A recent sin invented is the sin of “White privilege.” White privilege in terms of social relations is defined as

 1. a. A right, advantage, or immunity granted to or enjoyed by white persons beyond the common advantage of all others; an exemption in many particular cases from certain burdens or liabilities.

 b. A special advantage or benefit of white persons; with reference to divine dispensations, natural advantages, gifts of fortune, genetic endowments, social relations, etc.

White privilege then is the advantage that one might find in the households of particular families. When I go to visit the Smith’s home (for example) I fully expect that in the Smith’s home one will discover Smith privilege. It is their home and it is only natural.

Privilege is the way matters typically run when dealing with families or extended family. If I attend the Jacobs’ family reunion where extended family is present, I expect that the Jacobs family — Carl and Laura’s descendants — are going to know Jacobs’ privilege as opposed to Baker’s, McNulty’s and Serio’s who might show up at the reunion for one reason or another.

Japan is one nation where this can be most clearly seen. Clearly if one is visiting Japan one would be foolish not to expect to find Japanese privilege.

Historically speaking, at least, White privilege, should be expected to occur in these united States. Consider our own Constitution,

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Both in the Constitutional convention and in the States’ ratification assemblies those writing and signing the Constitution as well as those ratifying the US Constitution in the States were European White Christians. As such they had in mind for the new Confederated nation their future and the future of their European White Christian posterity. They created a Confederated nation with the explicit intent of white privilege.

This was underscored three short years later when in the first Naturalization Law of 1790 the freshly minted White privilege US Congress set the first standard rules for the granting of US citizenship by means of naturalization. That law law limited naturalization to “free white person[s] … of good character”, thus excluding Indians, indentured servants (regardless of color), slaves, free black and later Asians. White privilege was the national policy.

In today’s climate these are “hate facts.” Yet, facts they remain and they demonstrate that there is nothing anymore inherently immoral about White privilege then there is about Japanese privilege when visiting Japan.

But of course, all that history is past now and so we are to believe that White privilege is a problem and indeed it might be if any could be found but clearly we are living in a social order where White privilege has long been extinguished in favor of minority privilege. Take for example, the anti-discrimination laws which favor the minority and disadvantage the White man when it comes to hiring practices. No longer is it the case that man with the best skills is hired for government contracts but rather the privilege belongs to filling the quotas for minority that the law requires. Another example is how minorities are privileged over superior White people due to the points that are added to their SAT scores. This privileges non-white people over white people regarding getting into prestigious Universities. Clearly, the white man has no privilege here. The recent outrage against the Police has demonstrated that minorities are privileged over whites in terms of how police interact with minorities vis-a-vis whites.

So, while White privilege may have existed properly once upon a time, clearly white privilege is now a thing of the past and what we are really living through is minority privilege. However, it is to the advantage for minorities to complain about White privilege because in doing so minorities are more readily able to seize for themselves a victim status which grants to them even more minority privilege.

Where White privilege does exist then white people ought to salute the advantage that privilege gives, just as minorities salute the quota laws and “set-asides” which give to them minority privilege. This is the inevitable outcome when a country decides to pursue the balkanization of its population by means of its immigration policy and sauce for the goose by all expectations should be sauce for the gander.

Finally, those of us who are White Christians should always keep in mind our Christian fathers who sacrificed so much so we could have White privilege. Our fathers bequeathed to us what White privilege we have by sacrificing themselves and by going without. They built this “once upon a time” nation by an ethic that included leaving a better world to their children than they had themselves. Indeed, their passing on of White privilege was so great that when the White privilege tide was in, all people groups were advantaged in this country. In point of fact it is only the reality of a benevolent White privilege that allowed minorities to complain of white privilege. Our White privilege was so noble that it was willing to surrender its privilege so that the minority could more easily make his way in a country that was originally set aside for Whites.

White privilege and racism and systematic racism are no more sins than Lollipopism, familialism, or Christianism. As Stuart Dinneno has written elsewhere,

“The so-called churches have foolishly swallowed hook, line, and sinker the false notion devised by anti-Christs that there is a sin called “racism,” even to the point of elevating it as if it were more grave than actual sins and treating it almost as if it is unforgivable. But we Christians must look to God’s Law, not the God-hating modern culture, when defining what is, or is not, sin. And if we do so, then we find that the things being condemned under the label of “racism,” are not sins at all.

