Ask The Pastor — Where Do You Get The Idea That Marxists Believe That Distinctions Need To Be Erased?

Dear Pastor,

I ask you, where exactly in Marxism do you see any notion of “all distinctions need to be erased”? Seriously, are you so hopelessly self-blinded to not see that Marxism never ever ever advocated any “erasing of differences”?

Bojidar Marinov

My Dear Friend Bojidar,

Allow me to let Fredrich Engels answer your question.

‎”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

Or we might consult one Nikita Khrushchev on the matter Bojidar.

“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.”

Nikita Khrushchev

Or perhaps Marx himself,

“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:


You see Bojidar even if I didn’t have this quote from Engels, and Khrushchev and Marx  in order to refute you I could still appeal to the implications of Marxism with its denial of private property. When one traces out the end result that must occur from the beginning principle, which denies private property, one easily sees that the loss of private property — which is one of the planks of Communism — eventually implies lost of heritage since one’s heritage is the private property of one’s self.

Clearly we see with this quote of Engels that it has always been the agenda of Communists to create a Babel reality where all cultures as well as all ethnicities are lost in the miasma that is the consequence of “integrating into the void.” Now, other literature informs us that there will be an uber-elite that will be concerned about distinction and even segregation from the miasma melange that their policies have created, but for the herd ethnic and cultural distinctions will be wiped out by way of policy.

This is also perfectly consistent for those who have denied the Creator vs. Creature distinction. If one denies God (as the Marxist does) then one denies the most basic of distinctions and once the most basic of distinctions is denied then all other human distinctions will be denied as well. This dissolving of distinctions, that Engels speaks of, is merely one more consequence of the attack on the most primal distinction of all and that is the distinction between God and Man.

I hope you will see with the Engel’s quote and the rest of my answer that it is not I that is self-blinded.

Ask The Pastor — Isn’t The Family Whatever We Decide It Is?

Dear Pastor,

Your insistence that a family is a group of people who have blood ties seems restrictive to me. After all, “Home is where the heart is.” Also, your insistence that Lesbians can not love one another strikes me as uncharitable. Two women can embrace one another in love no differently than a man and a woman can embrace one another in love. You can have fun with your idea of your family and I’ll have fun with mine.

Peace, Love, and Happiness,

Josephine Calvin

Dear Josephine,

One could easily hear the strains of relativism in your statement, “Have fun w/ your idea of your family and I’ll have fun with mine.”

“Your truth is ok for you and my truth is ok for me.”

But God clearly says that Lesbianism is sin and that such people will in no wise enter into the Kingdom of God (See Romans 1 & Galatians 5). Secondly, Scripture consistently displays family as a blood bond normally characterized by a shared belief system, though the aspect of a shared belief system is quickly slipping away in our contemporary setting. The exception that Scripture makes for family as a group of people sharing a bond of blood, in terms of family, is legal adoption.

It might be a proverb that, “Home is where the heart is” but in a Christian normal world, allowing for the exceptions that inevitably occur, the heart would find the home in blood family.

I looked up several definitions of “Family,” and they all included the idea of blood bonds. One just can’t make up the meaning of words as they go. A belief that one can is expressive of post-modernism.

Here is one definition of family,

1. a group descended from a common ancestor.

People can not make themselves a family unit anymore then they can make themselves a school of fish. Now, certainly arrangements exist where persons are functioning as a family, but the fact that they are functioning as a family puts the proof to the reality that they are not family. Otherwise the metaphor would not have to be used. So, yes people who truly care for each other can function as a family but that does not make them a family as a family is a group descended from a common ancestor.

Now, I know there are huge movements out there that are trying to redefine family to mean whatever group of people may assemble on any given day. But if such a movement succeeds in redefining the word and concept of family the loss will be a stable meaning to the word and will introduce even more instability to our social order. In point of fact I would say that the attempt to redefine family is a subtle attack on the Christian definition of family in favor of a post-modern definition of family.

There is no possibility of “Peace, Love, and Happiness,” where man walks outside of God’s revelation found in Scripture.

Ask The Pastor — Are Christians Who Oppose Sodomy Inconsistent Since They Don’t Oppose Shellfish?

Dear Pastor,

I find your criticism of gays to be mean, homophobic, and cruel. You fundamentalist Christians are so inconsistent in as much as you don’t take your own bible seriously. You tell those of us who are gay that God finds sodomy to be an abomination and yet you seem not to care about the other things in Scripture that God finds to be an abomination. Shrimp, crab, lobster, clams, mussels, all these are supposed abominations before the Lord, just as gays are a supposed abomination. Why stop at protesting gay marriage?

