Marxism/Cultural Marxism – Page 85

Combating Left Wing “Christian” Fundamentalism — Part 1

At a blog site entitled “Formerly Fundie,” a left wing fundamentalist articulate 10 of his non-negotiable fundamentals.

http://www.formerlyfundie.com/watering-down-the-gospel/

Now normally I wouldn’t take notice of this but I have a family member who has posted repeatedly this type of left wing fundamentalism. So, out of love for this family member and in defense of the Gospel I thought I would spend just a bit of time dissecting this kind of Cultural Marxist “Christian” fundamentalism.

If you want to see the whole article you should access the link. I will only be dealing with the highlights.

Left Wing Fundie (LW Fundie) writes,

In fact, while I was writing this post, in some of my first quality hate-mail yet, I was accused of having a “liberal, watered down, democratic, toothless and people-pleasing gospel.” (emphasis mine)

Bret replies,

Well, it is good to know that not everyone has fallen asleep. Dear Reader you will see how objectively true this critique is that LW Fundie notes.

LW Fundie writes,

I’ve recently been thinking about American Christianity as a whole, and the ways that our entire cultural expression of the message of Jesus gets watered down into a slow, manageable drip, instead of the knock-you-off-balance, raging fire hose that the gospel really is.

In light of the time I’ve spent considering this question, here are 10 ways that I believe American Christianity waters down the Gospel of Jesus:

10. We water down the Gospel when we attempt to live it out in isolation, instead of in the context of community.

In the life of the early Church, we see community as being key to their expression of the message of Jesus. The early Christians actually took the concept of community to a whole new level, essentially creating a type of Christian community that looked enough like socialism to make an American Evangelical cringe. Not only did they pray and share the Eucharist together, they actually shared all of their money, possessions, food… and rejected the concept of individual ownership (Acts 4:32).

When we live out the gospel in light of America’s concept of “rugged individualism” we miss the point that the gospel is designed to bring us into authentic community where we all depend on each other in healthy ways.

Bret responds,

1.) I agree that a huge part of Christianity is covenant community and that too often Christians have failed in the requirement to be a part of body life. However, I don’t agree that proper covenant community is in direct contradiction to rugged individualism. It seems to me that it might be the case that LW Fundie is equating covenant community life to the life of the anthill or the beehive. That is not what I find in Scripture. In the Scripture both covenant community and rugged individualism find their proper place. As we shall see LW Fundie prioritizes the One over the many and as such when he speaks of “Community life,” what we really hear is his support for socialism.

2.) Acts 4 does not teach the “rejection of the concept of individual ownership.” That this is so is seen in what Peter says to Ananias,

Acts 5:4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God.” 5 When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last. And great fear came upon all who heard of it. 6 The young men rose and wrapped him up and carried him out and buried him.

We see clearly here that, unlike LW Fundie’s Socialistic dreams, that the Early Church community ethic was voluntary. Once one makes the dispersal of property voluntary it is no longer socialism since socialism is enforced at the end of the barrel of a gun. That ownership was still acceptable to the early Church covenant community is seen in what Peter said to Ananias as put in bold relief above. Ananias was not killed for ownership. Ananias was killed for lying to God.

Also, LW Fundie fails to take into consideration that the reason that resources were pooled and shared is that these Early Christians knew, from Christ’s words, that judgment was coming upon Jerusalem. It is not a wise investment portfolio that finds people trying to hold on to property in a area where they have been told that God is going to visit with judgment.

So, I agree with LW Fundie, that community life is important and neglected today but I disagree with LW Fundie when he suggests that the way to get to covenant community is via socialism. There is no evidence at all in Scripture for such thinking.

LW Fundie writes,

9. We water down the gospel when we make it about changing someone else, instead of first changing ourselves.

Bret responds,

Here there is need to say that despite his two Master’s degrees from Gordon Conwell LW Fundie doesn’t understand what the Gospel is. The Gospel, strictly speaking, is not about me or my behavior. The Gospel, strictly speaking, is about God’s work in the Redemption of sinners. The Gospel, strictly speaking, is only about what God does and not at all about what I do.

