Richard Wurmbrand’s Marx and Satan: Chapter 8

Continuing with Richard Wurmbrand‘s book, Marx and Satan, Chapter 8 recounts satanic masses which the Communists held.

He also tells us what oaths satanists take during initiation rites.  We may think that this has little to do with us, however, we will find that these ancient oaths have become, surprisingly, today’s familiar slogans.  In fact, one was actively promoted in 1968 by the German student in Paris who is now a French (Green) politician in the European Parliament, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, who, earlier in his career, was a teacher’s aide, preoccupied with children’s sexuality.  Note that in 2008, a New York Times article lauded Cohn-Bendit’s prominent role in the 1968 student demonstrations (at the same link).  Cohn-Bendit probably did not stumble on these oaths by chance — only a few years before he had been a member of an anarchist society. After the student demonstrations, France deported him to Germany (still possible in those days), where he ended up working at the Karl Marx bookstore in Frankfurt.  It was at that time that he started work in the crèche.

On a personal note, I recognise from my own acquaintance a number of people who believe that kindness and gentleness are signs of weakness, something to be laughed at and taken advantage of.  I find this type of thinking more common, especially among those under the age of 30.  It is chilling to encounter.  Also note the empathy on the part of many governments and ‘experts’ who are more empathetic towards addicts, cheats and criminals than they are to sober, law-abiding, self-reliant taxpayers.  We are all being influenced — through schools and the media — to accept sin and aberration as normal and to view the normal as somehow deficient or repressive.  This chapter helps to explain why.

But, it’s also worth noting how Marx’s thinking has helped to shape postmodern society, with its moral and intellectual relativism: think and do what you like — there are no absolute truths.  I know a number of clergy and lay pastors who agree! 

Although this chapter begins on page 65, the following excerpts come from pages 68 – 73 of the book, available for free on Scribd. Subheads are as in the original, text emphases are mine.

Chapter Eight – Angels of Light

Public black masses are rare today, but Stefan Zweig in his biography of Fouché describes one held in Lyon during the French Revolution.

A revolutionary, Chaber, had been killed, and the black mass was celebrated in his honor. On that day crucifixes were torn from all the altars and priestly robes were confiscated. A huge crowd of men carrying a bust of the revolutionary descended on the marketplace. Three proconsuls were there to honor Chaber, “the God-Savior who died for the people.”

The crowd carried chalices, holy images, and utensils used in the mass. Behind them was an ass wearing a bishops mitre on its head. A crucifix and a Bible had been tied to its tail …

The Russian magazine Iunii Kommunist describes in detail a Satanist mass in which bread and wine, mixed with dung and tears taken from operating on the eyes of a living cock, are “transubstantiated” into the alleged body and blood of Lucifer …

The Communist magazine continues:

In this devilish antiworld, which externally is completely like ours, man must reply with evil to every success in life.

Then it brazenly affirms the following as the slogan of Satanism: “Satan is not the foe of man. He is Life, Love, Light.”

This insidious material is presented in a subtle manner as if to provide information, but its real aim is to arouse the reader’s morbid curiosity, with ravaging effects …

During the initiation ceremony for the third degree in the Satanist church, the initiate has to take the oath, “I will always do only what I will.” In other words, there is no authority beyond the polluted self. This is an open denial of Gods commandment, “… seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, afterwhich you used to go a whoring” (Numbers 15:39)

Marxists appeal to the basest passions, stirring up envy toward the rich and violence toward everyone. “It is the evil side which makes history,” wrote Marx, and he played a major role in shaping history.

Revolutions do not cause love to triumph. Rather, killing becomes a mania. In the Russian and Chinese revolutions, after the Communists had murdered tens of millions of innocents, they could not stop murdering and brutally killed one another.

Is everything permitted?

The Satanist cult is very old, older than Christianity. The prophet Isaiah might have had it in view when he wrote, “We have turned every one to his own way, and the Lord has laid on him (the Savior) the iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:6).

True religious feeling is at the opposite pole. Certain Hassidic rabbis never said “I,” because they considered it a pronoun that belonged only to God. His will is binding on human behavior.

By contrast, when a man or woman is initiated into the seventh degree of Satanism, he swears that his principle will be, “Nothing is true, and everything is permitted.” When Marx filled out a quiz game for his daughter, he answered the question “Which is your favorite principle?” with the words, “Doubt every thing.”

Marx wrote in The Communist Manifesto that his aim was the abolition not only of all religions, but also of all morals, which would make everything permissible.

It was with a sense of horror that I read the mystery of the seventh degree of Satanism inscribed on a poster at the University of Paris during the 1968 riots. It had been simplified to the formula, “It is forbidden to forbid,” which is the natural consequence of “Nothing is true, and everything is permissible.”

The youth obviously did not realize the stupidity of the formula. If it is forbidden to forbid, it must also be forbidden to forbid forbidding. If everything is permissible, forbidding is permissible, too.

Young people think that permissiveness means liberty. Marxists know better. To them, the formula means that it is forbidden to forbid cruel dictatorships like those in Red China and the Soviet Union.

Dostoyevski had said it already: “If there is no God, everything is permitted.” If there is no God, our instincts are free. The ultimate expression of this kind of liberty is hatred. Whoever is free in this sense considers loving-kindness a weakness of the spirit.

Engels said, “Generalized love of men is absurdity.” The anarchist thinker Max Stirner, author of The I and I is Property and one of Marx’s friends, wrote, “I am legitimately authorized to do everything I am capable of.”

Communism is collective demon-possession. Solzhenitsyn in The Gulag Archipelago reveals some of its horrid a results in the souls a[n]d lives of people.

The Mythical Marx

Let me say again that I am conscious that the evidence I have given to date may be considered circumstantial. But what I have written is enough to show that what Marxists say about Karl Marx is a myth. He is not prompted by concern for the poverty of his fellowmen, for which revolution was the only solution. He did not love the proletariat, but called them “nuts,” “stupid,” “asses,” “rascals,” even obscenities. He did not even love his comrades in the fight for communism. He called Freiligrath “the swine,” Lassalle “Jewish n—er,” Bakunin “a theoretical zero.”

A Lieutenant Tchekhov, a fighter in the revolution of 1848 who spent nights drinking with Marx, commented that Marx’s narcissism had devoured everything good that had been in him.

Marx certainly did not love mankind. Giuseppe Mazzini, who knew him well, wrote that he had “a destructive spirit. His heart bursts with hatred rather than with love toward men.”

Mazzini was himself a “Carbonari.” This organization, founded in 1815 by Maghella, a Genoan Freemason, declared its “final aim to be that of Voltaire and of the French Revolution – the complete annihilation of Catholicism and ultimately of Christianity.” It began as an Italian operation, but subsequently developed a broader European orientation.

Though Mazzini was critical of Marx, he maintained his friendship with him. The Jewish Encyclopedia says that Mazzini and Marx were entrusted with the task of preparing the address and the constitution of the First International. This means that they were birds of the same feather, though they sometimes pecked at each other.

I know of no testimonies from Marx’s contemporaries that contradict Mazzini’s evaluation. Marx the loving man is a myth constructed only after his death …

Marx did not hate religion because it stood in the way of the happiness of mankind. On the contrary, he simply wanted to make mankind unhappy in this world and throughout eternity. He proclaimed this as his ideal. His avowed aim was the destruction of religion. Socialism, concern for the proletariat, humanism these were only pretexts.

After Marx had read The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, he wrote a letter to Lassalle in which he exults that God– in the natural sciences at least– had been given “the death blow.” What idea, then, preempted all others in Marx’s mind? Was it the plight of the poor proletariat? If so, of what possible value was Darwin’s theory? The only tenable conclusion is that Marx’s chief aim was the destruction of religion.

The good of the workers was only a pretense. Where proletarians do not fight for Socialist ideals, Marxists will exploit racial differences or the so-called generation gap. The main thing is, religion must be destroyed.

Marx believed in hell. And his program, the driving force in his life, was to send men to hell.

Robin Goodfellow

Marx wrote,

In the signs that bewilder the middle class, the aristocracy, a[n]d the prophets of regression, we recognize our brave friend, Robin Goodfellow, the old mole that can work in the earth so fast – the revolution.

Scholars who have read this apparently never looked into the identity of this Robin Goodfellow, Marx’s brave friend, the worker for revolution.

The sixteenth-century evangelist William Tyndale used Robin Goodfellow as a name for the Devil. Shakespeare in his Midsummer Night’s Dream called him “the knavish spirit that misleads night wanderers, laughing at their harm.”

Thus, according to Marx, considered the father of communism, a demon was the author of the Communist revolution and was his personal friend.

Lenin’s Tomb

In his revelation to St. John, Jesus said something very mysterious to the church in Pergamos (a city in Asia Minor): “I know … where thou dwellest, even where Satan’s seat is” (Revelation 2:13). Pergamos was apparently a center of the Satanist cult in that period. Now the world-famous Baedecker tourist guidebooks for Berlin state that the Island Museum contained the Pergamos altar of Zeus until 1944. German archaeologists had excavated it, and it had been in the center of the Nazi capital during Hitler’sSatanist regime.

