Marxism/Cultural Marxism – Page 11

The Symbiotic Relationship Between Cultural Marxism and R2K

People often don’t see the cheek by jowl relationship between R2K and Cultural Marxism. Together they are the positive and negative movements to overthrow Christianity in the Church of Jesus Christ. R2K disallows the Church as from the pulpit to speak contrary to the agenda of the Cultural Marxists. This has the effect of creating a vacuum in the church on many subjects that then allow the input of the broader culture — saturated as it is with the teachings of Cultural Marxism — to take captive the thinking of God’s people in the pew.

So, negatively R2K holds back the Church’s ability to bring a “thus saith the Lord” to the cultural conversation allowing Cultural Marxist to positively fill the gap by giving a word of the Lord from their Lord Beelzebub via Universities, Secondary Schools, Media, and other sources.

Those who embrace and teach R2K hate Jesus Christ and should be excommunicated from His Church.

As God’s people we Christians are created in God’s image and so intuitively
desire to shape the world consistent with the image of God that we are. God has shaped us in His image and so we are rabid to shape the world in the image wherein we have been created.

Because there is no such thing as neutrality people will either seek to shape all of life to the glory of God or they will seek to shape it in rebellion against God. In our living this neither ground that allows us to be neutral nor is there ground that is common in the sense that it neither honors nor dishonors the Creator God.

The church has failed to teach this simple truth robustly, leaving many Christians empty and desiring something that will shape the world in a God honoring direction. The Church, via God’s revelation, has answers to the problems that people can’t help but see but the Church has grown silent under the whip hand of Radical Two Kingdom Theology and the result is that God’s people look for answers from others who see the problems that the Christian sees only to be disappointed because Christ haters, even if they analyze the problem correctly, will always give incomplete solutions.

Marxism in it’s various forms offer terrible solutions, but because it actually seeks to do something about problems in the world, people flee to it. The church has the answer, but has failed God’s people in providing it because she has failed to preach the whole counsel of God to the whole of life.

Cultural Marxism will never be defeated and consigned to the sulfur pit until R2K in the Church is first cast into the lake of fire from which it originated.

R. Scott Clark’s Opining on Christian Nationalism Rejected — Part II

Just as Machen, though sick with pneumonia was bound and determined to keep his word to travel to South Dakota to preach and support a new Presbyterian work there, so I have lifted myself up out of my post-operative open heart surgery rest and recovery regimen in order to answer the absolute inanities of R. Scott Clark and Keven DeYoung on the subject of Christian Nationalism. Aren’t you impressed?

There is nothing quite so as stirring and enlivening to one’s spirit and health has to have the opportunity to lance, like so many piece of vegetable and beef on a shish-kabob, the non-Christian musings of the highly functioning lobotomized clergy class.

R. Scott Clark notes the desire of DeYoung to have “some form of Christian Nationalism,” and then as the cheek to say that no one has ever answered his previous queries as to what it means to modify “nationalism” with “Christian.” Clark, ever the intellectual autistic that he is, insists that no one has ever given him a coherent response as to what it means to speak of “Christian” plumbing or “Christian” math. All I can say here is that if he has seen no coherent response to this it is because he is looking with his eyes shut. Here is my response to that question a couple years ago. It is not the first time I have answered this question for he who runs “The Heidelfog.”

Not Getting R. Scott Clark’s Inability to Get The Obvious

Also, if R. Scott Clark would read my book he would see that I provide an answer for him again in that book in the chapter titled, “Transformation of Culture.” So, either R. Scott Clark is lying when he says he has seen no coherent response to his queries about how math, softball, or nations can be Christian or else his worldview won’t allow him to see an answer that everyone else can easily see.