There is a broad sense of the word “Gospel” that LW Fundie seems to be using throughout. I think when he uses Gospel he means “Christianity.” So LW Fundie is saying, “we water down Christianity when we … “ So, we will take him as if he is speaking of “Gospel” in a broad sense. Still, since he says very little about the Gospel in the strict sense I wonder if he understands really that the Gospel is all about God’s saving action in Christ and not all about our being good doobies.

As speaking particularly to point #9 I would agree that self-righteousness is a problem. However, if Christians, can’t speak to the necessity for others to repent without first being perfect themselves then I’m pretty sure that the prophetic voice has been completely stifled, because all of us will die with the necessity to change matters about ourselves.

Still, LW Fundie’s call to examine ourselves is great counsel.

LW Fundie writes,

8. We water down the gospel when we make it sound like following Jesus is easy (Spoiler Alert.. it’s not!).

Bret responds,

Jesus instructed us that we must “deny ourselves, take up our Cross, and follow Him.” Clearly LW Fundie is correct in this observation.

However, since LW Fundie’s worldview is not Biblical, his idea of “Following Jesus,” is likely often going to be the opposite direction from which the Scripture teaches.

LW Fundie writes,

7. We water down the gospel when we exclude people.

When I look at the life of Jesus, one of the things that I find most attractive is that everyone wanted to hang out with him. It didn’t matter what social background they came from, what gender they were, what sins they struggled with… everyone just craved time with him.

Bret responds,

Clearly Scripture doesn’t support this assertion. The Pharisees and Sadducees did not want to hang with Jesus. Herod did not want to hang with Jesus.

And note that people wanted to “hang out with Jesus” because he provided an answer as to how they could find forgiveness for their sins. This is what the Pharisees did not offer. So, the Lord Christ, was popular because he did not ignore their sins but provided a solution they could not find elsewhere. Jesus invited people to take his yoke upon them but they had to confess that they were weary and heavy laden. They had to confess their sins. I don’t find Christians today saying much about sin anymore and this is why so many are eager to hang out with them.

LW Fundie writes,

However, we often exclude others which is contrary to the life of Jesus… a behavior which waters down the Gospel to something that’s for us, and not them (at least not until they change and become more like us). Yet, I don’t find any of that in scripture… instead, I find a Jesus that invites everyone into relationship FIRST, and invites everyone to experience his love, FIRST.

The religious leaders of Jesus’ day were consistently offended with how inclusive Jesus was, because they believed a watered down version where God’s guest list was extremely exclusive and limited.

Any version of Jesus that doesn’t start with authentic, loving inclusiveness, is a watered down version.

Christian doctrine teaches that regeneration is entry into the life of Christ. The only way we can have a relationship with Jesus is by being changed. Does Jesus have a saving Relationship with the unrepentant liar or thief who has not been regenerated?

The Gospel comes as a relief for those who have seen their sin. If they have not seen their sin they can have no relationship with Jesus.

How can those who hate Christ know the love of Jesus?

So all are commanded to repent but none can know the love of Jesus without first desiring to change to become more like Jesus.

LW Fundie is just vague enough here to know for sure what he is speaking of but it sounds like he might be saying that we shouldn’t join the Love of Jesus with repentance.

LW Fundie,

6. We water down the gospel when we tell people it’s clear and simple.

Unfortunately, there’s nothing clear and simple about this… it’s actually quite complex.

Jesus used to teach in complex and obscure parables, something that frustrated even his inner circle. Often, they can be found frustrated that it’s not more simplified. In fact, in his final teaching the disciples let out a collective sigh, and said: “finally you’re talking plainly with us!”

I remember in 2008 when I left for Seminary at Gordon-Conwell, I thought that going to seminary would make the Bible more black-and-white. Yet, after two Master’s and part way into my doctorate, things become a lot more gray the deeper I go. And, that’s okay. I actually think Jesus wanted his message to be complex enough that we spent our lives wrestling with it.

It’s not clear and simple, but complex. The message of Jesus is something that you could spend a lifetime wrestling with, yet never fully wrap your head around it. It is really THAT radical (and I’ve learned to love it, exactly for this reason).

