The classical Marxist is concerned mostly with equality of outcome. By abolishing private property and with workers in charge of production, everyone theoretically ends up with the same number of eggs in the fridge at the end of the week. That, of course, is an absolute impossibly because of man’s inherent greed and avarice. Some, as the old children’s book says, always end up “more equal” than others.

Most of readers probably hold this truth to be self-evident: “That all men are created equal.” Every professed Christian can also affirm that statement from the Declaration of Independence because the Bible teaches that all men are made in the image of God. As such, all men can know God, all men should worship God, and all men should be compelled to believe the gospel. Those who do will be saved and those who do not, shall be damned. Christians believe in that kind of equality, but they do not (or at least should not) believe in Egalitarianism because that is a distinctly Marxist doctrine.
The great difference between Equality and Egalitarianism can be demonstrated by establishing a very important distinction between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.
This essential distinction can, first of all, be observed in the gospel itself. All men, without distinction, should be invited to believe the gospel. That is equality of opportunity. Nevertheless, the Bible clearly teaches that not all men will be saved and that is a clear proof of inequality of outcome.
Classical Marxism is about economics and Frankfort School Neo-Marxism is about culture, so let us now apply this distinction to both of those areas.
The classical Marxist is concerned mostly with equality of outcome. By abolishing private property and with workers in charge of production, everyone theoretically ends up with the same number of eggs in the fridge at the end of the week. That, of course, is an absolute impossibly because of man’s inherent greed and avarice. Some, as the old children’s book says, always end up “more equal” than others.
Again, the cultural Marxist broadens this ideal of economic egalitarianism to all areas of life, expecting not just equality of opportunity, but also that of outcome. So, if there happens to be more men than women on a board of directors, that’s injustice. If there happens to be more whites than blacks in management, that’s injustice. This is the kind of thinking that led to Affirmative Action policies in the 1960s.
Here, however, is the vital question: Is observed “inequality” actually injustice? The holy Scriptures offer a very clear answer: No.
As Moses argued with God about his qualifications for office, the Lord said, “Who hath made man’s mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? Have not I, the Lord?” (Exodus 4:11). Think about what that means in terms of equality of opportunity. Should a blind man have equal opportunity for employment as an airline pilot? Should a mute man be called as a preacher in the church? No one truly believes in absolute equality of opportunity.
Consider also the scriptural example of Mephibosheth: “He was five years old… and his nurse took him up, and fled: and it came to pass, as she made haste to flee, that he fell, and became lame” (cf. 2 Samuel 4:1-4). Being crippled from childhood, should David have offered Miphiboseth a position as a horseman in his army? That would certainly be equality of opportunity! No, he rather showed him “the kindness of God” by caring for him as a cripple.
The inescapable tension between what God says and what the cultural Marxists say is even more obvious when we consider the other kind of equality. To expect absolute equality of outcome in any area of life is absolute madness. Do you expect a woman to bench press the same amount of weight as a man? Do you expect a man with an IQ of eighty to earn the same amount of money as a man with an IQ of one hundred and twenty? Actually, what we may or may not expect, is a secondary consideration as the scriptures speak very clearly to this matter.
Hannah, for example, acknowledged in prayer, “The Lord maketh poor, and maketh rich” (1 Samuel 2:7). Do you actually believe that? Do you believe that each man’s level of wealth has been ordained, personally, by God himself? If so, then you cannot believe in equality of outcome and you cannot therefore be a Neo-marxist. Inequality exists under the sovereign appointment of our only-wise God.
Consider also the fifth commandment, “Honour thy father and thy mother” (Exodus 20:12). This commandment, at least as explained in the Reformed tradition, presupposes that three classes of men exist in this world: Superiors, Equals, and Inferiors. We simply cannot relate properly one-to-another without acknowledging essential or functional inequalities and then adapting our behavior accordingly.
Egalitarianism, then, is entirely unbiblical and also laughably unrealistic. Yet still, it is set forth as the empty promise of the Neo-Marxists. Because they see it as good news, anyone who opposes it is inherently evil. This, we shall explore in the next article.
Christian McShaffrey is a Minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and is Pastor of Five Solas Church (OPC) in Reedsburg, Wis.

Written by Mitchell L. Chase |
Friday, June 23, 2023
By teaching the doctrine of the bodily resurrection, local churches will be casting a more accurate vision of future life. Better than going away to heaven is being raised to dwell forever with the Lord in a new creation. The new creation will be material, not just spiritual, so a life of embodied immortality fits with the future consummation. 

