Critical Race Theory #1

Critical Theory

A methodological tool developed by Cultural Marxism that has entered into numerous fields so that we can speak of Critical Legal Theory, Critical Educational Theory, Critical Race Theory, etc.

We will be considering Critical Race theory during this series though that will be necessity bleed into these other areas.

We do so because CRT, known also as Race-Marxism and neo-Marxism and Western Marxism has become the 800 pound guerilla worldview competing against Biblical Christianity in the West.

We will see, eventually, that Race-Marxism is a competing religion with all the components that one will find in any religion.

Beginning we note that Critical Race Theory (CRT) can simply be defined as a ideological/theological theory that presupposes and so is based upon conflict of interest theory that categorizes people into “oppressed vs. oppressor” categories in order to advance a revolutionary agenda whereby power is shifted and so queered away from heteronormativity, white, and Christian people so that sexual perverts, non-Caucasian, feminists, Academics, and anti-Christ people are empowered.

If we were to use the words of Scripture CRT is the organized and allegedly  systematic attempt of the enemies of Christ to call evil good, and good evil; to put darkness for light, and light for darkness; to put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Continuing to move along definitional lines, it needs be understood that CRT is a ideological/theological movement pushed by activists and putative scholars interested in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism and power. It is key to understand here that there is no such thing as CRT that is only a philosophy.

CRT advocates embrace Marx’s maxim that

The task is not just to understand the world but to change it.”

So, there is no such thing as CRT that isn’t attempting to overthrow what little remains of Christian norms that have created the West.

We need to keep in mind here that this has long been the plan of the Cultural Marxists (who are the ones who developed CRT as a methodological tool) to transform the West. One of their own said;

‘We will make the west so corrupt that it stinks’.

Willie Munzenberg

CRT is one tool in the Cultural Marxist playbook to the end of “fundamentally transforming” America and the West.

So, CRT is interested in power. As such CRT can be further defined as an activist movement based upon biased study of what it calls “systemic racism” and how that putative systemic racism defines power and creates oppression in social orders.

This leads to the observation that like all Totalitarians CR Theorists are interested in ordering the world according to the vision contained in their theory. Because of this CRT calls everything they want to control “racist” until it is finally under their control.

And here you need to understand that everyone of you here is “racist” just be virtue of being white and there is nothing you can do to shed that reality. So, that fact is another reason why you should be interested in this subject matter. It is the interest of CRT to, as the Scripture teaches to make it so,

Dt. 28:43 “The alien who is among you shall rise higher and higher above you, and you shall come down lower and lower. 44 He shall lend to you, but you shall not lend to him; he shall be the head, and you shall be the tail.

The fact that CRT is interested in doing this — in transforming the world — is seen by their usage of cancel culture, the way they treat minorities who disagree with their agenda (they now refer to them as “adjacent white”) and the rise of fake news. CRT is all about seizing power to implement their agenda.

So, CRT seeks not only to understand power but to rearrange circumstances and society so that they (the pervert, the feminist, the Academic, the aggrieved minority) are the head and white Christians — regardless or not whether white Christians are white or not — are hewers of wood and drawers of water, or failing that just dead.

Now we explore the reality that Critical Race theory or “Race-Marxism” is anchored in a Marxist worldview.

Classical Marxism, or what CRT refers to as “vulgar Marxism” likewise posited a “oppressor – oppressed” conflict theory pushed as a method whereby a revolution could be brought in whereby the oppressed working class would overthrow the oppressor bourgeoisie capitalist class thus resulting in the arrival of Utopia. In Cultural Marxism the pivotal revolutionary point is no longer economic as between classes, but rather in Cultural Marxism the pivotal revolutionary point is now primarily race with perversion, feminism and Academia as co-laborers.

In classical Marxism the working class (proletariat) rises up to enter into revolution against the Moneyed class (bourgeoise) and sets the world aright by bringing in a New World Order of absolute equality among comrades. However, in Cultural Marxism using CRT the new proletariat is not comprised primarily of workers but of minorities first, followed by perverts, feminists, and Academics. The shift then between these two Marxisms is away from Economic Marxism to Cultural Marxism or Race-Marxism if you prefer. CRT takes the position that race should be understood as “the central construct for understanding inequality.” (Ladson Billings & Tate)

You have to understand, that whereas in Classical Marxism property was the chief sin in Cultural Marxism/Race Marxism whiteness is the chief sin and white people and white adjacent people are seen as owning the property of whiteness that they must be stripped of just as in cultural Marxism the property class needed to be stripped of their property. However, in both cases there is a push for equality/equity.