We water it down when we try to remove the complexity, and mystery (see Mark 4) of some aspects of it. Just let it be what it is– minus the extra water designed to remove tension that God actually wants us to experience.

1.) The Gospel is clear and simple.

God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself.
God is both Just and Justifier of those who believe in Jesus
If we confess with our mouths and believe in our hearts we shall be saved

All because the Gospel is clear and simple doesn’t mean it is simplistic. It doesn’t take an angst filled Gordon-Conwell graduate with two Master’s degrees to understand the Gospel.

2.) Second, LW Fundie has used the word “experience” a couple times now. It is clear that his view of the Gospel is experience oriented. This is not something we find in Scripture. Scripture teaches that Christianity is the life of the mind. Now, certainly experience will follow but Christianity is not primarily about experience and we water down Christianity when we suggest otherwise.

3.) In our postmodern age it is all the rage to suggest that truth is obscure and hard to know. I don’t deny that the Christian faith is profound but neither should it be suggested that it is nearly unknowable given its complexity. When we introduce the idea of complexity like LW Fundie does here we introduce the possibility that because it is so complex that we can’t arrive at any hard and fast truths. Such beliefs tell us more about the person who holds them then it tells us about basic Christianity.

From the Mailbag — Question On Obama-care

Pastor Bret,

My mother-in-law went to Sam’s Club yesterday to get some prescriptions. Her co-pay has gone up $30 for some prescriptions. She was flustered and asked the pharmacist what was going on. They had a long chat about the matter. From the pharmacist’s perspective, the co-pay difference was due to Obamacare. From his perspective, also, the govt, via Obamacare, is trying to “wipe out old people,” by increasing costs of prescriptions, by making some medications rare and unavailable, etc. He said that the effect this is having (as he sees it) on the elderly and the middle class is going to be huge.

What is your take on this?

Dear Kirsten,

I’d say your Mother-in-law’s Pharmacist is correct.

What is going on is that the FEDS have these HUGE entitlement obligations to Senior Citizens (Social Security) and to sick (Medicare / Medicaid). There is one of two ways you can get out of those obligations. You can either increase the money supply to fund the programs or you can decrease the recipients to make funding un-necessary.

Now the FEDS could bankrupt the country by raising taxes on younger generations. But that will inevitably lead to generational warfare as younger generations eventually refuse to impoverish themselves in order to enrich the generation or two ahead of them. At some point people realize that there is little use in working if the majority of your income is being taken. The FEDS could also just print more money but in the end that debases the currency and the purchasing power declines precipitously, with the same sure result of social unrest.

Or alternately, you can kill off the people who are the beneficiaries of the entitlement programs. I believe this is the route that the FEDS are taking.

Promises were made that could never be kept. The whole entitlement leveraging by the FEDS was a giant Ponzi scheme. The grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the voters who originally created Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid etc. are going to pay for “the greatest generations” sins in creating this monster. The Greatest Generation created the Monster and now their descendants are about to be eaten by the monster they created.

Obamacare has always been about killing people. The very title tells you that if you are familiar with how Government Euphemisms always work. Obamacare is not about health. Obamacare is about death management. It will very soon, once implemented, be deciding if the contribution of the ill to society is equal to the value of the procedure that the ill person needs to regain their health.

Plus of course Obamacare may be the final piece in totalitarian collectivist government. Now the State can control the cattle (people) it owns every step of the way. From Birth, to school (school to work programs), to the food we eat (The FEDS are in bed with the GMO Creators), to the medicines we take, to the media we imbibe. What Obama-care is, is the final piece in a “Brave New World” social order that the NWO has been working on for decades.

Some of us tried to warn people. But they were to busy with their bread and circuses.

Perhaps the worst part of all this is that the Church is largely asleep on these issues, or where it is not asleep, it is actively fighting for the NWO agenda. Really, we have come to the point where the visible Church is largely the problem.

The Cultural Marxism Captivity of the Church

” … a significant clerical group under Professor Nieburh’s influence is able to rationalize and to some extent at least justify the perpetration of almost any crime because it serves, as Lenin said, ‘the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat.’