But the saga of the seat of Satan is not yet over. Svenska Dagbladet (Stockholm) for January 27, 1948 reveals that:

1. The Soviet army, after the conquest of Berlin, carried off the Pergamos altar from Germany to Moscow. This tremendous structure measures 127 feet long by 120 feet wide by forty feet high.

Surprisingly, the altar has not been exhibited in any Soviet museum …

We have already indicated that men in the top echelons of the Soviet hierarchy practiced Satanist rituals. Did they reserve the Pergamos altar for their private use? There are many unanswered questions. Suffice it to say that objects of such high archaeological value usually do not disappear, but are the pride of museums.

2. The architect, Stjusev, who built Lenin’s mausoleum, used this altar of Satan as a model for the mausoleum in 1924.

Many visitors wait in line every day to visit this sanctuary of Satan in which Lenin’s mummy lies in state. Religious leaders of the whole world pay their homage to the Marxist “patron saint” in this monument erected to Satan.

The Satanist temple at Pergamos was only one of the many of its kind. Why did Jesus single it out? Probably not because of the minor role it played at that time. Rather, His words were prophetic. He spoke about nazism and communism, through which this altar would be honored.

It is worth noting with irony that on the grave of Lenin’s father there stood a cross with the inscription “The light of Christ illuminates all” and a multitude of Bible verses.

Tomorrow: Chapter Nine – Whom Will We Serve?

More on diaprax and the postmodern Church

Yesterday, we examined diaprax — dialectic + praxis. Christian author and  researcher Dean Gotcher coined the word diaprax after intensive study of Marxist influences in the church.  Today, we look at other aspects of the church which lend themselves to diaprax.

Cell groups

Rick Warren is fond of the small — or cell — group.  It’s often used for Bible study or prayer.  It works like a workshop in that the leader is the non-judgmental facilitator who wishes to guide the group from thesis through to synthesis.  Smaller Alpha groups work along this model.

I was sorry to read that the traditional, Reformed Anglicans Ablaze appears to support small groups.  Recently, its author, Robin Jordan, featured a ‘message’ from Rick Warren on the importance of this type of ministry:

Here is a message Rick sent to the Saddleback family explaining why small groups are so important to a believer’s spiritual growth. You’re welcome to adapt it for your own congregation –

It’s the classroom for learning how to get along in God’s family.

It’s a lab for practicing unselfish, sympathetic love. You learn to care about others and share the experiences of others: “If one part of the body suffers, all the other parts suffer with it. Or if one part of our body is honored, all the other parts share its honor” (1 Cor. 12:26 NCV). Only in regular contact with ordinary, imperfect believers can we learn real fellowship and experience the connection God intends for us to have (Eph. 4:16, Rom. 12:4–5, Col. 2:19, 1 Cor. 12:25).

REAL fellowship is being as committed to each other as we are to Jesus Christ: “Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers” (1 John 3:16). This is the kind of sacrificial love God expects you to show other believers—loving them in the same way Jesus loves you.

Hmm.  Well, I did try to warn Mr Jordan (but to no avail) about another emergent programme he touted earlier this year, Fresh Expressions.  I tried to contact him privately but his blog only allowed for Google account holders to post comments.

Of small groups, Dr Robert E Klenck in his essay, ‘The 21st Century Church: Part 3′ says:

[Warren] is aware of research by Lyle Schaller, of the Leadership Network, that shows the relationship between the number of friendships that one has in the church, and the percentage chance then of that person leaving.  Close relationships are formed in the small groups, thus, people are required to participate in them.

And this is a concern.  This type of group then becomes psychologically close.  Warren asks members of these groups to ‘confess’ their sins publically to one another, as the Oxford Group (not Oxford Movement) did in the last century.  Warren’s is known as an ‘accountability group’.

Let’s look at what’s left unsaid in Warren’s push for small groups.  It’s about church unity, which will become increasingly important as we move towards a worldwide Christian Church.  It is in small groups where that ‘unity’ can take root and where submission to the accountability group through public confession of sins effects this relationship. It’s all rather … cultish. Instead of focussing on God for salvation through the Holy Spirit and the Word, the small group member (unless he is the leader) looks to the group for affirmation, correction and forgiveness. The horror.

Imagine mentioning in passing during one of these gatherings that you disagreed with an aspect of the service on a Sunday morning.  The small group is there to monitor your behaviour and responses.  Expect to be corrected and brought into line with the received ‘paradigm’ of the small group, and by extension, your church at large.  Church unity is all, even when that church is in error.

Unbelievers and ‘felt needs’

Like his mentor, Robert Schuller, Rick Warren also surveyed potential members of his congregation early in his ministry.  He focused only on the unbelievers and, like Schuller, constructed his church around their ‘felt needs’.  ‘Felt needs’ are highly important to diaprax, which eschews what we would call ‘fundamental’, ‘eternal’ or ‘absolute’ truths.  There is no truth.  What may be true today may not be true tomorrow.  We must change constantly.

Warren’s secular guru, Peter Drucker, may have had an even larger role to play in the church growth movement (CGM) than Schuller.  Dr Klenck notes (emphasis in the original):

He holds a doctorate of theology degree from Fuller Theological Seminary – one of the strongest proponents of the church growth movement.

Organizational management “guru” Peter Drucker, who is very involved in this movement, stated:

“…noncustomers are as important as customers, if not more important:  because they are potential customers. … Yet it is with the noncustomers that changes always start.”[6]

Thus, in this movement, it is imperative that unbelievers are brought into the church; otherwise, the process of continual change cannot begin.  There must be an antithesis (unbelievers) present to oppose the thesis (believers), in order to move towards consensus (compromise), and move the believers away from their moral absolutism (resistance to change).  If all members of the church stand firm on the Word of God, and its final authority in all doctrine and tradition, then the church cannot and will not change.  This is common faith.

The tension must be present, otherwise we cannot move away from orthodox Christianity towards … a man-oriented church unity through a worldwide religious organisation.

Leaving God out of it

Bob Buford, another of Peter Drucker’s followers, started the Leadership Network in 1984, designed to put church leaders in touch with each other.  Note what its mission and values statement reads in part (emphases mine):

The mission of the Leadership Network is to accelerate the emergence of the 21st-century church.  We believe the emerging paradigm of the 21st century church calls for the development of new tools and resources as well as the equipping of a new type of 21st century church leader, both clergy and laity.  This new paradigm is not centered in theology but rather it is focused on structure, organization, and the transition from an institutionally based church to a mission-driven church.  We value innovation that leads to results …

God the Father?  Christ crucified and risen?  The Holy Spirit?  Grace?  Scripture?  Hellooo?

Have a look in Dr Klenck’s essay and scroll halfway down to see that neither God the Father nor His Son appears in the increasingly-used circular ‘core’ diagram.

TQM fine for the secular world

Having spent several years not only working in quality assurance but holding international certification, I can say that there is nothing wrong with Peter Drucker’s TQM for goods and business processes.  If, like Dr Klenck, you think there is, consider the reliability of everyday objects that you use: lightbulbs, cars and — in his case — surgical instruments.

I do agree with him that TQM has no place in the religious world at all.  In that case, yes, ‘total’ would mean ‘totalitarian’, whereas in a manufacturing plant or services company, it ensures that you get repeatable, measurable, reliable results every time.

Peter Drucker’s error

This is where Peter Drucker has gone wrong.  To him, a church (or another religious house of worship) is like a restaurant or shop which relies on what’s known as ‘footfall’, or ‘lots of traffic’.  In reality, some churches are smaller.  Some are larger.  What’s important is that they are pure and follow God’s holy Scripture.  Yet, Drucker said in an interview:

Consider the pastoral megachurches that have been growing so very fast in the U.S. since 1980 and are surely the most important social phenomenon in American society in the last 30 years. There are now some 20,000 of them, and while traditional denominations have steadily declined, the megachurches have exploded. They have done so because they asked, “What is value?” to a nonchurchgoer and came up with answers the older churches had neglected. They have found that value to the consumer of church services is very different from what churches traditionally were supplying. The greatest value to the thousands who now throng the megachurches—both weekdays and Sundays—is a spiritual experience rather than a ritual.

Hmm.  How many orthodox Christians attend church and ask, ‘Did I receive value for money here today?’  Frankly, I don’t think a seeker would either, although he probably goes back because there’s free popcorn, coffee and a pastor who walks the stage and works the audience like a comedian.  A pretty good show.

It’s about the money

I mentioned before that CGM is very much focussed on money.  In time, probably when most of us will be too elderly to blog or the Internet is restricted to the elite, church members’ tithes and financial contributions will go towards providing welfare for the world.  This is what the Council for Foreign Relations (CFR) intends, anyway.

Already, Anglican parishes in England are sending in a proportion of their donations annually to the diocese for various programmes for the disadvantaged.  Whilst there is nothing wrong with that, some objections must be brewing among those in the pews.  A couple of years ago, our church was asked to complete a survey, giving our views on how much we would like for the diocese to have and towards what programmes.  I can imagine that this came as a surprise to many on the parish electoral roll.

Dr Klenck notes:

The Leadership Network recommends numerous materials and research studies to pastors that are geared towards maximizing the amount of tithing, pledging, and giving in the church.  One of the “masters” of “stewardship” is John Maxwell.  Mr. Maxwell is the former pastor of Skyline Community Church, in San Diego, CA, and founded Injoy Ministries, a church consulting firm.

