Christian McShaffrey

The Sin of Marxism—Part 6

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.

The ‘Good News’ of Marxism—Part 5

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.

The Apostles of Marxism—Part 4

While the Christian church continued to spread its message through missionary efforts, the Neo-marxists did it through what we call “the slow march through the institutions” and herein was their genius: they were still preaching the false god of revolution, but it no longer sounded like revolution. It actually sounded like good news.

The “apostles” were essential to the spread of Christianity throughout the world and the false gospel of communism seems to have mimicked that approach. As previously considered, Marx and Lenin served as something of the equivalent of Moses and the Prophets (i.e., as they represented the root of their unholy religion), but the history of communism, not unlike that of Christianity, also involved a second or “new” chapter.
After the devastation of the Bolshevik revolution and that of WWI, a group of men in Germany developed a new theory of communism called: The Frankfort School. Rather than continuing to stir up envy and violence in factories, they believed the best way to advance the communist ideal was to engage with the academy, artists, media, and the increasingly influential film industry. They also stopped focusing exclusively upon economics, realizing that most people in the world preferred capitalism to classic communism.
The goal of the Frankfort School (like that Marx and Lenin) was to have communism spread world-wide, but they adapted the message so that it would appeal more to different cultures. You can imagine the challenge they faced, “How do we get Americans to worship the god of revolution? They will certainly not give up their private property. They might, however, give themselves over to immorality and pornography. Yes, that’s it, let’s make films for them!”
The first experiment with this new approach was conducted in Germany and it resulted in the infamously decadent Weimar Republic. As we know from history, the experiment was not a success because whenever you end up with a Weimar, people begin longing for a Reich.
The rise of Hitler’s Germany led the leaders of the Frankfort School to seek sanctuary in America and they were welcomed with open arms. New York City, Hollywood, and a host of left-wing universities had already been infected with communist theory, but now they had actual intellectuals on site to lead the re-designed revolution.
These men of the Frankfort School can be likened to apostles, because they delivered their message to the entire world. While the Christian church continued to spread its message through missionary efforts, the Neo-marxists did it through what we call “the slow march through the institutions” and herein was their genius: they were still preaching the false god of revolution, but it no longer sounded like revolution. It actually sounded like good news. We will explain the supposed “good news” of Neo-marxism 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.

The God of Marxism—Part 3

The entire worldview of the Marxist is inescapably materialistic… Marxist ideology teaches the exact opposite. It does believe that life consists in the things we have (or do not have). It has no kingdom of heaven. Everything is earth-bound and materialistic.

Karl Marx was a professed atheist, but I do not believe in atheists and neither should you. Whatever a man lives for, whatever a man is willing to die for, whatever a man is willing to kill for; that, I say, is his god. The god of Marx, Lenin, etc., was the act of revolution because that was the only thing that could bring about their imagined Utopia. A revolution in the Marxist mind is very much like Christ’s second coming to the Christian in terms of its function. However, the theology upon which it rests is contrary to scripture.
First of all, the entire worldview of the Marxist is inescapably materialistic. Jesus said, “Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth” (Luke 12:15). He also said, “Take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you” (Matthew 6:30-33).
Marxist ideology teaches the exact opposite. It does believe that life consists in the things we have (or do not have). It has no kingdom of heaven. Everything is earth-bound and materialistic.
Further, the very concept of revolution is entirely unbiblical. Another word for revolution is rebellion and scripture condemns that with no uncertain terms, “Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft” and “An evil man seeketh only rebellion” (1 Samuel 15:23, Proverbs 17:11).
Such scriptures may cause some Americans to squirm in the pew a bit (because we love and therefore tend to excuse our own little rebellion), but adopting rebellion as a way of life, or as a means of grace, yea even as a god, is what you call Marxism. We must reject this false god and also the pseudo-apostles which preach in its name. 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.

The Prophet of Marxism—Part 2

The entire worldview of Karl Marx was built upon the idea of destruction. He saw world history as cycle of conflict between two classes: the oppressors and the oppressed (originally, the bourgeois and proletariat); and believed that this conflict would someday lead to a Utopia called Communism

Cultural Marxism is a modern adaptation of the social and political theories of Karl Marx. That’s why it is sometimes referred to as Neo-marxism. Marx lived over a century ago, so a brief historical orientation may prove helpful here. The industrial revolution changed everything in the nineteenth century. With the development of technology, the invention of machines, and the building factories, millions of people moved away from the country and into the cities to work.
Those who owned the machines and factories quickly became wealthy as everyone else worked long hours with low pay. Remember, there were no unions back then and OSHA did not yet exist, so life as a worker was hard.
Deep bitterness set into the heart of many workers and they began to despise the rich. This is called the sin of Envy. It is more than discontentment and even more than jealousy. It is when you see what another man has and feel the need to destroy it.
The entire worldview of Karl Marx was built upon the idea of destruction. He saw world history as cycle of conflict between two classes: the oppressors and the oppressed (originally, the bourgeois and proletariat); and believed that this conflict would someday lead to a Utopia called Communism (i.e., a state in which there is no private property, where men share all things in common, and where the workers own the means of production, thus having equal share in all the products). This was Marx’s dream, his hope, his eschatology, and he honestly believed that it would eventually come to pass.
Another prophetic voice of communism was Vladimir Lenin and he agreed with Marx on all but one thing. Rejecting the concept of eventuality, he began a violent revolution. The blood of the rich and powerful flowed. Even the blood of poor farmers soaked the soil as some refused to surrender their land rights to Lenin’s Bolshevik army.
Others, like Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong took the same bloody approach in an attempt to realize their Communist eschatology. To date, over one hundred million people have been killed in the name of Marxism or Communism and while the Christian might well grieve over such numbers, the Marxist does not because this is their means of grace. This is, in fact, their god and we shall explore that more fully in our next article.
Christian McShaffrey is a Minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and is Pastor of Five Solas Church (OPC) in Reedsburg, Wis.

