“There’s a historic battle going on now across the West, in Europe, America and elsewhere. It is globalism against populism.  And you may loath populism, but I tell you a funny thing, it’s becoming very popular.”

• Nigel Farage

As of January 31, 2020, Great Britain is no longer part of the European Union (EU).  Britain’s success in parting ways with the EU, what is commonly called Brexit, short for British Exit from the EU, is the culmination of nearly 30 years of work by Britons opposed to the Maastricht Treaty, which the was signed by the U.K.’s conservative government in 1992, making Great Britain part of the EU.

In June 2016, a referendum was held asking voters whether they wanted to remain in the EU or leave.  Despite a great deal of opposition from the establishment, the vote went 52% in favor of Brexit, with 48% electing to remain in the EU.

Although interests dedicated to keeping Britain in the EU worked hard to subvert Brexit, the resounding victory of the conservatives under the leadership of Boris Johnson on December 12, 2019, effectively guaranteed the success of Brexit.

In this post, I don’t intend to get into the weeds of the political process that brought about Brexit.  Neither do I intend to write much about the principle figures who supported Brexit or opposed it.  My aim here is to step back and to view Brexit in its larger historical context, that of conflict between the Protestant Westphalian World Order and the New World Order globalism of the Roman Catholic Church-State (RCCS).

Though very little attention has been paid to the religious aspect of Brexit by mainstream journalism, and though it may seem strange to some to speak of any relationship between the 16th century Protestant Reformation and the 21st century Brexit, this author holds that, not only is there a relationship between the Reformation and Brexit, but that the relationship is a close one.  Indeed, it is not an overstatement to put the relationship in these terms:  No Protestant Reformation, no Brexit.  It’s that simple.

Globalism:  Protestants Oppose, Catholics Embrace            

On January 12, 2017, the Washington Post ran an article titled “Catholics like the European Union more than Protestants do. This is why,” in which political scientists Brent Nelsen and James Guth note the split between Protestants and Roman Catholic over the EU and explain the reasons for this phenomenon.

After commenting that there’s a great deal of skepticism about the role of religion in European politics, Brent Nelsen observed,

But in 2001, we started looking at Eurobarometer data, and it’s very clear that Catholics, controlling for all other factors, favor the E.U. more than do Protestants.  These attitudes were forged in the Reformation, with the development of two different approaches to governance in Europe. Catholics see Europe as a single cultural whole that ought to be governed in some coordinated way. Protestants, on the other hand, have seen the nation state as a bulwark against Catholic hegemony, and they have been very reluctant to give it up, even as religion has become less important.

This is an excellent summary of the very distinct views of international relations held by Protestants and Romanists.  Later in the article, Nelsen expands on this idea,

Catholicism has always been a universal religion.  It was the successor to the Roman Empire, and in Catholic theology and ideology, there’s always been an emphasis on the unity of Christendom. Even today, even though the pope doesn’t claim secular authority, there’s still supranational governance within the Roman Catholic Church. So Catholics have always been very comfortable, even if subconsciously, with the notion of supranational governance.

After the Reformation, Protestants, on the other hand, attempted to carve out areas of religious liberty and caught on to the notion of the nation state. They didn’t invent the concept — it was invented by both sides as they came out of the religious wars of the 17th century — but the Protestants saw the nation state as very important for guaranteeing their liberty. For people in the Nordic states and the United Kingdom, the continent was the source of instability and of hegemony, and that’s part of why they developed a strong commitment to the nation and to national sovereignty — this was really the main vehicle for defense against, first, expanding Catholic control in the 16th and 17th centuries, and then, later on, Napoleon and Hitler.

We can summarize Nelsen’s comments thus: The Roman Catholic Church-State, as successor to the Roman Empire, believes in globalism, in empire building and in a top-down structure of world government, whereas Protestants view these ideas as tyrannical and see the nation-state as a bulwark against them and as a guarantor of personal liberty.

What Saith the Scriptures?

So who’s right in this conflict?  Are Romanists calling for world government – it’s remarkable to this author that, despite the many, open, and aggressive calls for world government by popes and other high officials of the Roman Catholic Church-State, so little note is made of Rome’s push for globalism;  this is true both among members of the mainstream media and the independent, alternate media; it’s as if reporters and pundits all have veils over their hearts when writing about Rome – in the right, or are Protestants who view the nation state as a bulwark against tyranny?

Very obviously, the Protestants have it right.  So where are the Scriptural proofs?  While this author does not claim to exhaust in this brief post all the Bible has to say in support of independent nation states and in opposition to globalist tyranny, it is possible to hit the highlights.

Empires are Monuments to Sinful Man’s Pride  

The Tower of Babel is one early example of man’s sinful attempt to build a world empire as a monument to his own pride.  After the flood, the Lord commanded Noah and his sons, much in the same way as he had Adam, to “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.”  But Noah’s descendants did not obey, preferring instead to stay in one place and to erect a monument to their own pride.  As Genesis 11 recounts, the Lord responded and put an end to their enterprise.  He confused their language and “scattered them [the people] over the face of all the earth.”

In his address on Mars Hill, the Apostle Paul sheds further light on God’s reason for doing what he did to Babel.  According to Paul, confusing their language and scattering them across the face of the earth appears to have been an act of God’s mercy.  Paul explains, “And He has made form one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him” (Acts 17:26-27).

Now “nations” (Greek ethnos) here has a different, though related, meaning to the modern term “nation state.”  Nations, in Paul’s usage, were what we today would call “people groups.”  That is, a nation was a collection of individuals sharing a common ancestry, language and culture.  A nation state, as we use that term today, although not identical to the what Paul meant by “nations”, is a closely related idea.  A nation state, as it’s come to be understood, is the political expression of a particular people group.

To prove this, simply think about the nation states of the modern world.  They have, historically, represented people with a common ancestry, language and culture.  This is not to says that there can be no distinctions among people within a nation state.  But, practically speaking, it appears that there are limits to how much diversity can exist within a nation state before that nation state itself ceases to exist.

If it’s true that God approves of nations in the people groups sense of the term, and it is, it also appears that he likewise approves of the political expression of people groups, what we have come to call the nation state.  This can be seen in the radical reorganization of international relations that occurred in the century following the Protestant Reformation.

The Westphalian World Order  

The Thirty Years’ War and the Treaty of Westphalia that settled it, are among the most important, most positive, and yet among the most forgotten by-products of the Reformation.

So forgotten are the Thirty Year’s War and the Treaty of Westphalia, that probably a large percentage of the American people has never even heard of them, let alone could tell you anything about them.  But if you explain the ideas of the Treaty of Westphalia to them, not only will people generally agree with them, but they likely will say that it’s just common sense.

The Thirty Year’s War took place from 1618-1648 and was a battle between the Catholic and Protestant states of the Holy Roman Empire.  Despite the guarantee of religious freedom within the Holy Roman Empire as a result of the Peace of Augsburg, Emperor Ferdinand II attempted to force citizens of the empire to follow Roman Catholic teaching. The Protestants refused to go along, and the long war, the first pan-European war, one that resulted in more than 8 million casualties, followed.  In short, the good guys won, the papal forces were defeated, and the world has never been the same since.

In a nutshell, the Westphalian World Order is the principle of Mind Your Own Business (MYOB) applied to individual countries.  It may surprise many people, but MYOB is a Christian principle.  For example, in 2 Thessalonians, Paul writes, “For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies.  Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread” (2 Thes. 11-12).

Just as there are people who sinfully want to mind everyone else’s business, so too are there national leaders that sinfully want to mind everyone else’s business.  Such was the case of Rome in the pre-Reformation period.  During the Thirty Years’ War, Rome and her proxies were fighting to continue their long-held traditions of murder, theft and extortion, but received, as it were, a mortal wound from the Protestants.

But Rome, though substantially weakened, never gave up her globalist ambitions.  Today, Rome is an institution recovering from that mortal wound.

The European Union as the Fourth Reich

Students of the Second World War are doubtless familiar with the term The Third Reich (German, Die Dritte Reich), which is what the Nazis called Germany under Hitler’s regime.  The German word “Reich” can be translated as “empire, kingdom, or realm.”

Now calling Nazi Germany the Third Reich implies that there was a First and Second Reich.  So what were these?  In his book Mystery, Babylon The Great I.A.

Sadler identified the Holy Roman Empire as the First Reich (111) and the unified Germany from 1870 – 1918 as the Second Reich (214-216).  The Third Reich was, of course, Nazi Germany which lasted from 1933-1945.

Sadler draws a number of parallels between the Hitler’s Third Reich and the EU, which he calls the Fourth Reich.  To wit,

• The EU’s attempt to create “a collectivist European State, with a single economy and currency are remarkably similar to the Nazi plan in 1942 of a united Europe under the control of Germany,

• The fall of communism in eastern Europe brought about a unified Germany and the eastward expansion of the EU and NATO. A unified Germany has become the dominant force in central Europe, “revealing a disturbing parallel with the growth of the Third Reich” (264).

• Czechoslovakia was split in two with the Czech Republic becoming aligned closely with Germany, mirroring Germany’s occupation of the Sudetenland in 1938,

• “Austria then joined the European Union mirroring the Anschluss with Germany in 1938” (264).

Sadler concludes, “Today, through the Maastricht Treaty, national independence has been virtually abolished in favour of a European superstate, bearing an uncanny resemblance to Hitler’s Third Reich.”-

Reichs Under the Control of Rome

Though separated by time – the Holy Roman Empire got its start in the 9th century under Charlemagne – the four Reichs have this in common, they were/are all collectivist empires heavily influenced, indeed one could argue, under the control of, the Roman Catholic Church-State.

• The Holy Roman Emperor was crowned by the pope.

• Sadler notes that during the years of the Second Reich, “the Vatican progressively aligned itself with Germany, ensuring the balance of policies shifted away from those of Protestant Prussia towards that of a pro-Romanist German Empire, which forged an alliance with the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Austria-Hungary had long been a bastion of the Jesuits and the Church of Rome in Central and Eastern Europe” (214).

• The Third Reich famously signed a concordat with Rome. For details, see Hitler’s Pope, The Secret History of Pius XII by Robert Cornwell.

• The Fourth Reich, the EU, has been widely supported by the Roman Catholic Church-State. Indeed, the EU got its start with the Treaty of Rome in 1957, and the popes of Rome have consistently supported the EU.

