Bruce Banner Meets The Hulk – Page 2

Cultural Marxism, Critical Theory, & Cries Of “Institutional Racism” In The Christian Reformed Church

Though the term “institutional racism,” has been around at least since the 1960’s it seems, of late, to be entering more and more into the conversational lexicon of the Church. The Christian Reformed Denomination, for example, as a overture before it that calls,

“The denomination to repent of the personal and institutional racism that causes separation between fellow members, excludes some from full participation in the life of our denomination and hinders the denomination in achieving the diversity goals it has set for itself.”

When the overture insists that we need to repent of institutional racism we should back up and consider the meaning of institutional racism so that we can know what we are repenting of. The term “institutional racism” describes societal patterns, as implemented through our various cultural institutions, that have the net effect of imposing oppressive or otherwise negative conditions against identifiable groups on the basis of race or ethnicity. “Institutional racism,” it is thought, is so pervasive that only those people who admit to its existence can see it for what it is. “Institutional racism” has so stacked the deck in its favor that if one denies that “institutional racism” exists that only proves that one has been infected by “institutional racism.” So, if one agrees that “institutional racism” exists in our culture, it is an affirmation of the reality of “institutional racism,” but if one disagrees that “institutional racism,” exists it is also an affirmation of the reality of “institutional racism” in as much that such disagreement only proves that “institutional racism” is successfully doing its evil work causing the “institutional racism” deniers to not see that they are victims and so perpetrators of “institutional racism.” It is always convenient to back a theory where those who agree with you prove your theory, while those who disagree with you also prove your theory.

The phrase “institutional racism” was coined at least as far back as the 1960’s by Kwame Ture (nee — Stokely Carmichael). Carmichael felt that it was important to distinguish personal bias, which has specific effects and can be identified and corrected relatively easily, with institutional bias, which is generally long-term and grounded more in inertia than in intent. So, as originally coined, “institutional racism,” is a incarnating of personal racism into our civil-social institutions that remains pushing the culture as a whole in a racist direction because the institutions themselves supported racism. So, here we are as a culture which transfers billions of dollars annually to minority communities through various entitlement programs and people want me to believe that we suffer from “institutional racsim? Here we are as a culture which has created affirmative action programs, quota requirements, and minority set aside expectations in order that minorities might get ahead and still we are being told that we suffer from “institutional racism?” Here we are absorbing, millions upon millions of minority immigrants and the intellectual elite want to convince me that there is work yet to be done in tearing down “institutional racism?” We just elected a Black President, who named a Black Attorney General, who has refused to apply the law to Black Panthers because they are Black and we are yet informed that “institutional racism” is a ongoing problem in these united States?

What most folks don’t realize is that “institutional racism,” is just the most recent expression of the critical theory Hermeneutic that belongs to the Cultural Marxists. Critical theory is the Cultural Marxist tool of destructive criticism intended to pull down Western Civilization, as influenced by historic Christian categories such as domestic family, commonwealth, authority, hierarchy, tradition, decentralized and diffuse civil government, sexual boundaries, and other similarly Christian informed realities that comprised historic Western culture. Critical theory’s technique was to see all of these historic Christian categories as wicked tools of oppression against minorities, women, and heretofore those considered sexual deviants. The work of Critical theory was and is to place and spin these Christian Categories so that they are seen to be the means of power by which victims are kept down, abused, and negated their rightful place of cultural hegemony. Critical theory has, as its goal, the replacing of the formerly Christian cultural gatekeepers with new cultural gatekeepers who will build cultural institutions that reflect the values of cultural Marxism. The cry of “institutional racism,” is, more often than not, the cry of those who desire the values of variant forms of Marxism to be the shaping influence on Western Society — values that include Marxist economics that call for redistribution of wealth, Marxist sociology that calls for a leveling of all formerly stratified hierarchic relationships (men vs. women so that matriarchy is superior to patriarchy, heterosexuality vs. homosexuality so that the marriage of two men is superior to the marriage of a man and a woman, children vs. parents so that children have equal rights with parents). The end goal is to create a distinction-less, egalitarian New World Order. And as all this is embraced by large swaths of the Church it has the added benefit of having a Jesus candy coating on it that makes it “Christian.”

