“Cultural Marxism” by Voddie Baucham [Transcript]

Below is a transcript of the podcast episode “Cultural Marxism” from The Sword & The Trowel (by Founders Ministries) dated February 22, 2019 (65 minutes long). Alternatively, here is a YouTube video of the message.

Podcast description: “Voddie Baucham has spoken of the unbiblical ideology imbedded in Cultural Marxism. In this address, he unpacks Cultural Marxism identifying how it is incompatible with the Christian faith that has once for all been delivered to the saints. In recent years we have a growing concern about “social justice.” What is meant by that phrase, however, varies widely among those who use and promote it. What is too often missing—even in the calls for “social justice” coming from Christian leaders—is a clear understanding of biblical justice. Justice exists because God is just and righteous. He is the One who defines justice and He has revealed what true justice is in the Bible. For more resources on these topics, you can visit www.founders.org. This presentation was given by Voddie Baucham on January 3, 2019 at the Southeast Founders “Do Justice, Love Kindness, Walk Humbly” regional conference in Cape Coral, Florida.”

My assignment tonight is to address the topic of Cultural Marxism. And it’s a topic that I have been talking about for a long time, and it’s a topic that most people didn’t want to hear me talk about, but now for some strange reason people are finding it more relevant. There’s a passage of scripture that I want to read for us; it’s from the book of 1 Chronicles chapter 12. I was trying to think about a passage of scripture, you know, I’m talking about Cultural Marxism; where’s that text? I mean this is not a text on Cultural Marxism, but i believe it’s a text that really explains the importance of us addressing this issue tonight. 1 Chronicles chapter 12 beginning in verse 23, “These are the numbers of the divisions of the armed troops who came to David in Hebron to turn the kingdom of Saul over to him, according to the word of the Lord.” So David, the man after God’s own heart, is about to inherit the kingdom; he’s about to become king and there are men who came with him because if you’re going to be king, if you’re going to govern God’s people, if you’re going to lead God’s people, there are some things that you need. Amen? The men of Judah, bearing shield and spear, were 6,800 armed troops of the Simeonites, mighty men of valor for war; 7,100 of the Levites; 4,600 prince Jehoiada of the house of Aaron and with him 3,700; Zadok, a young man mighty in valor, and 22 commanders from his own father’s house; Of the Benjaminites (the kinsmen of Saul), 3,000 , of whom the majority to that point kept their allegiance to the house of Saul; Of the Ephraimites, 20,800 mighty men of valor, famous men in their father’s house; Of the half tribe of Manasseh, 18,000 who were expressly named to come and make David king; Of Issachar, men who had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do; 200 chiefs and all their kinsmen under their command. Swords, shields, mighty men of valor — you need all that. Amen? But you also need some men who understand the times. So that you know what you ought to do. And that’s what I hope this session will be about. I hope that it will be about us trying to understand the times. Now what I don’t want to do is I don’t want to just offer you a dry lecture on the topic of Cultural Marxism, which is kind of hard not to do because it is Cultural Marxism. But what I want to do is sort of put this into context to help you understand why it’s important, why this matters.

{3:47} Currently, in this discussion, in this debate, and I even hesitate to call it a debate (and I’ll talk more about that as the weekend goes on). One of the reasons it’s not really debate is because there’s a lot of name calling. Alright. People address the issue of social justice, some topic comes up, one person says it’s a social justice issue, the other person calls them a Cultural Marxist, and then they turn around and call the person a racist, and that’s about all the debate that you get. It’s name calling and things get short circuited because of the name calling, and often neither side is being completely honest and we know it. Often the person who’s looking at their brother and saying, “Ah you’re just a Cultural Marxist,” doesn’t necessarily mean that that’s what the person is even though they may believe that they’re espousing some of the ideas that come from Cultural Marxism. And generally the person who turns aback and says, “Ah you’re just a racist” knows better. But both sides recognize that that’s a way to shut the other down because right now these are not issues that are being debated. These are not issues that are being discussed. And in fact, in many instances the mere act of debating and discussing these issues is considered to make you a Cultural Marxist or a racist. On the one hand, if the one person says that this was an injustice and you turn around and want to debate whether or not that was an injustice, how dare you?… I just told you that this was an injustice, how insensitive can you be to not acknowledge this injustice? And on the other hand, the other person who genuinely doesn’t believe that an injustice has occurred is trying to point out why an injustice hasn’t necessarily occurred here and have a find pointed at them and are called a racist and say wait a minute really?… How long have we known each other?… You know that’s not who I am. And so we end up just sort of not addressing the issues, not debating the issues. That’s the great irony here — is that there are issues that need to be dealt with, that we need to press in on, that we need to press each other on, but this has been declared ground where we’re not allowed to fight because merely deciding to debate and argue these issues disqualifies you. And for some people it even disqualifies you as a Christian. You’re no longer a brother or a sister if you’re not right on these issues. Another part of the problem is our ignorance of, or misuse of, the terms, which is one of the reasons that I want to address this tonight.

