Marxism/Cultural Marxism – Page 4

Stalinist America

We have finally arrived at Communist America as the two links below demonstrate.

In the first link peaceful protestors, inside the hallway and so outside the office of an abortion clinic were arrested. Six of them have been sentenced to 10.5 years in prison and some of those six may have another 10.5 slapped on them for protesting a different abortion clinic in the same way.

This Stalinist technique needs to be reckoned in comparison to the Black Lives Matter violent protests, where if people were arrested they were instantly bailed out of jail by various organizations including those connected with Vice President Kamal Harris.

We see again here then, a two tiered system of justice. Criminals receive leniency while middle Americans receive tyranny of the very worst sort.

Samuel Francis, over thirty years ago, labeled this behavior as “Anarcho-tyranny.” The idea in Francis’ theory is that criminals would be treated with a light touch while the law-abiding would be visited with the most draconian treatment.

Indiana Couple Appeals to Supreme Court After Losing Custody for Not Using Transgender Son’s Preferred Pronouns (VIDEO)

This second article is even more outrageous than the first. This one tells a story about a Indiana (Red-state) couple who had their child seized from them by the State authorities merely because the parents refused to countenance the claim of their son that he was really a daughter. CPS admitted there was no abuse in the home besides the “abuse” of not using the preferred pronouns of their insane child.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/pro-life-verdict-up-to-11-years-behind-bars-for-demonstrators/ar-BB1hSODz

If these things can be done, why should any of middle America believe that they can get justice from this corrupt Christ hating Federal and State governments.

It is long past time that some lines in the sand be drawn. If we do no stand now we will soon find ourselves complaining, consistent with the complaints of Solzhenitsyn many decades ago;

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956

Word Games

The Marxist left has been doing this as long as I’ve been alive.

They are masters at controlling our language. They somehow manage to be the “word police,” dictating to us what words or phrases can’t be used. Control the language, and one controls what is societally acceptable and unacceptable, not only in terms of speech but also in terms of behavior. When the left forces us to use their language and their words they set up a hegemon over reality by controlling the way we speak. Keep in mind that the way we speak controls the way we think and when we are controlled in the way we think we are controlled in the way we behave.

The illustrations of this are abundant. Just recently we saw this logomachy at work when the chap who is serving as President spoke of, in his State of the Union address, “an illegal immigrant,” who had murdered a young lady.

The following morning after the speech our handlers (the Lugenpresse / Corporate Media) was outraged. Were they outraged by the murder of this young lady by this illegal immigrant? Were they outraged by the border policy that allowed this illegal immigrant to be here? No, what the Lugenpresse was furious with the President about is that he referred to this murderer as an “illegal immigrant,” as opposed to their required “undocumented worker.” You see, if one uses the phrase “illegal immigrant,” per the Lugenpresse’s dictates one is a “racist,” or is suffering from xenophobia. If one uses the phrase “illegal immigrant” one is a social outcast, not fit for civilized company. So, by the constant drumming of this idea, the enemies of Christendom take from the friends of Christendom a perfectly good phrase that carries a perfectly fine concept. Over the course of time, we lose the conceptual category of people who are here in our country who have gained entrance in a criminal fashion.

Now our elite handlers are not playing games here. Eventually, those who retain the phrase “illegal immigrant” will be socially shunned. They may even experience forms of cancel culture. The left always seeks to put the bite on those who will not conform to their lexical tom-foolery.

Of course “illegal immigrant” is just one example. Other examples abound. Another example of a word that can not be used anymore is the perfectly fine word “sodomite.” Sodomite was long ago replaced by the word “Homosexual” which likewise was finally changed out for the word “gay.” The reason for this logomachy switcheroo is that the left understood that sodomite was such a graphic word that people found the word and the concept attached to the word instantly revolting and so it was changed out for the word “Homosexual.” In time the word “Homosexual” developed a negative connotation and so the masters of the Universe villainized that word and insisted that the word “gay” be used instead. The wicked brilliance in all this is admirable. Who would have ever thought that a word (gay) that meant jovial, and happy would be attached to such a disgusting lifestyle as sodomy? The cultural Marxist left is good at this game.

The marvel is, is that the Church follows right along. I challenge anyone to attend a denominational meeting and bring up the problem of “sodomites” and the need to resist sodomy as a policy without finding out very quickly some stuffed clergy telling you about how improper it is to use that word.

