[Download PDF Transcript]

Marc Roby: We are returning to our study of theology today after a fourteen-week long hiatus in which we discussed Marxist and neo-Marxist ideologies from a Christian perspective. How would you like to begin today Dr. Spencer?

Dr. Spencer: Well, it’s hard to believe it took fourteen weeks, isn’t it? And there is so much that I left unsaid. But I hope that we at least made it clear that these issues are of extreme importance to everyone, and as Christians we have a serious responsibility to speak truth. And I hope that as a result at least some of our listeners will look at the references we gave, read some of these materials, think seriously about the issues, and then take appropriate action. Both in voting and in your daily life. But, with that said, since our break lasted so long, I think we need to do some review to get everyone – including me – back up to speed on the things we had been covering.

Marc Roby: Very well. We have been organizing these podcasts in terms of the six loci of Reformed theology, which are: First, theology proper – in other words, the study of God; Second, anthropology, which is the study of man; Third, Christology, which is the study of Jesus Christ the Redeemer; Fourth, Soteriology, which means the study of salvation; Fifth, Ecclesiology, which means the study of the church; and finally, sixth, Eschatology, which means the study of last things. We have covered the first three – theology proper, anthropology and Christology – and we are now in the process of covering soteriology.

Dr. Spencer: And, we began covering soteriology by discussing the acrostic TULIP, which stands for the five doctrines that together summarize the main differences between Reformed theology and other theologies. TULIP stands for: Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints.

Marc Roby: And we noted that although arguably better terms exist for some of these items, these names are commonly used and go along with the acrostic.

Dr. Spencer: And then, after discussing those doctrines, we started to examine what is called the order of salvation, or in Latin, the ordo salutis. This refers to the sequence of steps involved in our salvation. We began by pointing out, to quote from John Murray’s excellent book Redemption Accomplished and Applied, that “No treatment of the atonement can be properly oriented that does not trace its source to the free and sovereign love of God.”[1]

Marc Roby: And I remember that in that context we quoted what is perhaps the best-known verse in the entire Bible, John 3:16, which says, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” [2]

Dr. Spencer: And the verse is so well known for good reason. Christianity is not about what men must do to be saved, it is about what God has graciously done to save sinners who could never save themselves. And then how we, as saved individuals, should live lives of grateful obedience for God’s glory. And, unlike creation, which God accomplished by divine command, our salvation required the incarnation and substitutionary sacrifice of the eternal second person of the Holy Trinity. God is holy and just. He is justly angry with sin and wrathful toward sinners. But, praise God, he is also merciful and he freely chose to set his saving love upon some of the sinful mass of humanity. Without his saving love, we would all be lost. And the order of salvation describes the steps in the process God uses to save his chosen people.

Marc Roby: I recall that we began our discussion of the order of salvation with the doctrine of union with Christ.

Dr. Spencer: Yes, we did. And as John Murray wrote, union with Christ is “the central truth of the whole doctrine of salvation.”[3] It is not, strictly speaking, just one of the steps. It is, rather, central to the whole process. We discussed this in Session 141 and we said there that the New Testament uses the phrase in Christ to represent this union. We learned in that session that we, as Christians, were chosen in Christ, we were created, or we could say born again, in Christ, we live in Christ, we die in Christ, we will be raised from the dead in Christ, we will receive glorified bodies in Christ and we will spend eternity enjoying fellowship with God and one another in Christ.

Marc Roby: That is wonderful. And that is why we are called Christians.

Dr. Spencer: Very true. And we are saved by being united to Christ so that God counts his sacrifice as payment for our sins and we are given his perfect righteousness. This is called the double transaction, or double imputation. Our sins are imputed to Christ, that is, placed in his account so to speak, and his perfect righteousness is imputed to us. We are told about this transaction by the apostle Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:21, which says that “God made him who had no sin [– that is Jesus Christ –] to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

Marc Roby: And the obvious question is then, how does one become united with Christ?

Dr. Spencer: And the Westminster Shorter Catechism addresses this question. In Question 30, it asks, “How does the Spirit apply to us the redemption purchased by Christ?”

Marc Roby: The answer given is, “The Spirit applies to us the redemption purchased by Christ, by working faith in us, and thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling.”

Dr. Spencer: And so we discussed the effectual call, which is where God, by his sovereign grace, calls us to himself with the gospel message, and regenerates us so that we respond in repentance and faith. This is well described by the Westminster Shorter Catechism again. Question 31 asks, “What is effectual calling?” And the answer is that “Effectual calling is the work of God’s Spirit, whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, he does persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the gospel.”[4]

Marc Roby: That is a wonderful statement that says a great deal. We discussed the answer in Sessions 144 and 149. Although the catechism uses different language, it speaks of God’s regenerating believers, in other words causing them to be being born again, and it speaks of their responding in repentance and faith.

Dr. Spencer: That’s true. We must be convinced of the bad news first, that we are in an estate of sin and misery as the Catechism puts it, before we can understand the good news of the gospel, and embrace Jesus Christ by faith as our Lord and Savior.

Marc Roby: And we discussed the fact that saving faith is always a penitent faith. True repentance and faith always go together, and together they are called conversion.

Dr. Spencer: And we also noted that true, saving faith has three elements: the first element is content, or information, it matters what we believe; the second element is mental assent, we must agree with the content of the gospel message; and the third element is trust. We must not only agree that the gospel message is true, we must place our trust in Jesus Christ and his redeeming work in order to be saved.

Marc Roby: These three elements are often referred to by their Latin names: the content is called notitia, the mental assent, or agreement, is called assensus, and the trust is called fiducia.

Dr. Spencer: Yes, theologians do love Latin and it is important to at least know those terms that are common. Understanding biblical repentance and faith is crucial. They always appear together as you noted and it is by faith that we are united to Christ and saved as we noted earlier. Because of the importance of these ideas, I think it would be useful to look at the two questions in the Shorter Catechism that deal with them. Question 86 asks, “What is faith in Jesus Christ?”

Marc Roby: And the answer is that “Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation, as he is offered to us in the gospel.”

Dr. Spencer: And what a wonderful answer that is. The Catechism calls it a “saving grace”, a phrase that it only uses twice. Once in reference to faith and once in reference to repentance as we will see in a moment. Again, these two always occur together, they are both part of saving grace. The answer also says that we “rest upon” Jesus, which is speaking about trust. And finally, it says that we receive and rest upon him “as he is offered to us in the gospel.”

We noted in our last session before our long break to discuss Marxist ideologies, that theologians refer to general and special faith. The object of special faith is Jesus Christ; we trust in him for our salvation. The object of general faith is the Bible. It is the only place where we have God’s infallible, authoritative teaching about Jesus and what he did. True saving faith therefore includes faith in God’s written revelation. As the Catechism says, we trust in Jesus “as he is offered to us in the gospel”, in other words, in the Bible.

Marc Roby: And then, in Question 87, the Shorter Catechism deals with the other half of conversion and asks, “What is repentance unto life?”

Dr. Spencer: And the answer is that “Repentance unto life is a saving grace, whereby a sinner, out of a true sense of his sin, and apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ, does, with grief and hatred of his sin, turn from it unto God, with full purpose of, and endeavor after, new obedience.”[5]

Marc Roby: And that is again a wonderful short, but complete, description of true biblical repentance.

Dr. Spencer: Yes it is. It speaks of repentance “unto life”, which means it is real, deep, God-given true repentance. Not just a worldly sorrow over the effects of sin, but, as the answer goes on to say, a true sense of sin and grief and hatred for our sins. This repentance causes us to turn from our sins to God. And the answer then also speaks about obedience, which we spoke about in Session 151 – it is an absolutely essential fruit of real conversion. If you don’t obey Jesus Christ, then your confession that Jesus is Lord is a lie; you are not saved.

Marc Roby: Now that is not a popular idea at all in today’s church. If you talk about obedience you are called legalistic and accused of having given up on the gospel of grace.

Dr. Spencer: But the Bible, contrary to this pervasive modern teaching, makes it clear that obedience is an essential fruit of real salvation. It is not the cause of salvation. If we said that, then the accusation of being legalistic and giving up on the gospel of grace would be true. But if you say obedience is optional, you are not presenting the truth about the effectiveness of God’s saving grace to transform lives.

Marc Roby: Now that is a very important point, obedience is not optional. As Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 5:17, “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!” We dare not degrade what it means to be in Christ. A new creation speaks of radical change. Is there anything else you would like to say by way of review?

Dr. Spencer: Yes. I want to repeat a quote from John Murray that I gave in Session 160. He wrote that “Faith is not belief that we have been saved, nor belief that Christ has saved us, nor even belief that Christ died for us. It is necessary to appreciate the point of distinction. Faith is in its essence commitment to Christ that we may be saved.”[6] I repeat this quote because it is so important. Especially in light of persecution and trouble.

Marc Roby: What persecution and trouble are you referring to?

Dr. Spencer: Any persecution and trouble. We all know that there are Christians in other parts of the world where standing for Christ can cost you your life. We also know that kind of severe persecution has happened before in many places and at many times. But, in light of the series we just did on Marxist and neo-Marxist ideologies, it is increasingly important in this country.

