Gottfried Insists that WOKEism Doesn’t Arise Out of Marxism … A Conversation Part II

Over at Chronicles Magazine Jewish Intellectual Paul Gottfried advances the idea that “Marxism is not Woke.” In this conversation with Gottfried I am disagreeing with that sentiment. This is part II.

https://chroniclesmagazine.org/recent-features/marx-was-not-woke/

Paul Gottfried (PG) writes

It was also the Frankfurt School theorist Marcuse who paved the way for the New Left neo-Marxism of the 1960s and ’70s by advocating an alliance of counterculture revolutionaries with anticolonial rebels in the Third World. Marcuse’s “Berlin Lectures,” delivered to cheering young German radicals in 1973, looked forward to a period of extreme change driven by collaboration between Third World revolutionaries and the Western student movement. By the 1970s, it was also becoming clear that the Western working class, which was moving decidedly to the right, could no longer be instrumentalized as a leftist revolutionary class. Marcuse added to his revolutionary brew, perhaps as an afterthought, the rage of angry young blacks.

Bret responds,

Here is one area where we see that Marx clearly was indeed WOKE. It was Marx who gave us the rise of the proletariat as the instrumental means of world socialist revolution. In the well known rallying cry of “Workers of the World Unite,” Marx envisioned a force animated by resentment and envy against the bourgeoise so as to bring about social revolution. With the rise of Cultural Marxism (CulMar, Frankfurt School) the idea of a necessary proletariat is not surrendered but rather the former proletariat is transmogrified into a different coalition force comprised of the wastrels, disenchanted, and outcasts of Western civilization. Whereas it was previously the workers of the world who must unite, with the rise of CulMar it is the minorities, feminists, academicians and  perverts, (call it the MF AP) who will unite into a new proletariat who will serve as the new shock troops engaged in the long march through the Western and Christian Institutions. The principle of Marx remains in CulMar but it has shape shifted to bring revolution to a new Era. Marx is WOKE.

PG writes,

This was a useful course of action because, by the 1960s, blacks had become more and more drawn into revolutionary activism, although they would soon be joined by others in what can be described as the post-Marxist left. Although members of what eventually evolved into the woke, antifascist left looked for an “oppressed class,” their choices had nothing to do with Marx’s proletariat. The real working class wanted nothing to do with cultural revolutionaries, and fights broke out between the two groups in American cities in the 1960s.

Bret responds,

But what PG misses here is that structurally speaking the WOKE anti-fascist (so called) retained the conceptual idea of a proletariat. The only difference between classical Marxism (CM) on this point and CulMar is who would do the proletariat dirty work. The concept of the proletariat remains but the team jerseys are changed. The proletariat is the same only different.

Secondly, I am not convinced that the choices of the WOKE left had nothing to do with Marx’s proletariat. Keep in mind that WOKEism still has an economic component. WOKEism still strums the string that the poor are oppressed. It is just that CulMar WOKEism has expanded the oppressed class to include more than the economic woebegone. The genius of  WOKEism is in how it expanded the base of the aggrieved so as to create a new proletariat.

PG writes,

Marcuse and his followers also fatefully redefined the “realm of needs,” as understood in traditional Marxism. No longer was it the labor required to sustain the working class but rather the acquisition of psychological and esthetic fulfillment. This lent weight to the complaint that capitalism was emotionally repressive. In the post-World War II Western context, the capitalist form of production was accused of leaving the youthful vanguard of a future revolution inwardly stunted. Marcuse believed Western countries were materially able to create a “rational economy”—that is, a socialist one—but simply lacked the will and the vision to establish the sexually and economically liberated society that he desired.

Bret responds,

Yes, the deck chairs on the Titanic are rearranged but it remains the good ship Titanic. Putting lipstick on a pig doesn’t make it not a pig. Cosmetic changes were made but, contra Gottfried, the essence and goal of both Classical Marxism and WOKEism remain the same and because of that WOKE is Marx.  CM and WOKEism both remain committed to the project of overthrowing Western Civilization with it Christian roots and though the players may have changed and the rules of the game tweaked, WOKEism is Marxist. Another way that is seen is the fact that Biblical Christianity remains the only force that can finally defeat both Marxism and its bitch chid WOKEism.

PG writes,

Such ideas represent a countercultural alternative to traditional Marxism as well as to the still recognizably bourgeois Christian society that Marcuse and other Critical Theorists hoped to transform. Communist parties throughout the West as well as Soviet critics condemned this reconfiguring of Marxism as a distortion of Marx’s dialectical materialism. Instead of highlighting the class struggle centered on the ownership of productive forces, Critical Theorists were talking about fighting prejudice and increasing erotic satisfaction. If such notions passed for Marxist theory, so went the critique; these notions would reduce a true revolutionary doctrine based on an analysis of material forces to a bourgeois campaign against emotional repression and discrimination. The invective against this transmogrified Marxism among Communists and orthodox Marxists was every bit as furious as those denunciations against the Frankfurt School that have issued from the Christian right.

