Some dirty tricks are being pulled on the American electorate this election cycle. Mail-in ballots for Trump are being fished out of dumpsters. Voting machines are going off-line at curious times. Funny business abounds. But as Americans are finally fighting back against our churches being closed by Democrat officials on religious grounds, few are fighting it on political grounds.
Simply put, closing churches or limiting their attendance prior to an election is Democrat voter suppression.
Evangelical Protestants favor Donald Trump at 78%. Non-evangelical Protestants (mainline denominations) favor Donald Trump 52% to 43%, still a sizeable advantage. As almost everyone knows, faithful church-goers will support Donald Trump over any baby-butchering Democratic candidate pit against him.
Democrats know this, and they are working hard to shift the evangelical vote. Almost daily, a new PAC is created by leftist evangelicals (or Democrats posing as evangelicals) trying to convince Christians that Joe Biden is a more ethical choice than Donald Trump. Almost daily a new newspaper ad or op-ed is purchased by Dark Money donors to claim this-evangelical or that one is voting for Biden because their conscience dictates it.
Of course, voting Democrat precludes the claim to having a working conscience, and Christians know it. This is why – at best – these efforts appear to have siphoned off only 2% or so of the evangelical vote and will probably be made up by other demographics growing in their support of the president (blacks and hispanics, in particular).
Nonetheless, Christian evangelicals use their church services to reinforce a Biblical worldview in their church members. They commonly provide voter guides to their membership right before an election, encouraging them to vote for pro-life and pro-family candidates. And then, churches encourage their members to get out in vote in the weeks prior to an election.
It should be sufficient evidence of voter suppression that the bulk of states prohibiting worship or limiting church attendance – almost 9 in 10 – are led by Democrat governors. And the more egregious the leftist – like Gavin Newsom of California or Andrew Cuomo of New York – are especially draconian on churches, limiting them more than bars or casinos. Even in conservative Montana, the Democratic governor, Steve Bullock, has affirmed Yellowstone County in their limits on church attendance that exceed the limits placed upon bars (bars are limited at 75% capacity, churches at 50%).
If Republicans banned attendance at the Sierra Club, Humane Society fundarisers, or the Gay Pride marches just prior to an election, it would be decried as an attempt to stifle the Democratic vote turnout. And yet, Christians are being kept from the place where their civic activism takes shape.
Christians must say no to church closures or limits, and not only because telling Caesar to ‘stick it’ is godly and Biblical, but because it’s a profane political ploy to keep Christians from being organized on November 3.
That Comminterns exist is hardly conspiratorial. They certainly do exist, even if most people don’t know what they are or what purpose they serve. This short article will explain the concept and give an example of a particularly loud and obvious Comintern, Anthony Bradley.
WHAT IS A COMINTERN?
Originally, the term Comintern referred to those who were a part of Stalin’s Communist International, founded in 1917. Stalin dissolved that organization in 1943, but another organization was founded in 1947 – ComInform – and was designed to subvert Europe with Communism (it was dissolved in 1957).
But the term, Comintern, became widely used in the United States to refer to subversive agents of Marxism inside American politics, education, media, and culture in the 1950s and 1960s.
Marxism, you see, isn’t an honest ideology. It is a subversive ideology that requires co-opting and gradually changing successful institutions from the inside out. As Thomas Sowell points out in his book on Marxism, the irony is that like any parasite, Marxism relies on Capitalism to exist at all. As Sowell explains, Marxism requires free and capitalistic economic systems to suck upon like a mosquito. Without the Free Market existing, Marxism would have nothing to take because Marxism itself produces nothing. Instead of producing businesses, vibrant economies, or thriving markets (which it is incapable of doing) it must invade, subvert, and steal from those who do create, earn, and produce.
For this reason, Marxists simply do not announce that they are Marxist, and neither do they routinely announce their ideological intentions. For more than 70 years, Marxists have invaded American institutions under false pretenses and gradually taken America to the left. What we are now experiencing, politically, is the fruitful success of subversion as a policy.
Although this term was used frequently in American parlance during the 1950s and 1960s, the term has been almost scrubbed completely by Big Tech search engines in the last 2 years. People simply don’t want you to know the concept is thriving. Words are power, and Comintern is one of the words that progressives just don’t want you to know.
WHAT DO COMINTERNS DO?
Cominterns join institutions, bureaucracies, churches, media outlets, the entertainment industry, and academia under the guise of having ideological alignment with core American ideals like personal liberty, academic freedom, private property rights, and wholesome values.
