Category: Marxism/Cultural Marxism

McAtee Contra The American Vision Pyromaniac

Well, the perpetual “foot in mouth” McDurmon, over at American Vision, has done it yet again. McDurmon has once again flashed his Cultural Marxist credentials in order to prove his Social Warrior status by doubling down on his last article that Iron Ink disassembled. We easily dismissed his previous effort at White guilting and we are glad to dismiss this most recent effort by McDurmon to sell the Black Lives Matter narrative to Christians.

Here is the link to Dr. McDurr’s recent attempt to shore up his work as a neo-theo Cultural Marxist,

A consideration of blacks and disproportionate crime

Dr. McDurmon starts his article with a untrue quote that nobody has ever cited and then tries to use this untrue quote to taint all those who cite true statistics about black on black and black on white crime.

Joel McDurmon starting with a self admitted untrue quote wrote,

“Blacks are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime. Blacks, who make up only 1 percent of the population, account for 34 percent of drug dealers, 47 percent of robberies, 47 percent of illegal gambling, 82 percent of gangs, and 98 percent of pimps. The most common expressions in the jargon of gangsters comes from black hip hop and rap. These characteristics alone refute the liberal blabber about “equality.”

Bret responds,

Now, Joel will eventually inform us in the article that this quote isn’t a true quote about blacks but instead the quote was from an Nazi war propaganda film about Jews. Joel replaced the word “black” for the word “Jew” and suggested it was a legitimate statistic that people were citing.

Of course the punch in this technique used by the esteemed Dr. McDurmon is that it is the hated Nazis who propagandized with this quote. The intent is to suggest that anyone who cites statistics (even if they are true) that are not flattering to particular people groups must themselves be Nazis.

There are several ways to handle this but I want to start with my own quote. This one is a true quote. It is from a man that has been lionized by the West. This quote is from Winston Churchill and it makes much the same observation regarding Jews that the Nazi propaganda film made but without the statistics.

Churchill wrote in 1937 in the London Herald Tribune

“Most, if not all, of them (International Jews) have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.”

Now, here is the question for Joel. Since Winston Churchill made much the same point as the Nazi propaganda film does this mean that Winston Churchill was also a Nazi just as those of us are who today cite hate facts and hate stats?  Or, is it the case now that those today who cite the “hate” statistics are now themselves the heroes since a hero non Nazi like Churchill made much the same type of point once upon a time about particular problems with particular people groups?

Dear reader, do you see how jejune this technique of McDurmon’s is? Instead of dealing with the statistics at hand, what he does is he rolls out a quote that has nothing to do with anything, except for its ability to paint people who cite the very real statistics as automatic racist Nazis who obviously want to killsixmillionjewsandblacks.

McDurmon writes,

I think we’ve all heard something like this before. While you may note that a couple of the statistics are a bit askew, you’ll acknowledge the general spirit and, to be honest, a close proximity to the actual statements frequently repeated by conservatives, reactions to some claims of movements like #blacklivesmatter, and even the comments on which some people still base their own diatribes and criticisms of “black culture” or “black youth,” or the like.

Bret responds,

The actual statements frequently repeated by non Cultural Marxists are repeated because the actual statements are true, unlike the fake quote that McDurmon started us off with. For example, it is an actual matter of fact that,

FACT 1. Over 1,400 more black Americans murdered other blacks in two years than were lynched from 1882 to 1968.

According to FBI data, 4,906 black people murdered other blacks in 2010 and 2011. That is 1,460 more black Americans killed by other blacks in two years than were lynched from 1882 to 1968, according to the Tuskegee Institute.

FACT 2. Black People (mostly men) commit a grossly disproportionate amount of crime.

In 2012, white males were 38 percent of the population and committed 4,582 murders. That same year, black males were just 6.6 percent of the population but committed a staggering 5,531 murders.

In other words: black people–at just a fifth of the size–committed almost 1,000 more murders than their white counterparts.

The figures above highlight a horrific truth that black racialists and white liberals routinely ignore: Lawbreaking black Americans, young black males particularly, put themselves in close proximity to (mostly white male) police officers at rates sometimes five to 10 times higher than whites. This is a recipe for disaster. Thusly….

FACT 3. Despite making up just 13% of the population, blacks committed half of homicides in the United States for nearly 30 years.

DOJ statistics show that between 1980 and 2008, black people committed 52% of homicides.

In 2013, black criminals committed 38% of the murders. Whites accounted for just 31 percent.

There are five times fewer black people than white people in America and, yet, they consistently carry out a larger share of the crimes? Given this rate, it’s no wonder that there aren’t more assistances where cops kill black criminals.

FACT 4. Chicago’s death toll is almost equal to that of both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, combined.

There have been almost as many deaths in one American city as there have been in the two major wars carried out by the U.S. military this century.

FACT 5. It would take cops 40 years to kill as many black men as have died at the hands of others black men in 2012 alone.

No amount of bleating innuendos and dissimulations by Joel can change this true narrative. No amount of guilt mongering can change this narrative. No amount of Social Justice Warrior-ing on Joel’s part can flip this narrative so that somehow white Christians and paleo-conservatives are the problem.  Joel McDurmon is championing a false template and he knows it.