We could continue to multiply the examples of how our speech is governed. American Indian is now “Original Peoples” or “Indigenous Peoples” and don’t get caught using the word “Indian” among certain leftist group-think. A word like “patriarchy,” is now villainized and is verboten to use in a positive sense in certain Ivy League company. Indeed, in order to cleanse our minds of patriarchy we now have gender neutral hymn books and bible.

The concepts of B.C. & A.D. have been replaced by BCE and ACE in order to eliminate the taint of Christianity. Even putative Christian academics are now using this language in their academic treatises.

Of course the technique in changing our language and so changing our thinking and behavior is to villainize, scandalize, and berate our previous words, phrases, and concepts as being filled with the guilt of not being acceptable to our Cultural Marxist masters. Further, those who refuse to get their minds right are visited with being outcast. You see, our language is run through a worldview that competes with Christianity and seeks to overthrow it and the result is words and phrases are dropped in order to satisfy the standards of a worldview that is in competition with Biblical Christianity. Slowly and inexorably we, as a people, are changed from the inside out and become a different people that our Christian ancestors would not recognize.

Another example is the word “Kinist.” Kinist is a word coined in the mid-1990s to communicate what WASP Christians had believed for millennium on race relations (See Achord & Dow’s, “Who is my Neighbor,” and Storen’s “A Survey of Racialism in Christian Sacred Tradition.”) However, the cultural Marxist left, along with their clergy allies (I’m looking at Moscow) has villainized and scandalized this word so that it can no longer be used without people becoming somewhat timid concerning what might happen to them if they are known to be compatriots with someone who uses this dreadful, vile and scary word. And this, in spite of the fact, that I have bent over backwards in order to specifically point out what I am and am not saying.

An example of this treatment was seen online recently. Rev. Michael Shover gave an excellent sermon, and in that sermon Shover pointed out the dangers of the 1st amendment being embraced as more important than the first commandment. A firestorm erupted. What was interesting is that in this firestorm a bloke named Keven Johnson flung at Rev. Shover and Shover’s sermon, the epitaph “Kinist Pastor” in order to vilify anything Rev. Shover might say on any subject.

So, what is to be done about this? Well, we could invent new words (Oikophillia — “Love of One’s own Household”), we could just use old words (ethnonationalists, race-realist,) but of course you have to realize that whatever word we use the cultural Marxists are just going to scandalize, villainize, and fill with calumny any word a Christian reaches for in order to communicate this set of ideas. We cannot win by playing according to the left’s rules.

Because of this technique of emptying us from our language through the process of villainization and scandalization of perfectly good words, we have nothing to do but to play the man and to use all of our language and words doing all we can to violate the speech code that the left increasingly seeks to press down upon us and we do this as good soldiers of Jesus Christ. Of course, we have to be wise in how we go about all this, but if we just allow the left to determine what language we can and cannot use we will eventually find ourselves owning a diluted Christianity. I mean how much Christianity can there be left in someone who constantly plays by the left’s logomachy rules?

A closing word has to be added. We need to realize that we are in a war. The left has successfully taken over the role of cultural gatekeepers. This means that when we violate the code of the cultural gatekeepers there is the possibility of consequences the cultural gatekeepers will press upon us. For example, just this morning I learned of a chap who has already been sentenced to 10.5 years in prison for peacefully protesting an abortion clinic. He’s looking at an additional 10.5 years because he did the same at a second abortion clinic in the same area. By all accounts there was nothing at all violent in what he had done. However, he did violate the code of the cultural gatekeepers and he is now in staring at 21 years prison time, which amounts to a life in prison ruling given his age.

All of us, as Christians, who refuse to play by the rules of the cultural gatekeepers need to count the cost. We need realize that we are living in 2024 and not 1984 or even 2000. Matters have changed drastically and it is just a fact that anyone who wears their Christianity too boldly is going to run afoul of the cultural gatekeepers.

May the Lord Christ give us courage for the days ahead.

From the Mailbag… Rachelle Smith Writes For Help Defending Kinism — Part II

Pastor Geoff writes,

Is he just saying Italians are good at pasta and Indians at curry?

Bret responds,
“No.”