Once embedded in the institution or organization, the Comintern sits patiently for a period of years or even decades, solidifying their presence. In academia, this is done through acquiring tenure. In bureaucracies, it’s done by employment in the Deep State. In churches, it’s done by achieving ordination.
Cominterns will often undermine these institutions quietly for a period of years. Professors will subtly influence students, pastors will sneak a line here and there into a sermon, and media moguls will slip a progressive storyline here and there into their art.
In due time, when they feel it most advantageous, Cominterns then ‘come out of the closet’ as Marxists. By then, it’s usually too late to stop their influence and expunge them from the institution. Cominterns have been known to wait at times 30-40 years before reaching this point of brashness and finally admitting their Marxist ideology. And if it seems conspiratorial that Cominterns can hold onto their secrecy in order to play the long game, consider this well-publicized list of their 45 goals from 1963. Cominterns are experts at playing the long game.
Marxists aren’t the only ones who take this subversive approach to changing the culture. Sir Maurice Bowra – a homosexual – invented the term when he referred to himself as a homintern in 1937. The term was used by homosexuals worldwide (not first by their critics) to refer to their efforts to desensitize the masses to homosexual grossness. It wasn’t until the 1950s that critics of the LGBTQ Movement began to use the term as a pejorative. Other names for homintern include the Gaystapo (first used in 1940s France) and the Lavender Mafia (homosexuals using their position in entertainment and religion to promote their views).
ANTHONY BRADLEY
You might know Anthony Bradley if you survey the ‘Woke Twitter’ wars, an incessant, daily battle amongst Social Justices and traditionalists fighting for the heart and soul of America 180 characters at a time. There is perhaps no better example of a Social Justice slave on the Woke Plantation than Bradley, who almost daily espouses the tenets of Critical Theory (derived from the Frankfurt School of Cultural Marxism).
In religion, Critical Theory is best exemplified by Black Liberation Theology. This unique theology, developed by Black Nationalist, James Cone, reduced all the world’s problems to racism of white men. It developed along side Liberation Theology, founded in South America by a partnership between Jesuits and Evangelicals who were frightened that the USSR and Cuba would eventually drive theists from the continent if they didn’t adopt some form of Marxism.
Today, Anthony Bradley is one of the most vocal proponents of Liberation Theology and Critical Theory in evangelicalism. You can see him teach Critical Theory and Black Liberation Theology below. Notice he promotes the unique vocabulary of the Critical Theory lexicon include “white privilege,” “white fragility,” and he assumes that “systemic injustice” is a verifiable fact and furthermore, that it is caused exclusively by white people and white men in particular.
But here’s Glenn Beck interviewing Anthony Bradley on Liberation Theology (or as Beck calls it here, “Marxist Theology”) just 12 years ago.
How did Bradley go from being a conservative pundit writing a three-part series against Black Liberation Theology to being a vocal proponent of it?
One might presume that his journey from Glenn Beck to Critical Theory took a hard-left turn when he started hanging out with Tim Keller (you can see that video here). But it’s really more simple than him being affected and persuaded by Keller’s Marxism.
In reality, Bradley is a Comintern. He embedded himself into “white spaces” (this is the terminology of Critical Theory, which he has adopted) as the token black man who would be trotted out on the auction block of ideology, singing his soulful conservative spirituals for Glenn Beck or whatever evangelical “white space” invited him to partake.
And Bradley did indeed benefit from the constant attention of white evangelicals, eager to find a black man to say what they would rather not. Building his resume’ at majority-white schools, speaking at majority-white churches, and keynote-addressing majority-white conferences, the Comintern boosted his Twitter following and expanded his platform.
And then, almost overnight, Bradley ‘activated’ as an out-and-proud defender of everything he spent a decade speaking against. But then, Bradley could preface his remarks with, “I’m not a liberal, I’ve hung out with Glenn Beck and Tim Keller” right before preaching a woke tirade that would make James Cone ‘amen’ from hell.
This seems to be a constant tactic of Cominterns, at least among those of a darker melanin count. Whether Kyle J. Howard, Philip Holmes, or Lecrae, these men all claimed to have been conservative and benefited immensely from “white spaces.” But then, almost overnight, they launched their ‘woke ministry’ all-the-while using their former associations with conservativism as a defense from accusations that they are not one of us.
Of course, there are plenty of white Cominterns other than just Tim Keller or Russell Moore. But their tactics to decry “white supremacy” seem a little less hypocritical than the aforementioned men who greatly benefited from being the only darker-skinned man in the Q&A circle.