What next for the Church?

Part of the reason money is so important, is that the Church is set to become just another service industry.  Christ’s holy Bride sounds very much like a business when Bob Buford’s Leadership Network describes Her (emphases mine):

Partnerships, alliances and collaboration will become the norm, rather than the exception, and the relationships will be built on new loyalties and a new common mission. … The next movement will grow people, not parking lots. … These same people are in the congregations of the 21st century and they are going to be the “point people” for the partnerships and alliances that will achieve the vision beyond the property line.”

and Buford says:

The Church of the 21st Century is reforming itself into a multi-faceted service operation.

Don’t forget that one of the reasons why many CGM churches have a register of members’ professions and ‘spiritual gifts’ is that the government or the UN might one day require access to that information in order to evaluate how well a church is working with it on secular schemes for food, health clinics or day care.  So, if you start such a registry at the beginning, especially if you wish to encourage people to join personal accountability groups, you’ve laid the groundwork for future record-keeping and inspection. As such, it doesn’t come as a surprise to either the member or the church administration.

Tomorrow: Biblical reasons why you should avoid diaprax and CGM

The postmodern Church and diaprax — explained

A number of orthodox Christian blogs, including this one, have explored the postmodern Church.  We’ve mentioned names, techniques and genres of ‘doing church’ but few have explored what exactly is happening and how it happens.

In short, all these movements — e.g. church growth, emergent — have their roots in a combination of dialectic and praxis, which one Christian, Dean Gotcher, combined as ‘diaprax’.  Diaprax is common not only in the Church but in the world at large.  Its goal is to set all of us on the road to constant compromise and continuous change.  It is designed to promote unity from diversity and to get rid of tradition and ‘divisiveness’.

First, a review of dialectic in a Christian context.  Do keep in mind that every step along the way is designed to inch the believer further away from the inerrancy of the Bible and his confessions of faith.

How diaprax works

Dr Robert Klenck, an orthopaedic surgeon in Los Angeles, contributes to Mr Gotcher’s Institution for Authority Research and, like him, has studied diaprax closely in relation to the trends we see in our churches today.  In ‘The 21st Century Church: Part 3′, he explains (emphases mine throughout):

Briefly, the Hegelian dialectic process works like this:  a diverse group of people (in the CGM, this is a mixture of believers and unbelievers – thesis and antithesis), gather in a facilitated meeting (with a trained facilitator/”teacher”/group leader), using group dynamics (peer pressure), to discuss a social issue (or dialogue the Word of God), and reach a pre-determined outcome (consensus, or compromise).

When the Word of God is dialogued (as opposed to being taught didactically) between believers and unbelievers, and consensus is reached – agreement that all are comfortable with – then the message of the Word of God has been watered down, and the participants have been conditioned to accept (and even celebrate) their compromise.  This [new synthesis] becomes the starting point [thesis] for the next meeting.  The fear of alienation from the group is the pressure that prevents an individual from standing firm for the truth of the Word of God.  The fear of man then overrides the fear of God.

This process is similar to workshops you might have participated in at work.  The principles are identical.  A facilitator leads the group.  He has a set agenda, given to him by a manager (or a pastor, in the case of a church).  However, he asks people what they hope to ‘get’ out of the session, although his questions will help engineer the desired agenda outcome.  Then, as is true with workplace workshops, a number of discussions take place and, inevitably, conflict arises.

People stating their positions or beliefs on an issue is what is known as thesis.  Conflict, roughly speaking, is antithesis (against the thesis, or belief).  The facilitator brings about synthesis by getting everyone to arrive at a common position.  It might not be 100% to everyone’s liking, but it is one that people will largely agree upon. It will also be one that is man-centred, because, as we shall see tomorrow and have seen in my Gramsci posts, nothing is more threatening to the Marxist than faith in God, Christianity and the traditional family under the authority of God and His Son.  Gramsci believed that Christianity fostered the continuance of:

the Western values of individual liberty, private property, and the traditional family, and must be abolished in order for the new communist society to emerge.

Let us say (in an Anglican context) the issue debated is one of bringing a female curate (assistant priest) on board. The church wardens meet to discuss it. Among their number is a traditionalist. The vicar (pastor) introduces the topic then leaves it in the hands of the facilitator, perhaps an expert in conflict resolution paid for by the diocese. A day’s workshop can engineer consensus among the church wardens, as they move from the traditionalist’s thesis — especially that which is expressed in Jesus’s First Cause language, ‘It is written’ — through to conflict (antithesis) and concluding with a postmodern resolution (synthesis) on the part of the traditionalist.

Says the traditionalist at the end of the afternoon, ‘Gosh, I might have been a bit short-sighted on this issue.  I’m sorry.  Yes, if it’s the right woman, I’m sure I could be persuaded.’  Therefore, the door opens just that little bit.  Our traditionalist has started to ‘change with the times’ and puts Scripture slightly off to the side.  The group is happy.  Perhaps they have a glass of sherry afterward.  The traditionalist has gained acceptance — for now.  He is happy to have bonded with his fellow church wardens on this thorny issue.  In finding ‘common ground’, he has pleased man, but perhaps not God.

Yet, although the traditionalist doesn’t realise it, that is only the start.  Dialectic and praxis require continual change in order to meet the times, which are ever-evolving. A few years down the road, he may be further persuaded — again through diaprax — that a new Sunday evening service be started, replacing the traditional Evensong.  The new service would be of an emergent style, to draw in the younger members of the ‘community’, i.e. neighbourhood.  ‘Well, it’s not a big issue, is it?  I understand the youth ministry leader is a very dynamic individual.  We can increase the membership of our church and be seen as a vibrant congregation. It’s all to the good.’  And so, he takes another noticeable step away from orthodoxy and an initial giant step away from traditional liturgy.

Dr Klenck observes that the same method — diaprax — has been used with regard to abortion:

… first, the fact (“what is”) was questioned – what is life?, and does it really begin at conception?  It was decided that as long as the child was not aware of pain, that it was not viable, or really alive.  Now, through incremental change, our society has gotten to the point of tolerating “partial-birth” infanticide.  This would have been unconscionable in the days that Roe v. Wade was decided.

Church buildings and Emergents — for a New Age

And things are always changing.  Think of how church buildings are changing.  Some, like the Crystal Cathedral, are generally recognisable as churches.  Yet others look like big, prefab boxes.  They have no crosses, inside or out.  This is in order that the ‘seeker’ isn’t put off by what he sees.  Many newer churches don’t want people to start thinking about Jesus’ painful death, blood or similar things.  The seeker might then walk away, feeling unsettled.

Dr Gregory Jackson, author of Ichabod, posted on this topic recently.  In ‘Leading Lutheran Moms Astray at The CORE’, he reprinted dialogue among a few women on Facebook who discussed whether they should attend the CORE in Appleton, Wisconsin. The CORE is an emergent church affiliated with WELS.  Here is a brief excerpt — certainly worth a read in full:

Imah: We missed our regular church service this morning … I decided we’d try the Core in Appleton.  It’s an outreach congregation and really cool.  The music is very contemporary– in fact, all songs were songs I hear on 91.9 or the Q, 90.1.  The boys age 9 and 5 were happy to eat popcorn and drink water while listening to the service.  The place was comfortably full and everyone was smiling!!  I highly recommend going to a service.  It was fun!!

Coley22: Personally, I prefer a traditional service and I’ve also heard that The Core isn’t really teaching God’s Word so much. I think it’s a step backwards for the WELS. If a church wants to do something more contemporary, that’s fine, but what good is it if you’re not even teaching God’s Word?

…

JulieMomof5: Coley22, I hope you actually visit the CORE instead of just listening to rumors…
Just because the CORE focuses on theme-based sermons instead of on the lectionary doesn’t mean it’s not true to Scripture …  The truths of God’s Word are emphasized, in terms that unchurched people can more easily understand (I like that Pastor Ski explains church terms when he uses them!).  The fill-in-the-blank folder makes it easier to remember what was said.  The visuals are used to reinforce the message.  Remember, the CORE’s focus is REACHING OUT to the unchurched.  Pastor Ski likes to remind us not to cause unnecessary offense to others before introducing them to Jesus!  Too often, our “traditional” services risk doing just that.

Popcorn, pop music and avoiding ‘unnecessary offence’ — oh, my.  It was a bit too much to take in.  I had to have a cup of tea and a sit-down after reading that.

Caution — discernment required!

Some of you have been spared attending one of these services.  Dr Klenck describes them:

The presentation is informal …  There are distractions, such as numerous video screens, and the pastor often paces back and forth across the stage, which makes the “real” message that is being taught difficult to discern…

The message is ambiguous, sounding reasonable to people who think traditionally, are in transition, or have been trained to think transformationally.  Often, half-truths are used (i.e. Christ’s preeminence as a religious leader, but omitting His deity), or “subliminal” messages utilized.  We heard a tape of one pastor who was teaching against Mormonism, and he was stating how they latch on to a verse in the KJV that is an unfortunate translation.  He then stated how “I can show you numerous errors in the King James.”  The message was against Mormonism, but the subliminal message that people took home with them was that the KJV Bible version is unreliable.  We have very little training in listening to what is not being said, and in the atmosphere of distraction described here, this type of discernment is very difficult, and must be pursued vigorously.  Peter Drucker, who plays a large role in this movement is aware of this fact:

“The most important thing is communication is to hear what isn’t being said.”  Peter Drucker

“The pulpit is the ultimate tool for church growth.”  Rick Warren [7]

A tool is used to manipulate objects.  In the same article, Pastor Warren declares that he first considers the needs, hurts, and interests, and then he goes to the Bible to see what it says about their needs.  Once he examines what the Bible says about the subject, he asks himself:  “What is the most practical way to say this?  What is the most positive way to say this?  What is the most encouraging way to say this?  What is the simplest way to say this?  What is the most personal way to say this?  What is the most interesting way to say this?”  In other words, he puts his “spin” on the Blessed Word of God in order to tickle the itching ears of his audience.