Many have argued, and this author is in agreement with them, that the EU, properly understood is really the reincarnation of the Holy Roman Empire.  As Sadler notes, the full name of the First Reich was “Sacrum Romanum Imperium Nationis Germanicae”, The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (111).  Although there were many non-German nations that were part of the Holy Roman Empire, the core of the Empire’s economic and political power was Germany, and the Emperor was crowned by the pope.

[caption id="attachment_5345" align="alignnone" width="718"] Pope Francis and German Chancellor Angela Merkel shake hands on the occasion of their private audience, at the Vatican, Saturday, June 17, 2017. (L'Osservatore Romano/Pool Photo via AP)[/caption]

In like fashion, the core of the EU’s economic and political power is Germany, and the current Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, though nominally Lutheran, is a close ally of the Holy See.

Brexit in Context, A Protestant Victory

With all this history in mind, Brexit can be seen in a new light.  In the opinion of this author, one could argue that Brexit really ought to be seen as the culmination of a sort of second Thirty Years’ War.  Worth noting, is that it took nearly the same amount of time for Nigel Farage and others to bring about Brexit – 27 years – as it did for the Allies to defeat the Catholic forces of the Holy Roman Empire.

In support of this, the idea that Brexit can be seen as a sort of second Thirty Years’ War, let us return to the Washington Post article referenced above.   In response to the question, “Did religion play a part in the Brexit vote?” author James Guth responded,

Yes. If you look at the 2014 European Parliamentary Election Study, in the run-up to the Brexit vote, it’s clear that in the United Kingdom, Catholics were supportive of the E.U., as were minority religions — Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists — whereas Evangelical Protestants were the most critical of the E.U. And a lot of the surveys that were done just before and after the Brexit vote, even though they weren’t very good at identifying different religious groups, found pretty consistently that the more Protestant you were, the more critical you were of the E.U. That may have made the difference: If those Protestants had voted the way the average citizen of the United Kingdom had, Brexit wouldn’t have passed (emphasis added).

When asked, “Is Catholic support for the E.U. a result of explicit church guidance? Or is it simply an implicit cultural value?” James Guth had this very interesting response,

It’s both. The Catholic Church has explicitly supported European integration since World War II. Every pope since the end of World War II has been very supportive of the E.U. In 2014, Pope Francis gave a talk at the European Parliament about the need for the E.U. to rediscover its vision. Catholics are getting cues from the top, even if they’re subtle ones.

It’s the same story with Protestants. In the United Kingdom, you have Evangelical pastors who, on the Sunday before the Brexit referendum, were talking about how leaving the E.U. was the better Christian choice. I was at a conference in Oxford a couple of years ago, and on Sunday, I attended an Evangelical Anglican congregation. The greeter who met us at the door asked me what I was there for, and I explained that I was giving a paper on religion and European identity. He said, “Well, I think you’ve come to the wrong place. We don’t have any Europeans in this congregation.” People are getting cues like this all the time, from the clergy, from others in the congregation. It’s a pervasive cultural force, even if it’s becoming weaker (emphasis added).

Given the history of Roman Catholic attempts to reestablish its hegemony in Europe through support of the EU, and beyond through various globalist initiatives, the Brexiteers successful campaign to pull Britain out of the EU must be seen as a resounding win, not only for Great Britain, but also for all men everywhere who oppose tyranny and love liberty.

Closing Thoughts

“The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who exercise authority over them are called ‘benefactors,’” said Jesus to his disciples, who were disputing among themselves about who was the greatest.  Jesus reminded his disciples that it was the unbelieving pagan rulers who oppressed the people while seeking the praise of men.  Jesus went on to tell them, “But not so among you,” and continued by teaching them the principle of servant-leadership.  It is from this that we get the Christian idea of government as servant.

The application of Christ’s words to our present topic is easy to see.  The secular rulers and popes of our day act with the same high-handed disregard for personal liberty as the ancient emperors and rulers Jesus used in his example.  They pretend to be for the people, but their policies are actually destructive of the best interests of the very people they claim to represent.  Nevertheless, they wish to be seen as benefactors and love to be lauded as such.  This haughty spirit can be seen in the popes of Rome by their support for the EU and in the bureaucratic minions who carry out the EU’s marching orders.

In the opinion of this author, the original vote for Brexit in 2016, the election of Donald Trump that same year, the resounding victory of the Tories and Boris Johnson in 2019, and now the successful completion of Brexit should be seen as God’s grace to the people of Great Britain and the United States.  This is not to suggest that everything about Brexit, Boris Johnson and Donald Trump is perfect and above reproach.

But warts and all, what the people of the Great Britain and the United States actually received, is so far superior compared to what they might have received, and perhaps even deserved to receive, that this author cannot help but see God’s gracious and providential hand at work.

In America, we dodged a real bullet in 2016, coming close to electing globalist Hillary Clinton.  Had she become president, she and her globalist advisors would have quickly gone about the business of importing millions more welfare migrants and creating a permanent socialist, Democratic electoral majority.  It would have been the end of America as we know it.

Had the Brexit vote gone the other way in 2016, had the Labour Party and Jerremy Corbyn carried the election in December 2019, Britain likewise would have been in a very different, and much worse, position.

This author tends to be rather pessimistic by nature, always waiting around for the next disaster.  One could even argue that’s justified given the rapid downgrade in society so evident all around.

But all the bad news should not blind Christians to God’s grace, in their own lives and in broader society.  God is still very much in charge, and always has been.  There is not one thing in all of history that takes place but that he has brought it about both for his own glory and for the good of his own people, who were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world.

The bottom line is this, Antichrist took a good beating from Brexit, and in that Christians can rejoice.

Let us take encouragement from this win, trusting in God to grant us wisdom and strength day by day.

“The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who exercise authority over them are called ‘benefactors.’ “

-          Luke 22:25

In the event you have a life to live and don’t have hours of free time every day to monitor the latest big plans the master-of-the-universe-types have for the rest of us serfs, peasants, and minions, you may be surprised to hear that the great high holy week of globalism has arrived.  It’s Davos time!

What’s that you say?  You’ve never heard of Davos? Well, you just don’t know what you’re missing.  Davos is a town in Switzerland that once a year plays host to the World Economic Forum (WEF), the exclusive annual January gathering of the world’s great and good where they discuss weighty and important topics that you and I can’t understand and make big plans for how to impose their vision of the future on us. 

The Corporate Line

I admit, I haven’t paid much attention to the run up to this year’s gathering.  What tipped me off this time around, though, was all the climate change hype that kept showing up on CNBC, a financial channel I follow regularly.

For example, one recent headline on CNBC read “Capitalism ‘will fundamentally be in jeopardy’ if business does not act on climate change, Mircosoft CEO Satya Nadella says.”      

This is a new take on climate change.  Generally, what you hear from the mainstream media (MSM) is that it’s capitalism itself that is causing climate change and that it needs to be ended in favor of the sort of Green New Deal Marxist claptrap one hears from the likes various American politicians whose names I won’t mention in this space. 

But here’s a businessman - the CEO of Microsoft no less! – announcing to the world that climate change is an existential threat to capitalism.  Adapt or die, seems to be is message.

The article begins by announcing, “The science is clear that environmental sustainability must factor in a corporation’s growth plans, or the capitalist and economic system the U.S. enjoys ‘will fundamentally be in jeopardy.’ “  Now the piece doesn’t say exactly what “science” is “clear” to the point that it requires the radical re-evaluation of the purpose of a corporation as is proposed in this article, but one supposes Nadella is referring to the report put out by the WEF just in time for the group’s 2020 meeting this week in Davos.

It probably doesn’t come as a surprise to you, but about halfway into the article one comes across the obligatory “Orange Man Bad” reference.  You see, unlike righteous CEO’s such as Nadella who care about the environment, Orange Man, “has tapped the brakes on a number of the country’s climate initiatives, such as pulling the U.S. out of the multilateral 2017 Paris Agreement.”

After plowing through a lot of corporate-speak virtue signaling, about “sustainability” and Microsoft’s new “Climate Innovation Fund” we read,   

Microsoft’s CFO Amy Hood, appearing alongside Nadella later in the interview, said the eco-friendly program along with the company’s $750 million commitment to affordable housing in Seattle, Washington “are good returns on investments.”

Reflecting on this statement, author Tyler Clifford notes, “She stopped short of projecting what the return on investment in these initiatives would be, but explained that it will be measured and the company will hold itself accountable.” 

So the Microsoft CFO won’t offer a projection of the return on investment of these “eco-friendly” programs?  Remarkable.  Her silence on this subject should be a big clue.  Not only will the “eco-friendly” initiatives not be profitable, they almost certainly will destroy shareholder value. 

Now one can feel a certain amount of sympathy for Nadella.  He’s the high-profile CEO of a hugely successful company.  As such, he’s expected to talk the talk and walk the walk of the master of the universe types whose good graces he must court.  My guess, he probably doesn’t believe all the sustainability nonsense he talks about.  It’s just the cost of doing business.

The Davos Globalist Line and Antichrist

While Nadella’s comments aren’t openly globalist, another article on CNBC let the globalism behind the WEF report out of the bag.   

WEF has said it aims to assist governments and international institutions in tracking progress toward the Paris Agreement and the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.

The Paris Agreement was the destructive treaty, from which President Trump wisely pulled the US.

The UN Sustainable Development Goals, known more formally as The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, is a formula for international socialism and world government, which unsurprisingly has been openly praised by globalist Pope Francis.

Writing in his 2015 encyclical Laudato Si, On Care for Our Common Home, the current occupant of the Office of Antichrist, Pope Francis, openly called for world government as the cure for the so-called environmental crisis.  Worth noting Pope Francis did so by quoting his predecessor Benedict XVI, who himself referenced his predecessor Pope John XXIII (the Vatican II pope).  Wrote Francis,

Given this situation, it is essential to devise stronger and more efficiently organized international institutions, with functionaries who are appointed fairly by agreement among national governments, and empowered to impose sanctions. As Benedict XVI has affirmed in continuity with the social teaching of the Church: “To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago”.

So Popes Benedict and Francis agree, there is a need, in fact an urgent need, for “a true world political authority.” Even the secular globalists at Davos aren’t quite that open about their plans to rule the world.  But the Antichrist popes of Rome not only say it, but they nearly shout it from the rooftops.  As Jesus said of the Pharisees, “Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.”

It’s doubtful that the masters-of-the-universe at Davos or the UN or in the Vatican really believe the stated goals of the Paris Agreement, the UN’s Sustainable Development goals or the flowery nonsense about “our Sister, Mother Earth” found in Laudato Si.  More likely, they do believe in the unstated goals of these programs:  unlimited power over humanity.