Clark then insists that he is not a defeatist. All I can do is offer that such a statement is a real knee-slapper. Everything that Clark contends for in terms of his R2K social order project guarantees that Christianity will return to the catacombs. As I argue in my book in the chapter “Militant Amillennialism” R2K’s eschatology requires defeat. Quoting from my book, I note,

“The R2K eschatology is what I call a militant amillennialism. The Amillennial eschatology does not allow for the victory of the Gospel and Biblical Christianity in space and time. In Amillennial eschatology the return of Christ is a return characterized by a church that is under assault and is greatly diminished in the world. Christ returns to rescue the Church much like the US Cavalry rides in to save an almost depleted Fort Custer as surrounded by the Indians ready to make their final push to take the Fort. The R2K Amillennialists really believe this and so it is baked into their eschatology. Because they do not believe that victory is possible they have developed a theology under the tutelage of men like David Van Drunen, R. Scott Clark, Mike Horton, D. G. Hart, and others that by definition does not allow for victory. By creating a common square that, by definition, can not ever be anything but common the R2K Amillennialist has created a self-fulfilled eschatology. Since by definition the public square cannot be anything but common the public square cannot see the triumph of Christ in space and time in the public square. The is militant Amillennialism.”

Clark next insists that all he is arguing for is a return to the American project which means the restoration of secular government while pursuing a desire to re-frame the classical Reformed distinction between nature and grace.

We would note here that when Clark tells us that he desires to return to the American project what he is telling us is that he desire to return to the vision of the Enlightenment crowd numbered among the founding fathers. This is a vision that affirms neutrality as seen in the insistence that the State (as well as the national institutions) remains neutral when it comes to the issue of religion. Clark continues to not understand, and no power short of conversion can make him understand, that neutrality is a myth. Jesus Himself said that “he does not gather with me scatters.” Jesus Himself said that, “he who is not with me is against me.” Jesus Himself said, “You cannot serve two Masters.” Clark desires to serve Jesus as Master while having a neutral state that does not serve Jesus as Master. This is not only not Christianity that Clark is pushing this is anti-Christianity. Let it be said clearly that there is no such thing as a secular State/Government if by secular you mean a State/Government that is ruling apart from a standpoint of religion and ruling apart from some god or god concept. Clark’s idea of secular is the idea that Roger Williams (He of Anabaptist fame) instantiated in Rhode Island. R. Scott Clark as more in common with Roger Williams than he does John Calvin.

Clark next invokes the sainted Abraham Kuyper. Clark would be better served reading Philippus Jacobus Hoedemaker’s critiques of Kuyper on this score. After Clark is finished reading Hoedemaker he can then buy a copy of Wm. T. Cavanaugh’s, “The Myth of Religious Violence.” From that work he can learn that all his chicken little screaming about violence from Christian magistrates is just so much hooey.

Clark then offers a real eye-popper when he writes;

“As a historian, I am endlessly puzzled by the desire, expressed by Wolfe and others, for a return to a state-church. What do they imagine the outcome will be? They claim that they will get it right this time, though virtually all other attempts before them have failed. This reminds me very much of the Marxist claim that we should give that another run because the right people have not tried it yet.”

I too am a historian, though I never earned a terminal degree in the field. (If Clark is an example of a Historian with a terminal degree I thank God I never went on to get the terminal degree.) History was one of my under-grad degrees. I took all the historiography courses. I examined the different schools of history. I read the heavy hitters. So, as a historian I am endlessly puzzled by Clark’s inability to see that a state-church is an inescapable category. Our nation is covered with state-churches, supported with state-funds, manned by state-educated state-Priests. Somewhere in the vicinity of 90% of American children (ages K-12) attend these state-churches being indoctrinated thoroughly with the state religion. Yet, Clark is so jejune that he can suggest that we, in America, do not have a state-Church. It is amazing. Clark complains that too many people are like Marxists and yet the man can’t see that our state-Church pushes some one form or another of Marxism.

R. Scott Clark’s Christianity is completely novel. No Reformed person before Meredith Kline thought anything like this. As Dr. Stephen Wolfe has written regarding R2K;

“Van Drunen (Clark belongs to this school of thought), for example, resolves the ‘contradictions’ of traditional two kingdoms theology with a theological system that affirms post WW II norms of secularism, multiculturalism, and anti-nationalism. His political theology might rightly be called ‘post WW II consensus theology,’ and I suspect that historians, looking back at it, will conclude that his theology is highly historically conditioned.”