Joel McDurmon writes,

To be truly candid, we would have to admit that there is still a very firm streak among so-called “paleo-conservatives” that affirms that such statistics form foundational truths about race relations (read: animosities) in American life. Witness the surprising percentage of southern Presbyterians who voted against their denomination’s recent resolution to apologize for its past racism and role in segregation.

Bret responds,

Once again McDurmon dissimulates when he suggests that anybody who takes these real statistics seriously automatically are in animosity to all minorities. It is a out and out subterfuge on his part. A statement he has absolutely no proof of. It is an assertion without any foundation.

Second, the statistics in question do indeed form foundational truths about race relations. Only a fool would deny this. Statistical averages mean something and to not take statistical averages seriously is both careless and foolhardy. For Pete’s sake, Joel’s fellow Social Justice Warrior and comrade in arms, Jesse Jackson himself said, a few years ago,

“There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps… then turn around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”

Is Rev. McDurmon going to fault Rev. Jackson for taking these “hate” stats seriously? You can bet that Joel would fault Rev. Jackson if Rev. Jackson was white?

Finally, Joel sites the surprising 13% who voted against PCA resolution 43, thus demonstrating he is a true believer who will not be satisfied until 100% of the Church’s doctrine is reinterpreted through a Cultural Marxist grid.

Joel wrote,

Witness the recent story of a slight, about 90-lb black kindergarten teacher wrongfully manhandled by an Austin police officer when she didn’t lock-step as quickly as he liked during a traffic stop. (To its credit, the Austin PD acknowledges that the actions and comments on the part of two officers were wrong—a small victory.) During her handcuffed trip in the back of the police cruiser, the transporting police officer was filmed calmly informing her that people are, yes, afraid of black people, but for good reason: because of their “violent tendencies.” He explained,

“99 percent of the time, when you hear about stuff like that, it is the black community that is being violent.”

Now there’s a striking stat for you.

Bret responds

1.) Let me get this straight. Joel is using a false stat of some half baked cop in Austin in order to dismiss genuine statistics honestly arrived at? He can’t be serious.

2.) Here Joel is giving anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is notoriously bad as evidence of any general overall point. Personally, I’ve had several people tell me, with first hand knowledge, that Joel suffers from torpidity. Does this mean that I should conclude that it is a truism that Joel is torpid? In the same way, Joel, citing an anecdotal example does nothing to support his dismissal of irrefutable statistics that support, to a significant degree, the violent tendencies of some people groups in comparisons to other people groups.

Dr. McDurmon writes,

In fact, you, dear reader, may be among those who think, or even practice, the type of condemnation-by-statistics in the quotation at the start above, whether as a justification for rejecting black-power or black-equality movements, or rebutting the leftism inherent therein, because you always give conservatives the benefit of the doubt, or for whatever reason. The fact is, statistics create a collective umbrella which provides shelter for certain prejudices or sins committed, often routinely, against individuals of that class to whom such stats may or may not apply.

But if so, you have no idea of what spirit of death and destruction you may be partaking.

Bret responds,

Given the statistics that I provided earlier what more justification do we need in order to reject the unbiblical and Jacobin egalitarianism as pursued by Social Justice Warriors like McDurmon? The fact is, statistics this overwhelming mean something even though SJW’s like McDurmon doesn’t like what those statistics mean. Joel, can call these hard stats “hate stats” all he likes but it doesn’t change the facts and does nothing to support his false narrative hawking.

It is Joel McDurmon who is the one who is guilty of spreading the spirit of death and destruction. Police officer Jeff Maples gets at how it is that McDurmon is guilty of spreading the spirit of death and destruction in his Social Justice Warrior-ing when Maples wrote regarding other SJW Ministers currently plaguing the visible Church in the West,

“The fact that their very own hasty rhetoric and judgment contributes to the anger of those who would kill police is apparently lost on them.  You can’t perpetuate a false narrative of widespread police racism (or white racism as Joel is arguing) and then in the next breath be shocked that someone believed it and sought to take vengeance.  Of course, they’ll call the murder of police officers wrong, they just won’t say that the REASON was wrong.  They’ll cry out for justice, for action, for something to be done, and then stand shocked when some depraved, racist cop-hater decides to take justice into their own hands.  They’ll pour gallons of gasoline onto the pyre and then act appalled when someone finally strikes a match.”

Joel is a irresponsible pyromaniac playing with matches in a gasoline dump when he writes this tripe.

Finally, it is true that statistics don’t tell us about every single individual. We agree that anyone who would automatically dismiss all people based on statistics concerning their people group would be unwise. Just as it would be unwise to not heed these statistics at all as the earlier quote from Rev. Jesse Jackson suggests.

McDurmon writes,

Just one more fact for your consideration:

That quotation above—the one about the blacks being disproportionate in crime—yeah, I edited it a bit. I adapted it to fit modern discourse and more contemporary expressions.

Yeah. The original quotation is not recent, and it is not about blacks. Here’s the original:

The parasite nation of Judah is responsible for a large part of international crime. In 1932, the Jew, who make up only 1 percent of the world’s population, accounted for 34 percent of the world’s dope peddlers, and 47 percent of robberies; 47 percent of crooked games of chance, 82 percent of international crime organizations, and 98 percent of dealers in prostitution. The most common expressions in the jargon of international gangsters and criminals stem from Hebrew and Yiddish words. These physiognomies refute the liberal theory of the equality of all who bear a human countenance.