John Robbins on the Ecologers   

As far back as 1972, John Robbins clearly identified the power lust that lurked behind the environmentalists’ mask.  “The ecologers,” he wrote, “do not wish to have dominion over the Earth and subdue it:  They wish to have dominion over men and subdue them” (“Ecology:  The Abolition of Man,” in Freedom and Capitalism, page 561). 

Closing Thoughts

In Genesis 1, God commanded man to, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”  Some theologians call this gift of dominion the cultural mandate. 

Because of the commandment, Christianity has a radically different view of man’s relationship to the Earth than medieval mystic religions such as Roman Catholicism or modern secular movements such as environmentalism.  Christians hold that the Earth is not divine, it is God’s creation, made by him but separate from him.  Man is not part of nature, but rather has dominion over it.  Further, not only is it not wrong for man to increase in number and to exercise dominion over the Earth, but it is positively sinful form him not to do so.  For to refuse to multiply and to exercise dominion is to go against the express command of God himself, which is the very definition of sin.

The globalists and environmentalists of the 21st century – be they secularists like the Davos crowd, or religious like the Pope – stand all this on its head.  Man no longer has dominion over the Earth.  In their scheme of things, it is the Earth that has dominion over man.  Man must serve the goddess Mother Earth and they, her priests, will prescribe the appropriate sacrifices for us.

As did the rulers of the Gentiles in Jesus day, our globalist taskmasters aim to “exercise lordship” over us, all the while positing themselves as our “benefactors,” who are saving us from the ravages of the climate crisis.

But their program is not about benefiting mankind.  It's a subtle attack on freedom, capitalism and Christianity. 

Let the Lord's people hear his Word, let them stand upon it, and let them reject the globalist's wicked counsel.

On 11/28/2019, the Thanksgiving sermon was preached by Pastor Joe Rosales.

The pastor opened the message with the debate regarding the very first Thanksgiving. Traditionally we celebrate the Pilgrims’ Thanksgiving, but there was an earlier Thanksgiving held in El Paso, TX by Catholics led by Spanish explorer Juan de Oñate, in which “a mass was said by the Franciscan missionaries traveling with the expedition” (https://texasalmanac.com/topics/history/timeline/first-thanksgiving). But as Protestants we unapologetically celebrate Thanksgiving with the Puritans, whether they were first or not!

George Washington gave the first national Thanksgiving Proclamation on 3 October 1789:

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor—and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me “to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.” (https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-04-02-0091)

Abraham Lincoln established it as a national holiday during the Civil War:

I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union. (http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/thanks.htm)

The Thanksgiving holiday, however, comes only once a year. It’s occasional. But Christians should always be thankful. The Heidelberg Catechism and Hercules Collins’ Orthodox Catechism distill the Christian life in three words: Guilt, Grace, Gratitude. Christians are called to be a eucharistic—a thanksgiving—people, as James White notes, to “pray without ceasing, in everything give thanks (εὐχαριστεῖτε); for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you” (1 Thessalonians‬ ‭5:17-18‬ ‭NKJV‬‬). We need to take back the true meaning of eucharist from the Antichrist Church of Rome.

The pastor also noted that cheerful brethren generally make everything better and more enjoyable, for “all the days of the afflicted are evil, but he who is of a merry heart has a continual feast” (‭‭Proverbs‬ ‭15:15‬ ‭NKJV‬‬).

Ultimately, God is good. Period. (Etymologically, good in the “Sense of ‘kind, benevolent’ is from late Old English in reference to persons or God.”) And we must be thankful for that, because we were not good, “but God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans‬ ‭5:8‬ ‭NKJV). ‬‬Gordon Clark puts it plainly:

God is neither responsible nor sinful, even though he is the only ultimate cause of everything. He is not sinful because in the first place whatever God does is just and right. It is just and right simply in virtue of the fact that he does it. Justice or righteousness is not a standard external to God to which God is obligated to submit. Righteousness is what God does. Since God caused Judas to betray Christ, this causal act is righteous and not sinful. By definition God cannot sin. At this point it must me particularly pointed out that God’s causing a man to sin is not sin. There is no law, superior to God, which forbids him to decree sinful acts. Sin presupposes a law, for sin is lawlessness. Sin is any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God. But God is “Ex-lex.” (Religion, Reason, and Revelation, in The Works of Gordon Haddon Clark: Christian Philosophy, Vol. 4, pp. 268-69, http://www.trinitylectures.org/christian-philosophy-the-works-of-gordon-haddon-clark-volume-paperback-p-145.html).

The pastor closed with a prayer from William Jay, “For a Day of Thanksgiving—Evening.”

Compassion For Whom?

When it comes to writing about migrant issues, most authors write sympathetically about the migrants, while showing almost complete disregard for the populations called upon to support them. 

While I can have compassion for migrants, immigrants and refugees, what about my fellow Americans?  Are they not much more my neighbors than someone from Guatemala?  Do they not deserve my consideration and compassion?

What about Americans who lose their jobs or have their wages lowered because of increased competition from illegal immigrations?  Am I not to be concerned about them?

What about Americans who are raped, killed, and murdered, by those who have no legal standing to be in the United States?  Am I to turn a blind eye to the suffering of the victims and of their families?

It's amazing how little concern the Roman Church-State and the political, intellectual, and business establishments have for the serious plight of large swaths of the American population, some of whose problems are the direct result of the failure of government officials to provide even a minimum level of enforcement of American immigration law, while at the same time presuming to lecture Americans about their lack of compassion for foreigners.

News flash for those concerned about foreign migrants.  Americans are real people too, and they have real problems and legitimate concerns that deserve real attention.

Charity, as they say, starts at home.

Isn't It Racist To Reject Mexican, Guatemalan and Honduran Migrants?

Although SNL doesn't directly call "racist" those concerned about current US immigration laws, it does seem to make allusions to this idea in various places throughout.  On the other hand, it is fairly common for people to invoke the term "racist" when it comes to anyone who questions the reigning immigration orthodoxy that has done so much damage to this country.  As such, it seems good to discuss the race issue here.  .

If you go back and read through all twelve posts in this series so far, you will find that nowhere does this author bring up the issue of race as a reason to oppose mass, taxpayer subsidized immigration, migration and refugee resettlement. 

The reason for this is, in truth, that the ongoing migrant crisis in the United States and in Europe is only superficially about race.  But playing the so-called "race card" very much works to the advantage of the Roman Church-State and others who are fostering the migrant crisis, because it allows them to define their opponents as evil people and shut them up, or at least prevent their arguments from being taken seriously. 

Much more than being about race, the migrant crisis is about economics and politics.  Even more fundamentally, the migrant crisis is about the theological ideas that support the economic and political philosophy of the Roman Church-State and other globalists who have an interest in creating and sustaining the migrant crisis.

To put it another way, the migrant issue is first and foremost about ideas, ideas which are completely unrelated to race.

Throughout Scripture, the consistent message on economics and politics is capitalism and limited government.  Rome, on the other hand, is all about socialism and tyranny.  And it is this conflict - the conflict between the Protestant economics and politics of liberty and those of Romanist tyranny - that is really the issue at hand when it comes to the migrant crisis.

The Primacy of Ideas

Immigration is one of the more difficult and scary topics to treat, perhaps especially if you're a Christian.  Even so much as raising the meekest question about the wisdom of bringing millions of welfare migrants into the US is enough to get you called nasty names.  This, in itself, is enough to discourage many writes from broaching the subject.

So how has this author managed to overcome his fear of being called nasty names?  By realizing that the charge of racism is really a red herring designed to put people off the scent.

The proper focus of any criticism of immigration is the philosophy that underlies the errant policy.  In any system of thought, theory comes first, then practice.  If one can refute the foundational theory, he also refutes the practices that are built upon it.

In the case of Rome, its migrant initiatives are built on the unbiblical idea of the Universal Destination of Goods.  God did not give the world to mankind in common as the Romanists would have you believe, he gave it to man severally, beginning with Adam who was owner of the whole world and who passed on his property to his children, who passed it on to their children, and so on and so forth down to the present day.

The correct Biblical view of property holds that ownership, not need, is the only moral title to property.  Apart from taxation to support the legitimate, Biblical functions of government or fines levied as punishment for a crime, the state is not to take property from its citizens.  Further, the owner's use of his property, so long as it is lawful, is not to be interfered with by the state. 

The economic and political ideas taught in Scripture overthrow Rome's false teaching on these subjects.  Since  the Universal Destination of Goods contradicts the teaching of the Bible on property, it is false doctrine and is to be rejected.  And if the Universal Destination of Goods is to be rejected, so too is Rome's migrant policy which is built upon it.

The key to cracking Rome's arguments for mass, taxpayer subsidized, nation breaking immigration policies is to focus, not on people, but on Rome's badly flawed economic and political ideas.

The Abject Failure of American Protestant Churches to Teach Christians About the Identity of Antichrist

When reading through Romanist documents such as SNL, I am struck, in the first place, by just how remarkably evil these writings are.  But in the second place, I'm also struck by the fact that American Christians have almost no idea of the depths of the evil arrayed against them in the person of the pope and the organization of the Roman Church-State. 

Beginning over a century ago, American Christians - an I mean even Christians who would call themselves Bible-believing conservatives - have been subjected to a propaganda campaign telling them that Roman Catholics are Christians, Rome is a Christian church and the pope is their friend, their brother in Christ and a critical ally in the culture war.

All of these teachings are false.

Rome is the greatest enemy of Jesus Christ there is on earth.  The Roman Church-State is Satan's masterpiece, an organization that has managed to bamboozle, so it would seem, even the elect into thinking it a true church of Christ, all the while presenting a false Christ who teaches a false faith-works gospel which saves no one.

Or ask yourself, Christian, when was the last time you heard a Protestant preacher preach about the papal Antichrist?  If you are like most 21st century American Christians, the answer is never.

By way of example, consider the Refugee and Immigrant Ministry Resources page from the Presbyterian Church In America's (PCA) website.

The PCA is America's largest conservative Presbyterian denomination, but its Refugee page encourages members to click on links, not only to the USCCB (highlighted above), but also to Church World Service, an uberliberal, very political, anything but Christian organization (also highlighted).

Why, Oh, why is a putatively conservative Presbyterian church sending its sheep into the arms of Antichrist?!  How is it possible that they have so little discernment?

Another, related problem is the failure of Protestant scholars to critically examine Rome's teaching on migration.  In the experience on this writer, it is almost impossible to find any sound criticism of the Church-State's immigration program from a fellow Protestant. 

