Everyone gets to advocate for their views. That's how it works.

 

 

We will be outsiders in our own culture

 

Why I Cannot Endorse or Embrace Marxism

I have seen numerous references to Marxism and Marxist ideas, lately, in the news and online. Marxism is an economic and political theory, based on the writings of Karl Marx, although in many respects it is a worldview that goes beyond economics and political theory. As a “worldview” Marxism holds, as true, a number of important and wide-ranging ideas about the nature of reality.

Because of what I have seen and heard lately I have felt led to share some thoughts about Marxism. In particular, I am concerned about Christians and their understanding, or in some cases their embrace, of Marxism. This is not something I would normally talk about or write about but, as I mentioned earlier, I honestly feel led to do so.

Marxism and Christianity are two fundamentally different views of reality. The previous sentence is critical when it comes to the basic point I am trying to make. Not only are Marxism and Christianity different views of reality they are, ultimately, incompatible worldviews.

Marxism holds a materialistic view of the world. Materialism involves the idea that matter is, ultimately, all that actually exists. Materialism is “a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter.” [Merriam-Webster Dictionary]

In an article titled, Marxism and Religion, Marxist Alan Woods writes, “Marxists stand on the basis of philosophical materialism, which rules out the existence of any supernatural entity, or anything outside or ‘above’ nature. There is, in fact, no need for any such explanation for life and the universe - least of all today.” [From the article, Marxism and Religion, Website: In Defense of Marxism, Marxist.com]

Christianity, on the other hand, holds that there is a God who is the creator and Lord of everything that exists. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” [Genesis 1:1]

I won’t go into a long list of theological statements about God and who He is but belief in this God and His existence involves a worldview that is not logically consistent with materialism. The truth of God would indicate that, in fact, there is something more than just the material world.

These few verses from the book of Psalms give an indication of a God who is above and beyond the material world: “The Lord is exalted over all the nations, his glory above the heavens. Who is like the Lord our God, the One who sits enthroned on high, who stoops down to look on the heavens and the earth?” Psalm 113:4-6

It is my sincere desire to write some thoughts here which people would actually take a moment to read (I’m hoping it’s not already too late for that) so I will try to keep this as simple and brief as possible.

The Marxist who correctly understands the real objective of Marxism knows that their highest allegiance must be to the establishment of socialism/communism.

“The aim of Marxists is to fight for the socialist transformation of society on a national and international scale.” Alan Woods, from the article, Marxism and Religion

So the Marxist will tolerate religious believers who come on board to join in the fight against capitalism but, ultimately, the pursuit of the utopian world, which is the promise of socialism/communism—the Marxist ideals—is the first allegiance of the Marxist.

I quote again from the article “Marxism and Religion” by Alan Woods:

“Very often a worker who is still a believer [in God] approaches the movement [Marxism], convinced of its general programme and eager to fight for socialism, but unwilling to renounce religion. What attitude should we take? Certainly not to push him away. Such a worker does not wish to join the movement in order to win converts to religion, but to fight capitalism. Probably, in time he will see the contradiction between his political and religious beliefs and gradually abandon religion. But the question is a delicate one and should not be pushed.”

Notice that the Marxist writer quoted above, Alan Woods, is in agreement with one of the basic points of this article. Woods understands that Marxism and religion (Christianity, in my case) hold contradictory beliefs.

Karl Marx wrote:

“The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions.”

In Marx’s view religion needed to be abolished in order for people to experience “real happiness.”

So again, the primary allegiance of the Marxist is to the establishment of the Marxist ideals through socialism/communism.

I have a feeling that you know to whom the highest allegiance of the Christian must be given but for the sake of clarity I will write it, anyhow: To the Lord.

“If you can’t be brilliant, at least try to be clear.” [Quote from little-known pastor/philosopher, Dan Marler]

Here is a truth, I think, everyone can agree with: People cannot maintain a primary allegiance to two entities or pursuits. One of the allegiances will ultimately win out over the other one. This is especially true when the entities or pursuits are logically incompatible.

So for the person who aspires to be a Christian Marxist, at some point, this question will force itself: Do you choose your Christian faith or do you choose Marxism? Both worldviews cannot be consistently held and lived by a reasonable person.

By the way, the Christian who understands the genuine implications of his or her faith also understands that allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ must come before everything else. Everything.