The False Gospel of Cultural Marxism—Part 1

Paul’s epistle to the Galatians was written to a specific church at a specific time and the fake gospel they were dealing with was also very specific: Judaizing. Notice, however, how Paul does not say, “this particular other gospel.” He rather says: any other gospel. This, I believe, allows us to apply his warning to any counterfeit that competes with or displaces the true Christian gospel.

Introduction
“I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.” (Galatians 1:6-10)
In these verses, the Apostle Paul alerts us to the fact that there is such a thing as a false gospel. It is not another gospel as in an alternative, but a counterfeit of the real gospel that leaves people accursed. Some in the churches of Galatia were being troubled by such a counterfeit and others had already been removed by it (i.e., fallen away from Christ), so the Paul here pleads with those who had not yet fallen away to recognize the falseness of that so-called gospel and to reject it (along with those who were preaching it):
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed” (vv. 8-9).
Paul’s epistle to the Galatians was written to a specific church at a specific time and the fake gospel they were dealing with was also very specific: Judaizing. Notice, however, how Paul does not say, “this particular other gospel.” He rather says: any other gospel. This, I believe, allows us to apply his warning to any counterfeit that competes with or displaces the true Christian gospel.
This true gospel has been believed and confessed in nearly every nation, but for the purpose of this series of articles, we shall focus primarily upon the United States of America. Our society was originally founded and built by Christians and for Christians. Sadly, in these last days, it has adopted and established a new religion: Cultural Marxism. The purpose of these articles is to help us understand what that is, so that we can recognize it and reject it.
Defining Cultural Marxism is, admittedly, not the easiest thing to do because it is as slippery a doctrine as that subtle serpent which lied to our first parents. An added difficulty is that it involves a lot of history and philosophy. Some people like such topics and others do not, but most Christians enjoy the study of religion, so that shall be our approach: exposing Cultural Marxism as the false religion it truly is.
It has all the elements you would expect of a religion. It has a Prophet, a God, Apostles, a Promise, a doctrine of Sin, and a supposed Gospel. It also has Ministers, a form of Witnessing, and it even has Inquisitors to enforce compliance. In our next article, we will introduce the preeminent “prophet” of Cultural Marxism: Karl Marx
Christian McShaffrey is a Minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and is Pastor of Five Solas Church (OPC) in Reedsburg, Wis.

Slightly Imperfect Bibles?

Would you purchase a Bible that was missing an entire page? Not many would, I suppose, but when compared to the Bibles published in Reformation times, most modern versions are actually missing about that much content. Twelve verses from the end Mark’s Gospel are missing. An additional twelve verses from John’s Gospel are missing. Sixteen other verses are usually found missing and several more words and verses have either been deleted or noted as questionable.

I recently received a catalogue from a book distributor that included a discount section titled “slightly imperfect” and, yes, there were several Bibles listed.
Obviously, the phrase “slightly imperfect” was intended a reference to cosmetic defects, but it got me thinking about more substantive imperfections that no publishers dare acknowledge while advertising their Bibles.
Would you purchase a Bible that was missing an entire page? Not many would, I suppose, but when compared to the Bibles published in Reformation times, most modern versions are actually missing about that much content.
Twelve verses from the end Mark’s Gospel are missing. An additional twelve verses from John’s Gospel are missing. Sixteen other verses are usually found missing and several more words and verses have either been deleted or noted as questionable.
Many seek to minimize these discrepancies by speaking only in terms of the percentage of material missing. The forty verses referenced above constitute less than one-quarter percent of the whole. However, if you compare the amount of missing material to the length of some books in Scripture, the discrepancy appears as more significant.
The forty missing verses contain eight hundred and fifty-four words. That’s more than the prophecy of Obadiah. That’s more than the Epistle of Jude. That’s more than Paul’s Epistle to Philemon. That’s more than the second and third Epistles of John combined. Would you buy a Bible that was advertised with this disclaimer: Slightly imperfect, missing only one or two epistles?
Modern scholars will undoubtedly take some umbrage with such argumentation, but that is only because they believe the missing verses never belonged there in the first place. It is their position that the otherwise pious scribes in ancient times intentionally corrupted the Bible by adding words to it.
This view, however, is out of accord with what the Reformed have confessed for centuries; namely that God not only inspired the scriptures, but also kept them pure in all ages by his singular care and providence (Westminster Confession of Faith, I.8).
These are two very different views of the transmission of Holy Scripture. One assumes early corruption and the other presupposes providential preservation. Slightly imperfect Bibles seem to betray a slightly imperfect confidence in the promise of Christ, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matthew 24:35).
Christian McShaffrey is a Minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and Pastor of Five Solas Church (Reedsburg, WI). He also serves as the Stated Clerk of the Presbytery of the Midwest (OPC), and executive director of the Kept Pure in All Ages conference.

Scroll to top