Of course in Biblical Christianity we see;

1.) Conflict of interest theory, the tool of CRT — being the leverage used by the Serpent in the garden where the Serpent convinces Eve that God the oppressor is oppressing Adam & Eve — the oppressed.

2.) Revolution is always the tool of Satan to overthrow God’s order (Babel). Christians should not talk about Revolution but rather use words like Reformation or Counter-Revolution.

So, to summarize, CRT is a Marxist theory, using conflict theory that categorizes all men by oppressor vs. oppressed to the end of bringing in a anti-Christ revolution using the organized muscle of minorities, feminists, perverts, and Academia as the new Marxist proletariat to throw off the white Christian heteronormativity that is a property of all white people as well as non-white people who refuse to embrace the Race-Marxist world and life view having as its ultimate goal to roll Jesus Christ off His throne so as to live in a world where Satan is Lord.

Because of this shift in Marxisms we know have undergone a shift from Leftist politics that centered on the economic concerns of the working class to the politics of identity.

This shift was needed because in the West the power of the classical Marist narrative where the money class as oppressor were oppressing the working class had dissipated in the face of the ever increasing prosperity in the West. It was hard to convince the working class to pull down their own house by pulling down the evil bourgeoise.

The truth of this is found in one of the central Cultural Marxists, Herbert Marcuse. Marcuse, like so many of the founders of Cultural Marxism was a Jew. Marcuse in two of his better known works (One Dimensional Man, and An Essay on Liberation) effectively complained that advanced capitalism had been too successful at producing a prosperous flourishing society and a healthy middle class, with the result that the working class had lost its Revolutionary spirit. Marcuse then asked where to find a new Revolutionary spirit and the answer he pushes is “in the ghetto populations,” notably the black liberation movement. We see then that the radicalization of minorities and students via capturing the Universities was a major plank in reorganizing Marxism in a racial direction finally giving birth to what we today call “identity politics.”

So, Marxism had to evolve and it evolved to latch on to race as the leverage point of oppressor vs. oppressed.

This tactic in the states goes way back but exploded in the 1960s with organizations like the Black Panthers and personalities like Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, and before them W. E. B. Dubois. The Marxists used minorities in America via the vehicle of the civil Rights movement to begin to implement their race-Marxism. However, it was only in the 1990’s when CRT begin to really flex its muscle.

Continuing with this session wherein we define and describe CRT we note that CRT, in light of all that we have so far said, is like colored lenses through which the whole world is examined with the purpose of finding “hidden” racism in what was heretofore considered “color-blind” law so as to create more and more people who understand how oppressed they are thus increasing the institutional and cultural power of CRT. The Gospel of CRT is to herald how oppressed people are so as to awaken them to how their oppressors must be overthrown.

Successful CRT then works to teach people to everywhere see racism on the part of white people. In the CRT religion white people and white adjacents (previously referred to in the past as Uncle Toms) are Lucifer and the CRT Gospel sets minorities, perverts, feminists, and Academics free from the shackles of the devil white people. In CRT the end goal is Utopia a bastardization of the Christian concept of Heaven. CRT is a religion competing with Christianity.

Because CRT is another Gospel it gets into everything from education to politics to art to family life.

Here is an example of CRT getting into family life;

“What we find is that, when contextualized amongst our other modern ethical norms, this preference for our children to biologically belong to us can feel downright ancient—a vestigial remnant of a different epoch, a fossil no longer animated by the same moral intuitions that gave it gravity in the past. In fact, many of the arguments that might be made in favor of this prejudice run precisely counter to other changing attitudes toward parenting, family, and the role of biology in culture.”

It’s a shocking line of thought, but one that has gained a fair amount of mainstream palatability as our outlook on the future devolves.

Another example of how Cultural Marxism gets into family life;

A trifecta of powerful globalist organizations is rigorously executing a plan to teach kindergarteners about sexuality and “empower” children to say yes to sexual encounters, according to agency documents reviewed by The Epoch Times.

Critics say this amounts to children being “groomed” for sex under the banner of human rights and education, while pedophilia is promoted and parental rights are undermined. Experts told The Epoch Times that the push for these programs to be accepted in nations around the world could lead to the practice of having sex with “consenting” children being viewed as acceptable.

Proponents of the programs say they seek to ensure that children’s “rights” to sexual pleasure are protected.

The International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the United Nations are advancing children’s exposure to sexuality on two fronts, according to documents.