The quotation comes from the Nazi propaganda film, The Eternal Jew, which was produced in 1940 in an effort to demonize Jews in Nazi Germany and justify their opposition to the Jewish race….

Bret responds,

Is Joel suggesting here that the current statistics we have are the same kind of propaganda as was embedded in the film he cites? Is Joel saying that anyone who believes the statistics he clearly doesn’t like are just like the Nazis? Is this an example of the “Ad Hitlerum” logical fallacy? It sounds to me like Joel is saying here, “Agree with me or you’re just like a Nazi.”

Really, has this what rational argumentation has come to?

Joel should have just written that, “crime stats are for Nazis.” The End.

Joel writes,

Even if the stats were accurate, it would not justify either the spirit of fear and derision, or the castigation of any given individual as if those stats pertained to them—despite their appearance or race. Yet the use of crime statistics was a prime piece of evidence used to turn the hearts of an entire nation against a race. It’s a powerful force. And it has had undeniably powerful effects. Contradiction much Joel?

Bret responds,

1.)  Joel  finds himself free to upbraid Whites for their “spirit of fear” of being raped, robbed, beaten, or killed by Blacks as “vile racism” and “damnable heresy,” yet Social Justice Warriors like him affirm Blacks’ fear of cops as innocence and righteousness.  Whites and Blacks are judged by two very different standards. SJW’s like Joel maintains fear is sin for Whites, but grace for Blacks.1

2.) Does Joel have concrete examples of Christians castigating individual blacks because these statistics?

3.) The stats that JM references did not turn Germany against the Jews unless Joel is suggesting that Churchill was a liar.

Joel wrote,

If we don’t fight for our basic constitutional rights for everyone, all the time, we undermine them for ourselves. We destroy our own liberty and future.

If we don’t love the Samaritan, we don’t love our neighbor. It’s that simple. The moment we start down the other road, we start to imbibe this demonizing spirit of the Nazi. You need to assess whether you’ve started down that road or not, and if so, how far.

Bret responds,

1.) Joel has yet to establish as truth that, currently, constitutional rights are being held, in a discriminatory fashion, against any sole particular people uniquely. Joel has bought into a false worldview that pushes that narrative but Joel agreeing with the Cultural Marxist false narrative does not make it so.

2.) Joel is the one not loving the Samaritan. He is hating white people who he is implying are racist who dare disagree him, and that without a shred of proof or evidence. If you don’t agree with Joel’s Cultural Marxism he does not treat you like a good Samaritan.  Instead, like the Priest and the Levite in the Good Samaritan pericope, Joel passes by those who have been beaten up falsely as racist and who are are laying at the side of the road dying from the libel and slander of Social Justice Warriors like Joel McDurmon.

Physician heal thyself.

1 = Conversation with Ehud Would

MacDonald and McAtee Contra McDurmon on Police Racism

Over at this link,

Study shows cops tase blacks more often than whites

McDurmon, the leader of the formerly Theonomic American Vision contends that white people have a problem with subconscious “racism.”

In this response I present evidence again that institutional theonomy and reconstruction is dead. Here we have the President of American Vision (Joel McDurmon) being reconstructed in the direction of Cultural Marxism.

JM writes,

It is a working thesis of mine that we still have a major problem with racism in this nation, and that since conservatives (and especially Christians) perpetually refuse to address the problems of race and power with both empathetic and biblical solutions, leftists continue to gain power through Marxist, class-warfare-type tactics in regard to race.

Bret responds,

Note that Joel’s great “working thesis” is the very same “working thesis” propounded by Al Sharpton, the Black Lives Matter terrorist organization, George Soros and his multitude of paid agitators, as well as every garden variety Social Justice Warrior one cares to name.

So, Joel’s great “working thesis” is the thesis of the left and Joel is telling us that unless we adopt his and the left’s great “working thesis” the result will be that the left will eventually win. So… in order to stop the left from winning we must let them win by adopting their “working thesis.”

JM writes,

Regarding the enduring racism: I believe a good amount of this is subconscious. In other words, one can exhibit racist behavior and do racist things without being a conscious or even secret racist—although some of these certainly exist, too. But the subconscious element works on several levels, and even pervades institutions, in my opinion.

Bret replies,

1.) The whole theory of “subconscious” itself is, at the very least, questionable, but I’m willing to go with it for the sake of argument.

2.) One could easily contend that all that Dr. McDurmon has given us thus far,  is a menu of Cultural Marxism as influenced by his subconscious. I don’t think that Dr. McDurmon is a self conscious Cultural Marxist but I do think he can exhibit Cultural Marxist behavior and does subconsciously hold Cultural Marxist convictions, and all of that because there is a subconscious element of Cultural Marxism at work in Dr. McDurmon on several levels. This is so true that I have concluded that it even pervades the institution of American Vision in my opinion.

JM writes,

Nowhere is this clearer than in criminal justice. This week, a report was released that showed yet another small window into this problem. In the first study of its kind, the facts show that police in Connecticut employ tasers more often against blacks and Hispanics than against whites.

