The Walls of Mystic Despotism

Friday June 25, 2010 • 3 Comments 

The Walls of Mystic Despotism

I dares ya ta’ step across this line.

- Bugs Bunny

Click here for audio

I had thought to let this series of posts go, (June 12th, 12:20 a.m. to June 13th, 2:43 p.m.) on Women and Children First, offered by self-identified Mike Doherty. My reasons were equally divided across a few thoughts. First, I am working on another article tentatively called “Crisis Management” and didn’t want to get distracted from research. Second, in my mind, Mike Doherty’s words speak for themselves, and I expect that the savvy Spiritual Tyranny readership sees the implicit failure in Mike’s demand. Third, I have addressed many of the stock defenses of tyranny over and over and over and over and over and over. Fourth, I anticipated this was just another drive-by blogging; people say their piece and move on. However, Mike did return for a couple more shots at me, my character, my lack of deference to him, some foreboding proclamations about biblical authority, and a general: “What are you talking about?”

One must wonder if orthodoxy forbids classes on reading comprehension, because detractors seem not to grasp my specific criticisms in context to the atrocity of rape, and my unrelenting critique of the doctrine of apostolic covering being taught to American Christianity:  its catastrophic failure to deliver on its self-declared social contract.

Several articles have been written detailing this issue, The Very Important Thing of Blog Apostleness; Women and Children First; Family Member Tomczak Responds; Frauds, Papists, and European Religion, plus numerous sub-comments on related posts. How then my detractors can toss up their hands and say “I just don’t understand what you are saying” is a mystery. The same thing happened with Paul Balluff and his wife, which I detailed in two related posts: Paul Balluff Lessons and Paul Balluff–the Final Lesson. They are but a few in a list of people who more vocal at condemning tone than manifest bankruptcy of action.

Somehow I’m the ungracious one. Evidently when I point out ANY failing, it is a lack of humility and a failure to extend mercy because “We are all just sinners.” When they demand my justification and rail against what they see as my character flaws, it is … what exactly? Where is the chapter and verse to justify calling me sickening? How come I don’t qualify for the expansive exercise of everyone being a sinner? Eeeeaaahh … what’s up with this, Doc?

Of course there is a huge BUT coming: not to be confused with a gratuitous posterior.

However, >snicker< after my initial ambivalence, I realized that underneath Mike’s comments is a very important issue: using “scripture” to shield against the critical review of tyranny. Something is seriously wrong when anyone can, with a straight face, use bible verses to diminish tyrannical outcomes, justify imposed suffering as a failure of doctrinal precision, and trivialize unequivocal, objective judgment as mere emotional ranting. Scripture can never be something to HIDE behind; yet historically, this is exactly how tyrannical governments and their partners in crime, the Mystic Despots, have used it. I reject the notion that one needs chapter and verse to resist tyranny. And one certainly does not need chapter and verse to lay siege to the Walls of Mystic Despotism.

Eeeeeeh, watch me paste this pathetic palooka with a powerful, pachydermous, percussion pitch. Or maybe better said, I’m ready to writerly rumble. So let me begin with the end of his first post on Women and Children First, June 12th, 12:20 a.m. (Mike, you shoulda taken dat left toin at Albe-koi-kee.) Here is the last paragraph:

“I commend Heather for her comment. It was nice to read an intelligent, humble, well-thought-out and graceful statement, as opposed to the sickening, divisive, and uncharitable comments that I’m sad to say make up the majority of this blog. Grace and peace to all of you through Christ Jesus our Lord!”

Mike “commends.” I guess that is important. For those of you just tuning in, Heather is more than the average rabbit-hater, oops … poster on Spiritual Tyranny. She weighed in heavily on Family Member Tomczak Responds. She took me to task on my tone, only without Mike’s hero worship. She agreed with my comments just not my methods. Maybe Heather is flattered by Mike’s approval, and then maybe not. She is a wordy sort and can speak for herself.

But whatever…

Here is what I want you to see, Dear Spiritual Tyranny reader. The assumption is vast and revealing. Notice what Mike is doing: he implicitly thinks that his judgment, his bible understanding, is THE defining measure of the conversation. As he becomes increasingly more agitated by my unwillingness to dance to his drumbeat, this expectation radiates from every paragraph of each subsequent comment.

He makes a stock offer to intellectual broadmindedness—that he could be corrected in erroneous belief—but this is subterfuge, an effort to demonstrate some prescribed cultural humility. The truth of the matter was his parting comment (June 13th, 2:43 p.m.)

“Don’t bother. It’s obvious neither one of us is going to convince the other of anything. You haven’t even been able to muster up the energy to even tell me what you’re trying to say, or even correct your spelling. So I’ll just bow out here. I have church in a few hours and I’d rather not have this pointless conversation in mind when I’m trying to worship God. Thanks for the stimulating conversation and for having so little respect for my viewpoints as to not even address them. Don’t bother replying, I’m officially unsubscribing from this particular waste of time.”

Gee, ain’t I a stinker?

As an aside, what kind of person takes a spelling mistake as a personal slight?

Whatever… this is a revealing admission considering the leading criticism was that I had made no effort to respond. Which means, by definition, I had not tried to persuade: if I’m not talking, I’m not aiming an argument at your head. His parting comment is framed against the very pious action of worshiping God but this sanctimony is subterfuge to justify the declaration of his true state of mind: intellectual recalcitrance.