The fact is, people just don’t naturally change their positions 180-degrees overnight without some kind of born-again experience. When they do, be aware that likely you’re not looking at someone who was suddenly persuaded by the left’s argument…you’re looking at a cold and calculated Comintern.
Did you know that masculinity and feminity are only social constructs and not at all related to biology?
Neither did we. But now we do, because the designers over a Gucci have said so. Masculinity is all in your head, gentlemen!
The new “Mx” clothing line will “deconstruct preconceived binaries with handbags, shoes, blouses, dress-like tunics, sweaters and other pieces that can be worn by either sex.”
Paul David Tripp will be scouring the Gucci line to find new peal bracelets to complete his “Real Masculinity” conference ensemble in no time. The soy-boys at the Gospel Coalition will no doubt rejoice at thisbecause – letsbe honest – they were wearing Gucci already anyway.
Christian News Network reports, “The House’s collections emphasize the dissolving lines of the gender divide in the name of self expression,” the section reads. “Playing with the constructive nature of gender, MX underlines the performative nature of what we wear, presenting masculinity and femininity as relative concepts.”
The style company says, “Gucci’s collections set out to deconstruct preconceived binaries and question how these concepts relate to our bodies…Celebrating self-expression in the name of all gender equality, the House presents MX.”
You can see an example of their new line-up below, which features a young man in a 3/4 length mumu.
Here’s another…
Meanwhile, the Bible clarifies that this type of gender-bending is gross.
“A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 22:5).
If this sounds like something out of science fiction, it’s not. They’re actually going to attempt this feat. The only fictional part is their assertion that have a corpse’s penis will somehow make this woman into a man.
Doctors at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston are seeking approval for the surgery, which they claim is 100% feasible. Currently, federal law prevents harvesting organs like a penis for transplant without the explicit permission of the deceased or their next-of-kin. They want to be able to snatch penises from organ donors for the procedure without special notification.
In other words, if you die as a Christian organ donor who has a Biblical worldview of human gender and sexuality, you might have your penis wind up on a lady whether you like it or not. Imagine the consequences this could have on organ donation, as millions of people start checking ‘no’ on their organ donation forms lest their organs wind up attached to confused women who will do God-knows-what with it.
Dr. Curtis Cetrulo says, “We’re ready to do it, and we could do it pretty soon if we get it approved. I’m hopeful we can do it. It would be super-helpful to a lot of these [tranny] patients.”
Medical science, however, demonstrates that a woman with a corpse penis does not become a man. She becomes a woman with a corpse penis.
In recent days, America has watched in anguish as the most militant critical theorists embedded in American government have attacked Supreme Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, for having adopted black children. The nominee, who has seven children, called the accusation that her adoptions were motivated by racism to be “cruel.”
Ibram X. Kendi, who wrote the book on being “Anti-Racist” (hint: he says to be anti-racist is to be anti-capitalist) – often quoted by the ‘woke’ Big Eva establishment – made the claims about Barrett on Twitter.
Kendi wrote, “Some White colonizers ‘adopted’ Black children. They ‘civilized’ these ‘savage’ children in the ‘superior’ ways of White people, while using them as props in their lifelong pictures of denial, while cutting the biological parents of thse children out of the picture of humanity.’”
Some White colonizers "adopted" Black children. They "civilized" these "savage" children in the "superior" ways of White people, while using them as props in their lifelong pictures of denial, while cutting the biological parents of these children out of the picture of humanity. https://t.co/XBE9rRnoqq
Evangelicals have rightly stood aghast at this accusation. But evangelicals should also know that this was taught at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (SEBT) in just April of last year. The teaching was a part of SEBTS “Kingdom Diversity Department” conference on adoption. The concerns over “trans-cultural adoption” were voiced by Critical Theorist, Walter Strickland.
They quoted Strickland, “Because we live in a Genesis 3 world, ethnicity creates conversations that we have to have for our children to flourish in the identity that God has given them.”
Walter Strickland
They continued, “Being raised by white parents might steal from that child’s ‘identity’ and should be generally discouraged, argued Strickland.”
Thieves. That’s what white people are when they adopt black babies. They’re a bunch of identity-stealers. Because God forbid a human being to have an identity that transcends skin color.