Bret responds,

Yes, yes, yes, among the purist Marxists the WOKEism of CulMar was heresy. However, if we are follow this Gottfried reasoning then Trotskyism was not Marxist, nor was Syndicalism Marxism, nor was Maoism Marxism, nor was Fabianism Marxism, etc. etc. etc. Marxism has had more facelifts than Madonna. However, under each facelift the leering visage of Marx remains.

Gottfried is correct that the WOKEism of CulMar is contradictory on the matter of Marx’s dialectical materialism, but as dialectical materialism is itself contradictory I am not sure why this matters except to the Marxist purists. Keep in mind here that the common Marxist thread that remains between CM and WOKEism is philosophical Materialism. Gottfried needs here to keep in mind Marx’s watch cry;

“Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.”

Gottfried is playing the philosopher here insisting that Marx is not WOKE all the while the WOKEism of Cultural Marxism is changing the world.

So, PG and I agree that the WOKEism of Gramsci and the Frankfurt school has tweaked Marx but a tweaked Marx remains Marx. Some have even offered that the Marxism of CulMar and WOKEism is a return to the earlier writings of Marx as opposed to the later writings of Marx upon which Classical Marxism is based.

PG writes,

The woke left is an even more grotesque distortion of Marxism than anything the interwar and postwar Frankfurt School brought forth. This left has shed any recognizable Marxist theory, but it continues to venerate Communist heroes while appealing to the interwar struggle between the Communist left and “fascism.” Despite socialist proposals that occasionally enter woke wish lists, corporate capitalists are integral to the post-Marxist left. Nor are such capitalists likely to suffer any ill effects even if the green agenda that most Western countries are pushing is put more broadly into effect.

Bret responds,

It is kind of humorous to talk about something being a more grotesque distortion of Marxism than some earlier grotesque distortion of Marxism given how grotesque a distortion Marxism is itself. I mean when one is dealing with a grotesque distortion to begin with it might be a clue that if something is even a more grotesque distortion than the original grotesque distortion in question, that even more grotesque distortion might indeed be related to the original grotesque distortion.

Second, the fact that “this left” continues to venerate Communist heroes might be a clue for all of us “this left” of Gottfried identifies with Marxism. I mean who are we to question them on who their heroes are? If I tell you that my hero is Che Guevara or Barack Obama or Vladimir Lenin why would you question my Marxist bonafides?

Surely PG has to know that corporate capitalists were also integral to the rise and ongoing success of the Marxist left. The fact that corporate capitalists are integral to the left in no way proves that that left is not Marxist. Anybody who is familiar with the works of Antony Sutton

1.) Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution: The Remarkable True Story of the American Capitalists Who Financed the Russian Communists

2.)Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler

3.) Wall Street and FDR: The True Story of How Franklin D. Roosevelt Colluded with Corporate America

The fact that the Corporate Capitalists are integral to the left proves that what we are dealing with now is not Marxism, frankly is ridiculous. I’d be more inclined to believe that what we are dealing with now isn’t a Marxist variant if what we are dealing with now weren’t in bed with Mega Corporate America.  Corporatism and Marxism go together like Dylan Mulvaney and Bud Light beer.

Who does Gottfried think profited from the rise of the USSR besides Western Mega Capitalists? Certainly Gottfried has heard of names like Armand Hammer, John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, Guggenheim, the Vanderbilt family, and many other less known names that were part of what we call the Corporate Establishment.

The Mega-Corporatists very seldom suffer ill effects from the rise of Marxism.

Gottfried Insists that WOKEism Doesn’t Arise Out of Marxism … A Conversation Part I

One of the things I try to stay up on is Cultural Marxism. I believe it is the nursery from which WOKEism grows. I further believe that Cultural Marxism is the number 1 theological threat right now to Biblical Christianity as a religion in terms of worldview hegemony.  If Christianity can’t find a way to choke the life out of Cultural Marxism then Christianity will go into the catacombs until it can find a way to eliminate this enemy.

As such, I find a article like this;

Marx Was Not Woke

interesting.

In this piece Jewish Intellectual Paul Gottfried argues that;

“Wokeism arises out of the failure of liberalism, not out of the theory of Marxism.”

I think I can argue convincingly that Dr. Gottfried is in error here. I provide the link for your convenience because I want you to be able to access the article for yourself to make sure I am not misrepresenting Gottfried’s argument. Also, I may not fisk Gottried’s entire article and as such you can make sure that I am not leaving out context that would make a difference in Gottfried’s article.

Allow me to say before we begin that I have read several of Gottfried’s books with profit. However, like any author Gottfried has to be read presuppositionally and through one’s own worldview grid in order to catch the errors that might be in any otherwise fine work.

Begin Gottfried (PG)

Yoram Hazony provides what is perhaps the best exposition of how the woke left represents an “updated” form of traditional Marxism. His argument, which is ably presented in his book Conservatism: A Rediscovery, is summed up as follows:

Bret responds,

Generally speaking, it is widely accepted that WOKEism is indeed an “updated” form of traditional Marxism. Updated because it is Marxism as coming through the grid of one Antonia Gramsci. Some have argued that Gramsci’s “Marxism” was a return to Marx’s earlier writings. So, I would argue that WOKEism is just another label for Cultural Marxism while noting that Cultural Marxism is a nuanced form of Marxism. Keep in mind that as Marxism by definition does not work, therefore there are going to be continued updated versions of Marxism. Marxism changes like your I-Phone and like updated I-phones it is always the same only different.