{7:11} But first, let me tell you what I’m not saying. I’m not here to state that all who disagree with me are Grimscian, Cultural neo-Marxists (you’ll understand those terms as we go along). That’s not what I’m here to say. I don’t believe that. I believe that there are some people within these circles, there are some people within these movements who absolutely hold to this ideology that we’re going to talk about here tonight. But there are others who don’t hold to the ideology who unfortunately have decided to use the terminology and that’s the problem. I’m also not here to state that all of the ideas with which I disagree in the current debate are Marxist because that’s not fair as well. I’m not a social justice warrior. I am not an advocate of intersectionality. I’m not even an advocate of systemic racism theory, and it is a theory. I’m not an advocate of those things. But I don’t believe that everyone who is an advocate of those things is necessarily a Marxist, and I think we have to be careful about that — that we’re dealing with brothers and sisters here. And again, while I would actually love and enjoy to be treated with that level of brotherly love and respect, I can’t demand it; I won’t demand it. But I have to give it. Amen? Alright; I have to give it. And so that’s my decision here; my decision here is to give that. And hope for it in return. Hope that people are honest enough to deal in kind.

{9:19} So what am I saying? What is my goal here? My goal is to lay out a sketch of Cultural Marxism. We won’t be able to go into every aspect of this ideology, but I want you to at least have an idea of where it comes from and what we’re talking about when we use the term. My hope is to make it clear why and how I, and others, use the term and what we mean by it because I do use the term and I have used the term for a while and I believe it’s appropriate to use the term. Although it’s unfortunate because when people hear it that sense of offense comes, so we have to be careful. In doing so, I hope to help you understand a couple of things. Why this terminology is important. Ideas matter. Words matter. And it’s important that we understand the words that we use. And it’s important on both sides. It’s important for you, whichever side of this thing you find yourself on, to understand the words that you use and the implications of the words that you use, and not just assume that people know what you’re talking about or what you mean when you throw out those words. Secondly, I want you to understand why I believe it’s important to address these issues, and you’ve heard some of that already today, but I do believe that this is a critical issue and we are at a critical juncture. There are things at stake here that are of the utmost priority and significance. I also want you to understand why certain ideas are being embraced today and why some of these ideas today are actually antithetical to the gospel that we love and preach and why these issues that we face are important enough to discuss and find a way forward because we do need to find a way forward. Sticking our head in the sand is not an option, and not only is it not an option because we find ourselves at this crossroad within Evangelicalism, that’s important. It’s important that we battle these things out; it’s important that we understand each other; it’s important that we have clarity; it’s important that we find each other on the same page. But there are a couple of other things are important that I want you to hear tonight because remember what I said about the courtesy that I want to extend, that courtesy that is not always extended in the other direction.

{12:15} Racism is real and it’s sin. And I think it’s sad that there are people who are actually arguing that those of us who have been part of the Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel have somehow made a statement that we don’t believe that racism is real of that racism is a sin. Racism is real. It’s a sin. Oppression is real. It’s sinful. Hatred is real, and it’s sinful. My aim here is not to merely fight battles of terminology in order to avoid acknowledging real issues like these. These are real issues. And enough already with the people who are saying, “You just use terminology like Cultural Marxism, you just use these words so that you don’t have to address these real issues.” Nothing could be further from the truth. There are too many people who’ve been killed by police officers. Guess what? There are too many police officers that have been killed by citizens. That’s a problem. We have serious problems in immigration that demand not only political solutions, but also present an opportunity for those of us who love the gospel and want the gospel to be preach to every nation. Amen, somebody. There are far too many educational opportunities, too many educational resources in this country, for so many people to have so poor an education. That’s an issue. It’s real. Amen? So simply because I’m going to argue and will not stop arguing against Cultural Marxism does not mean that I am unwilling to acknowledge or to engage on these real issues. And it is insulting, unfair, and unbrotherly to suggest otherwise, just as much as it is to say that anybody who emphasizes these issues more than I would somehow doesn’t love the gospel.