In fact, this author is aware of only one other writer who has bothered to critique SNL, a pastor from Wisconsin name Ralph Ovadal.  You may read his 2006 article here.

How is it possible for the professing Protestant church to be almost completely missing in action over the past twelve years on this crucial issue, all the while Rome is hard at work promoting its false ideas? 

For my part, I'm ashamed at the sorry state of Protestant commentary on immigration.  Brethern, it's high time that we got in the fight.

In Closing

When undertaking to write a series such as this, I find that, generally speaking,  I have multiple reasons for choosing a topic.  Such is the case for my decision to write once again on immigration.

In the first place, it's a subject that interests me.  Writing is hard work, and if one is to write consistently well on a subject, a certain amount of native interest is a necessary condition. 

Second, it's an important topic.  For a number of years now, immigration quite rightly has been one of the greatest areas of concern to voters.  Presidents and congressmen come and go, as do many of their policies.  But immigration is forever.  A nation's immigration policy has permanent effects upon the country.  If its immigration policy is a bad one, one that serves the interest of a few while harming those of the general population, those permanent effects will be for the worse for that nation's future. 

Third, immigration policy is an opportunity for Christians to separate themselves from the evil ideas and practices of the Babylonian Harlot Roman Church-State and her Antichrist papal head.  The apostle Paul enjoined Christians to mark those who cause divisions and offenses and avoid them.  In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul commanded the believers to, "have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them."

As Christians we are called to mark, to expose and to avoid the doctrines of false teachers.  And as there is no greater false teacher than the Antichrist papacy, so too is it of utmost importance to mark, to expose, and to avoid his false teachings in every area, including in matters of immigration.  Given how much is riding on the issue of immigration, the need to observe Paul's injunction in this area is even more critical than in many others.

Which leads me to my fourth reason for writing this series, which is to hopefully encourage others to do their own research and writing on the topic of Rome's evil immigration policies.  In my experience, the vast majority of the little written by Protestants on immigration is really just warmed over ideas taken from the writings of the bishops and popes of Rome.

Brothers, this is not how things should be.

As Christians, we should be thought leaders in this area.  Instead we find ourselves shamefully begging intellectual bread from the table of Antichrist.  This has got to stop.

Finally, I write what I do because I'm a patriot.  The Lord has blessed us with this wonderful country, but I fear we do not appreciate what we've been given and find ourselves very nearly at the point of losing it.

As a Christian, I realize that this world is not my home, that I'm a stranger and pilgrim on the earth. 

But even so, Christians are called, as were the exiled Jews in Babylon, to pray for the peace of the city.  For in the peace of the city, we, as they did, will find peace. And as was Daniel, so too are Christians called to provide Godly counsel to that end.

It is this author's prayer that this series of articles will contribute to that cause.

(To be continued...)         

In last week's post, we began our look at Strangers No Longer (SNL), a 2003 document issued jointly by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and the Bishops of Mexico. 

As the title to last week's and this week's post indicate, SNL is a subversive document.  It is subversive in at least three ways.  First, in that it is a Marian document, it is subversive of the faith once delivered to the saints.  Several times in SNL, the bishops proudly reveal that the satanic Marian cult of Our Lady of Guadalupe is a key reason for their call for mass migration from Mexico, and by implication, from other places into the US. 

Second, in that SNL is a clarion call for international socialism, it is subversive of capitalism, the economic system of the Bible.  As the Bible clearly teaches throughout the pages of the Old and New Testaments, the ownership of capital goods, that is to say, the means of production, are to remain in private hands.  Further, the Bible teaches that title to property, apart from punishment for a crime, is absolute.  "Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things," said the vineyard owner in Jesus' parable.  Rome, on the other hand,  takes a far different view.

Finally, in that it is a globalist document, SNL is subversive of good government.  SNL is part of the Babylonian Harlot's multipronged, centuries long attempt to reinstate the Holy Roman Empire, this time on a worldwide scale rather than the regional scale she achieved during the middle ages. 

Last week, we looked at the Marian aspect of SNL.  In today's installment, I shall discuss the document's socialist subversions.       

Socialist Buzzword Number One:  The Common Good

When reading through documents related to the Catholic Social Teaching, one quickly comes to realize that Rome's prelates have a strong preference for writing and speaking in buzzwords, "Common good" and "solidarity" being two of their favorites.

Writing in Ecclesiastical Megalomania, John Robbins described the common good as, "the fiction by which the public authorities justify whatever they please to do" (42).  Elsewhere in the same book, Robbins commented, "The 'common good' is the great fiction used by the Roman Church-State to justify government control of society and economy" (187).

Robbins continues,

The Catechism of the Catholic Church points out that "Human interdependence is increasing and gradually spreading throughout the world." The unity of the human family, embracing people who enjoy equal natural dignity, implies a universal common good.  This good calls for an organization of the community of nations able to "provide for the different needs of man...food, hygiene, education...."

All of this is driven by the theological premise that "The members of mankind share  the same basic rights and duties, as well as the same supernatural destiny" (Paul VI, Octogesima Adveniens, 1971).

"Because all men are joined together by reason of their common origin, their redemption by Christ, and their supernatural destiny, and are called to form one Christian family, We appealed in the Encyclical Mater et Magistra to economically developed nations to come to the aid of those which were in the process of development" (John XXIII, Pacem in Terris, 1963) (Ecclesiastical Megalomania,188).

The basic argument of Rome is that, since the human race is one great big happy spiritual family - never mind that business about God's putting enmity between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman - property likewise ought to be shared among all. 

The USCCB lays out in very clear terms the importance of the concept of the common good as it relates to matters of immigration, migration and refugee resettlement.  "In Catholic social teaching," they write, "individuals do not have the right to use private property without regard for the common good" (Catholic Social Teaching on Immigration and the Movement of Peoples).

Since the common good is such an important concept in Catholic social teaching, it should come as no surprise that it manages to rear its head in SNL. "We observe the struggles of landowners and enforcement personnel who seek to preserve the common good without violating the dignity of the migrant" (SNL, 4) write the bishops in error.

The struggle of property owners and civil magistrates in matters of migration is not concerning how to preserve the common good - nowhere in Scripture is the government called upon to do such a thing - rather, it is about protecting the property rights of private owners.  The job of the civil government is to enforce the Second Table of the Ten Commandments, none of which expressly state or imply anything about the common good.

In another place, the bishops write,

The Church recognizes the right of a sovereign state to control its borders in furtherance of the common good.  It also recognizes the right of human persons to migrate so that they can realize their God-given rights.  These teachings complement each other.  While the sovereign state may impose reasonable limits on immigration, the common good is not served when the basic human rights of the individual are violated (SNL, 39).

Here again we see the bishops' error in that they cite the common good, rather than the defense of the property and the lives of a nation's citizens, as the basis for a nation to control its borders.  

One interesting implication of the bishops' words here is that private property is not a "basic human right" in the way the migration is. The right to migrate is absolute, whereas the right to own and use property is contingent. 

This idea that private property is contingent is another major aspect of Catholic social teaching which will be treated below.

Socialist Buzzword Number Two:  Solidarity

Solidarity appears 16 times in SNL, leading one to think that the definition of the term would be relatively straightforward.  But such is not the case. 

In SNL's third paragraph, we are told that the bishops of the US and Mexico have solidarity.  "In the spirit of ecclesial solidarity begun in that synod and promoted in Ecclesia in America, and aware of the migration reality our two nations live, we the bishops of Mexico and the United States seek to awaken our peoples to the mysterious presence of the crucified and risen Lord in the Person of the migrant...(SNL, 3).

"The appearance of Our Lady of Guadalupe to St. Juan Diego revealed the compassionate presence of God reaching out to Mary to be in solidarity with and to give hope to a suffering people" (107), write the bishops near the end of SNL. 

After considering various uses of the term in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, John Robbins concluded that solidarity is, "a vague assertion of ethical and economic collectivism" (Ecclesiastical Megalomania, 151). 

Apart from its use by the Roman prelates, solidarity is a favorite term of secular socialists.  For example, socialist Bernie Sanders is recently reported to have, "urged New Hampshire workers to embrace the labor movement's principle of solidarity."   

New socialist darling Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has called for, "Solidarity with Puerto Rico" as part of her Congressional campaign.

Solidarity is, in short, part of the argot of collectivists.  Especially, it seems, those who belong to what is commonly considered the political left. 

In SNL, the bishops make it very clear that they stand in solidarity, not with the citizens of the receiving nations who will foot the bill for Rome's migrant program, but with the migrants who will impose the tax burden on those citizens.

We speak to the migrants who are forced to leave their lands to provide for their families or to escape persecution.  We stand in solidarity with you...Faith in the presence of Christ in the migrant leads to a conversion of the mind and heart, which leads to a renewed spirit of communion and to the building of structures of solidarity to accompany the migrant...We stand in solidarity with you, our migrant brothers and sisters, and we will  continue to advocate on your behalf for just and fair migration policies.

One of the interesting aspects about the bishops' virtue signaling is that they never mention the costs of all this solidarity.  Reading SNL, one could easily come away with the impression that allowing open migration into the US from Mexico and other points south not only will not be a burden to the American taxpayer, but a positive economic boon. 

In one of the more honest statements on immigration from a Roman Catholic prelate seen by this author, Giulivo Tessarolo, editor of the commentary on Exsul Familia, the Church-State's most comprehensive statement on migration, wrote, "I took cognizance of a significant social fact of our time; that, due to enormous financial implications, the phenomenon of emigration will find some relief only in the English-speaking countries. 

Tessarolo admits openly what the US and Mexican bishops will not: that their program will cost a fortune, which fortune will be borne by the already hard pressed American citizen. 

In short, the bishops get the primp and preen in the international spotlight as if they were great humanitarian benefactors, all the while sticking American taxpayers with the bill.  You didn't expect the Holy Mother Church to actually spend its own money bailing out the migrants, did you? 

As the saying goes, that's nice work if you can get it.

The Universal Destination of Goods

Foundational to all of Rome's calls for socialism - including immigrant, migrant and refugee socialism discussed in SNL  -  is the Thomistic notion of original communism, a concept Roman Catholic thinkers refer to as the universal destination of goods.  "The Church recognizes that all the goods of the earth belong to all people" (SNL, 35), is one very clear statement of this principle.

It probably comes as a shock to many Americans, even American Catholics, that Rome has a very different view of private property than exists in the popular mind of the formerly Protestant West. But Rome has made it very clear that property rights extend only so far.  Ultimately, according to Rome, the only moral title to property is "neither possession, nor creation, nor production, nor gift, nor inheritance, nor divine commandment," (Ecclesiastical Megalomania, 31), but need.