State and police officials noted that many of the stun gun incidents occurred in urban areas, where minority populations are higher.

According to one review, the report “found that black men were about three times more likely to be Tased than simply warned. . . . For white men, the chance of being Tased or warned were about the same.”

Indeed, when wielding Taser against whites, only warnings were given in 40 percent of cases. When involving blacks, however, the number drops to only 19 percent.

In other words, whites get off with only warnings more than twice as often as blacks. With blacks, the vast majority of incidents—81 percent—go straight to tasing.

So whites get verbal warnings first, and blacks get something more like a hair-trigger. Shoot first, and let the Fraternal Order of Police lawyers answer questions later.

Bret responds,

If you probe into this Connecticut study you learn some interesting factoids.

1.) State and police officials noted that many of the stun gun incidents occurred in urban areas, where minority populations are higher. That being true one would expect a higher incident rate of stun guns being reported in these settings.

2.) Researches said it was likely the numbers were under-reported because many police departments did not report all uses of a taser. This suggests that the study cited by Dr. McDurmon is incomplete and is not completely reliable.

Now I’m going to appeal to the work of author Heather MacDonald who has written a well researched book titled, “The War on Cops: How The New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe.” I am doing so in order to dismiss Dr. McDurmon’s leaps of logic regarding racism in police forces around the nation.

MacDonald offers about this about some of this research that Joel refers to and calls it “junk science.”  Heather MacDonald offers,

The Obama Administration is now pushing a concept of implicit bias training on officers across the country. This is complete folly. It is based on junk science that has been recently completely disproven by a study, an extremely sophisticated study out of the University of Washington that found that cops actually hesitate longer to decide to shoot armed black suspects than armed white suspects and are less likely to shoot unarmed black suspects than unarmed white suspects.

This recent study blows apart the pre-existing implicit bias junk science, and yet the Obama Administration is now demanding that officers get sent to this training that is a waste of time because officers want good tactical training…. 

Heather MacDonald
Author — The War on Cops: How The New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe

JM presses on,

The nature of the study is also disarming of the common retort that, well, blacks just commit more crimes than whites, so obviously they have police interactions more often. Nope. This argument is wrong on so many levels, but is busted in this report because the data are presented as percentages of interactions within each race to begin with. In other words, all else being equal, the cops were more than twice as likely to give a warning to a white man as opposed to a black, and much more quick to use tasers when engaging blacks than whites. These are percentage rates, not bare numbers.

That statistic is damning no matter how you slice it.

Thus it reveals that there is some fundamental difference in how the same group of trained professionals (even our “finest,” after all) think, decide, and act in regard to blacks versus whites. Thus, whether these decisions are conscious or not, there is a pure racist element in our criminal justice system.

Bret responds,

Heather MacDonald counters McDurmon here on his whole “That statistic is damning no matter how you slice it,” quip.

“Well, let’s look at some of the numbers…. A larger proportion of white and Hispanic homicide deaths are the results of police killings than black homicide deaths. That is, 12 percent of all whites and Hispanics who die of homicide are killed by police officers. Four percent of all blacks, homicide victims, are killed by police officers. So if we’re going to have an Anti‑Cop Lives Matter movement it would make more sense to call it White and Hispanic Lives Matter.”

Heather MacDonald
Author — The War on Cops: How The New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe.

If Dr. McDurmon’s statistics are correct (a big if) then it can be easily suggested that the reason that the taser is used more often on blacks as opposed to whites is so that a handgun doesn’t have to be used. Personally, I would rather be tasered than shot. Regardless, this quote from MacDonald demonstrates that the racism that McDurmon is so concerned about just isn’t born out.

JM offers,

And this is only considering one narrow window of information: the use of tasers.

Bret responds,

And MacDonald gives us a broader window of information that contradicts Joel’s more narrow window.

JM adds,

The greatest irony of all in this study is perhaps the fact that we might look down upon those who got tased, whatever their race, as criminals who deserved it, when the only sure fact about lawbreaking that jumps out is in the reports themselves: there were some police departments who either underreported, or did not keep records at all, as the CT law demands! In at least one case, a department neglected (conveniently?) to report one taser incident in which a young man who was tased and happened to die from it.

In other words, the only clear admissions of lawbreaking here were on the part of the police departments—who also face absolutely zero consequences for their failure to follow the law.

If lawlessness exists in police department behavior, what makes you think anyone is safe, let alone a less-empowered minority?

Bret responds,

If the records where not kept at all then the study is hardly scientific. One cannot come to proper conclusions without all the data. The reasons that McDurmon gives for some departments not reporting are nothing but speculation on McDurmon’s part.

As McDurmon is trying to make the case that the Police are inherently racist, being themselves part of a racist culture let us consider these stats that speak against that narrative that Joel’s trying to spin,

“If we’re going to talk about race and policing, let’s talk about cop killings. Over the last decade, black males made up 40 percent of all cop killers, even though they’re six percent of the population. It turns out… that a police officer is 18-and-a-half times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is likely to be killed by a police officer.”

Heather MacDonald
Author — The War on Cops: How The New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe

And McDurmon suggests that we have a problem with white racism?

