Escaping the Clever “Kafka Trap”
The “You’re a racist either way” charge (called a “Kafka trap”) is just one current example of the kind of nonsense used by our own culture’s thought police to cloud our minds and confuse us. Racism exists, of course, but claiming all whites are racist because they’re white simply trivializes genuine racial bigotry.
The secular world clearly controls the language game. Be careful you’re not taken in by it. Let me show you what I mean.
Since critical race theory is the latest worldview counterfeit (see July’s Solid Ground), consider this example of linguistic arm-twisting. Someone says, “If you say you’re not a racist, that just proves you are a racist.” How would you answer?
I suspect you already see the verbal sleight of hand—the ham-handed attempt at rhetorical manipulation. If you admit you’re a racist, you’re a racist. If you deny you’re a racist, you’re a racist. Racist if you do; racist if you don’t.
Even though the nonsense is obvious, the charge still catches good people off guard. What now? I have a tactical response to this challenge that I’ll share with you in a moment, but first let me show you what’s going on.
Nearly 75 years ago, George Orwell wrote 1984, a dystopian novel about a totalitarian world of mass surveillance and iron-fisted political/cultural suppression. The despotism was abetted in part by “Newspeak,” a clever manipulation of language that Big Brother employed to obscure truth and make it almost impossible to think clearly about any issue opposing the Party.
Orwell’s work was prophetic, though the world he warned of didn’t begin to materialize in liberal democracies like ours until decades later than he predicted. The practice of manipulating language to confuse or even silence opposition, used so effectively in Orwell’s time by Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany, is now standard fare.
You Might also like
-
Destroying the Family
Though the family is under attack in these difficult times, we have many occasions to stand up for the family by showing the beauty of marriage and children. We do not rely on the impression we make in our marriages and families, though such qualities stand out these days. We also share the Gospel, which is good and true news available for anyone who comes to Christ in faith. The choices people are making will not satisfy them. They are lonely, anxious, and confused. God the thoughtful Creator has not only given us the blessings of families, but has also provided forgiveness, guidance and love in the person of Jesus, the Son of God, the loving Redeemer, who welcomes us into the family of God.
A few years ago, a beautiful young woman named Yeonmi Park, escaped into China from North Korea, where people are arrested for religious crimes and face detention, forced labor, torture, sexual violence, and death. Eventually, she came to the United States, where she enrolled as a graduate student at Columbia University. Here are her thoughts about her graduate experience:
The things that I was learning at Columbia really shocked me because it was the exact same thing that my North Korean teachers were brainwashing me in the classroom. At Columbia University, they were literally saying that all the problems that we have is because of capitalism, because of white men, and the solution for all these problems is a communist revolution in the name of equity.[1]
She dubbed her alma mater a “pure indoctrination camp” and said that many of her classmates at New York City’s most elite school were “brainwashed like North Korean students are.”[2]
The story continues. Some students at Syracuse University objected to Yeonmi Park’s invitation to address a gathering hosted by the Syracuse College Republicans. They called Park a liar and tore up her promotional flyers.[3]
Similarly, during an April 12, 2023 meeting, the Associated Students of Whitworth University voted 9-4 against hosting Xi Van Fleet, a survivor of Maoist China, on campus, due to her anti-woke tweets.[4] Van Fleet, who immigrated from Maoist China to the U.S, draws parallels between the Chinese Cultural Revolution and what she calls the “Woke Revolution,” according to a description of her book Mao’s America: A Survivor’s Warning. The students objected to her tweets because they “were fearful of her bringing views to campus that would be hurtful or offensive.”[5]
Ironically Columbia University (see above) was home of the neo-Marxist “Frankfurt School” in the 1930s, whose mission was to end the influence of Christianity in the culture. The “long march through the institutions” includes the neo-Marxism of a modern radical Left that are transforming our universities into one-party indoctrination and recruitment centers for CRT and Wokism. Current success figures: 82% of university faculty members are leftists, 16% are moderates and only 1.4% are conservatives. “Republicans make up 4% of historians, 3% of sociologists, and a mere 2% of literature professors.”[6] It is little wonder that a majority of students dislike America and its free market system.