Pastor Geoff writes,

Is he saying we should remain distinct based on physiological differences? If he is arguing for a separation of the races (which he does in other posts and comments), then he is dividing the family of God into unbiblical distinctives and is teaching something contrary to the gospel (Acts 17:26; Rom. 3:29; 1 Cor. 12:12-13; Gal. 3:28; Gal. 2:12, 14; Rev. 5:9). Though his conclusion is not clear based only on this article, his other writings make abundantly clear what his objective is.

Bret responds,

Here the wheels finally completely come off of this chap’s argument.

I am dividing the family of God by merely suggesting that men should honor God’s distinctions among races? If I am, look what good company I am in Rachelle.

This from A. W. Tozer. One of my 20^th century heroes in the faith;

“You can’t change my mind about God having made us the way we are. The yellow man and the white man and the black man. God made our races. I know the Marxists and the bubbleheads say: “Oh, that’s old-fashioned baloney! Everybody should get together and intermarry and pretty soon there won’t be races, and where there are no races there won’t be any hate, and if there’s no hate, there won’t be any war.” Oh, for cotton batting to stuff in the mouths of people who don’t know better than that!…

Let me remind you of the warbler, almost universally distributed in this country, and will you believe that there are 120 species of this bird called the warbler in the United States? One hundred and twenty varieties, with only the slightest differences of feather, or wing, or stripe or spot. In these 120 varieties, we are told, there is no crossing the line, they mate within their own racial strain, hatch and have little ones. Nobody puts them through college, but when they get big enough to hop out on the edge of the nest and begin looking for another warbler, they always pick one

like themselves, and stay within their own strain.

Now, you get a Communist or a starry-eyed American fellow traveler working on that, and he will say: “That’s an evidence of race hate, and it’s a proof those warblers hate each other!” Hate each other – your grandmother’s nightcap! They don’t quarrel, they never fight, they just go on living and warbling. They’ve got sense enough to know that God made 120 kinds of warblers just for fun to show what He could do, and He doesn’t mean for them to cross over and make one warbler out of 120!”

Or we could learn from another Christian minister who was theologically quite different from Tozer. In context here this minister is explaining why a denomination is splitting. Note the reasons that he gives/

Causes of Separation in 1973 (PCA separates from PCUS)

John Edwards Richards

The Socialist, who declares all men are equal. Therefore there must be a great leveling of humanity and oneness of privilege and possession.
The Racial Amalgamationist, who preaches that the various races should be merged into one race and differences erased in oneness.
The Communist, who would have one mass of humanity coerced into oneness by a totalitarian state and guided exclusively by Marxist philosophy.
The Internationalist, who insists on co-existence between all peoples and nations that they be as one regardless of ideology or history.
John Edwards Richards, who was one of the founders of the Presbyterian Church in America could write elsewhere;

“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)

Finally Dr. Edwards adds,

“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.” ~

Dr. John E. Richards

So your “Pastor” Geoff says I am dividing the family of God into un-biblical distinctives and yet all of Church history screams with me that your Pastor Geoff is advocating a historically Marxist position. Maybe I will refer to him as “Red Geoff” the rest of the way? I know Red Geoff doesn’t intend to be doing the work of the devil, he doesn’t intend to contribute to the destruction of Western Civilization, and he only intends to be full of roses and pussy willows, but “Red Geoff” is just another “Pastor Lovejoy” of “The Simpsons” fame. What “Red Geoff” intends to do and what he is doing are opposed like heaven and hell.

“Red Geoff” says I am dividing the family of God into un-biblical distinctives. I have a number of Christian friends that belong to different races. They are kinists like myself. We have no barrier to fellowship. Being a Kinist does not divide the family of God. It merely recognizes these God ordained creaturely distinctives are God ordained. All because I might worship with a Mongolian Christian doesn’t mean I should think that our children should marry?

Theologian Dr. John Frame speaks to your “Red Geoff”

“Scripture, as I read it, does not require societies, or even churches, to be integrated racially. Jews and Gentiles were brought together by God’s grace into one body. They were expected to love one another and to accept one another as brothers in the faith. But the Jewish Christians continued to maintain a distinct culture, and house churches were not required to include members of both groups.”