… Until we come to understand the effect on a wide section of Protestant clergyman in this country, we are not going to get very far in understanding the way in which the Church is integrated, in part, into this whole communist movement.”

Dr. J. B. Matthews
The Actor — Alan Stang — pg.80

Dr. Matthews was a investigator who worked with the House committee on un-American activities. As such, the quote is dated.

Still, I would say the thrust of the quote remains true. Much, if not most, of the American clergy has been either saturated in the Marxist paradigm (Cultural Marxism today) or has been coated with a patina of Marxism so that even orthodoxy as it comes from their lips is tainted with Das Capital. From Tim Keller’s retooling of “social justice”

http://www.amazon.com/Generous-Justice-Gods-Grace-Makes/dp/1594486077/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1375472793&sr=8-1&keywords=Tim+Keller+social

to Carl Trueman’s British Socialism, to much of the Church’s embrace of illegal immigration and everywhere in between the Church is a hotbed of Cultural Marxism and the clergy are those at the point of the spear of this agenda. Even Churches that insist that the Church must not speak on public square issues create a open door for the success of cultural Marxism in our culture and social order by suggesting, through its silence, that God is not opposed to Cultural Marxism.

Unless one is epistemologically self conscious holding a Biblical Worldview the Church and its clergy are dangerous realities. I think it is fair to say that he who dines with the contemporary Church had best dine with a long spoon.

A good book length treatment of the compromise of the contemporary church is C. Gregg Singer’s “An Unholy Alliance.”

Click to access gsua.pdf

The work is dated, leaving off sometime in the 1970’s but if one reads carefully and one is at all aware of what is going on today in Denominations one can get a feel for where we are at.

The Dangers Of Unharnessed Libertarianism

There is a sense among some Christians that movement Libertarianism provides a Christian response to various strands of the Marxism we currently face. (Cultural Marxism, Fabianism, Corporatism, Fascism, etc..) R. J. Rushdoony was under no illusion to that end. While Rushdoony advocated a form of Libertarianism it was always Libertarianism in a decidedly Christian and Theonomic social order. In other words, RJR despoiled the Libertarian Egyptians but he despoiled them while making the Libertarians serve the Christian worldview vision.

Repeatedly Rushdoony reminded us of Max Stirner who was one of the greatest foils to Karl Marx. Stirner was a kind of extreme prototypical Libertarian. He was Ayn Rand before Ayn Rand was Ayn Rand. Stirner was an Egoist, which means that he considered self-interest to be the root cause of an individual’s every action, even when he or she is apparently doing “altruistic” actions. This principle is the radii of all movement Libertarianism.

The centrality of the sovereign individual is seen throughout Stirner’s writing. A few examples will suffice,

“I am everything to myself and I do everything on my account.” [The Ego and Its Own, p. 162].

Even love is an example of selfishness, “because love makes me happy, I love because loving is natural to me, because it pleases me.” [Ibid., p. 291]

He urges others to follow him and “take courage now to really make yourselves the central point and the main thing altogether.”

As for other people, he sees them purely as a means for self-enjoyment, a self-enjoyment which is mutual: “For me you are nothing but my food, even as I am fed upon and turned to use by you. We have only one relation to each other, that of usableness, of utility, of use.” [Ibid., pp. 296-7]

Obviously this hyper individualism of Stirner — this emphasis of the many (individual by individual) over the one (collective) — was not something that Marx could countenance. Rushdoony notes of the collision of Stirner and Marx,

“The most vehement book written by Karl Marx was against Max Stirner; because Max Stirner pushed this idea to its logical conclusion, the meaninglessness of all things and therefore the legitimacy of all acts. He is the man who accused the atheists of his day of being closet Christians because they didn’t practice incest and other perversions, and Marx recognized that Stirner was right. But if Stirner were allowed to establish his thinking and successfully convert men to his position, there could be no socialist order. So he wrote a two-volume diatribe against Stirner.”

and elsewhere,

“Max Stirner was a logical, a consistent, atheist and an anarchist. And Max Stirner said in his book The Ego and His Own, that atheism required one to disbelieve in the validity of any law, because since there is no God there is no truth, no right, no wrong, no good, no evil, no sovereignty in the world, except man doing what he pleases. And in his book he turned on the atheists and the liberals of his day. He accused them of being closet Christians and he said ‘how many of you are ready to practice incest with your daughter, sister, or mother? Until you are, and if what I say horrifies you, you are simply manifesting the fact that you are a closet Christian. You are talking about not believing in God but you are believing in all his rules, you are still under theology rather than autonomy, And if you are still obeying your civil magistrate, your civil government, you’re still believing there is some validity to any law other than the biology of your own being.’”