PG argues

Marx’s principal insight is that the categories liberals use to construct their theory of political reality (liberty, equality, rights, and consent) are insufficient for understanding the political domain. They are insufficient because the liberal picture of the political world leaves out two phenomena that are, according to Marx, absolutely central to human political experience: the fact that people invariably form cohesive classes or groups and the fact that these classes or groups invariably oppress or exploit one another, with the state itself functioning as an instrument of the oppressor class.

Bret responds,

And here we see WOKEism in spades. We see the two phenomena that Gottfried speaks of screaming from the balcony.

(a) The presence of cohesive classes or groups (b) accompanied by the fact that these class and groups invariably oppress and exploit one another. 

This is pure WOKEism. WOKEism exists by marginalizing and even eliminating the individual in favor of group identity. Further, WOKEism provides a narrative, like Marxism, where people in their identity groups fall into either oppressors or oppressed categories. WOKEism with its intersectionality sliding scale of oppressed status provides a methodology where a sliding scale of the degrees of oppressed and oppressor can be measured.

Now the difference between WOKEism here and Classical Marxism (CM) is that CM measured the oppressors vs. oppressed in terms of Economics (proletariat as oppressed vs. bourgeoisie as oppressor), whereas Cultural Marxism (CulMar) measures the oppressors vs. oppressed in terms of Religion and Race (Christian white man as oppressor vs. Heathen minority/pervert/feminist/Academician as oppressed). CulMar as such as expanded the oppressed category beyond economic categories though not exclusive of economic categories, while at the same time distilling the former bourgeoisie to what was always implied; to wit, the evil Christian.

We see thus that PG is in error when he says that WOKEism is not the offspring of Marxism.

PG writes,

Part of this argument is undoubtedly correct. The form of liberalism that came out of the 18th-century Enlightenment did indeed stress individual rights and liberties, and it placed less emphasis on national and class identities than on individual advancement. This liberal tendency continued to manifest itself into the late 20th century, although liberalism itself underwent significant changes with the modern welfare state and the introduction of universal suffrage. Moreover, while self-identified liberals supported nationalist movements and movements of national liberation throughout the 19th century, to whatever extent they reflected Enlightenment liberalism, they stressed individual rights and individual self-fulfillment.

Bret responds,

And inasmuch as WOKEism does not stress individual rights and individual self fulfillment in that much it clearly is not the child of the Enlightenment Left.

However, keep in mind that both the atomistic individualism of Liberalism gone to seed and the hyper collectivism of Marxism end up in the same place when they are worked out to their inevitable end. Atomistic Liberalism and Hyper collectivism as social orders end up being Van Til’s two wash women who always take in each other’s laundry. Just as Fate and Chance end up being complimentary poles when the God of the Bible is surrendered so Atomistic individualism of Enlightenment Liberalism and Hyper-Collectivism of Marxist/WOKE end up working together towards the same goal. Only in Christianity where you find an Eternal One and Many can we find a place where the temporal individual and the temporal collective find a stable and complimentary meaning.

PG writes,

Hazony is correct that the woke left has outflanked self-described liberals in the media and the academy by defending collective identities. These privileged identities are ascribed to exploited members of designated victim groups. The contemporary left has therefore developed its own collectivism by incorporating a vocabulary and conceptual framework borrowed from the Marxist tradition. Like Marxism, the woke left divides humanity into oppressors and the oppressed, and it views the state as an instrument of power that should be made to fit the needs of the supposedly downtrodden. The woke left has abandoned the socioeconomic perspective of older Marxist theory but, according to Hazony, continues to imagine reality along similar lines: that is, as a confrontation between cohesive classes, consisting of the oppressors and oppressed. Thus the woke left conjures up a situation that calls for a revolutionary solution.

Bret responds,

The older socioeconomic perspective of older Marxist theory that the WOKE left has abandoned has been replaced by a totalistic religio-racial-cultural weltanschauung and has given us Biblical Christians the glad consequence of crystalizing the anti-thesis between Christ and Anti-Christ. For those with eyes to see we are living in a moment where the battle lines are drawn, without any illusion, between those who desire to kill Christ and those who desire to honor Christ. If there ever existed a religious war, some of us are now fighting it.

Still, PG is singing to the choir so far in his analysis.

PG writes,

Hazony relates his treatment of this left as an updated form of historic Marxism to the waning of anti-Marxist liberalism. In his judgment, liberals who fight Marxism in the name of individual rights are holding a poor hand. They are upholding individual natural rights against collective identity, a concept that now dominates in Western societies. The battle lines are no longer between the liberal defense of the individual and various form of collectivism. Rather the lines are drawn between conservative nationalism, that is, “conservative democracy,” and Marxism in its regnant woke form.