So this begs the following questions. What could underlie such absolutist thinking? What must someone believe to act with such manifest obstinacy? What must one believe about life to frame every action in terms of a bible verse? In a world filled with sinful men whose minds are corrupted by selfish depravity, who live to please themselves, who need help to live holy, how can such certainty ever be found?

This can only stem from one glaring presumption:  that all things them = all things Bible.

Notice this from Mike’s first post June 12th, 12:20 a.m.:

“That to me, is the most damning evidence against the entire anti-SGM movement. Scripture is rarely held up as an example, and when it is, it’s usually taken out of context.”

I bet you say that to all the wabbits.

Critics who try to quote scripture are misled souls executing contextual interpretive failure: critics = unbiblical. Conversely, notice how pervasive the biblical vindication for those he defends: even when church leadership fails, they are like everyone else, just sinners in need of grace. Even their “failure” is scriptural.

Now turn your attention to this paragraph in his first post:

“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” (2 Timothy 3:16) So why are you treating it as a hindrance to your cause? How about Romans 8:1? James 5:9? 2 Timothy 2:14? Phillipians 2:1-3? Do you perhaps ignore these verses because if you followed scripture then you would have to extend grace and offer rebuke in a manner that please God rather than just ripping SGM apart and pleasing yourself?”

When someone starts proof-texting their overarching assertions, realize they are laying the foundations for Mystic Despotism. The verses are the bricks. The mortar is an inevitable appeal to interpretive authority a mere breath away. For example, in the above paragraph, it is true that scripture is profitable for the list offered. That is the proof text I’m intended to concede. This is Mike’s effective reading: since scripture is profitable, the source of all rebuke comes from specific bible passages—everything else is forbidden. So MY rebuke is in error because it is not specifically cited with chapter and verse. Now watch how he frames the argument in the last sentence:  “…because if you followed scripture then you would have to extend grace and offer rebuke in a manner that please God rather than just ripping SGM apart and pleasing yourself.”

Beyond the presumption of a mere man claiming to know what pleases God, the rest of his last sentence is Kantian philosophy superimposed over Christian ideals and largely irrelevant. In context, true self-absorption would be to shut my mouth and let the tyranny persist, and just pretend that the carnage does not exist. But notice how the bricks and mortar fit together: for me to disagree with his proof text is ultimately to disagree with bible authority. If I reject his synthesis, I reject BIBLE.

Any number of Exegetical and Hermeneutical problems are woven deep into stringing these passages together to establish a doctrinal point or dogmatize a specific Christian practice. But for the moment let’s pretend that Mike is right. Let’s pretend that the verses above require a critic to narrow his comments to a specific tone and method. Let’s pretend that some men in Christianity are protected from specific words. Let’s pretend that the bible advocates an oligarchy immune from certain types of criticism. Let’s pretend that we have absolutely sourced our ‘scriptural’ conduct.

Here is the problem. To justify applying that standard to ANY modern day preacher, teacher, or mendicant requires making an EXTRA biblical assertion: NO ONE is listed as the sole rightful heir of scripture. For any modern day man to presume eldership, or pastor-ship, or presbytery-ship, or apostle-ship or any other ship, they must adopt interpretive methods that let them rationalize presuming to claim the elite oligarchy criticism protected class for themselves.

I’m not going to address if those interpretive methods are right or wrong. My goal is to show how interpretive methodology is directly related to Spiritual Tyranny and the Walls of Mystic Despotism.

“You don’t have enough scripture to back up your criticism,” which also gets said like this:  “You’re not forgiving, so your criticisms are un-scriptural.” And also like this:  “You are going against the clear teaching of scripture…”

When those of Mike’s doctrinal pedigree say “scripture,” they are really staking a claim to the standard of interpretive judgment: their interpretive methods are right because their interpretations are expressions of authority. No matter what lip service is paid to intellectual broadmindedness and reasonable consideration, they are daring you to cross a line in an argument they are positive they would win.

Notice this exact equation in Mike’s broadminded concession to some theoretical spiritual abuse. He concedes the general probability of leadership failures because in thirty-some years of existence, the statistics lean towards sin. Here is what he said:

“I freely admit that such spiritual abuses may have, and probably did, occur. While some of these complaints are merely the unwillingness of some people to submit to what I believe is biblical authority, I have no doubt that in it’s thirty plus year history, mistakes have been made, situations have been mishandled, and yes, sins have been committed.”

I want you to notice the start of the second sentence. The complaints about abuse are “merely the unwillingness… of some… to submit to … biblical authority.” This is Mike’s way of saying that pain would not exist if people would just submit to what God wanted. The equation is bible = authority. The source of the complaint is a failure to adhere to the standard of scripture.

Hmmmm…..  Where have I heard this mindset talked about before? This is why I love it when these guys post. They make my case over and over and over. I wrote about this very mindset in To Reform or Not to Reform. Here is what I said:

      …they think the problems lie from without. You have failed to make their job a joy. You failed to adhere to a sound biblical teaching that they are morally on the hook to defend, advocate, and enforce. The hurt feelings, the spiritual collateral damage, the individual pressure that arises out of conflict with them are merely signs of selfishness and sin and the natural consequence of failing to embrace the higher truths of their sound teaching. In light of eternity, how could these momentary light afflictions be of any real consequence?

