The Chi Files

The Truth is Out There… John 17:17

Ideas Are Like GMO Corn

By 1 Comment

Nathan Rinne posted someone’s response to my article on the Marxist categories underpinning “the devil made me do it” theology.

Below is a scatter-shot of thoughts in response to the contention that my use of the term “Marxist” was not technically accurate.

Yes, yes, “radical egalitarianism” was around before Marx (French Revolution, anyone?). But Marx played a colossal role in packaging it and shaping the direction that philosophy took in the 20th (and now, 21st) century.

Before Marx, Radical Egalitarianism was an ideology. Since Marx, it’s become a religion.

Allow me to first state that I agree that “Radical Lutheranism isn’t Communism.” However, in my armchair observations (having not defended an academic thesis on the subject, much less done the reading that this would require), there are certain ways of parsing the world that are shared in common. But of course I’m not saying that the “Radical Lutherans” all hide hammer-and-sickle necklaces under their collars.

That would be like saying that rock-candy and cupcake frosting are the same dessert because they both have sugar as their base. “No, no,” swells the confectioner. “For the sugar in the rock-candy is dissolved, where in the frosting it is finely powdered, and each has many other ingredients not-in-common besides.”

And yet, fascinatingly, for the dentist’s purposes this is a distinction without a difference.

Point is, in my last post I’m not equating “RL” and communism any more than rock-candy and cupcake frosting. I’m merely noting that certain (“Marxist”) presuppositions lead in certain directions; just as starting with a sugar base means you’re cooking something that will rot your teeth out. Where things go from there will depend upon how you handle the power-oppression=morality dynamic; or what you do with the sugar. After that, things can go many different directions depending upon what other intellectual commitments you bring along; or what you add to the sugar.

Anyway, below is the response I left in the comments section over at Nathan’s (or, tried to — I have a hard time getting com-boxes to work, go figure). Hopefully it’s helpful to someone.

He notes he is an “unhelpful purist,” and in light of that label everything he notes is very fair, and very correct, in a technical sort of way.

But this is where the academics miss something important: their brainy theories and high-concept ideas don’t flow into the public mind in the pristine form in which they have conceived it. The public thinks in “common” categories, not in the categories of the trained and educated intellectual.

Marxism as articulated by both Marx and Lenin is impressively amoral and almost entirely obsessed with economics, relegating such things as morality, and even ‘power’ as such as ‘epiphenomena’ which appear and take men merely because of the economic system that all, both capitalist and worker, are enslaved to.

And yet the public does not share the categories of persons belonging to the intellectual and ruling circles, so you inevitably see these ideas being parsed according to the easy-to-handle common categories of “right” and “wrong” — so basic a child could do it.

Incidentally, this does not mean that the public is stupid. This phenomenon also happens when a “high-concept” idea floats from one intellectual discipline to the next, such as a philosopher speaking to an engineer, or vice-versa. Again, there are certain categories (ways of organizing knowledge and concepts) that are anything but universal. Philosophers like to pretend that their ideas can be held and perpetually maintained in a just-so way, but this is no more true than genetically modified DNA can, once sown in a field of crops, be contained in its own little plot. It will spread, and it will be adapted in an endless chain of interbreeding.

So, sure, in the abstract world of ivory-tower thought, Marxism has nothing to do with power-oppression as an axis of morality. But as it seeped into the public it necessarily changed to adapt to the public’s categories, which caused the way it is articulated (and even subconsciously understood) to shift. Look at the Marxists of our day, such as Bernie Sanders and AOC, who are unmistakable moralists when it comes to the power-oppression axis. You can ascribe another name to it (such as “the Adorno/Marcuse reworking of Marxism”), and that may be a useful distinction in an academic sense. But at some point these names get out of hand and, for our purposes in the public, it’s a distinction without a difference.

Said another way: some distinctions are best left to the “unhelpful purists,” but are unwieldy and pointless (and too long for Twitter to boot) for the general public. Precision comes at the cost of time and attention; the latter two are in short supply, so sometimes “close enough” has to be good enough.

Thus, for my purposes I am content with colloquialism and shorthand.

How Adopting Marxist Categories Leads to “The Devil Made Me Do It” Theology

By 1 Comment

The following are observations I originally penned on Twitter earlier today:

Marxists only think along 1 axis: that of

power <–> oppression

When you point out that there are more moral dimensions than that one (good/evil, justice/mercy, peace/strife, purity/corruption, etc.), and that the other dimensions aren’t reducible to that one:

Does not compute.

If this is the case, it appears that the Left as a whole is simply becoming more Marxist. And, as best I can tell, conservatism in American is still moving further left.

Nathan Rinne

Yes, and theological think-tanks as well.

You can tell this in how they focus on Christ’s humiliation (even to the point of crassness) and downplay his exaltation.

His enemies can’t be his footstool — that would be oppression!

