Author: jetbrane

I am a Pastor of a small Church in Mid-Michigan who delights in my family, my congregation and my calling. I am postmillennial in my eschatology. Paedo-Calvinist Covenantal in my Christianity Reformed in my Soteriology Presuppositional in my apologetics Familialist in my family theology Agrarian in my regional community social order belief Christianity creates culture and so Christendom in my national social order belief Mythic-Poetic / Grammatical Historical in my Hermeneutic Pre-modern, Medieval, & Feudal before Enlightenment, modernity, & postmodern Reconstructionist / Theonomic in my Worldview One part paleo-conservative / one part micro Libertarian in my politics Systematic and Biblical theology need one another but Systematics has pride of place Some of my favorite authors, Augustine, Turretin, Calvin, Tolkien, Chesterton, Nock, Tozer, Dabney, Bavinck, Wodehouse, Rushdoony, Bahnsen, Schaeffer, C. Van Til, H. Van Til, G. H. Clark, C. Dawson, H. Berman, R. Nash, C. G. Singer, R. Kipling, G. North, J. Edwards, S. Foote, F. Hayek, O. Guiness, J. Witte, M. Rothbard, Clyde Wilson, Mencken, Lasch, Postman, Gatto, T. Boston, Thomas Brooks, Terry Brooks, C. Hodge, J. Calhoun, Llyod-Jones, T. Sowell, A. McClaren, M. Muggeridge, C. F. H. Henry, F. Swarz, M. Henry, G. Marten, P. Schaff, T. S. Elliott, K. Van Hoozer, K. Gentry, etc. My passion is to write in such a way that the Lord Christ might be pleased. It is my hope that people will be challenged to reconsider what are considered the givens of the current culture. Your biggest help to me dear reader will be to often remind me that God is Sovereign and that all that is, is because it pleases him.

Rage Against The Machine — Reflections On The Belhar

The Belhar document reads more of Karl Marx than it does of Jesus Christ. This can be seen in the way that the Belhar exudes the stereo-typical Liberation theology motifs. Drawing from European “theologies” and Marxism, Liberation theologians developed their own theology by radically reinterpreting Scripture with “a bias toward the poor.” We see this in the Belhar w/ its statement that,

• that God, in a world full of injustice and enmity, is in a special way the God of the destitute, the poor and the wronged

As we have noted previously this statement by itself, were we living in a Church that understood God’s Revelation, would be enough to end the whole Belhar project. God is only God in a special way to His people, regardless of their social status or class ranking. God does not love the poor in Christ more than He loves the rich in Christ, and God does not love the poor outside of Christ more than He loves the rich outside of Christ. God hates workers of iniquity and workers of iniquity are all those who have not sued for peace with God, through Jesus Christ alone. Only on a insane Marxist liberation playground is God, in a special way, the God of the destitute, the poor, and the wronged, though God is God, in a special way, the God of the poor in Christ when they are attacked by the rich outside of Christ, and He is God in a special way to the destitute in Christ when they are persecuted by the rich outside of Christ, and He is God in a special way to the wronged in Christ when they are persecuted by the wrong ones outside of Christ.

THE BELHAR AND LIBERATION THEOLOGY — PRESUPPOSING WHITE BIAS

Liberation theology also begins with the premise that all theology is biased – that is, particular theologies reflect the economic and social classes of those who developed them. Accordingly, the traditional theology predominant in North America and Europe is said to “perpetuate the interests of white, North American/European, capitalist males.”

That this is part and parcel of the Belhar agenda is seen by a overture to Synod that is coming out of Classis Lake Erie. In that overture we have all kinds of the kind of language that is mentioned in the preceding paragraph. The Overture from George Vander Weit, Akron CRC and now Lake Erie reads,

“Thus, even while we consider a document that we hope will improve race relations among us, racism is evident both in the comments of Anglos and ethnic minorities.”

“No matter what we do with the Belhar, our very discussion of it reveals how insidious and pervasive the matter of racism among us is.”

“The Akron CRC council overtures Classis Lake Erie to overture Synod 2012:

A. To call the denomination to repent of the personal and institutional racism that causes separation between fellow members, excludes some from full participation in the life of our denomination and hinders the denomination in achieving the diversity goals it has set for itself.”