Critical theory’s technique is akin to what C. S. Lewis described as the technique of the “Spirit of the Age,” in his book Pilgrim’s Regress,

In A Pilgrim’s Regress, C.S. Lewis wrote about a man who ordered milk and eggs from a waiter in a restaurant. After tasting the milk he commented to the waiter that it was delicious. The waiter replied, “Milk is only the secretion of a cow, just like urine and feces.” After eating the eggs he commented on the tastiness of the eggs. Again the waiter responded that eggs are only a by-product of a chicken. After thinking about the waiter’s comment for a moment the man responded, “You lie. You don’t know the difference between what nature has meant for nourishment, and what it meant for garbage.”

In Lewis’ story the Spirit of the Age (Waiter) had captivated John (Lewis’ main Character) and insisted that what was intended for nourishment was garbage. Like the Waiter, in Lewis’s work, the Cultural Marxist critiques the healthy and normal as unhealthy and abnormal.

Our prevailing zeitgeist is not interested in creating a conscience that tells us that cow milk is a secretion akin to urine or feces. No, what our Cultural Marxist Spirit of the Age is set upon convincing us is that Christ informed culture is evil and that Christian white people are the devil.

Martin Luther anticipated the rise of Critical theory 500 years ago.

“It is the nature of all hypocrites and false prophets to create a conscience where there is none, and to cause conscience to disappear where it does exist.”

Critical theory is the technique of the false prophets of Cultural Marxism to create a false consciousness in white Christians, and the cry of “Institutional Racism,” is just one of the many buzz phrases that Cultural Marxists are using to overthrow Christian civilization.

Finally, on the score of “Institutional Racism” we must wonder if that buzz phrase from Critical theory is in point of fact a desire on the part of those who use it to decimate what little remains of White Christian civilization. When someone laments institutional racism they are lamenting the meager existence of white Christian institutions, and thereby, it would seem the very existence of Whites themselves.

The amazing success of the Critical theory cry of “institutional racism” is driven by its ability to laden people with guilt. Guilty people are people who then can be manipulated at will by the sense of guilt that they are seeking to overthrow. So strong is the guilt that Western Man feels now, in part due to the work of Cultural Marxism, but more because Western man has turned his back on God, that those who offer relief from that guilt (the Cultural Marxists) essentially become movement Messiahs to modern man. The Cultural Marxists use critical theory to make Western Man feel guilty. The Cultural Marxist offer a plan on how Western man may atone for his sins. Western man gladly will do anything to deliver himself of this contrived and artificial guilt.

And the blood atonement that Cultural Marxists are requiring of Western Man is his own death. The guilt that Critical Theory lays on Western Man is of such a nature that it can only be atoned for through the death of Western man as Western Man as been influenced by Biblical Christianity. And so cries of “Institutional Racism” can only be alleviated by Western Man going all masochistic and destroying himself so that he can be replaced by a new Soviet (cultural Marxist) man, who will be informed by the new faith of Cultural Marxism.

The first part of the solution to resist this is by Western man to repent and turn to Christ. In Jesus Christ Western man’s real guilt is taken away and he is raised up to walk in newness of life with Christ. Only once our guilt is seen as being carried by Christ can Western man no longer be manipulated by false Critical theory charges of “Institutional Racism.” Only once Western Man’s guilt is seen as having been born with Christ can he deal with whatever racial problems might yet remain in a way where his eyes are wide open to the agenda of those who have as their desire what is left of Christian civilization.

The second part of the solution to resist this is by thinking Biblically. As long as we are not thinking God’s thoughts after him in every area of life (History, Social Order, Economics, Family Life, Education, etc.) we are prime candidates to be blown about by every strange wind of doctrine. Cultural Marxism is a strange doctrine and critical theory is the wind that fills its sails. We have to return to the conviction that there exist distinct ways of thinking that Christians are identified by. If we refuse that conviction then Christianity becomes a wax nose that the Cultural Marxists can shape in their direction in order to call their cultural Marxism “Christianity.”