Examples of CRT in our judicial/legal realm

1.) Appointing Justices because of their race. SCOTUS Justice Jumanji Jackson Brown inability to define a woman.

2.) The prosecution of Kyle Rittenhouse

3.) The Canonization of George Floyd

Remember, CRT is committed to the queering (turning upside down and inside out) of all previous Christian and so “white” social order characteristics. Remember also in two of the illustrations above the perverts are part of the new proletariat that is marching through the Institutions.

This is all an expression of our new religion of Cultural Marxism with its methodological tool of CRT.

And the sad thing is that it is not being completely and thoroughly resisted by the Reformed-Evangelical church. In point of fact it is being supported in some of its expressions as seen in this recent comment left on Iron Ink by someone attending a “conservative” “Reformed” “Church” in this area;

“They (some Elders) see themselves as having a bridge to others (CRT tpyes), and see me as someone who will drive pro-CRT people away, and cause division.

It’s why they never did fight CRT, but seek to see the workable components of it. Maybe it’s a pride they are blind to, this faith that they can see a higher and more peaceable way.

I don’t know why they don’t see as we do, there is no compromise with a Marxist.”

Now having said all this we should add that Critical Race Theorists don’t like being constrained by a definition. They themselves avoid definitions because in the avoiding of definition they can shape shift into anything else they might want to be.

CRT proponents will insist that only advocates of CRT can truly understand CRT. If you’re not CRT you can’t critique it because you don’t really understand it.

Another thing we need to understand about CRT is its conviction that racism in the West is systemic. By this they mean that even if there were no white people who were themselves individually racist the social order itself is still racist. This is because, per CRT, the whole social order was set up by those who owned the property of whiteness and therefore the whole social order itself, quite apart from any consideration of current white people, remains “racist.” The only thing that can be done to ameliorate this reality is to tear it down and start all over again. This was the conclusion of Max Horkheimer, another Jew Cultural Marxist, who believed that it is not possible to create substantive change to a system from within the system. The only way substantive change can be done is by a Revolution that tears the whole old system down.

This explains again who CRT must have Revolution. CRT cannot be considered as successful without a Leninist-Maoist type Revolution. The tail must become the head and the head must become the tail.

So CRT is committed to ending the racism that benefits white people as the fundamental organizing principle of Western society. You people sitting here tonight are the prime targets of CRT and its Mother Cultural Marxism.

And frankly it is either destroy or be destroyed. This battle is for keeps and it can genuinely be reduced to the Kingdom of Satan seeking to tear down the Kingdom of God and His Christ.


Doctor Strange and the Multicult of Madness Part I

Over here;

Mid-America Seminary sponsors a podcast having as a guest Dr. Alan Strange. Dr. Strange had decided to do a four part series of the subject of Christian Nationalism.

Now, as it is my conviction that Reformed Clergy have an absolutely tin ear when it comes to this subject (and a host of others) I thought I might give this a listen, doubting from the outset that this podcast was going to encourage me much.

I was right. All I got from Dr. Strange’s podcast was discouragement combined with a list of books, many of which I’ve already read.

Generally speaking, Strange’s main problem is that he keeps talking about “secular” culture as if such a thing existed. Strange even categorizes “secular culture” as being more benign vs. more vicious. Strange doesn’t seem to realize that the more benign version of “secular” culture is just Stephen King’s Kujo as a cute little puppy before he grows up and becomes all vicious. All benign “secular” culture is, is the vicious version just getting its legs under it.

Strange, like so many Reformed clergy does not seem to realize that there is no such thing as “secular” culture. He does not seem to realize that when it comes to culture there is no neutrality. Either a culture reflects Christ and therefore is Christian or it does not reflect Christ and therefore is “secular.” And it really isn’t “secular” since all culture is driven by its theological convictions. Culture is the outward manifestation of a set peoples inward beliefs. The point here is that “benign secular culture,” is never benign but is always being driven by a “I Hate Christ and love some other God” motif.

Dr. Strange begins the podcast by saying;

“My overall assessment — well let me just say this — I’d say it (Christian Nationalism) is a wrong-headed response to many of the cultural currents.”

Dr. Alan Strange
Mid-America Podcast

So, I take it if Christian Nationalism is a wrong-headed response to many cultural currents that anti-Christian anti-Nationalism would be the right response to many cultural currents? I mean, where else are we as Christians to go when it comes to this issue except to Christian Nationalism? Does Strange prefer Christian Internationalism (i.e. — “Christian” Communism)? Does Strange prefer America as “Christian” Empire? It is just nuts that we have so many denouncing Christian Nationalism while not giving us a Biblical alternative.