Bring all of God’s law unto the heathens and the sodomites. We call upon all Christians to join the crusade against Long John Silver’s and Red Lobster. (LOL). Yup, even Popeye’s shall be cleansed (LOL). We must stop the unbelievers from destroying the sanctity of our restaurants. (LOL)

I’m not going to analyze the bible for you I believe what I believe. I do not listen to what a man has to tell me on Sunday. I also do not believe everything in the bible.


Already this objection raised by sodomites is becoming a worn out old canard. I’ve heard it raised as a “insightful and devastating protest” on talk shows. I’ve seen it put into scripts for television and movie dramas. I think among the sodomite crowd it is beginning to be seen as some kind of silver bullet that instantly kills the werewolf that is Christianity.

But you’ll excuse this werewolf if he just laughs at your silver bullet fired.

It is easy for those without knowledge on the Scriptures to knee-jerk when it comes to the issue of how the Scriptures are read. We don’t read the Scriptures without hermeneutical pre-understandings that help us to see how God’s revelation as a whole is to be understood Habib.

However, among those with a little background in the reading of Scripture we understand that there are distinctions that have to be made for them when we present God’s word on different subjects. One of those distinctions is that whatever God says remains in force for man unless in later revelation God alters what He said earlier on a matter.

The classic example of this is the Sacrificial system you find in the Old Testament. This is a system that God required by His Old Testament revelation. However, with the coming of Jesus Christ, who was the sacrifice about whom the Sacrificial system was proclaiming, the sacrificial system is no longer practiced by Christians. Jesus Christ was God’s fulfillment of all sacrificial offerings therefore Christians no longer offer bloody sacrifices of animals, even though you find the requirement for it in the Old Testament.

Another example of God altering earlier revelation is regarding foods consumed. Now, you will be interested in knowing that some Christians do still follow the OT dietary Law believing that the law regarding foods that you cited is still in force.

Leviticus 11:9-12 says:

9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Deuteronomy 14:9-10 says:
9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

So, for these Christians your criticism that Christians are inconsistent in their application of God’s Word is completely absurd.

However, your criticism remains absurd for those Christians who do eat what is forbidden in those Scriptures you cited because they can turn to Acts 10 and find that what God once called “Unclean,” has been lifted so that He now, in the New Covenant calls it clean. So, just as Christians no longer preform sacrifice because God’s requirement for sacrifice has been met, so Christians eat shellfish because God lifted His prohibition against it in later revelation.

However, what God has not lifted is His abomination of Sodomy. In point of fact, in the New Testament, God says again what He says in the Old Testament that Sodomy is an abomination, thus reinforcing those passages that were cited earlier to you. Here are the New Testament passages that agree with the Old Testament passages,

I Corinthians 6:9-10 — Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [a]effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is [r]unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing [s]indecent acts and receiving in [t]their own persons the due penalty of their error.

Obviously God has not altered His stance on the abomination that is sodomy.

Now, I understand that it is unlikely that this explanation will probably make little difference to your continued embrace of Sodomy but I wanted you to see that there is no contradiction in the Christian position on this matter. Christians can consistently refer to Scripture regarding the vileness of sodomy without being inconsistent because they don’t hold shellfish to be vile as well.

Now, would you like to talk about this more over a dinner on Red Lobster? I love crab-meat and I would love to explain you how it is you can give up your sodomite lifestyle and embrace life abundant.

Doctrine vs. Relationship?

Dear Pastor,

“Where does the Holy Spirit come into the picture? Where does a relationship with Jesus that is personal and growing and vibrant come in? I’m actually sort of heartbroken to see such harshness here, where someone says they absolutely know everything about God and how he should be worshiped and thought about and that if you don’t have a degree in theology you can’t possibly know God rightly. These sort of harsh, hard, almost cruel arguments really shut down discussion and participation by normal Christians who just live in this hard, hard world and struggle to even keep the faith in the face of so much pain because we can’t take the browbeating. God leads us, and he leads us to Christ. But, we live in a world that is knock-down, drag-out brutal. When I’m grieving over the loss of my child, doctrine does nothing for me except break my heart more when it’s used as some sort of argument-trumping hammer. My time at Marion College was some of the best in my life. But, I also love that God uses all sorts of people and maybe not all of them fit into a little mold like good tin soldiers. Some come scuffed and scarred and desperate to that cross where Christ has died, and they cling to it for dear life.


Thank you for your questions. They are quite good questions and get us to some very important considerations.