Stirner absolutized Marx but he absolutized Marx in the indivdiualistic Libertarian direction.

Because of this Rushdoony saw that movement Libertarianism was but the opposite side of the coin to movement Marxism. Rushdoony saw that Libertarianism gone to seed was merely Marxism come into its own for the individual. Consistent Libertarianism was merely Marxism for the individual.

Now some will try to save movement Libertarianism by appealing to the “Non aggression principle.” They would contend we Christians can support Libertarianism as long as we apply the “non aggression principle.” The problem here though is that we must have some standard for what counts for “aggression.” And if we take what the Scripture, as God’s Law Word, teaches as God’s standard for aggression then we will find ourselves, as Christians, advocating for penalties that the movement Libertarians would insist fall under the rubric of the Non aggression principle.

This explains why the Christian dance with libertarianism needs to be thought through. Yes, there are aspects of Lbertarianism that Biblical Christians whole-heartedly embrace but those aspects are only embraced in the context of a bible informed Christian social order.

The Attack On Distinctions Is An Attack On The King

The West could have and would have never been the West if it had not influenced, informed, and shaped by the categories of Biblical Christianity. Today the West is in a war for its soul because there is a different Worldview that is animating it and that Worldview is at direct warfare with Biblical Christianity. Over the centuries, and especially since the “Enlightenment” the West has been attacked by sundry non Christian Worldviews but with the rise of Cultural Marxism all those previous anti-Christian worldviews have found their nadir and most potent expression. I would even say that with Cultural Marxism one has arrived at the full blossomed fruit of all the Christ hating worldviews that have been spawned since the Enlightenment. It has the emotionalism of Transcendentalism – Romanticism. The Egalitarian impulse of abolitionism. The viciousness of Jacobinism. The sense of inevitable progress of Social Darwinism. The confidence of inevitable victory of Marxism – Communism and the cocksure certainty of Unitarian Deism. Cultural Marxism is the grand inheritor of all the “virtues” of all the Christ hating worldviews that have gone before and by inheriting all those “virtues” it is poised to finally do what each failed to do in their turn, and that is the final destruction of that Biblical Christianity that made the West the West.

Cultural Marxism is of course, like all the worldviews that went before it, an ideology, but it is more than an ideology. Unlike the ideologies that went before Cultural Marxism understood that there was a direct correlation between cultural Institutions and conquering the West. As such, the cultural Marxist have, by design, attacked the cultural Institutions of the West in a “long march through the Institutions.” This long march through the institutions was designed to overthrow the influence of Biblical Christianity in every cultural nook and cranny of the West. So, from Theodor Adorno’s “Authoritarian Personality” which overthrew the idea of the Christian family, to Lord Keynes who overthrow the Biblical idea that debt was bad, thus overthrowing the foundation of Biblical Economics, to Magnus Hirshfield and Alfred Kinsey who glorified sexual perversion, to Franz Boas who advanced the idea of cultural relativism denying that cultures could be inferior or superior according to a Transcendent standard, to Sigmund Freud who anchored the meaning of reality (or such meaning as could be had) in the subconscious and unconscious of the individual, to the Social Darwinism of Frank Lester Ward who argued that man’s evolution and progress could be directed by man himself to the Educational theories of John Dewey and to a host of other examples what Cultural Marxism has done is to overthrow the West by overthrowing the Biblical presuppositions upon with the cultural institutions of the West were based. Now it is true that some of the names mentioned in this paragraph predated the rising of the Frankfurt School in Germany, from which Cultural Marxism arose, but all of the names mentioned above with their respective ideas were put in the toolbox of Culture Marxism unto the destruction of the West.