Dr. Strange goes on to offer;

“We live in a particularly polarized and politicized atmosphere and I don’t think that we want as Christians simply to add to that by embracing this title (of Christian Nationalism).”

Dr. Alan Strange
Mid- America Seminary
Podcast on Christian Nationalism

1.) Look, its hard not to call this cowardice. Why shouldn’t Christians want to add to this polarized and politicizes atmosphere? These people in this culture are coming after us with sharpened knives and Strange’s advice is to not become polarized or politicized? That is damn strange advice if you ask me.

2.) Notice how Strange is scared of the sobriquet “Christian Nationalist.” The phrase has now, by the work of our enemies, become so polarizing that Strange concludes that we must never embrace it. This is the old game of the Marxists that I myself have run into. I’ve been told countless times, “You shouldn’t embrace the term ‘Kinist’ Bret since there are so many bad connotations.” Now, we are being told that the alternate term that people have landed upon, “Christian Nationalist” is also a terms we should flee. This is just stupid. The enemy, whose expertise is polarizing will steal any term or phrase we might like and poison the well. And the laughable thing is, is that it is then our folks who come along and say that because of the enemy’s work of polarizing our language therefore we should give up our language.

As I said… this is both stupid and cowardly.

When are we going to stand and fight?

Oh, I forgot, per people like Strange (and their name is LEGION) it is not Christian to either fight or even be polarizing.

This is so pathetic.

And it is made all the more so by many of the people that Strange recommends that people should be reading?

Kidd?
Mattson?
De Young?

Gag me with a crozier.

Memorial Day Poem — 2013

The Parade is on the cusp, a thankful nation shows its care
The Vets are now arriving, our heroes in wheelchairs
They were the men who fought in the Wars “over there”
Now basking in adulation for defeating the foreign threat
Lift a glass and have a toast to the 20th century vet

They delivered all mankind from the evil foreign Hun
Today Stockholm burns, London bleeds, and Paris is undone
New World Order, then created, by bayonet in Battles like Verdun
Now safe for Hajib, Mosque, and Minaret to reside in the West
And safe for Bankster tribal interests to swallow up the rest

Safe for the elimination of borders in favor of a New World State
Safe for the rise of the mud-men the Money power will create
To serve as slaves on the grounds of the New World Order estate
So salute the Dough-boys, and G.I. Joes, they kept the world Free
So that the their grand daughters could be property of savages from Fiji

Raise a cheer, and throw ticker-tape on this grand Memorial Day
Boys of Normandy swarmed the beaches, so their grandsons could be Gay
They fought the Bulge, and Coral Ridge so we could turn Christ away
In favor of a mélange hybrid faith for the living damned
And suitable for turning all the West into one Global London-istan

Remembering this Date in 1964

60 years ago today a man who received both his Masters and Ph.D. by massively plagiarizing, who was a serial adulterer, and whose chief lieutenants were known Communists gave his “I Have a Dream” Speech in Washington DC. (Yes, that speech was plagiarized as well. As was his famous “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.”)

A few months later on January 6, 1964, Martin Luther King Jr. (real name — Michael King) had experienced a long day. He spent the morning seated in the reserved section of the Supreme Court, listening as lawyers argued New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, a landmark case rising out of King’s crusade against segregation in Alabama. The minister was something of an honored guest: Justice Arthur Goldberg quietly sent down a copy of Kings account of the Montgomery bus boycott, “Stride Toward Freedom,” asking for an autograph. That night King retired to his room at the Willard Hotel. There FBI bugs reportedly picked up 14 hours of party chatter, the clinking of glasses and the sounds of illicit sex–including King’s cries of “I’m f–ing for God” and “I’m not a negro tonight!”

Martin Luther King was having sex with three White women, one of whom he brutally beat while screaming the above mentioned quotes. Much of the public information on King’s use of church money to hire prostitutes and his beating them came from King’s close personal friend, Rev. Ralph Abernathy, in his 1989 book, “And the walls came tumbling down.”

Judging King on the content of his character we can only conclude that he was a beast.

But y’all go ahead and celebrate him and his pukey speech.

A Sermon on Leadership from I Thessalonians 5

I Thes. 5:12 And we urge you, brethren, to recognize those who labor among you, and are over you in the Lord and [d]admonish you, 13 and to esteem them very highly in love for their work’s sake. Be at peace among yourselves.