Meanwhile, some evangelicals heavily influenced by SEBTS, SBTS, The Gospel Coalition, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, and SBC President JD Greear swear up and down that there’s no Critical Theory being taught by these institutions (including SBTS president, Albert Mohler, and SEBTS president, Danny Akin – pictured above). And yet, avowed Marxist Ibram Kendi sounds indistinguishable from Walter Strickland.
If Kendi’s racism bothers you, please know that the ideology is being propagated by Southern Baptists just as strongly.
Indigenous people should, as every year, be thanking God for colonization on Columbus Day. The Great Commission as promised by Jesus – to spread his name and message throughout the world – has largely been the byproduct of the expansion of Christian empires through colonization. And through colonization, disadvantaged parts of the world have thrived by the influence of God-fearing nations.
While not all “Christianization” of culture is done by actual Christians, there is no doubt that the influence of those at least claiming the religion of Christ, built the foundations of what we now know as world civilization…
The impact of Christianity on world history is unfathomable, incalculable and unconquerable. [Because of Christianized nations expanding] the impact of the religion of Christ, counted in millennia rather than decades, has been earth-shattering, foundation-laying and world-changing.
The impact of Columbus’ voyage to America has been inherently (and mostly) good. To deny this is to deny objective, historical fact. Ultimately, aside from the benefits of Western Civilization brought by the Catholic navigator Christopher Columbus, this also inadvertently opened the doors for mass Protestant evangelism of the Americas. God’s providence indeed
Native peoples around the world are far better off, more happy, more healthy, and more at peace than they ever would have been before, if it were not for colonization of the New World and the expanse of Christendom throughout the world. Although Columbus himself was a Romanist and not a real believer in Jesus, his voyage across the Atlantic brought the competition of religion between Romanists and Protestants, and set-off the race to Christianize the savage in the New World.
Ruth A. Tucker writes in From Jerusalem to Irian Jaya that…
“From the very beginning of English exploration of the new world there was a strong impulse to win the native population to Christianity. Writings of navigators, trading companies, and government magistrates indicate a calculated missionary zeal. Christianizing the natives became a powerful rationale for colonialism, and colonial charters emphasized Indian evangelism. The Virginia charter of 1606 opens with the king’s blessing on the colonists ‘in propagating the Christian religion to such people as yet live in darkness and miserable ignorance.’ The Massachusetts Bay charter pledged to ‘win and incite the natives of the country to the knowledge and obedience of the only true God and Savior of mankind, and the Christian faith.’ And the seal of the colony testified to this need; its emblem was a figure of an Indian crying out ‘Come over and help us.’ The charter of Connecticut asserted that ‘evangelization’ was the ‘only and principal end’ for the colony’s establishment. Likewise Pennsylvania and other colonies were founded with the declared purpose of converting the Indians.”
Edward Winslow, one of the early Pilgrims, wrote that “the spiritual condition of the savage is itself an argument for immigration. Every Christian has a duty…to spread the true religion among the Infidels, and to win many thousands of wandering sheep unto Christ’s fold.”
Neville Cryer writes, “Other early New England historians and diarists write in this vein: ‘Those men might as well be dead who lived in England for themselves alone and sit still with their talent in their napkin when that could be of service both to God and to their country by becoming colonists and using every effort to convert the heathen.”
We recognize, from our 21st century privileged perspectives, the great travesties upon First Nations people as side effects to glorious and civilization-advancing colonization.
While the majority of deaths of Indigenous peoples caused by the early days of European explorations occurred by disease, which is surely no one’s blame (and diseases went both ways), there were unfortunate skirmishes for resources, trading routes, and old inter-tribal grudges that were made worse (or more deadly) by advanced European weaponry. Perpetuated by Europeans in some cases, and in other cases perpetuated by fellow Indigenous people using European technology, bloodshed was harsh and severe.
The removal of Native Peoples from their traditional lands was also a tragic consequence of the advancement of civilization into the Americas. Events like the Trail of Tears surely burn into our cultural memory as tragedies indeed.
From a macro-perspective of history, however, no serious anthropologist could argue through unbiased evidence that Indigenous people are not better off because of Columbus’ voyage across the ocean.
Following Columbus came Christianized concepts like civil liberties, democracy, capitalism, and the rule of law. The blessings of Christianity include modern medicine, agricultural food production on a grand scale, and a standard of living that make the previous ways of life of Indigenous people – who routinely died in epidemic proportions due to pestilence and famine, often making unique people groups extinct in a single winter – seem hardly worth living at all by comparison.