John Frame,
“Racism, Sexism, Marxism”

“Pastor Geoff continues on”

and (Pastor Bret) is teaching something contrary to the gospel (Acts 17:26; Rom. 3:29; 1 Cor. 12:12-13; Gal. 3:28; Gal. 2:12, 14; Rev. 5:9).

Bret responds,

Rachelle, your “Pastor Geoff” choosing these text suggests to me that you should not be entrusting your souls to his teaching. Choosing these texts to try and prove his point is a example of badly handling Scripture. Let’s consider these one by one;

1.) Acts 17:26 And He has made from one man every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,

One man… many nations. Keep in mind that nations in the NT understanding means “a descent from a common patriarch.” This text supports my position Rachelle and not Pastor Geoff’s.

2.) 1 Cor. 12:12 For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.

a.) Note it is Jews and Greeks how are Baptized into one body. Do you suppose that after Baptism they were no longer Jews and Greeks?

b.) One body… many members, which is exactly what I am advocating. One body comprised of many member nations.

c.) Of course this is speaking in terms of spiritual realities. Arguing that we lose our racial/ethnic distinctives because we are baptized into one body would necessitate that we also argue that we lose our gender identity because we are baptized into one body.

d.) St. Paul is speaking here of unity in Christ. There is a distinction between unity in Christ and a uniformity where all Christians wear some form of Mao suits because, after all, we are all one.

e.) With all believers everywhere, regardless of race, sex, or class, I am a member of the one body of Christ. However, as members in one musical band are all members in that one band not all are Trumpets, not all are Bassoons, not all are Saxophones or Piccolos. They are distinct yet complimentary. The same is true of the body of Christ. There are many parts (races/ethnicities) but one body.

3.) Gal. 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

https://ironink.org/2021/03/galatians-326f-the-indiscriminate-nature-of-the-gospel-and-the-foolishness-of-social-egalitarianism/

https://ironink.org/2012/06/galatians-328-egalitarianism/

4.) Galatians 2:12, 14;

https://ironink.org/2022/11/galatians-21-10-paul-titus-the-issue-of-circumcision/

https://ironink.org/2022/11/galatians-211-21/

5.) Revelation 5:9

9 And they sang a new song, saying:

“You are worthy to take the scroll,
And to open its seals;
For You were slain,
And have redeemed us to God by Your blood
Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,

I completely affirm this. God will have a redeemed people from all peoples of the world throughout time. However, all the Kinist observes is that people are saved as God’s work in saving peoples. I now this is true Rachelle, because in the same book of Revelation we read that the nations come into the new Jerusalem as in their nations and that their the nations are all healed

Revelation 21:24 And the nations of those who are saved shall walk in its light, and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor into it.

22:4 The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

Nations as nations are all over the book of Revelation. We should not be surprised by this for as Theologian Dr. Martin Wyngaarden noted;

“Now the predicates of the covenant are applied in Isa. 19 to the Gentiles of the future, — “Egypt my people, and Assyria, the work of my hands, and Israel, mine inheritance,” Egypt, the people of “Jehovah of hosts,” (Isa. 19:25) is therefore also expected to live up to the covenant obligations, implied for Jehovah’s people. And Assyria comes under similar obligations and privileges. These nations are representative of the great Gentile world, to which the covenant privileges will, therefore, be extended.”

Martin J. Wyngaarden, The Future of the Kingdom in Prophecy and Fulfillment: A Study of the Scope of “Spiritualization” in Scripture (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2011), p. 94.

And again,

“More than a dozen excellent commentaries could be mentioned that all interpret Israel as thus inclusive of Jew and Gentile, in this verse, — the Gentile adherents thus being merged with the covenant people of Israel, though each nationality remains distinct.”

“For, though Israel is frequently called Jehovah’s People, the work of his hands, his inheritance, yet these three epithets severally are applied not only to Israel, but also to Assyria and to Egypt: “Blessed be Egypt, my people, and Assyria, the work of my hands, and Israel, mine inheritance.”

Thus the highest description of Jehovah’s covenant people is applied to Egypt, — “my people,” — showing that the Gentiles will share the covenant blessings, not less than Israel. Yet the several nationalities are here kept distinct, even when Gentiles share, in the covenant blessing, on a level of equality with Israel. Egypt, Assyria, and Israel are not nationally merged. And the same principles, that nationalities are not obliterated, by membership in the covenant, applies, of course, also in the New Testament dispensation.”