God grant us grace to repent for the open window for repentance is closing fast upon us as a civilization.

Rage Against The Machine — Reflections On The Belhar

The Belhar document reads more of Karl Marx than it does of Jesus Christ. This can be seen in the way that the Belhar exudes the stereo-typical Liberation theology motifs. Drawing from European “theologies” and Marxism, Liberation theologians developed their own theology by radically reinterpreting Scripture with “a bias toward the poor.” We see this in the Belhar w/ its statement that,

• that God, in a world full of injustice and enmity, is in a special way the God of the destitute, the poor and the wronged

As we have noted previously this statement by itself, were we living in a Church that understood God’s Revelation, would be enough to end the whole Belhar project. God is only God in a special way to His people, regardless of their social status or class ranking. God does not love the poor in Christ more than He loves the rich in Christ, and God does not love the poor outside of Christ more than He loves the rich outside of Christ. God hates workers of iniquity and workers of iniquity are all those who have not sued for peace with God, through Jesus Christ alone. Only on a insane Marxist liberation playground is God, in a special way, the God of the destitute, the poor, and the wronged, though God is God, in a special way, the God of the poor in Christ when they are attacked by the rich outside of Christ, and He is God in a special way to the destitute in Christ when they are persecuted by the rich outside of Christ, and He is God in a special way to the wronged in Christ when they are persecuted by the wrong ones outside of Christ.

THE BELHAR AND LIBERATION THEOLOGY — PRESUPPOSING WHITE BIAS

Liberation theology also begins with the premise that all theology is biased – that is, particular theologies reflect the economic and social classes of those who developed them. Accordingly, the traditional theology predominant in North America and Europe is said to “perpetuate the interests of white, North American/European, capitalist males.”

That this is part and parcel of the Belhar agenda is seen by a overture to Synod that is coming out of Classis Lake Erie. In that overture we have all kinds of the kind of language that is mentioned in the preceding paragraph. The Overture from George Vander Weit, Akron CRC and now Lake Erie reads,

“Thus, even while we consider a document that we hope will improve race relations among us, racism is evident both in the comments of Anglos and ethnic minorities.”

“No matter what we do with the Belhar, our very discussion of it reveals how insidious and pervasive the matter of racism among us is.”

“The Akron CRC council overtures Classis Lake Erie to overture Synod 2012:

A. To call the denomination to repent of the personal and institutional racism that causes separation between fellow members, excludes some from full participation in the life of our denomination and hinders the denomination in achieving the diversity goals it has set for itself.”

Note that according to this overture racism is evident both in the comments of Anglos and ethnic minorities. Now, this sounds like a concession, in as much as “ethnic minorities” are mentioned but as the denomination is predominantly white it doesn’t take much to realize where the real problem is in the denomination. Note that according to this overture that racism in the CRC is pervasive and insidious among us. Note that according to this overture the CRC is guilty of personal and institutional racism. All of this is the language of Liberation theology. There is more of Marx than Christ behind the Belhar.

LIBERATION THEOLOLGY AND THE BELHAR — PRESUPPOSING THE NECESSITY OF A REDISTRIBUTIONIST MODE

Continuing on with Liberation theology and how the Belhar reflects this. The traditional theology the Liberation theology is seeking to overthrow allegedly “supports and legitimates a political and economic system – democratic capitalism – which is responsible for exploiting and impoverishing the Third World.”

Now the Belhar Confession necessarily moves us in this direction when it, in section 4, ascribes the presence of poverty and destitution in human society to injustice alone (in apparent contradiction to passages such as Proverbs 6:10-11; 11:24; 21:17; 23:21; 28:19), and asserts that the victims of this “injustice” are, “in a special way,” God’s people.

This two-fold assertion necessarily leads the church to two conclusions:

That the central work of God and his church in this fallen world is a work of justice rather than a work of mercy, and
that “doing justice” is principally the work of redistributing the material goods of this world, taking from those who have more and giving to those (God’s special people) who have less.