Noticing racial differences violates none of God’s commandments. Preferential love for your own kind violates none of God’s commandments. Demanding privileges for you and your own people in the land of your ancestors, and in the nation they founded, violates none of God’s commandments. Dealing with strangers on the basis of stereotypes — which is merely recognizing patterns of behavior — violates none of God commandments. Refusal to share your wealth, your cultural inheritance, and your land with those of a foreign race violates none of God’s commandments. And maintaining a separation between those of your own nation (ethnos in biblical Greek) and those of other nations because you want to preserve your people, violates none of God’s commandments.

All such acts are routinely condemned as “racism” by the modern American church, in accord with the dictates of godless egalitarian modernists, but none of them are actual sins. On the contrary, the concept of “racism” is part of an anti-Christian and Marxist moral code that was specifically designed to break down unity in white Christian nations by demonizing natural racial and ethnic affinities and loyalties among whites, in order to divide and conquer them. Therefore, the evil is not in the so-called racists who do the things mentioned in the previous paragraph; the evil is in those Christians who condemn them for “racism.” The churches, in promoting this innovative concept of sin and condemning Christians according to it, have actually become part of the Marxist revolution that is attempting to destroy Christianity. Such are what the Communists of the past called “useful idiots” — those who unwittingly aided the revolutionaries in their plot, not knowing that it would eventually lead to their own destruction.”

Titus 1:⁶ if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination.

I Timothy 3:⁴ He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, ⁵ for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? 

Dear Pastor,

“In general, what conduct of one’s children disqualifies one from Church office?”

Joshua in Florida

First, note here the covenantal assumptions. It is not merely the man who is occupying the office but the man as he is connected to his family. Elders, are not to be placed abstracted from their family lives since their family lives reflect who they are.

Second, note that the Timothy passage finds the emphasis being placed upon the Elder as father and his authority to keep order in his household while in the Titus passage the emphasis is placed on the children as submissive to discipline and order.

Third, both passages are not only looking for the children to be of the faith but also examples of the faith. The Titus passage especially focuses on behavior. Elders are to have children who not only are orthodox but also who are practitioners of orthopraxy. The word debauchery can also be translated “riotous.” The emphasis seems to be that self-control is a hallmark of the children of Elders in the Church of the Lord Christ.

Fourth, the prohibition of debauchery (riotous) recalls visions of the prodigal son. Remember in the 1st century world with its pagan Temples and low moral ethic, debauchery would have been a state easily to fall into.

Fifth, this kind of language seems to imply that St. Paul expected those placed as Elders to be men who had grown children. Toddlers don’t typically engage in riotous behavior. It seems we are looking at men who were in their late 30’s onward whom St. Paul envisioned being Elders.

Sixth, the Timothy passage uses the word “dignity,” which can also be translated “gravity.” What is being communicated in the Greek is that the Father in his managing of his household is doing so as one who understands his position before God. He acts with propriety of demeanor in his head of the household responsibilities and that especially in relations with his children.

Putting this all together it seems clear that conduct in older children in the home that would disqualify a man from being Elder would be things like high handed disobedience to the Father as well as a dissolute and rebellious lifestyle. I think we would have to include a obvious lack of self-control that would edge into serious irresponsibility on the part of the child. Children of Elders must not only believe, but they must not be involved in conduct, as a lifestyle, that wars against a confession of faith.

Now obviously, children are going to be children, and so doubtless children will do what we all do and that is sin. As such I think that for a child’s conduct to void a man being an Elder must be a conduct that is routine and unremitting. We are not talking about a one off behavior that is inconsistent with a general pattern of obedience.

Hope that helps Joshua.

“Guilt always has a victim who is the reason for the guilt, and the victim coalition is crucial to the fabricated racial and economic offenses used as leverage to get people to accept Neo-Marxism. Herbert Marcuse wrote openly about the need to create a victim coalition of poor, minorities, immigrants, feminists, and sodomites. (The new proletariat. — BLMc) Once these groups are positioned as victims, he believed, Christians and capitalists could be positioned as their oppressors. The ‘coalition of victims’ is part of an information operation that brainwashes people into believing that the sources of all suffering and oppression is Christianity and capitalism.”

In his essay, ‘Repressive Tolerance,’ Marcuse declares that the way to handle what he calls the ‘intolerance of conservatives and Christians’ is to be even more intolerant:

‘I suggested in Repressive Tolerance’ the practice of discriminating tolerance in an inverse direction, as a means of shifting the balance between Right and Left by restraining the liberty of the Right…. Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration for movements from the Left. They would included withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armaments, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public service, social security, medical care, etc.’

Marcuse believed that true Christians and conservatives should be deprived of the right of free speech, and freedom of assembly. This is why Cultural Marxists have been pushing for hate crime laws, as now exist in many parts of the world, to shackle Christians and conservatives from speaking publicly the truth about Islam or the Marxists LGBTQ agenda.”