{15:12} My background… Just want to help you understand why this is something I’ve been addressing. I was raised in south central Los Angeles, now just south L.A. I don’t why it changed. But by a single teenage. Buddhist mother. So yes I was a fatherless, young black man growing up in the ghetto in south L.A. — drug infested, gang infested south L.A. The police who policed my neighborhood were from the famous or infamous, depending on who you’re asking, Rampart Division. You don’t even have to be from Los Angeles to have heard about the Rampart Division. The Rampart Division was the baddest gang in L.A.; they made sure we knew that. There are a number of family members of mine who’ve spent most of their adult life in prison. There are two first cousins of mine who’ve been gunned down in the street. So I again also think it’s rather ironic that, you know, when people listen to me talking about these issues, there are some people who have suggested that my position on these issues somehow rises out of the fact that I’m not in touch with blackness or the black experience or I’ve been so privileged that somehow I just don’t get it. It’s especially ironic when some of these people have seen virtually nothing in the way of real oppression have the audacity to say such things. So that’s where I come from. I come from a family of activists. I just hate, you know, black power, black nationalism. Members of my family who are part of the nation of Islam. Members of my family who were parts of other organizations. Members of my family who were part of protests and the whole civil rights movement and everything else. That’s where I come from. I didn’t grow up with my father, but I knew my father. My father was always an advocate. He worked in the criminal justice system. He worked as a counselor in juvenile detention centers. He worked boys’ homes. My mother was a victim’s advocate until she retired in San Antonio, Texas, working in the legal system there. My first three jobs were in group homes because the influence of those people who raised me. So again, this is where I’m coming from on these issues.

{18:30} And yet, I despise Cultural Marxism, I’m not a social justice warrior, reject ideas like white privilege, intersectionality, and systemic racism theory, absolutely, unequivocally so. And not just since yesterday. I started writing about Cultural Marxism in the early 2000’s, somewhere around 2005/6/7. Blogged about it intently, intensely, in 2007 during the election because of what I saw as the incredible threat of Barack Obama who was a massive Cultural Marxist, and, in my opinion, then and now a dangerous man on a number of fronts and for a number of reasons. And so I ended up, some of you may have seen an interview that I did on CNN before the election talking about some of these issues. I only got to do that one time and that was pretty much it. The lady said after the interview was over “yeah we’ll have to have you back” and I knew at that moment that I would never be back on that person’s show again. And so this is not something new. Why did I think it was an issue at that time? Because of a number of things. Let me give you just a few that I wrote about then and was worried about then because of the philosophy of Cultural Marxism and because of this man’s long history with Cultural Marxism, not only from his university days but even his church. This man sat under an overt Marxist pastor for decades. Jeremiah Wright was an overt Marxist… He was not just a Cultural Marxist, he was also a classical Marxist. This man [Obama] had sat under that teaching for years and years. Not only had he done that, but his position on certain issues like for example his homosexual agenda, most radically pro-homosexual politician that I’d ever seen or experienced in the mainstream; his position on abortion and infanticide, which was radical; on judicial activism; hate crimes legislation. And I believed, and said openly on a number of occasions, that I believed this man’s presidency would make race relations in America worse not better. An article that I wrote and actually reprinted two years later because I’m not big on “I told you so’s” but, I told you so! And so don’t think that I come here this weekend suddenly talking about Cultural Marxism because it’s a trump card that can be used in this particular debate. Nearly a decade and a half now I’ve been addressing this issue. So with that in mid, let’s look at it.

