I would like to respond to Duke Kwon’s thread about Neo-Marxism that is making the rounds. Since it was posted on Twitter, I will respond in kind.
The thread rightly notes the defining characteristics of NM that have been observed so frequently of late.
The thread rightly notes the defining characteristics of NM that have been observed so frequently of late.
Specifically, we see the acceptance on the part of many of the fundamental and defining categories of oppression and all its accompanying terminology, together with the assumption that these are systemic, that is, built into the American culture.
Likewise, many of those presenting, within Reformed institutions today, the idea of “racial reconciliation,” have accepted the idea that there is a “ruling class” that uses the structures of society to maintain their “own social power.”
Likewise, the use of a “sustained attack” upon “hegemonic institutions” sounds very much like the insistence that the Christian church must be divided by “whiteness” and “blackness” and that one group is to be in constant penance toward another due to historical realities.
So the thread was useful in identifying those elements that are, in fact, plainly present in the writings of those promoting “social justice” and “racial reconciliation,” even those who are doing so in the context of conservative Reformed circles.
But where the thread falls short (it is not easy writing in >280 character snippets) is in missing the real danger of Neo-Marxist concepts in the context of its application in the Reformed community in the United States in 2018. Specifically, in reference to sola scriptura.
This division between us is a division of authorities. Once one accepts as a given a particular sociological paradigm of oppression, and allows events in the past, sometimes well beyond the lifetimes of any living, to determine reality, we have a serious problem.
Sociological theories cannot become the lens through which divine revelation is to be filtered, esp. such theories that are highly questionable and problematic. Once given that position, Scriptural norms will, of necessity, be overthrown.
Brother Kwon asks that the CM label not be used. Yet, when we look at, say, a Jim Wallis of Sojourners, how can we NOT use the term, when his connections to NMism are so blatant and clear, and the money trail leads us directly to the proponents of NMism?
If powerful (and wealthy) multi-national interests who benefit from cultural decline and degradation in the United States find NMism a useful tool for the creation of division and anarchy, should we stop identifying it for the fear of offense?
But even more importantly, if we find NMism being used as an exegetical filter that is resulting in very serious departures from sound biblical doctrine, are we to not point this out to those who are promoting such departures? Further, how can the use of the term “associate” one
with the so-called “Alt-Right”? Would that not require actual world-view parallels and consistency to be a relevant and meaningful accusation?
But most importantly is brother Kwon’s statements regarding grounding our views in Scripture. This is exactly where the real issue lies! For it is plainly the Bible’s teaching that there is but one human race—tribes, tongues, peoples, but one race.
Further, reconciliation is a deeply theological term that cannot possibly be used by the Christian tongue outside of the context of the cross—and yet it is being used today in a very, very unbiblical context of “group penitence toward another group.” This is the great danger.
If we will follow Duke’s advice to “use the language of the Bible,” we will find those pushing “racial reconciliation” in the form we are hearing it left with little vocabulary to use for the simple reason that in Scripture, the reconciliation of believers is already a reality.
If we place the Col. 3/Eph. 4 paradigm at the center of our thinking (as we must, especially globally) there is simply no room left for the message being delivered. We cannot look back upon ethnic histories when speaking of our relationship within the one body of Christ.
Concepts of “whiteness” or “blackness” are DESTROYED by the radical equality of every sinner’s need and Christ’s perfect provision. Our identity is NOT determined by our ancestors—we have been transferred out of the kingdom where such relationships rule and divide.
The renewal that is the reality of true Christians is one that obliterates social, ethnic, and historical connections—the beautiful and radical unity that marked the apostolic message is based upon a truth that sociologists and politicians cannot grasp, and cannot overthrow.
We who are opposing this very American, very sociological, but (we believe) very unbiblical movement do so because we see it requiring a new paradigm, a new way of interpreting the entire gospel message.