In our last session I noted that our society is rapidly moving in the direction of a soft totalitarianism. So, for example, we all know the stories of the Christian baker in Colorado who has been severely persecuted for years for refusing to create special cakes to celebrate LGBT events. And we have heard of florists, and photographers and others being similarly persecuted. We also see doctors being forced to be silent about their beliefs about abortion and sex-change operations and so on. There is already persecution in this country and it may get significantly worse.

Marc Roby: And how does that tie into the Murray quote about the nature of true faith?

Dr. Spencer: Well, it ties in because we all need to make our calling and election sure as Peter wrote in 2 Peter 1:10. In Rod Dreher’s book Live not by Lies, which I briefly mentioned last time, he tells the horrifying story of a Romanian Lutheran pastor named Richard Wurmbrand, who endured unspeakable torture while imprisoned for 16 years, from 1948 to 1964, in Romania.

Marc Roby: Which was, at that time, a communist country, one of the so-called satellite nations of the former Soviet Union.

Dr. Spencer: Yes, that’s right. In any event, Dreher quotes Wurmbrand, who wrote that there were two kinds of Christians, “those who sincerely believe in God and those who, just as sincerely, believe that they believe. You can tell them apart by their actions in decisive moments.”[7]

Marc Roby: In other words, as soon as any real persecution comes, those Christians who may sincerely believe they are Christians, but have not been born again, will quickly fall away.

Dr. Spencer: That was exactly his point. Persecution is sometimes used by God to purify his church. And, as much as I don’t want it and pray that it doesn’t come, it may be that God has some serious persecution in store for Christians in this country. But, even if that doesn’t happen, there is nothing more important than making sure you are truly saved. A false feel-good version of Christianity may make this life more enjoyable, but it will fail you in the most severe and terrible way imaginable when you appear before the judgment seat of Christ, which we must all do as we are told in 2 Corinthians 5:10.

Marc Roby: And that failure, if it occurs to you, lasts for eternity.

Dr. Spencer: Yes, it does. And with that, I am ready to pick up where we left off.

Marc Roby: When we paused, we were going through the order of salvation, or ordo salutis, and we were using the order given by John Murray, with the exception of our having covered union with Christ first. So, the order we were using was this: first, effectual calling, then regeneration, repentance and faith, justification, adoption, sanctification, perseverance, and finally, glorification.

Dr. Spencer: And we had gotten though effectual calling, regeneration, and repentance and faith, which together are called conversion. So, we are now ready to begin justification.

Marc Roby: Which is a very important topic.

Dr. Spencer: It is, in fact, the heart of the gospel. It is what Martin Luther called the article, or doctrine, on which the church stands of falls.[8] It is considered to be the material cause of the Reformation.[9] In other words it was the central question at stake in the Protestant Reformation. To rephrase it, how can a sinner be declared just, or we could say righteous, in God’s sight?

Marc Roby: Which is a great question. Paul wrote in Romans 3:10 that “There is no one righteous, not even one”. And yet we know that God is just and holy.

Dr. Spencer: Which presents us with an insoluble problem from man’s perspective. But, thankfully, as Jesus told his disciples in Mark 10:27, “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.” And so, Paul goes on after issuing the blanket condemnation you quoted to explain how God solved this problem. We read in Romans 3:21-26, “But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.”

Marc Roby: Praise God for his infinite wisdom and love. He found a way to simultaneously “be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.”

Dr. Spencer: And in our next session, I want to start unpacking this passage from Romans 3 as we enter into our treatment of justification.

Marc Roby: And I look forward to that. But now, let me close by reminding our listeners that they can email their questions and comments to info@whatdoesthewordsay.org. We will do our best to answer your questions.

[1] John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1955, pg. 9

[2] All scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® (1984 version). Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide. www.zondervan.com The “NIV” and “New International Version” are trademarks registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by Biblica, Inc.™.

[3] Murray, op. cit., pg. 170

[4] I have changed “doth” to “does” to update the English.

[5] I have again changed “doth” to “does” to update the English.

[6] Murray, Collected Works, Vol. II, Banner of Truth Trust, 1977, pg. 259

[7] Rod Dreher, Live Not by Lies, A Manual for Christian Dissidents, Sentinel, 2020, pg. 204

[8] This is a common paraphrase of Luther, see, e.g., Ref. 9

[9] R.C. Sproul, Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification, Baker Books, 1995, pg. 18

Play

[Download PDF Transcript]

Marc Roby: Today we are completing our break from studying theology to look at some current topics of great importance from a Christian perspective. In the past thirteen sessions we have gone through the history of Marxist and neo-Marxist ideologies and have shown how these anti-Christian ideas have invaded our educational system. And today we are going to look at what is arguably the most significant manifestation of these ideas in America today, the Black Lives Matter movement. Dr. Spencer, how do you want to begin?

Dr. Spencer: By quoting Jesus. In John 8:31-32 we read, “To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, ‘If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.’” [1] Then, in John 14:6 we read that Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

Marc Roby: Those quotes will probably strike many of our listeners as a strange way to begin a session on the Black Lives Matter organization.

Dr. Spencer: But I think it is exactly the right place to begin because, as I hope to show, this organization is built on a web of lies. As Christians, we must stand for truth. As Jesus told us, he is the truth and the truth will set us free. One of the characteristics of totalitarian regimes is that they do everything possible to force people to at least outwardly agree with lies. Our society is rapidly moving in the direction of a soft totalitarianism, to borrow an expression from Rod Dreher’s book Live Not by Lies.[2] This totalitarianism is not, at this point, one enforced by the government with physical force, it is one enforced by the social-justice-warrior mob, striking out at people by taking their jobs, harassing them in public and generally making life miserable if you dare to disagree with their ideology. And the Black Lives Matter movement is a prominent part of this soft totalitarian state.

Marc Roby: What, specifically, are you referring to when you say that the Black Lives Matter organization is founded on lies?

Dr. Spencer: First of all, there is the lie that young unarmed black men are being wantonly gunned down by racist police all over our country. On the Black Lives Matter website they continue to say that “In 2014, Mike Brown was murdered by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson.”[3] And we often still hear people say that he was shot while holding his hands up in the air saying “Don’t shoot me.” That is a lie, plane and simple. There have been several careful investigations and all of the forensic evidence and reliable testimony agree. Michael Brown assaulted officer Wilson in his car, tried to take his gun from him and was shot in the hand while reaching into the car, he then ran from the officer, but turned and moved back toward him in a threatening way.[4] The Black Lives Matter narrative is simply a lie.

As an example of how pervasive this lie has become, let me read a quote from the United Teachers of Los Angeles regarding what conditions they think must be met before they can return to teaching students during this Covid-19 outbreak. They make an argument that funding should to be taken away from the police and given to the educational system instead. In making the argument they wrote, “Police violence is a leading cause of death and trauma for Black people, and is a serious public health and moral issue.”[5]

Marc Roby: That’s amazing! They actually claim that police violence is a leading cause of death among blacks?

Dr. Spencer: Well, perhaps they would try to justify this outrageous lie by pointing out that they said it was a leading cause of “death and trauma”, which of course makes the statement strictly non-falsifiable since you can’t quantify trauma. But if they would make that argument it would be completely disingenuous nonsense. The statement is a clear lie. And this is being put out by a very large and powerful teachers union. One can only imagine what other lies these teachers promulgate in the name of social justice.

Marc Roby: But this statement fits perfectly with the information you have shown about these neo-Marxist ideologies taking over our schools.

Dr. Spencer: I’m very sorry to say that you’re right, it does fit. But let me give just a few facts to show what a monstrous lie this is.

Marc Roby: Yes, please do.

Dr. Spencer: In 2019, according to FBI statistics, there were 7,484 blacks murdered in this country.[6] Also, according to the Washington Post, when you look at the statistics for fatal police shootings over the past four years, they are amazingly consistent.[7] About 1,000 people a year are killed by police in this country, which is a surprisingly large number, but becomes much less surprising when you realize that there are on the order of 50 million interactions between police and citizens a year, so fatal shootings occur in about one out of every 50,000 interactions.

Marc Roby: Yes, that does make the number sound less awful, but it is still too many.

Dr. Spencer: I agree. But the same data from the Washington Post also show that only about four percent of these people killed by police are unarmed, so that is about 40 a year on average. The data further show that about 23% of those unarmed people are black. So, in other words, there are, on average, slightly less than 10 unarmed blacks shot and killed by police a year in this country, but there are over 7,000 blacks murdered every year. So, for every unarmed black person shot and killed by police there are more than 700 black people murdered. And FBI statistics show that of the blacks who are murdered, roughly 88% are murdered by other blacks.[8]

Now, let’s consider just one other cause of death among blacks; heart disease. According to the American Heart Association, over 93,000 blacks died of heart disease in 2011.[9] That is, of course just one of many potential causes of death, and that is almost a thousand times the number of unarmed blacks shot and killed by the police, so the idea that police violence is a leading cause of death, or even death and trauma, is utter nonsense. The LA teacher union is simply lying, and outrageously so.