The Accra Confession (2004), which is the philosophical, theological, and political offspring of the Belhar Confession (1986) (see note below), takes this position to its logical conclusion by making belief in this kind of public policy an element of true faith. It also proclaims that “neo-liberal” economics, which it defines, in part, by belief in private property rights and free market methods, must be rejected by all Reformed Christians, “in the name of the gospel.”#

Note: The connection between the Belhar and Accra Confessions is well attested and cannot be ignored. In fact, the Colloquium on the Accra and Belhar Confessions, held January 15-17, 2010, outlined this connection, and their concluding document (attached), approved by its participants, including Peter Noteboom of the CRC, makes this position a matter of public record within the Reformed community. Any assertion that we can adopt the Belhar without essentially adopting the Accra is shortsighted.

So, once again on this score we see that the Belhar grows out of the soil of Marxist Liberation theology.

LIBERATION THEOLOGY AND THE BELHAR — SHARED METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Karl Marx once famously said, “the point is not merely to understand the world, but to change it.” Liberation theology follows this music and the Belhar serves as a choir singing this tune.

Gustavo Gutierrez, author of A Theology of Liberation, provides us with a representative methodology. Like other liberationists, Gutierrez rejects the idea that theology is a systematic collection of timeless and culture-transcending truths that remains static for all generations. Rather, theology is in flux; it is a dynamic and ongoing exercise involving contemporary insights into knowledge, humanity, and history.

Gutierrez emphasizes that theology is not just to be learned, it is to be done. In his thinking, “praxis” is the starting point for theology. Praxis (from the Greek prasso: “to work”) involves revolutionary action on behalf of the poor and oppressed – and out of this, theological perceptions will continually emerge. The theologian must therefore be immersed in the struggle for transforming society and proclaim his message from that point.

In the theological process, then, praxis must always be the first stage; theology is the second stage. Theologians are not to be mere theoreticians, but practitioners who participate in the ongoing struggle to liberate the oppressed.

That the Belhar partakes of this Marxist liberation theology mindset is seen in the fact that the Belhar is one long document that says very little in the way of Theology but is long on a praxis, the goal of which is to change the world. Now, in earlier entries we saw that the change that the Belhar is looking for is open to interpretation. I would say that given we are seeing what a Marxist document it is that the change it is looking for is a change not in the direction of Biblical Christianity but a change towards socialism.

LIBERATION THEOLOGY AND THE BELHAR — SHARED VIEWS OF SIN

Sin. Using methodologies such as Gutierrez’s, liberationists interpret sin not primarily from an individual, private perspective, but from a social and economic perspective. Liberation Theologian, Gutierrez explains that “sin is not considered as an individual, private, or merely interior reality. Sin is regarded as a social, historical fact, the absence of brotherhood and love in relationships among men.” [Gustavo Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1971), 175.]

Once again we see the Belhar just boiling over with this kind of language.

Repeatedly in the Belhar we here of “the absence of brotherhood and love in relationships among men” with its constant bleating about a unity that is left undefined as to the foundation upon which it gathers men and that is left unknown in terms of that which we are to be united in except some vague concept of “justice.” Also we hear the Belhar regard sin as a social, historical fact when it inveighs against the “rich” and speaks of,

that in following Christ the church must witness against all the powerful and privileged who selfishly seek their own interests and thus control and harm others.

As Gutierrez explains sin is not a merely interior reality, according to the Belhar, it is a social historical fact.

In observing just these few aspects of classic Liberation Marxist theology we can see that the Belhar document ought to not only not be received as a Confessional document for the CRC but that it should not even be received as a contemporary testimony. Biblical Christianity does not equal Marxism, neither as a confessional document nor as a contemporary testimony.