Bret responds,

Here my disagreement is going to be with Hazony since he has not gotten to the core of the matter. The contestants that Hazony lists are just not accurate except in a tangential sense. Hazony has given us some of the proximate contestants but he has not given us the ultimate contestants.

First, while “conservative nationalism” is certainly a factor it is more accurate to label this contestant as  “Christian Nationalism,” and it is perhaps even more precise to say ” White Christian Nationalism.” Now, this is not to say that only White Christian  Nationalists are fighting. There are many minority Christians who believe in Christian Nationalism who are fighting with us, however, considered collectively it is White Christian Nationalists that are in the cross-hairs. We have to admit that the primary target and foe of the CulMar is White Christians who believe in Nationalism, and from there we have to admit that this is fight against White Christian Nationalism is just a proxy war to throw off the authority of Jesus Christ in every area of life. The reason that the CulMar are going after White Biblical Christians is because they realize that if they can rid the world of that “pestilence” than any other opposition will be a mere mopping up matter. Considering all this Hazony’s “Conservative Nationalism” as one of the two major contestants is not going to get it done.

Even, labeling the white contestants as “Conservative Democracy” is not helpful since Biblical Christians (the true combatants) are not in the least interested in “Conservative Democracy,” as that is currently defined. What Biblical Christians desire is a governmental arrangement that honors and is beholden to Jesus Christ as King of Kings and His expressed Law-Word. Hazony’s “Conservative Democracy” is part of the problem.

And of course Marxist in its regnant form is correct so far as it goes but it would be better to reduce the enemy to their essence and the essence of the enemy here is “antichrist.”

PG writes,

Unfortunately, Hazony cannot escape the materialist foundation of Marxist historical theory. Marx was not in the least concerned with nonbinary oppression, raging homophobia, or the inherently evil nature of being white. This father of “scientific socialism” focused on socioeconomic antagonisms expressing themselves as class conflict. His historical materialism, however, was overhauled in interwar Germany, as the Frankfurt School and its Critical Theory came onto the scene. This new iteration of the left developed what has been called “cultural Marxism,” and it defined as a pressing socialist task the reconstruction of the bourgeois Christian family. This reconstruction was supposedly necessary to stand firm against the rampant spread of fascism. Among Frankfurt School theorists, attempts were also made to assimilate Marxism to a variant of Freudian psychology; and in Herbert Marcuse’s work, Marxist socialism was fused with the vision of polymorphic sexuality.

Bret writes,

True, Marx was not concerned per se with “nonbinary oppression, raging homophobia, or the inherently evil nature of being white,” but Marx and Engels were concerned with the socialist task  of reconstructing the bourgeois Christian family and I am convinced that Marx and Engels would have embraced “nonbinary oppression, and raging homophobia”  if he was convinced that by doing so the Christian concept of family could be destroyed.

“Only when we have led every woman from the home into the workplace will complete equality be achieved, by the destruction of the institution of the family, which is the basis of capitalist society.”

Friedrich Engels,

Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State

So, this is one thing that CM and CulMar have in common as seen in this observation from Dr. Francis Nigel Lee in his “Communist Eschatology” ;

“The earthly family, then, roots in the Holy Family in heaven, and although Marx inverted the primordiality of the Holy Family to the earthly family, he well realized their relationship. This is why Marx stated in his famous Theses on Feuerbach that ‘once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the holy family, the former must then itself be destroyed in theory and in practice.'”~

From the Mailbag: John Holzmann Writes Telling Me I Am Being “Deeply Offensive”

Dear Pastor Bret,

 I don’t understand how and why you get so hot and bothered about some of the issues concerning which you seem to get hot and bothered.

Here you say (correctly, I think), that “Of course that message is ‘not white, black, green or blue.’” On the other hand, you then go on to say, “The question at hand is, ‘which kin group . . . has been . . . serving as the bulwark against moral insanity in America?’” And, for some reason, you seem intent on defining the “kin” in racial/racist terms: “[W]hether Dr. White wants to admit it or not, the answer to that is the White Anglo Saxon Christian people.” Really? “‘[T]he‘ White Anglo Saxon Christian people”? This “people”?

No non-White Anglo Saxon Christians (in other words, only White Anglo Saxons) have been opposing moral insanity in America? And, somehow, it is the White Anglo Saxons’ “peoplehood”–you know, their being White and Anglo Saxon–that fitted and enabled them, somehow, uniquely, to stand up for their high standards? It is their kinship in racial and ethnic identity that leads to such moral righteousness? And we ought to recognize this kinship–and make sure to exclude righteous brothers and sisters in Christ–brothers and sisters of other racial or ethnic backgrounds–from honor for their courageous stands?

I am concerned that you are confusing certain realities to the detriment both of the morally confused White Anglo Saxons who may claim to know the Saviro but really don’t . . . as well as to the detriment of our Christian brothers and sisters of other racial and ethnic heritages who find your (seriously confused) declarations deeply offensive.

John Holzman

Pastor Bret responds,

Friend John Holzmann,

I don’t know how you or any Biblical Christian can not get hot and bothered by the things I get so hot and bothered about. So, I guess we are even on that score.