Doctrine is an inescapable category. Even the advancement of a position that denigrates “doctrine,” is itself a doctrinal argument. (i.e. — We should have the doctrine of “no doctrine,” or less doctrine or the doctrine of relationship over doctrine. And yet what can I know of growing and vibrant relationship apart from doctrine? How will I know if it is growing and vibrant if I don’t have a doctrinal standard by which to measure what “growth,” and “vibrancy” is? Is my subjective measuring rod of quality of relationship to be the doctrinal yard stick my which I know I am advancing in cruciform conformity to Christ? )

So, in light of this I would say that the Holy Spirit was given to proclaim Christ and His faithfulness and to that end for believers He is to constantly taking them back to the Scriptures where we find the doctrine of Christ being taught on every page. The Holy Spirit comes in to take us back to the place where we learn Christ and His doctrine. (For example, Christ taught the doctrine, “Come unto me all you who labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest, for my burden is easy and my yoke is light.”) You say “God leads us to Christ,” and yet without the beauty of doctrine I wouldn’t know that and without the sweetness of doctrine I would know nothing about this God and Christ I am being “led” back to.

It is interesting that you speak of “harshness,” and yet when I see someone champion the doctrine that doctrine isn’t that important all that I can see, despite knowing someone’s good intentions, is harshness, since I don’t know how to keep a faith that is uninformed and unshaped by doctrine. (After all what is “the faith,” I am keeping apart from “doctrine” to tell me what that faith is?)

It is precisely because this world is so brutal that I keep turning to doctrine. As a Pastor I am constantly exposed to all the ragged and torn edges of the world’s brutality as I minister to others. If I did not have the life giving sustenance of doctrine that is drawn from the Scriptures I would be of no aid to those who are dented and damaged from being themselves lacerated by the ragged and torn edges of this brutal brutal world. Without the words of eternal life (doctrine) drawn from Scripture all I could do for those I love, who look to me for answers and comfort in the midst of their being bruised and torn by life would be to join them in their despair. (And even being buoyed by doctrine drawn from the Well of Scripture I sometimes wonder if I will be able to maintain my sanity when I look upon the pain and hurt I often see while ministering to the broken.)

I see harshness and brokenness in the future for these beautiful young ladies who are not being given guidance as to the proper deportment and modesty that they are to display as Christian women. I see brokenness and harshness for the 10-13 year old girls who are watching them “perform,” and saying to themselves, “I want to move my body around like that when I grow up.” And believe me XXXXX I see lots and lots of girls who end up used and broken because they learned their lessons regarding deportment and behavior from MTV as opposed to being given a Christian doctrine of modesty.

No, there is no room for playing doctrine off against relationship. My relationship is only as good as my doctrine and my doctrine always announced in my relationship. If I want my relationship to grow more vibrant and healthy then I must steep myself in God’s Word and so learn doctrine.

Praying that the God who gives us the doctrine of “comfort” will be your sustenance in your loss.

Heartbroken with you over the browbeating we are all inflicted with,

Ask The Pastor — What Of Immanentizing The Eschaton?

Dear Pastor,

As for the question of immanentizing the eschaton, you vote that we usher in the Christian one; I vote that we wait for Christ to usher in the eschaton.


Thank you for your insightful offering.

In reference to ushering in Eschatons. You seemed to miss the point that I was trying to make earlier when I said,

by insisting that the common realm belongs to common grace and natural law what they (R2K adherents) end up doing is creating a vacuum in which the other adherents of other gods will try to immanentize their respective eschatons. So while at least some amillennialists want to avoid immanentizing the Christian eschaton what their retreat ends up doing is allowing the immanentizing of other non-Christian eschatons. We must remember that it is never a question whether or not if some eschaton will be immanentized but only a question of which eschaton will be immanentized. I vote for the Christian one.

There is no neutrality on the question concerning immanentizing eschatons. The question isn’t, “Will we or will we not usher in a eschaton,” the question rather is, “Which eschaton will we work to incarnate?”

Concerning this matter keep in mind that culture is the consequential manifestation of what we believe concerning ultimate theological reality. Now since all theology is teleological and always has the end (eschaton) in mind, it simply is impossible for humans to build cultures where no consideration (whether epistemologically conscious of that consideration or not) is given of immanentizing the eschaton. The culture that we live in right now is the result of some successful theology managing to bring its vision of the future end into the present.

Let me note, that I quite agree that there can be dangers in non-humble considerations of eschaton immanentizing. However, for all the dangers I see there I see far more dangers in a escapism or retreatism which allows the eschatons of pagan gods to have their way.

We need to keep in mind here the words of A. A. Hodge when he wrote,

If the national life in general is organized upon non-Christian principles, the churches which are embraced within the universal assimilating power of that nation will not long be able to preserve their integrity.

A. A. Hodge, Evangelical Theology, p. 283-84

Now, Hodge doesn’t explicitly reference eschaton immanentizing but he has in mind exactly that which I am trying to get at. If we will not live in such a way that puts the feet to our prayers of “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven,” thus immanentizing the Christian eschaton, we will, as God’s people be embraced in the assimilating powers of non-Christian principles which are working to immanentize their version of their religions eschaton.

Thanks for the conversation David.