“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.” 2 Tim 4:3 (KJV)

If Rick Warren’s technique sounds familiar, it’s what his mentor Robert Schuller used over 40 years ago in California.

Tomorrow: Diaprax, small groups and more

Church Growth and our true ‘purpose’

In response to yesterday’s post, ‘Seminary curriculum: Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary (WELS)’, Randall Schultz wrote in with his observations and experience of how church growth plays out in reality:

From my minimal reading of church history (as a WELS layman), it appears that denominations fall apart first in the seminaries.

Spot on (as we say here in Blighty).  And that is part of the reason for these posts. I’ll write more about this after I survey a few more seminaries.  I suspect that each denomination is embracing different false teachings.  Certainly, the Episcopalians look towards lifestyle diversity and, it seems, Lutherans are embracing church growth.  More on that later.

In the meantime, let’s hear more from Mr Schultz (emphases mine):

My own experiences and observations are that it is very easy to burn out lay members with leadership, done in the name of getting members involved. I have seen how the lay leaders are constantly being told about the joys of doing “the Lord’s Work”. Meanwhile, they are neglecting their families and down time by constantly attending board and committee meetings. Remember, that many of these men work full time in the secular world.

Also, there is what is known as opportunity cost. What could they be doing with their time if they were not so occupied with hand-wringing while looking at statistical giving data at Stewardship Committee meetings, for example? Family time was already mentioned. How about serious doctrinal study? There is much available, even in the English language. Yes, the “business of the church” is important. There are books to be balanced, property to be maintained, and the many serious membership problems which often arise at Elders’ meetings.

Pardon my rambling, but it is easy to see why so many frivolous activities occur in congregations when pastors are trained in methods and motivation at the seminary. What ever happened to changed hearts as the Holy Spirit works through the Means of Grace?

I would like to share a theory with you as to why all this is happening.  I’m not the first person to say that it seems that today we work longer and harder than ever.  We are doing so because we need to, in order to support ourselves, our families and an ever-growing state.  Then, we are expected to do the same in ‘service’ to the Church.  Consequently, we do not have time with our spouses and families — or, indeed, ourselves.  We spend most of our day following the commands and achieving the targets of others, whether employers or pastors.

The results are threefold: we are too tired to do anything but follow someone else’s orders; our familial relationships suffer; and we stop losing the ability to think critically.  We become part of larger ‘communities’ — our workplace and our church.   Both of these communities tell us that if we do not obey them that we are working against them.  We have individually-set targets by the management — either a boss or a pastor — to achieve on their behalf.  We plight our troth not so much to our spouses as to our communities of work and church.  If we do not, there is the threat of  ‘or else’ — we may lose our jobs or church membership.

This is part of the communitarian model, which the world is rapidly embracing.  Tony Blair promoted it in the Fabian Society’s notion, ‘the third way’.  David Cameron, a Conservative, is promoting it in his ‘Big Society’.   State schools in the US are promoting mandated public service but labelling it ‘voluntary’.

And Rick Warren — the head of the Church Growth Movement — wrote in The Purpose-Driven Church:

I want to stress the importance of continually emphasizing the corporate nature of the Christian life to your members. Preach it, teach it, and talk about it with individuals. We belong together. We need each together. We are connected, joined together as parts of one body. We are family!

Some of you may have read Gene Edward Veith’s Modern Fascism which was published in 1993.  In it he examines how the communitarian model played out in the last century.  The Revd Bob DeWaay revisited the book for Critical Issues Commentary earlier this year.  He warns us that ‘ideas have consequences’.  Let’s take a look:

The key issue is the rejection of a transcendent God who has revealed moral law. The result of such a rejection will most certainly be some form of lawlessness. Recently, radio host and friend Chris Rosebrough called me and insisted that I read Modern Fascism by Gene Veith. Chris suggested the book because it draws a parallel between the ideas popular in Germany between World Wars I and II and the ideas popular in America today. These ideas now are called “postmodern,” [and were promoted] by Martin Heidegger, a popular German philosopher who became a committed fascist …

I do not claim that those who promote postmodern theology are guilty of promoting fascism, but I do claim that ideas have consequences. As we examine the ideas that led to fascism, we shall see why those ideas led to horrific consequences. Once we see the parallels between those times and today we can hope that today’s ideas will not lead to such consequences. But we have no guarantees that they won’t.

As students of history know, between the Great War and the Second World War, Germans became fascinated with their origins as a volk, or a people.  This included a renewed national — communal, even — interest in nature, primitivism and ancestry.   DeWaay cites Veith:

“Nature and the community assume the mystical role they held in ancient mythological religions. Religious zeal is displaced from the transcendent onto the immanent: the land, the people, the blood, the will” (Veith: 17). The idea that nature was like a goddess who would care for humans replaced the idea that nature was fallen and that humans needed to use the sweat of their brow to overcome the natural tendency for thorns to choke out the garden (Genesis 3:17). Again Veith explains: “Fascists seek an organic, neomythological unity of nature, the community, and the self. The concepts of a God who is above nature and a moral law that is above society are rejected” (Veith: 17).

DeWaay sees a parallel not only with secular Western — particularly American — society but in our view of Christianity as well:

The postmodern ideals prevalent in America today are identical. The primary idol in our society is nature, and many people harbor the romantic view that nature is a “mother” who will nurture us. These postmoderns consider humans with technology to be the enemies who are a threat to the nature goddess. These inclinations drive the postmodern/emergent understanding of theology.

They reject the transcendence of God, who has spoken and given moral law and will in the end be the judge of all. In His place they posit community and a return to nature. Whether these advocates know that they are teaching ideas that at one time led to fascism is uncertain. But they did …

The deep ecology movement sees traditional Christianity’s understanding of man’s uniqueness (as created in God’s image and given authority over the earth) as a terrible cause of the earth’s problems. Instead it derives its thinking from pagan sources and a decidedly pagan worldview that values the “interconnectedness of all things.”

Heidegger opposed absolute truths and traditional Western culture (you can read more about him at the link).  Here’s an example:

Heidegger’s idea of giving oneself the law meant that morals derive from the human will. Veith explains the implication: “The concept that there are no absolute truths means that human beings can impose their truth upon an essentially meaningless world” (Veith: 86). But that would apparently mean chaos with no guidance for deciding things collectively as in society. The answer to that problem is “the will to power” as understood by Nietzsche. The will to power can and does become a collective will. Heidegger spoke of “willing the essence” (Veith: 90). But he was speaking of a collective will. The “essence” is not some pre-existing transcendent truth revealed by God but something people will into existence themselves. Once it is willed, it becomes the guidance of “authentic” life. In other words, when a collection of people commonly wills something, and if they then live in conformity with that common will, they are living valid, authentic lives. Whatever is thus willed cannot be judged to be good or bad by any transcendent moral law revealed by God.

In other words, that outlook spurred the German people onto lawlessness, just as Martin Luther warned centuries before:

If the human will is unleashed, with no external or internal restraints, Luther would expect not authenticity, not self-actualization or humanistic fulfillment, but an evil approaching the demonic. In this respect, at least, those who celebrated triumph of the will proved him right. (Veith: 93)

The Epitome of the Formula of Concord, Article VI states:

…the Law was given to men for three reasons:

• first, that thereby outward discipline might be maintained against wild, disobedient men [and that wild and intractable men might be restrained, as though by certain bars];
• secondly, that men thereby may be led to the knowledge of their sins;
• thirdly, that after they are regenerate and [much of] the flesh notwithstanding cleaves to them, they might on this account have a fixed rule according to which they are to regulate and direct their whole life…

In his book, Veith explains how the notion of the God-created individual died and how the German penchant for volkisch culture brought most of a nation together as a collective:

A person’s identity was found in a communal experience and communal consciousness. As Veith explains: “The individual human being is ‘nothing more than the vehicle of forces generated by the community’” (Veith: 36, 37 citing Zeev Sternhell). This is a precursor to what is now called “socially constructed reality” as used by postmodern theologians …

The emergent church plays heavily on this: ‘Which interpretation of the Bible and Christianity is correct?  What makes yours better than mine?’

And Rick Warren’s Purpose-Driven Church is full of communitarian references, such as:

1. Continually emphasize the importance of fellowship and unity, commitment (including signed contracts) and community participation. Stress oneness—the “corporate nature” of churches. This is the heart of “systems thinking,” whether in secular business or church: everything is interconnected; all is one. Nothing has meaning unless it fits into the “Greater Whole.”

