Thursday, May 26, 2022

They Can’t Admit to an Ideal

As a follow-up to my last post about why progressives / leftists / revolutionaries can’t stop, following is my comment on a recent video by Paul VanderKlay, entitled “If the CRCNA [Christian Reformed Church of North America] Can't Agree on God's Ideal FOR Marriage, it won't be able to Negotiate Boundaries.”

Regarding the issue for PVK, keep in mind he is, and his father and grandfather were, pastors in this denomination.  The CRC is about as important an institution in his life as any.  He sees this issue of what to do about gay marriage as one which could likely tear his denomination apart.

-------------------------------------

Paul, I know this is a troubling issue for you – your concern about the longevity, or not, of your denomination.  You have offered many valuable lines in this one.  All just as applicable to the red and blue of America as they are to this issue within the CRC (and all traditions struggling with this); all common in the strategy of the left, whether in the country or the church.

From PVK (some paraphrased):

-          Those who want a change know that they are in the minority. 

-          Conservative churches are the ones leaving the denomination. 

-          In the progressive group there is a fear that synod is going to act against them.  

-          It is important to have an ideal and state the ideal. 

-          The LGBTQ movement has moved to destroy the ideal.  It has evolved fast.  I don’t think it started out that way.

-          Those out in front of this movement can’t say what the ideal is. We see ideals as unjust. 

-          If progressives wanted to maintain the subtle “don’t ask don’t tell” status quo, they should probably leave well enough alone. 

-          There are more conservatives in danger of being lost than progressives in this struggle. 

-          The progressive’s activism is toward changing the minds of those who are more conservative than themselves.  

-          Conservatives have no such agenda for progressives.  They have given up trying to change hearts and minds.

My comments are reasonably as applicable to America as they are to this (and other social) battle(s) within the church.  The progressives have long known they were in the minority; for this reason, they only want to chip away (the long march through the institutions).  They cannot state an ideal, because this requires a belief in objective truth and objective values – this admission runs contrary to all that progressives believe.  It admits that there is an end to “progress”; this cannot ever be admitted, because it would bring an end to the revolution.  Progressives can’t be progressive if there is an end point.

Conservatives take Matthew 10: 14 to heart: “And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town.” 

Progressives, who cannot admit to an ideal as to do so runs contrary to all that they confess, can only destroy ideals.  Whose work is this, the work of destroying ideals?  Ephesians 2:2 and 6:12 answer this question.  Sadly, it is as true in the church as it is in the country, no matter how much we want to believe in the other’s “good faith.”

-------------------------------------

Conclusion

Or, as more succinctly said by an anonymous commenter to my aforementioned previous post:

This, exactly. Liberalism has no limiting principle. Liberals will not stop until somebody stops them.

10 comments:

  1. Demons can't accept an ideal because the ideal is Jesus Christ.

    Natural law is basically living as Jesus Christ did when he was on Earth. So demons won't accept natural law.

    https://thecrosssectionrmb.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  2. It was an offhand comment by Paul that led me to unravel Jordan Peterson's gnostic messiah complex. It was back in 2018 or so, and PVK was commenting on Peterson's lecture on the beatitudes. The one-two punch for me was first PVK highlighted where Peterson mentioned that he hadn't ever read the book of Matthew prior to that week, and the second was when he pointed out Peterson lied about the definition of "meek". Peterson likened it to a sheathed sword, when the actual meaning of "praus" refers to a warhorse that has been broken and trained for service. From there I read Maps of Meaning and discovered the nature of Dr Peterson's mental illness, his pathetic gamma tendencies, and his messiah complex. I was disappointed that PVK did not read Peterson's work and reject him outright as an antichrist, but instead continued to seek wisdom from him. I've had a hard time taking PVK seriously since then, though I still tune in occasionally.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mark 9: 38 John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.” 39 But Jesus said, “Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. 40 For the one who is not against us is for us.

      Peterson has done meaningful work in turning many people to the Christian Church. I will suggest that instead of accusing him of lying, you might consider he is a layman, not a doctor of divinity. He has still done more to open the Bible to more people than almost any Christian pastor or priest.

      Delete
    2. My fundamentalist Baptist pastor in my youth used a similar definition for meek -- strength under control. Was he also lying? He could very well be wrong. Fine.
      If you take Peterson as an expert in areas of psychology and a dabbler in theology then you can easily find value in talking over these things.

      Delete
    3. Sheathed sword. Trained warhorse. Strength under control. Don't these all point to the same thing?

      I've had a goal for most of my life which I'm slowly coming closer to. I want to become so much in control of myself (emotions, feelings, and thoughts) that nothing I experience can knock me off balance or throw me out of whack. This, to me, signifies meekness.

      I'm not there yet. Never will be completely, but, if I live long enough, can probably come close. The next three years and five months of working with an overbearing boss will almost certainly help me.

      "I can do all things through Christ Who gives me strength."

      Delete
  3. I left the CRCNA 23 years ago when they had decided the scriptures were not authoritative and had begun ordaining women. Several congregations left for the same reason and formed the URCNA. We also knew that the history of liberalism in the mainline denominations told is that there was no stopping them. An excellent book was written in 1923 by J. Gresham Machen of Princeton Seminary— “Christianity and Liberalism.” Machen rightly defines liberal Christianity as a different religion altogether, and predicted their continued path. There is nothing new under the sun.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Machen rightly defines liberal Christianity as a different religion altogether..."

      Yes, it is.

      Delete
  4. I think that commenter was me (Anti-Gnostic). I'm having trouble with the Google sign-in.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Neo-Progressivism (aka) Human Devolution..

    ReplyDelete
  6. You are clearly communicating your truth and I feel blessed to hear it. As a gay man married to a man, I place myself with absolute trust in the hands of God and have long since given up my conceit that man could ever out-logic God. So, our views of gods will are only valuable inasmuch as our creator has given us existence and empowered us to explore.

    ReplyDelete