      If you only understood that you don’t own you. If only you understood that you have been mandated by God to submit the entirety of your SELF to their care, the conflict would not exist. You don’t own you, so how can you object to a violation of your personal boundaries, aspirations, wants, and desires? It is all sin, and they are doing God’s work by standing in the way of your determination to carry out your sinful self.

Herein is the greatest lever of Mystic Despots’ argumentative and autocratic power: the ascription of bible authority to their specific mandate. The fact that THEY wield bible authority is the given. The loose algebra offered is: Scripture = Authority = Orthodoxy = the standard of judgment = (THEIR) government = (THEIR) force.

Mike raised the issue of orthodoxy in his comments on June 13th, 1:45 p.m., and while he was not detailing the doctrinal algebra above, he presumes the equation. Well, except (maybe) for the force part. I added that to reiterate that Government is force…. always.

OK, here I go with the timid little woodland creature bit again. It’s shameful, but…ehhh, it’s a living.

>snicker<

What is orthodoxy? Well… very good question, and in another work I will dissect what it really means, but for now, we will take the loosely accepted definition: that which has been believed by everyone, everywhere, always. Well, that is not quite right, because sons of the Protestant movement say orthodoxy and mean the authority of the Reformed Tradition and that body of “unerring” interpretation, as opposed to Catholic Orthodoxy, or Eastern Orthodoxy, and a host of other orthodoxies spanning 1,800 years of church history.

Now notice what this does to any bible content conversation:  those who claim authority have enormous argumentative power. They can dismiss any reading that deviates with traditional theological conclusions and demagogue the interpretive high ground. How dare you offer an “un-scriptural” interpretation? This is an outrage! I demand an explanation. The overt criticism is, to disagree with me is to disagree with authority, which is to disagree with orthodoxy, which is to disagree with greater minds than yours, which is to disagree with time-tested truths, which is to disagree with the Bible, which is to disagree with God—Heretic!

That is a lot of pressure. Who wants to be a heretic? Well, the accusation doesn’t have the same weight in the modern age, with bonfires being out of vogue, but people are still hard pressed to suffer a name that implies bad, bad earthly things and even worse eternal things. So, to hedge their spiritual bets, preempt the label, and gain credibility, they dance to the historic drumbeat. And herein is the problem. To gain credibility means to adopt the assumptions of the historical debates. Those assumptions are deeply embedded in the interpretive methodology handed down from intellectual father to intellectual son until we have a Monkey See Monkey Do Orthodoxy.

And here is the dirty little secret that virtually no one has the nerve to say out loud: The Bible does not drive “what everyone has believed, everywhere, always.” Interpretive methods based on specific historical assumptions determine orthodox belief.

Let me say this again with an illustration. Many attempts were made at Catholic Church reform before good ol’ Martin was born. But “orthodoxy” for some 1,500 years said that the Pope determined the MEANING of scripture. (Catholic Orthodoxy STILL affirms this doctrine) Said another way, papal authority was the interpretive method. Until the “orthodox” interpretive method changed, papal understanding remained the standard for all biblical discussion because the Pope was in charge of MEANING. So, in as much as reformers were compelled to concede papal authority to define meaning, they could not escape papal conclusion.

This is why the battle cry “Grace Alone, Faith Alone, Scripture Alone,” was such a formidable counterargument to papal authority. It marked an absolute shift in interpretive methods by leveraging the leading Enlightenment concept ushered into Christianity by St. Thomas Aquinas in the late 12th century–the Aristotelian predicate that Man can understand the world around him, and that includes the Bible. (Scripture Alone is meaningless under the Platonist/Augustinian world view that dominates Christianity since the mid 4th century.) This was the essential intellectual departure from the papal interpretive monopoly that made all subsequent Reformation doctrines possible.

Here is the heart and soul of the Reformation conflict. Scholastic Disputations Against the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences was really a catalyst to a much deeper, longstanding disagreement: the source, practice, and methodology of Papal Authority. The Reformation’s theological battleground was over the issue of inspiration, authority, tradition, and revelation. In other words: whose interpretations reign supreme to justify tyrannical practice? It is to this issue that Martin Luther wrote the following:

     The Romanists have, with great adroitness, drawn three walls round themselves, with which they have hitherto protected themselves, so that no one could reform them, whereby all Christendom has fallen terribly.

     Firstly, if pressed by the temporal power, they have affirmed and maintained that the temporal power has no jurisdiction over them, but, on the contrary, that the spiritual power is above the temporal.

     Secondly, if it were proposed to admonish them with the scriptures, they objected that no one may interpret the scriptures but the Pope.

     Thirdly, if they are threatened with a council, they pretend that no one may call a council but the Pope.

     (Modern History Sourcebook : Martin Luther’s  Address To The Nobility of the German Nation, 1520)

Mike’s comments reflect an implicit expectation that is anecdotal for the exact same set of papal assumptions. Reformation Theology shills are posing as historic papists posturing as the MEANING police, and in many ways, this situation is worse. The Papacy was confined to one man at the top of the pyramid, and that placed some limitations on the nature and scope of tyranny.

