Marxism, in a nutshell, pits people against each other by classifying people according to their status as either “oppressors” or “oppressed.” We’ve seen this play out in modern society through different schemes employing different types of classifications from race, gender, religion, and even sexuality.
But, in recent years, the Marxist rhetoric in the Evangelical Church has seen a drastic increase and leftists are exploiting Christian principles in an attempt to push Christianity to the left.
As Big Tech continues to censor conservative publications like ours, we must increasingly rely on supporters to continue our work. Much of our work, particularly as it revolves around a biblical worldview on social and cultural issues, isn’t even allowed to be shared on social media anymore. This reduces our traffic and causes us to move more of our work exclusively to Substack. Members who subscribe to us on Substack will gain exclusive access to all of our work, free of ads and other annoying pop-ups, as well as member-only access to our podcast archive and controversial moderated content. Please consider supporting us today by subscribing at:
It seems to be working–and working well. Critical Race Theory has been at the forefront of mainstream Evangelical debate recently, particularly within the Southern Baptist Convention. Cultural Marxism has captivated much of the denomination even to the point where its leadership is willing to compromise on their own integrity in order to advance the cause. Most recently, Ed Litton–who was exposed for intense serial plagiarism spanning many years of his career as a pastor–now serves as the president of the Southern Baptist Convention largely unaccountable for his crimes. Why? Because he was willing to advance the Marxist cause by fighting the denomination’s imaginary epidemics of “sex abuse” and “racial injustice.”
In a recent panel discussion between Al Mohler, Denny Burk, and other Southern Seminary leaders, Mohler appeared to embrace the feminist narrative that is being advanced by Evangelical feminists like Beth Moore, Rachael Denhollander, and others, that any time a man and a woman commit fornication, and that man has some kind of “authority” or “power” over the woman, it is automatically sex abuse on the part of the man. Essentially, it is “rape.”
The accusation of “rape” is one of the most abhorrent accusations one can make against another human being. These emotionally charged terms, in recent years, through the use of the Marxist philosophy, have been employed in order to move the Overton Window closer to societal acceptance of Marxism.
John Piper made a similar argument to this in one of his recent podcasts at Desiring God. He argued, just like the feminists who employ the Marxian “power structure” dialectic, that David raped Bathsheba in the Old Testament.
How does he make this argument? He says:
I think there are pointers that David exerted a kind of pressure on her to warrant the accusation of rape, and I don’t say that because I think the act couldn’t be consensual given the power dynamics at play. It is possible for a woman to be sinfully complicit in committing adultery with a very powerful man. I don’t see any evidence for that in this text.
Piper argued that he sees no evidence that Bathsheba was guilty of adultery. Yet, he appears to overlook the fact that God held her accountable too. God killed their child. The thing is, there is nothing in the text to suggest that Bathsheba was not complicit in the adultery. Nothing. In fact, there is as much textual evidence that Bathsheba was seducing David as there is that David “exerted power” over Bathsheba.
Piper goes on:
On the contrary, I see two indications that David threw his weight around — threw his power, his influence, his position — in such a way as to force her, apart from and against her commitment to her husband, to have sex with him. So, here’s the first pointer that I see in the way the story itself is narrated.
To be clear, the idea of power rape is new. The historic definition of rape–that David would have forced himself upon a fighting and unwilling victim–is not supported in the text, at all. Using this newly defined idea of rape would, logically, eliminate almost any possibility of a consensual sexual relationship, even within a marriage. In nearly every case, a man is stronger than a woman and by this very virtue of having more “power,” the woman automatically becomes the victim.
In the clip below, Al Mohler appears to advance the same narrative.
If you have a claim of abuse, and you have two unmarried people, there’s been a temptation in many Evangelical circles to say we don’t have a clue what to think about that on the abuse angle, but they’re having sex outside of marriage, and that’s all there is to it, and that’s the limit of our responsibility. We now know that that is not enough, that there is much more to the situation than that. The question of sexual sin does not disappear, it’s still the church’s responsibility. But there is a context of abuse…we just begin with the understanding that if you are in authority over someone, then any kind of sexual expression or sexual activity is absolutely categorically wrong and rightly defined as abuse.