Marc Roby: Those numbers are astounding. And they are completely out of line with the narrative you hear on the evening news.

Dr. Spencer: The mainstream news media in this country have blood on their hands in my opinion. Every time an unarmed black person is shot by police it is a major news item virtually independent of the circumstances. You never hear about the fact that about 46 police are killed by blacks each year in this country.[10] The careless and lopsided reported then stokes the public perception and rage against police.

Marc Roby: Which then results in greater violence against police and more burned out stores and so on.

Dr. Spencer: And those stores are predominantly in poor neighborhoods, which reduces their access to stores and raises prices. And, when the police back off on policing, as has happened in the wake of virtually every one of these publicized shootings of black men, more blacks get killed as a result of violent crime. And, as we saw, over 700 times as many blacks are murdered as are shot and killed by police each year, so we can assume that there are quite a few innocent lives lost as a result of the main-stream press, many politicians and, of course, the Black Lives Matter organization endlessly pushing this false narrative.

Marc Roby: That is entirely tragic. But what about the claim of systemic racism? The numbers of unarmed blacks killed by police are obviously not what the popular narrative would lead you to believe, but that alone doesn’t prove that racism isn’t the cause.

Dr. Spencer: No, it doesn’t. But out of the roughly 1,000 people shot and killed each year by the police, about 18 on average are unarmed white people.[11] In other words 80% more unarmed white people are killed by police each year than unarmed black people. You don’t hear that on the news and no one riots in the streets because of it.

Marc Roby: But of course, the Black Lives Matter organization and those who agree with it would say that blacks only comprise about 13% of our population, and whites are about 76% of the population[12], so you would expect more unarmed whites to be shot than unarmed blacks.

Dr. Spencer: They would say that. But the percentage of whites or blacks in the population is not the right number to use to figure out whether or not police racism is a problem. The more relevant number would be the percentage of whites or blacks who commit crimes. And, as Heather Mac Donald has reported, “blacks constituted 62 percent of all robbery defendants, 57 percent of all murder defendants, and 45 percent of all assault defendants in America’s 75 largest counties in 2009, the latest year for which such county data is available, though blacks made up only 15 percent of the population in those counties, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.”[13]

Marc Roby: Ah, but the Black Lives Matter organization and its followers would say those numbers simply prove racism yet again. Racism is why so many more blacks are arrested and tried for these crimes.

Dr. Spencer: And that is yet another lie. The fact is, that the percentages of different races arrested and tried for crimes agrees very well with the percentages based on the reports of the victims of these crimes, who are overwhelmingly black themselves.[14]

Marc Roby: Well, that shoots down that argument. Unless, of course, you want to believe that black victims lie and state that their assailants were black, when they were, in fact, white.

Dr. Spencer: And that’s the problem with all of these lies. The data are readily available to show that they are lies, and yet the mainstream press, politicians and others continue to repeat them over and over again. And people die as a result. Both police officers and innocent black citizens and others. And police shootings aren’t the only place this lie of assuming a disparity in numbers has a racist cause, shows up. It is also the lie that fuels the affirmative action programs in university admissions and also in hiring.

Marc Roby: Can you illustrate that?

Dr. Spencer: Absolutely, let’s talk about my field of Electrical Engineering. According to the National Science Foundation, in 2017, there were 586 US citizens or permanent visa holders who received PhDs in Electrical Engineering in America.[15] Of those, just 19 of them were black and 323 where white. In other words, there were 17 white graduates for every black one. Therefore, the odds of being able to fill a particular faculty vacancy with a black person, as opposed to a white person, is roughly 1 in 18, or 5.5%.

Marc Roby: That’s not a very good probability.

Dr. Spencer: No, it isn’t. I can tell you for a fact that for the 25 years I served on the faculty at UC Davis, starting in 1986, we were always open to hiring any qualified black candidate. There is a lot of pressure to have a more diverse faculty. But the reality is that the pool of candidates is simply too small to allow it to happen.

Marc Roby: Of course, yet again, Black Lives Matter and its supporters would say the small number of black PhD graduates in Electrical Engineering is, of course, the result of racism.

Dr. Spencer: Yes, they would. And that would again be a lie. There aren’t enough blacks graduating with bachelor degrees in Electrical Engineering, which is necessary before you can go on for a PhD. And then you go back and find there aren’t very many black students who even want to take Electrical Engineering in the first place, and there aren’t many that have good enough math and science skills coming out of high school.

Marc Roby: And, again, BLM would say this is all evidence of systemic racism.

Dr. Spencer: And that is again completely false. I’m not saying there isn’t any racism anywhere along the line, that would be stupid. But there is no evidence that it is a significant factor and there is a great deal of evidence that it isn’t a factor. Consider Asians for example.[16] The percentage of Asians in engineering is way higher than their percentage of the population, why is that? According to the Black Lives Matter view, it must be that our society is racist against whites too and is most favorable toward Asians. But that is silly.

Now, I don’t think Asians are in some way genetically superior at mathematics and science than others. I don’t know for sure the exact reasons for the difference in numbers, but it seems all but certain that a major part of the reason is that the Asian subculture in this country highly values education, so their children are expected to work hard and, in addition, that subculture highly values degrees in engineering, medicine, law and other such disciplines.

Marc Roby: That sounds reasonable.

Dr. Spencer: Because it is reasonable. The idea that a racial disparity in some outcome is always caused by racism is simply unfounded and ridiculous on the face of it. If that were the case, then the NBA should be sued for being radically racist because over 80% of the players are black.[17] But, fortunately, sports is one of the few things left in this country that is a true meritocracy.

Thomas Sowell, in his wonderful book Intellectuals and Race, points out that such differences were often incorrectly used in the early 20th century to justify believing that some races were inherently superior to others. That was wrong, and it is just as wrong now to assume that all such differences are caused by racism.[18]

Marc Roby: That’s a great point. We shouldn’t just assume the cause of any disparity without looking into the problem further and establishing real cause and effect.

Dr. Spencer: That’s right. Our school system is clearly failing blacks, but the problem is not entirely the school system’s fault. The black subculture in this country not only does not value education, it actually looks down on and discourages people from working hard and succeeding. In our previous session I mentioned books by Jason Riley[19] and Candace Owens[20], they are both black and grew up in less-than-ideal circumstances, and they both tell about being teased and laughed at for wanting to do well in school, and they are far from the only ones. It is called “acting white” if you want to do well. Jason Riley makes an astute comment on this, he wrote that “A culture that takes pride in ignorance and mocks learnedness has a dim future.”[21]

Marc Roby: That seems like quite an understatement. But, once again, I must point out that BLM and its supporters would claim that the problems in the black community are all left overs from slavery and the Jim Crow era.

Dr. Spencer: And that is yet another lie. We went over some statistics last time to show that black families were doing much better prior to the mid-1960s. They went downhill after that. So the cause cannot pre-date the 1960s. There is no doubt, of course, that slavery and Jim Crow put blacks in a bad position in this country, and doing what we can to create real opportunities for blacks, and others who are poor and disadvantaged in any way, is all well and good and Christians should be supportive of those efforts. But we have to be sure we are addressing the real problem, not an imagined one, or the proposed solutions will do no good and, in fact, will often do more harm.

Marc Roby: Yes, you obviously can’t cure the disease if you don’t know what it is.

Dr. Spencer: And the current narrative says the problem is all racism, which is simply not true. I’m sure that racism and the injustices of the past play a role, but they are not the main problem. Inner city schools are part of the problem, but there are wonderful things being done with charter schools and yet many on the left oppose them because they don’t fit their narrative and are opposed by the teacher’s unions, which overwhelmingly support leftist politicians. [22] So these wrong ideas make it impossible to really solve the problems.

I think the most reasonable probability is that the welfare state brought about by President Johnson’s Great Society in the 1960s is a major factor as we discussed last week, but another factor is, without a doubt, the neo-Marxist ideologies that have been taught in our schools and pushed by many different groups since that time. These ideologies feed on finding groups of people who can be viewed as victims and then stoking hatred and bitterness toward the group labeled as an oppressor.

Marc Roby: Certainly, being labeled a victim removes hope that you can do much about the problem on your own. It puts you at the mercy of somebody else.

Dr. Spencer: And that is a serious problem. In a recent interview, Ben Carson the black former neurosurgeon and current Secretary of housing and urban development, said, “Please don’t allow yourself to be manipulated to believe that you’re a victim and that somebody else is causing all of your problems … the person who has the most to do with what happens to you is you”.[23]

Marc Roby: The LGBT movement is another example of forming groups of so-called victims.

Dr. Spencer: Exactly. And, by the way, the Black Lives Matter organization is very strongly tied into the whole LGBT movement, which is born out of the same hate filled neo-Marxist ideology. It is all about trying to gain power by claiming that all of your problems are caused by those in power now. One problem with Marxists and neo-Marxists of all stripes is that they are certain that their problems are not their own fault. Their problems are caused by some oppressor class.

Marc Roby: Which would be you and me; white, male, heterosexual Christians.