2. Create organizational structures for bringing visitors and new members quickly into small groups where trained “change leaders” can facilitate the dialogue, encourage bonding and monitor the collective training.

Back now to Mr Schultz’s comment at the top of this post.  He is correct in saying that our priorities should be in-depth study of Scripture and doctrine, to our spouses and families as well as downtime for our own well-being.

He is not alone in his thinking. In the Calvinist churches, a debate has been going on over the past few years as to how best to serve the Lord.  Dr Michael Horton of Westminster Seminary California has written and spoken about the ‘two-kingdom’ tradition, supported by both Martin Luther and John Calvin.  Contrary to what theologians (such as some at Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary and at Fuller Theological Seminary) believe, Horton writes:

Clearly, Luther drew the lines between the two kingdoms in clear, bold colors, but so did Calvin—and both did so especially over against the radical Anabaptists who were trying to take over cities in the name of Christ’s millennial kingdom! … Neither Lutherans nor Calvinists have been consistent in working out their theory, but the two-kingdoms doctrine has a substantial body of reflection throughout the whole history of the church.

For us as believers and church members, Horton says that we don’t have to be world-beaters or even acknowledged leaders:

Surely, if ever in this present age, we were to expect a total transformation of the kingdoms of this age into the kingdom of Christ, it would have been in Christ’s earthly ministry. Yet he just preaches the gospel, forgives sins, heals the sick, and marches toward the cross.

Nor do we find a blueprint in the New Testament Epistles for a Christian economic or political system, a Christian theory of art or science, or a plan for universal hygiene. The commands are simply to live godly lives in the present, as parents, children, spouses, employers, and employees, caring for the needs of the saints, participating regularly in the public assembly of Christ’s body, and to pray for our rulers.

… even a non-Christian economist or hospice worker who cares about people will be more of a genuine neighbor to a sufferer than a lot of busy Christians with big plans that are impractical or uninformed.

Martin Luther wrote that we give glory to God through obedience to Him in our everyday lives:

What you do in your house is worth as much as if you did it up in Heaven for our Lord God.  We should accustom ourselves to think of our position and work as sacred and well-pleasing to God, not on account of the position and work, but on account of the word and faith from which the obedience and the work flow.

So much for church growth and communitarianism then.  Instead, as Mr Schultz recommends, spend time with your family, learn more about the Bible and Christian doctrine, worship the Lord, serve your employer faithfully — and leave the rest to God.

Seminary curriculum: Virginia Theological Seminary (Episcopal)

Today, Churchmouse Campanologist begins a new series on seminary curriculum.  Over the past few years, many laypeople wonder why they do not receive sound biblical and confessional teaching when they attend church services.  They often ask, ‘What are they teaching in seminary these days?’ or ‘Aren’t they teaching that in seminary anymore?’  It is these questions I hope to answer by examining a variety of Protestant seminary curricula.

We begin with the course catalogue of Virginia Theological Seminary (VTS), an Episcopal institution.  VTS began as Virginia Seminary in 1823.  Bishop William Meade, the third Bishop of Virginia, and Francis Scott Key, whose poem ‘The Defence of Fort McHenry’ provided the lyrics for the ’Star Spangled Banner’, founded the seminary.  In 1878, Virginia Seminary founded The Bishop Payne Divinity School for black students. The two institutions merged in 1953 to become VTS.

Each seminary in this series will undoubtedly offer marvellous courses, however, what the series will attempt to do is to give you an overall impression for the type of theology taught in line with confessions of faith and the Bible.  This means that I will be focussing on trendiness and shortcomings rather than the good points.

Overall impression of VTS: nothing about the 39 Articles of Religion, very little on the Book of Common Prayer, nothing about the inerrancy of the Bible or the sovereignty of God, nothing on heresy, weak systematic theology, a big focus on liberation and community-based theology, a large concentration on poetry and poets as theological references.  Examples follow below with my own commentary. Pages cited are those from the VTS catalogue PDF file.  You may wish to consult the faculty page as you read through them.

Verdict: Disappointing, but not surprising.

Women candidates for ordination: Yes.

Pietism / Healthism Index: Smoking allowed only in dorm rooms or outdoors.

————————————————————————–

Honorary Degree Recipient (p. 57): Among those listed for 2009-2010 is none other than Emergent Church kingpin, Brian McLaren. 

New Testament Studies (pp. 58-61): Thorough, one course per NT book.  Supplementary courses focus on the Parables and on the challenges St Paul faced in his ministry. 

Old Testament Studies (pp. 62-65): Hmm.  Very much an allegorical approach, especially:

- OTS 501 – Old Testament Interpretation (p. 62) is done ‘in our context’.  What — a modern-day context?  How accurate will that be?

- OTS 605 – Exodus and Liberation Theology (p. 62) wherein students discover how the Book of Exodus is the cornerstone for this movement.  Liberation theology relies on a group of people saying, ‘Hey there, I’m oppressed, therefore I deserve special treatment just by dint of my condition in life, and God will save me but not you.’  Note that, in reality, only the very few who retained faith in and obeyed the Lord actually reached the Promised Land.  God didn’t save every one of the Chosen then, and He will not save every member from every special-interest group today just because of their condition in life.  Interestingly, the course description adds, ‘Students may elect to take only the first quarter of the course.’  Why is that?  Is this actually a Liberation Theology course?

- OTS 612 – Moses Goes to the Movies (p. 62).  Hmm. We didn’t even have this in high school. Why not examine the Book of Exodus in light of the Pentateuch instead?

- OTS 658 – Bad Girls in the Bible (p. 64) does not focus on the sins that these women committed. We have only seen it as sin, because that is how we have ‘traditionally perceived’ it. So, get real and ‘reevaluate their stories by studying their literary function in the narrative’.  Then go, get legless and fornicate, because, really, it’s okay.

Language Study (pp.65-66): Thorough, covering Hebrew and Greek, from beginners’ courses through to advanced.

Historical Studies (pp. 67-70): Thorough, with courses on the history and development of the Episcopal Church in the United States.  However:

- CHT 626 - The Christian Century: An Examination of the Ideas of American Christians from 1880-1920 (p. 69) does not even mention the heresy of Modernism or that major denominations, such as the Catholics (Pius X), Orthodox Presbyterians (John Gresham Machen) and Lutherans (Charles Porterfield Krauth) had denounced and fought against it.  The course description simply says, ‘not all agreed that such an adaptation was a good thing’.  So, with those 11 words couched in a lengthy paragraph, we can conclude that VTS thinks Modernism — a heresy — was laudable. 

Ministerial Studies (pp. 70-73): Emergent Church alert!  Most of the courses here are based on psychology and postmodernism instead of developing a ministry in line with that of St Paul and the Apostles (i.e. straight preaching, hard sayings, Church purity).

- CED 513 – Christian Formation and the Emerging Church (pp. 70-71) will include meeting the great man himself, Brian McLaren.  Students will also have the opportunity to hear Phyllis Tickle speak. Talk about giving licence to heresy.  Dangerous ground, this.

- CED 565 – Youth Ministry (p. 72) is likely to disappoint lay parents reading the course description which includes ‘vibrant ministries with young people that are theologically and culturally appropriate’.  Christian video games, perhaps?  Anything but the Bible and leadership.

- CED 573 – The Graceful Challenge of Children in the Church (p. 72).  They meant ‘gracious’ not ‘graceful’.  A somewhat careless mistake.

Field Education (pp. 73-74): Extensive.

Pastoral Theology (pp. 74): Two courses on conducting one’s life as a priest and performing significant offices for congregants.

Theology and Practice of Ministry (pp.74-78): Covers the practical and grim realities priests face once they are ordained as well as the problems their congregations experience.  However, please note:

- TPM 628 – The Seven Deadly Sins (p. 76) does not mention ways of encouraging congregants to repent of serious sin.  As one would expect, ’”contemporary sins” of racism, sexism, and classism‘ are bolted on, which probably receive more emphasis than the Seven Deadlies.  This is why you only hear in church about ‘contemporary sins’, not sins that could deprive you of the Kingdom of Heaven.

- TPM 635 – Church Planting (p. 76) teaches that by letting old, perfectly good church buildings go to waste, you move on, go elsewhere and reach new, relevant congregations.  A dog whistle for ’younger, more attractive and diverse people instead of the old, faithful crusties who are only going to die, anyway’.

- TPM 663 – Advanced Pastoral Leadership (p. 78) will teach seminarians how to become community organisers!  I bet the instructor says, ‘Jesus was the first community organiser.  Go and do likewise.’  Also dangerous is this phrase: ‘practice strategies for changing organizational culture’.  Rick Warren and Purpose-Driven Church alert? 

Church Music (pp. 78-80): Extensive.  But note:

- MUS 605 – Selected Topics in Church Music (p. 79) lauds ‘the current hymn explosion’.  Yes, and as I was taught, we should strive for ’quality not quantity’. Also, our Episcopalian brethren at VTS are looking to the ELCA for musical inspiration.  

- MUS 606 – Eucharistic Liturgical Planning (p. 79) instructs students on designing a liturgy that is ’both faithful to the tradition of the Prayer Book and creative’, which explains why you can’t get a straightforward, traditional service anymore.