Rail Against The Machine — Reflection On The Belhar;

The Belhar would find us confessing,

We believe

• that God has entrusted the church with the message of reconciliation in and through Jesus Christ; that the church is called to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world, that the church is called blessed because it is a peacemaker, that the church is witness both by word and by deed to the new heaven and the new earth in which righteousness dwells

Now remember the problem that we have recognized with the Belhar is its ambiguity. The reason for that ambiguity is lodged in the reality that we do not know what meaning the drafters of the Belhar are filling their words with. We need to keep in mind in this discussion that while words have true meaning in themselves, one tactic that is used by a alien worldveiw to overthrow an existing worldview is to retain the form of the word while emptying it of its true meaning and then filling that word with a novel meaning unique to the worldview that the word is now dwelling. Purposeful ambiguity thus becomes a chief weapon for those seeking to introduce non-Biblical thinking. The Church has had to fight this tactic of subterfuge by purposeful ambiguity for millennium. If one reads carefully through books like Jude or I John one sees that a similar tactic was being used there as the Gnostics / Docetists were retaining the language and jargon of the Christian faith but were filling it with a meaning that was unique to their alien world and life view. In the 20th century, in the Modernist vs. Liberal controversy that roiled the Church the battle was fought over the tactic of the Liberals / neo-orthodox to empty Christian words and jargon of its orthodox meaning only to fill those words and that jargon with a meaning that was alien to Biblical Christianity. In all such contests the form of Christianity is maintained but the thing itself is mutated into something unrecognizable to those who previously identified with it.

This is the kind of ambiguity we find throughout the Belhar. Over and over again we find words, concepts, and jargon used that sounds familiar to the Christian ear but upon closer examination one is left wondering if the words used, left undefined as they are, really mean what they have historically meant or if those words are being used ambiguously in pursuit of subterfuge.

The emboldened words in the paragraph above is just such an example.

What few people in the American setting recognize is that the words “witness by word and by deed to the new heaven and the new earth in which righteousness dwells,” have a decidedly political meaning in the light of statements that have been made by liberation theologians. In other words what we have in the phrase “witness by word and by deed to the new heaven and the new earth in which righteousness dwells,” is a phrase that has been co-opted by some of the Liberation Theologians. Dr Allan Boesak, a key drafter of the Belhar and one influenced by Liberation theology and theologians, explained the above emboldened phrase like this:

“The New Jerusalem is no future world somewhere else. No, the new Jerusalem comes from Heaven into this reality… The New Jerusalem is no mirage from the beyond… It does not need to wait for eternity. This new Jerusalem will arise from the ashes of all that which today is called Pretoria. For the old things have passed away.”

Now, when you read the quote immediately above and then juxtapose it with this liberation theology inspired quote below from Dr. Boesak suddenly the implications of the Belhar take on foreboding meaning,

“[Black Power] is action to achieve justice and liberation for black people. It does not purport to be the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, or the true Christian church. Black Theology is how black theologians understand Jesus Christ, the Spirit, the church, etc., in relation to justice and liberation

Farewell To Innocence: A Socio Ethical Study On Black Theology And Black Power
Dr. Allen Boesak — pg. 71

Now, in light of these words one wonders if the New Jerusalem in which righteousness dwells is in fact a community ruled by Black Liberation Marxist theologians and inhabited by disciples of James Cone. At the very least we see that the phrase “the church is witness both by word and by deed to the new heaven and the new earth in which righteousness dwells,” is one that is filled with ambiguity. If the Belhar is adopted that phrase could be read in terms of its historic Christian meaning or it could easily be read in terms of Liberation theology. Do we want to affirm a Confession that we are not sure what it means?

Rage Against The Machine — Reflections On The Belhar

In the Belhar we find,

Therefore, we reject any doctrine

• which absolutizes either natural diversity or the sinful separation of people in such a way that this absolutization hinders or breaks the visible and active unity of the church, or even leads to the establishment of a separate
church formation;

Again the Belhar document suffers from severe ambiguity on this point.

We already noted in the last post the problems that the phrase “natural diversity” suffers from, so we won’t go down that road again, although we most certainly could. Let us assume instead that this is a prohibition against congregations forming that are ethnically homogeneous. A natural reading of this rejection might be (and who can know for sure given the ambiguity in the statement) that it is verboten to have congregations or Classis’ that are Korean in their makeup since a Korean Classis would be an example of hindering or breaking the visible and active unity of the Church.

So, if the Christian Reformed Church makes the Belhar document a Confession will that mean that Pacific Hanni California Korean Churches will have to dissolve or reorganize since such a Classis breaks the visible and active unity of the Church?