But all any Reformed Theology aficionado has to do is start saying: “I am Orthodox. Submit to my authority! Submit to my authority!” Abraca-pocus! Poof! Instant doctrinal justification: now all comers to the interpretive throne need to justify themselves against their authority. They utter one word and they become the elite oligarchy criticism protected class. Carrots are divine… You get a dozen for a dime… It’s maaaa-gic!

I addressed the concept of Dictated Good in detail on the post Defining Insanity. As stewards of Dictated Good, they are uniquely qualified to claim for themselves all deference. Bully for Bugs, they are the authority, you are not—they dictate, you don’t. This presumption gives them absolute power to build a wall around all interpretive conclusions and any subsequent practice. And heaven forefend that bonfires become a fashionable expression of church authority, we’ll all be screaming: “Stop steamin’ up my tail! Whataya tryin’ ta do, wrinkle it?”

Call me Loony Tunes if you want…

But if one lets them hide behind their walls, the Meaning Police will exploit those on the outside with impunity. They rely on everyone’s bible insecurity in concession to historic interpretive methods. But this path condemns counterarguments to the flaws and failures deep within the historic interpretive assumptions. By conceding their right to measure accuracy, people set up the historic conclusions as the default standard, which really elevates historic understanding in modern minds to biblical infallibility. From here the argument is lost: one cannot challenge doctrinal failures because one has accepted the ideas that created the conclusions.

So when these people start chanting “scripture, scripture, scripture,” realize they are chanting “orthodoxy, orthodoxy, orthodoxy,” believing they have played the ultimate ‘biblical’ trump card. They mean to say that nothing else is scriptural, which is really code for: “We don’t reasonably consider anything that isn’t traditional interpretation handed down for the last 500 years.” They flaunt their intellectual recalcitrance like a badge of purist qualification, emulating the spirit of their intellectual forefather:

     “This is my reply to you and to him. It is not my purpose to quarrel with the Jews, nor to learn from them how they interpret or understand scripture; I know all of that very well already.”

     (On the Jews and Their Lies, 1543, Vol. 47, Part 1, third paragraph, Martin Luther, Translated by Martin H. Bertram, Fortress Press & Augsburg Fortress  1971.)

Real conversations about church reform are necessarily about interpretive methods, because church structure and practice are built around interpretive conclusions. So if your interpretive method demands authority as justification, the fight is inevitably about who is qualified. There is no such thing as out-authoritating an authority, because he with the most FORCE wins.

This is THE problem with doctrines that create Dictated Good. Dictated Good requires FORCE to achieve. Men must be compelled to get the right answer because objective truth does not exist. Or maybe better said, man’s corrupt nature prevents him from knowing objective truth–which amounts to the same thing. Historically, the guy with the greatest will to use the biggest bonfire won the argument of authority. In the modern age, forcing is limited to social manipulation—at least for now. So for the moment, the conversation merely degenerates into endless scripture stacking and recriminations about Christian authenticity.

For those of you who have suffered spiritual tyranny, this is why when you went to reason about ‘scripture,’ the response was character assassination and accusations of spiritual sedition: you failed to “submit to authority.” No matter the pretense, no matter how broadminded the façade, the conversation is never about bible content. At the root, it is really a fight over who is qualified to dictate and if they are the ones with the office or the historic pedigree, it ain’t you.

The result is trench warfare with the historic lines dug deep into the bedrock of a substance that does not seem malleable. Rodney King says, “Can’t we just all get along?” And the handwringing and argumentative mea culpas begin, scripture stacking done, argument over, status quo is sustained, spiritual tyranny persists. Never once were the Mystic Despots hiding behind ‘scripture’ made responsible for their intellectual passivity, logical slights of hand, doctrinal outcomes, or their impiety.

They get all the benefit of authority but none of the responsibility of their authoritarian outcomes. As long as they can make a claim to orthodoxy, make a claim to “scripture,” all relational breakdowns and ministerial failures are due to the vagaries of “we are all just sinners.”

Everybody else’s bad ideas, bad doctrine, bad theology, is directly responsible for bad actions. But their ideas cannot possibly be at the core of their bad actions. Human failures are not interpretive failures but rather the logical extension of depraved humanity. The truths stand apart eternal and affirmed by the universal failure of humans to live up to a standard they are condemned to fulfill.

This is a masterpiece of demagoguery. The castle is fortified against any assault. Leadership has, with great adroitness, drawn walls around themselves. Up till now these walls have protected them so that no one could hold them responsible for their tyranny, whereby people are enslaved.

     First: If it were proposed to admonish them with scriptures, they objected that no one but orthodox theologians (sort of) may stand in the stead of God, for it is the job of commended leadership to correct leadership.

     Second: If pressed with external scrutiny, they insist that such conversations can only be motivated by bitterness, gossip, and slander which disqualify the criticism and frees them to summarily refuse review from anyone not submitted to their authority.

     Third: All tyranny is attributed to the vagaries of human sinfulness, the humble efforts of good but failed intentions, and morally equivalized by “we are all just sinners.”

Shhhhh…. I’m about to defy you.

The walls seem formidable and the leadership calls down lightning like Elmer Fudd’s unrequited love. But the dirty little secret is they don’t really have a spear and magic helmet.

I guess it is about time to use a little ‘stragedy.’ Dear Spiritual Tyranny Reader, I knight thee Sir Loin of Beef!