Note that according to this overture racism is evident both in the comments of Anglos and ethnic minorities. Now, this sounds like a concession, in as much as “ethnic minorities” are mentioned but as the denomination is predominantly white it doesn’t take much to realize where the real problem is in the denomination. Note that according to this overture that racism in the CRC is pervasive and insidious among us. Note that according to this overture the CRC is guilty of personal and institutional racism. All of this is the language of Liberation theology. There is more of Marx than Christ behind the Belhar.

LIBERATION THEOLOLGY AND THE BELHAR — PRESUPPOSING THE NECESSITY OF A REDISTRIBUTIONIST MODE

Continuing on with Liberation theology and how the Belhar reflects this. The traditional theology the Liberation theology is seeking to overthrow allegedly “supports and legitimates a political and economic system – democratic capitalism – which is responsible for exploiting and impoverishing the Third World.”

Now the Belhar Confession necessarily moves us in this direction when it, in section 4, ascribes the presence of poverty and destitution in human society to injustice alone (in apparent contradiction to passages such as Proverbs 6:10-11; 11:24; 21:17; 23:21; 28:19), and asserts that the victims of this “injustice” are, “in a special way,” God’s people.

This two-fold assertion necessarily leads the church to two conclusions:

That the central work of God and his church in this fallen world is a work of justice rather than a work of mercy, and
that “doing justice” is principally the work of redistributing the material goods of this world, taking from those who have more and giving to those (God’s special people) who have less.

The Accra Confession (2004), which is the philosophical, theological, and political offspring of the Belhar Confession (1986) (see note below), takes this position to its logical conclusion by making belief in this kind of public policy an element of true faith. It also proclaims that “neo-liberal” economics, which it defines, in part, by belief in private property rights and free market methods, must be rejected by all Reformed Christians, “in the name of the gospel.”#

Note: The connection between the Belhar and Accra Confessions is well attested and cannot be ignored. In fact, the Colloquium on the Accra and Belhar Confessions, held January 15-17, 2010, outlined this connection, and their concluding document (attached), approved by its participants, including Peter Noteboom of the CRC, makes this position a matter of public record within the Reformed community. Any assertion that we can adopt the Belhar without essentially adopting the Accra is shortsighted.

So, once again on this score we see that the Belhar grows out of the soil of Marxist Liberation theology.

LIBERATION THEOLOGY AND THE BELHAR — SHARED METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Karl Marx once famously said, “the point is not merely to understand the world, but to change it.” Liberation theology follows this music and the Belhar serves as a choir singing this tune.

Gustavo Gutierrez, author of A Theology of Liberation, provides us with a representative methodology. Like other liberationists, Gutierrez rejects the idea that theology is a systematic collection of timeless and culture-transcending truths that remains static for all generations. Rather, theology is in flux; it is a dynamic and ongoing exercise involving contemporary insights into knowledge, humanity, and history.

Gutierrez emphasizes that theology is not just to be learned, it is to be done. In his thinking, “praxis” is the starting point for theology. Praxis (from the Greek prasso: “to work”) involves revolutionary action on behalf of the poor and oppressed – and out of this, theological perceptions will continually emerge. The theologian must therefore be immersed in the struggle for transforming society and proclaim his message from that point.

In the theological process, then, praxis must always be the first stage; theology is the second stage. Theologians are not to be mere theoreticians, but practitioners who participate in the ongoing struggle to liberate the oppressed.

That the Belhar partakes of this Marxist liberation theology mindset is seen in the fact that the Belhar is one long document that says very little in the way of Theology but is long on a praxis, the goal of which is to change the world. Now, in earlier entries we saw that the change that the Belhar is looking for is open to interpretation. I would say that given we are seeing what a Marxist document it is that the change it is looking for is a change not in the direction of Biblical Christianity but a change towards socialism.

LIBERATION THEOLOGY AND THE BELHAR — SHARED VIEWS OF SIN

Sin. Using methodologies such as Gutierrez’s, liberationists interpret sin not primarily from an individual, private perspective, but from a social and economic perspective. Liberation Theologian, Gutierrez explains that “sin is not considered as an individual, private, or merely interior reality. Sin is regarded as a social, historical fact, the absence of brotherhood and love in relationships among men.” [Gustavo Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1971), 175.]