The philosophic basis for the universal destination of goods is the Church's erroneous teaching that, when God created the earth, he gave it to man collectively.  Since private property is the result of later, man-made positive law, and not part of the original divine law, need is the only ultimate, moral title to property.   

According to Rome, if you need something, you have the right to take it.  Yet where in Scripture is there any evidence for this?  There is none. 

Further, there is at least one passage that explicitly teaches the opposite.  "Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry; but if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house" (Proverbs 6:30, 31).      

The thief needed, or at least thought he needed, to steal to satisfy his hunger.  But as this passage makes clear, what he truly needed to do was to obey the eighth commandment.  This is plain from the fact that Proverbs, although recognizing the mitigating factor behind the thief's actions, in no way calls for the thief to be let off the hook. 

When Rome demands that governments of receiving nations take property from citizens and turn it over to migrants, however dire their straights, Rome is an accessory to theft, the migrants who receive the loot are in possession of stolen property, and the government officials who do the Rome's wicked bidding are themselves guilty of theft.  The injured parties are the citizens who are forced at gunpoint to turnover their property to others who have no right to it.         

Closing Thoughts

When the Israelites' journey in the wilderness was coming to a close, Numbers chapter 20 records for us that they came to the border of Edom.  Before entering Edomite territory, Moses sent emissaries to the king of Edom, saying, "Thus says your brother Israel...Please let us pass through your country.  We will not pass through fields or vineyards, nor will we drink water from wells; we will go along the King's Highway; we will not turn aside to the right hand or to the left until we have passed through you territory" (verses 14 and 17).

Note well Moses did not think he had the right to barge into Edomite territory.  This was true, even though the Edomites were a close kindred people descended from Esau (Thus says your brother Israel).

Rather, Moses went out of his way to emphasize that Israel would respect the property of the Edomites - "We will not pass through fields or vineyards;" that is to say, we won't steal your food; "nor will we drink water from wells;" that is to say, we won't steal your water.

If ever there was a group of migrants who would have had the right to pillage food and water, it would have been God's chosen people on their way to the promised land. Yet from the text of Scripture we get not so much as a hint that it ever entered Moses' mind to plunder the Edomites' property.  On the contrary, he went to great lengths to emphasize that Israel would not steal Edom's food and water or make themselves a nuisance.

This raises the question, If Israel did not have the right to plunder the Edomites, what right do Honduran, Guatemalan and Mexican migrants have to plunder the American taxpayer?  And rest assured, plunder they will, all with the blessing of the Antichrist papacy and prelates of the Woman Who Rides the Beast.

The answer to that question is, None whatsoever.

Rome's arguments that migrants have a rightful claim on the property of the citizens of the United States of America is an evil fiction, built on a foundation of the vain imagination of Thomas Aquinas and his scholastic disciples. 

It is high time for American Christians to say so. 

(To be continued...)

Editor’s Note:  This post first appeared on Biblical Trinitarian http://www.biblicaltrinitarian.com/2018/11/is-critical-race-theory-anti-christian.html and is presented here without alteration.  With Critical Race Theory growing in popularity among putatively conservative Evangelicals, author Hiram R. Diaz III offers a much-needed refutation of this anti-christian idea.

Matthew Mullins, professor at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, has a series of articles titled “Is Critical Race Theory [hereafter, CRT] ‘UnChristian,’” in which he seeks to demonstrate that CRT is not incompatible with the Christian faith. The articles form an apologetic defense of the recent utilization of CRT by professing evangelical leaders (e.g. Al Mohler, Thabiti Anyabwile, Russell Moore, and others) who are presently attempting to make “social justice” issues a primary concern for all Christians. This has been the cause of conflict between themselves and other evangelical leaders, as well as their congregants and other like-minded believers, who see such an emphasis on “social justice” issues as contradictory to the central role of the church in preaching and teaching the Scriptures (summarily expressed by the Law and the Gospel), and not engaging in social activism.

The upsurge in evangelical proponents of CRT has led a wide variety of non-CRT evangelical pastors, leaders, thinkers, and personalities to draft “The Statement on Social Justice & the Gospel,” wherein they explain their stance as regards the various “social justice” issues that have been raised by evangelical CRT proponents.[1] Their opposition to CRT is not only due to CRT proponent’s marginalization of the preaching of the Word of God, and their simultaneous privileging of “social justice” issues, but also due to the fact that CRT is derived from the presuppositions and concerns of postmodernist philosophers and social theorists. Opponents of CRT have rightly noted that the philosophical origins of CRT, from which CRT concerns and goals take root, are diametrically opposed to the main beliefs forming the foundation of the Christian worldview. In response, CRT proponents have sought to defend their synthesis of CRT categories, concepts, beliefs, and goals with the Christian faith.

However, the proponents of CRT have not given a biblical defense of the underlying philosophical beliefs which undergird it. This is either due to their unfamiliarity with those beliefs, their desire to avoid having to deal with the contradiction that arises between CRT’s philosophical foundations and the Christian worldview, or their inability to see how the Christian faith and CRT are diametrically opposed at the presuppositional level. This article, therefore, will follow Mullins’ definition of CRT, its core beliefs, and its proponents’ goals. It will then identify the philosophical origins of CRT and explain why it is not only un-Christian but foundationally anti-Christian and, therefore, to be denounced by the people of God.

§ II. Defining Critical Race Theory, 

Its Core Beliefs, and Its Proponents’ Goals

Mullins begins his series by defining CRT. Mullins –

CRT is a complex system of beliefs that emerged in the United States in the 1970s and 1980s to call attention to and redress the subtler forms of racism that replaced the overt racism made largely unacceptable by the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s.[2]

These beliefs are identified in later articles to be the following –

1. “Race is social construct”[3] – This “means that race is a social reality rather than a biological reality. It does not mean that they think that everyone’s skin is the same color. It means that the characteristics we associate with those colors are imposed rather than inherent. Race is something we have invented to organize our world, rather than a product of our DNA. And for CRT, folks with lighter skin have organized the world based on values assigned to colors that privilege themselves and oppress people with darker skin.”[4] 

2. “Racism is Structural”[5] – Mullins explains that for CRT proponents “racism is thus not only treating someone badly because their skin color is different from yours. Racism is a huge, complicated, historical system. It is the very way our world has been organized over time to empower folks who came to understand themselves as white and to subjugate those who fall outside that category.”[6]

3. “Colorblindness is a Problem, not a Solution”[7] – For CRT proponents, “the idea of treating people the same ‘regardless’ of their histories is why racism persists.”[8] CRT proponents argue that “if racism has evolved over time into an integral part of the structure of our society, and if that structure holds some people back and gives others a leg up, then to treat all those people the same is to maintain a status quo that disenfranchises some and privileges others.”[9] 

4. “Interest Convergence, not Pure Progress”[10] – Mullins relays that “Interest convergence is the idea that dominant groups only acquiesce to minority interests when those interests converge with their own.”[11] In other words, CRT proponents believe that at times changes in society affecting racial groups are wrongly identified as “progress” when in reality they have only come about because they changes that are “in the best interest of the dominant culture, not because [they are] truly just, fair, or best for minorities.”[12] 

5. “Whiteness is Normative”[13] – For CRT proponents, “whiteness has come to seem normal over time, making everything else non-normal, or other. To put it another way, whiteness and everything associated with being white has become the standard for how a person should be...CRT criticizes the idea that we can be neutral, objective, or colorblind when it comes to race. If we are trying to be neutral, then we are inevitably reinforcing the status quo, or the norm, and the norm is to live and behave like white people.”[14]

6. “Intersectionality”[15] – As Mullins states, “intersectionality is the study of how different identity categories overlap.”[16] Consequently, “proponents of CRT who study intersectionality typically believe that people living at the intersection of multiple oppressed identity categories face unique forms of discrimination that require equally unique forms of defense.”[17]

These core beliefs undergird the CRT proponent’s activities. CRT proponents see themselves are actively being committed to “expanding history,”[18] which is to say “telling a more complete story of United States history than many of us learned in school.”[19] They also “critique colorblindness,”[20] by “focus[ing] on revealing how stories, laws, customs, and decisions that seem to be neutral, or colorblind, are actually built on assumptions about race.”[21] Additionally, CRT proponents seek to “make the legal system fairer,”[22] “advocate for voting rights,”[23] and “change speech norms.”[24]

§ III. A Necessary Clarification

Having defined CRT, its core beliefs, and its proponents’ goals, we must make a necessary point of clarification. The proponents of CRT represent their stated goals as being in line with the second greatest commandment to love one’s neighbor as oneself, and because of this do not think their views should be called unChristian, let alone anti-Christian. This sidesteps the underlying issue – the fact that the philosophical underpinnings of CRT, from which perceived social ills spring and are identifiable as social ills, are anti-Christian. The disagreement between proponents of CRT and opponents of CRT is not one over whether or not Christians should love their neighbors as themselves. Rather, the disagreement is over the compatibility of CRT, as a post-structuralist-influenced/postmodern philosophical tool for social “change,” and the Christian worldview. The short answer is that they are not at all compatible, although they may share a superficial concern for rectifying some of the social ills we and our neighbors may experience. We will demonstrate this is the case below.

§ IV. The Origins of CRT

When we speak of the origins of CRT, we may be referring to the historical beginnings of the actual discipline or the philosophical foundations upon which CRT has been built. It is all too often the case that proponents of CRT will point to the historical beginnings of CRT when discussing its origins, presumably seeking to distance it from the halls of academia. Mullins does just this in his article explaining the “origins” of CRT, writing –

Critical Race Theory was not born out of a university department. It did not emerge from a political party, think tank, or policy center. It was a natural reaction to the aftermath of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. While overt forms of racism such as discriminatory hiring practices and voter intimidation had been made illegal thanks to civil rights activists, new forms of racism emerged that required new forms of resistance and new forms of legal defense.[25]

By denying that it originated in a university department, and by stating that it was “anatural reaction to the aftermath of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s,” Mullins suggests that CRT is not tied to any particular philosophical worldview. It was a “natural [moral?] reaction” to historical circumstances, claims Mullins, but CRT scholars do not agree. For instance, Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic state that –

As a scholarly movement, Critical Race Theory (CRT) began in the early 1970s with the early writing of Derrick Bell, an African-American civil rights lawyer and the first black to teach at Harvard Law School. Writing about interest convergence as a means of understanding Western racial historyl and the conflict of interest in civil rights litigation (the lawyer or litigation fund wants a breakthrough; the client or her group, better schools), Bell was one of a small but growing group of scholars and minority activists who realized that the gains of the heady civil rights era had stalled and, indeed, were being rolled back.[26]

Delgado and Stefancic are even more specific in their introductory work on the subject, writing –

The [CRT] movement is a collection of activists and scholars interested in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power. The movement considers many of the same issues that conventional civil rights and ethnic studies discourses take up, but places them in a broader perspective that includes economics, history, context, group- and self-interest, and even feelings and the unconscious. Unlike traditional civil rights, which embraces step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including, equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral practices of constitutional law.[27]

Rather than placing the origin of CRT in a “natural reaction” or in some non-academic context, CRT scholars openly recognize that CRT was indeed birthed within the very context of academia.