Charrrrrggggeee!

Well, what did you expect in an opera? A happy ending? 

 *****

No rabbits were harmed in the production of this article, but all impressions were mangled. We offer many apologies to Mel Blanc.

Filed Under Teachable Moments, Tools of Tyranny


Sense

Monday May 31, 2010 • 5 Comments 

By John Immel  (Mp3 audio)

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

                                                      - George Santayana

The man who has no sense of history, is like a man who has no ears or eyes.

                                                      - Adolf Hitler

We learn from history that men and women never learn anything from history.

                                                      - Friedrich Hegel

Men without the sense of an idea’s history are slaves.

                                                       – John Immel

The ravages of collectivism are upon us and the Christian world is profoundly silent.  A few voices are rising, addressing the elements of liberty, participating in tea parties, and advocating a return to the Founding Fathers’ vision, and God.  The typical prophetic melody of America getting her comeuppance for sin—men are buggering men the forecast is brimstone and rocks—sings out with the endless refrain to humble ourselves and pray–God will heal our land, God will heal our land, God will heal our land, please, please, please… if only the Church would… if only the Church would… if only the Church would… blah blah blah blah.

For all of our sackcloth and ashes, the American economy continues to tank, entire continents are on the verge of bankruptcy, riots in streets, and the gods of chaos seem to relentlessly conjure their gremlins of bad.  Crisis EVERYWHERE!  We are just an earthquake away from the end times!  Bunker in the church against the bad, bad world!  Praying will make it better…. Somehow… fingers crossed…

Whatever praying does or doesn’t do, we catastrophically fail to understand the cause and effect of government ideology.  The tide of Socialism, Global Collectivism rises in the United States like German Blitzkrieg into France.  At least the French dropped rifles that theoretically represented real resistance. Metaphorically, we haven’t even offered a Super Soaker in protest.  Our wondrous “covering” apostles are mute in security of freedom.  Real danger to the flock is at hand and these gutless wonders offer what in defense?

More conferences on church growth? (If the sheep pen is BIG, it must be God!)

Another national quorum on Apostolic authority? >snicker<

Yet another book on a life with purpose?  (And not enough motivation to get our collective asses off the couch to understand we are electing Progressives?  Oh, the irony!)

Another bromide that satisfies our current felt need: the best YOU?  (I’m OK, you’re OK even though daddy didn’t love us.)

One more tearful sermon on the wretched wormhood of mankind: don’t be critical.   “We are all just sinners?”  (If you preach that men are worms, why are you upset when you get tread on?)

Guarding the Prophecy mic?  (Now there is the High calling of Christ!)

>shrug<

Maybe the “covering” Apostles don’t want to disturb the crickets merrily chirping away.

Regard for cricket chirping Feng Shui, however, is not a concern that the Christian Collectivists seem to have; they are shrill and belligerent and oh so effective at advocating Socialist moral clarity.

But you, Dear Spiritual Tyranny Reader, are ahead of the curve.  You know that moral clarity—the thing that informs man’s justification for action—is what clears the path for his conduct.  The Catholic Church has known for centuries that man must be taught docility; that man must be indoctrinated towards meek compliance.  How else will the peasants and serfs tolerate the Divine Right of Despotism?

The Catholic Church has been advancing these moral ideals for a very, very, long time.  The Vatican must be thrilled that American Protestantism is coming back to the ideological fold.  It is only a matter of time for the ideas to run their inevitable course.  Today it is a Global Economy controlled by Global Government, a mere hop, skip, and a step towards tomorrow:  a Global Religion, a “Universal” faith duly appointed by God.  Submit, to their benevolent authority.

Certainly, Reinhold Niebuhr and Paul Tillich would be proud of American Christianity on the cusp of ushering in a varied form of the Social Gospel with its implicit corruption called Social Justice.

I know most of you, Dear Readers, do not know the impact of Catholic collectivism, or Neibuhr’s and Tillich’s effect on American Christian thought.  Fewer of you still are familiar with Social Justice and the body of thought the Collectivists lovingly call Liberation Theology.  That lack of familiarity sources from the profound incompetence of bible school dropouts dominating church pulpits.  Their endless determination to hide their intentional ignorance led them to drive intellectuals from the flocks, and demean thinking as some high-minded ego trip (at best), or a satanic deception played exclusively on the intelligent (at worst).

Funny thing though: no bible references to brainy demons but a number of bible passages about deaf and DUMB demons.

But whatever… People go to their churches and submit to their authority.  In America, (at least today) people are free to do that, and are justly rewarded for their choice.  Men reap what they sow: reality is nothing but the moment to moment outworking of choices in accord with truth or the product of exchanging truth for a lie.  For a long time American Christianity has been told to submit to authority—lay down their minds in the best traditions of European Religion—so it is no accident that we are inclined to give away yet more freedom without ever firing a Super Soaker.

The average Church participant MIGHT be able to offer the first line of the United States Constitution as justification for general independence, but they are lost when it comes to justifying individual liberty.  But when the collectivists start thumping their bibles, equating liberty to license, self-motivation to selfish ambition, and sacrifice to the highest Christian ethical action, people can offer little more than silent chagrin.