Martin Wyngaarden

The Future of the Kingdom in Prophecy and Fulfillment: A Study of the Scope of “Spiritualization” in Scripture — pp. 101-102.

But I suppose “Red Geoff” says every freaking Christian theologian before him were sinning by “dividing the body of Christ?”

“Red Geoff’s” problem, is the same problem of nearly all modern and contemporary clergy. That problem is that they can only think in terms of the individual. They have completely lost corporate categories. Clergy did not always think this way and Reformed clergy who are genuinely Reformed have NEVER thought this way. I’ve given plenty of examples already, but here is another one from a great Doctor of the Church of a past era;

Romans 11:17, 19, with its “branches broken off” metaphor has frequently been viewed as proof of the relativity and changeability of election, and it is pointed out that at the end of vs. 23, the Gentile Christians are threatened with being cut off in case they do not continue in the kindness of God. But wrongly. Already this image of engrafting should have restrained such an explanation. This image is nowhere and never used of the implanting of an individual Christian, into the mystical body of Christ by regeneration. Rather, it signifies the reception of a racial line or national line into the dispensation of the covenant or their exclusion from it. This reception of course occurs by faith in the preached word, and to that extent, with this engrafting of a race or a nation, there is also connected the implanting of individuals into the body of Christ. The cutting off, of course, occurs by unbelief; not, however, by the unbelief of person who first believed, but solely by the remaining in unbelief of those who, by virtue of their belonging to the racial line, should have believed and were reckoned as believers. So, a rejection ( = multiple rejections) of an elect race is possible, without it being connected to a reprobation of elect believers. Certainly, however, the rejection of a race or nation involves at the same time the personal reprobation of a sequence of people. Nearly all the Israelites who are born and die between the rejection of Israel as a nation and the reception of Israel at the end times appear to belong to those reprobated. And the thread of Romans 11:22 (of being broken off) is not directed to the Gentile Christians as individual believers but to them considered racially.”

Geerhardus Vos
Dogmatic Theology Vol. 1 – pg. 118

Red Geoff writes;

I found the Iron Ink blog and looked around at the content. And I want to say in no uncertain terms that this man is not behaving as a Christian.

Bret responds,

Here Red Geoff goes from being jejune to being just not nice. I’m telling you Rachelle, my feelings are so hurt now that I just don’t know how I can go on.

Allow me to return volley here. Red Geoff is wearing the robes of anti-Christ. He is being an apostle of Marx. Red Geoff is calling evil, “good,” and good, “evil,” and unless he repents his soul is in mortal danger.

All the evidence from Church history is on my side Rachelle. All the Biblical evidence, when not handled like a starving rat handles the meat when set loose in a butcher shop, is on my side. I am merely holding what the church has taught in all times and in all places where God has been pleased to grant the Church orthodoxy.

If your “Pastor Geoff” wants to sling around this kind of language then he should spend the time in finding all the quotes from Church history that supports his universalist humanist position. He might find some, but those he finds will be from Anabaptist nutcases as combined with the heretic Cathari, Albigensians, and Bogomils.

If I am not behaving like a Christian, Red Geoff is behaving like a madman.

Red Geoff writes,

He is unapologetically a kinist which is patently and obviously against the Bible’s teaching of the unity of the body of Christ.

Bret responds,

1.) Actually, to be precise, I am unapologetically a Christian – Kinism is just a part of basic Christianity.

2.) Patently and obviously against the Bible’s teaching of the unity of the body of Christ? LOL… only when looking through the lenses of racial Marxism. Quite to the contrary it is Red Geoff who is sitting the Scriptures on their head and making them say on this subject the exact opposite of what they do say.

Rachelle Smith writes,

He (Geoff) links to articles like, “Top Ten Reasons ‘Anti Semite’ Is a Compliment” in which the writer tries to redefine the term to make it ok.

Bret responds,

Well, when anti-Semite is now defined as “anyone who disagrees with a Jew” then, yeah, I have no problem with being “anti-semite.” Honestly, the sting of these names cast at me as coming from leftists, anti-Christs, have completely lost their sting. I respond now typically just by shrugging my shoulders and saying, “whatever, you idiot.” Imagine how bad St. Augustine would feel when insulted by a Manichean and you can begin to grasp how little this bothers me.