McDurmon finishes by citing a book he’s read that supports his conclusions and then extrapolates from that book’s bad solutions to the conclusion that Christians better respond to the problems of white racism lest socialism is forced upon us by those who demand it. The problem here is that Joel is suggesting that we better give in to socialists demands or socialists will win.

If you want to read that section you can access the link provided at the begininng. Suffice it to say, that I don’t agree with the narrative that the left and McDurmon is trying to spin on this subject.

McDurmon insists that if we end up with more socialism that it will be our fault because as Christians we did not answer the problems of racism and segregation. The problem with McDurmon’s appeal is that his metanarrative is not established as unquestionable. MacDonald suggests, and other publications, like “The Color of Crime,” agree that our problem with racism is a black on white racism.

McDurmon has bought into the Cultural Marxist narrative. It is not a narrative that Christians should be buying into.

The PCA and Resolution 43

“The first and fatal charm of national repentance, therefore, is the encouragement it gives us to turn from the bitter task of repenting our own sins to the congenial one of bewailing – but, first, of denouncing – the conduct of others.”

C. S. Lewis

In their 2016 General Assembly the Presbyterian Church of America passed resolution 43 by a overwhelming majority of 861 to 123. This resolution offered up corporate repentance for racial actions they were corporately involved in prior to their formation in 1972 and for racial actions they were corporately involved in after their formation.

The wonder of this document is the general assumption and declaration of sin with no corresponding detailed names of proofs that can be attached to the general assumption and declaration of sin. By making such a declaration of sin of one’s Fathers one doesn’t have to give due process to the dead. One doesn’t have to put together a court where the accused can face their accusers. One doesn’t have to convince a jury of their Father’s sins when one just assumes and declares their sins. One doesn’t have to come up with concrete proof for concrete cases against concrete Fathers. No, all one has to do is just give a general condemnation of one’s Fathers.

It strikes me that the the current PCA is condemning as “sin” those sins that the Founders of the PCA cited as reasons to leave the denomination they were previously associated with. If this is so the current PCA then can be regarded as the anti-PCA, at least as measured by their Father’s intent for the denomination they were creating. According to the current PCA it is hard to see how the current PCA doesn’t consider the Founding PCA as being in sin for leaving the PCUS given that the Founding PCA’s reasons for separation are now repudiated by the current PCA’s standards. As we will see in this post it is possible that the current PCA is most directly repudiating the particular founders John Edwards Richards and H. Morton Smith.

So what I’m going to do here is interweave the stated reasons that some of the Founders gave for leaving the PCUS with the most recent Resolution 43 as passed by the current PCA by a vote of 826 – 123. Finally, I will add some quotes from men and organizations from the past who have agreed with what the PCA is calling for here.

Now it may be the case that a reader may agree with the old PCA or it may be that they agree with the new PCA but regardless who is agreed with we can at least conclude that the denomination is on a different trajectory from when it was formed.

I.) Resolution 43 — PCA General Assembly 2016

A.) Therefore be it resolved, that the 44th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America does recognize, confess, condemn and repent of corporate and historical sins, including those committed during the Civil Rights era, and continuing racial sins of ourselves and our fathers such as the segregation of worshipers by race; the exclusion of persons from Church membership on the basis of race; the exclusion of churches, or elders, from membership in the Presbyteries on the basis of race; the teaching that the Bible sanctions racial segregation and discourages inter-racial marriage;

B.) Where PCA Founders Disagreed with the 2016 PCA

1.) Causes of Separation in 1973 (PCA separates from PCUS) by one of the PCA Founders, Dr. John Edwards Richards,

  • a.) The Socialist, who declares all men are equal.  Therefore there must be a great leveling of humanity and oneness of privilege and possession.
  • b.) The Racial Amalgamationist, who preaches that the various races should be merged into one race and differences erased in oneness.
  • c.) The Communist, who would have one mass of humanity coerced into oneness by a totalitarian state and guided exclusively by Marxist philosophy.
  • d.) The Internationalist, who insists on co-existence between all peoples and nations that they be as one regardless of ideology or history.

    And again from Richards,

    e.) “The vast majority of good thinking people prefer to associate with, and intermarry with, people of their respective race; this is part of the God-given inclination to honor and uphold the distinctiveness of separate races. But there are many false prophets of oneness, and many shallow stooges, who seek to force the amalgamation of the races.”

    2.) This time from Dr. H. Morton Smith — One of the Founders of the PCA

    “If from this we may conclude that ethnic pluriformity is the revealed will of God for the human race in its present situation, it is highly questionable whether the Christian can have part in any program that would seek to erase all ethnic distinctions. That such distinctions may be crossed over by individuals may be granted, but it is at least questionable whether a program designed to wipe out such differences on a mass scale should be endorsed by the Christian. It is this line of argument that the average Christian segregationist uses to back his view. He fears that the real goal of the integrationist is the intermarriage of the races, and therefore the breakdown of the distinctions between them. Many who would be willing to integrate at various lesser levels refuse to do so, simply because they feel that such will inevitably lead to intermarriage of the races, which they consider to be morally wrong.”