{22:21} Couple of things. First, Cultural Marxism and Classical Marxism are two different things, and this is one of the things that makes the discussion difficult. Classical Marxism, Karl Marx, was an economist. Classical Marxism is an economic system. We know about the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat; we know “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” We know about the uprising of the masses to overthrow capitalism. We know that Marx was a communist who wanted to see capitalism overthrown. He saw capitalism as oppressing the masses. He also saw religion as the opiate of the masses that allowed them to be oppressed by capitalism, so he was rabidly atheistic. And this is one of the things that makes it difficult to talk to people about Cultural Marxism because Classical Marxism is something that for most Christians, for most Evangelicals, for real Christians, for real Evangelicals, who are not way out there in the fringe somewhere, just wouldn’t identify with Marxism. And if we don’t understand the difference between Classical Marxism, this economic system, and Cultural Marxism, which is very different than this in its approach, then if you just hear the word it’s like how can you say that, how can you suggest that? Three main ideas. Let me give you this just to understand Marx — a summary of his salient points. Number one, he believed that history had really three stages or epochs: 1) The Ancient Stage, 2) The Futile Stage, and 3) The Capitalist Stage. He believed that he was witnessing the rise, and would see eventually the fall, of the Capitalist Stage. The second idea was the idea of class consciousness — that each one of these societal epochs contained internal contradictions and these internal contradictions are what would lead to struggle and would eventually lead to the next phase, which led to the third idea — his idea of historical determinism. That ultimately capitalism would fall. Capitalism had to fall. Why? Because the way he viewed history was history was a view of struggle, was a series of conflicts. He was a disciple of Hegel. So this was sort of his dialectic if you will — thesis, antithesis, synthesis. So capitalism had to fall. Workers of the world would unite and there would be a revolution, and there was, but not everywhere. And so towards the end of his life, and then during the life of his followers, they tried to explain and understand why it is that capitalism didn’t fall. I mean if capitalism is exploitation of the masses, and if history is all about these conflicts and if this conflict is going to come and if the next thing that is going to come is a post-capitalist society, then why haven’t we seen this?

{26:05} Enter the Cultural Marxist with a couple of goals. One, to explain why the revolution didn’t occur as Marx thought it would. Marx died in 1888 by the way, so now we get into the late 1800’s, the early 1900’s; we get into WWI. And there are a couple of players that you need to know if you’re going to understand Cultural Marxism. One is guy by the name of Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci was an Italian Marxist. Another one is not an individual, but a group of individuals known as the Frankfurt School. Two ideas: 1) Gramsci’s idea of cultural hegemony. Listen to the way one sociologist puts it: “Cultural hegemony refers to domination or rule maintained through ideological or cultural means. It is usually achieved through social institutions, which allow those in power to strongly influence the values, norms, ideas, expectations, worldview, and behavior of the rest of society. Cultural hegemony, that’s the power. By the way, this idea of cultural hegemony explains something. Have you ever wondered why women, who make up more than 50% of the population, are considered a minority? You ever wondered why? Because women are not seen as part of the cultural hegemony. The cultural hegemony is patriarchal. The cultural hegemony for example in our society is white, male, heterosexual, cisgendered, able-bodied, native-born, Americans. You know who you are. And everybody who’s not that is a minority. And everybody who’s not that is a victim of the cultural hegemony, established by those individuals, which means that everybody who’s not that is at war with that. And everybody who is that is privileged. And the more of those boxes you tick off, the more privileged you are. Shame! Listen to this, Gramsci developed the concept of cultural hegemony in an effort to explain why the worker led revolution that Marx predicted in the previous century had not come to pass. Central to Marx’s theory of capitalism was the belief that the destruction of this economic system was built into the system itself since capitalism is premised on exploitation of the working class by the ruling class. Why didn’t it happen? Well because we’re not dealing with economics; we’re dealing with culture. Marx missed this part, or so Gramsci would argue. He missed this part. So the revolution that comes doesn’t need to be an armed revolution or a revolution of force, it needs to be a hegemonic revolution. In other words, we need to change the cultural hegemony. We need to overturn the cultural hegemony. And how do you overturn the cultural hegemony? Couple of things. For Gramsci, control the robes of society. What are the robes of society? You know, the people who wear robes — judges, professors, pastors, politicians. Leverage those positions in order to educate and mobilize the masses against the hegemonic power. Use the educational system, the political system, the judicial system in order to overturn the cultural hegemony. Does that sound at all familiar? This is how you gain power. By the way, in the mean time, how do you gain political power. You gain political power by promising various groups of people that you will advocate for them. That’s how you do it. That’s why you can have so many white, male, heterosexual, cisgendered, able-bodied, native-born, American politicians who present themselves as representatives of the people who are not any of those things. That’s how Cultural Marxism works.

