Monthly Archives: May 2013

Examining the M in the Enemy’s CAMP: The Implicit Marxism in neo-Reformed Theology (I)

The enemy’s CAMP, roughly defined in a neat and tidy acronym is…

Hey, we could put it together in a little song, like “B.I.N.G.O”, but for kindergarten Sunday school!  Anyway, here it is:

C is for our good friend Calvin, who gave our lives for him (self)

A is for Augustine, who taught the virtues of Christian gnosticism

M is for Marxism, who defined the self as the collective to which man belongs

P is for Platonism, who philosophized that dictatorship is the best-est kind of rule for the throngs

Okay, I don’t really have the melody down yet, but I think it could really work.  And it’s one letter shorter than ‘bingo”, so it would be easier to indoctrinate the really, really little kids.

Oh, right, the neo-Cals are already doing this.  Yes…I do believe they have songs just like this, except, the approach is a bit different.  They actually think the doctrines which march like the hoards of Sauruman out of the enemy’s CAMP are a good thing.

But we want to go the opposite way.  Granted, we too, in fact, want to indoctrinate the kids.  Because there is nothing better for a child than to grow up understanding that God, you know…actually likes them.  So, that’s what we want to be all about.

But before we get to the kids, we need to educate ourselves on the strategy of the enemy CAMP.  We need to understand just why, beneath all the semi-eloquent “sermons” and the lofty appeals to big impressive imperialist entities like Heidelberg and Westminster, and the “love-bombing”, and the seemingly humble slavishness to divine “sovereignty” lurks nothing more than the pagan religious mindset which the God of Israel was unapologetically committed to wiping out.

Now, I realize we have spent quite a bit of time on the triplets (Calvin, Augustine, Plato…the vultures of a feather flocking together), but we have yet to visit their first and favorite son and politician, Karl Marx.  So let’s do that now.

John Immel, the great and brilliant metaphysician and church historian,  creator of the blog site SpiritualTyranny, was the first to bring to my attention the implicit Marxism residing in neo-Reformed principles.  Now, upon first hearing this, I admit I was quite incredulous because I think close to 100% of the neo-Reformed Christians in the three Sovereign Grace Ministries churches I frequented during my 15 years as a Calvinist bobble-head were registered, gun-totin’, liberty-lovin’, Obama-hatin’, Clinton-mockin’, faggot-despisin’, kahkis-wearin’, Starbuck’s drinkin’ capital-R REPUBLICANS, can I get an “AMEN”?!  Seriously, I mean I knew of not one single democrat in any of my three “home” churches.  And if I had, it would not have been long before you’d have seen them run out of town on a rail.  (In my current church, republican affiliation was actually somewhat of a mandatory qualification in the most recent pastoral search.  No, I don’t have a problem with republicans; YES I have a HUGE problem with THAT.)  So, again, I was pretty surprised when John made his argument that at the core of the neo-Calvinist juggernaut in this country was the very same state-ist, big-government communist principles that they pretended to despise in conversations and on election day.  And then he reminded me that, as usual, communism and autocracies tend to find solace and comfort in any and all philosophical, political, and religious schools thought as long as the “right people” are in charge.

Ah ha!  I said to my mind’s eye.

So then I got it.  His point was that as long as they didn’t actually call it communism (or even worse, liberalism), and it was C.J. Mahaney who was leading us in the way of infallible rule towards our worker’s paradise…well, then everything was all right.  We were still good and red (as in red state).  We could still hate Obama and not actually be hypocrites.

But that’s the thing about hypocrites…that is precisely how they are.  They never concede they are hypocrites because he who makes all the rules doesn’t have to concede anything, ever. 

Once I understood, regardless of whether or not I could totally see it yet, that John was right (because, let’s face it, he was right about EVERYTHING else regarding, specifically, my old alma mater, SGM), I started to look for it.

And this Sunday, I found it.  This was the most refreshingly honest sermon I have heard in a long time.  It was so out of character for neo-Calvinist pastors because it was unashamed in its appeal to the Marxist principle of the collective…otherwise known in neo-reformeddom as the local church.  Now, mind you, the terms were certainly not the same you’d find in either Mein Kampf or the Communist Manifesto…and even the explanations of the the terms were couched in pseudo-humble “but for the grace go I; I’m no better than you…we are all on God’s team” blah, blah, blah, the couching was so wonderfully superficial.  The appeal to forsaking the individual mind, body, soul and property for the sake of the “state” was so awesomely thin; really, if it was a gown it would would have been of a very fine, very light, very revealing silk.