Really, though, what is sinful about a set ethnic people being homogeneous in their formation and worship? It is perfectly understandable that people find it more comfortable to worship with people who have a shared culture, language, and history. In “The Bridges of God” Church growth guru, Donald McGavaran wrote: ‘People become Christian fastest when least change of race or clan is involved’. In Understanding Church Growth (1970, 3rd Ed. 1990), which McGavaran co-wrote with C. Peter Wagner, this observation has become the ‘Homogeneous Unit Principle’. Empirical evidence, they argue, ‘people like to become Christians without crossing racial, linguistic or class barriers’. As a result homogenous churches grow fastest. Homogeneous churches are those in which all the members are from a similar social, ethnic or cultural background. People prefer to associate with people like themselves – ‘I like people like me’. And so we should create homogenous churches to be effective in reaching people. Obviously the Korean Churches and Classis in the CRC are employing the homogeneous unit principle and yet should we make the Belhar a Confessional document it would seem Classis formed like this would have to go.

If we affirm the status of the Belhar as “Confession,” are we saying that the Koreans are racist? If we don’t pass the Belhar as “Confession,” are we saying that we affirm the Homogeneous unit principle for all peoples? And if we are affirming the homogeneous unit principle for all peoples then would we not be in error for pursing quotas in the denominations hiring practices since such hiring practices would be erecting more barriers to individuals of all people groups pertaining to salvation.

Ironically, the insistence that we must reject any doctrine which absolutizes “natural diversity,” could be argued as “racist,” since the insistence that Churches must be a homogenization of multiple people groupings is to give in to current and recent Western notions of the way culture should be formed. To insist on a multicultural approach to organizing Churches is to absolutize the fad of pop Western multiculturalism as the organizing motif by which all Churches must be formed.

So, it seems we are on the horns of a dilemma here. If we affirm the Belhar we are implying that the Korean Churches are racist. If we don’t affirm the Belhar we are denying the Homogeneous unit principle.

However, all of this is assuming that the statement on “natural diversity” is referring to ethnic groupings and not to something else. Given the ambiguity of the document, it is hard to know what is being said exactly.

Rage Against The Machine — Reflection On The Belhar

The Belhar says,

“We believe that unity is, therefore both a gift and an obligation for the Church of Jesus Christ; that through the working of God’s Spirit it is a binding force, yet simultaneously pursued and sought: one which the people of God must continually be built up to attain.”

1.) The unity of the Church can never never be isolated from the truths to which Christ has called his people to witness.

2.) This is why the Belgic Confession of Faith does not list “Unity” as one of the marks of the Church. The Belgic confession lists the marks of the Church by which it can be recognized to be,

“The church engages in the pure preaching of the gospel; it makes use of the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them; it practices church discipline for correcting faults. In short, it governs itself according to the pure Word of God, rejecting all things contrary to it and holding Jesus Christ as the only Head. By these marks one can be assured of recognizing the true church– and no one ought to be separated from it.”

The Belhar concentrates on unity but forgets that unity is only a consequence of a shared understanding of the Christian faith. Unity is the residual effect of the marks of the Church being pursued. If unity is an obligation for the the Church of Jesus Christ it is an obligation that is attained only indirectly as the Church directly embraces a common understanding of our undoubted catholic Christian faith as that faith is revealed in Scripture. Unity is not biblical unity when it is pursued only for the sake of unity. Unity that is pursued apart from the consideration of the pure preaching of the gospel, pure administration of the sacraments, and the practice of church discipline is a empty set unity.

So everyone can agree with the Belhar as it calls for unity but only as that unity is a reflection of all of God’s peoples embracing the intolerance of Christianity to whatever teaching stands in opposition to it. So the question becomes, does the Belhar, with its call for unity, reflect the pure preaching of the Gospel? If it does it should be accepted. If it does not, then it should be rejected. If it is unclear then it should be rejected until clarity is achieved.

I do believe the Belhar document is at best ambiguous and so the responsibility should lie on those who want to accept the Belhar document to clean up its language so that those of us who have grave concerns about the Belhar can be satisfied.