Dr. Spencer: You’re quite right that right. On the intersectionality scale I’m pretty sure we have a negative score. But Christians, on the other hand, correctly recognize that each individual person’s biggest problem is not someone else, it is himself. We are sinners. We need to fight against our sin and we need to be saved from our sins. Racism is not the main problem, and it is clear that the Black Lives Matter organization and others on the left know this.

Marc Roby: Now how is that clear?

Dr. Spencer: Because they don’t really want to end racism, they want power. They have defined racism in a new and completely destructive way. According to them, a black person cannot be racist. You have to be in power to be racist. And all white people are, by definition racist. That is just plain stupid, and racist. If you want to solve the problem of racism you need to first state what the objective is, in other words, what does a society without racism look like? The answer was given by Martin Luther King in his I Have Dream speech. He said he wanted his children to be judged by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin, and if that were completely true, it would be the end of racism.

Marc Roby: Yes, I see your point. The BLM organization and the whole intersectionality, critical theory mindset says that race, sex and so on are all that matter.

Dr. Spencer: Right. If BLM and their supporters are successful in achieving their goals, you won’t have a society without racism, you will simply have a flipped power structure where whites, males and Christians are on the bottom and black women lesbians are on top. But there will still be racism and hatred. All that will have changed is which group is in power. And that doesn’t do any of us any good. We should be working to end racism and the idea that all whites are racist is not helpful. If you just met me for the first time and you notice that I am a white male, what does that tell you about me?

Marc Roby: Well, I’m pretty sure the only things I could say for sure are that you are a white male.

Dr. Spencer: That’s absolutely right. You know nothing of significance! You don’t know if I’m married or divorced or whether I have children, you don’t know what I do for a living or whether I’m a kind and generous person or a monster. You know nothing of significance. You can tell much more about me by observing how I’m dressed and groomed and how I behave than you can by knowing my color or sex. But the current neo-Marxist ideologies would have you believe that the only things that really matter are my color and sex and so on. The idea that you know anything of significance about me just by knowing my color is an extremely racist idea. The critical race theory courses being forced upon so many people these days are terrible. They foster hatred and division, they are openly racist, they make the whole situation much worse and should be thrown out. People should refuse to take them.

Marc Roby: Alright, so how should we, as Christians, respond to this whole neo-Marxist movement.

Dr. Spencer: We must reject lies and live according to the truth. Which is why I quoted Jesus at the start of this session. The Black Lives Matter organization is a Marxist organization built on lies. If they really believed that black lives matter, they would not be in favor of defunding the police, they would be in favor of more police and better training for police so that poor black communities could be safer and more prosperous. They would care more about the 7,000 plus blacks murdered every year, mostly by other blacks, than they do about a handful of unarmed blacks shot by police. Who, by the way, were criminals and would not have been shot had they cooperated with the police. If they really cared about black lives they would not be in favor of abortion, which disproportionately kills black babies, nor would they be opposed to the traditional family, which gives black children the best possible hope for a decent future.

Marc Roby: We spoke last time about how damaging it is for children to grow up without a father.

Dr. Spencer: And yet, the Black Lives Matter website used to say that “We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family” and went on to talk about collective care in “villages”.[24]

Marc Roby: You said it used to say that, so it doesn’t anymore?

Dr. Spencer: No, they have changed their website to be less open about their real beliefs and goals, although it still has plenty of information to show how radical their views are and to show that their main agenda really has nothing to do with preserving black lives.

The bottom line is that black lives do matter. They matter just as much as any other lives do. And because they matter, we should not support the Black Lives Matter organization. And Christians absolutely cannot support this organization because it is a Marxist, racist, anti-family, anti-authority, anti-God, anti-Christian organization.

Marc Roby: What else must Christians do?

Dr. Spencer: We must, as the Christian Russian dissident Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said, live not by lies.[25] In other words, we must never knowingly speak, support, agree with or in any way go along with what we know to be a lie. For example, God created man male and female. It is a lie that there are more than two genders. It is a lie that all white people are racist or that all white people have succeeded only because of white privilege. Candace Owens wrote, “Let’s face it, those born in America after the 1980s are among the most privileged human beings ever to walk the face of the planet.”[26] And she was talking about blacks as well whites and all others, and she was completely correct.

Marc Roby: I have to agree with that statement. All of us who have born in America are privileged because of it.

Dr. Spencer: I completely agree. As Christians we must never judge a person by the color of his or her skin or by any other trait over which the person has no control. But many traits are mostly, if not entirely, in each person’s control. Things like how you behave, how you dress, how hard you work, whether or not you are respectful of others and so on. It is perfectly appropriate for you to be judged based on these. And Christians must judge based on the Bible. So, for example, laziness and lying are wrong. Vulgar speech and sexual immorality are wrong. These are not just social constructs and every culture is not equally good.

And we must seek to solve the real problems plaguing our world, which are difficult. We must not give in to the all-to-easy idea that our problems, or anyone else’s problems, are someone else’s fault, even though there is sometimes some truth in that statement. We must take personal responsibility and we must respect other people enough to expect the same from them, while also doing what we can to truly help those who are at a disadvantage to help themselves. We must oppose racism and injustice of every kind. And, most importantly, in all things, at all times, we must be submitted to the Word of God and only believe, speak and do that which is in agreement with his Word.

Marc Roby: And his Word is truth.

Dr. Spencer: Yes it is, and we must speak truth when we speak. We do not have to oppose politically correct speech and actions every single time we see them, we must be as wise as serpents. But we must never speak lies ourselves just to get along. We must never give implicit or explicit approval to actions that are against the Bible. Our purpose is the glory of God, our place is that of creatures made in God’s image, and our priorities are to be set by God.

If we compare our country to utopia, then it looks pretty bad. But utopia is, quite literally, nowhere. That is what the word means. We must compare our country to the other alternatives and work to make it better, not tear it down. Utopia does not exist. Heaven, on the other hand, does exist, it is real. And it is the home of righteousness. And none of us belong there or will ever be there without radical change. We must be born again. Our sin must be removed. And so, I look forward to getting back to discussing theology in our next session.

Marc Roby: And I do as well. I want to point out that the transcript for this session has even more footnotes and references than normal because we couldn’t take the time to go over every detail in our discussion today. And, finally, let me close by reminding our listeners that they can email their questions and comments to info@whatdoesthewordsay.org. We would love to hear from you.

[1] All scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® (1984 version). Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide. www.zondervan.com The “NIV” and “New International Version” are trademarks registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by Biblica, Inc.™.

[2] Rod Dreher, Live Not by Lies, A Manual for Christian Dissidents, Sentinel, 2020

[3] https://blacklivesmatter.com/herstory/, viewed on 10/19/20

[4] See “DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REPORT REGARDING THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION INTO THE SHOOTING DEATH OF MICHAEL BROWN BY FERGUSON, MISSOURI POLICE OFFICER DARREN WILSON”, March 4, 2015, available at: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf

[5] UTLA, The Same Storm, but Different Boats: The Safe and Equitable Conditions for Starting LAUSD in 2020 21, July, 2020, pg. 11, available at: https://www.utla.net/sites/default/files/samestormdiffboats_final.pdf

[6] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-1.xls

[7] John Sullivan, Liz Weber, Julie Tate and Jennifer Jenkins, Four years in a row, police nationwide fatally shoot nearly 1,000 people, Washington Post, Feb. 12, 2019, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/four-years-in-a-row-police-nationwide-fatally-shoot-nearly-1000-people/2019/02/07/0cb3b098-020f-11e9-9122-82e98f91ee6f_story.html

[8] The FBI data only break out the race of the offender and victim for murders with a single victim and a single offender. For 2019, in 2,574 out of 2,906 cases blacks were murdered by other blacks, which is 88.6%. See https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6.xls

[9] See https://www.heart.org/idc/groups/heart-public/@wcm/@sop/@smd/documents/downloadable/ucm_472910.pdf

[10] According to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, an average of over 55 police have been killed in firearm related incidents per year in the last four years. (Using their data for 2016 through 2019 yields 169.5 deaths a year on average [https://nleomf.org/facts-figures/officer-deaths-by-year] and their data for 2019 and 2020, that 79 out of 236, or 33.4%, of deaths are “firearms related” [https://nleomf.org/], and assuming that percentage for all four years yields 56.7 deaths a year.) And, according to Heather Mac Donald, “the Department of Justice has found that police officers are five times more likely to die at the hands of a black suspect than a white suspect.” (Heather Mac Donald, False Testimony, City Journal, Sept. 26, 2019, available at: https://www.city-journal.org/police-shootings-racial-bias) Putting these numbers together reveals that about 46 police are killed by blacks each year in this country.

[11] Using data from Sullivan et. al., (Ref. 5), roughly 40 unarmed people are shot and killed a year and 45% of them are white, which is 18.

[12] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219

[13] Heather Mac Donald, False Testimony, City Journal, Sept. 26, 2019, available at: https://www.city-journal.org/police-shootings-racial-bias

[14] Ibid, “In New York … blacks were 72.6 percent of known shooting suspects in 2018, according to victim and witness identifications (those victims and witnesses being overwhelmingly black themselves).”