Today, the Native Peoples have constitutional protections, benefits of tribal membership, and an identity that no longer involves ceaseless warfare with fellow tribes or mass extinctions due to unforgiving weather or uncontrollable disease.
Most important, the Native Peoples have something they did not have before Columbus made his journey across the Atlantic and the Protestants soon followed. Today, the Native Peoples have access to the Good News of Christ.
For God so loved the world, that he sent Christopher Columbus and fellow colonizing forces across the seas, to share the story of Christ and his atoning work for all tribes and nations.
Although colonization also includes stories of hardship, slavery, suffering, and prejudice, by God’s sovereign power, the story of Christian colonization ends in the conversion of the heathen and their ultimate salvation by Jesus Christ.
So this Columbus Day, as you hear the oft-told ‘down-side’ to Colonization, remember that it has been God’s tool and plan to bring a better quality of life, more health and prosperity, and most importantly – the Gospel – to people who otherwise would not know him.
Colonization has brought civilization and Christianity to savage people. Their small numbers in 2019 are not due to the tragic tolls of disease many centuries ago but because – by God’s goodness – they have assimilated into Civilization and many of us, are in fact, them. A 2014 Harvard study shows that almost every American of European descent has Native American ancestry.https://tpc.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-37/html/container.html
Today, the indigenous population in the United States is about 6.5 million, which was roughly the same number as in 1650, and only slightly smaller than the 8 million or so estimate in 1492 when Columbus sailed the ocean blue. Demographically, Native Peoples have not been dying off. The DNA in our bodies demonstrates that many have just become one of us, and joined other cultures and assumed other ethnic identities.
Once the dust settles on history and immediate tragedies forgotten, we should be able to take a step back and see the big picture. The big picture is that Native People are blessed and better off physically, materially, and spiritually because Columbus crossed the seas.
Although a recent poll showed that 79% of college students said that Columbus Day should be discontinued because of their anti-Western Civilization indoctrination, the reality is that Christopher Columbus may very well be the great Civil Rights hero in American history.
As though giving Indigenous people the flu or their subsequent lack of antibodies was the fault of Columbus, some hold the unfortunate disease-oriented deaths against the explorer as though he were guilty of “genocide.” Others hold Columbus accountable for atrocities committed by subsequent explorers, imputing him with the guilt of every European to cross the Atlantic.
Whereas the war-like, human-sacrificing tribes of Central America could be guilty of the charge of genocide, Columbus was the tool of a providential God to bring life, hope, civilization, liberty, and prosperity to the New World. European explorers indeed brought military superiority to the New World, but war in the Americas between tribal people was nothing new; Europeans were just better at it. Nonetheless, it’s a historic travesty to blame Columbus, who we were at one time smart enough to show due honor.
Here are three historic reasons why Columbus might be the greatest civil rights hero ever known.
Three: Columbus opened America’s borders.
Before Columbus, America’s borders were closed off due Atlantic and Pacific oceans, serving as massive and impenetrable border walls, keeping out refugees who were simply looking for a better place to live, escape tyranny, and make a better home for their family.
Columbus breached the wall of the Atlantic ocean, and tore it down so that other people could come across the barrier placed between America’s Promised Land and the unwashed masses yearning to be free.
Columbus did more to open American borders than any Democrat, liberal, or bleeding heart leftist ever has. He took a barrier keeping America sealed off from the world that lasted for millennia and shattered it into pieces by the art of skillful navigation.
Two: Columbus did more for American immigration than anyone in history.
If the mark of liberalism is immigration, then Columbus deserves praise and honor by America’s leftists. Because of Columbus, millions of men, women, and children would be able to venture to America’s shores to reach refuge from oppression and find a higher quality of life.
Without Columbus, America would have had an immigration population growth of zero.
Because of Columbus, poor and underprivileged migrants were able to flee Europe, West Africa, and even eventually Asia to find a better home.
One: Columbus brought ethnic diversity to the Americas.
Prior to Columbus, the population of the Americas was not ethnically diverse and the people were not inclusive. It was, sadly, very homogenous and lacked sufficient ethnic expression.
Columbus, a hero of diversity, made the way for America’s population to change from 100% indigenous to 60% European, 24% Hispanic, 14% Asian, and 13% Black.
What wonderful ethinic diversity! All of it started with Columbus’ trek across the Atlantic
Additionally, America has had more the 39 million migrants in the last twenty years, and is currently 19% foreign-born. Leftists should be erecting statues in Columbus’ honor.