“Christ is the visible image of the invisible God. He existed before anything was created and is supreme over all creation, for through him God created everything in the heavenly realms and on earth. He made the things we can see and the things we can’t see—such as thrones, kingdoms, rulers, and authorities in the unseen world. Everything was created through him and for him.”

Colossians 1:15-16

For the follower of Christ the devotion of our hearts and our primary allegiance must be to the Lord.

I have other reasons for not endorsing or embracing Marxism. I believe, for example, that it holds an incorrect view of human nature. However, I am providing here the issue that would be the main objection to Marxism, for me. My primary allegiance is to the Lord and not to any other worldview.

It is not my intention to stir up trouble or to start mean-spirited arguments. In fact, I hope that does not happen with this post. As I stated at the beginning of the piece, I am writing because I feel led—out of a heart of pastoral concern—to attempt to clearly, respectfully state a position on this matter for those who are followers of Jesus.

Love and blessings to all,

Dan Marler

Oak Lawn, IL

Is "hurry" the biggest problem for Christians in the United States?

Can your view of reality accommodate the power of God?

Is Free Will Real Or Is It An Illusion?

A materialistic worldview rejects God and posits that matter is all that exists. This is an increasingly common and influential worldview in our culture, particularly in academia. On this view the universe is basically a large machine which is simply working according to the laws of physics. Materialism is a deterministic view of reality.

One of the implications of a materialistic worldview for you and me is we do not have free will. The scientists and philosophers who hold this view and write about the subject understand this implication and suggest that what we believe to be free will is actually an illusion. We “think” we are exercising real choices in the course of our lives but guess what? We are not.

It is interesting, however, that some of the scientists and philosophers who hold this view will admit free will is an illusion we need to maintain.

For example, Marvin Minsky of MIT states, “No matter that the physical world provides no room for freedom of will; that concept is essential to our models of the mental realm.” He goes on to say, “We’re virtually forced to maintain that belief [free will], even though we know it’s false.”

There are a number of problems with the view that we do not have free will. It runs counter to common sense, for instance. Also, it does not adequately explain our human experience. Notice that Minsky, who holds a materialistic worldview, openly admits we, nevertheless, need to maintain the belief in free will even though we know it is false. Isn’t that a strange position for a scientist to hold?

There are other problems with the denial of free will, for example, if we do not have free will then we have no true basis for the concept of moral accountability. After all, we are just machines working according to the purely materialistic, pre-determined laws of the natural world. We shouldn’t hold a machine accountable for doing what it has been programmed to do, should we?

Christian theologian and philosopher Nancy Pearcey writes, “It is ironic that people who reject Christianity—who think that without God they can finally be free—end up with philosophies [like materialism] that deny human freedom.”

*NOTE: These thoughts were prompted after I read Part Two of Nancy Pearcey’s excellent book, “Finding Truth.” Nancy is a brilliant and insightful author who writes about substantive issues in an accessible way that even regular guys like me can understand.

We Should Be Willing To Put Our Cards On The Table

Everybody has a point of view, a way of thinking, a way of understanding reality. This is sometimes called a worldview. Because we all have a worldview—even if we don’t know the term or have never taken the time to specifically think about the concept—we will tend to have biases and, often, even an agenda of some sort when it comes to many subjects.

(Be extremely careful about the person who vehemently claims—perhaps while jumping up and down—that he is a completely neutral purveyor of nothing but objective facts.)

The fact that everyone has a worldview does not bother me. I understand this is how it will be with us humans. For example, I will readily admit I have an agenda. I’m a Christian minister. I believe Christianity is true. I would like for people to embrace Jesus. I believe this will be what is best for them.

What does bother me is when certain people or institutions pretend they are above the fray, so to speak. In other words, they want to give the impression they are presenting objective, unbiased facts and simple logical conclusions when in reality they are very intentionally, though surreptitiously, promoting a particular agenda.

This is a form of dishonesty and deception which happens in the media and, sadly, even in the scientific world more than some people may realize. For example, the practice of disguising an agenda as a scientifically settled issue can be a way of attempting to force a conclusion on a matter without even allowing legitimate discussion. It is an extremely unscrupulous and cynical tactic.

Again, the fact that human beings within the media, the scientific world, or anywhere else, for that matter, have a worldview and, therefore, an agenda is not what bothers me. I get it. I’m old enough to recognize this reality about people. What bothers me is when they very intentionally pretend to have no bias or agenda.

We should be willing to put our cards on the table.