{32:40} Well there’s another group of individuals — the Frankfurt School. Let me give you this quickly. The Frankfurt School refers to a collection of scholars in Frankfurt, Germany. These individuals who were known for developing critical theory and popularizing the dialectic method of learning by interrogating society’s contradictions and it’s most closely associated with the work of a number of German philosophers during the early twentieth century. They saw a couple of things that for them explained why the revolution didn’t happen. And for them part of it was the fact that people were receiving so much information through mass media. Remember, this is the early twentieth century — radio just coming around, TV not so much. So people weren’t necessarily associating and interacting with each other like they had been in the past, but were receiving information through things like newspapers and radios and so on and so forth. So one of the main goals of the Frankfurt School was to leverage these tools in order to bring about change in the hegemonic powers. Reduce everything to discussions of race, class, gender, sex, and notice how you use both of those because sex and gender are two different things, right? Sex has to do with your biology; gender, [with your] social construct. Your gender doesn’t necessarily have to match your sex. Are we aware of this? And if your gender doesn’t match your sex then you are transgender as opposed to cisgendered, for those of you who were wondering that word cisgendered. Cisgendered just means that you’re not special. The Frankfurt School was concerned with mass media and the mass media culture. It saw people becoming passive recipients of political and ideological information, instead of being activists. And they believed that this explained why the revolution didn’t take place. They theorized that this experience made people intellectually inactive and politically passive, as they allowed mass-produced ideologies and values to wash over them and to infiltrate their consciousness. Because of what happened in WWI, they left Germany. And in 1933 they went to Switzerland, but they only stayed there for a couple of years. And then in 1935 they came to New York and became affiliated with Columbia University. There is a man by the name of Balint Vazsonyi (I probably didn’t say his name correctly). He came to the United States fleeing the Nazis in Eastern Europe, fleeing the Nazis in Hungary, and he wrote a book called “America’s Thirty Years War.” And essentially his thesis was this: he ran away from what was happening in Europe by force only to come to the United States and watch it happen gradually over the course of a generation.

{37:11} So what do these guys give us? A number of things. Namely, Critical Theory. Have you heard the idea of Critical Race Theory? It’s a grandchild of the Frankfurt School; Political Correctness; Multiculturalism. Any of these things sound familiar? So, as a result of these ideologies, we’ve all been taught over time through our media, through our educational systems, to view ourselves not as part of a whole, but as part of subgroups — as part of subgroups, who in some way, shape, fashion or form, are being oppressed by the hegemonic power that rules and governs our culture. And so even when we talk about elections, we don’t talk about this person is ahead in the polls by that much, that person isn’t. No, this person is ahead with red headed, left handed white people from the south, while this person is getting the vote of second generation migrant workers with eczema. Why do we talk like that? Why do we think about politics that way? Why do we think about each other that way? Why do ideas like intersectionality from Kimberly Crenshaw 1989, gain such popularity that people use it like we know what is? By the way if you don’t know what intersectionality is, what’s the hegemonic power? White, male, heterosexual, cisgendered, able-bodied, native-born American people. That’s the man. Right? You ever heard that saying? You know, the man keeping us down. That’s the man. And by the way, the list could go on and on and on. Intersectionality in a nutshell basically is the idea that to the degree that you don’t have those things you are oppressed, and so if you are male, heterosexual, cisgendered, native-born, American, able-bodied — by the way, also attractive; there’s pretty privilege too. If you are all those tings, but you’re not white, then your oppression is limited to this area. But what if you’re not white, but you’re also not male? Now that place where your not whiteness and your not maleness intersects is where you feel the weight of your oppression. Well what if you’re not white and not male and not heterosexual, well now the oppression is even worse on you because you have these three intersections of oppression. What if you’re not white, not male, not heterosexual, and not cisgendered… So now you are a black, trans-male, lesbian… Anyway (*laughter from audience*), now there are four intersections of oppression, right? If you’re not white and you’re not male and you’re not heterosexual and you’re not cisgendered and you’re not able-bodied… Or you’re not a native-born American, you’re an immigrant. You see, intersectionality says that the level of oppression and the kind of oppression that you experience combines itself in these areas and layers itself in these areas, these intersections if you will. But what is that, if not a grown up expression of Cultural Marxism?