14 Now we [e]exhort you, brethren, warn those who are [f]unruly, comfort the fainthearted, uphold the weak, be patient with all. 15 See that no one renders evil for evil to anyone, but always pursue what is good both for yourselves and for all.

The context here is closing exhortations of how the Thessalonian Church should conduct themselves towards

l.) Elders in the Church – 12-13
2.) People who are struggling with sanctification – 14
a.) Unruly b.) fainthearted c.) weak
3.) The Congregation as a whole (Be patient w/ all) –14
4.) People in general – 15

Note that St. Paul addresses the congregation as “Brothers.” Not to belabor a point but this points at the patriarchal mindset of the Apostle. Doubtless there were women in this congregation and yet he addresses them, generally speaking as “Brothers.”

Newer gender inclusive translations render vs. 12 as

12 We beg you, our friends, to pay proper respect to those who work among you, who guide and instruct you in the Christian life.

This observation on the attack on patriarchy reminds us how easy it is to fall into this. This came up recently for me when reading a scholar on covenant theology, who is likely in most respects considered conservative and yet he was constantly referring to humankind where scholars two generations prior would have written mankind. He also played with the pronouns often giving “she” where “he” would have normally been expected.

God is a patriarchal and we see that in passages like this where the congregation as a whole is addressed as “Brothers.” This is a small but not insignificant observation. Indeed, we would say that where you find patriarchal malfeasance in a Christian or congregation there should, at the very least, be alarm bells going off in your head. Such malfeasance may be done without realizing what is being done while other patriarchal malfeasance is sinister and has an agenda.

Also, we would note with the word “Brothers” that St. Paul gives the judgment of charity to the congregation as a whole. He views the congregation as a whole as Brothers in Christ. Doubtless, there were tares among the Thessalonian congregation but he still refers to them as a whole as “Brothers.” As we see in 1:4

knowing, beloved brethren, your election by God.

St. Paul can even speak of this congregation of brethren as elect by God.

This language of “Brothers” reminds us that despite congregations being beset with inconsistencies we should try to think and speak the best of them. It is proper we should refer to congregations that bear the marks of the Church as “Brothers,” giving the judgment of charity.

Having set the context and made a preliminary observation we note the disposition that the Holy Spirit is requiring the Church members as organization is to have towards their leadership.

It is fitting we should consider this on a day when we install an Elder and a Deacon.

The first thing St. Paul Mentions here is that the Leadership that he is asking the Church to consider is a leadership that labors among you and as such should be “respected/recognized/ appreciated,” (depending on your translations.)

The Greek word that Paul uses for “labor” here he often uses elsewhere to communicate the work done in manual labor. The Greek word for “labor” here thus communicates strenuous effort that results in being bone tired.

The labor that your leadership enters into is a labor of learning. Your Elders are required to be “apt to teach,” and in order to be apt to teach one must labor in learning and the labor there is characterized in Scripture as a labor that can weigh a person down;

Ecclesiastes 1:18 – For in much wisdom is much grief, And he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.

The Elder leadership not only as this labor but they also labor until Christ is formed in those they are commissioned to tend to and look out for. This is how Paul puts it in Galatians 4

19 My little children, for whom I labor in birth again until Christ is formed in you,

And again this laboring is a theme earlier in this letter to the Thessalonians

For ye remember, brethren, our labour and travail: for labouring night and day, because we would not be chargeable unto any of you, we preached unto you the gospel of God.

There is labor in leadership as Elders. It is not the labor of working on the hot tarmac in the heat of summer loading freight, luggage and mail in Airplane pits. It is not the labor of someone working a jack-hammer or bailing hay, but it remains labor all the same and the Holy Spirit urges the congregation to respect those who labor among them.

Of course the corresponding truth here is that leadership in the Church should indeed be laboring. Being a Leader in God’s Church is work. It is the labor of caring for God’s people – caring so much that the congregations emotional and physical hurts is a pain you share. It is the labor of driving off the wolves to protect God’s people. It is the labor explaining and explaining all over again the truths whereby God’s people can be tethered to reality.

Van Morrison gets at something of this labor of explaining in his song “Why Must I Always Explain,”

Bared my soul to the crowd eh but oh what the cost
Most of them laughed out loud like nothing’s been lost
There were hypocrites and parasites and people that drain
Tell me why must I always explain

It is the labor of being slandered and libeled for the cause of Christ and laboring to count that all joy.

And here I must say after laying that out, that I do know that I am appreciated by this congregation and I have few complaints.