Now, this of course was my take.  Of course, now that I’m actually on to their schtick and can spot the cut of their jib a mile away, it isn’t hard for me to catch it.  But perhaps for those still deep under the leadership’s wool frocks, it isn’t so apparent.  And it is for the sake of that distinct possibility that I am writing this post.

What I will do is provide the actual terms used in the actual sermon…as true to verbatim as I can remember, and then give you the thinly veiled Marxist root behind each.  Yes, I admit it is scary.  Yes, I admit that I am GLAD if this causes you concern because you’ve heard things just like it at YOUR local autocracy…I mean, church.  No, I will NOT concede that my interpretation is hyperbole.  This IS what this theology means.  Karl Marx WOULD be right at home in a neo-Calvinist church.

As long as you took down the crosses and burned the bibles.  Replace the words “God” and “Jesus” with, “Bart Simpson”, and Marx wouldn’t mind a damn bit.

1.  “Lord, the totality of my being belongs to you”:  This impossible metaphysic and divinely redundant ideal is merely a flagrant appeal to the supreme collective.  Since God isn’t here, but the local church is, to whom or what are you really relinquishing the totality of your being? Exactly.  Here’s your offering plate; jump on in.  There is no YOU anymore.  ALL of you is the collective, period.  Any appeal to ownership of yourself and your life is mortal sin; a rape of God. A urinating on the Cross.  Which saved the “you” which isn’t supposed to exist now that “you” are saved.  Hmmmm…

This idea of declaring God (the Church) the sole owner of all there is to you is a impossible concept.  For there is no such thing as a collective of individuals, by definition, it is contradiction.  There can be no actual realization of a collective. It is purely a theoretical construct.  Forcing individuals into a theoretical absolute like “collective'” is always destructive.  Not even Moses made this outrageous claim; not even God demanded the Israelites think of themselves in such egregious and impossible terms.

2.”Do not consider yourself greater than another”: This simply means do not consider yourself separate from the collective.  When you think of you, think of the “church”.  Better yet, think of your Senior Pastor.  If you do anything for yourself at the expense of the collective, regardless of how necessary, how loving, or how rational…you have sinned.  There may be forgiveness, but you will need an excuse from doctor, so to speak, and a make up day.

3. “Our Unity is God’s Will for our church”:  This is a brazen, spiritually tyrannical appeal to a divine mandate to FORCE.  The ecclesiastical authority qualifies all of their positions, actions, and violations of your natural right to self-will as “God’s Will”.  If you argue with them, you argue with God, and they reserve the divine right to punish you if you do not conform.  Remember, “who are you, O man, to argue with God?”.  They love this proof-text.  It is their systematic theology swansong; their anchor against the threat of individual minds.  They remind you that you are God’s and, conveniently, they are God.  They are perfect might and right.  Regardless of how capricious or self-contradictory, they are TRUTH.  They have right to rule the state because they are always right…because God said so; and He’s not letting you in on the reasons because, by definition, you wouldn’t understand anyway.

4.  “Humility”:  Manifested outwardly as you never considering yourself as ONE apart from the collective.  Others own you.  You greatest good is to pretend that you do not really exist.  And despite the fact that there is no YOU in their metaphysic, you will be severely punished/reprimanded for your wholly owned and wholly culpable disobedience.

5.  “Local church”:  Put simply, the Autocratic Collective, ruled by the Autocratic leadership “team”.  This team is a group of generally white, bald, half-educated(and recently, and more ubiquitously, little boys who are not yet of legal drinking age) unelected, specially and divinely dispensed elders/pastors/deacons (or whatever term is in vogue and confuses the largest number of people and is the most effective in obfuscating the Marxist, gnostic intentions) who tell you what to do and what to think and claim the right to punish you if you do not agree that they are entitled to rule over you without any representation; without legal counsel, without God–who hates you and only restrains your deserved violent punishment because they “cover” you.