Once again we see the Belhar just boiling over with this kind of language.

Repeatedly in the Belhar we here of “the absence of brotherhood and love in relationships among men” with its constant bleating about a unity that is left undefined as to the foundation upon which it gathers men and that is left unknown in terms of that which we are to be united in except some vague concept of “justice.” Also we hear the Belhar regard sin as a social, historical fact when it inveighs against the “rich” and speaks of,

that in following Christ the church must witness against all the powerful and privileged who selfishly seek their own interests and thus control and harm others.

As Gutierrez explains sin is not a merely interior reality, according to the Belhar, it is a social historical fact.

In observing just these few aspects of classic Liberation Marxist theology we can see that the Belhar document ought to not only not be received as a Confessional document for the CRC but that it should not even be received as a contemporary testimony. Biblical Christianity does not equal Marxism, neither as a confessional document nor as a contemporary testimony.

Dostoevsky & McAtee On Christianity & Collectivism

The radical declares,

“Everyone belongs to all, and all belongs to everyone. All are slaves and equal in their slavery… Slaves are bound to be equal. Without despotism there has never been either freedom or equality, but in the herd there is bound to be equality…. The moment you have family ties or love you get the desire for property. We will destroy that desire; we’ll make use of drunkenness, slander, spying; we’ll make use of incredible corruption; we’ll stifle every genius in its infancy. We’ll reduce all to a common denominator! Complete equality!”

The Possessed
Fydor Dostoevsky

Dostoevsky was a 19th century Russian writer who explored the human psyche, particularly as that psyche was conditioned by ideology and religion. In the quote above we find that Dostoevsky understood the nascent proto-Marxist type ideology which he believed were Demon like ideas from Western Europe that was possessing Russia.

It is interesting that even in 1873 Russia, Dostoevsky could identify the heart of collectivism that remains with us yet today. Dostoevsky understood that the end of equality, absolutized, is slavery.

The thing I really want to tease out from this quote is Dostoevsky’s connection between collectivism and the destruction of family ties. The collectivist attack on property requires an attack on family love. If various forms of Marxist collectivism is to be successful in its desire to extinguish private property it must, at the same time, extinguish Biblical notions of family. The simple idea that a man and a woman come together and form a new, yet extended social unit that is itself strengthened with the blessed arrival of covenant seed is an idea that arises not from Natural law but from Scripture. So, when the collectivist wars against property, he must do so, if he wishes to be consistent by attacking the family structure, which is itself an attack on Scripture. This reality puts those “Christians” who insist that the Bible has nothing to say about social order issues on the horns of a dilemma. Either they concede that the Scripture does speak a word about the nature of the family or they are left with pulpits that are silent on these issues preaching to atomized individuals that Jesus died to redeem as isolated from any previous, current, or future familial identities. A very odd way of preaching for those who subscribe to covenant theology where “the promise is to you and your household” is a key cornerstone of Reformed Federal theology.

I submit Christians must enter into this great war that has been being waged since the garden. It was in the garden where the first successful salvo against Biblical Christianity was fired against the family as the Serpent attacked family ties, bypassing Adam’s authority to beguile Eve, in a successful attempt to sell the poison of man’s equality with God, which resulted in a collectivism against God. In point of fact the greatest need in the Church today is to realize the threat that egalitarianism is to Biblical Christianity. The drive to fuzz and deny all distinctions, to erase all notions of biblical hierarchies (Husbands w/ headship over wives, Parents w/ headship over children, women the weaker vessel compared to men, Employers w/ headship over employees,) and to flatten out all God ordained differences is the worldview that currently is the greatest threat to Biblical Christianity in the West.