{42:46} By the way, when people use the term racism today, you’ve got to be careful and you’ve got to understand what people are talking about because when people say racism they could mean you are being accused of being an individual who has racist, prejudicial ideas toward other individuals or they could just be saying that you are a person who is part of the cultural hegemony, which by the way is inherently racist against people who are not white, male, heterosexual, which means that now you have racism without a racist. Although how do you handle that? Racism in the heart of an individual. Let’s go to the Book. Amen? Let’s go to the Book. Let’s call that what it is. Racism that exists because of cultural hegemony — how do you fix that? Now, instead of a preacher, you’ve become a politician because the only way to fix that one is to change the hegemony. Do you see why these ideas matter? Until the very ways in which we think about ourselves, the very ways in which we think about issues… And this is why sometimes you can feel like you’re having a different conversation than another person.

{45:04} A prime example is the Mike Brown case. I mean, I got absolutely hammered over the Mike Brown case. Tom Ascol got hammered over appreciating what I said about the Mike Brown case. And you can feel like you’re having two different conversation because on the one hand you come to this and you say, “Ok a guy, 6’4″, 300 and some odd pounds reaches into a police car and grabs a gun of a police officer. Anybody who knows anything about anything says if I have a gun and you reach to grab my gun, one of us is in trouble. If you get it, it’s me. If you don’t, it’s you.” “Hands up, don’t shoot” never happened. It was complete fabrication so a guy who had just strong armed robbed somebody in a store, stopped by a policeman, aggressive action against the policeman, gets shot and killed. And you may have had some of these conversations where you’re sitting there and you’re going, “Ok, listen… You tell me the story of the police officer who acted inappropriately and we can go together to be against that person. But you tell me this story and I say there was no injustice here. That wasn’t racism.” Unless, the problem is not one police officer and his actions on that one night. But a cultural hegemony that has established structural racism that disproportionately targets black males. Therefore every time something like that happens to one of them, it is another piece of evidence, which is why you have people who say things like, “The facts of that case really don’t matter.” Or worse, you start talking about the facts of that case and people say, “Oh now you’re blaming the victim.” What’s the end result of that? The end result of that is you don’t engage, you don’t discuss, you don’t interact because here’s what you learn: whatever your answer is, if it doesn’t line up with what the Cultural Marxist says it ought to be, or what the person who is borrowing the ideology of the Cultural Marxist says it ought to be, or the person who is unwittingly falling prey to the Cultural Marxism that all of us have been saturated in ought it to be, then you’re wrong and you’re a racist. Or, in my case, a sell-out who is trying to curry favor with white people.

{49:42} Why is this important? I’ll leave you with this. Here’s why it’s important. It’s important because this is an agenda, not just an idea. It’s a disruptive, transformative agenda. That’s number one. And it’s an agenda that needs to be recognized and an agenda that needs to be confronted. Here’s the second problem. And to me this is the sinister part of the problem. The sinister part of the problem is that the end results of this agenda is real pain, real sin, real brokenness that doesn’t get addressed. Let me explain. As someone who grew up in drug infested, gang infested south L.A., the son of a single, teenage mother, I look at the Mike Brown situation and I want to say to all of the young, black boys like him who were young, black boys like me, “We can’t live like that.” To all the fathers who are not there, to the tune of nearly 75% among black children, what I want to say is, “We have a problem that needs to be addressed. We can’t live like this. We have to deal with this. There is brokenness here that has to be addressed. There’s brokenness that has to be fixed.” But the way things stand now, to say that is to blame the victim.

{51:56} Do you know what that means? That means that whatever pathologies there are that need to be addressed don’t get addressed, because it’s the system’s fault. And again, like I said at the beginning, I am not arguing that there’s no racism. I’m not arguing that there’s no brokenness, that there’s no injustice. Man, we’ve got way too many people in prison in this country. Amen, somebody. We’ve got way too many people in prison in this country. There’s something broken about that. We imprison more of our population than like any two, three countries in the world. There’s something broken about that, especially when a large number of those people are in there because of addition to drugs. I mean, right or wrong. So here’s what worries me, what worries me is that we’ve created an environment where we’ve divided everyone up into constituencies, which is incredibly ironic because what that creates is stereotypes. And we look at everyone’s issues, problems, whatever, in relation to the system and what the system is doing, has done, needs to do. And what that has the potential to do is to move us away from addressing individuals and their sin and their pain and their brokenness. Does this make sense?