Van Drunen, D. G. Hart, R. Scott Clark, Mike Horton, Sean Michael Lucas, Matthew Tuininga, David T. Gordon, and countless others are spewing a “theology” that is perhaps 80 years old at best. It is completely novel and it is a theology that none of the Reformers or their descendants would recognize as Reformed. Yet, despite the truth of that these posers are all over the place screaming that they alone are orthodox. Jesus refused to turn stone into bread but these highly educated dunces have gladly complied.

R. Scott Clark’s Opining on Christian Nationalism Rejected — Part I

Here I find myself just a tad bit over 3 weeks out from open heart surgery. On top of that I have managed to contract a very slight, but still discernable cold. I am, to say the least, feeling blah and quite lackluster. I have been kicking myself about not blogging more but I have just not had the oomph to do so.

Until now. Leave it to that grand idiot Dr. R. Scott Clark to write with such determined torpidity and stylistic buffoonery to cause me rise out of my languid pose of recovery so as to expose his shallow offerings and lampoon his “insightful reasoning.”

Recently, at his blog, “The Heidelfog” Clark had yet another go at the concept of “Christian Nationalism.” Naturally, as Clark is a stupid man he is opposed to this Biblical concept. It is ironic that a man who wrote a book on “Recovering the Reformed Confessions” would insists that those who wrote the “Solemn League and Covenant” (a steroidal advocacy of Christian Nationalism if there ever was one) and were largely responsible for penning the Westminster Confession of Faith were foursquare opposed to any idea of Christian Nationalism.

I mean R. Scott Clark is trying to tell us that the guys who penned the following were against Christian Nationalism;

LC#191 Q- What do we pray for in the “second petition” of the Lord’s prayer which is Thy Kingdom Come?

A – the Kingdom of God is to “be countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate.”

Q-108 which asks what are the duties required in the second commandment.

A – “the disapproving , detesting, opposing all false worship; and, according to each one’s place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry.”

The magistrate’s place and calling requires him to remove all false worship and all monuments of idolatry.

Q-118 “What is the charge of keeping the sabbath more specially directed to governors of families, and other superiors?”

The answer says that it is directed to other superiors, because “they are bound not only to keep it themselves, but to see that it be observed by all those that are under their charge.”

Other superiors include the civil magistrate.

It looks to me like Dr. R. Scott Clark needs to recover the Reformed Confessions on the issue of Christian Nationalism because those documents clearly support Christian Nationalism.

But let us not deal merely in generalities. Let us dig into the subterranean chambers of Dr. R. Scott Clark’s and Dr. Kevin DeYoung’s idiocy. Let us take the time to pop their ponderous puss-filled pontifications on the position of Christian Nationalism. In order to do so we examine Clark’s 07 June offering on the same subject on his “The Heidelfog” wherein he quotes Dr. Kevin DeYoung to sustain his vile bile against Biblical Christianity.

First Clark argues that it was the end of sodomy laws combined with the rise of SCOTUS’s Obergefell vs. Hodges decision that made the way for the return of discussion supporting Christian Nationalism. Here Clark is only half right, which means he is completely wrong. Should we be surprised? It is true that pro-sodomy laws and pro-sodomite marriage may have lit the fuse to a return of conversation on Christian Nationalism but the larger issue was the realization of more and more Christians that their nation was embracing a Nationalism that was thoroughly pagan and anti-Christ. More and more Christians began to realize, because of the rise of sodomy and now Tranny-ism and child abuse sex change laws that their nation was indeed embracing a Nationalism but that that Nationalism was pinioned upon hatred of Christianity. So, instead of giving in to the rise of humanist Nationalism a chord was struck to once again begin thinking about Christian Nationalism. So, Clark is right about those issues driving conversation but he is wrong in not realizing that people began waking up to the fact that Nationalism is an inescapable category and that if we have to choose between a anti-Christ Nationalism where sodomy, Tranny-ism, pedophilia and sodomite marriage are expressions of the theology of the land and Christian Nationalism where Biblical morality is the law of the land they would rather rally around the flag of Christian Nationalism.