The Holy Spirit urges respect and appreciation for the leadership because their labor can grind them down.

This necessity to appreciate the Deacon leadership is also urged. The Deacons in Scripture are required to look after the physical needs of God’s people. To look after the physical needs of God’s people also is to enter into their need. A good Deacon is not going to only see the need and seek to help meet the need but he is also going to sympathize with those in need. He is going to weep with those who weep. He is going to enter into the sufferings of God’s people he is called to relieve as he can.

This matter of leadership in the Church is not a easy matter and sometimes it is more difficult than other times and so the Holy Spirit urges that the Church appreciate those who labor among them.

The second thing Paul mentions here about Leadership is their position in relationship to the congregation. Paul says here that the Leadership are “over you in the Lord.”

I am not going to tease this out much because we touched on this back in April when we did our series on submission.

Suffice it to say here that in the Church there are Chiefs and there are Indians. The Church is not an egalitarian Institution. The problem here usually arises when the leadership starts demanding that everyone remember that THEY are the leaders or when the people forget that they are not the leaders. Leadership that has to constantly demand and insist upon their priority of position likely won’t remain leaders long. A congregation that won’t accept that there are, as the text has it, “those who are over you,” will be a congregation where it will be the case that “uneasy lies the head that wears the crown.”

Leadership is said in the passage to be “in the Lord.” This means that the Leadership is by God’s calling and appointment and that the Leadership has to be consistent with God’s standard.

The third thing Paul mentions here about leadership that he is asking the church to consider is that the leadership is called to admonish the flock

The Greek word here has several layers of meaning. It means to admonish, warn, counsel, exhort. From the same as nouthesia; to put in mind, i.e. to caution or reprove gently.

It is a part of the duty of a leadership to put their people in mind of the truth; to warn them of danger; to exhort them to perform their duty; to admonish them if they go astray.

On this score St. Augustine put this responsibility to admonish like this;

“It is the duty of the interpreter and teacher of Holy Scripture, the defender of the true faith and the opponent of error, both to teach what is right and to refute what is wrong, and in the performance of this task to conciliate the hostile, to rouse the careless, and to tell the ignorant both what is occurring at present and what is probable in the future.”

St. Augustine

Bishop of Hippo

On Christian Doctrine

Of course this admonishing needs to be done with wisdom and often, though not always, with great gentleness. Yet, as Calvin notes, “admonishment is employed to mean sharp reproof such as may bring them back into the right way.”

Again, there is labor here to discern which kind of admonishment is called for.

And of course if this admonishing is expected of the leadership then likewise it is expected that if and when admonished the admonishment should be considered very seriously and not just blown off.

Of course all this also explains how serious of a matter it is to elect Elders and Deacons and to hire Pastors.

We would also say here is that all this makes it evident that the Leadership does not work for you in the sense that they have to give you what you want. The leadership works for God and tries to take their marching orders from Him.

The fourth thing Paul mentions about Leadership is to esteem them very highly in love for their work’s sake.

This is somewhat synonymous with Paul’s beginning requirement to appreciate the leadership. The Greek makes this a matter of emphasis. The Leadership is to be esteemed VERY HIGHLY.

Of course, this presupposes that the leadership is laboring. Many are the commentaries I consulted the emphasized the idea that leadership that is not laboring, or worse yet is merely getting the pay without doing the labor do not deserve this very high esteem in love;

Benson Commentary

“How are Christians to esteem those pastors who do none of those things? who take the wages, but do no part of the work?”

Calvin

“All idle bellies are excluded from the number of pastors.”

To the leadership I submit that you can demand this kind of esteem, and perhaps it is wise not even to expect it. Best to do the work you are called to and let God sort out the matter of esteem. Remember St. Paul said of himself,

We have become, and are still, like the scum of the world, the refuse of all things. I Cor. 4:13

So, even if you do not receive this kind of esteem, the work still must be done. Remember, the work is not done so we can be esteemed. The work is done because we have been called to do it and because we wish to see the Church built up and the Kingdom expanded.

God has been very kind to this congregation by giving us the leadership he has given us. Mike as Elder and Anthony as a deacon who are rotating off have earned the reward and esteem that God calls for here. The men coming on are good men who have previously proved themselves in these offices. The men who are staying on have demonstrated that their interest is to serve God’s people the way leadership is called to serve.

And you congregation have made it a joy for us to serve you.

Let us pray that this blessing of godly leadership, godly congregation, and godly relationship between them will continue.