[15] https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf19301/data

[16] Thomas Sowell shows data for Asians that clearly show their superior performance in America; is this because of racism? No. See, Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Race, Basic Books, 2013, pp 4-5

[17] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_NBA

[18] Sowell, op. cit., pg. 17

[19] Jason L. Riley, Please Stop Helping Us, Encounter Books, 2015

[20] Candace Owens, Blackout, Threshold Editions, 2020

[21] Riley, op. cit., pg. 50

[22] Riley, op. cit., pp 114-134

[23] https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2020/07/24/hud-secretary-ben-carson-warns-some-in-black-lives-matter-protests-are-being-manipulated/

[24] https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/, viewed in June, 2020

[25] Dreher, op. cit. pg. 17

[26] Owens, op. cit., pg. 94

Play

[Download PDF Transcript]

Marc Roby: We are continuing our break from studying theology to look at some current topics of great importance from a Christian perspective. We discussed capitalism in our last session. Dr. Spencer, what would you like to cover today?

Dr. Spencer: I want to talk about our obligation as Christians to help those in need. The Bible is full of commands to help others. For example, in Isaiah Chapter One we read God’s indictment of his people at that time. After saying that their offerings are meaningless, that he hates their festivals and will not listen to their prayers, we read in Isaiah 1:17 that God says, “learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow.” [1] And, of course, at that time the fatherless and widows were among the most vulnerable people.

Marc Roby: We also have the famous passage in Matthew 25, where Jesus tells a parable about the day he will separate the righteous from the wicked. We read there in Verses 34-36 that Jesus will say to the righteous, “Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.” And the righteous will then ask Jesus, “Lord, when did we do those things?” and he will respond, as we read in Verse 40, “I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.”

Dr. Spencer: That is a great passage for making the point that the Bible clearly teaches us to help those who are truly in need. And in our last session, we pointed that even though capitalism has proven to be a very successful system, there are still people who are honestly poor and in need of help. So, the question is not, “Should we help the poor?” We are commanded to help them. The right question is, “How can we best help the poor?” And the answer there is far more complicated and Christians can certainly differ in how they answer that question. But no matter how we answer it, we need to be mindful of biblical priorities. We dare not seek to do something God requires of us by ignoring other things he commands.

Marc Roby: What biblical priorities do we need to keep in mind when helping the poor?

Dr. Spencer: The sanctity of personal property to begin with. It is entirely appropriate for me to use my money to help the poor, it is completely wrong, even sinful, for me to reach into your pocket and use your money to help the poor.

Marc Roby: Well, I’m glad to hear that.

Dr. Spencer: Well, God will hold you accountable if you are greedy and refuse to help others, but it is no business of mine, or of society collectively through the government, to try and force you to do so. I can explain your biblical responsibility to you and challenge you with the word of God, but if I take what is yours, I am guilty of the sin of stealing. It doesn’t matter what I intend to do with your money, nor does it matter how much money you have. Nor does it matter whether I steal from you as an individual, or I gather together with a bunch of other people and steal from you. It is wrong no matter how it happens. It is a partial form of the idea of providing an equal division of all property.

In fact, it is interesting that James Madison mentioned this very topic in arguing in favor of a republic, as opposed to a pure democracy, in Federalist Number 10. He wrote, “A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it”.[2]

Marc Roby: That is interesting. In addition to the equal division of property, Madison also listed the abolition of debts, which is another topic of great current interest. But I think I can see where this is headed.

Dr. Spencer: I’m sure you can. There is a lot of talk in our country today about raising taxes on the rich. But where is the justification for doing that? What right do I, or we as a society, have to their money? The answer is obvious. So long as they came by their money honestly society has no right to take it from them.

Marc Roby: But certainly, it is biblical for the government to collect taxes. When Jesus was asked about paying taxes, he himself said, in Matthew 22:21, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

Dr. Spencer: And Paul also commanded us Romans 13:7 to, “Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.” So, paying taxes is perfectly appropriate and biblical. And, I would add, it is biblical to say that people who make less than or barely equal to what is required for subsistence living shouldn’t have to pay the same taxes. Leviticus 12:8, for example, allows a poor person to substitute two turtledoves or two pigeons, rather than a lamb, as an offering.

But we need to be careful. At some point, to have higher marginal tax rates for those who make more money is simply society stealing from the rich to give to the poor. Now perhaps some rational and moral argument can be made for slightly progressive taxes, but at some point, it clearly simply becomes theft. It is wrong. People with higher incomes already pay higher taxes even if the rates are the same, but do they receive more benefits from the government?

Marc Roby: I wouldn’t think so. In fact, I would suspect that they receive fewer benefits in general.

Dr. Spencer: I think you’re right. The main functions of government are to provide defense, infrastructure, fire protection, policing and so on.[3] The rich don’t use more of those services than others. And, in addition, there are practical reasons why progressive taxes are a bad idea, let me briefly cite two. First, it is often true that governments collect less tax revenue when tax rates are increased because corporations and individuals change their investment and spending behaviors or move away from a local high-tax area and also because higher tax rates are bad for the economy so there is less overall income.[4] I have a couple of references in the podcast transcript for those listeners who are interested in details but it isn’t important enough to go over here.

Marc Roby: Alright, what is the second practical reason you have in mind?

Dr. Spencer: That it is bad financial management for the government. California is a clear-cut example. More than half of California’s state income tax revenue comes from the top 1% of our population in terms of income.[5] And since the state also taxes investment gains, that revenue is even more volatile than normal income. For people who make that much, their income varies wildly with the stock market. As a result, California’s budget varies wildly too. In the 2009 recession, for example, California had a deficit of $39.5 billion. Now, most people’s incomes don’t vary like that, even during a recession, but since the bottom 60% of households in California only pay a total of about 2% of the state income tax, their stable incomes don’t stabilize our budget.

Marc Roby: That’s an interesting point. So extremely progressive taxes are of questionable morality and efficacy.

Dr. Spencer: Absolutely. I don’t want to spend more time on this because we are interested in what the Word of God says about how Christians should live, including how they should vote. And Christians can disagree about many details of how our government is run. But, with regard to the currently in vogue idea of being able to fund all kinds of programs by taxing the rich, I think Christians need to be very thoughtful. If I steal $1,000 from Jeff Bezos, it is still theft, independent of the fact that $1,000 means next to nothing to him.

Marc Roby: That is a good point for us to think about. So, the first biblical principle we need to keep in mind while helping the poor is the sanctity of personal property. What other principles are important in this regard?

Dr. Spencer: The sanctity of labor. In 2 Thessalonians 3:10 we read that “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” There is nothing wrong with helping the poor, but we should be sure that we are helping them to help themselves. It may make you feel good when you give someone money, and there are occasions when that is appropriate. But we need to ask whether or not it is good for the government to be in the business of income redistribution on a continual basis. We have to ask whether programs like welfare are good or bad for the people they are intended to help.

Marc Roby: Now I have certainly seen a number of very reasonable people argue that these programs have done significant harm.

Dr. Spencer: And so have I. In fact, if you go back to President Franklin Roosevelt, who started our Federal government’s social programs, in his annual address to Congress in January of 1935, he said, “The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of sound policy. It is in violation of the traditions of America. Work must be found for able-bodied but destitute workers. The Federal Government must and shall quit this business of relief.”[6]

Marc Roby: That’s a great quote.

Dr. Spencer: And Candace Owens, who has first-hand experience growing up in the black community, said something similar in her book Blackout. She wrote, “Handouts absent hard work render men weak, and with depleted self-esteem; they stifle the entrepreneurial spirit, by removing our innate senses of drive and aspiration. Poverty and despair become the life of the man who is given a fish but never learns to cast his own line.”[7]

Marc Roby: Yes, that is very true. But going back to FDR’s comment, clearly the federal government did not quit the business of relief.

Dr. Spencer: No, sadly, it didn’t. In fact, since President Johnson started his war on poverty in 1965 the United States has spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs, not including social security and Medicare. Adjusted for inflation, that is more than three times what we have spent on all of our wars since the Revolution.[8] And you have to ask yourself, what have we accomplished with that huge expenditure?

Marc Roby: Unfortunately, not much, I fear.

Dr. Spencer: And your fears are right. Let me summarize some of the data from a 2018 study done by the Economic Policy Institute. This report was specifically intended to check on the progress since the launch of LBJs Great Society programs in 1968.[9] It concluded, among other things, that “African Americans are 2.5 times as likely to be in poverty as whites, and the median white family has almost 10 times as much wealth as the median black family.” It also found that “In 2017 the black unemployment rate was 7.5 percent, up from 6.7 percent in 1968, and is still roughly twice the white unemployment rate.”

Marc Roby: That’s disappointing to say the least.

Dr. Spencer: It is very disappointing. We have to remember that the definition of what it means to be “poor” is suspect, as we noted in Session 166, but the relative data are still meaningful and show that the war on poverty has not accomplished much good in spite of its monstrous cost. And, in fact, the government handouts have, on the whole, been very destructive.