As a result, when the Collectivists inevitably come for YOUR money they say “You must render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s for the Greater Good,” and “riches cannot buy you happiness,” you fork over the work of your hands, the manifestation of your prosperity: impotent, helpless, and without moral clarity.

How long will people listen to these Socialists in Sheep’s clothing?

Well… since they have long since abandoned themselves to the Leader’s considered judgments, the rational answer is forever.  No worries though.  Soon the State will tell people to what church they must submit mind, and soul, and spirit.  (Think Mecca, and start practicing your Allahu Akbars)   All that thinking stuff won’t ever worry their pretty little head.  Oh the bliss of being “covered” and “over-sighted.”  It reminds me of a song:

Hush little baby don’t say a word

Father’s gonna buy you a mocking bird

And if that mocking bird won’t sing

The state is going to buy you a diamond ring

Some Dear Reader does not like Der Fuhrers to be called Socialists.  Socialist is such an ugly word and not at all what the bible ‘clearly’ teaches.  The bible teaches “community” and the “brotherhood of men” not Socialism.

Yeah, huh?

The Catholic Church has tried dancing down this knife edge since the beginning.  They have failed miserably.  We will discuss the core of this failure shortly because it is the breakdown of the American Church as it dives madly back into the disaster of European Religion:  Catholic or Protestant.

Long before the American usurpers to the Orthodoxy throne started pounding the pulpit for their authority of tradition and the tradition of their authority; the Pope presided over the Holy See, preempting that claim by 1500 years.  Orthodoxy was the Pope and the Pope was Orthodoxy.

Someday, in another work, I will deal with the myth of that wascally critter Orthodoxy, but not today.  Today we evaluate a key piece of the doctrinal foundations for the web of tyranny.

In centuries past Popes shot the Bull and wrote Briefs, and on rare occasions spoke Ex Cathedra.   That means that Popes spoke out of the Seat of Authority, they stand in the Stead of God, speaking as if writing Scripture: without error to be absolutely obeyed.

Modern day Protestants piffle at such absurdity, filling our pious souls with indignity at the nerve.  Protestants don’t believe such outlandish doctrines.  No self-respecting son of the Reformation would place himself in the stead of God. Well, except for the growing Protestant Papists entering the mainstream of Christianity.  Besides, the congregation should think for themselves and test the spirits.  It is “Scripture Alone” and a clear reading of scripture that determines God’s word.

People should make up their own minds…

Uhhh … to a point…

Not too much free thinking…

Err…

There are limitations….

Well…

Pastors are not an absolute authority…

Hmmmm…

OK… what the preacher says is God “illuminated,” and more than just a suggestion.  When a leader speaks every Sunday, it is God’s intent that you submit to his authority, which means whatever YOU think is irrelevant; what HE thinks is important.  And if you don’t get your mind right … God opposes the proud.

Funny thing, the Catholic Church decided many centuries ago, that the Pope needed the ability to speak his mind, without that Ex Cathedra, “What I say is infallible” thing hanging over his head.  Encyclicals are the Pope version of the Protestant preacher saying: “Not too much free thinking, and more than just a nice suggestion.  Get your mind right because God opposes the proud….”

So what does the Catholic church say about Socialism that is not Holy Writ, but a lot more than a nice idea?  We start our survey with Nostis et Nobiscum, Pius IX, “On the Church and the Pontifical States,” written in 1849.

Sixth paragraph, abridged for reading:

“ … the goal of this most iniquitous plot is to drive people to overthrow the entire order of human affairs and to draw them over to the wicked theories of this Socialism and Communism, by confusing them with perverted teachings. But these enemies realize that they cannot hope for any agreement with the Catholic Church…”

“This is why they try to draw the Italian people over to Protestantism, which in their deceit they repeatedly declare to be only another form of the same true religion of Christ…”

“… they know full well that the chief principle of the Protestant tenets, i.e., that the holy scriptures are to be understood by the personal judgment of the individual, will greatly assist their impious cause. They are confident that they can first misuse the holy scriptures by wrong interpretation to spread their errors and claim God’s authority while doing it. Then they can cause men to call into doubt the common principles of justice and honor.”

Here is our next source for the survey: Quod Apostolici Muneris, Pope Leo XVIII, On Socialism, 1887.  First paragraph, abridged for reading:

“…as the nature of our apostolic office demanded, we hastened to point out … the deadly plague that is creeping into the very fibres of human society and leading it on to the verge of destruction…”

“…You understand … that WE speak of that sect of men who … are called socialists, communists, or nihilists, and who, spread over all the world, and bound together by the closest ties in a wicked confederacy– the overthrow of all civil society whatsoever.”

And the next source: Notre Charge Apostolique, Pope Pius X, Our Apostolic Mandate, 1910. Paragraph 44, abridged for reading:

“But stranger still… are the audacity and frivolity of men who call themselves Catholics and dream of re-shaping society under such conditions, and of establishing on earth, over and beyond the pale of the Catholic Church, ‘the reign of love and justice’ …

“What are they going to produce? … A mere verbal and chimerical construction in which we shall see, glowing in a jumble, and in seductive confusion, the words Liberty, Justice, Fraternity, Love, Equality …

“It will be a tumultuous agitation …which will benefit the less Utopian exploiters of the people. …bringing Socialism in its train.”

There are many more comments, spanning roughly 160 years to the present time under Benedict the XVI. Do an online search for Catholics on Socialism, and you will have plenty of reading material.