A key component in the toolbox of Cultural Marxism is its doctrine of Egalitarianism. Cultural Marxism, with its core doctrine of Egalitarianism, is a frontal attack on God’s Law and in how the West has been structured. The Ten Commandments are inoperative in a world where Egalitarianism is at the fore because Egalitarianism denies the very distinctions that God’s law regulates. If one denies those distinctions one denies the very concept of God’s law. Egalitarianism denies all distinctions while God’s law labels and creates the distinctions He demands.

Cultural Marxism with its Egalitarianism destroys the distinction between God and all other gods. God said,

“You shall have no other gods [b]before Me.”

But Cultural Marxism, wearing its officially religious garb, as it has crept into the Church, denies the distinction between the God of the Bible and all other gods. When putatively Chrristian men argue that there are any other ways of salvation besides Christ

they are denying the distinction between the God of the Bible and all other gods. If other gods can provide other ways to the same salvation then the teaching is that all gods are the same. All the gods lead to the final harmony of God.

This idea of denying the distinction of God vis-a-vis all other gods is seen also in R2K as they insist that in the public square all the gods must be given equal playing time. No god is to be before any other god. There must be a egalitarianism among the gods. This is the whole idea behind public square pluralism. There is a whiff of egalitarianism in R2K theology in their reasoning concerning the lack of God’s primacy in the public square.

Cultural Marxism, with its egalitarianism, also destroys the Creator creature distinction. God has said,

“You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

“You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.”

Here there is a clear distinction that is being posited between the Creator and the creature. The Creator is of such a transcendent character and nature that the creature is to worship Him in a proscribed and distinct way. The Creator is of such a transcendent character and nature that even His name must not be sullied. Cultural Marxism, with its egalitarianism insist that the Creator creature distinction is a myth and so all law legislating man’s approach to god are irrelevant. Cultural Marxist Egalitarianism is an attack on distinctions and an attack on distinctions is an attack on both God and God’s law.

Though we will get to this in more detail later, it should be said even here, that Egalitarianism both begins and ends with an attack on the Creator creature distinction. All of the distinctions that the Cultural Marxists attack in the second table of the Law have as their goal forever finally destroying the the Creator creature distinction. If man as man is bereft of all the God given distinctions that makes him distinct from other men then there is hardly room for a God who insists that He is God distinct from the creature. In Cultural Marxism all colors must bleed into one. Even the colors that would color man as distinct from God.

In God’s fourth words He establishes distinctions among the days,

“Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.”

The Egalitarianism of Cultural Marxism destroys the Cultic Holy Day by suggesting that all days are the same, thus eliminating the distinction that gives Christian meaning to all the days. With the destruction of the Christian cultic holy day, all other days, which are non cultic holy days, lose their meaning. Interestingly enough it is also the case that with the elimination of distinctions between days of work and days of rest what one inevitably finds in cultural Marxism is a culture where there is no rhythm of work and rest. Instead what you find are cultures of sloth or cultures where the tyrant’s motto is “Arbeit macht frei” (Labor makes you free).

In my next post I will go on and look at egalitarianism in terms of the second table of God’s Law. However, we are already seeing that Cultural Marxism with its attack on distinctions is an attack on the authority of God’s legislating law word. On a more macro scale egalitarianism is an attack on all of God’s creative work of distinguishing. Whether we consider how God in His creation ordained distinctions between earth and sky, sun and moon, land and water, man and animal, male and female, what we continuously see is a God who is at war with a worldview that has as its defining center-piece the obliteration of distinctions. Even in the fall we see the first foray of the Cultural Marxist and egalitarianism as the serpent attacked the distinction between God’s legislating law word and Eve’s own legislating fiat law word. From Satan’s first assault on the throne — an assault that found him defying the distinction between himself and God — and an assault that found Satan insisting that “I will arise to the most high” what we find in Satan’s plan is the destruction of all God ordained distinctions. Egalitarianism is nothing less than Satan’s work to un-make God’s creation, God’s law-word, and God Himself.

And the fact that the visible Church is blind and dumb to this frontal assault is more then enough reason to be done with those visible Churches who are trying to baptize this abomination.