Brannon Howse
Marxianity — p. 246

The growing intolerance for Christianity in the public square makes sense, when pondered upon from the pagan position. If the pagans desire their gods to flourish then they must shut down Christianity, which by its very nature disallows all other gods. To that end Marcuse championed the new victim proletariat which would be the shock troops to implement the new Repressive Intolerance Marcuse advocated. Were I a Jewish Pagan like Marcuse was, I would have pursued the very same course.

Religious tolerance, such as it was, worked once upon a time because the Christian God was, formerly, in point of fact, the one monitoring and policing the pantheon of other gods in terms of involvement in the public square. There was tolerance after a fashion, but only to the degree that the Christian God allowed as set by His standards. This is no longer the case and now that the pantheon of other gods have the whip hand you can be sure that the Christian God and His followers are going to continue to be hounded out of the public square.

This is what you well intentioned “Christians” get for letting in immigrants who owned other gods (thank you 1965 Immigration Act), for passing sodomite friendly legislation, for setting your women free to be slaves in the workforce, whores in the bedrooms of aliens and strangers, and haters of men, babies, and family life.

Enjoy eating the pottage you have created.

Genesis 50:¹⁵ When Joseph’s brothers saw that their father was dead, they said, “Perhaps Joseph will hate us, and may actually repay us for all the evil which we did to him.” ¹⁶ So they sent messengers to Joseph, saying, “Before your father died he commanded, saying, ¹⁷ ‘Thus you shall say to Joseph: “I beg you, please forgive the trespass of your brothers and their sin; for they did evil to you.” ’ Now, please, forgive the trespass of the servants of the God of your father.” And Joseph wept when they spoke to him.

¹⁸ Then his brothers also went and fell down before his face, and they said, “Behold, we are your servants.”

¹⁹ Joseph said to them, “Do not be afraid, for am I in the place of God? ²⁰ But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive. ²¹ Now therefore, do not be afraid; I will provide for you and your little ones.” And he comforted them and spoke kindly to them.

Most Evangelicals know the story of Joseph. Envied by his brothers, he was stripped, cast into an empty well (that had to hurt) and sold into slavery. Joseph’s brothers were directly guilty of the crime of man-stealing and per the later civil law should have received the death penalty for the actions.

Joseph later, as the story goes lived a up and down life. He experienced both the worst and the best until he was made 2nd to Pharaoh in the land of Egypt.

The point I want to draw out here is the attitude of Joseph once he had the opportunity to even the score with his brothers who had made of him a slave for profit. Instead of getting his pound of flesh Joseph responded to his brothers fear of retribution with a testimony of God’s sovereignty and providence. He recognized that the brothers motives in the evil they did him by enslaving him but he also recognized the greater motive behind the lesser motives of his brothers. They intended it for evil but God intended it for good.

This attitude — this Christian attitude, is a far cry from what we get today from many Evangelical Blacks who demand their pound of flesh from those, who, unlike Joseph’s brothers, were not even directly involved in selling anybody into slavery or directly involved in purchasing any slaves. Further, though it may indeed have been said somewhere, I have nowhere heard any Evangelical Black Lives Matter type talk about God’s greater providence like the former slave Joseph spoke whereupon they recognize the penultimate evil while paying a greater tribute to the ultimate providence in his slavery which was “intended for good.”

Keep in mind that the ex-slave Joseph was talking to those who directly sold him into slavery and still there was the voice of confidence of God’s providence. What we are dealing with here is the generations removed descendants of slaves raising voice against the generations removed descendants not of those who actually sold their ancestors into slavery but of those reputed to have actually purchased their ancestors and in these raised voices there is little talk of gratitude to God for His providence in their ancestors’ slavery.

There is nary a voice raised against the ones who actually did sell their forefathers into slavery.

“The Slave trade is the ruling principle of my people. It is the source and glory of all their wealth. The Mother lulls the child to sleep with notes of triumph of an enemy reduced to slavery.”

Black African King — King Gezo of Dahomey
1840

Upon hearing of the United Kingdom’s ending of the Slave trade The King of Bonny (now in Nigeria) was horrified at the conclusion of the practice and said,

” We think this trade must go on. That is the verdict of our oracle and the priests. They say that your country, however great, can never stop a trade ordained by God himself.”