Sgt. Joe Friday used to say, “just the facts, ma’am” when he was talking with a witness. But I notice Joe always had a little bit of a wry grin when he said it. Joe knew people and, therefore, he knew it was not likely he was going to hear “just” facts. 

Why Is "Secularism" A Problem? Read "Saving Leonardo" and Learn

“Saving Leonardo” has just become one of the most underlined and highlighted books I own!

Okay, I only own 5 books, but still…

My experience with Nancy Pearcey’s writing is primarily based on her previous book, “Total Truth”—which is outstanding.  I find her, once again, to be insightful, intellectually challenging, very interesting, and a brilliant analyst of culture—both historical culture and contemporary culture.

In “Saving Leonardo”, Pearcey describes, in compelling ways, why the increasing “secularism” in our world is a serious problem.  She makes the point that secularism is even a problem for those who do not consider themselves to be religious.  She writes, “Because the word ‘secular’ is the opposite of ‘religious’, many people assume that secularism is a problem for religious groups only.  Not so.  When politics loses its moral dimension, we all lose.  When political discourse is debased, the entire society suffers.  The reason Christians should be concerned is not to protect their own subculture, but to protect the democratic process for all people.”

Pearcey expands in helpful ways on the concept of the “fact/value split” about which she wrote in “Total Truth”.  She identifies the fact/value split as the “core of modern secularism”.  Read the book for her able defense of that contention. 

In Part 2 of “Saving Leonardo”, she addresses two paths to secularism—“originating in the clash between the Enlightenment and the Romantic movement”—in which she traces the “historical rise of secularism”. 

To demonstrate the effects of secularism on Western culture, Pearcey provides many examples of specific works of art ranging from literature, to painting, to music, to sculpture, to film, and more, explaining how they have contributed to secularism or how they display, knowingly or un-knowingly, the results of secularism’s steadily increasing influence. 

I found her thoughts on “Artists as Thinkers” to be interesting.  She writes, “The truth is that artists interact deeply with the thought of their day, translating worldviews into stories and images.”  Pearcey correctly identifies “art”—in its many manifestations—as a field of significant influence.  And perhaps it is more influential than many Christians realize or acknowledge.

Since I have not studied art in any serious, comprehensive way, there were a number of things I learned in Part 2 of the book.  Actually, now that I think of it, it would be more accurate to say that EVERYTHING in Part 2 of the book involved new learning for me…except the page numbering.  I was pretty familiar with that concept from the other 5 books I own.

I highly recommend “Saving Leonardo”.  Nancy Pearcey is brilliant.

I Choose Faith In God

For those who fear that the exercise of faith in God is an act of intellectual suicide, it might be helpful to bear in mind that all views of reality require some measure of faith. No worldview, whether atheism, scientism, naturalism, theism, or whatever, has all the answers to the questions of life wrapped up neatly with full and conclusive proof. Everyone must exercise faith. So, I choose faith in God.

Review of "Truth and Transformation" -- What Do We Look Like To An Easterner?

Truth and Transformation, written by Vishal Mangalwadi

Interesting and profound. But also, insightful and troubling.

This book is insightful in diagnosing what has strongly contributed to Western Civilization's unparalleled achievement, development, prosperity and success. (Yes, I'm using the word "success" even though I know it is a loaded word.)

Mangalwadi points to the historical influence of biblically-centered moral values; the biblically-directed pursuit of rationality; the biblically-centered institution of marriage and sexual mores; and other foundations of Western culture. His argument for the positive results of this biblical influence is powerful and persuasive.

One of the interesting distinctions that Dr. Mangalwadi makes is the difference between the Church's influence on Western culture and the Bible's influence on Western culture. He tends to look more favorably on the Bible's influence. I realize that many people would assume that there would be no difference between the two, but the author believes that there is. If you disagree, I'll let you argue that with him. I'm just pointing it out here because I found it to be interesting.

On the other hand, the book is troubling because over and over again Mangalwadi asks some variation of this question: Why is the West abandoning the biblically-oriented cultural morals and values that have been so central to its success?

Part of what gives the book an extra edge is that the author brings such a unique viewpoint to his observations. Dr. Mangalwadi is a Christian intellectual (some folks aren't even accustomed to seeing those two words together) who was born and raised in India and educated in philosophy at secular Western universities. So, he observes and analyzes the West with something of an "outsider's" perspective.

I believe many Christians who read this book will be motivated to pray for spiritual revival and a fresh commitment to the pursuit of truth--God's truth.

Dan Marler