Homiletics (pp. 80-82): Extensive.  However:

- HOM 605 – Preacher as Artist (p. 80) teaches students how to expand their repertoire by using ‘other art forms’ — cue liturgical dance.  Another reason why you can’t get a straighforward service anymore.  ‘But, Churchmouse, everyone loves these new and relevant services.’  Oh, yes, sorry, I forgot.

- HOM 606 – Performing and Preaching Paul’s Letter to the Phillipians (p. 81) is similar to HOM 605.  Were those letters performed?  I don’t recall reading Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible saying that.  I have never read of Presbyterians and the Reformed churches saying that.  I’ve never heard of ‘performing’ St Paul’s letters before.  If anyone has information on this, please let me know.

- HOM 611 – Preaching Social Justice (p. 81) confirms suspicions that preaching on sin and what the Gospel actually says is so outré!  See TPM 628 – The Seven Deadly Sins above.  I’m rapidly losing the will to live.

Liturgics (pp. 82-83): Not a sausage about the Book of Common Prayer in the 16th and 17th centuries. Nothing at all about the 1928 Prayer Book in the United States. These courses cover only the 1979 Prayer Book.  Frightful.

Christian Ethics (pp.83-84) covers no historic writing, e.g. the Didache, or Scripture for handling moral dilemmas such as certain modern medical advances or the termination of life. 

- ETH 620 – Other Anglican Thought (p. 83) explores ethical teaching and principles from sources ‘other than the “Anglican Divines”‘.  Why?  Sources include such Anglican luminaries such as William Stringfellow, Kwok Pui-Lan, Gene Rogers and Carter Heyward.  Who are they? Well, it turns out that Carter Heyward was one of the first women to be ordained in the Episcopal Church.  She is the Howard Chandler Robbins Professor Emerita at Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Does that elevate her to Anglican Divine level?

- ETH 627 – Introduction to Anglican Thought (p. 84) comes after Other Anglican Thought?  Why?  Why doesn’t it include Anglicans from Cranmer’s time through the 19th century, e.g. John Charles Ryle?  Why would Wesley be included in both ETH 620 and ETH 627 when he went on to become an Arminian?  Something is wrong here.

Contemporary Society (pp. 84-85): a variety of postmodern courses with the usual gnostic language such as ‘God’s island home’ (what — Earth?), ‘vision a future ministry’, ‘helping process’, ‘immersions’ (not about Baptism) and more. Students will also have the opportunity to become involved with community activists (CTS 629 – Christian Social Ministry: Immersion in Urban Ministry). Execrable.

Global Christianity – Mission and World Religions (pp. 85-88): A history and examination of other world faiths. Includes actual mission work overseas in some courses, so good in that respect. However, it relies on 21st century thinkers such as Rowan Williams for answers (GCM 553 – The Finality of Christ) and, in doing so, may compromise the inspirational and awesome (classical sense) power of the Great Commission.

Religion and Culture (pp. 88-91): particularly galling as it posits artists as theologians, not the inspiration of the Holy Trinity on artists and their work. This section sickened me as I read each course description, including, but hardly limited to:

- RCL 519 – Anglican Spirituality in Modern Poetry (p. 88) teaches students to pray 20th century poetry.  Wonderful.  More time wasted that could have been spent on the Bible, the 39 Articles and the Doctors of the Church.

- RCL 525 – The Artist as Theologian (p. 88) justifies itself on a Dorothy Sayers quote about artists communicating in their own way truths which are identical to those of theologians.  Hmm.  Very pomo.

Theological Studies (pp. 91-94): delves into the mystical and New Age types of prayer, spiritual direction and reconciliation.  Note that there is only one course here on Systematic Theology (and a partial one at that — STH 510 – The Work of Jesus Christ and His Community), which in the Reformed tradition, covers several courses. as well as the following pet topics:

- STH 610 – Feminist Theology (p. 92) combines European and Hispanic women’s studies with Christology.  An incomprehensible combination.  The mind boggleth.

- STH 611 – The Hope of the Poor (p. 92) teaches more about liberation theology worldwide.  It’s a good thing, remember.

- STH 615 – Remembering the Needy (p. 92) has more of STH 611 – The Hope of the Poor.  More time wasted that could have been spent on Systematics!

VTS courses met my low expectations.  It’s sad that none of this comes as a surprise.  However, the fact that these courses exist goes some way in explaining why our churches are emptying.

More on another seminary soon.  Believe me, there’s worse to come.

Michael Voris does what Catholic clergy should be doing

Just tuned in to some of the June 2010 episodes of The Vortex for RealCatholicTV.  Notre Dame alum Michael Voris is rightly concerned about the number of Catholics who are disillusioned about the social justice ‘gospel’ which a number of bishops and priests are pushing.  He is also actively evangelising in private, responding to requests from Catholics who are asking him for help in recovering their faith. 

It’s very sad that one layman must seek another out for spiritual help!  When I was growing up, the priests were the first ports of call.  However, modernism and postmodernism have really sunk in to the point where many Catholics — and not just in the US but in other countries — aren’t sure where to turn. 

Having said that, isn’t it great that a layman is stepping up to the plate to help his fellow Catholics? 

Voris broadcasts from Rome, where he says many clergy and hierarchy understand the problem.  Many young people entering religious vocations also understand:

Voris, back in the US from Rome, tells us how the social justice mantra is overriding Catholic teaching and the Great Commission:

He also examines the love-in between American bishops and the Democratic Party:

   

Catholics working for truth and fidelity to God and His Son Jesus Christ are not ‘divisive’ (as some priests say); they’re doing what they need to do.  It’s a pity that many clergy don’t realise it.

Randall Niles: A former atheist speaks

Hats off to Deborah Grace at A Gospel of Grace for recommending this compelling four-minute video on postmodernism from Randall Niles, more about whom after the video sequence:

Randall Niles is a brainiac former corporate lawyer who rediscovered his faith when his mother was diagnosed with breast cancer.  In order to come to grips with this event, Mr Niles underwent an extensive period of soul-searching and objective investigation of the purpose of life and death.  He wanted to see what the founders of the world’s main religions said.

Keep in mind that Mr Niles has degrees from Georgetown, Oxford and Berkeley in various disciplines.  He worked as a corporate lawyer in Silicon Valley when it was at its peak.  Even before he started university, he had already ditched the Christianity of his childhood for empirical evidence, logic and fact. He based his personal behaviour through social contracts with his family and his employers.  No faith-influenced thinking anywhere.

That is, until his mother became seriously ill.  The Bible was on his reading list.  Like many of us, he had never really read it before.  When he did, it was a revelation (no pun intended).  I encourage you to please view his 16-minute, two-part video testimony, which is impeccably delivered, as befits a lawyer.  It’s called ‘What Happened to Me?’

Part 1 of 2:

Part 2 of 2:

Mr Niles is now a lecturer at Colorado Christian University on philosophy, business, law and ethics. He has written books about his Christian journey and is available to speak to church groups and conferences.  He is married with three children.

Unbelievable — World Cup to air in UK churches

Okay, to be fair, not every Protestant church in the UK will broadcast the World Cup, but some are planning on doing so.  And, even one is too many.

You know, I thought about this a year or two ago when Fresh Expressions launched.  Check out my posts at the link.  This is the nationwide scheme whereby church can be anywhere.  And church can be anything you’d like it to be.  Talk about tickling itching ears!

So, what do I see just before the World Cup starts?  An article in the Telegraph: ‘Churches to lure men back into pews by showing World Cup matches’.  Oh, my giddy aunt (as we say in the UK), you couldn’t make it up.

It’s not Fresh Expressions this time who are responsible but an organisation called Christian Vision for Men.  If you go to their ‘About’ page (at the link), you’ll see the motto is ‘Equipping the church to introduce every man to Jesus Christ’.  That sounds great — heaven knows we need that sort of work.

Now back to the Telegraph article:

In order to entice them back into the pews, the campaign group is asking vicars to show the World Cup on big screens above the pulpit and even serve beer while the football tournament is on.

Carl Beech, General Director of the CVM and a Baptist minister, said: ‘The World Cup is when pretty much every bloke in the country bonds over a common goal…’

Revd Beech says:

‘The problem has become male culture versus church culture. Too many sermons talk about Jesus’ love, compassion and grace which are great but not male concepts.

‘Men want to know about his great decision-making and leadership. That is what they recognise.

‘Churches are very pastorally driven whereas blokes are looking for decisions not discussions. The breakdown in most churches is now 70 per cent women to 30 per cent men.’

Well, whose fault is that?  If the preaching weren’t so postmodern (check out the Christian Vision for Men photographs — very emergent church), guys would still be in the pews for a church service instead of (shudder) a football game.  Notice that he uses the word ‘now’ in his last sentence.  It implies that, somewhere along the line, a fair number of British men were going to church regularly.  So, what happened? 

He thinks it’s because of hymns like ‘Amazing Grace’.  I can assure you that it isn’t.  Men love that song — it’s played everywhere, especially on bagpipes.  The blokes I know want a bit more fire and brimstone: a ‘tell me what I’m doing wrong and how to make things right’ approach.  Judging from Christian Vision for Men, they aren’t the ones to tell them.  No, they want to use God’s house to show a football game and serve as a venue for a knees-up.  Please don’t! 