Critical Legal Studies & Its Discontents: 

Truth and Consciousness as the Possessor and Revealer of Truth

Thus, the origin of CRT lies directly in the work of legal scholars emerging from Critical Legal Studies (hereafter, CLS), a “wing of legal theory,” according to Raymond Wacks, that “generally spurns many of the enterprises that have long been assumed to be at the heart of jurisprudence.”[28] CLS embraces an anti-Enlightenment worldview which rejects many of the core assumptions of the Christian faith, as derived from the Scriptures. For instance, Wacks explains that “the primary purpose of critical legal theory...is to contest the universal rational foundation of law which, it maintains, clothes the law and legal system with a spurious legitimacy.”[29] Rather than viewing Law as originating in the mind of God,

...CLS detects in the law a form of ‘hegemonic consciousness’, a term borrowed from the writings of the Italian Marxist, Antonio Gramsci, who observed that social order is maintained by a system of beliefs which are accepted as ‘common sense’ and part of the natural order – even by those who are actually subordinated to it. In other words, these ideas are treated as eternal and necessary whereas they really reflect only the transitory, arbitrary interests of the dominant elite.[30]

Universal and absolute rules, consequently, were viewed as local and relative strictures imposed by those with power on their subordinates. As Duncan Kennedy explains –

Legal behavior and legal thought, with their prestige and claims to universality and rationality, have an important effect, the Gramscian-type argument would go, in maintaining the hegemony of ruling class people over this influential professional, technical, intellectual sector which administers the legal system. The legal system maintains the social structure of the capitalist state. It requires legal workers and has got to have some way of keeping their loyalty.[31]

Law is a human construct that serves human ends, in other words, and nothing more.

CLS, following Freudian psychoanalysis, also psychologized “legal thought,” identifying it as “a form of ‘denial’...[which] affords a way of coping with contradictions that are too painful for us to hold in our conscious mind...[by denying] the contradiction between the promise, on the one hand of, say, equality and freedom, and the reality of oppression and hierarchy, on the other.”[32] The underlying assumption of Freud’s concept of denial is, we must note, the belief that what is truly taking place in the unconscious mind of man is only perceivable by analysis of his patterns of speech and behavior. What is explicitly identified as the true content of a man’s mind, by the man himself, is to be understood as a socially approved of means of communicating socially disapproved of desires for animalistic “needs” (e.g. violence, sex, power).

CRT: The Fruit of Philosophy,

Not a “Natural Reaction” to Moral Evils

In contradiction to Mullins' claims regarding the origin of CRT, then, it is plain to see the anti-Enlightenment – and by implication anti-Christian[33] – philosophical roots of CRT without much effort.

§ IV. Why CRT is Anti-Christian

1. Reality, Language, and Law – The Christian Worldview

At this point, it should be evident to the reader that the worldview espoused by CLS, and which forms the foundation of CRT and social justice advocacy, is essentially opposed to the Christian faith. Metaphysically, i.e. as regards the fundamental nature of reality, the Scriptures show us that our creaturely reality was brought forth,[34] is now being sustained,[35] will be destroyed, and will be recreated by the Word of God.[36] As the psalmist declares –

By the Word of the Lord the heavens were made,and by the breath of his mouth all their hosts.[37]

Moreover, what God has decreed to come about will not fail to materialize,[38] for God “works all things according to the counsel of his will.”[39] All of creation obeys the Word of God, the command of God that these things should exist and do what he desires them to do. And if the entirety of creation and its existence is under the Law-Word of God, then so are the actions of all men. 

Hence, when Paul declares that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,”[40] he implicitly reinforces what he’s already stated explicitly to his hearers inRom 2:12-16: The same moral Law of God addresses all men. The Scriptures teach us that the work of the Law is written on the hearts of all humans,[41] irrespective of their national, ethnic, cultural, linguistic, or gender differences. The Law of God, therefore, does not see color, ethnicity, gender, socio-economic status, or even age – the Law of God sees guilt or innocence.

God’s rule by Law is evident, therefore, in the governance of the created order, but it is even more so evident in the universal knowledge of God as Creator, Law-Giver, and Judge. According to the apostle Paul, all men know God has created them to obey his Law, but they reject his law. According to the apostle Paul, all men know the difference between good and bad (i.e. righteous and unrighteous) behavior. All men will be judged on the basis of God’s revealed truth, be it merely general revelation or general and special revelation. Psalm 19 aptly articulates the triadic reign of God’s Law over the creation in general (vv.1–6), over all men in general (vv.7–10), and over particular men (vv.11-14). God teaches us that there is a inextricable link between reality, language, and law that reflects the life of our Creator, Redeemer, and Judge.

2. Power is God’s Possession to Distribute as He Sees Fit

The human establishment and exercise of civil laws by words is not a human contrivance, let alone a human practice which originated only a few hundred years ago (i.e. since the Enlightenment period). Man, as the image of God,[42] a prioriunderstands that there is an inextricable link between reality, language, and law. He further understands that law is a legitimate, divinely ordained means of exercising divinely bestowed power. This is hinted at in Gen 2:18-20, in which Adam reflects God’s act of naming creation in Gen 1 by naming various animals brought to him by God. Adam’s exercise of language assumes the inextricable link between reality, language, and law, and it assumes as legitimate the expression of power via legal language.

Adam received power from God, as all men do. For according to the Scriptures, “power belongs to God.”[43] As the prophet Samuel’s mother declares,

The Lord kills and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up. The Lord makes poor and makes rich; he brings low and he exalts. He raises up the poor from the dust; he lifts the needy from the ash heap to make them sit with princes and inherit a seat of honor. For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and on them he has set the world.[44]

And as the prophet Daniel tells us  Nebuchadnezzar likewise proclaimed –

“Blessed be the name of God forever and ever, to whom belong wisdom and might. He changes times and seasons; he removes kings and sets up kings...”[45]

And as the Lord Jesus Christ also declares to Pontius Pilate –

“You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above...”[46]

Rather than identifying political structures of power as illegitimate mechanisms of oppression, the Scriptures identify them as divinely ordained institutions for the well-being of human society. In contradiction to CRT, Scripture teaches us that power does not originate with men individually or collectively. Power is the sole possession of God; he distributes it, on loan as it were, to whomever he wishes, as he sees fit. 

The apostle Paul relays these truths unambiguously in his epistle to the Romans, writing –

...there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.[47]

While we recognize that there are historical events that lead to the formation of governing bodies, we also must recognize that it is God who has appointed these authorities to judge the actions of men and women impartially.

3. Impartiality is Not Impossible, if Properly Understood

From the above, we see that the Christian faith does not sever reality, language, and law from one another. We also see that God has given men the ability to rule by laws expressed in language. It is this judgment by the law of God that can properly be called impartial, seeing as its goal is to glorify God, not to attend to the needs, demands, and desires of any human individual or group. As it is written –

“You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.”[48]

One can only show true impartiality by judging all men by the Law of God. CRT, and social justice advocacy, assume a concept of law that is purely socio-historical, non-divine in origin, and, therefore, identifies all laws as partial by virtue of their being expressed by different individuals and groups. Yet the Scriptures are clear – impartial judgment is judgment according to the Word of God.

4. Biblical Epistemology is Thoroughly Anti-Relativistic

We have already noted that CLS and CRT assume a form of ethical/moral relativism. What the reader should note here, however, is that ethical/moral propositions (e.g. “Income inequality is immoral”) constitute knowledge claims. Ethical/moral items of knowledge are viewed as relative to historically ensconced persons and groups, which implies that truth itself is relative. This is necessarily implied by their doctrine. However, we may further substantiate this assertion by reminding the reader that CRT, following CLS and the post-structuralist/postmodernist philosophers who influenced that school of jurisprudence, axiomatically denies all forms of essentialism. Consequently, CRT reduces categories of being and thought to heuristic tools to be used in the service of achieving whatever ends are in view by CRT proponents. The denial of all forms of essentialism renders all “knowledge” relative to historically ensconced persons and groups. Such a relativized understanding of knowledge, and therefore truth itself, stands in stark contradiction to the teaching of Scripture. 

God’s Word teaches us that what it proclaims to be the case is actually the case. Scripture is replete with examples of this, but here we will offer two that are sufficient, seeing as they are universal in scope.

The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever.[49]

Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.[50]

Given that the Scriptures are the Word of God communicated by various men throughout history, it follows that the truth is not relative to particular individuals or groups. CRT’s assumption that truths are relative to specific persons or groups is not only self-referentially absurd, therefore, but diametrically opposed to the teaching of Scripture regarding the nature of knowledge, truth, and, by implication, man.

5. Biblical Anthropology Militates Against CRT

We again must underscore CRT’s commitment to anti-Enlightenment concepts derived from the Christian worldview. As regards anthropology, what is renounced by CRT is the concept of subjectivity divorced from any particularities of history, ethnicity, language, gender, et al. Whereas the Scriptures teach us that every individual who ever has existed, is now existing, and will later exist is made in the image of God,[51] CRT undermines this by renouncing any concept of “abstract” subjectivity. The contradiction that obtains here is plain to see. Scripture teaches that all persons have an essential nature that makes them human; CRT denies all forms of essentialism, including anthropological essentialism.