I don’t define  the current contest in solely racial terms because I clearly offer, in the piece you are complaining about, that it is White Anglo Saxon CHRISTIANS who are the bulwark and not merely White people. White non Christians (normies) are clearly contributing to the moral insanity.

I don’t define the current battle in solely racial terms because I’m not “defining” anything. I am merely noticing the facts. All one as to do to find those facts John is to look at the minority groups, group by group, to see  the percentages by which they vote for the party of moral insanity (DEMS). (Though just to be fair, I thoroughly despise Republicans as well, but at least they work at fooling the White Anglo Saxon Christian.)

I am defining the current battle primarily in racial-theological terms because that is the indisputable reality. Now, when something is defined primarily or generally it doesn’t mean “universally.” I never said that there weren’t minority people who weren’t in the fight with the White Anglo Saxon Christian (WASC), I merely agreed with Stephen Wolfe that WASCs are the serving as a defense or safeguard (bulwark) against moral insanity.

Here is Wolfe’s statement again in case you missed it.

“White evangelicals (as a group) are the lone bulwark against moral insanity in America…. It is simply true that white evangelicals, as a group, have been essential to the success of the GOP and conservative causes, and they remain the most reliable voters for those opposing woke and trangenderism…. “Lone bulwark” means that the absence of the white evangelical bloc would torpedo us into moral insanity. There is no other group (that I’m aware of) whose absence would cause this.”   Stephen Wolfe

The point here John is that were one to take WASC’s out of our societal mix the culture would go belly up. This is indisputably true and it no insult to Christians who are not white unless one is dallying with being WOKE. Are you dallying with being WOKE John?

And I clearly said in my piece that WASCs were not made of better dirt. Did you skim the piece or read it John? I wrote in the piece:

The question at hand is, “which kin group, as completely in God’s providence and grace, quite apart from any idea that they are made of anything but dirt, has been that kin group who are serving as the bulwark against moral insanity in America?” And whether Dr. White wants to admit it or not, the answer to that is the White Anglo Saxon Christian people.

Please forgive me Rev. Dr. White (and now John Holzmann) for committing the sin of noticing.

Nobody is excluding anybody here. Why some of my best friends are minority Christians. (That’s a throwback to the 60s joke though I’ll doubt you will get it).

You have completely misread my piece John and it has been my long experience that people who do that still are infected with cultural Marxist categories. I have said nothing (nor has Wolfe) that is pejorative to minority Christians. One can only come to that errant conclusion if one is reading what I am saying with colored glasses on (pun only slightly intended).

Wolfe’s OP and my agreement has not only been demonstrated statistically but also taken for granted by people who hate white evangelicals. It’s even in the front page of books their books!

See Kristen Kobes DuMez’s book, “Jesus & John Wayne.”

So, in the end I am confusing nothing John. If anybody finds anything I write offensive on this post than it is because they are taking offense, and not because I am giving offense. If I don’t say these things in this climate I will definitely be offending my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Just ask my minority friends who share a Christian worldview. 😉

John… give this a read. It might help

http://www.thedailygenevan.com/blog/2022/11/17/naturalvsnonnatural

And view this to see the danger WASCs are in

https://odysee.com/@Counterpoints:5/the-truth-about-the-great-replacement:d1

James White Attacks Stephen Wolfe …. McAtee can’t Resist

James White on Twitter;

There is absolutely, positively NO PLACE in Christ’s Church for “white,” or “Asian” or “Black” or “Latino” or anything else *used as a divisive label.* The unity of the body is in the singular, undivided, indispensable righteousness of Christ, NOT in skin color, kin, tribe or nation.

Bret responds,

1.) What counts as a divisive label? When Stephen Wolfe speaks something that is objectively and indisputably true on a Twitter thread that;

“White evangelicals (as a group) are the lone bulwark against moral insanity in America…. It is simply true that white evangelicals, as a group, have been essential to the success of the GOP and conservative causes, and they remain the most reliable voters for those opposing woke and trangenderism…. “Lone bulwark” means that the absence of the white evangelical bloc would torpedo us into moral insanity. There is no other group (that I’m aware of) whose absence would cause this.”

Is that being “divisive” per James White? I think it must mean that in White’s World because he posted these comments in response to Wolfe’s observation.

So, I wonder if Rev. Dr. White might explain just exactly how such an observation is creating divisiveness in Christ’s church?

The inspired St. Paul could say that “All Cretans are liars.” Per Rev. Dr. White should St. Paul be sanctioned for that allegedly  divisive comment?  What about when Jesus called the Samaritan woman a “dog.” Should Jesus be sanctioned for that allegedly divisive comment?

2.) The Rev. Dr. White has a false dichotomy above. It is true that the unity of the body is found in the righteousness of Jesus Christ but that does not in turn mean that Christian people can’t also find a unity in “skin color, kin, tribe or nation.” Listen to Dr. John Frame on the matter;

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

John Frame,
“Racism, Sexism, Marxism”

White makes the popular mistake in that opening comment of thinking that somehow grace destroys nature. A Yellow man becomes a Christian and suddenly his Yellowness disappears, with all the implied cultural and racial heritage, into the Christian regenerating ether. Why can’t these people like the Rev. Dr. White realize that we can have both a unity with our Christian Kin that is unique but doesn’t violate a confederated unity with our fellow Christians who are not of our people and place?