Biblical doctrine is not just for the head but for the heart, for daily life as a disciple of Jesus. So it is, too, with the doctrine of bodily resurrection. Thinking about the future will help us here and now. In local churches that are pursuing faithfulness to Christ, we will want to connect the importance of sound doctrine to the lives of our church members.
How, then, does the doctrine of bodily resurrection shape the life of the local church? Let’s reflect on four ways.
Preparing to Die
First, the doctrine of the bodily resurrection confronts us with the reality of death. Our local churches are filled with people heading toward the grave. Memorial services are held for the young and old. By giving attention to the Bible’s teaching on the bodily resurrection, local churches face the truth that our earthly lives will come to an end. After all, something won’t rise unless it has first died. The writer of Ecclesiastes is right: “All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return” (Eccl. 3:20).
Humans have an invincibility problem, especially when we’re young. We know people die, but we don’t imagine it will one day be true of us. Facing the truth of our mortality will sober our minds, and we need that effect often. A responsibility for local churches is preparing people to die. Our sermons and Bible studies, our catechisms and songs, must operate from an awareness of our perishable frame.
As people reflect on their coming death, fear is a normal and understandable response. People fear the fact of death, the process of death, the timing of death, and what their death will mean for those left behind. By teaching about the bodily resurrection, churches are arming and aiding their members who may be tempted to fear what is to come. Death is the end of earthly life, but local churches must preach and teach and exhort one another with the good news that earthly death will end as well.
Pointing Beyond Disembodiment
Second, the doctrine of the bodily resurrection aims our hope beyond the disembodiment of heaven. What are some popular conceptions about the life to come? Playing harps on clouds, becoming angels with wings, living forever away from this creation, or dwelling in some kind of ghostly or ethereal existence. These notions aren’t just believed by people outside the church. These are common notions among church attenders. Local churches have a responsibility to educate their people about what exactly our future hope entails.
Disembodiment is not the best thing about what is to come. At death, the believer goes to heaven. Death disrupts the union of soul and body.
Read More
Related Posts:

Our culture was built by straight wealthy men of European descent, and it therefore worked best for them. That, according to the Cultural Marxist, identifies them the oppressor class. Privilege is their doctrine of sin and, just like any other religion, the Neo-marxists are happy to offer the penitent hope. The call it getting “woke.”

A religion’s doctrine of sin seeks to explain what went wrong, or what is wrong, with the world. The Christian believes that sin began in the Garden of Eden and consisted in Adam’s disobedience to the revealed will of God. Sin then, all men are born in sin (i.e., inheriting the guilt of original sin and also being infected by the corruption of it).
The Cultural Marxist also has a doctrine of original or inherited sin, and it is summed up in the single word: Privilege.
This is easily understood if you remember Marx’s fundamental view of the world. Essential to it was the conflict between the oppressed and the oppressor. This is one of the main tenets of Marxism that has not been revised. Those who are born with privilege are the oppressor class and those born without it, are the oppressed. Further, since “privilege” can be defined differently in different cultures, we see, once again, the perfect adaptability of Neo-marxism.
For example, if you were born to the chief in some undiscovered tribe in the Amazon forest, your privilege would be based on kinship. Everyone else would be inferior, and feel inferior, to you because your father was the chief. Simple enough, but we don’t live in the Amazon, so let us consider how privilege works here in America.
Historically speaking, the most basic privilege in our society has been being born male rather than female. For the first century of our nation’s existence, simply being a man afforded a person inequal enjoyment of both opportunity and income in America. Hence, the Neo-marxist revolution of Feminism.
According to Marxist theory, there is something even more oppressive than being a man in America and that is being a white man. Again, historically speaking, men of European descent have enjoyed inequality of both opportunity and income in America. Hence, the Neo-marxist revolution of Civil Rights.
Today, we have yet another level of oppression that apparently needs to be addressed because the only thing more evil than being a white man in America is being a straight white man (the Marxists call it cis for some reason). Hence, the current Neo-marxist revolution of LGBTQ Rights.
Do you see how it works? Our culture was built by straight wealthy men of European descent, and it therefore worked best for them. That, according to the Cultural Marxist, identifies them the oppressor class. Privilege is their doctrine of sin and, just like any other religion, the Neo-marxists are happy to offer the penitent hope. The call it getting “woke” and we will explore this strange doctrine in the next article.
Christian McShaffrey is a Minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and is Pastor of Five Solas Church (OPC) in Reedsburg, Wis.