6. The Incarnation and CRT are Mutually Exclusive

Christians affirm that the Eternal Son of God, Second Person of the Trinity, became “became flesh and dwelt among us.”[52] He was “made like [us] in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.”[53] This means that “when the fullness of time was come, [Christ took] upon him man's nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin.”[54] Thus, we affirm “that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion; which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only mediator between God and man.”[55] God the Son truly became truly human, sharing every aspect of our human nature in its uncorrupted and sinless state. Hence, Scripture declares him to be “the last”[56] and “second Adam.”[57]

Christ, in other words, is truly God and truly man. The two natures are united in one divine person, implying that the knowledge of the incarnate Son did not differ in kind from the knowledge he possessed prior to his incarnation, nor does it differ now. Knowledge is not dependent upon history, nor is it dependent upon one’s socio-historical conditions; knowledge is God's possession. Neither Christ’s gender, nor his skin color, nor his language, nor his height, nor his hair length, nor his weight, nor his eye color made him possess knowledge he otherwise would not have possessed had he been born, for instance, a wealthy, white Scandinavian aristocrat. The knowledge Christ has as the God-Man is identical in substance to the knowledge he possessed prior to his incarnation. This is a necessary implication of the doctrine of the hypostatic union of the human and divine natures in the Second Person of the Trinity.

Given the doctrine of the hypostatic union, therefore, we must affirm that whatever divinely revealed knowledge we possess is substantially identical to that knowledge as it exists in the mind of God. The true propositions we possess are identical in substance to those which God possesses, and cannot be otherwise, since the Son of God as one divine person with two distinct natures knew, and knows, such propositions as both God and man. This is a reality that contradicts CRT’s relativistic epistemology in which persons and groups of persons have access to truths that are unknowable by other persons and groups of persons differing with respect to historical placement, skin color, language, weight, height, gender, socio-political status, and so on.

CRT and the doctrine of the incarnation cannot be held together simultaneously without contradiction, for CRT implies that there are “truths” that are inseparable from the human particularities mentioned above, but the incarnation shows us that there are no truths that are inseparable from the human particularities of an individual person or group's existence, seeing as the Lord Jesus Christ’s possession of universal and absolute truths was not dependent upon those human particularities mentioned above. Either CRT is correct, therefore, and Christ could not have known universal and absolute truths, or Christ did know universal and absolute truths, and CRT is false. These options are mutually exclusive.

§ V. Conclusion/s

Contemporary Christian proponents of CRT and social justice advocacy are either not being upfront about the academic and philosophical origins of CRT and social justice, or they are ignorant of their origins. If they are not being honest about this matter, Christians have every right to question the veracity of their claim that CRT is not unChristian. Likewise, if the proponents of CRT and social justice are ignorant as to the origins of CRT and social justice, Christians have every right to question the veracity of the claim that CRT is not unChristian. We are under obligation to test all things by the Word of God, accepting what is explicitly and/or implicitly taught therein; we are also obligated to reject what has no basis in the Scriptures.

What we do not have the liberty to do is accept the claims of CRT and social justice advocacy proponents as true without first scrutinizing them in the pure light of God’s holy Word. As is usually the case in church history, proponents of false teaching often claim to be taking the moral high ground by promulgating their false teaching. One need look no further than the so-called “Emerging church” movement just over a decade ago to see this tactic in action.[58] It is necessary for us, therefore, to know whether or not a new teaching or framework for understanding some Scriptural reality (in this case, i.e. that of racism, sins of partiality and violence) is fundamentally, essentially, at odds with the Christian faith. When we do, we will be able to properly differentiate legitimate moral concerns and commands from illegitimate moral concerns and commands.[59]

Having established that CRT is foundationally anti-Christian and, therefore, incompatible with Christianity, indeed contradictory to its main beliefs regarding the Son of God’s person and work, we may better understand why it is that CRT and social justice advocacy mistakenly identify acts of mercy as acts of justice. CRT and social justice advocacy rest upon a worldview that is contrary to the Scriptures at nearly every turn, thus their fruits are equally corrupt. The central issue in this matter, then, is not whether or not the church is to uphold justice, nor whether or not the church is to despise all forms of partiality and embrace persons of all socio-economic and ethnic backgrounds, nor whether or not the Scriptures command us to love our neighbors by showing them mercy and kindness. The central issue is this – Are the Scriptures sufficient, or not?

1 See, “The Statement on Social Justice & The Gospel,” https://statementonsocialjustice.com.

2 “Is Critical Race Theory ‘UnChristian’ Part 1,” Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary,

http://kingdomdiversity.sebts.edu/index.php/2018/10/12/is-critical-race-theory-unchristian-part-1/, accessed October 18, 2018.

3 “Is Critical Race Theory ‘UnChristian’ Part 3,” Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, http://kingdomdiversity.sebts.edu/index.php/2018/10/03/is-critical-race-theory-unchristian-part-3/,accessed October 18, 2018.

4 ibid.

5 ibid.

6 ibid.

7 “Is Critical Race Theory ‘UnChristian’ Part 4,” Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary,
http://kingdomdiversity.sebts.edu/index.php/2018/10/01/is-critical-race-theory-unchristian-part-4/, accessed October 18, 2018.

8 ibid.

9 ibid.

10 ibid.

11 ibid.

12 ibid.

13 ibid.

14 ibid.

15 “Is Critical Race Theory ‘UnChristian’ Part 5,” Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 
http://kingdomdiversity.sebts.edu/index.php/2017/10/26/is-critical-race-theory-unchristian-part-5/, accessed October 18, 2018.

16 ibid.

17 ibid.

18 ibid.

19 ibid.

20 ibid.

21 ibid.

22 ibid.

23 ibid.

24 ibid.

25 “Is Critical Race Theory ‘UnChristian’ Part 5,” Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 
http://kingdomdiversity.sebts.edu/index.php/2018/10/14/is-critical-race-theory-unchristian-part-2/. accessed October 18, 2018. (emphasis added)

26 “Critical Race Theory: Past, Present, and Future,” in Current Legal Problems 1998: Legal Theory at the End of the Millenium ed. Michael Freeman (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 467. (emphasis added)

27 Critical Race Theory: An Introduction (New York & London: New York University Press, 2001), 2-3. (emphasis added)

28 Philosophy of Law: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 92.

29 ibid. (emphasis added)

30 ibid., 95.

31 “Antonio Gramsci and the Legal System,” in ALSA Forum Vol. VI. No. 1 (1982), 36.

32 Wacks, Philosophy of Law, 95.

33 While Christianity does not embrace the Enlightenment ideals of human ethical, epistemological, and social autonomy, it does agree with the Enlightenment’s concepts of rational universality, ontological essentialism, and epistemological foundationalism.

34 cf. Gen 1:1, Ps 33:6, John 1:1-3, 2nd Pet 3:5, Heb 1:1-2 & 11:3.

35 cf. Heb 1:3.

36 cf. 2nd Pet 3:5-7.

37 Ps 33:6.

38 cf. Ps 33:9.

39 Eph 1:11.

40 cf. Rom 3:23.

41 cf. Rom 1:18-19 & 32; 2:14-15.

42 cf. Gen 1:26-27 & 9:6; Luke 20:23-25; 1st Cor 11:7; James 3:9.

43 Ps 62:11

44 1st Sam 2:6-8. (emphasis added)

45 Dan 2:20-21. (emphasis added)

46 John 19:11a. (emphasis added)

47 Rom 13:1b-7. (emphasis added)

48 Lev 19:15.

49 Ps 119:160. (emphasis added)

50 John 17:17. (emphasis added)

51 cf. Gen 1:26-27.

52 John 1:14a.

53 Heb 2:17.

54 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, Ch. 8, Art. 2. (emphasis added)

55 ibid. (emphasis added)

56 1st Cor 15:45.

57 1st Cor 15:47.

58 See Diaz, Hiram R. “Heretics that are Holier Than You,” Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry Official Blog, 

https://web.archive.org/web/20121103061646/http://blog.carm.org/2011/06/heretics-that-are-holier-than-you/.

59 There are several contemporary authors who have provided very useful resources in this regard. See Beisner, Calvin E. Social Justice vs. Biblical Justice: How Good Intentions Undermine Justice and the Gospel (Good Trees Press: 2018), 46pp; Clark, R. Scott. “Resources on the Social Gospel and Social Justice,” The Heidelblog, https://heidelblog.net/2018/04/resources-on-the-social-gospel-social-justice/; Harrison, Darrell B. “The Fault in Their (Social) Gospel,” Just Thinking...For Myself,
 https://justthinking.me/2018/08/31/the-fault-in-their-social-gospel/, and “The Misleading Language of the Social Justice Movement,” https://justthinking.me/2018/05/13/the-misleading-language-of-the-social-justice-movement/; Buice, Josh. “The Broken Road of the Social Gopel,” Delivered by Grace, 
http://www.deliveredbygrace.com/the-broken-road-of-the-social-gospel/; Sey, Samuel. “Social Justice is a Threat to Human Rights and the Gospel,” Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel, https://statementonsocialjustice.com/articles/social-justice-threat-human-rights/; Hall, Amy K. “If We Lose the Meaning of ‘Justice,’ We Lose the Gospel,” Stand to Reason, https://www.str.org/blog/if-we-lose-meaning-justice-we-lose-gospel.

This past week I had the privilege of recording a podcast interview with two new friends and brothers in Christ, Tim Shaughnessy and Carlos Montijo, the hosts of the Semper Reformanda Radio podcast. 

The subject of our interview was a book I wrote - unbelievably for me to think this, ten years ago - titled Imagining a Vain Thing:  The Decline and Fall of Knox Seminary.  As the title states, the subject of the book is about the events that transformed Knox Theological Seminary (KTS) in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a school founded by D. James Kennedy and subject to the session of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church (CRPC), from a school noted for its fidelity to Scripture to an institution that speaks forth quite a different message. 

In the book, I recounted the events in some detail.  Here, I'll give you the short version, which runs something like this:  Contrary to Dr. Kennedy's best judgment, in 2002 the school hired Dr. Warren Gage to teach Old Testament and head the schools new Culture and Christianity program.   Dr. Gage, who had recently taken his Ph.D from the Roman Catholic University of Dallas, had a distinctly unreformed view of hermeneutics and typology, ideas which he had expressed very clearly in his doctoral dissertation.  Further, Dr. Gage carried these ideas over into this teaching at KTS. Although the school officially backed Gage's distinctive, and Roman Catholic influenced, teaching, there was an undercurrent of resistance. 

In May 2007, a graduate of the school approached Dr. R. Fowler White with her concerns about Gage, prompting an investigation by Dr. White into Gage's teaching.  The report resulting from White's investigation concluded, correctly I must emphasize, that 1) Gage taught, contrary to the Westminster Confession of Faith, that individual passages of Scripture have more than on meaning, and 2) he regularly disparaged logic and systematic theology in the classroom.