The reason I put quotation marks around the word “team” has to do with the logical contradiction in the purely theoretical concept of “collective”.  In reality, this is impossible…it cannot exist.  The collective will always ultimately reside in the hands of a single person; the “dear leader” if you will.  Interesting how collectives never seem to see the irony in engaging in rank and garish idolatry of a particular individual.  Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Kim Jung, C.J….they ARE the collective.

You see, even their words and concepts mean nothing.  This should terrify people.   In neo-Calvinism, the senior pastor is really nothing more than the senior autocrat.  The protestant Pope, if you will.

6.  “The root of the the problems I see in the church is me (you)”:  Your very existence is the world’s greatest problem.  If you have a complaint, it’s your fault.  If you hear a wrong idea or doctrine; its your fault.  Abuse?  Your fault.  Your pride.  Your existence.  If you were on board with everything without question, without thought or reservation, none of these supposed “problems” would exist.  The very fact that you think is your greatest affront to God.  If the leadership “team” could steal your brain they are quite sure God would never condemn them.

7.  “We need “radical” change”: Radical always describes the communist, collectivist mentality.  They LOVE that word.  Well, yes, convincing everyone to surrender their very souls to a purely theoretical collective is quite radical.  It’s also quite evil.

Please return to the site for part two tomorrow.  Thanks!

An Infallible Bible Destroys Everything it Touches

“Infallibility”, like so many concepts we use to describe and organize our world, is undeniably absolute.  There can be no pragmatic, real-world application of such an idea.  Every real world application of the concept of infallibility will always result in an obvious, empirical limitation of the idea.  Therefore, infallibility either remains a function of the theoretical, and thus can only be applied, somewhat…hmm, allegorically/symbolically/metaphorically in the tangible world we occupy; or, it becomes a contradiction in terms.  For there is no such rational thing as limited or contextual infallibility. 

Put simply, the definition of “infallible”is: unable to err.  This definition is cutely qualified in the dictionary, however, like I said, any attempt to qualify what cannot, by definition, be qualified makes it a logical contradiction.  If you must qualify infallible-ness, it is no longer infallible.  By definition.  If it must contextualized for it to “not err”, then the implicit logical assumption is that outside of that context, “erring” is not only possible, but inevitable.  If it is not infallible everywhere and everywhen, regardless of context, then it is not “incapable of erring”.  It is not infallible.  For infallibility cannot be both infallible and NOT infallible at the same time.

At this point, referring to anyTHING that we observe as a manifestation of our literal world and reality as infallible should seem to run contrary to reason; and so it is with some consternation that I look around and see that almost every statement of faith in every protestant church in America claims that the bible is “infallible”.  The human destruction which can and is wrought by such egregiously false claims should be apparent by now in our history as the human race at least, and yet, the dots remain unconnected.  People still seem vexed when logically impossible ideas, instead of bringing peace and order, bring chaos and human destruction, both physical and psychological.  But still more mystifying is that the biblical notion of reaping what you sow is never considered as the logical source of the fallout.  My assumption is that if you really do consider the bible infallible, then the most interpretively obvious points should be on deck at all times.  If you preach logical nonsense and substitute reason for metaphysical and doctrinal madness, you get hurt human beings. See?  Sowing and reaping.

Dear Calvinists:  It isn’t that hard.

But it is…really, because conceding that there is actually truth, and this truth is a function of MAN’S existential reality, and thus men must possess the capacity to apprehend it, flies in the face of their need for gnostic moral relativity to maintain power and the critical assumption that the reformed authority’s capricious whims are in fact objective GOOD.  Their doctrines don’t make sense only TO YOU.  IF you were THEM, they would make perfect sense.  So,you see, objective truth is meaningless.  Truth is whatever they say it is because THEY are truth. Period.  So if what they teach brings destruction to you, then obviously you are the problem.  You have reaped it because you are NOT them.

And here is how the bible is used in service to their tyranny:

As an obvious fact, if the bible is “infallible”, then it must be “contextually infallible” only, thus contradicting its own infallibility.  Case in point:  If you try replacing your hammer with your bible (no, Calvinists, they really aren’t the same thing) and then go try to build a deck, you will quickly realize just how contextual the bible’s “infallibility” is.  So, only two logical assumptions from this are to be found.