Again, keep in mind, that the church has only begun to think this way with the rise of the Civil rights movement. Never, in the Church’s history has anyone ever thought like James White and his ideological clan on this subject except perhaps the Anabaptist levelers.

Rev. Dr. James White going all declarative writes;

“I will NOT stand with anyone who seeks to undermine that unity with the use of such labels. I stood up in 2018 after MLK 50 and said the EXACT same thing. One man called for an “ecumenical council” to condemn me as a heretic for daring to say the Lord’s Table is a place not for ethnicities or labels but solely as a place for focus upon Christ.”

Bret responds,

1.) Really, very few care who James White will or will not stand with. I think they call this “attention seeking behavior.”

2.) White is not angling for unity here. White is thumping for uniformity. There is a HUGE difference between the two.

3.) I’m not going to comment on the last sentence above because I suspect I need more context to know what really went on there. Still, if the Lord’s Table is not a place for labels, I think that means the Rev. Dr. James White is all good with paedo-communion since the work of disallowing toddlers to the table requires the work of “labeling” them.

Rev. Dr. White writes;

The only bulwark against the moral insanity of the West is found in *fidelity to Scripture as the revelation of God and its proclamation of Christ as Lord of the nations, the sole and only way of peace with God, and hence the only way of peace amongst men.* That message is not white, black, green or blue. I have far, far, FAR more in common with a Chinese pastor standing firm in the face of CCP torture than I do a white evangelical whose commitment to Scripture is weaker than his commitment to a political party or cause.

Bret responds,

1.) Here White snipes at Stephen Wolfe’s comment above. I don’t want to put words in Wolfe’s mouth but I suspect that Wolfe would say (and I know I would say) that the reason that  “White evangelicals (as a group) are the lone bulwark against moral insanity in America” is precisely because of their, in White’s words, “fidelity to Scripture as the revelation of God and its proclamation of Christ as Lord of the nations, the sole and only way of peace with God, and hence the only way of peace amongst men.*”

As such the Rev. Dr. White has given us the fallacy of a false dichotomy. False dichotomies are all the rage these days among those reputed to be pillars in the Church today.

2.) Of course that message is “not white, black, green or blue.” However, that is not the question at hand, though we are certainly thankful that the Rev. Dr. White has cleared that up for everyone. The question at hand is, “which kin group, as completely in God’s providence and grace, quite apart from any idea that they are made of anything but dirt, has been that kin group who are serving as the bulwark against moral insanity in America?” And whether Dr. White wants to admit it or not, the answer to that is the White Anglo Saxon Christian people.

Please forgive me Rev. Dr. White for committing the sin of noticing.

3.) But the question is does White have more in common with a WASP pastor who is his cousin standing firm in the face of the American Unipolar Party than he has in common with a Chinese pastor standing firm in the face of the CCP? I doubt if the Rev. Dr. White would get anywhere near to answering that question.

The Rev. Dr. White writes,

It is time we all took a deep, deep breath, backed up about a year or so, and said, “Let’s try this again, slowly, carefully, without the influence of undo emotion, and let us in grace and love toward fellow believers think this through.” As soon as it comes to our using ethnic groups as meaningful cohorts rather than the unity of the body in the gospel, we will know we have lost our way!

Bret responds,

It is time that those reputed to be pillars in the Church took a deep, deep breath, backed up about a year or so, and said, “Let’s try this again once we read Dow and Achord’s book, ‘Who is My Neighbor.’ Let’s read it slowly, carefully, without the influence of the emotions of Cultural Marxism coursing through our veins. As soon as it comes to the inability to admit creational categories exist within the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ we will know we have lost our way and instead are following the way of old Slewfoot who has convinced us that Bono was inspired when he wrote;

I believe in the Kingdom Come
Then all the colours will bleed into one
Bleed into one
But yes, I’m still running

 

Elder’s Rule … Laity Submits

Acts 20:38 — Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

I Corinthians 16:15 I urge you, brethren—you know the household of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints— 16 that you also submit to such, and to everyone who works and labors with us.

I Thessalonians 5:12And we urge you, brethren, to recognize those who labor among you, and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, 13 In love, hold them in highest regard because of their work. Live in peace with one another.

I Timothy 5:17 Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine.

Hebrews 13:7 Remember those who [a]rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct….

17.) Obey those who [e]rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.

The function and role of an elder is well summarized by Alexander Strauch in his book Biblical Eldership:

“Elders lead the church [1 Tim 5:17; Titus 1:7; 1 Peter 5:1–2], teach and preach the Word [1 Timothy 3:2; 2 Timothy 4:2; Titus 1:9], protect the church from false teachers [Acts 20:17, 28–31], exhort and admonish the saints in sound doctrine [1 Timothy 4:13; 2 Timothy 3:13–17; Titus 1:9], visit the sick and pray [James 5:14; Acts 6:4], and judge doctrinal issues [Acts 15:6]. In biblical terminology, elders shepherd, oversee, lead, and care for the local church” (16).