Does Christian Vision for Men seriously think that men going to watch a World Cup match — and drinking beer — in church one day are going to return later for a service?  What if they bring along a six-pack?  In that case, I would love to be in a nearby mousehole when the fun starts between a metrosexual pastor and a macho bloke passing time in a pew on Sunday morning waiting for the pub to open.

Good luck with that one. Needless to say, some C of E clergy are on board with the idea, like the Right Revd Wallace Benn, the Bishop of Lewes. 

I hope my fellow Britons have better sense than to accept such an invitation.

More on the Frankfurt School and society today

Earlier this week when assembling the research for this post, I browsed the UK news online.

What did I find?  According to the Times (UK), the outgoing Labour government was

pursuing a “scorched earth policy” before the general election, leaving behind billions of pounds of previously hidden spending commitments.

The newly discovered Whitehall “black holes” could force even more severe public spending cuts, or higher tax rises, ministers fear.

Vince Cable, the [Liberal Democrat] business secretary, said: “I fear that a lot of bad news about the public finances has been hidden and stored up for the new government. The skeletons are starting to fall out of the cupboard.”

The new cabinet has been discovering previously unknown contracts and uncosted spending commitments left by their spendthrift predecessors.

So, not much concern from Labour for their electorate among honest, working class people — the ones they’re supposed to represent.  Dishonest.

Then I read about the Labour leadership contest, namely the two front runners, the Miliband brothers, Ed and David.  I looked up their late father Ralph.  He founded The Socialist Register and is buried near Karl Marx in Highgate Cemetery.  Apparently, he became an active Marxist whilst studying in northwest London after his arrival from Poland during the Second World War.  Hmm. 

Well, news and history items such as these may elicit a non-response from the public.  Yet, they show the socialistic scope creep of our time.  Yesterday, I introduced the Frankfurt School Institute for Social Research to those who might not know about it.  Today, we look at its effects on late 20th century and early 21st century society.

First, you might wonder why we didn’t see it coming.  Participating in a 1996 panel on academic reform, the conservative thinker Gertrude Himmelfarb, Professor Emeritus at CUNY’s Graduate Center, explained:

that it slipped past those traditional academics almost unobserved until it was too late.  It occurred so ‘quietly’ that when they ‘looked up,’ postmodernism was upon them with a vengeance.  “They were surrounded by a tidal wave of faddish multicultural subjects such as radical feminism, deconstructed relativism as history and other courses” which undermine the perpetuation of Western Civilization.  Indeed, this tidal wave slipped by just as Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt School had envisioned — a ‘quiet’ revolution.  A revolution that could not be resisted by force.

Those Frankfurt School luminaries who remained in the United States after the Second World War became American citizens.  In order to further their message, they took great care in using verbiage that would not offend mainstream America.  They said nothing about ‘revolution’, only ‘tolerance’ and ‘change’. 

Here are more ways in which the Frankfurt School influenced us directly or indirectly:

- Popular psychology: In order to free us of our ‘hang-ups’, mass psychology took hold.  One of the most oft-heard questions of our time is ’Have you considered therapy?’  Again, we see the Marxist preoccupation with mental disorders.

- Postmodernism: Our world seems to be full of people like the postmodernist Hayden White. He discounted documented history, labelling it ‘authoritarian’:

Historical narratives…are verbal fictions, the contents of which are more invented than found … reinforce the proposition that truth and reality are primarily authoritarian weapons of our times.

And this is the crux of postmodernism: truth is authoritarian.  Hence, the relativism in which we find ourselves today: ‘My truth is just as valid as yours.’  Whose truth is the truth?  Only that of the revisionists who promote the left-wing agenda. The goal is to cut current and future generations off from the culture their ancestors knew and loved. In this way, we can be remade to think differently. So, you probably won’t be surprised to find that almost all of the people who either developed or advanced the concept of postmodernism are Marxists.  But I digress.

- Family breakdown: The nuclear family is disappearing into single-parent households or morphing into a hydra of step-partners, step-grandparents, step-cousins and so forth.  Socialists like this because it means the state has more influence over what goes on at home.  Never mind the increased crime rates, lack of traditional role models, absentee parents and the like.  This is all right because state-appointed ‘experts’ can then dictate to us. 

The Frankfurt School influenced this through the ‘gender’ and ‘generation’ gaps, which never existed before in such a universally well-publicised way. Dr Gerald L Atkinson quotes the Institute for Social Research:

Even a partial breakdown of parental authority in the family might tend to increase the readiness of a coming generation to accept social change.

- Women: And speaking of the gender gap, William Z Foster was a long-time General Secretary of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA).  This is what he had to say about women in the home:

The so-called freedom of the American woman is a myth. Either she is a gilded butterfly bourgeois parasite or she is an oppressed slave.

‘The Russian woman is free economically, and this is the foundation of all her freedom. Every field of activity is open to her. She is to be found even in such occupations as locomotive engineer, electrical crane operator, machinist . . .  

- Sex: Of sexual roles and relationships, Frankfurt’s Eric Fromm believed that:

… sex was more often tied to hatred and destruction.  Masculinity and femininity were not reflections of ‘essential’ sexual differences, as the romantics had thought.  They were derived instead from differences in life functions, which were in part socially determined.

Herbert Marcuse, also of the Frankfurt School, advised university students to:

Make love, not war!

Do your own thing.

If it feels good, do it.

Those of us of a certain age will remember those rallying cries from the late 1960s protests and hippiedom.  Marcuse, often quoted at the time, was the guy in the background who really made that period of modern history both memorable and shocking.

- Family courts: In a review of Stephen Baskerville’s book, Taken into Custody, author Joseph A D’Agostino notes:

… what most do not know, even if they follow family issues, is that our family courts are nearly all-powerful, unaccountable star chambers that openly reject due process, traditional legal rights and the Constitution itself. Family courts are civil courts or courts of equity, not criminal courts, so most constitutional protections and procedures do not apply, even though these courts have been given tremendous power. They routinely take couples’ children away from them without trial on the flimsiest accusation of abuse from a teacher or neighbor, limit or eliminate one or both parents’ contact with their own children after divorce without any evidence of wrongdoing on the parents’ part, order parents to pay the fees of lawyers and psychotherapists they did not hire, and send parents to jail without a hearing.

- Sensitivity training:  This is a psychological technique which goes under various names depending on the subject matter.  University students are often required to undergo diversity training as part of first-year orientation.  Those of a certain demographic pass the course when they feel too guilty to be alive, even when there is no real justification for that guilt.  Sensitivity training may also form part of a management training course in either the public or private sector.  Dr Atkinson says:

It is of interest to note that the ‘sensitivity training’ techniques used in our public schools over the past 30 years and which are now employed by the U.S. military to educate the troops about ‘sexual harassment’ were developed during World War II and thereafter by Kurt Lewin and his proteges.  One of them, Abraham Maslow, was a member of the Frankfurt school and the author of ‘The Art of Facilitation’ which is a manual used during such ‘sensitivity’ training.  Thereby teachers were indoctrinated not to teach but to ‘facilitate.’  This manual describes the techniques developed by Kurt Lewin and others to change a person’s world view via participation in small-group encounter sessions.

- Education: Teachers aren’t there to impart knowledge but to allow and encourage the students’ self-expression and independence. Dr Atkinson notes:

Teachers were to become amateur group therapists.  The classroom became the center of self-examination, therapeutic circles where children … talked about their own subjective feelings.  This technique was designed to convince children they were the sole authority in their own lives.

Many parents perceive that state teachers and school boards place more emphasis on sex education than the three Rs.  Students are expected to sacrifice personal safety for the sake of tolerance of a minority of violent students who take over the classroom and play areas.  Dress codes and traditional norms of behaviour have disappeared.   

- Music: Theodor Adorno, a primary member of the Frankfurt School, was a trained musician and keen analyst of popular culture.  He connected melodic and classical music with capitalist and bourgeois oppression, advocating what was known at the time as ‘avant garde’ art and music.  Adorno wrote:

What radical music perceives is the untransfigured suffering of man… The seismographic registration of traumatic shock becomes, at the same time, the technical structural law of music. It forbids continuity and development. Musical language is polarized according to its extreme; towards gestures of shock resembling bodily convulsions on the one hand, and on the other towards a crystalline standstill of a human being whom anxiety causes to freeze in her tracks … Modern music sees absolute oblivion as its goal. It is the surviving message of despair from the shipwrecked. 

- Art: In the 1930s the CPUSA received instructions from Moscow on the subject of art. They advocated promoting ugly, non-representational art forms in an effort to blight aesthetics and dull our innate appreciation of beauty.  This may seem like a small detail to those who are not interested in art, but, over time, it has an important effect on the psyche. An essay, ‘Gramscian Damage‘, explains:

The explicit goal was to erode the confidence of America’s ruling class and create an ideological vacuum to be filled by Marxism-Leninism.

Adorno and his fellow Frankfurt colleagues had also picked up on the value of modern art:

This view of modern art as producing truth only through the negation of traditional aesthetic form and traditional norms of beauty because they have become ideological is characteristic of Adorno and of the Frankfurt School generally. It has been criticized by those who do not share its conception of modern society as a false totality that renders obsolete traditional conceptions and images of beauty and harmony.