RS writes quoting Red Geoff,

He (Bret) equates kinism with the rejection of Darwinian social evolution, but in fact is a rejection of the texts I listed above. I am not saying things too strongly when I say this man (Bret) is teaching poison that will only serve to divide the body of Christ.

Bret responds,

This man is a 5 year old searching for a lost toy with a lighter in an ammo dump.

Red Geoff destroys the meaning of God’s word and then turns around and declared that I am rejecting the texts that he ham-fistedly offered as “proof,” of a position that is neither supported by Scripture, nor by two thousand years of Church history.

RS quoting Red Geoff

I would strongly encourage you to remove yourselves from the mailing list of this blog and not allow yourself to be influenced by such a man.
Bret responds,

Well, given that you have corresponded with me, after Red Geoff’s counsel, I see that you utterly rejected his counsel. Good for you.

RS quoting Red Geoff,

Though not everything he says is without merit (of course), he will not encourage you to embrace the body of Christ which is one and does not recognize distinctions of value and/or belonging based on race.

Bret responds,

Rachelle, I could only hope for you that you would have as many Christian non-Caucasian friends as I have. I have one chap who lives in Europe who phones me monthly who is perhaps, more a kinist than I’ll ever be. I have a Christian friend on the East Coast who I speak to every once in a while who is a kinist. I have a Filipino friend online who has been very generous to us over the years. We are all Kinists and we all belong to different people groups. We all understand that we are one in Christ but we also understand that our oneness in Christ does not destroy our creational distinctions.

You Pastor is not a wise man. That is my nice way of saying he is an idiot. You should flee for the good of your soul from this Pastoral hack.

RS writes quoting Red Geoff,

In fact, knowing you are sympathetic to such a man could serve to greatly alienate brothers and sisters in our current church and cause tremendous division. I’d be happy to sit down with you to talk through these things in more detail. Hope I didn’t say it too strongly. Love you lots.

Bret responds

Dear sweet Rachelle, I am sorry that you are now in this position. It takes great courage to swim upstream. You and your husband will have to decide what to do from here. I can tell you, that it is unlikely that you will find any other Church or clergy member who will be any better than your Red Geoff. So, you can keep these beliefs on the down low and get along, or you can sever yourself from this body and be lonely, like tons of people I know, who refuse to compromise on this issue.

However, Biblical Christianity, and so Kinism, will one day win out. Reality cannot be ignored without eventually snapping back.

If I can be of any more service to you and your husband let me know. Write me. Phone me. I am available to minister to you as I can.

The Blessings of Christ be upon you and your Kin,

Pastor Bret

From the Mailbag; “My Pastor Ignores the Issue of Marxism”

Comment left on Iron Ink that makes my head want to explode;

___

“Very disappointing that my pastor ignores Marxism intentionally, and at a university-focused church. A distraction I suppose, to piety.

I am glad you write about it. Many Christian kids are pulled from the faith due to it and its manifestations, yet he somehow sees it as a distraction.”

___

Observations

1.) I would bet the farm that his minister doesn’t preach against Marxism because his minister is absolutely clueless as to what Marxism is.

2.) It is ministerial neglect of the worst type to refuse to address the world and life view that is the chief assailant in keeping Christianity as a minority faith expression.

3.) We can’t eliminate the “follow the money” factor here. The minister doesn’t preach against it, because doubtless in a University setting he would lose key members of his congregations who are freaking “Christian” Marxists.

4.) If it really is true that “many Christian kids” in this congregation “are pulled from the faith due to Marxism and its manifestations” can you imagine what a degree of dereliction of duty this minister is going to be charged with at the great assize?

5.) Don’t miss the “a distraction, I suppose to piety” quip. The commenter is being sarcastic here. He is saying that what passes for Christian piety doesn’t want to get its hands dirty by actually dissecting and exposing a worldview that desires to kill the Christian faith.

6.) One would have to ignore Marxism “intentionally” if one were to not preach on it, since Marxism is ubiquitous — and especially so on a University campus. In other words nothing else explains not addressing Marxism on a University Campus church except that one is intentionally avoiding it.