Paul Davd Trip is fabulous. But despite being an evangelical leader with perhaps the fewest manly qualities besides almost anyone but Jonathan Merritt, the super-scarffed, metro-sexualized man-purse wearer wants you to know how to be a man. At least, we think that’s what he murmled under his iconic chin-ticker.
Trip, whose full-time job was helping hucksters like Mark Driscoll and Tullian Tchivdijian prove they were fit for ministry amidst various controversies (he’s virtually the Grim Reaper for pastoral integrity), also took a side-gig with the Gospel Coalition as a professional personality. He’s now one of the new, rare bread of evangelical “influencers” who don’t really do anything but have influnce for the sake of influence itself.
And boy, is Tripp stylish while doing it. Wosers.
We’ve made fun of this before. And we aren’t the only ones.
But this week, the dandy evangelical influencer started boosting adds for a curious “how to be a real man” conference. Real Manhood™ has been a fixation of the Gospel Coalition and the evangelical left for about a decade, which has simultaneously corresponded to a metrosexual plague of skinny jeans, lotioned-up palms, and luxury beard products.
Never before have men who have been so bad at their gender talked so much about being good at it.
What does it really men to be a man? We suspect the conference will be filled with exhortations to be sensitive, soft, and open to prepping safe places for the traditionally oppressed and marginalized.
But while Tripp was posing for a photo in a “I’m seritouth, you guyth, pleathe lithen to me” talk he was giving – used in the conference advertising – Tripp has several bracelets, including one made of pearls.
The bad news is, dude dresses like a lady. Well, that’s probably a bit much.
Dude dresses like a dandy.
But with that bracelet, he at least has pearls to clutch when he swoons over his fainting couch on actual men making fun at his attempts to lead on the subject.
Phoenix pastor, Jeff Durbin, dropped a few potty-mouth bombs in a sermon a few weeks ago. And by potty-mouth bombs, I mean it was PG-13. Well, by today’s standards it was PG. One would think the time has well passed for such a big controversy (eye-roll) but Durbin’s fans are still screaming about it in social media and might be keeping that up until Jesus comes back. What happened here – the controversy itself – is not of interest to me so much. But there are some observations about this controversy that should be noted.
First, I have a disclaimer. I was once brought up on church discipline charges because I butt-dialed someone about the time that I used the word [fill-in-the-blank with a three-letter word for the buttocks]. Admittedly, it was embarrassing. Also admittedly, the word ass is appealing because it’s so versatile (you have your varieties; dumb, smart, etc) and may from time to time have worked its way into my vocabulary. The Matthew 18 process led to two witnesses trying to figure out whether or not it was a swear word before ultimately rejecting the issue as frivolous.
That’s to say, that anyone who acts too horrified or grieved over Durbin’s use of the term is probably catastrophizing, including and especially myself. While I don’t doubt there are people genuinely grieved over the word ever being spoken, I surmise its the breach of pastorly decorum in the preached word that has many wondering how that would slip out in a sermon. I would also venture to guess that most people hear worse on their radio on the way to work, but we pastors should probably have higher standards than Howard Stern, nonetheless.
And this is the camp I fall in. As a politico, I’m regularly annoyed that public speakers at political events or civics meetings drop a curse word amongst mixed company. Like Durbin, it’s the politician’s way of showing that they’re a real ‘man of the people.’ It’s always cringe-worthy and I wish they wouldn’t do it.
When I first heard about the “sh*% controversy” I had the following thoughts:
1. Of course, Jeff Durbin said that while preaching. Of course, he did. He’s a totes relevant guy, very hip. He’s with it. You know, relevant and stuff. When a dude regularly preaches in a beer t-shirt and wears pants with bedazzled butts, you know he’s the type to prove his cutting edge by pushing the envelope of common decency. I was a bit surprised he hadn’t done that before.
2. I wondered how long it would be before James White was dropping the s-bomb. Let’s be honest, we have a Chester and Spike situation going on here. Since joining Apologia, the Internet’s favorite grumpy apologist has been wearing those weird jeans and sporting his new tattoo-sleeve. Of course, Durbin himself strikes me as pathetically trying to hold onto his youth, despite his glorious dad-bod torso winning the battle of dominance over his waistband (I’m not calling him fat, I’m saying his jeans are too skinny). In my estimation, Durbin only looks cool when standing next to James White, who – bless his heart – is going through some sort of midlife crisis. White has become Durbin’s mini-me and might just go the vulgar-is-cool route if his ecclesiastical Exalted Leader does, too.