Obvious truths we have learned from the Scripture we have cited;

1.) There exists and has always existed a God ordained hierarchy not only in the home where husbands are to rule their wives and children, and not only in the civil realm where Magistrates are to rule the citizenry, but also in the Church where the Elders are to rule the laity.

2.) This truth in turn reminds us when discussing all of this of the necessity to understand Jurisdictionalism. There are these sphere of jurisdiction that God has appointed and in those spheres of jurisdiction God has named different authorities. These jurisdictions are important to keep in mind since the respective authorities in the differing jurisdiction must seek to honor the distinct jurisdictions.

For example, as an Elder, I do not have the authority to come into your home and rule your home unless for some reason you have grossly abdicated your legitimate authority by no longer ruling your home “in the Lord.” At that time the Elders will come to you, point out the appropriate Scripture that someone is walking contrary to, and then will ask you to repent. This is the kind of action that we see the Apostle Paul call for in I Corinthians 5;

 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even [a]named among the Gentiles—that a man has his father’s wife! 2 And you are [b]puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you. 3 For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord [c]Jesus.

Here St. Paul is taking up his authority as an Elder to correct both an individual in the Corinthian congregation but also the Church as a whole.  St. Paul later in II Timothy gives Timothy the Elder to do this very same kind of work:

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction,

Now obviously this kind of authority, like all authority can be abused. The maxim, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely” does not find any exceptions among those who are Elders in Christ’s church. So, when we insist, with Scripture that the role of the Elder is to engage, when necessary, in reproof and correction of the flock Elders should understand that power can go to their head. This is why, we have a plurality of Elders so that no one Elder is holding all the authority.

So we see here that one area in which an Elder rules in the Church and one area therefore upon which the laity are obliged to submit (Hebrews 13:17) is when it comes to the area of morals and doctrine. The Elders are to be the gatekeepers for the proper thinking (Doctrine) and proper morals (Behavior) as among God’s people. This is why St. Paul told the Church in Corinth to excommunicate the man who was sleeping with his step-mother. It is why Scripture repeatedly calls Elders to guard what was committed to their trust (I Timothy 6:20-21).

The Church is the Bride of Christ and it is the role of the Elders to protect the purity of the Bride.

Now, of course Elder’s fail and given this high and holy calling they can’t help but be hypocrites since they themselves can never reach the standard that is placed upon all God’s people for holiness of living and thinking. Yet, despite that reality Elders are called to rule and the laity is called to submit.

Now, what we have seen so far?

1.) We have seen a wee bit what Elders are called to do in their role as God’s appointed leader of the Church.

2.) We have noted that the role of the laity is to submit when their Elders are ruling them as “in the Lord.” Now, if an Elder comes to you to speak on some matter of course the initial route is not likely going to be instant ultimatums but rather the course is going to be one of reasoned conversation. The exception to that is if someone here would be doing something extreme like sleeping with their stepmother or advancing Radical Two Kingdom theology among the saints.

3.) We began to look at the notion of jurisdictional spheres and tried to emphasize that the authority of an Elder rests in the jurisdictional sphere of the Church just as the role of the Father/Husband rests in the jurisdictional sphere of the home.

Let’s talk about that one just a wee bit more.

The jurisdictional spheres as found in the Scripture means there are boundaries for authority. Jesus Christ is the only one who has all authority. Any authority here whether exercised by husband, Elder, or Magistrate is authority that exists in a very circumscribed sphere.

So a Magistrate cannot enter the Church and based on his authority as a magistrate violate the jurisdiction of the Church by presuming to rule in the affairs of the church unless the Church has grossly abdicated its legitimate authority by no longer ruling the Church as “in the Lord.” In the same way Elders in the Church cannot enter the civil sphere of the Magistrate and on the basis of his authority as an Elder violate the jurisdiction of the Magistrate by presuming to rule in the affairs of the civil order unless the Magistrate has grossly abdicated its legitimate authority by no longer ruling the civil order as “in the Lord.”

So, we have these spheres of jurisdictions and we have proper authorities ruling in each jurisdictional sphere. Conceptually this is not difficult to understand. Practically, if the God ordained rulers of each sphere rule as “in the Lord,” there is not going to be a problem in honoring those jurisdictions or the authorities therein. However, when one sphere gets out of whack that makes matters often very difficult.

For example when one jurisdiction ceases ruling as “in the Lord” then eventually authorities from another jurisdiction are going to have to interpose into that errant jurisdiction and set matters right. This is called the doctrine of interposition.

But let us not get to far afield from where we are at this morning. We will talk, I think, more about interposition in a later sermon. Right now let’s concentrate on the fact that the Church is a jurisdictional sphere of authority where God has placed a structure of hierarchy so as to have a ruler and ruled ecclesiastical order.