One:  The bible is really NOT infallible, because the fact that it makes an “errant’ hammer is proof that it certainly, when used as such, is significantly wanting.

Two:  The fault is not the bible’s, because it cannot err.  Ergo, the problem is the nails, or the boards you are using, or you (note:  it’s ALWAYS you at the end of the day…you are what’s wrong), or the blueprints, or the permits, or the laws of physics, etc., etc.    The fact that the bible is about as inerrant a hammer as I am a professional basketball player (or a basketball player) is beside the point.  If the bible is really infallible, then at no time can the bible be at fault for failing to meet a standard.  Any standard.   It IS the standard.  Thus, any fault must ALWAYS lay outside it.  If it cannot fly to the moon, the fault is the moon’s.  If it cannot climb Mt. Kilimanjaro, the fault is Mt. Kilimanjaro’s.  If it cannot run the forty yard dash in under five seconds, the dash is flawed, or time, space, length, distance…but never the bible.  By definition, you see, it is infallible.  It is incapable of erring.  And there is NO way that “incapable of erring” can be qualified.

But the worst is none of those examples.  The worst is this:  Who gets to decide what infallibility looks like, then, when applied in our reality?  The answer would seem to be no one, but we ex-Calvinist bobble-heads know that this is not really true, don’t we?  Because the bible is infallible, there can be NO human interpretation of it in any way that can possibly be veracious.  Why?  Because humans are, in every Christian tradition, fallible by nature.  They are fallible because they are contextual; they are limited; they are NOT the sum of their own truth.  Thus there is no way the fallible can ever accurately understand or apply what is infallible because what is infallible is wholly outside of the human context.

So, I ask again:  who gets to decide?

Why, your philosopher-kings, in your local neo-Calvinist church who are carefully and divinely standing in the stead.  Those “leaders” of yours, who are not you, and whom God has somehow, indescribably given the ability to transcend human flawed, fallible, limited existence.  That’s who.

And we wonder why there is destruction in Christendom.

Reaping and sowing, people.  Reaping and sowing.

The Logical and Metaphysical Problem With “First Cause”

The cause of Creation’s (all objects which physically exist; obviously including man ) ability to BE, which means, really, to do whatever it can do, must be Creation itself.  It is rationally impossible to declare that God is the “first cause” of Creation in a certain metaphysically logical sense because in declaring this, one is forced to concede that the root ABILITY of Creation to actually be caused upon so that it can—is ABLE  to– act in a manner which can be declared a “reaction” is God, Himself.  Creation’s ability to be IS God’s ability to be.  And therefore, the only thing we can conclude from this is that Creation IS merely God, for they share the same ability to exist.  Creation is a direct function of God; thus, there is no logical separation between Creation and God.  They are one and the same.

Or shall I say “One” and the same.

Thus, I submit that not even God can cause that which is inherently UNABLE on its own to be.  If the ABILITY to be is from God, it cannot be from itself; and that makes Creation merely an extension of God, Himself.  Which is to say that Creation IS God.  As I said above.

You see, not only does God cause the thing to exist if He is considered the “direct” cause of it, but He must also be the direct cause of its ability to ACT, which includes BEING; and this means that it can have no ability or being of its own, because this would mean that its ability must only be  a direct function of ITSELF.  And this, of course, is uproariously denied in Christendom. 

But the logical and practical extension of existence is the maintenance of that existence by BEING, and BEING equals, quite literally doing whatever it does.  And a thing doing whatever it does is a direct function of existence which is a direct function of ability which can only logically be a direct function of the OBJECT.  Thus, God can only, in a sense, Create an object out of something that is already there.  And that something must have inherent in it the ABILITY to become whatever God creates, already.  And that ability cannot come from God; it can only come from itself.  This is a hard metaphysic to grasp, but it is the only one which does not concede that Creation is God and God is Creation.  It is the only one that is rationally and metaphysically consistent.  

If we do not concede that Creation’s ability to be (exist) and do is wholly a function of itself, then the problem is obvious:  If God is the direct first cause, then not only is God the direct power behind Creation’s existence, He must also be the direct power behind ALL that Creation does; and of course, with man, this would include thinking, willing, choosing, knowing, and, of course, believing in Jesus.  Which makes both Christ and God redundant.

And this is not considered orthodoxy in ANY school of Christian thought.