    H. Morton Smith — A Founder of the PCA
    Christianity Race & Segregation

    Comment

    Now one group that does agree with the PCA are those found among the Marxists. That they agree with the PCA’s insistence that the bible does not sanction racial segregation and that they agree with the PCA that inter-racial marriage is Biblical is seen by examining these quotes,

    C.) Writers or Organizations Who Agree With the 2016 PCA Resolution 43

    1.) Frederick Engles

    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

    2.) Karl Marx

    And this time from Marx who agrees with the PCA

    “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:

    3.) 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.”

     

    Comment

    Now if the current PCA is indeed going after Richards and Smith, one of whom is still living, then let these men have their day in court. Let charges be brought against them and let them be tried and face their accusers. In Richard’s case let any trial be done posthumously. Prove that what these Founders — Dr. Richards and Dr. Smith  held — was sin. Prove their statements in error. Don’t just make declarations. Offer up proof and as you offer up proof make sure you don’t take up league with the Marxists.

    II.) Resolution 43 — PCA General Assembly 2016

    A.) the participation in and defense of white supremacist organizations; and the failure to live out the gospel imperative that “love does no wrong to a neighbor” (Romans 13:10); and

    B.) Where PCA Founders Disagree with the Current PCA

1.) Dr. H. Morton Smith 

“it may be said that the principle of segregation as such is not necessarily sinful in and of itself.”

H. Morton Smith — A Founder of the PCA
Some thoughts by a Southern White Christian:  The Racial Problem Facing America

2.) This time from Dr. John Edwards Richards

“No human can measure the anguish of personality that goes on within the children of miscegenation… Let those who would erase the racial diversity of God’s creation beware lest the consequence of their evil be visited upon their children.”

John Edwards Richards
One of the founders of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)

C.) Some writers that agree with the PCA’s interpretation that love means do no wrong to a neighbor are found among the Socialists,

1.) Vladimir Lenin

“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

2.) Vladimir Lenin

“… 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. “

There are other “Resolveds” in Resolution 43 but they are more and less a repeat of the type that has already been quoted here.

In the end, how does the PCA and the Christian community in general deal with the fact that they seem to be advocating a policy that lines up rather nicely with the Marxist agenda from its beginning? Those of us who are concerned with the egalitarian revolutionary thrust found in Marxism and seemingly on display by the PCA and other denominations only want an answer on how they intend to stand against the great heresy of Marxism? How does the integrationist’s call to “love”  avoid being the Marxist call of hate that finds a bleeding of all things into a revolutionary egalitarian uniformity?

I close here by quoting Dr. H. Morton Smith. 

“The reason that so many see a Communist influence in the present movement is that the goal seems to be the same as that of the Marxist philosophy, namely, the leveling of all to a common uniformity. Even if the American Negro movement has not been started or backed by the Communist Party at first, it certainly plays into the hands of the Communists, especially when civil disobedience (Black Lives Matter — BLMc) can be encouraged, and the law and order of a city, state, or nation threatened. Enough of this disorder, and the Communists or some other tyrants may be able to step into the situation and seize control of our nation”

Certainly if there is a danger in a philosophy that demands too much segregation so there is a danger in a philosophy that demands too much integration. Yet, all we seem to hear from the modern denominations is siren calls about “racism,” “xenophobia,” “homophobia,” “bigotry” and “sexism,” and the siren calls seem to have the collected effect of pushing us ever further towards the socialist dream of a New World Order where we can imagine that there are no countries, and no religion too. A New World Order where there are no races, no genders, and no distinctions.

From Dr. Abraham Kuyper, to Dr. Francis Nigel Lee, to Dr. Geerhardus Vos and countless others there have been warnings against an amalgamation that would be destructive to all peoples, tribes, tongues, and nations and yet the Church seemingly keeps pushing that agenda, taking no heed to those of us who are pointing at and screaming about the original intent of the Christ haters named Engels, Marx, Stalin, Lenin, Khrushchev, and countless other Revolutionaries who have always imagined there is no heaven.

Will anyone ever listen to our warnings or answer our concerns that are born out of love for Christ and His Church and not out of hatred for anybody except for those who would pull down Christ or assault His Bride?

The Glories of Uncertainty

“The certainty that rests on God’s word exceeds all knowledge.”

John Calvin
Commentary on Zechariah 2:9

Every so often I dip into sermons of putatively Reformed Parsons from around the country. This clip below is from an aged Reformed Pastor who has been liberal all his life.

The word ‘pure’ here in Philippians 2:15 means ‘to be honest about one’s self.’ Able to look inside yourself and be critical. It’s a kind of humility. It’s a kind of standing besides one’s self and beside each other and saying, ‘I don’t know all the answers. I don’t even know all the questions.'”

Now, I’ve looked around and explored the meaning of the word “pure” in Philippians 2:15 and I honestly don’t know how this Preacher came to the conclusion that “pure” (translated “blameless” by many translations) means “to be honest about one’s self,” though one would expect that only one natural outcome of being pure would be self honesty about one’s self.

But lay that aside for a moment. The real reason for this quoting is yet to come.

The same day I listened to this a friend brought my attention to this article entitled,

Homosexuality and Holy Uncertainty

In that article you can find numerous quotes that are consistent with the sentiment above from the sermon where, “not knowing all the answers or not even knowing all the questions” is seen as praiseworthy example of being “pure.”