It seems pretty clear, doesn’t it?  The Catholic Church absolutely rejects Socialism.  They even do a pretty good job of identifying what they call “… the seductive confusion of the words liberty and justice, fraternity, love, and equality…” used by the socialists to seduce the masses with a specific morality.  (Hmm … sounds like an idea for an article.)

Pope Leo the XVIII in “On Socialism,” 1887, even identified the root failures of socialism with these words in the third paragraph:

“…they assail the right of property sanctioned by natural law; and by a scheme of horrible wickedness, while they seem desirous of caring for the needs and satisfying the desires of all men, they strive to seize and hold in common whatever has been acquired either by title of lawful inheritance, or by labor of brain and hands, or by thrift in one’s mode of life.”

Yeah… True!

So, no big deal, huh?  What could possibly be the problem. Well, here is the knife edge. Let us turn our attention to Populorum Progressio, Pope Paul VI, On the Development of Peoples, 1967.   The Encyclical has over 12,000 words which is too much to address point for point in this article.  (But Dear God, does it need to be addressed point for point!)

The Encyclical opens with these comments, abridged for reading:

3.  The hungry nations of the world cry out to the peoples blessed with abundance.  And the Church, cut to the quick by this cry, asks each and every man to hear his brother’s plea and answer it lovingly.

4. …WE traveled to Latin America (1960) and Africa (1962).  There WE saw the perplexing problems that vex and besiege these continents, which are otherwise full of life and promise.  On being elected Pope, WE became the father of all men.  WE made trips to Palestine and India, gaining firsthand knowledge of the difficulties that these age-old civilizations must face in their struggle for further development.

5.The purpose of this commission is “… In this way they can further the progress of poorer nations and international social justice, as well as help less developed nations to contribute to their own development.”

What could be more kindhearted than to hear the cry of the hungry and act lovingly?   How hardhearted must one be to turn a deaf ear to suffering, particularly those who have been “blessed with abundance…?”  Indeed the Pope traveled the world to see firsthand the depth of the struggle to develop, and was moved to start a commission to “further progress of nations and international social justice.”  Who wants to oppose Development and Social Justice?

The Encyclical continues:

13. In the present day, however, individual and group effort within these countries is no longer enough.  The world situation requires the concerted effort of everyone, a thorough examination of every facet of the problem—social, economic, cultural, and spiritual.

The Church, which has long experience in human affairs and has no desire to be involved in the political activities of any nation, “seeks but one goal: to carry forward the work of Christ under the lead of the befriending Spirit.  And Christ entered this world to give witness to the truth; to save, not to judge; to serve, not to be served.”

Founded to build the kingdom of heaven on earth rather than to acquire temporal power, the Church openly avows that the two powers—Church and State—are distinct from one another; that each is supreme in its own sphere of competency.  But since the Church does dwell among men, she has the duty “of scrutinizing the signs of the times and of interpreting them in the light of the Gospel.”  Sharing the noblest aspirations of men and suffering when she sees these aspirations not satisfied, she wishes to help them attain their full realization.

This is a wordy way of saying: see, WE are not about the being “political.”  Political is such a dirty word and so beneath our heavenly calling.  In light of eternity, temporal power fades to dust.  WE are not seeking “power.”  The problem is too big for any one person.  Our longstanding experience makes US uniquely qualified to advocate a truly spiritual outcome.  To serve!

This is the bighearted bait dangled before the compassionate wellspring within us all, sanctified with the highest moral trappings: a rejection of some present reward and an embrace of what everyone knows is the highest human expression.  After all, Jesus said it himself: “… to be great in the Kingdom is to be a servant of all…”

Who can argue with this?  The answer is no one, because they are about to set the hook so deep no one “righteous”  can pull it out.

14. The development WE speak of here cannot be restricted to economic growth alone. To be authentic, it must be well rounded; it must foster the development of each man and of the whole man.  As an eminent specialist on this question has rightly said, “WE cannot allow economics to be separated from human realities, nor development from the civilization in which it takes place.  What counts for us is man—each individual man, each human group, and humanity as a whole.”

Moreover, this harmonious integration of our human nature, carried through by personal effort and responsible activity, is destined for a higher state of perfection.  United with the life-giving Christ, man’s life is newly enhanced; it acquires a transcendent humanism which surpasses its nature and bestows new fullness of life. This is the highest goal of human self-fulfillment.

The Pope is saying that being Christian is about acquiring an ability of self-sacrifice.   Being “United in the life-giving Christ…” is the acquisition of “transcendent humanism;” this is a wordy way of saying Christian love, Christian brotherhood, gives individual men the ability to see more than himself, to see the pains of the whole world.  This higher spiritual self will result in an authentic economic growth.  Translation: real Christians give money to ALL humanity so the rich can be brought down and the poor can be brought up.  Together, all men are rounded out in uplifting fulfillment in the equal distribution of misery—oops … necessities.

17. Each man is also a member of society; hence, he belongs to the community of man.  It is not just certain individuals but all men who are called to further the development of human society as a whole.

This is the Pope advocating that each INDIVIDUAL bears specific economic responsibility for the WHOLE WORLD.  This sounds like a good, bighearted, loving idea, doesn’t it?  And besides, if you are not committed to society as a whole, it is because you are greedy and avaricious.

