Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne, Yet that scaffold sways the future, and, behind the dim unknown, Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.
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.
“Furthermore, once a government separates people into groups based on ethnicity, I can’t imagine such groups existing without any racism happening. As a Christian, I’m fundamentally opposed to any type of political theory or nationalist view that separates people based on ethnicity.”
Shane Lems
1.) Governments don’t typically need to separate people into groups because it is ethnic groups that create governments. What Governments do is slam different people’s together so that the Government can control by dividing and conquering.
2.) Clark doesn’t define “racism” so I have no earthly idea what he is talking about when he uses that word therefore it is not possible to respond to such non-defined claims.
3.) Clark says he’s “Opposed to all nationalist views?”
All Nationalist views?
Acts 17:26 From one man He (God) made all the nationS, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and HE marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands.
4.) Here is something that R. Scott Clark and Doug Wilson (mortal enemies) have in common. Perhaps they could start a Bromance based on this shared view?
R. Scott Clark’s analysis makes the analysis of Alfred E. Newman look like genius.
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.
suggesting that people should be held responsible in the context of possible church discipline for what they write on social media The idea is that when a member of a church writes something that would be a black eye on the church he is a member of, the Church ought to have the place to discipline that member if needs be.
Now, this certainly has merit as an argument. For example, if someone who is a member of a Church is writing something like, “People who homeschool their children are a stigma on the community and not responsible parents,” then obviously the Church officers need to deal with that issue, with formal church discipline even being a possibility.
However, having admitted that, one must consider the state of the Church today. For example, though Bill Smith is a fine chap, I would not want him policing what I write. I have, for example, inveighed against Federal Vision and Bill would likely find that to be something he and his Elders would need to talk to me about were I a member of the church Bill serves.
It’s simply the case today that the state of the Church is in such shambles that if one desires to have the ability to speak God’s hard truths (e.g. — Sending children to Gov’t. schools is sin, Federal Vision is heresy, R2K is heresy, Our Seminaries are Compromised, Christians are biblically required to resist our current tyrant State, illegal immigrants need to be deported, etc.) then one must go slow on agreeing with the premise of Rev. Bill Smith’s article.
If anything all Rev. Bill Smith’s article really teaches is that if you want to be able to speak your mind don’t become a member of a conservative Reformed Church because, exceptions notwithstanding, the conservative Reformed Church currently is only referenced as a “church” by way of courtesy.
Sure, if the Church was orthodox today, Rev. Smith’s insights would be spot on. But the Church is not orthodox (Rev. Smith is Federal Vision) and so, unless I am extraordinarily confident in the Church I might join — that it shares my Christian world and life view — I would not join a Church if I thought they were going to police my words.
To underscore this, I know of Reformed people who are political activists and they, for the reasons cited above, refuse to join Reformed Churches understanding that the political noses they are tweaking could well mean church discipline if one of those politicians picked up a phone and called the Minister of the Church they are a member of.
In brief, I suppose this can be summed up as,
1.) The Church is in disrepair
2.) Because of that they will go after those who are orthodox
3.) If you’re going to raise your voice don’t join even a conservative church
4.) UNLESS you’re absolutely certain they are on board w/ your controversial Christian positions.
If you disregard this counsel don’t come crying to me when your church threatens church discipline for not towing their post WW II consensus line.