I’m actually much more concerned about the over-all frat-boying of the church that Durbin is doing than this symptom of 21st Century gutterization, which is potty-talk from the pulpit. There is a certain looseness of the Christian Liberty movement, a sophomorizing and juvenilization of the clergy that’s the real problem here. The “Booze and Tattoos Debacle of 2017” was enough to show that zeal has become an apt replacement for wisdom among the Young, Restless, and Reformed. And all of this underscores the very real seriousness of Durbin recording the sin confessions of his church members to use against them if they ever criticize his leadership. The fact that Apologia Church is a Cult of Personality by anyone’s definition should eclipse the sh*% word as a concern.
With that said, the ‘Reformed’ Internet should respond to Durbin’s sh*% controversy like it should respond to the giant Jesus tattoo on his arm. They should collectively say, “What is this nonsense? Reformed people don’t do that” and then moved on to the next news cycle.
But they didn’t. Weeks later, and here we are talking about sh*%. And two classes of fanboys – those who approve of Durbin’s language and those who have committed the anathematizing offense of disagreeing – are throwing it at each other like zoo monkeys. The rest of us who find Jeff Durbin far less interesting just chalked it up to someone being a dimestore Mark Driscoll knock-off and moved on almost as fast as we heard it.
Here are the observations that we should take away from Sh*%-Gate 2020:
1. Durbin was on-point in his talk. And that point has been utterly forgotten because he didn’t control his tongue.
2. Too many people confuse “bluntness” with vulgarity. I’m saddened that we don’t see the difference. If a preacher says that a homosexual shouldn’t put a penis in his rectum, he’s being blunt; he is not being vulgar. If he uses inappropriate nicknames for “penis” and “rectum” he’s being vulgar. Got it? There’s a difference.
3. No, the Bible doesn’t use profanity. As Phil Johnson explains, the Greek ‘σκύβαλον’ (skubalon) does not mean “sh*%.” It’s used in ancient Greek medical journals and means waste or feces. That’s not vulgar (refer to #2 above). In fact, the Bible says to avoid this kind of talk (Ephesians 5:3-6).
4. No, the sh*% word does not somehow “drive home a point.” No one will be convinced as to the veracity of your argument because you used profanity…no one. That’s stupid. And might I add, it makes you a lazy communicator.
5. Reformed fandom is obnoxious. We are treating apologetics as though it were a team-sport. Some are on #TeamDurbin. Some are on #TeamNotDurbin. The jersey they’re wearing is affecting their judgment. We are to judge such situations with impartiality (1 Timothy 5:21).
6. Whether or not the word is helpful or wise should be seen in the obvious fact that we’re talking about the word sh*% and not talking about Durbin’s point. But as Durbin himself as illustrated throughout his ministry, he is seldom concerned about making decisions that are helpful or wise, insisting instead upon what is fashionable. And the students become like their teacher (Luke 6:40).
7. The incessant asking, “Where does the Scripture say you can’t…” should really stop being asked by anyone who claims to be Reformed. This is a question for Arminians who hold to the Normative Principle, not the Regulative Principle. On top of this, basic maturity should lead someone to understand that just because you aren’t forbidden from doing something (if your argument is the Bible doesn’t forbid such speech) doesn’t provide a reason to do that thing. Thoughtful people make a thoughtful decision based upon what they ought to do, not what they can do.
8. Durbin could have quickly extinguished this controversy by saying, “I got kind of carried away there. My bad.” Everyone would have moved on with a snort and chortle. Instead, here we are.
I loved the lyrics of ‘Reformed Hip Hop’ back when it was a new(ish) thing. And this is coming from someone who otherwise hates hip hop. But the lyrics – back in the era of 2013 – were legit. And so there I was in rural Montana in a 4×4 pick-up truck with an NRA sticker and a camouflage hat at the stoplight, Shai Linne blasting from my stereo as other local denizens looked at me like I was, at best, confused in my music choices.
I called Curt Kennedy – who back then was going by Voice – to get permission to play his song as my opening podcast music. Brannon Howse at Worldview Weekend put the kibosh on that, claiming the network’s listening audience would think it uncouth. I then got permission from Tab Benoit to play Shelter Me, because the blues is less offensive than rap (the irony of this struck me at the time).
Don’t get me wrong, I never promoted Lecrae, who proved himself a worldling straight out of the gate. But I loved IV His Son, Shai Linne, Voice, Jovan MacKenzy et al. I tweeted the latter on my daughter’s birthday and he gave her a shout-out. We were all pretty excited about that. What wasn’t to like? They put doctrine to music. I was enamored.
When 2013 rolled around, there was a controversial video-clip of stodgy white guys at a National Council of Family Integrated Churches conference in which Dan Horn, Scott Aniol, Geoff Botkin, Joel Beeke, Jason Dohm, and Joseph Morecraft were posed the question what they thought about Refomed Rap. After some deep gulping, the men responded with a near-unanimous two-thumbs down.
In short, the pastors claimed that Reformed Rap was an attempt to salvage the unsalvageable. It was an attempt to Christianize paganism. It was an attempt to polish a turd.
That’s obviously my summary.
But I took issue with these men and disagreed on my podcast many moons ago. There was nothing about a certain genre of music, per se, that couldn’t be cleaned up and made whole. Certain beats, for example, were not in and of themselves toxic or unholy. It’s the lyrics that makes something worldly, and not the tune or beat or level of bass.
Since then, I’ve watched the early stars of Holy Hip Hop and Reformed Rap – one after another – show themselves as enamored with the glitz, glamor, and bling-bling of worldly success. They have almost all of them taken on the yoke of celebrity like an ungodly albatross, and each one’s apostasy has been commensurate with their level of success.
Andy Mineo is another who whored out whatever fame he got on the “orthodoxy market” in exchange for the glitz. Shai Linne – and this one was a real heart-breaker for me – has also gone full-woke. And my beloved Curt Kennedy, aka Voice, is now pumping his first to the Black Power soundtrack of 2020.
It has not helped that for nearly a decade, white-guy theologians like John Piper proved themselves cool by having a black rapper on stage with them. Albert Mohler hosted that foul-mouthed pot-head, Sho Baraka, at SBTS chapel. Rappers put James White clips in their songs, which I’m sure he listened to on his podcast at 1.5 speed. Paul Washer even did a conference with Reformed Rappers (although I’m sure they invited him and not the other way around). And now, Lecrae is blaming white people for his plight when I’m pretty sure it was mostly white people who gave him a stage and a microphone at a million different Big Eva events. I’m sure that younger white men are the ones buying the majority of his albums, but these types rarely let the truth get in the way of their virtue-signal.
Well, I guess I have to say it. The fruit has been judged and found wanting. I stand corrected. And despite the NCFIC guys “repenting” for that whole 2013 Q&A controversy (there was a lot of outrage), they should feel vindicated. In Scott Brown’s apology, I Am Sorry, he should not be any longer.
“For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. For every tree is known by his own fruit (Luke 6:43-45).”
You can take the music out of the hood, but you can’t take the hood out of the music. This much should be clear in 2020.
No, I can’t tell you ‘chapter and verse’ where a specific genre of music is right or another is wrong. And yes, we’re a church with both the devil’s instruments of guitars and drums (and keyboard and piano and cello). And no, I can’t tell you that the Lord prefers the genre of Bluegrass to Spoken Word (just kidding, that’s not music) but there’s something in me that intuitively says that Screamo is offensive to him. Can’t we all agree on that?
For whatever reason, it does not seem as though the Almighty has blessed Reformed Rap, and neither has he kept his sovereign arm of protection over its artists. They have, one by one, fallen into apostasy of Woke Religionism (if not unbridled worldiness long before that).
Where did Reformed Rap go wrong? It probably went wrong from the very beginning and its origins were flawed. That is born of flesh is flesh, after all. There is a certain hubris among men to think we can redeem every art form, or that it is God’s intention to redeem every form of art (it sounds silly to think of miming or jazz-handing or grafitti as serving some divine purpose in the coming of God’s Kingdom).
Those art forms that were born in cultural filth, perhaps should remain unredeemed. Jesus died to redeem men, after all, and not every component of seven supposed cultural mountains. It seems that rap was conceived in a squallad enviornment of covetousness, lasciviousness, mammon-worship, and vanity. And after ten years by which it should have produced good fruit by now, it seems to have only produced in its artists covetousness, lasciousness, mammon-worship and vanity (which are all central tenets of Critical Theory).
If the Holy Spirit is capable of saving people from urban plight (and he is) and is capable of saving sinners from damnation by the regernation of their heart (he is), then the Holy Spirit is making someone learn to love hymns and psalms whose writers aren’t protesting Western Civilization right now.
Simply put, the fruit of Reformed Rap is bad. I’m sorry to have not checked it first.