18. Man’s personal and collective fulfillment could be jeopardized if the proper scale of values were not maintained.  The pursuit of life’s necessities is quite legitimate; hence, we are duty-bound to do the work which enables us to obtain them: “If anyone is unwilling to work, do not let him eat.” (l6) But the acquisition of worldly goods can lead men to greed, to the unrelenting desire for more, to the pursuit of greater personal power.  Rich and poor alike—be they individuals, families or nations—can fall prey to avarice and soul-stifling materialism.

So here is the moral equation:

Work = duty.

+

More than necessities = evil materialism.

No one wants to fall pray to soul-stifling materialism.  Eeek, Repent!  Sackcloth and ashes… and oh by the way, WE will have your money, you God-Robber!

And the hook is set deep within the jaw.  From here WE reel man into the boat: true fishers of men.  Men will feed the world from their own sweat and toil for no other reason than because it is their moral duty.

22. …  The recent Council reiterated this truth: “God intended the earth and everything in it for the use of all human beings and peoples. Thus, under the leadership of justice and in the company of charity, created goods should flow fairly to all.”

… All other rights, whatever they may be, including the rights of property and free trade, are to be subordinated to this principle.

All other rights?  What rights to which do WE refer?

23. “He who has the goods of this world and sees his brother in need and closes his heart to him, how does the love of God abide in him?”

…These words indicate that the right to private property is not absolute and unconditional.

No one may appropriate surplus goods solely for his own private use when others lack the bare necessities of life.  In short, “as the Fathers of the Church and other eminent theologians tell us, the right of private property may never be exercised to the detriment of the common good.”  When “private gain and basic community needs conflict with one another,” it is for the public authorities “to seek a solution to these questions, with the active involvement of individual citizens and social groups.”

Toot!  Toot!  The boat is coming in to port.  The harvest is great.  The slaves… oops, the benevolent masses are in the hold ready to work.

Uhh…

Err…

To have their property seized?

Oh John, that is such a harsh word, and not at all how Christians are supposed to view such things.  This is supposed to be done in a spirit of giving.  God loves a hilarious giver.

Yeah, huh?

24. If certain landed estates impede the general prosperity because they are extensive, unused or poorly used, or because they bring hardship to peoples or are detrimental to the interests of the country, the common good sometimes demands their expropriation.

Vatican II affirms this emphatically.

Why does the Holy Father affirm this emphatically?

33. … We cannot proceed to increase the wealth and power of the rich while we entrench the needy in their poverty and add to the woes of the oppressed.

What does the Holy Father say is the solution?

…Organized programs are necessary for “directing, stimulating, coordinating, supplying and integrating” (35) the work of individuals and intermediary organizations.

It is for the public authorities to establish and lay down the desired goals, the plans to be followed, and the methods to be used in fulfilling them; and it is also their task to stimulate the efforts of those involved in this common activity.

What did WE just say? Did you catch that Dear Spiritual Tyranny Reader?  The Pope just advocated central planning.   He is proscribing a People State of Heaven… uh… on earth.

Seized?  Taken?  Stolen?  Looted?  Consumed?  Are these better words?  No?  These words are not accurate?

Buwwhahahahahahahaha!!!

Buwwahahahahahahahahahahhaahah!!!

Get a sense of the ideas, Dear Spiritual Tyranny Reader, and tell me if you see a difference.

An abridged list of Marx—Communist Manifesto

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

7. Equal obligation of all to work.

The 25 points of the Program of the NSDAP (National Socialist German Workers’ Party) adopted February 1920:

10.  The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically.  The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all.

24. We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race.

The Party advocates positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination.  It combats the Jewish materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: common utility precedes individual utility.

Spiritual Tyranny Reader, you will remember the Zen of War.

Men of DIFFERENT Principles cannot sustain fellowship because the one who is more intentionally (or unintentionally) evil, wins.

In war between men with the SAME Principles, the one who most zealously pursues his ideological outcomes, wins.

Moral Advocacy is the absolution for the zealot’s evil outcomes: compulsion, pillaging, s lavery.

The Vatican, like so many Christian denominations, likes to condemn Socialism by parsing definitions and recasting political conversation in bible terms.  (As if condemning commun-ism separates them from the failures of commun-ists.)

No, no, no John, you just don’t understand.  The motives are pure because they forsake political power and merely advocate “preaching God’s Gospel to the poor.”  If the communists and socialists go too far, how can WE be held responsible for the actions of sinful men?  WE don’t advocate tyranny, WE just advocate how society should really be if man would just sacrifice and act out of true love.  WE are impressed with our own philanthropy.  WE are very, very impressed with our good intentions.  WE cannot conceive that WE are doing harm.

And herein is the disaster: in a war between men of the SAME PRINCIPLES, the one who most zealously pursues his ideological outcomes, wins.

The Christian Collectivist advance the SAME moral principles as the socialists/communists.  No matter how you dress it up, no matter what lipstick you put on the pig, the moral premise is the same:  Man does not OWN himself.

Once you concede that premise, what tyranny can man resist?

Now you see why I said: Moral Advocacy is the absolution of the zealot’s evil outcomes.

Men without the sense of an idea’s history are slaves.

Filed Under Educational Posts


« Previous Page — Next Page »