Have we come to the point at which American college students will not believe the impassioned warnings of those who have escaped from communism? Are our students so brainwashed that they deny history? Perhaps this is what Obama meant when he said: “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America” (October 30, 2008).[7]
This popularization of Marxism has been documented by three non-Christian academics: James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose and Peter Boghosian, two of whom co-authored the popular philosophical book, Cynical Theories. They state:
Though we didn’t understand the (Marxist) Gramscian, Maoist, Marcusian strategy of the Long March through the Institutions or its mechanisms at the time, we certainly could see the fruits of it in operation in the corner of scholarship we targeted. In short, through the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, the halls of academe were increasingly filled with neo-Marxist and postmodern activists who reliably place their social and political prejudices ahead of any pursuit of truth, … Our universities have become increasingly insular seminaries for a neo-Gnostic cult religion that passes itself off as social science and theory. Entire institutions, including national governments, huge mega-corporations, global NGOs, the entire establishment media apparatus, and most terribly our universities and schools are wholly in thrall to the fraudulent ideology we exposed. In our time the worst of our kind dominate and control almost every lever of authority and power in our land.”[8]
These seemingly abstract ivory tower ideas have had real and nefarious effects in our culture on a practical level, particularly in what progressivism is doing to the family. The attack on the family is not simply an expression of godless secularism. Marx and Engels argued that the nuclear family performs ideological functions for Capitalism and teaches passive acceptance of hierarchy. The family is also the institution through which the wealthy pass private property to their children, thus reproducing class inequality. According to Engels, the monogamous nuclear family only emerged with Capitalism and so must be destroyed.[9]
The debate rages in many places. Take, for example, the Republican walkout in the Oregon Senate on May 3, 2023. Floor sessions were stalled over Republican resistance to far-left legislation that would allow minors to have abortions and access transgender drugs and procedures without parental consent. The conservative author of the article states: “the normative family, the mother and father sticking together for the sake of the children, is the only possible basis for a safe and successful society.” [10] A child changing his or her gender identity has major long-term medical and psychological ramifications. Parents should know, and have an opportunity to be involved in, such an important aspect of their child’s well-being.
The progressive extremists, on the other hand, believe that the nation’s children belong to the state. Parents should just “shut up,” as a Democrat New Hampshire state legislator put it. They want to take over the impressionable minds of the parents’ kids to indoctrinate them with gender identity and critical race theory dogma. These extremists’ aim is to destroy the nuclear family.
Richard Pipes, Emeritus Professor of History at Harvard University, posits that “the totalitarian state aims at obliterating all distinctions between itself and the citizenry (society) by penetrating and controlling every aspect of organized life.”[11] Robert Knight Senior Fellow for the American Civil Rights Union and a columnist for the Washington Times would no doubt agree with Pipes, for on April 16, 2023, Knight said, “We are, indeed, in a titanic battle of worldviews. One of them will refloat America’s economy guided by the Constitution and America’s heritage, and the other will sink it like a rock.” We see the attempt at division and even indoctrination in our schools and communities. College professor and MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry says your children are not yours—they are owned by the community. “We have to break through our private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families,” she says from her position as professor of political science at Tulane University, where she is founding director of the Anna Julia Cooper Project on Gender, Race, and Politics in the South. Kids belong to whole communities, she insists, and once we realize this, we’ll make “better investments” in government indoctrination of children.[12] This same reasoning has been brewing in our culture for a long time, as we remember from Hillary Clinton’s It Takes a Village.