Without Biblical distinctions regarding gender, roles, ethnic groups, and authority structure, we will be amalgamated into the herd reality that Dostoevsky warns about. It will be a herd reality where a few elite are, in essence, the Farmers over the undistinguished and undifferentiated mass herd. Those who advocate complete equality in terms of “equality of identity” are the enemy and they are the enemy because Scripture identifies them as such. They are the enemy who overthrow the 5th commandment where a distinction and hierarchy of parents is required before they can be honored. They are the enemy who overthrow the great commission where a distinction of nations is required before those nations can be baptized, discipled and taught to observe all things taught by Christ. They are the enemy who overthrow Galatians 3:28 where a existing distinction between Jews and Gentiles, Slave and Free, Men and Women, must exist before there can be comfort that all can be justified in Christ. They are the enemy who overthrow the 8th commandment where a distinction must exist between what is my property and what is not my property before any forbidding of theft can make sense. Egalitarianism is the enemy and egalitarians are the enemy precisely because their egalitarianism strikes at the heart of God’s revelation. Keep in mind that the ultimate goal of the Father of egalitarianism is to erase the distinction and hierarchy between the Creator and the creature. They desire to make God and man a common denominator. That is the ultimate distinction that is under attack in all of these penultimate battles.

If Hart’s Scholarship Is Anything Like His Internet Interaction — Katy Bar The Door

Darryl G. Hart to Mark Van Der Molen:

Mark, you mean the overture written by some who accused Westminster California of Pelagianism?

(Of course, Hart thinks that it is absurd to suggest that Westminster California might be guilty of Pelagianism, so this is his attempt to portray the authors of the overture as kooks.)

Mark responds to DGH:

Darryl, would you supply some evidence that some ministers made this accusation?

(Rather than rushing to judgment, Mark asks Hart for the evidence.)

DGH to Mark:

Mark, are you looking for more evidence or are you taken aback that this charge would be made? I’m reluctant to give you another flawed source to quote against ministers in your denomination.

Anyway, I thought you knew more about the criticisms than I did.

(Notice that initially Hart defers. Of course, he gives a reason for his deferral, but see what happens.)

Mark to DGH:

No, Darryl, it’s neither of those things.

To put it in your terms, I’m just calling your bluff.

So where’s your evidence of an OPC minister accusing WSC of Pelagianism?

(Attorney Van Der Molen clarifies his request.)

DGH to Mark:

Mark, I thought you thought I didn’t know what was going on in the OPC. Why don’t you stick to the URC and leave Presbyterianism to us Gentiles?

Here is an excerpt from the lengthy Kerux (http://www.kerux.com/pdf/Kerux.24.03.pdf) review of The Law Is Not of Faith

(it culminates a lengthy introduction to a bloated review that puts the entire book in the context of coming down on the wrong side of Augustine vs. Pelagius):

“This is unwitting Pelagianism (calling it “typological” does not alter its essential and substantial character) and Augustinian Calvinists are correct to see it as a threat to sola gratia as Augustine saw it 1600 years ago.”

I guess this just proves that no one reads Kerux.

Of course, saying that a particular author is committing unwitting Pelagianism is quite a bit different, from having “accused Westminster California of Pelagianism,” but wait – there’s more!

Mark to DGH:

Darryl, I asked for evidence that the authors of the overture I mentioned had accused WSC of Pelagianism.

You answer with the Kerux article who argued that theology that says sinners can “merit” God’s reward is “unwitting” Pelagianism.

None of the authors of the Kerux article were authors of the overture.

So, where’s the evidence?

(Mark notices the key problem with Hart’s evidence. Hart’s evidence isn’t from the pen of one of the authors that Hart was defaming.)

Mark continuing:

For the readers’ {and Darryl’s} benefit, here’s the overture:

http://theaquilareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5975:overture-proposed-to-opc-presbytery-seeks-study-on-republication-of-the-covenant-of-works-in-the-mosaic-covenant&catid=50:churches&Itemid=133

Notice that Mark provides evidence.

DGH to Mark:

Mark, so let me get this straight. WSC is guilty of infidelity for the slightest infraction of departure from the glories of neo-Calvinism. But if an overture originates from a presbytery where a seminary is located whose founder has a journal that makes complaints about a book similar to those of the overture, it’s only coincidence?

Once again, your slipperiness is astounding. Just be honest and above board in your disagreements. Make a case that this view is outside the standards of our churches. Don’t simply traffic in innuendo.

At least the 2kers are upfront about their disagreements. Your complaint seems to be no more than they disagree with what you’ve always thought. I wonder where you would have come down on Calvin and Luther.

————————–

Rather than apologizing for his defamation, Hart accuses and defames Mark of “slipperiness” and suggests that Mark is dishonest. Then, without batting an eye, Hart accuses and defames Mark, suggesting that he not “simply traffic in innuendo.”