Clark then goes on to cite Paul Miller’s 2021 Christianity Astray article on Christian Nationalism as a beginning point of conversation on the subject. Clark ties together Miller’s work with Samuel Huntington’s writing on the same subject. Clark then goes out of his way to try and tie Dr. Stephen Wolfe’s “The Case for Christian Nationalism” in with Theonomy — which Clark hates with all the passion of Juliet’s love for Romeo. Clark fails to mention that Wolfe goes out of his way in his volume to communicate that he is no friend to theonomy. Indeed, it is my conviction, as a general equity theonomist that Wolfe’s book fails magnificently precisely because he pins his Christian Nationalism on Natural Law’s anti-theonomic thinking. However, the fact that Wolfe goes out of his way to distance himself from theonomy does not stop the libelous R. Scott Clark from disingenuously seeking to tie Clark to Theonomy. (Alas, if only it were really true.)

Clark next appeals to fellow well educated chucklehead Kevin DeYoung for support for Clarks own vitriol. DeYoung pleas for rejecting Wolfe inveighing;

“The message—that ethnicities shouldn’t mix, that heretics can be killed, that violent revolution is already justified, and that what our nation needs is a charismatic Caesar-like leader to raise our consciousness and galvanize the will of the people—may bear resemblance to certain blood-and-soil nationalisms of the 19th and 20th centuries, but it’s not a nationalism that honors and represents the name of Christ.”

Now, I am 75% finished with Wolfe’s book and I would dearly love to have the page number where Wolfe expressly said that “ethnicities shouldn’t mix.” I wish he had said it. I was disappointed he didn’t say it. As such I’d love the exact quote from DeYoung.

Second, how can DeYoung be a Christian minister living in a land where we still routinely kill the unborn and even the newly born and contend that violent revolution isn’t already justified. On this basis alone I think any pulpit worth its salt would be ashamed to be filled by DeYoung.

Third, while I think it is dang near impossible for a Christian prince to rise in Weimerca I certainly would not be opposed if one did arise to set matters straight. I would love for a Protestant Christian Franco, Pinochet, or Salazar to take the helm in this country. Would that God would raise up a Alfred the Great, a Charlemagne, or a Cromwell to lead this country. Can anyone tell me why DeYoung is opposed to a Christian Prince rising up to destroy all the high places in the nation?

Do not fail to notice how DeYoung subtly suggests, via his “blood and soil” descriptor that all who disagree with him on this are closet Nazis. Can DeYoung please tell me why Christian Nationalism that Wolfe puts forth (and frankly which I think is weak sauce) is not a Nationalism that honors and represents the name of Christ? Methinks when Kevin DeYoung talks like this Kevin DeYoung and Bret L. McAtee are serving different Christs because I think that Jesus Christ would be well pleased with that kind of Christian Nationalism.

At this point R. Scott Clark leaves off from quoting DeYoung and gives us more of his own blather. Red Clark, like any good Commie, directly ties Christian Nationalism to Nazism, making explicit what DeYoung offered implicitly;

“Segregationism (known among theonomists as “kinism“) and the lust for a “charismatic Caesar-like leader” should cause any decent American’s blood to run cold. These two features were also essential to the very “blood and soil” nationalism of the Nazis. We fought and won a war against these very things. The idea that religious heretics should be put to death is a repudiation of the first amendment of the Constitution and constitutes an anti-American revolution. Miller has seriously understated the nature and intent of the most popular form of Christian Nationalism.”

Here, I, in a decent and warm-bloodily manner, note;

1.) There have been many many Christian Kings throughout history and many many Christian Kings whom God’s people loved. To suggest that a rise of a good Christian King should make any Christian’s blood run cold reveals again that R. Scott Clark is historically ignorant.