This goal is not that of secular humanism but of the specific ideology of Marxist theory. Marx and Engels were committed to the destruction of the Western family. Theologian Jerry Newcombe states that “America is a grand experiment, encapsulated by an idea which flies in the face of Marxism: self-rule under God. Remove either part, the ‘self-rule’ or the ‘under God’ (as our internal and external enemies would like to see happen) and we would no longer have America as founded…It would seem that we are faced with a choice of two options for our national future: revival or ruin.”[13]
The Media Research Center, a conservative watchdog group, obtained documents showing that a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) program, previously meant to fight terrorism, is now funding a group whose work has explicitly targeted Christian, conservative, and Republican organizations using federal taxpayer dollars. In his presentation, one of the leaders of this program, Dr. Michael Loadenthal, professor at Loyola University, Maryland, boasted openly that “a lot of things we’re doing are illegal” and “a lot of it involves breaking the law.”[14] Invoking Marxist and Postmodern theory, he justifies the wrong doing as necessary because “hate speech is more than speech. It’s materiality. It’s organizing. It’s mobilization. It’s not an exchange of ideas in the marketplace and the best one wins. It’s something else. It’s the strategic deployment of organizational energy and power.”[15]
With this methodology, employed in government organizations, anything, including the Marxist destruction of the family, can be justified. This is what is understood by equity.
Our children are certainly under attack from the LGBTQ ideology. Popular stores like Target and Walmart are marketing “gay clothes” to children. The “drag queen story hour” is proposed to children in many public libraries. Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, friend of Jeffrey Epstein and visitor to his island, has invested tens of millions of dollars into a radical nongovernmental organization called the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF). It is endorsed by the WHO that is pushing for young children to be considered “sexual beings.” “Sexual activity may be part of different types of relationships, including dating, marriage, or commercial sex work, among others,” IPPF said, concerning what children under 10 should be taught. They should also be told: “As you grow up, you might start to be interested in people with diverse gender identities.”[16] Our children are under fire from Queer theorists, who are not silent about it.
The San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus sings:
“We’re coming for your children…We’ll convert your childrenHappens bit by bit. Quietly and subtlyAnd you will barely notice it…”
As an example of how they “come,” organizers of a “Youth Carnival” sponsored by two Indiana LGBTQ+ associations and the Indianapolis Airport Authority will not allow parents to attend with their children. According to an Instagram post by Indiana Youth Group, it is collaborating with Indy Pride to hold the carnival for “youth” ages 12 to 20.[17] The role of parents is totally undermined.
Respected journalist Daniel Greenfield shows how the US State Department of Education conducts civil rights investigations that accuse school districts of creating “a hostile environment for students, based on sex.” How are these schools doing this? By removing books containing “graphic details of sexual acts” from school libraries. Removal, that is, not the reading of these books (like the one mentioned below) is harmful for society. This would include “All Boys Aren’t Blue.” I hesitate to type the words from this book, for I would never utter them! However, as Christians, we must realize the horrors that are foisted on our children. In the afore-mentioned book there are sections describing two young boys engaging is mutual sexual discovery, with phrases such as, “he reached his hand down and pulled out my d____. He quickly went to giving me h___” and “for the first few minutes, we dry humped and grinded.”[18] This is meant to foster homosexual desire in young boys. About the controversy over the book, our first lady (a mother herself), Jill Biden, publicly declared: “All books should be in the library. All books. This is America. We don’t ban books.”[19]Except, maybe one day, the Bible.
The goal of my text, in denouncing these policies and political tendencies, is not for the creation of a theocracy, for a Christian nation or for a rightwing political ideology. As Al Mohler says, theocracies apply the first table of the Law, which requires love for and worship of God by God’s chosen people. This cannot be a Christian goal for believers to impose on unbelievers. Christians can, however, propose legislation that upholds the second table of the law, namely inter-personal morality which applies to everyone, especially our children, living in a God-created universe, for their own good and prosperity as created beings. This certainly applies to the family, which is so deconstructed that young people either reject marriage or, if married, refuse to have children. Even the Supreme Court is involved in undermining the family, declaring same-sex marriage in 2015 to be a legal marital structure, but thereby destroying the family as God intended it at the beginning.[20] When God says “It is not good for man to be alone” that could well be understood to say, “It is not good that there be men alone,” which is clearly true of marriage, which the Supreme Court failed to maintain. The civilization and the family declared by the Creator, required women, who would be mothers. Two married men, claiming to be fathers, do not make a family or a civilization, as God intended.