7.) This refusing to speak on Marxism is driven by the minister in question being R2K. I know of this chap. I know he has been infected w/ R2K. His R2K theology is informing him that if he preached on Marxism, exposing it as the chief competitor to Christianity in the marketplace of ideas, then he would be getting out of his lane since a Christian minister should let natural law deal with matters that exist in a jurisdiction other than the church jurisdiction he has been assigned to specialize. Marxism as a competing world and life view just doesn’t come under his portfolio as a member of the clergy.

8.) Understand that this ministerial malpractice is no different than refusing to speak on the matter of Islam were one ministering in a Church in a Muslim culture. This is no different than refusing to speak on Talmudism were one minister in a church that existed in a Bagel culture. This is no different than refusing to speak on Fascism in a church that existed in a Fascist culture.

Well, maybe he would muster up the courage to speak against Fascism since there are some elements of Fascism that can be misconstrued as Christian and our minister in question could never allow that misunderstanding to continue.

This whole thing sickens me. We, as Christians, are in a fight with people who own a world view that is sworn to snuff out Christ and His people and yet this minister, of this somewhat large church refuses to speak on it.

This chap, and many in the clergy corps like him, are like “Talkative” in Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress.

To such clergy I say;

If you love your comfortable station better than honoring Christ, the perks of being respected and called “Reverend,” better than getting your hands dirty in this fight for your King, go from us in peace. We ask not for your wisdom or support. Crouch down and lick the Marxist hands which feed you. May your retreat not get in our way as we rush to the battle and may posterity forget that you were once called clergy.

A Horse By Any Other Name is Still Marxism — Pt. I

Many are those who believe Karl Marx to be categorized as an economic theorist. This is false. Marx, like all ideologues was a theologian and Marxism is a theology that competes with Christian orthodoxy. If we realized that all sociology, ideology, macro economic theorists, philosophers, can only be what they are because of the theological a-priories they have accepted to make their theorizing go, we should not make the mistake of not understanding that these men are theologians before they are anything else. This is true of Marx as hope to tease out a little bit here.

Marx’s subset in theology was anthropology. Marx was seeking to answer the question “What does it mean to be human,” apart from presupposing the God of the Bible. Marx is answering, “What is Man,” without considering God. Marx then answered the question by saying that man is “homo economicus.” Marx believed that man was an inherently social being who wrongly understood himself only in terms of his labor. Marx believed if man was to find his true nature he had to release himself from the chains of property, as driven by capitalism with its theories of division of labor and the ownership of private property. Marx followed Rosseau’s theological claim that “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” The chains that Marx sought to loosen men from were the chains of private property. In theological terms private property was man’s original sin and Marx was a sociological prophet seeking to release people from their chains of private property.

We see the theological component in Marx’s emphasis on Revolution. For Marx Revolution is to the proletariat what regeneration is to the Christian. Revolution is the means by which men die to themselves and are reborn as a “New Socialist Man,” finally stripped of all private property and the desire for private property. Revolution then becomes a religious rite for Marx and his followers. This notion of stripping people of private property via the sacrament of Revolution is central and is the key to understanding where we are right now in this cultural moment in the West.

As an aside, as we understand this, we will see why Dr. Gary North was absolutely nuts when he insisted, towards the end of his life, that Marxism had been defeated. Marxism has not been defeated, it has merely morphed into new channels as well shall see. The outer shell may look different but the essence remains.

This anthropology of the necessity for man to be rebirthed and experience renewal so as to become the “New Soviet Man,” or the “New Socialist Man,” or the “New Sustainable and Inclusive Man,” is all over the literature of the Marxist writers. It is another indication that we are dealing with theology here and not primarily economics or sociology. If we don’t realize that we will never be able to think right about our task at hand in championing the cause of our Lord Christ. Not thinking rightly about this explains why so many of our clergy corps has fallen into Marxist like clap trap when they support ideas like “race is a social construct,” or “race doesn’t really exist,” or “race is only about pigment levels and nothing else.” These are all statements that have as their foundation a Marxist anthropology as we shall see.

Marx believed that human beings were perfectly social entities who’s fall entailed being caught up in the snare of private property. Marx believed that the perfectibility of man could be achieved if only he could be delivered from the sin of private property via revolution. Marx believed that the proletariat were kept down by the bourgeoisie and could only return to the garden by Revolutionary activity that eliminated private property. Only then would the workers of the world unite so that they were no longer alienated from themselves. Only by Revolution could man be man again and so build his Utopia.