What FDR said in his speech to Congress is very true. It is destructive of human nature to be given a handout over and over again. Putting people to work is good. Providing education and training to help them get better jobs is good. And providing a temporary handout in times of dire emergency is fine. But our system of welfare has been a destructive influence in this country because it violates the biblical principle of the sanctity of labor and it destroys families.

Marc Roby: Can you back that statement up?

Dr. Spencer: Very easily. Welfare is destructive because from the very beginning it provided incentives for young fathers to not stay with the mothers of their children and for young single women to have multiple children.[10] These policies were destructive to poor families and disproportionately hurt blacks. For example, according to census data, in 1963, 72% of nonwhite families were married and together, but by 2017 only 27% of black households were married. For whites, 89% of families were married and together in 1963 and that dropped to 51% in 2017.[11] That is still a large and lamentable drop, but you see that the change in black families has been much worse.

Marc Roby: And it is well known that children growing up without a father have a much higher probability of living in poverty, going to jail and so on.

Dr. Spencer: Yes, in fact, President Obama, certainly no friend of conservative ideology, made that exact point in a speech he gave on Father’s Day in 2008. He said, “We know that more than half of all black children live in single-parent households, a number that has doubled — doubled — since we were children. We know the statistics — that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.”[12] And I would add that as of 2015, more than 70% of black children are born to unwed mothers and only 16 percent of black households are married couples with children.”[13]

Marc Roby: It’s interesting that Obama also admitted the problem has gotten worse since he was a child, which was after the Great Society programs started. The left, of course, tries to blame all of the current problems of blacks on institutional racism.

Dr. Spencer: But that explanation simply doesn’t make sense. Candace Owens cites some of the statistics I gave earlier from the Economic Policy Institute, which showed that black Americans have not seen significant improvements since 1968 and have, in fact, done worse in some ways. She also cites their result that the share of African Americans in prison or jail almost tripled from 1968 to 2016 and is more than six times the white incarceration rate. She then noted, quite correctly, that “Certainly no sane person would make the argument that America has become a more racist country since the 1960s, which gives way to the obvious truth that these disparities have little to do with systemic oppressions.”[14]

Marc Roby: Well, that certainly disagrees with the current narrative in our country.

Dr. Spencer: Yes, it does. But as we have been showing now for several months, neo-Marxist ideologies are built on conflict. They require you to view everything as a power struggle and to put everyone either into an oppressor class or an oppressed class. And, of course, most people aren’t going to go dig up all of the statistics necessary to find out that the picture portrayed by the mainstream media and the race industry in this country is, for the most part, a lie.

Ward Connerly, a black man and a former Regent of the University of California, recently wrote that “Individual racism will always exist; but in this country, the system is no longer racist.”[15]

Marc Roby: Now that’s a bold statement.

Dr. Spencer: It is, but he is far from alone among blacks in making that statement. No intelligent person is going to claim that racism doesn’t exist. It most certainly does. It always has existed and probably always will. Let me also quote the black Democrat Orlando Patterson though. He is a professor at Harvard and wrote the following in a New York Times op-ed in 1991; “The sociological truths are that America, while still flawed in its race relations and its stubborn refusal to institute a rational, universal welfare system, is now the least racist white-majority society in the world; has a better record of legal protection of minorities than any other society, white or black; offers more opportunities to a greater number of black persons than any other society, including all those of Africa”.[16]

Marc Roby: And he wrote that in 1991! I would think most people would say that things have gotten better since then. But he did also put in a plug for a “rational, universal welfare system”.

Dr. Spencer: And he doesn’t say anything in the article about what he meant by that, so I can’t really address the comment. But he did go on to say that “superficial liberal stereotypes of blacks as victims or bootstrap heroes are seen for what they are: a new form of racism”. I think that is a very important point that needs to be made loud and clear.

Candace Owens said something similar in her book. She wrote, “To be clear, the belief that white people are to assume all responsibility for black America’s shortcomings is a form of white power. One must believe in black inferiority to accept the thesis that black America is not responsible for any of its own shortcomings in a free society.”[17]

Marc Roby: That is a very interesting statement.

Dr. Spencer: And I think it is obviously true. The people on the left who claim to want to help blacks by lowering standards, establishing quotas, and giving them government handouts, are very condescending. They must not think that blacks are capable of doing these things for themselves. The great 19th-century orator, abolitionist and former slave, Frederick Douglass, gave a talk in 1865 to the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society in which he said, “Everybody has asked the question, … ‘What shall we do with the negro?’ I have but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm-eaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall … And if the negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs!”[18]

Marc Roby: That is a powerful statement from a man who had himself been a slave.

Dr. Spencer: Yes, it is. It was also quoted by Jason Riley in his book Please Stop Helping Us.[19] I hope that our interested listeners will read Riley’s book and Owens’ book. They will both give you the perspective of a black person who took responsibility for his or her own life and succeeded admirably. There are many others as well of course, and they all put the lie to the idea that our society is systemically racist and that is it all but impossible for a black person to succeed. Look at Riley, look at Owens, look at Orlando Patterson and Ward Connerly, both of whom I have quoted. Also look at Thomas Sowell, Ben Carson, Larry Elder and many, many others, some famous, and some not famous.

And Douglass’ speech does not, of course, say that we shouldn’t make every reasonable effort to provide good schools and real opportunities for blacks and others who want to help themselves. We should. But handouts and lowered standards help no one and are unbiblical. There are clear biblical mandates to love our neighbor as ourselves, to give help to those who are truly in need, and to not give preferential treatment to anyone, not the rich, or the poor.

Marc Roby: Well, we are told in Leviticus 19:15, “Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.”

Dr. Spencer: And that principle speaks against the idea of lowering standards or applying quotas to give one group an advantage even if your motive for doing so is to address some prior wrong. Children should not be punished by society for the sins of their fathers. I have never owned a slave, my father never owned a slave, even my grandfathers never owned a slave. Neither I nor my father or grandfathers ever participated in Jim Crow era discrimination against blacks. I strongly disapprove of racism. So to say that I should be discriminated against to make up for the past discrimination of others is unbiblical and wrong. And the individual person who would benefit, for example by being admitted to a university without meeting the normal admission standards, or getting a job to fill some quota, is not the one who was wronged either. And, in addition, the preferential treatment won’t help him, it will usually harm him. As with everything else in life, Christians need to think these things through from a biblical perspective, not the distorted lens provided by our modern culture with its hateful, harmful, destructive neo-Marxist ideologies.

Marc Roby: Very well, so where do we go from here in our discussion?

Dr. Spencer: In our next session I want to finally address the Black Lives Matter organization as the most important current example of a neo-Marxist organization.

Marc Roby: I really look forward to that discussion! So now, let me close by reminding our listeners that they can email their questions and comments to info@whatdoesthewordsay.org. We will do our best to answer.

[1] All scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® (1984 version). Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide. www.zondervan.com The “NIV” and “New International Version” are trademarks registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by Biblica, Inc.™.

[2] Great Books of the Western World, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1952, Vol. 43, pg. 53

[3] E.g., Wayne Grudem, Politics According to the Bible, Zondervan, 2010, pg. 275

[4] E.g., Thomas Sowell, Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy, 5th Ed., Basic Books, 2015, pp 426-432 and Grudem, op. cit., pp 286-289

[5] Judy Lin, The open secret about California taxes, May 8, 2018, updated, Sept. 17, 2020, viewed on Oct. 8, 2020, available at: https://calmatters.org/explainers/the-open-secret-about-california-taxes/

[6] Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Annual Message to Congress, January 4, 1935, available at: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/annual-message-congress-3

[7] Candace Owens, Blackout, Threshold Editions, 2020, pg. 125

[8] See Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield, The War on Poverty After 50 Years, Backgrounder 2955, The Heritage Foundation, September 15, 2014 (available at: http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2014/pdf/BG2955.pdf)

[9] Janelle Jones, John Schmitt, and Valerie Wilson, 50 years after the Kerner Commission, Feb. 26, 2018, available at https://www.epi.org/publication/50-years-after-the-kerner-commission/

[10] Owens, op. cit., pg. 50

[11] Ibid, pg. 51

[12] Available at: https://www.politico.com/story/2008/06/text-of-obamas-fatherhood-speech-011094

[13] Jason L. Riley, Please Stop Helping Us, Encounter Books, 2015, pg. 37

[14] Owens, op. cit., pg. 8

[15] Ward Connerly, Systemic racism and today’s California, Fox News.com, Oct. 6, 2020, available at: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/systemic-racism-california-voters-racial-preferences-ward-connerly

[16] New York Times, Op-Ed, Oct. 20, 1991, available at: https://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/20/opinion/op-ed-race-gender-and-liberal-fallacies.html

[17] Owens, op. cit. pg. 132

[18] See page 14 of the manuscript available at: https://www.loc.gov/resource/mfd.22010/?sp=14

[19] Riley, op. cit., pp 4-5

Play

Download PDF Transcript

Marc Roby: We are continuing our break from studying theology to look at some current topics of great importance from a Christian perspective. We finished our background on Marxism and neo-Marxist ideologies last time. Dr. Spencer, what do you want to examine today?