As a result of the report's findings, the Executive Committee of the KTS Board of Directors wanted to terminate Gage's employment at the school.  This was the correct decision, which it had stuck, likely would have saved KTS.  Unfortunately, the full board voted to suspend Gage with full pay rather than to fire him.  During his time away from the school, Gage was supposed to "contemplate his willingness to subordinate himself fully to the doctrinal standards of the Seminary and the P.C.A.," according to a letter written by R.C. Sproul, Interim Chairman of the Board of Knox Seminary, to the Session of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church.      

But instead of taking time to think about, and repent of, his many glaring theological errors, Gage, a trained lawyer with many years of practice to his credit,  used this opportunity to overturn his suspension by making appeal to the Session of CRPC.  Gage's five years at the school had allowed him to insinuate himself into the KTS community, and, with the help of his supporters, not only was he able to have his suspension reversed, but, quite remarkably, was able to oust all those who had opposed him, both on the Board of Directors and among the faculty. 

After the remarkable events in the fall of 2007, Dr. Gage went on to teach at KTS through the 2013-2014 academic year, retiring from the school in the spring of 2014.  One ironic twist to the story is that during this nearly seven year period, Gage went on to serve as Dean of Faculty at the school that had once seen fit to fire him.

In addition to the book and the 2014 Trinity Review I wrote at the time Gage retired, I have on occasion published blog posts on KTS  (see here, here and here).  But until last week's interview, admittedly it's been a while since I've publically commented on, or privately thought much about, KTS.  Yet after talking to Carlos and Tim, I realized that there are some aspects of my time at KTS that are worth reviewing.  Specifically, I believe there are important general lessons that Christians can take from my experience at seminary and the larger events that upended KTS back in 2007.  I'd like to take this occasion to set them forth.

God is faithful in ways that aren't always immediately clear   

When in August 2006 I uprooted my life to move to Fort Lauderdale and attend KTS, I did so with the intention of studying for the ministry.  It was a goal that I had thought seriously about for a number of years leading up to my decision to attend seminary.  I confess that I was slightly terrified at the thought of making the move, but it seemed that God was calling me and now was the time to act.

When a little over four months later  I found myself packing a U-Haul to return to Cincinnati, I was more than a bit disappointed.  A goal, a dream that I had held for many years was coming to an end, and that before it had really ever begun.    

But on my way from Fort Lauderdale to Cincinnati, I know that I  would be passing through east Tennessee, where John Robbins of the Trinity Foundation lived and worked.  I'd wanted to meet John - I call him John, not to give you the impression that I was part of some inner circle, but because that's how he preferred to be called  - for a long time, and this was the best opportunity that I was likely to get. 

Well, long story short, I was able to arrange with John to stop by his house on the way back.  I parked my U-Haul in a gravel turnaround at the bottom of the street where he lived and a few minutes later, a blue car (at least that's how I remember it) pulled up with John in it dressed in (I think) jeans, work boots, a flannel shirt.  His appearance was more that of a lumberjack than the brilliant scholar he was.  I hopped in his car and road with him the short distance to his house, where we sat and talked in his study for about three hours about KTS.  It was as if I'd known John for years and I'd just met him.

I remember him saying that he was familiar with Gage's work as the KTS website had for some time prominently featured The John-Revelation Project, Gage's magnum opus on typology based upon his University of Dallas doctoral dissertation.  John told me that for some time he had considered writing about Gage's work, which he aptly described as, "Some of the most bizarre stuff I've ever seen."  Coming from John who had founded The Trinity Foundation 30 years earlier and had spent the ensuing decades refuting all manner of strange and heretical teaching, this was saying quite a lot indeed.   

Then came the kicker.  "Would you like to do the job?" John asked me.  "I knew he was going to ask me that!" I thought to myself.  Excited, intrigued and a bit daunted, I replied, "Yes." 

Here I was, some guy with hardly any formal training in theology or philosophy or, for that matter, even a graduate degree of any sort, being commissioned to critique the work of a Ph.D. seminary professor. "God help me," I thought to myself.  And he did.

As a bit of an aside, it's worth noting that John Robbins, among many other admirable qualities, was possessed of a sense of humor.  As I was leaving his basement study and having earlier noticed a New York Yankees pennant on the wall, I commented to him, "John, there's really only one thing I disagree with you on."  "What's that?," he asked me.  "You're a Yankees fan," I told him.  "I've always thought of them as the evil empire."  John got a good laugh out of that.    

Well, by God's grace and with John's editing skill, I went on to write that critique of Gage's bizarre theology, which also ended up being a post mortem on KTS following the blow up in the late summer and fall of 2007.  What had begun as a paper expanded to a book.

When the book came out in, if I recall correctly, late August or early September 2008, it was a bittersweet time for me.  While I was thrilled to see the book in print, I was grieved that John, the man who had commissioned me for the job and who had been my mentor and friend throughout the writing process, had died of an illness just a few weeks earlier.  What was going to happen to his work?  Would it be forgotten?  Would The Trinity Foundation even survive? These questions and others were very much on my mind.  

After some time of reflection and prayer, it seemed to me that the best way to honor John's memory would be, as far as I was able, to continue his work.  But how?  It was then that I began to think of about the then relatively new medium of blogging.  It was about six months after my book was published that I wrote my first blog post on Lux Luxet, a blog that has continued to this day. 

Time would fail me if  I recounted all the blessings that have accrued to me over the years since as a result of the blog.  But the big takeaway that I'd like to leave you with is that God has been faithful to me in a remarkable way that I never could have imagined after my "failure" at seminary way back in 2006.  Dropping out after the first semester, in part because I could see where the school was headed due to its tolerance of Gage and his false teaching, seemed like as disaster at the time.  But - and take it from this natural pessimist - God is faithful to his people and works all things to their good, even if it doesn't seem that way in the midst of our disappointments and difficulties.

Roman Catholic trained professors pose a real danger to Protestant colleges and seminaries 

As I mentioned above, Warren Gage received his Ph.D from the University of Dallas, a Roman Catholic institution.  This was no accident on the part of Gage.  For throughout my semester at Knox, he made it very clear, sometimes in obvious ways, at other times more subtly, that he had a clear case of what could be called papal envy.  As I recall, Gage had on his office door a medieval image of a pope on his throne that was doctored with a picture of Gage's own face. As I said, the man had papal envy, but this was a small thing compared to what he taught in the classrooms of KTS. 

The class that I had with Gage was Old Testament Survey.  Now one would suppose that a class titled Old Testament Survey would be focused on the Old Testament.  But this was not a safe assumption in Dr. Gage's OT class, for in it he aggressively pushed his major work titled The John Revelation Project (JRP) which, as you probably have gathered from the name, was all about the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation.  I have archived the full text of the John-Revelation Project here for your reference. 

In the JRP,  Gage made very clear his dislike of the Puritans and love of Rome.  For example, Gage chided the Puritans, whining, "For it was our Puritan forebears who closed down the Elizabethan theater, fearing the nature of the theatre to explore the comedic imagination, which was suspected (especially in Shakespeare!) of undermining good morals."  Given the gross immorality of Hollywood and the entertainment industry in general, maybe the Puritans concerns about the theatre were well founded, but Gage takes them to task. 

On the other hand, while he felt free to chastise the Puritans, Gage was generous with his praise of the Roman Church-State and sought in his work to rescue the well-deserved bad reputation of this spiritual harlot.  Gage wrote, "On the other hand, this vindication of reformed soteriology against Rome is at the price of falsifying the unilateral and most common historical identification of the whore of Revelation within Protestant circles, which, consequently, becomes five full centuries of slander." Gage had this odd idea that the Babylonian Harlot of Revelation, not only did not represent the Church of Rome, but actually was a figure for God's people who were called from their spiritual harlotry and transformed into the chaste Bride of Christ.  In light of what Revelation says about the end of the Woman Who Rides the Beast - Revelation 17:17 says the woman will be made desolate and naked, have her flesh eaten and be burned with fire - this seems to be an extraordinary leap of logic.       

So you see, not only were the Puritans a bunch of Puritanical wet blankets for shutting down the theatre, but also they were slanderers for identifying the murderous Roman Church-State, an organization that had anathematized the Gospel of Jesus Christ and all who believed it, with Mystery Babylon of Revelation 17.    

That Gage would push this point of view in print and in the classroom should come as no surprise.  What else would you expect a Roman Catholic trained professor to do?  As John Robbins wrote, "Rome realizes what the central theological issue is, and Rome is moving deliberately and effectively to heal the wound inflicted on her in the sixteenth century by the preaching of the Gospel.  Rome apparently is finding plenty of eager dupes - useful idiots, Lenin called them - among the ersatz-evangelicals to accomplish its goal."  And one of those useful idiots was Warren Gage.  

Writing in the most recent Trinity Review, Tom Juodaitis commented, "It's no wonder the church is in the shape it is in this country, including the Reformed churches, because many of the professors at the seminaries which train the pastors have been trained at Roman Catholic and even Jesuit institutions.  I graduated from Covenant College, the college of the Presbyterian Church in America, and their current president earned his PhD in history from Loyola University in Chicago, and his Jesuit priest dissertation supervisor attended his inauguration service." 

After citing my experience with Roman Catholic trained Warren Gage, Juodaitis continues, "A search of the web sites of Reformed and Presbyterian and Conservative Baptist seminaries resulted in finding 16 professors who had Master or Doctorate degrees of extra doctoral work from the following Romanist or Jesuit institutions:  Catholic University of America Washington, D.C.), Loyola University (Chicago), St. Louis University (St. Louis), University of Dallas (Dallas), and University of Notre Dame (South Bend, Indiana)." 

He concludes, "Is it any wonder why the Reformed churches are having problems with the Gospel and moral issues?"  The obvious answer to this rhetorical question is, "No, it's no wonder at all.  In fact, it's to be expected."

Why, oh why, have the churches of the Reformation gone begging intellectual bread from the Romanists!?  Is there no balm in Gilead? Have we not over 500 years of solid Protestant scholarship - from John Wycliffe all the way up to Gordon Clark and John Robbins - on which to draw that we need to seek help from the Whore of Babylon, the Roman Catholic Church-State, to answer the great questions of our day?

Good grief!  When Israel and Judah turned to Assyria and Egypt for military help against their foes, was God well pleased with them?  Quite obviously he was not.  Why then do we expect God to honor our efforts when we go cap in hand to the Tiber seeking the aid of the Antichrist popes and their minions to advance the Gospel or to win the culture war or to stop abortion?  Ecumenism, what is it if not vanity and chasing after the wind?

(To be continued...)