See how the Creator and marriage are joined in Scripture: “For your Maker is your husband, the LORD of hosts is his name; and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer, the God of the whole earth he is called” (Isa 54:5). This text presupposes a wife, namely Israel.
Though the family is under attack in these difficult times, we have many occasions to stand up for the family by showing the beauty of marriage and children. We do not rely on the impression we make in our marriages and families, though such qualities stand out these days. We also share the Gospel, which is good and true news available for anyone who comes to Christ in faith. The choices people are making will not satisfy them. They are lonely, anxious, and confused. God the thoughtful Creator has not only given us the blessings of families, but has also provided forgiveness, guidance and love in the person of Jesus, the Son of God, the loving Redeemer, who welcomes us into the family of God.
Dr. Peter Jones is scholar in residence at Westminster Seminary California and associate pastor at New Life Presbyterian Church in Escondido, Calif. He is director of truthXchange, a communications center aimed at equipping the Christian community to recognize and effectively respond to the rise of paganism. This article is used with permission.[1] https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/02/north-korea-defector-compares-woke-education-in-america-to-regime-she-escaped/
[2] Ibid.
[3] Syracuse U. Students Object to Talk by North Korea Defector Yeonmi Park, Calling Her a Liar, Legal Insurrection, 04/27/2023, Mike LaChance.
[4] What are they afraid of?, Student govt. rejects hosting anti-woke survivor of Maoist China, Campus Reform, 21 Apr 2023, Thomas Stevenson
[5] Graham J Noble Liberty Nation, May 13, 2023
[6] https://www.frontpagemag.com/americas-crisis-is-the-universities/
[7] https://www.timesrepublican.com/opinion/columnists/2022/06/biden-continues-obamas-fundamental-transformation/
[8] Woke Identity Marxism Video: The Reformers: A New Film About the Grievance Studies Affair:
James Lindsay, Corruption, Evil, Hatred of God, Ideology, Marxism, Other Writers, New Discourses, May 7, 2023.
[9] https://revisesociology.com/2014/02/10/marxist-perspective-family/#:~:text=Marxists%20argue%20that%20the%20nuclear,children%2C%20thus%20reproducing%20class%20inequality.
[10] Katherine Hamilton, Oregon GOP Continues Walkout as Democrats Push Anti-Parent Abortion, Trans Bills, ChicagoConservative27, 05/26/2023
[11] Richard Pipes, Communism: A History (Random House), 105.
[12] Kurt Nimmo, MSNBC Host Harris Perry: Your Kids Belong to the Collective; Infowars.com, April 6, 2013. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrxTeM9r9ak.
[13] https://new.americanprophet.org/is-america-still-worth-fighting-for/
[14] https://researchdirectory.uc.edu/p/loadenml
[15] Luis Cornelio and Tim Kilcullen, “How Biden’s DHS Is Weaponizing an Anti-Terror Program Against Christians, Conservatives & the GOP,” (May 25th, 2023), MRC NEWSBUSTERS.
[16] Frank Bergman Bill Gates Plows Millions into Group Claiming Kids Are “Sexual Beings,” SLAY News, April 17, 2023.
[17] https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/05/24/indiana-pride-group-hosts-carnival-banning-parents/?fbclid=IwAR2m_C2cirDotaI83H6BknCSrRI-ICdoSP72OVGasCgXEgTYsJsvQMYzCxs
[18] https://www.frontpagemag.com/department-of-education-investigates-schools-for-not-sexualizing-kids/
[19] https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/09/13/jill-biden-dismisses-parental-control-of-books-in-school-libraries-this-is-america-we-dont-ban-books/
[20] The Respect for Marriage Act. 2022, repeals the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). DOMA barred the federal government from respecting the marriages of same-sex couples who were married under state law, which excluded them from federal recognition, such as with Social Security benefits, tax benefits, and more. The Respect for Marriage Act extends the act of the Supreme Court and received bipartisan support in Congress and signals how far public support is now given to same sex marriage.
Related Posts: -
All Things to All Men: What Does It Really Mean?