Dr. Spencer: I want to take a look at capitalism and, along the way, contrast it with socialism. But in order to explain why we, as Christians, should be concerned about this topic at all, and since the economic system of a country is a part of the form of government, I first want to remember a couple of things we have said about governments and the relationship Christians have to them.

In 1 Timothy 2:1-4 the apostle Paul wrote that “I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone—for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.”[1]

Marc Roby: That passage does a good job of illustrating what we have said before is the main purpose for which God ordained earthly governments; namely, to safeguard personal liberty. In other words, our ability to, as Paul wrote, “live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.”

Dr. Spencer: And the purpose for our being able to do that is to shine the light of God’s gospel into this dark world so that people will be saved. As Paul wrote, God “wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” And that happens as a result of the witness of Christians. When we began this special series, in Session 161, I noted that God gives us our purpose, place and priorities in life. Our purpose is to glorify God.

Marc Roby: Which mirrors God’s own purpose. We have noted a number of times that his purpose in creation is the manifestation of his own glory.

Dr. Spencer: And we glorify God by doing the work he has given us to do; first and foremost, the work of sharing the gospel. In doing that we must know our place. Which means, first, that we are creatures and, second, that we are under authority.

Marc Roby: And we have noted several times that there are three God-given spheres of authority: the family, the church and the state.

Dr. Spencer: And we, as Christians, have different roles and responsibilities in each of these spheres, and our roles change over the course of our lifetime as well. And in all of our roles, God sets the priorities. We are his adopted children. We read in Philippians 3:20 that “our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ”. We are, first and foremost, citizens of heaven. God alone is the ultimate King and we owe him our absolute unquestioning obedience. All earthly authorities are delegated authorities and have limited spheres of authority and limited scope of authority.

And one of the things that falls within the scope of authority of civil government is the economy. So with all that review in mind, I want to discuss capitalism. As Christians, we must evaluate any economic system by how well it supports God’s priorities for his creatures.

Marc Roby: Very well. Perhaps it would be good to start with a clear definition of what we mean by capitalism. According to Webster’s dictionary, capitalism is “an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.”[2]

Dr. Spencer: That’s a good definition. And we see right away that it is a system that is, at the very least, consistent with Christian principles. It affirms two important biblical principles. First, the right to private property. The definition speaks about private ownership of property, either individually or collectively through a corporation.

Marc Roby: And, as we noted before, the Bible consistently assumes and confirms the right to personal property. For example, by giving us the eighth commandment, “You shall not steal.”[3]

Dr. Spencer: Right. We aren’t to steal the property of others, but as Christians we are also required to remember that God owns everything, we are really just stewards. We will talk about the implications of that in our next session. Secondly, the definition affirms human responsibility in making private decisions about what to invest in, about what to buy, and we could add that making free decisions about what we as individuals do for a living is also included. The right to make personal choices for which we can be justly held accountable is, again, a fundamental biblical principle.

Marc Roby: Yes, I recall that we quoted Deuteronomy 30:19 before, where, after going over God’s commands and his blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience, Moses told the people, “I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live”.

Dr. Spencer: Yes, we quoted that verse in Session 165. If we disobey, we can be subject to punishment at times in any of the three spheres of authority, the home, church or state. But ultimately, as Paul tells us in 2 Corinthians 5:10, “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.” There are many sins for which none of these three earthly spheres of authority can hold us accountable. But God is able to judge “the thoughts and attitudes of the heart” as we learn from Hebrews 4:12. He can hold us accountable for example, for unkind and selfish thoughts and attitudes, for ungratefulness, greed and jealousy.

Marc Roby: All of which are things earthly authorities can only infer from outward words and actions.

Dr. Spencer: That’s true. Now remember that Marx viewed the possession of personal property as the fundamental problem plaguing mankind. But that is simply wrong. Property itself isn’t the problem, sin is the problem. It is the fact that human beings are sometimes greedy, jealous, covetous and cruel, to name just a few sins. People are willing to steal and kill to gain the property of others. People are willing to take advantage of others in all sorts of ways. They cheat with dishonest scales for example.

Marc Roby: Which is something the Bible speaks against in many places. For example, we read in Deuteronomy 25:15 “You must have accurate and honest weights and measures, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.”

Dr. Spencer: Yes. God will not be pleased if a merchant has one weight to use when buying something and another weight to use when selling.

Marc Roby: Like the proverbial butcher’s thumb on the scale!

Dr. Spencer: That’s true. So, the problem with capitalism is sin, not the right to own private property. And as we saw in Session 167, sin shows up in socialist systems as well. In that case it often shows up in bribery and other types of corruption, which people use to get ahead.

Marc Roby: Well, people are always tempted to do what is best for them individually.

Dr. Spencer: They are. And if you build a system that only works when everyone is completely selfless and dedicated to working their hardest for the benefit of others, even if they get nothing in return, you are building a system that is bound to fail. You are ignoring human sin. Humans do sometimes act in selfless and generous ways, but they will not always do so.

One of the reasons that capitalism has been so successful is the incentives that it establishes. When a business or individual does what is best for the business, that is also in general what is best for the overall economy, which means it is best for the prosperity of society as a whole. Let me give just one short example.

Marc Roby: Please do.

Dr. Spencer: This is taken from Thomas Sowell’s excellent book Basic Economics. He tells of a delegation of American farmers who visited the old Soviet Union. He wrote, “They were appalled at the way various agricultural produce was shipped, carelessly packed and with spoiled fruit or vegetables left to spread the spoilage to other fruits and vegetables … American farmers had no experience with such gross carelessness and waste, which would have caused somebody to lose much money needlessly in the United States, and perhaps go bankrupt.”[4]

Marc Roby: It sounds like they needed someone to monitor what was going on.

Dr. Spencer: Well, Sowell considers that and points out that monitoring is not free, it wastes resources. In addition, the monitors would have incentive to accept bribes, so you introduce more corruption. In the end, having the farmer in charge of packing his own produce makes a much better system. His own self interest is to see that his fruit handled properly in order to maximize his own profit, but this also maximizes his output and the efficiency of the whole system, so everyone benefits.

Marc Roby: There is always the possibility of the farming going out of business though.

Dr. Spencer: Oh, that’s true. The prospect of failure, either partial loss or completely going out of business, is an important part of a capitalist system. If you have the freedom to succeed, you also necessarily have the freedom to fail. And, as a result, there will be people who need help. Their failure may or may not have been their own fault. But a capitalist society will always need some safety net.

But socialism can’t prevent crop failures due to floods, droughts, storms or whatever either. The real question we need to consider is, “Which system provides the greatest overall economic output and provides individuals with incentives to do what is right?” And the answer is that capitalism wins hands down. At each step along the line from production to purchase, the individual business has an incentive to do the job as well as possible and as efficiently as possible. The net result is much higher overall output and employment.

Marc Roby: That’s a valid point. And that explains why, for example, Communist China abandoned true socialism many years ago.

Dr. Spencer: And Sowell uses that example, among others. Mao died in 1976 and China moved away from socialism soon after that. Sowell notes that “the subsequent freeing up of prices in the marketplace led to an astonishing economic growth rate of 9 percent per year between 1978 and 1995.”[5] And he also notes that “In China, the number of people living on a dollar a day or less fell from 374 million – one third of the country’s population in 1990 – to 128 million by 2004, now just 10 percent of a growing population.”[6]

Marc Roby: That is astonishing.

Dr. Spencer: It truly is. And he gives many more examples in his book of countries like India, Ghana and the Ivory Coast, where creating or doing away with free markets have produced dramatic results; always in favor of free markets.

In addition to the lack of proper incentives, there is another very serious problem with socialism, and one of the many reasons it simply doesn’t work; we don’t all want the same things. We each buy different kinds of food, clothing, cars, houses and so on.

Marc Roby: I can’t imagine anything that could be more obvious. All you have to do is look around to see the vast differences in what people want to buy.

Dr. Spencer: And yet, in a socialist economy, choice is often done away with in the interests of efficiency. There may be only one kind of bread available. Or only one kind of TV, or car, or whatever. Because the state decides what is needed, not a free market. And history has taught us very clearly that the state often gets it wrong. In fact, given the complexity of a large economy in terms of the sheer number of items produced and all of the resources that go into producing them, it is simply beyond reason to think that central planning can work. Allowing supply and demand and free-market pricing to work solves the problem without central planning. Sowell again uses the old Soviet Union as an example and quotes from some Soviet economists to make his point. But I’ll let interested listeners check the reference for that.[7]

And there is a second aspect of this same problem. Not only can central planners not determine how much of each commodity will be needed, but central planning of the economy removes individual choice in lifestyle. We don’t all value the same things. Let me illustrate that with one of my former graduate students.

Marc Roby: Alright. Please do.

