notions of reason, man is a completely subjective being who is entirely trapped within himself. Without Biblical notions of reason (are there any other types of reasonable reason?) man is left to force in order to organize his world. If man is merely matter in motion and testifies and believes that the objective world cannot be accessed (Hello postmodernism and Critical Race Theory) then inevitably man, if he is consistent, will have to enter into the war of all against all as each man with his thought secreting brains seeks to dominate all other thought secreting brains.

One can see by this quote how we have ended up where we are with social constructs like the theory of “social constructs.” If matter is the whole explanation of man and if monistic man thus is shut up within himself then monistic man’s thought secreting brain can determine for himself whatever he wants himself to be and no one else’s thought secreting brain can deny him his own socially constructed reality.

We have come to the place where we can say along with Shakespeare;

Man’s life “is a tale as told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,. Signifying nothing. ”