Reaching back beyond current debates and controversies to learn from the way that others in the past have understood this passage is particularly helpful. It brings a different perspective that help us to see things in a clearer way. We are not the only generation to seek to understand the Scriptures and if we are prepared to learn from other Christians in our own day then why not from the past too? The following is therefore drawn from the way that David Dickson and James Durham understood 1 Corinthians 9:22. In this verse Paul says “I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some”. We need to understand these words in their context, not just repeat them as a slogan.
Paul Is Speaking about His Personal Conduct
Paul has been speaking about financial support for the ministry in verses 7-14. He then speaks about his own practice amongst the Corinthians in verses 17-18. If my preaching is “voluntary, it shall have a reward” he says “but if against my will, I must still discharge it, because of the dispensation committed to me by the command of God” (Dickson). Paul contrasts this with those who “unwillingly preach the gospel” and “exercise their ministry, not out of any love to God and desire of converting souls but for filthy lucre’s sake or out of vain-glory” (Dickson). But Paul chose to deny himself what he was entitled to by not seeking financial support for his ministry in this context. He chose to “make the gospel of Christ without charge” (v18). If he had sought financial support, those who opposed him would have used it against him and he would have “abused the gospel” (v18) and “abused his liberty” (Dickson).
James Durham says that Paul’s taking wages in Corinth would have harmed the edification of the Corinthians because it would have given confirmed the suspicion that he was self-seeking. It would only strengthen the slanders he received from his opponents. It would have been unedifying for Paul to accept financial support because it would have stirred up groundless suspicion. The spiritual edification of our brother is of more value than our temporal rights. Thus we may have to forbear lawful things that we are inclined to do if doing it would harm the edification of others.
Paul has a liberty (v19) but he is willing to give up his personal benefit if it will get in the way of spiritual service to others. He is willing to do this in “all sorts of things that are indifferent” so as not to serve “himself but rather others so that he might gain them” (Dickson). There are three ways in which he gave up his entitlements in this way (verses 20-22).Jews. He conformed himself to the Jews who considered themselves bound to keep the ceremonial law. If necessary in particular times and places, he was willing to observe the ceremonies appointed under Moses. He did this as though he was under the yoke of ceremonies. He did this according to the verdict of the Council at Jerusalem (Acts 15:22-29) which left the Jews (such as Paul) who had been born under that yoke free to use the ceremonies for a time. In no way was this the case for the Gentiles (Acts 21:21, 25).
Gentiles. When amongst the Gentiles who were without obligation to the ceremonial law, he laid aside the use of such ceremonies, as though he was without obligation to that law. He makes it clear, however, that he did not mean the moral law or the law of love. This is the perpetual law of God and Christ, from which he could not be freed. He was indeed he freed from the ceremonial law so that he might freely, for the advantage of the gospel, either use of abstain from using such ceremonies.
Weak Believers. Paul conformed himself to those who doubted whether they were free to abstain from lawful things.It should be clear that Paul is not speaking about a positive requirement to adopt a culture but rather in relation to whether certain practices are positively commanded by God or indifferent. He is speaking about personal conduct rather than providing a full-blown missionary strategy or church planting methodology.
Read More -
Christian, Here’s When You’re Allowed to Apply Scripture
Here are three simple steps, but they take time and effort. Understand the passage in its original context, understand how the passage fits into the biblical storyline and is fulfilled in the person and work of Christ, and apply the passage to yourself in your circumstances in a way that is faithful to steps 1 and 2. And we’re not keen on spending time and effort on this. The tragedy is that this is causing great harm within the church. Christians are hurting other Christians because they don’t know how to interpret and apply Scripture faithfully.
I know, it’s a strange title for an article, but it’s coming from a place of great concern, and the title expresses the sentiment I want to convey. I’ve had a growing frustration about something happening in the church. Let me put it bleakly: vast tracts of Christians don’t actually know how to apply Scripture in popular forms of argument and everyday conversations. They have Scripture memorized; they can quote chapter and verse numbers; they even have an accurate understanding of the central message of Scripture, but they don’t know how to apply it. They don’t know how to use it with faithfulness to what the text really means and how it’s been fulfilled in Christ.