2.) Is it R. Scott Clark’s position that any people who want to retain their heritage, traditions, and even their common bonds of blood are automatically wicked? Is the desire to belong to a set people in a known place really the kind of realities that should make the blood of Christians run cold? I mean, I know that thinking that way makes the blood of Cultural Marxists run cold but why should we think that thinking in such a manner as to love people and place to the point of wanting people and place to carry on into the future is something that makes all decent American’s blood run cold?

Honestly, R. Scott Clark saying that about Kinism makes my blood run cold.

Feasting and Festivity Over The Announced Death of Rev. Tim Keller

“When it goes well with the righteous, the city rejoices; And when the wicked perish, there is jubilation.” Proverbs 11:10

“And Miriam answered them, Sing ye to the LORD, for he hath triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea.”

Exodus 15:21

“So let all thine enemies perish, O LORD: but let them that love him be as the sun when he goeth forth in his might. And the land had rest forty years.”

Judges 5:31

“Then they will throw dust on their heads as they weep and mourn and cry out: “Woe, woe to the great city, where all who had ships on the sea were enriched by her wealth! For in a single hour she has been destroyed. ”Rejoice over her, O heaven, O saints and apostles and prophets, because God has pronounced for you His judgment against her.”

Revelation 18:19-20

Here at Iron Ink we have written more than once on the necessity to rejoice in the fall of the wicked. We have cited these same verses and ones like them to substantiate our claim that when the wicked die the response of the God’s people is to pop some corks, pour some champagne, and party.

And of course the wicked do the same thing when the righteous fall. The Papists struck a medal in honor of the murdering of the Huguenots in France. The Papists likewise hoisted a tanker at the death of the great Cromwell.

It is just the nature of reality to rejoice when God’s enemy and your enemy falls dead.

One problem with contemporary Christians is that we try to be “nicer than God.” God doesn’t weep with sorrow when His enemies perish. In point of fact God kills His enemy’s dead.

And so when enemies of God die we should kill the fatted calf, rollout the bubble making machine, and raise up our glasses to our glorious King for defending His Church.

And all of the above, my friends, should be our frame of mind regarding the death of one “Rev.” Timothy Keller (1950 – 2023). With a long and agonizing death stemming from pancreatic cancer Keller’s scourge of God’s Church has finally ended.

Keller’s wickedness is un-challengeable. I offer the following links to sustain the charge as to Keller’s Ahab like behavior against God and His Church;

CHRISTIANS NEED BETTER HEROS OF THE FAITH -AND LESS CELEBRITY PREACHERS WHO ARE PRODUCTS OF THE GLOBAL ECUMENICAL EVANGELICAL MACHINE.

The Miserable State of the Clergy Seen in the Words of Tim Keller

Tim Keller’s Doctrine of No Doctrine

Tim Keller Channels George Orwell

If the reader desires more chronicling of Tim Keller’s wickedness they only have to punch in the name “Tim Keller” in the search link at Iron Ink.

Keller had spoken repeatedly of how the Frankfurt school had profoundly influenced him. Keller’s vision was a Christianity which had the soteriology of scripture as combined with the morality of Gramsci. Anyone with a mere smattering of knowledge about the “Frankfurt school” knew immediately that Keller was, intentionally or unintentionally, a Marxist change agent leading a fifth columnists insurrection inside the visible Reformed Church to the end of redefining Christianity through a Cultural Marxist prism. This is why I have hated Tim Keller for decades now. I was not fooled by his “clever” rhetoric and Straussian writing methodology wherein clarity of meaning is purposefully avoided by the means of excessive nuance and qualification. I was not fooled by his slick presentation and charming personality. I was not fooled by his appeal to the cultural elites. The man was the very incarnation of what we might expect of a modern Mephistopheles. Tim Keller was C. S. Lewis’ “Uncle Screwtape” all dressed up.

So, because of all of the above and a host more of others, I am rejoicing at the news of Tim Keller’s death, which I heard while I was myself only clinging to life. I do weep at the same time that Tim rejected the demand that all men everywhere repent. How can grace saved sinners not weep, in this sense, at the death of each of the wicked? I weep because Tim rejected Christ and now it is too late for Keller to repent, but I rejoice that his wickedness is mercifully and finally at the end. No longer will Keller scourge the Church.