This manifests in an obsession with speaking in terms of a “theology of the cross” and rhetorically castigating a “theology of glory.”

“Glory” is something a conqueror has. But only one who is oppressed bears a cross.

If one’s mind operates in a Marxist paradigm, where all moral questions boil down to

Power <–> oppression

then it becomes tantamount to blasphemy to speak of God in terms of his power (as it puts him dangerously close to the “immoral” side of the continuum).

This is what happens when you allow Marxist categories to become your operating paradigm. You can no longer read scripture rightly, since those categories are foreign to it, and you start asserting, for instance, that Sodom was destroyed only because rape=oppression.

Thus the story of salvation begins with the oppression of baby Jesus, and ends with his oppression on the cross. The glory he had with the Father before the world was, and the glory he receives at His right hand need not bear mention.

And since morality is reduced to

Power <–> oppression

Then Jesus’ death was not to atone for unrighteousness, writ large, but only to show that God is on the side of Moral Good, in that he is oppressed too.

Last thought:
Scripture and Luther both at times cast sin as an oppressor.

What happens when you approach those statements from an anachronistic Marxist paradigm?

I’ll assert that you will become a Universalist, because sinner=oppressed=”morally good”

Short of that, you will at least downplay the acter of sin as a “victim” and hype up Sin itself as the “victimizer.”

The sinner must therefore get leniency, bar none, since Christ came to break the power of Sin.

It is “the devil made me do it” theology.

One more thought I also posted to another conversation (you can tell where my mind is at today), for the road:

Marxism asserts: inequality must mean that the “higher” elements are oppressing the “lower” elements.

This sets the table for class warfare, feminism, racial strife – over nothing more than population physics; i.e. stratification.

Our entire society has adopted these categories.

Edit: I defend my imprecise use of the term “Marxist” here.

Pastor Hidas and the Abstract Touch

By Leave a Comment

There once was a man named Pastor Hidas.

He had a young son: Sophistocles.

Pastor Hidas had a wealth of theological knowledge, but he was continually perplexed that his congregants hated him for it.

He would have a conversation with the bakers about Christ’s body and blood being present in their bread at the Lord’s Table — and they would look askance.

He would mention to the scientists that the Lord had created the cosmos lo ’round six thousand years ago — and they would snicker to one another.

He would explain to the grandchildless widows that their sons ought not be conducting themselves in untoward ways at the bathhouse — and they would take umbrage.

He sought counsel in a visiting scholar.

“My parish is wonderful, yes. A gift from God. But it could be better! If only my people thought more well of me, then it would be perfect.”

“Hidas, it’s really a simple fix, my fellow,” replied the scholar. “Keep the hard things as abstractions, my good man, and no one need be offended at what you say ever again.” Then the two parted, the scholar back to his ivory tower, and Pastor Hidas to his parish.

When next Pastor Hidas came upon the bakers, this was his remark on their bread: “Ah! A fine unleavened cake. The body of Christ will be quite at home when this is on the altar — in some kind of spiritual sense, of course.” The bakers smiled graciously and complimented Pastor Hidas on his fine theological education.

When Pastor Hidas came upon the scientists, he said: “Excellent to be walking around breathing the fresh air today, eh? It smells like you might imagine the air of Eden — if,” he hastened to add, “such had been a real place.” The scientists clapped Pastor Hidas on the back and complimented him on his exquisite knowledge of the foundations of the world.

When Pastor Hidas came upon the grandchildless widows, he said: “So wonderful to see you all! And how are those boys — still practicing the second greatest commandment? You know, Jesus’ ministry was all about love!” The widows curtsied politely and complimented Pastor Hidas on his marvelous understanding of the richness of the Gospel.

When Pastor Hidas finally came to his home, young Sophistocles emerged from the front door to greet him.

“Father, I have a theological question,” said the boy. “Did Jesus really rise from the dead?”

Ah, thought Hidas to himself, what a wonderful opportunity! If following that scholarly gentleman’s advice could turn those who were so put off by me before into devoted admirers, then how much more should it improve my relationship with my boy, who already loves me?

“Son,” he said. “The fact of the matter is that he need not have risen in history — it is that he rises every day in our hearts that truly matters.”

“Then what the other people say is true,” said Sophistocles. “For a man who could not rise from the dead could neither be truly present in mere bread. Nor could a power that could not raise him have made the heavens and the earth. It is not enough for God to be real in my heart, if He is not real in fact and in deed. Thank you, esteemed father, for speaking the truth to me — I would not have believed it had I not heard it from your own mouth. Now, it’s time I’m on my way; I’m off to join the other young men at the bathhouse tonight.”

Caught by the heart, Pastor Hidas from that moment forward always preached the fullness of the council of God, speaking with the scriptures and being careful not to let his confession fall into meaningless abstractions. The hard-hearted congregants returned to jeering at his “primitive” and “simple” beliefs; and now, his son mocked with them.