Come to think of it, what I just said is gracious. It’s not that they don’t know how to apply it; it’s that they think they do, but they don’t. They’re confident and they’re ignorant. And that’s far more dangerous. When confidence marries ignorance, the offspring are hideous.
What’s the result? Miscommunication, polarization, and a horrendous witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ, not just outside the church but within it. To be “allowed” to apply Scripture, you have to understand its context. If you don’t, your interpretive privilege is revoked. I’ll say it again: If you don’t know the context for a passage of Scripture, you don’t get to apply it to a popular argument or casual conversation. You and I are allowed to apply to Scripture in an argument or conversation only if we know its context (more on that below) and can match that context to the area in question.
Why the Problem?
We’ll work through an example together, but before that, let’s think about why this is such a problem for contemporary Christians. My working theory has two forms, one less offensive and the other more offensive. Here’s the less offensive form: We live in a culture that encourages fragmentation and discards depth. Fragmentation means that our minds aren’t often putting together threads of coherent thought. Much of the time, we’re pigeons grabbing bread crumbs of information and entertainment. And that crumb-picking habit carries over into our understanding and application of Scripture. We’re not asking questions of a text, working through context in widening circles, or even using our God-given reason to reach understanding. Instead, we’re crumb-picking. We grab a friend’s complaint here, a Facebook comment there, and a Scripture passage we found through a Google search, and boom: we’ve got an “argument,” an arrow to shoot in conversation. And because we’re quoting Scripture, it appears to be biblical. But let’s be clear: Quoting a Bible verse doesn’t mean you’ve made a biblical argument. In fact, it doesn’t even reflect your faith. Satan, remember, dropped Scripture references more than once (see Matt. 4), and he’s pure evil.
Here’s the more offensive form of my working theory: We’re lazy. Looking up a biblical passage in its context, trying to prayerfully discern meaning within the biblical storyline and how the passage is fulfilled in Christ, takes work and time. And we don’t really want to give time to this. We just want to reinforce our perspective and pass off some judgment on “weaker” Christians before we grab our next cup of coffee. Again, what I’m claiming in this article is blunt: We don’t get to do that. We’re not allowed to apply Scripture to something without knowing where a passage is coming from, what its context is. We’re not given a free-pass on laziness just because we grew up in the church and are familiar with Scripture.
What Does Context Involve?
When I say “context,” I’m actually suggesting that you and I have a process for interpreting a passage of Scripture, what we call a hermeneutic. It doesn’t have to be fancy. A simple one is set out by Vern Poythress in God-Centered Biblical Interpretation (p. 116):Understand the passage in its original context.
Understand how the passage fits into the biblical storyline and is fulfilled in the person and work of Christ.
Apply the passage to yourself in your circumstances in a way that is faithful to steps 1 and 2.Three simple steps, but they take time and effort (see also chapter 4 in Poythress’s Reading the Word of God in the Presence of God). And we’re not keen on spending time and effort on this. The tragedy is that this is causing great harm within the church. Christians are hurting other Christians because they don’t know how to interpret and apply Scripture faithfully. Let’s flesh this out with an example.
An Example Passage
Take a text that’s often abused in our cultural moment: 2 Timothy 1:7, “For God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control.” How is the text abused? Since people “cherry pick” this verse and don’t understand what it means in context, they take it as a blanket statement that addresses human emotion in general. The popular usage might look something like this:
If you seem to be afraid of something, you’re not being a true Christian, since God has not given us the spirit of fear.
This has the harmful, unbiblical consequence of making people feel guilty for having feelings. It can encourage a form of Stoicism, a rejection of the place and weight of human emotion. In our cultural moment, I’ve seen Christians use this passage to bully other Christians. If another Christian appears (and I say “appears” intentionally, because we can’t see the motives and inner workings of others) to be afraid of something—Covid exposure, judgment of others, performance at work, physical illness, anxiety—that believer gets slapped in the face with 2 Timothy 1:7.
Read More