Here are some choice quotes from the article that reinforce the Pastor’s sermon.

“… uncertainty is an important spiritual discipline that both deepens us and makes us available for transformation….”

“I wonder if we in the CRC are called to be somewhere along that seven-mile stretch of uncertainty concerning homosexuality.”

“Uncertainty honors the reality that none of us ever has perfect and complete understandings.”

You see the whole program in the article is to praise uncertainty. The author even goes so far as to list it as a “important spiritual discipline.” (Richard Foster, there is another book for you here — “In Celebration of Uncertainty.”)

In yet another venue from August of 2013 another Reformed Pastor wrote in an article pregnantly titled, “Don’t Be So Sure,”

“We live with the mysteries of creation, incarnation, justification, and sanctification. While we marvel at them, we admit that we can’t possibly understand them.”

See? There it is again. In praise of uncertainty.

Note that in all cases a virtue is being made out of being uncertain. Now of course, according to these men, there is nothing wrong with be certain about being uncertain but when we are certain of aspects of the Christian faith that they don’t want read out of orthodoxy then we are not being pure because we are being certain. The purity found in Christianity is found in being uncertain.

According to the first liberal minister quoted one is most pure when one is most uncertain.

But if uncertainty is so pure, and such a spiritual discipline then why not inject it into everything? Maybe Christian leaders should be uncertain about incest? Maybe Christian leaders can show their holiness by being uncertain about the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ? Maybe the Apostle Paul should not have said, “I know whom I have believed,” instead opting for, “I don’t know who the hell I believe.”

Don’t get me wrong. I understand that there are times when saying “I don’t know,” is to be preferred. However, I do not understand orthodox Christian ministers opting for “I’m not certain” about matters the Church has been certain about for 2000 years. I also don’t care for this desire to pursue a liberal agenda being wrapped up in the artificially contrived pious cocoon of “holy uncertainty” so that if anyone dares disagrees with their holy uncertainty — thus demonstrating that they are certain that their opponents uncertainty is utter nonsense — one is then automatically less Christian because they don’t practice the spiritual discipline of uncertainty and are not pure because they actually do know some of the answers.

Here’s my opinion. Many times those pushing the uncertainty line are certain that they can’t succeed in pushing their liberal agenda without invoking uncertainty as a measure whereby they can gain time for their agenda to gain a certain certainty among the ever increasing throng of the un-anchored credulous, who are actually certain with all their hearts, that uncertainty is, in and of itself, noble. The incredulous are not bright enough to realize that the uncertainty hawkers are the most certain people who have ever walked the planet. The uncertainty hawkers are certain how to achieve their agenda and selling uncertainty to the credulous rubes who mount pulpits all across America week in and week out is the way to sell their snake oil certainty.

Of that I am certain.

McAtee Contra Dr. Russell Moore… Christianity or State-olatry?

This was a question and answer exchange from the floor of the recent meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention.

How in the world can someone in the Southern Baptist Convention support the defending of the rights of Muslims to construct Mosques in the United States when these people threaten our very way of existence as Christians and Americans. They are murdering Christians, beheading Christians, imprisoning Christians all over the world. Do you actually believe that if Jesus Christ were here today that he would support this and he would stand up and say let us protect the rights of those Baal worshipers to erect temples to Baal?  Do you believe that Dr. Moore?

John Wofford
Pastor – Armorel Baptist church

Dr. Russell Moore, Chairman of the Southern Baptist “Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission”  responds to the question,

You know sometimes we have to deal with questions that are really complicated. We have to spend a lot of time thinking them through, and we’re not sure what exactly the final result is going to be. Sometimes we have really hard decisions to make. This isn’t one of those things (delegate applause). What it means to be a Baptist is to support soul freedom for everybody (delegate applause). And Brothers and sisters when you have a government that says “we can decide whether or not a house of worship can be constructed based upon the beliefs of that house of worship” then there are going to be Southern Baptists Churches in San Francisco and New York and throughout this country are not going to be able to build. The bigger issue though is not one of self interest. The bigger issue is that we have been called to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. A government that has the power to outlaw people assembling together and saying what they believe that does not turn people into Christians. That turns people into pretend Christians and it sends them straight to hell. The answer to Islam is not Government power. The answer is the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the new birth that comes from that (heavy delegate applause).

_______________

I wish I could say this was satire. You know, something from the Babylon Bee. Unfortunately Dr. Russell Moore was dead serious. Honestly, it is difficult to consider any “Christian” who actually sincerely believes this to be Christian. Can one be Christian and suggest that other Christians should support the ability of anti-Christian religions to flourish? If there is no God but God how can Christians support the proliferation of false gods? Before I get ahead of myself let’s take this in order.

I’m going to be exhaustive here so there will likely be overlapping in some of these observations.

1.) Note, first of all that Moore doesn’t directly answer the question asked of him. Moore’s indirect answer seems to be that if Baptist expect to build Churches in San Francisco and New York then they have to abide Muslims killing,  beheading, and imprisoning Christians throughout the world.

2.) Don’t miss that Moore’s answer is “yes” to the question as to whether or not Jesus would support the erecting of Baal Temples. According to Dr. Moore, Jesus would indeed support the building of Temples to Baal in a pluralist social order.