Still, we who remain are now left in cleaning up the mess that Keller left behind. We who remain are left having to slay all the Kellerite acolytes who are manning PCA pulpits across the land. We who remain are left having to explain that Christianity can’t be read through the prism of the ne0-Marxist Frankfurt school. We few who are left have the gargantuan task of preaching the Kellerites out of the Reformed Churches. The Kellerites control the PCA and have a large voice in other Reformed Institutions. So, we have a fight on our hands because these lesser spawn of Mordor is not going to simply walk away any more than Keller did.

In closing allow me again to have a personal word. Keller was a Marxist change agent but understand that the dialectical way these agents of change are working in the Reformed churches right now. On the one hand we have the dominionists change agents like Keller who believe that the Church should definitely engage in culture to bring change but the change that the dopes following Keller desire a change in the direction of cultural Marxism. At the same time the “anti-domininionists” school embodied by R2K is working to clear opposition for the Kellerite dominionionists. R2K teaches that the Church should be silent regarding cultural issues. This silences any biblical dominionists who would see the pulpit ring with “thus saith the Lord” on any number of issues. The effect of the silencing accomplished by R2K on Biblical dominionists in the Church is to give more leverage and power to Frankfurt school dominionists in the Church.

Andrew Sandlin & the Sey Marriage… Splashes Insults Everywhere

“Samuel Sey is a godly young Christian leader, and it’s tragically no surprise that his marriage to a faithful Christian woman has provoked opposition among the racists within “The New Right.” This reflects the growing re-paganization of a conservatism that has lost its tether to Christian culture. Opposition to interracial marriage is a tribalist, pagan idea. It’s inter- marriage the Bible opposes.”

Andrew Sandlin

Facebook Post

1.) Given the fact that Samuel Sey himself has insisted that he is NOT in inter-racial marriage I don’t why Sandlin is defending their non inter-racial marriage by referring to the Sey marriage as a “inter-racial” marriage.

2.) Is it “racist” for someone to observe that inter-racial marriages are not wise and so oppose inter-racial marriages since they;

a.) Have a higher rate of divorce

b.) produce children who will have split identities

c.) produce children who will have a more difficult time finding donor matches should they have medical problems

d.) do not find or provide support for the particular ethnic community that of which they will be a “part.” (See linked article)

3.) Actually it is Sandlin who is reflecting a growing paganization of a heretofore conservative ethos. The paganism that Sandlin is reflecting is Cultural Marxism and it reflects how Sandlin has lost his tether to millennium of Christian Culture as exhaustively demonstrated in Achord & Dow’s book, “Who is My Neighbor.”

Have I mentioned recently that everyone keeps ignoring that anthology and that to date nobody has answered this volume that clearly demonstrates that the Church Fathers throughout the centuries would have thought that Andrew Sandlin was a certifiable lunatic for advancing his position on inter-racial marriage.

4.) Support for inter-racial marriage is a New World Order pagan idea and Sandlin should be ashamed for giving it his full throated support.

5.) The Bible supports neither inter-racial marriages nor inter-religious marriage.

Andrew really should give this a read for proof that the Bible does not support inter-racial marriages;

https://thereformedconservative.org/ai_story_collection/on-natural-communities/?fbclid=IwAR3Xj8e1sGQg_mIEutESrPcM3QxaX7CGBy9LX1vwh_VJ7ku5J6n1sNycjRE

6.) Let me make it clear that I have no reason to doubt that Mr. & Mrs. Sey are fine Christian people. (Indeed, as of this moment I have more confidence that they are Christian people than I am convinced that Dr. Andy Sandlin is a Christian person.) Further, I am convinced that now that the Sey marriage has been contracted Christians should do all they can to support this unwise move on their part. What God has joined together let no man cast asunder.

However, at the same time Christian ministers should be working overtime to explain to their young people why this kind of inter-racial marriage is less than a good idea.