We have seen that Elders in the Church have ruling authority. This is indisputable from the Scripture that we have looked at. However, we pause to note again this stated hierarchy because it is in some sense disputed in some circles. Among the Anabaptist movement today one will learn that there is a leveling when it comes to the roles of leaders. In the Anabaptist movement (Mennonites, Amish, Brethren,) there is the principle that there is no such thing as interposition of human authority since the New Covenant. This means that the role of Elder in those Christian communities are going to be more egalitarian.

As such Anabaptist churches and Christians have a view of ecclesiastical authority that is going to be very different from the view of ecclesiastical authority as found among Roman Catholics who go to the opposite extreme. If the Anabaptist have a tendency to level all hierarchical structure in the Church, Rome and ecclesiastical models like Rome tend to absolutize ecclesiastical authority in the Church so that Priests, Bishops, Cardinals and Popes are seen as being vested with uber-authority that is not to be questioned.

The Reformed understanding of the role of Elders as a rulers was that of a ministerial role and not a magisterial role such is found in Rome. The Reformed understanding of the role of Elders as a rulers was that of the Shepherd of the flock who is a sheep himself with real authority  and not as just some kind of life coach such as might be found among the Anabaptists.

And because the Elder has real authority to lead, to lead by serving, and to rule the flock is called upon to submit as they are “ruled in the Lord.” We’ve seen that in the Scripture this morning. We also see it in our Confessions;

“All men are in duty bound to join and unite themselves with the Church, maintaining the unity of the Church;3 submitting themselves to the doctrine and discipline thereof; bowing their necks under the yoke of Jesus Christ;4

Belgic Confession Article 28

Now let us talk a wee bit more about what Elder authority looks like and how does it apply?

And for the answer to that we have only to reference our own Heidelberg Catechism as it faithfully teaches Scripture.

Keys

Question 82: Are they also to be admitted to this supper, who, by confession and life, declare themselves unbelieving and ungodly?

Answer: No; for by this, the covenant of God would be profaned and His wrath kindled against the whole congregation;10 therefore it is the duty of the Christian church, according to the appointment of Christ and His apostles, to exclude such persons 11 by the keys of the kingdom of heaven till they show amendment of life.

Question 83: What are the keys of the kingdom of heaven?1

Answer: The preaching of the holy gospel, and Christian discipline,2 or excommunication out of the Christian church;3 by these two, the kingdom of heaven is opened to believers and shut against unbelievers.

We learn here that by sound preaching the Elders exercise their authority. This would mean that every Lord’s Day upon your attendance at Morning, and Evening service as well as Sunday School  you are at that point practicing a submission to the Elder’s authority by sitting under the preaching of the Gospel.

As to Christian discipline, the word discipline in the Greek is paidea and it means to instruct or correct. Elders have the responsibility to instruct and correct the flock. This can happen as easily as in a casual conversation and it can happen as officially in official Church discipline. Most often it should happen in casual conversation. The more drama that is injected into the context of Christian discipline the less likely there will be a satisfactory result.

Question 85: How is the kingdom of heaven shut and opened by Christian discipline?

Answer: Thus: when according to the command of Christ,8 those, who under the name of Christians, maintain doctrines or practices inconsistent therewith,9 and will not, after having been often brotherly admonished, renounce their errors and wicked course of life, are complained of to the church or to those10 who are thereunto appointed by the church;11 and if they despise their admonition, are by them forbidden the use of the sacraments;12 whereby they are excluded from the Christian church and by God Himself from the kingdom of Christ; and when they promise and show real amendment, are again received as members of Christ and His church.13

Q. 85 here demonstrates again that the Elder is to rule and one means of ruling is to admonish (to lead, to have charge over) and the rule of is to be submitted to by the flock because a lack of submission means excommunication.

Now, having noted all this lets be realistic about Elder’s ruling and the flock submitting in today’s Church. I’ve been at this long enough now to know how this works in real life. When there is something that needs correction I go to the person in question and they blow me off. For example there have been numerous times over my 35 years in the ministry that I would challenge people about a tender subject and they would essentially tell me to mind my own business. If the matter is serious enough such as someone sleeping with their stepmother what happens is that somewhere along the path to excommunication they just up and leave and join the church down the block who doesn’t care about where they were because the other church is just happy for the new meat in the seat. Because, that is true the authority of the Elder in today’s church is largely irrelevant in the every day life of the Church.

And yet not irrelevant to God. Elders should take up their authority even if they know it will have little impact because in doing so they are being faithful to God even if there is little or no submission on the part of the laity and even if there is little or no fruit as a consequence of seeking to exercise Godly authority.

Finally, all that being said, as an Elder, I recognize how hard it must be for the flock to submit to Elders today given the character and lack of wisdom that we as clergy and Elders demonstrate today.

All of this is a matter we should be diligently in prayer about. The Church in the West is a mess and only God can deliver us now.

The good news is that in His time He will certainly do that. God will, in His time once again raise up good men to be Elders who wield authority with humility, yet with boldness. God will, in His time once again raise up laity who will see that their safety and well being lies in submitting to godly Elders. God will, in His time, renew, reform, and revitalize His Son’s bride so that she is once again without spot and without blemish.

May it happen in the lifetime of some of us in attendance today.