Skip to main content

Humanistic Marxism & American Nationalism

There is a generation of young Christians who believe that their political and social worldview is informed by the principles of Scripture, particularly by the direct teachings of Jesus Christ, but who have actually imbibed the tenets of Humanistic Marxism taught to them in government schools and leftist colleges.

Conversely, there is an older generation, Boomers, if you will, who believe that they lay claim to the truly Biblical worldview, but who actually hold to the religious politic (or political religion) of American Nationalism.

These views are, of course, not strictly differentiated by generation, but there is nevertheless a large generational divide when discussing political and social issues.

The Biblical perspective aligns perfectly with neither of these ideologies, nor with any other political movement.  In fact, devotion to Biblical principles regarding political and social issues does not require adherence to any specific economic, social, or political system devised by mankind.  

The Biblical perspective differentiates between morality and legality.  It emphasizes personal freedom and responsibility, private property rights, equity and justice for all members of society, and private, voluntary generosity.  These principles can be employed in a variety of political and economic systems, and Christian societies have and will look different in different cultures and eras.  However, any worldview that dismisses these principles, or which seeks to excuse mankind from our personal responsibilities as creatures of God, members of families, and citizens of local political entities, is unbiblical and must be rejected by anyone who claims the name of Christ.


Labels

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...
Post a Comment
Read more

Anglicanism, Paedocommunion, & Being Reformed

I consider myself Reformed.  I was baptized as a baby in a PCA church.  I grew up in a Reformed microdenomination that allowed its member churches to subscribe to any of the Reformed confessions (we subscribed to the Three Forms of Unity).  In many ways, whether I like it or not, I still think and act like a Reformed Presbyterian.   Some, however, would seek to deny me that label.  I suspect there are many reasons for this, but paramount among them is that I hold to Paedocommunion (hereafter PC), which, for some reason, is absolutely the worst thing ever to these people.  Some would go so far as to say that PC makes me a heretic, but they all agree that I am certainly not Reformed .   My recent engagement with these opponents of PC has caused me to reflect on what it means to be Reformed and what it means to be a Christian.  This online jousting has dovetailed well with some of my recent study, particularly  An Apology of the Church...
Post a Comment
Read more

Some Thoughts on the 2024 Election

So, we had an election earlier this week.  Perhaps you heard about it. I have done my best to remain mostly silent on political issues this time around because I have found that fixating on such matters does little for my mental or spiritual health.  Also, no one cares what I think.  Nevertheless, here are a few thoughts on our recent election. 1) I didn't vote for Donald Trump, but I'd be lying if I said I'm not glad he won.  To be clear, that says more about Kamala Harris than about Donald Trump. 2) This election seemed much cleaner--much less suspicious--than the sordid affair we had in 2020.  This election didn't feature any poll workers tallying (discovering? conjuring?) votes behind closed doors in the wee hours of the night, messy mail-in voting, or voter turnout beyond plausible expectations.  The 2020 election had me convinced that we would never see another peaceful, uncontested election, but, as contentious as things were this year, it seems like...
Post a Comment
Read more