3.) Note Moore’s mocking of Rev. Wofford’s question. Moore offers that it’s really an easy question to answer. This is contemptuous arrogance on Moore’s part. This is difficult to swallow when it is Moore who is the one offering a simpleton and disastrous answer.

4.) Notice what Moore offers here as the first part of his answer is “soul freedom.”  “Soul Freedom is techno-speak for Baptists. “Soul Freedom” or “Soul Liberty,”  comes to Baptists from Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island Plantation. Williams absolutized the liberty of conscience in terms of choice in matters of faith. Williams wrote on this matter that,

“It is the will and command of God, that a permission of the most paganish, Jewish, Turkish, or anti-Christian consciences and worships, be granted to all men in all nations and countries; and they are only to be fought against with that sword which is only (in soul matters) able to conquer, to wit, the sword of God’s spirit, the Word of God.”

Now this sounds enlightened until one realizes that Williams (and now Moore) are advocating the Baptist religious principle  that the  sword supported statute  of the state be used to insure that no one religion be allowed to be the one unique religion of a people. The Baptist state, enforcing “Soul Freedom,” must use the statute supported sword of the state to make sure that all religions proliferate. Of course this has the effect of making the State the god of the competing gods making sure that each god only goes so far in the public square. Baptists “Soul Freedom” is institutionalized idolatry (State-olatry). Williams and Moore’s “Soul Freedom” coerces people to accept the Baptist version of religion for the public square. Baptist “Soul Freedom” is not Freedom at all but is bondage to idolatry. Baptist thinking on this matter is thus “anti-Christ.”

5.) When we consider “Soul Freedom” in this light we see that “Soul Freedom” is actually an absolutizing of unbiblical notions of freedom. Moore’s freedom is religious anarchy. Freedom is never absolute but always operates in the context of some ordered religious framework. Moore’s “ordered framework,” is the framework of religious pluralism, a synonym for the monotheism of State-olatry.

6.) Moore misses the fact that the State is God’s State and is responsible to the God of the Bible. As the 1958 revised Belgic Confession Article 36 teaches,

“…And being called in this manner to contribute to the advancement of a society that is pleasing to God, while completely refraining from every tendency towards exercising absolute authority, and while functioning in the sphere entrusted to them and with the means belonging to them to remove every obstacle to the preaching of the gospel and to every aspect of divine worship, in order that the Word of God may have free course, the kingdom of Jesus Christ may make progress, and every anti-Christian power may be resisted.”

Now of course a Baptist would disagree with this but even the Baptist London Confession of Faith does not support Moore speaking of the necessity of the Magistrate to be, “encouragement of them that do good, and for the punishment of evil doers.”

7.) Moore seems to think that it is possible to have a a-religious neutral State. In point of fact all states are theocracies including this one and Moore is advocating for a pagan God (the State) to remain the the god enforcing “Soul Freedom” as its humanist religion. Moore’s religion is the ancient Roman religion which allowed any religion to prosper in Rome as long as all adherents of all religions pinch incense to Rome. When Moore insists that the State should remain un-attached to any God or god concept Moore, at that very moment is pinching incense to the God State.

8.) As we have noted, in advocating for “Soul Freedom,” where the State, by sword supported statute, protects all religions as equal and so supports the presence and proliferation of all religions, makes all the social order slaves of a State that is in control of the competing gods. It turns the social order into an Egyptian Mahat system where all are slaves to the State. Because of Baptist “Soul Freedom,” we live and move and have our being in the State.

9.) Note, that Moore suggests that the Gospel of Jesus Christ has nothing to do with whether or not idolatry is allowed to flourish. In order to be faithful to the Gospel of Jesus Christ  we must support the building of pagan temples. If that makes sense to anybody they are hopeless to reach.

10.) Is Moore really suggesting that any “house of worship” of any variety should be allowed to be built? Would Moore support a building that housed the Santeria cult?  By what standard would Moore cut off supporting building worship centers that housed the vilest of cults? I know for a fact that Moore would oppose supporting any worship center which had the Confederate flag as a religious symbol, and that even if that worship center was Christian.

11.) Honestly, if this is Moore’s understanding of Christianity I would praise God with all my being if Baptists churches were not built in San Francisco, New York, Bombay, India, or anywhere on the planet.

12.) Moore gives us a false dichotomy when he offers that Government is not the answer to Islam but rather the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the answer to Islam.  Can not the Gospel of Jesus Christ convert Magistrates in Government so that they desire to protect Christianity from the inroads of pagan faiths?

13.) Moore is worried about pretend Christians going to hell  but he does not seem concerned about real Muslims going to hell. Indeed, Moore wants to help them go to hell by supporting their institutional infrastructures.

What Russell Moore is advocating is nothing but Cultural Marxism and anti-Christianity. While, I have no reason to doubt Moore’s good intentions it is simply the case that Moore is doing the Devil’s work by intellectually paving the highway to Hell.

For another good piece on this issue see Adi Schlebush’s work at Faith and Heritage. Adi brings out some points that I do not cover.

http://faithandheritage.com/2016/06/russell-moore-endorses-idolatry/