Here we see the core of the issue. Property is man’s primal sin and the elimination of property by way of Revolution that tears down the social order that countenances property is how man returns to paradise.

This, of course is clearly seen in classical Marxism where the oppressors are the Capitalists/bourgeoisie property owner who are guilty of oppressing the proletariat. Some of us know and understand this story and have seen it played out in history.

But what if the category of “property” is fungible? What if a nuanced Marxism arises that relocates and redefines property to be other than material extrinsic possessions? What if a Marxism arises that finds property as a defining characteristic of immaterial intrinsic qualities like race and gender? Well, then, consistent with Marxist theory a Revolution must occur that seeks to strip that intrinsic property from the oppressors so that they can not lord it over the oppressed who do not have those intrinsic property markers.

If the possession of extrinsic property leads to class warfare in order to loose the chains of men born free, then possession of intrinsic property like whiteness, or maleness, or heterosexuality likewise can, should, and must lead to race warfare to pull down the bourgeoisie oppressor white man who is oppressing the proletariat pigmented man, lead to the war of the sexes where revolution pulls down the bourgeoisie male oppressor oppressing the oppressed female gender, lead to the war of the proletariat pervert class who is being oppressed by the oppressor bourgeoisie heterosexual class.

You see the claims of property have changed but all the theory surrounding the varying Revolutions remains Marxist at its core. The oppressed vs. oppressor class category remains. The Bourgeoisie vs. Proletariat conflict remains. The absolute necessity of revolution unto the destruction of social orders because of the sin of property remains. And though we have not spoken of it yet, the dialectical methodology that drives the Revolution remains. It’s all Marxism again all the way down.

Indeed, that the dialectical methodology is working is seen in the fact that the Revolution in classical Marxism has jumped the shark and is now operative for gender, race, sexuality. Marxist dialectics required that Revolution eventually find its way into other areas besides class.

All of this then demonstrates that the Marxist Revolution always leads to a leveling where any and all notions of property (both extrinsic and intrinsic) are destroyed. The old Saturday Night Live routine, “It’s Pat,” was prophetic in this regard.

Of course political tools are needed to eliminate private property. In order to eliminate extrinsic private property we see the rise of socialism and then communism. In order to eliminate intrinsic private property such as whiteness we see the rise of “Critical Race Theory.” In order to eliminate the intrinsic private property of heterosexuality we see the rise of “Queer theory.” In order to eliminate the intrinsic private property of assigned roles in femaleness and maleness we see the rise of feminism. From all of this we are reminded again that “the issue is never the issue, the issue is always the Revolution,” and the Marxist Revolution is about setting man free from all his social givens. If man was a text, Marxism’s goal is to release man from all context that defines the text.

Perhaps it is helpful here to employ the Roman Numeral system. Were we to outline this we would have;

I.) Marxism

A.) Classical — Communism
B.) Gender — Queer Theory
C.) Sexual – Feminism
D.) Racial – Critical Race theory
E.) Able studies
F.) Fat studies

Or if we were Scientist we would talk about;

Genus — Marxism
Species — Classical, Gender, Sexual, Racial, Ableism, Morphism

The point to see here is that the chief opposition to Biblical Christianity remains Marxism, and one titanic application here is that when clergy like Doug Wilson, Voddie Baucham, J. Ligon Duncan, Albert Mohler, and countless others inveigh against Kinism or Christian ethno-nationalism they are that moment wearing the colors of team Marxism, and frankly are being anti-Christs. What other conclusion can be settled upon?

The ultimate goal is to abnormalize the normal and to normalize the abnormal so that man is free from his chains, free from any social givens, free from the defining hand of God.

Of course this isn’t going to relent. The dialectic continues. There are those out there now, continuing to press the boundaries of post-modernism, who are insisting that meaning and knowing are intrinsic properties that the intellectual bourgeoisie have and are using to oppress those clueless and dumb proletariat. This means that even meaning and knowledge must be deconstructed via the Marxist model of social order Revolution.

As near as I can tell, it is the Kinists alone who get the above in a consistent fashion and who alone are doing the grunt work of opposing the Marxists.