One wonders whether Hart’s presbytery is aware that this is how Hart acts on the Internet.

________________

All this from a exchange at Green Baggins.

This post cut and pasted from Turretin Fan’s Blog.

Some Genocides Get More Publicity Then Other Genocides

“Revealing the truth about the Allies’ role in supporting Stalin and his crimes would undermine the whole bogus mythology of World War II …

Those who considered the Jewish Holocaust a unique historical crime were not eager to bring attention to Stalin’s genocide lest it diminish or dilute their own people’s suffering….

Then he (Solzhenitsyn) published a book about a hitherto taboo subject, the prominent role of Russian Jews in the Communist party and secret police. The book provoked a storm of criticism in North America…”

Eric Margolis – Journalist
http://www.bigeye.com/fc081108.htm

Quick… how many blockbuster films can you name that chronicle holocaust or genocide of a people group other than the Jews? Now compare that to the films made that chronicle the holocaust and genocide of the Jews.

What do you suppose counts for the disparity?

Most people do not know that the estimate is that 45,000,000 Christians have been martyred in the twentieth century. How many films have you seen that have made you sympathize with the plight of Christians?

Here it is in as plain as language as possible. One has to wonder if the constant published theme of Jewish suffering is a means of manipulating the guilt of the West. One wonders if it is part of the same tactic that is used to beat down the Christian character and conscience of the West in order to supplant it with a character and conscience that is not particularly Christian.

I’m not interested in a contest to see who can be more victimized than thou. I’m interested in Christians not being harangued to the point that they no longer believe that Western culture historically has been noble, heroic, and Christ honoring.

The Eclipse Of Thought — Quote From Ellul’s Propaganda

“(When examining propaganda) we shall stress the dissociation between thought and action, which seems to us one of the most disturbing facts of our time. Nowadays, man acts without thinking, and in turn his thought can no longer be translated into action. Thinking has become a superfluous exercise, without reference to reality; it is purely internal, without compelling force, more or less a game. It is a literature’s domain; and I am not referring solely to ‘intellectual; thought, but to all thought, with concerns work or politics or family life. In sum, thought and reflection have been rendered thoroughly pointless by the circumstances in which modern man lives and acts. He does not need to think in order to act; his action is determined by the techniques he uses and by the sociological conditions. He acts without really wanting to, without ever reflecting on the meaning of or reason for his actions. This situation is the result of the whole evolution of our society. The schools, the press, and the social pragamatism are just as responsible for this as the psychotechnics, the modern political structure, and the obsession with productivity. But the two decisive factors are the mechanization of work and propaganda.

The mechanization of work is based on entirely on dissociation: those who think, establish the schedules, or set the norms, never act — and those who act must do so according to rules, patterns and plans imposed on them from outside. Above all they must not reflect on their actions. They can not do so anyhow, because of the speed with which they work. The modern ideal appears to be a reduction of action to complete automatism. This is considered to be a great benefit to the worker, who can dream or think of ‘other things’ while working. But this dissociation, which lasts eight hours a day, must necessarily affect all the rest of behaviour.

The other element that plays a decisive role in this connection is propaganda. Remember that propaganda seeks to induce action, adherence, and participation — with as little thought as possible. According to progaganda, it is useless, even harnful for man to think; thinking prevents him from acting with the required righteousness and simplicity. Action muct come directly from the depths of the unconcious; it must release tension, become a reflex. This presumes that thought unfolds on an entirely unreal level, that it never engages in political decision. And this is in fact so. No political thought that is at all conherent or distinct can possibly be applied. What man thinks either is totally without effect or must remain unsaid. This is the basic condition of the political organization of the modern world, and progapganda is the instrument to attain this effect. An example that show the radical devaluation of thought is the transformation of words in propaganda; there, language, the instrument of the mind, becomes ‘pure sound,’ a symbol directly evoking feelings and reflexes. This is one of the most serious dissociations that progapanda causes. There is another: the dissociation betwen the verbal universe, in which propaganda makes us live, and reality. Propaganda sometimes deliberately separates from man’s real world the verbal world that it creates; it then tends to destory man’s conscience.”

Jaques Ellul
Propaganda — The Formation Of Men’s Attitudes
pg. 179-181