{54:33} Because we don’t have to be either/or. It doesn’t have to be that either we address individuals and their sin and their brokenness, or we look at problems with systems and this and that. No, it doesn’t have to be. Why do I have to choose between advocating for laws to change in the area of abortion, which disproportionately affects people who look like me [black people], or proclaiming the gospel with a view towards changing the hears of young women so that they won’t kill their babies. Don’t make me choose between those two. I won’t. I want both, coach. And why do I have to choose between acknowledging the fact that there are huge problems in pathologies both among individuals and cultures, and systems? And again, let me hasten to say, I’m not arguing that everybody who talks about justice issues is somehow excluding both. But here’s what I am saying, when we choose to talk about this in certain terms, and when we choose to accept certain ideologies, and agree with certain premises, the end result is that if you don’t find yourself on the right side of this, you’re disqualified, and that can’t be. That can’t be.

{57:11} So what do you do with this? In all honesty, I’m in a unique position. I’ve got magic melanin. So even though there are people who will say certain things about me when I address certain of these issues, I can things that a lot of other people can’t. Amen, amen. I’ve said to people, I think Jesus was a pharisee. Number one, I don’t think it’s likely that he would have gone through 33 years of living and not identified with any of those groups. Number two, theologically, all the rest of them were way far away from where he was. Number three, he hammered those dudes in a way that generally you only get away with [if you’re part of that group]… Now, again, I’m not going to go to the mat over, you know, Jesus was part of the pharisee group; whatever. But there is something real about that. But there’s also something wrong about that because, as we heard earlier, in Christ there is now neither Jew not Greek, neither slave nor free, no male nor female. We’re all one in Christ. So we end up in a very unique situation, and this goes back to something that I said earlier, and it’s controversial and I don’t want you to hear or understand this the wrong way. There’s a lot of people that are like are like, “Oh you’re telling black people to shut up.” Nope. Nope. I would never tell black people to shut up.

{59:34} But, for me, there’s something that I have to consider. If I’m your brother and there is something between us that causes you to be afraid, apprehensive, unwilling to speak truth into my life, then I’ve got to go the extra mile to free you up to do that. And you have to go the extra mile, trust our relationship in Christ, and do that. Well that’s hard, y’all. It’s hard both ways, isn’t it? It’s hard if Tom and I are friends and brothers in Christ and there are things that Tom can see in my life, and I know that I can come back to him and play the race card and maybe even prevent him from speaking to some of the things that he sees in my life. It’s hard for me to say I’m not going to do that to him, my brother. And it’s hard for him, knowing that I have the ability and opportunity to do that, to speak certain things into my life, for fear that I might. And that’s why one of the things this Cultural Marxism has exposed recently is false unity. Because we’ve got people who for years have been talking about how unified we are in Christ, who now are suddenly dismissing one another because of where they fall on a particular social issue. And, again, I’ll say more about that as the weekend goes on, but for now, just know that that’s why these things matter. That’s why these things are important. It’s important because there’s an ideology here, there’s a goal here, there’s an endgame here, and we see it in the world of politics. If you’ve been on a university campus at all recently, you see this. It has to be addressed.

{1:03:7} And secondly, because there are issues — real brokenness, real sin, real problems — that if we’re not careful, we render ourselves unable or unwilling to address because of these ideologies that we’ve imbibed, which means that, finally, we have to love the gospel enough and we have to love one another enough. Here’s the great irony. The great irony is that, in a way I’m borrowing language from the other side now because the other side is always saying “check your privilege,” right? And I’m kind of saying that, but here’s the difference — I’m saying it to everybody. I’m not saying that if you’re a white, male, heterosexual, cisgendered, able-boded, native-born American, check your privilege. I’m saying that if you are a member of the body of Christ, and in this discussion and this debate you have learned how to shut down the other side, regardless of who that other side is, check that. Check that. And it’s going to require boldness, both in terms of trusting our brothers and sisters in Christ and in terms of willingness to speak to issues that in this day and age will get you outright castigated. But the truth is worth it.

Below is my summary of Cultural Marxism in today’s society:

4 thoughts on ““Cultural Marxism” by Voddie Baucham [Transcript]

  1. Thank you for typing this transcript. I had looked on YouTube for one but didn’t find it. This is a great way to send salient parts to folks who won’t listen to the entire sermon. Many thanks!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: