I had an interesting thought today; We had a friend over last week and I told the individual some Mexican guys came over and gave us a bid on a roof project, after I said they were mexicans she asserted that I was being racist. I was very bothered over the following week. I was at first confused why in using a national term one would then imply that I resented that nation of people (or more specifically that I myself was a bigot). Then I speculated why this individual might say that and my mind landed on the topic of category. That categorizing a person is often times, through a liberal perspective, racist.
There is a cynical view of this necessary and needed element of its intellectual and social function. First, intellectual we categorize as a natural function to efficiently structure and relay information in our brains, that's easy. Second categories serve important social function.
To destroy categories is to destroy boundaries and to some degree to attack definition. Instead of having categories, functions and roles we become equalized as a mass of humanity which is the outcome of two philosophies first being socialism and the second being anarchy. Both philosophies are alive and full of power in the thinking of our generation.
The ultimate aim of these philosophies is to tear down roles of family and society (Husband - Wife / Father - Son / King - Servant). These systems of belief have no respect for authority (they believe education is the great equalizer and authority should bow to education [Man's Discoveries]) Therefore they desire to exalt themselves above God's ways, (i.e. the Bible can only be validated if science validates it).
According to these philosophies all authorities should be equalized or better yet done away with. No authority means, "frees," oneself to serve the desires of their bodies rather than someone or something in authority (i.e. The Bible, God's law). Christians who assent to these beliefs may quote scriptures like Eph 5:21, Rom 10:12 and Gala 3:28 which are all about equal value as members of a new nation but have nothing to do with equalizing or abolishing governmental roles in family or society.
Karl Marx said In his book German Ideology: "In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic."
One would never become those things because those roles would have been abolished. And not just those roles but roles of Mother-Father, King- Servent, etc. For Marx proletariat - capitalist. Those Roles being God ordained.
Dr. Mary Jo Bane, Clinton's Assistant Secretary of Administration for Children and Families in the Department of Health and Human Services, said: "If we want to talk about equality of opportunity for children, then the fact that children are raised in families means there's no equality . . . In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them." Dr Bane is not asserting that we do such a thing but rather such a thing logically follows equality.
To destroy category destroys authority. Back to my first example, "You can't say Black Guy." These thoughts follow, He's just a guy like you and me he's not black or white he's just human, and so follows and strengthens the tearing down of definition then roles. I would say yes he is human and also most definitely a black guy and also many other things. Could it be one day the word parent will be a discriminatory term,? Will we have replaced it with the term Legal Guardian? Will the word Father will be discriminated against because, "What about a two Mom household? You Homophobe!" And as we know the term boss, or king has and will continue to be a source of mockery. Think of any popular sitcom, the secretary is the smart witty one and the boss (Like a Michael Scott) is a fool, a buffoon.
These philosophies are direct attacks against basic Biblical Principles:
Romans 13 1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
Philosophies like those mentioned sound closer to hell than heat is to flame:
Isaiah 14:The Fall of Lucifer12 “ How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer,[b] son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations!13 For you have said in your heart: ‘ I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;I will also sit on the mount of the congregation On the farthest sides of the north; 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.’
The root of both socialism and anarchy resides in self exaltation (pride). That is the fuel which tears down roles of authority so one can feel exalted. That has always been the heart of criticism, pulling someone down to lift oneself up.
Numbers 16 1Now Korah the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, with Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took action, 2and they rose up before Moses, together with some of the sons of Israel, two hundred and fifty leaders of the congregation, chosen in the assembly, men of renown.3They assembled together against Moses and Aaron, and said to them, "You have gone far enough, for all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is in their midst; so why do you exalt yourselves abovethe assembly of the LORD?"
You can clearly see that on their heart was not good will for the people of Israel but rather self exaltation, which is the Devil's bread and butter. Self exaltation is how humanity fell in the first place, it is Satan's most potent weapon because it is what he has done since heaven.
Self exaltation is the opposite of Jesus' way. Jesus came to earth and submitted to human skin, parents, John the B, local governing authorities (even honoring the Roman Centurion) and finally submitting to a brutal execution. Although Jesus was the only one without sin he still submitted and was exalted, not by himself or by creating an authority bashing ideology rather Jesus was exalted by the Father.
( an editorial comment: Racism is a real, vicious evil and we should not be flippant in our judgment of a persons heart. Also real racism does not exist in category but rather the heart of one who exalts one race over another. Race itself is tough definitionally. Legally it finds it's definition as coming from the the Latin Radix, where we get radius, one could envision products emanating from a center point or peoples having there root in a place or ideology. There is "racism" between people originating from the country toward people originating from the city and vice versa, people originating from a place of higher education toward people originating their knowledge from the street (see book, Same kind of different as me). As earlier stated racism is about self exaltation the same root which in a different outfit calls for the destruction of all categories.
Also our dear friend is neither a socialist or an anarchist, although she has like many of us been reared in systems of thought that seethe these philosophies)
Luke 815 But the ones that fell on the good ground are those who, having heard the word with a noble and good heart, keep it and bear fruit with patience.
The parable of the sower and the seed has always been astounding to me. I was reading it last week and a new element stood out to me. The element of nobility. The hearts that received the seed and produced thirty, sixty and one-hundred fold, were hearts that were noble and good. Two questions immediately arise; the first being what does it mean to have a noble heart and the second being do I have one?
To the first I'm not sure. Nobility has a direct relationship with birth, as one primarily becomes noble by no actions of their own, but is rather born into nobility. There is also a action oriented sense of the word being noble. Being noble is certainly connected to honesty, sacrifice and charity. I personally like the element of honesty. I imagine a nobleman's word is his bond. But it the sense of receiving the gospel there is a different kind of honesty that must be applied. The nobleman's self honesty is a difficult and continual process. Digging through the proverbial weeds of our heart and live in a state of honesty with our state. Not one where we see weeds and exalt them but recognize and diligently remove them. Weeds are interesting because they don't immediately damage the plant, they are much more insidious. They stunt growth, take nutrients that should be applied to the plant and feed something that is essentially a waste of life.
Noble of heart receive the gospel because they first recognize they need it and after receiving it they diligently protect it.