“Led by Chancellor and CEO J. Ligon Duncan, Reformed Theological Seminary is now on the Social Justice bandwagon. A 2009 document produced by the Seminary extols a program referred to as SWC — Seeking the Welfare of the city. Among its recommendations, the report … yammers about white privilege, internalized racism…”

Brannon Howse
Marxianity – p. 100

I’m finishing up Howse’s “Marxianity” Howse gets an “A” on his research. He footnotes every point he makes and every quote he provides so that the shocked reader can look up the sources to make sure that those he quotes really said something that stupid. Howse also gets an “A” for finding where all the bodies are buried. Every TGC writer has his Marxist friendly quotes chronicled. It’s all there. The chaps he says are guilty, are guilty. Like getting caught on prom night in the back seat with Peggy Sue, “The Gospel Coalition” chaps are caught by Howse fornicating with Karl Marx. The case has been made (exhaustively) that we are being shagged by the clergy leadership that the Reformed Church in the West currently has.

Howse is also excellent tracing the connections between the Marxianity clergy and the organizations that they are fronting. He traces out the connections between these different Marxist organizations. Of course no organization sells itself by saying, “We are Marxist,” but Howse solves the deception by giving us the names of members of these organizations and the Marx-y things they have written in other places through the years.

However, Howse gets an “F” for locating the fault in the inroads of Marxianity in the eschatology of the Reformed world. Howse is a true believer in premillennialism and he never misses a chance to beat the Reformed guys over the head for actually believing that God’s Kingdom would successfully go from the mustard seed to the vast tree on planet earth. Because of Howse’s eschatology he finds the problem of Marxianity in the expectation that the Gospel will flourish so that social order Institutions will one day rightly be considered part of God’s flourishing Kingdom. For Howse the Kingdom only arrives with the in breaking 2nd coming of Jesus Christ. Until then it is suffering, defeat, and misery for the Kingdom and per Howse it is sin to seek to be part of the always present and ever expanding Kingdom of God. Howse’s view is that Christianity is only about getting individual’s saved with no expectation that the consequence of Redeemed individuals is eventually Redeemed families, education, law, politics, the arts, etc. as well as the social order Institutions that are the receptacles and carriers for these realities — all to the end of a Cosmos that is in ever expanding service to the Lord Christ.

Howse is also weakened by his embrace of the modern concept of “racism.” Howse has embraced the postmodern concept that race is merely a social construct, misinterpreting Acts 17:26 in support of his view.

Howse’s mistake is that he cannot distinguish between the optimistic eschatology of TGC and T4G types with the fact that those types misinterpret the Kingdom of God and what it looks like. Howse rightly complains about their Marxism but wrongly complains about their desire to see the Kingdom go forward. The clergy Marxists (Dever, McDurmon, DeYoung, Keller, Sean Michael Lucas, Mohler, etc) are right in their optimism but are wrong in their vision of God’s Kingdom. This results in them thinking that they are building up the Kingdom of God when in fact they are agents of Mephistopheles building up Satan’s Kingdom with their Marxism. Their problem is not eschatology. Their problem is their anthropology, hamartiology, Christology (they are Gnostic), and even their soteriology. Those who Howse properly puts in the dock are guilty of the same thing Walter Rauschenbusch, Washington Gladden, Richard T. Ely, Josiah Strong and others were guilty of over 100 years ago. They are guilty of a socialist social Gospel. They have retained a positive eschatology while marrying it to humanism (Marxism) and calling it “Christianity.” This new Marxianity retains the power of the postmill impulse and outlook while working to crush the very thing it claims it desires to advance.
This Marxianity that Howse rightly locates is dangerous because those who are pushing it really believe they are doing it for Jesus. The purveyors of this Marxianity are the very types that C. S. Lewis warned about,

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

If there is one thing that is communicated by the TGC types it is their smug sense of superior self-righteous morality. These TGC types will hound Biblical Christians out of the Church and that with the approval of their own conscience. Clergy (speaking from experience) always have a problem with thinking themselves morally superior in their self-righteousness but the TGC types with their Marxianity have it in spades. If anyone dare disagree with them they are immediately “racist,” “misogynist,” and “xenophobe,” and so not fit to be members in Christ’s Church.

Keep in mind that this is not an issue where we can dismiss the Marxist virus our clergy are carrying. It is not as if we can say, “Well, they may be wrong with their social Gospel but they are so good on other areas.” No, they are not! This is a case where a little leaven leavens the whole loaf. If you dip into these guys teaching at any point you are going to be eventually infected with their Marxianity. Marixsm and Christianity are two mutually exclusive totalistic worldviews. You can not serve both God and Marx. These men must be cut down root, branch, and twig.

Howse is correct that our current Marxist celebrity clergy are leading us (The Institutional Church) down the highway to hell just as Howse’s premill Dispensationalism has led the Church to the same destination by a different route.

Read the book and profit it from it but make sure and spit out Howse’s lunatic pre-mill Dispensationalism.