And, so, as another member of the Frankfurt School’s Institute for Social Research, Max Horkheimer, said:

The Revolution won’t happen with guns, rather it will happen incrementally, year by year, generation by generation. We will gradually infiltrate their educational institutions and their political offices, transforming them slowly into Marxist entities as we move towards universal egalitarianism.

The Frankfurt School’s influence is most clearly embodied in the immediate post-War wave of Baby Boomers, who are now in their 60s.  They are the establishment figures of our institutions, whether universities, schools or churches.  Many of these people have not only children of their own but grandchildren.  They were able to have the best of all possible worlds by growing up in America.  Whilst they deride the former ‘American way of life’, many of us can only gaze wistfully into the void hoping and working for its return.

There is so much more that can be said on this topic.  We have not examined television, film, architecture or literature.  However, by now, you now know what signs to look for.  These developments were never by accident, only design.

This week we’ll look at recent news and protests worldwide.

For more reading, see:

‘What is the Frankfurt School?’  

‘The Frankfurt School and Cultural Marxism: A Primer’

‘The Communist Plan for American Women’ 

‘Children of the State’

‘Anticommunism and Modern Art’

‘Modern Art as Communist Subversion’

‘Gramscian Damage’

‘The Origins of Political Correctness’ (also features more on individual Frankfurt School members)

Introducing the Frankfurt School

You might not be familiar with the name, but you will certainly know of the effect this group of professors has had on 20th century Western society.  Before we look at just who they were, let’s look at ideas and quotes that helped develop their Marxist worldview:

- Karl Marx advocated a ‘community of women’ in his Communist Manifesto.   

- Friedrich Engels promoted matriarchy in ‘The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State’.

- Wilhelm Wundt, who largely devised the methodology used in behavioural psychology, proposed in the 1870s that man was nothing more than an animal and, as such, could not control his impulses.  He believed that children could be trained only through a stimulus-response approach via the nervous system.

- A group of intellectual socialists founded the Fabian Society in London in 1884. Its goal was to gradually transform society through left-wing ideology; Fabians founded the London School of Economics in 1895 and Britain’s Labour Party in 1900.

- Georg Lukacs, as Deputy Commissar for Culture in the short-lived Bolshevik Bela Kun regime in Hungary in 1919, set about de-Christianising the nation and sexualising its children.   

Needless to say, much thought and activity abounded between the mid-1800s, giving rise to Modernism and Communism, which would see its fruition in 1917 and the development of a Soviet state.  Pope St Pius X and some Protestant theologians, such as the Lutheran Charles Porterfield Krauth and the Presbyterian John Gresham Machen, condemned Modernism.  Pius X declared it a heresy in 1907 and advised Catholics to avoid joining labour organisations which went against Church teaching. 

After the Soviet state took root, Marxists and Communists in the West were confused as to why other countries weren’t undergoing similar transformations.  Antonio Gramsci was one of these.  His contemporaries in Germany at the University of Frankfurt am Main (on the Main River) wondered similarly.  Gramsci and this group of Marxist professors at the University’s Institute for Social Research would independently theorise how to advance Marxist praxis (practice) in Western society. 

But, before we look at the Frankfurt School, let’s study another contemporary of the period, Georg Lukacs.  Almost 20 years before the publication of Gramsci’s Prison Notebooks, which advocated a de-Christianised and totally transformed culture comprised of criminals, women and racial minorities, Lukacs had already implemented these in what was up to that time, a highly traditional Hungary.  Linda Kimball explains in her essay on Cultural Marxism for American Thinker:

Reasoning that if Christian sexual ethics could be undermined among children, then both the hated patriarchal family and the Church would be dealt a crippling blow. Lukacs launched a radical sex education program in the schools.  Sex lectures were organized and literature handed out which graphically instructed youth in free love (promiscuity) and sexual intercourse while simultaneously encouraging them to deride and reject Christian moral ethics, monogamy, and parental and church authority.  All of this was accompanied by a reign of cultural terror perpetrated against parents, priests, and dissenters. 

Hungary’s youth, having been fed a steady diet of values-neutral (atheism) and radical sex education while simultaneously encouraged to rebel against all authority, easily turned into delinquents ranging from bullies and petty thieves to sex predators, murderers, and sociopaths.

Gramsci’s prescription and Lukacs’ plans were the precursor to what Cultural Marxism … later brought into American schools.

 

Lukacs was a primary influence, along with Marx, Hegel, Freud, Kant and others on the Frankfurt School.  These social theorists, some of whom were only loosely affiliated with each other, had in common a strong desire for social change.  Many of their influences and much of their work was based on countering the positive aspects of Western society.  Their approach was a fluid one to counter their opponents.  If an argument supported Marxism, they called it logical.  If an argument supported capitalism or maintaining the status quo, they termed it illogical.  Opponents were termed mentally unstable.  Eventually, ideas put forth by the Frankfurt School from the Institute for Social Research’s inception in 1923 eventuall evolved into today’s political correctness, but more on that later.

The tradition of thought associated with the Frankfurt School is known as critical theory, in an allusion to Kant’s critical philosophy.  Cultural Marxism, also primarily associated with the Frankfurt School, is the application of critical theory to social matters — what we would see as social engineering.       

By the early 1930s, the Frankfurt School members — principally, Theodor W. Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Ernst Bloch, Walter Benjamin, Wilhelm Reich, Erich Fromm, Herbert Marcuse, Wolfgang Fritz Haug and Jürgen Habermas – realised political change was afoot in Germany.  Adolf Hitler rose to power in 1933 and the institute left for Geneva (Switzerland) that same year.  In 1934, Columbia University in New York City offered the theorists an academic home.  And so, instead of transforming German society, they set about putting their ideas in place to transform American society.  They published a journal called Studies in Philosophy and Social Science.  The articles explored American culture, especially its more populist aspects.  American academe gave the professors a warm and welcome response. 

Linda Kimball writes:

The school was a multidisciplinary effort which included sociologists, sexologists, and psychologists.

The primary goal of the Frankfurt School was to translate Marxism from economic terms into cultural terms. It would provide the ideas on which to base a new political theory of revoltuion based on culture, harnessing new oppressed groups for the faithless proletariat. Smashing religion, morals, It would also build a constituency among academics, who could build careers studying and writing about the new oppression.

 

After the Second World War ended, many of the theorists returned to Europe, namely West and East Germany.  Adorno and Horkheimer re-established the Institute in Frankfurt in 1953.  Marcuse, however, stayed behind in America, where his ideas largely shaped the sexual revolution and student protests of the 1960s.   

Kimball describes this period and its aftermath:

Toward this end, Marcuse-who favored polymorphous perversion-expanded the ranks of Gramsci’s new proletariat by including homosexuals, lesbians, and transsexuals.  Into this was spliced Lukacs radical sex education and cultural terrorism tactics.  Gramsci’s ‘long march’ was added to the mix, and then all of this was wedded to Freudian psychoanalysis and psychological conditioning techniques. The end product was Cultural Marxism, now known in the West as multiculturalism.

In short, anything that represented historical Western culture was viewed as ‘authoritarian’.  Americans — and others — who upheld Western traditions and family values were labelled as intolerant or mentally disturbed:

In 1950, the Frankfurt School augmented Cultural Marxism with Theodor Adorno’s idea of the ‘authoritarian personality.’  This concept is premised on the notion that Christianity, capitalism, and the traditional family create a character prone to racism and fascism.  Thus, anyone who upholds America’s traditional moral values and institutions is both racist and fascist.  Children raised by traditional values parents, we are told to believe, will almost certainly become racists and fascists.  By extension, if fascism and racism are endemic to America’s traditional culture, then everyone raised in the traditions of God, family, patriotism, gun ownership, or free markets is in need of psychological help.

And this is where political correctness comes in.  Kimball goes on to say:

The strong suggestion here is that in order for one not to be thought of as racist or fascist, then one must not only be nonjudgmental but must also embrace the ‘new’ moral absolutes: diversity, choice, sensitivity, sexual orientation, and tolerance.  Political correctness is a Machiavellian psychological ‘command and control’ device.  Its purpose is the imposition of uniformity in thought, speech, and behavior.

In its nihilism critical theory, in turn, promotes political correctness (emphasis in the original):

Critical Theory is an ongoing and brutal assault via vicious criticism relentlessly leveled against Christians, Christmas, the Boy Scouts, Ten Commandments, our military, and all other aspects of traditional American culture and society. 

 

Both political correctness and Critical Theory are in essence, psychological bullying.  They are the psycho-political battering rams by which Frankfurt School disciples such as the ACLU are forcing Americans to submit to and to obey the will and the way of the Left.

 

If political correctness relies on critical theory, then critical theory relies on what is known as cultural determinism.  Cultural determinism is essentially identity politics.  In a Godless world the Frankfurt School and its present-day adherents say we have nothing more to rely on than our physical characteristics and sexual preferences.  Those determine who we are.  Without a God, there is no morality, so we cannot change what or who we are.  This opens the door to postmodernism and all the relativism associated with it, which we’ll look at in Monday’s post.

For now, here is a 10-minute overview (probably from the 1980s) which summarises the Frankfurt School and their influence on American society:

Further reading:

American Thinker: ‘Cultural Marxism’

‘What is the Frankfurt School?’

Frankfurt School

Cultural Marxism