Dr. Spencer: I had many graduate students who were extremely driven and competitive. They were very driven to do research that would be highly regarded and valued, finish their PhD degrees and then go to work for companies that were well known for their high-pressure, long hours, but concomitant high pay. These students liked the technical challenge, the prestige and, yes, being able to drive a really nice car and so on. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. But I had others who made different choices. One in particular, who was very good and could certainly have taken the route I just described had he wanted to, chose not to go on for a PhD, but instead to graduate with a Masters degree and go to work in a manufacturing firm where he worked 8 to 5 Monday through Friday and even punched a time clock. His job was not nearly as technically demanding, he wasn’t going to a bunch of publish papers and become well known, and it didn’t pay nearly as much. But he didn’t want to work 60- to 70-hour work weeks. He wanted to have his evenings and weekends free to pursue other activities and to live in a place he thought was nice to live. His choice was just as valid as the others, but different. That kind of freedom is not available in socialist countries with planned economies.

Marc Roby: Yes, I see your point. But what about all of the evils people often associate with capitalism? For example, the income gap. Some people make a great deal more money than others do, and some of them make way more money than any one person could possibly need.

Dr. Spencer: Well, that is certainly true. And before I address this issue directly, let me note that the Bible often speaks about the poor and commands us to be generous and to help those who are in need. God will hold the rich accountable for how they use their wealth. They may think the money is theirs because they worked hard to develop their knowledge and skills and then worked hard to use them and earn the money, but the reality is that God gave them their skills and opportunities. Now, it’s commendable if they did work hard and made good use of them, but ultimately, their riches come from God.

Marc Roby: As one of many examples we could quote, Proverbs 21:13 says that “If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered.”

Dr. Spencer: Yes, that’s a good verse. And, as you said, there are many more.

There is no doubt that we should help those who are poor. But there is also an issue of personal responsibility here. In Paul’s second letter to the church in Thessalonica he wrote, in 2 Thessalonians 3:10, that “when we were with you, we gave you this rule: ‘If a man will not work, he shall not eat.’” The poor should be helped locally, not by a distant federal government who has no idea why they are poor. They should be helped with education, medical care, food, shelter and other needs, but always with an eye to getting them to be self-sufficient. And capitalism has proven itself time and time again to be the very best system for creating an economy where a person can improve him or herself by working hard.

Marc Roby: But not everyone has the ability or opportunity to be a PhD student in Electrical Engineering. So, going back to your example, not everyone has the choice your students had.

Dr. Spencer: Well, that is absolutely true. And not every one of those PhD students had the ability or opportunity to start his own company and become exceptionally wealthy either. But we have to ask, “Is there something inherently wrong with that?” I never had the ability to play professional sports or to be a professional musician either, so is it wrong that others do have that ability and make much more money than I ever did? And is there somebody who’s at fault?

There is a fundamental issue here. Call it ingratitude, or jealousy, or whatever, but if I am not happy with my lot in life, even after allowing for the ways in which I may have failed to properly make use of the abilities and opportunities I have been given, then I am, ultimately, unhappy with God. God decides what gifts and opportunities to give to each individual person. In Acts 17:26 the apostle Paul was speaking to the Athenians and said that God “made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.”

Marc Roby: I see your point. We can’t all be the best no matter what system we have. People are not all equal in ability or how hard they work.

Dr. Spencer: That’s right, capitalism is not the problem. In fact, as we noted in Session 164, and as Sowell makes very clear in the book I quoted from earlier, capitalism has been the most successful economic system in history for bringing prosperity and freedom to the greatest number of people.

But free markets are competitive places and that competition is precisely the mechanism that makes them work so well. If I have a company, I can’t sell my products or services for more than people are willing to pay. And if I look for a job, I can’t sell my services as an employee for more than my abilities and experience will justify. An employer won’t stay in business very long if he pays me more than my labor is worth, nor will he stay in business very long if pays people too little, he won’t be able to find employees. In both cases, the selling of a product and the selling of labor, a free market says that the price will be set by supply and demand.

Marc Roby: In other words, any time there is a supply of some commodity that is larger than the demand, the price will drop. And, conversely, whenever the supply is less than the demand, that price will go up.

Dr. Spencer: Exactly. And that feedback loop works extremely well to regulate the markets; both for goods and for labor. Whenever governments try to control these things the net result is virtually always a poorer economy, which means that everyone suffers.

Marc Roby: Of course, in this kind of competitive system, there will always be winners and losers.

Dr. Spencer: But when someone “wins” in capitalism we all get a better product or service for a lower price or in some other way society as a whole gains.

Marc Roby: Yes, that’s an important point.

Dr. Spencer: And, in addition, the “losers” aren’t punished or required to stay down. And those who start at the bottom don’t have to stay there. If, for example, I am only capable of menial labor, then there are a lot of people who can do the same work, so the supply is large and for any given demand the wages I can get will be lower. But I always have the opportunity to work hard, learn, gain experience and move up to a higher-paying job. It requires that I have the right attitude and depends on my effort. The employer is not my enemy. He isn’t trying to oppress me and get rich off of my labor, he’s also governed by supply and demand. If he pays too much, then his products will be too expensive, he won’t sell many of them, and he will go out of business and I will lose my job altogether. Sowell points out that the real minimum wage is always zero.

Marc Roby: That’s an interesting and obviously true way to look at it. But, of course, there have been situations where employers have taken advantage of employees.

Dr. Spencer: Well, of course there have. People are sinners. And so some degree of government regulation is not necessarily wrong; but it must be done very carefully and sparingly.

Marc Roby: Now I want to get back to the income gap. Isn’t that a real problem?

Dr. Spencer: Well, let me give a three-part answer to that. First, in Session 164 I gave an example of how a company can do very well and the owner, employees and customers all benefit even though the owner may benefit proportionally more. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with that and, in fact, it provides an incentive for people to pursue excellence, from which we all benefit. And their motivation doesn’t have to be pure greed, it can simply be wanting to do something very well and the money is then, as a friend of mine once put it, like the grade you receive in a class. The more you make, the better you did. Now that may not be the most noble motivation in the world, but it isn’t inherently sinful either.

Marc Roby: Alright, what is the second part of your answer?

Dr. Spencer: When people talk about the income gap, the implication always is that the poor are worse off than they used to be. But in Session 166 I gave a number of statistics to show that simply isn’t the case. There are still truly poor people in this country and in other free-market nations as well of course, but capitalism has done far more to alleviate real poverty than any other economic system in history. You have to be careful how you define poverty. In general, the “poor” today are better off in many ways than the middle class was 60 years ago, and they are certainly better off than the average person was 150 years ago.

Marc Roby: Very well. What is the third part to your answer?

Dr. Spencer: That it is easy to tell a lie using statistics. All you have to do is use the wrong statistic. Sowell points this out in his book. He notes that “it is a widely publicized fact that census data show the percentage of the national income going to those in the bottom 20 percent bracket has been declining over the years, while the percentage going to those in the top 20 percent has been increasing”[8]. But you cannot conclude from that data that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer!

Marc Roby: Now, why is that conclusion invalid?

Dr. Spencer: Because people don’t stay in the same brackets. A young person may start his career in the lower 20% bracket, but then move up during his career. And a person may be in a high bracket during the peak of his career and then come down. What you need to look at is what happens to specific individuals over time, and when you do that you find the exact opposite result.

Sowell writes, “A University of Michigan study found that, among working Americans who were in the bottom 20 percent in income in 1975, approximately 95 percent had risen out of that bracket by 1991 … The largest absolute amount of increase in income between 1975 and 1991 was among those people who were initially in the bottom [20 percent] in 1975 and the least absolute increase in income was among those who were initially in the top [20 percent] in 1975.”[9]

Marc Roby: That is exactly the opposite of what you usually hear.

Dr. Spencer: And it isn’t just one study. The IRS also did a study and found similar results as did another study in Canada. Sowell also noted that “Among those Americans who were in the bottom 20 percent in 1975, 98 percent had higher real incomes in 1991 – and two-thirds had higher real incomes in 1991 than the average American had back in 1975”[10]. The bottom line is that while poverty is still a real problem, the statistics you hear about it are often wrong and capitalism is not the fundamental cause of the problem.

So, to conclude for today, capitalism is the best economic system ever developed for allowing human freedom and for providing prosperity to the largest number of people. It has built-in incentives that encourage people to do what is good, rather than what is corrupt. The problems we see with it are caused by human sin, not capitalism.

Marc Roby: That has been very enlightening. I look forward to continuing our discussion about societal issues next time, for now, let me remind our listeners that they can email their questions and comments to info@whatdoesthewordsay.org. We would love to hear from you.

[1] All scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® (1984 version). Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide. www.zondervan.com The “NIV” and “New International Version” are trademarks registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by Biblica, Inc.™.

[2] Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, G. & C. Merriam Comp., 1979

[3] Exodus 20:15

[4] Thomas Sowell, Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy, 5th Ed., Basic Books, 2015, pg. 400

[5] Ibid, pg. 25

[6] Ibid, pg. 6

[7] Ibid, pp 16-17

[8] Ibid, pg. 204

[9] Ibid, pg. 205

[10] Ibid, pg. 204

Play

Download PDF Transcript

Marc Roby: We are continuing our break from studying theology to look at some current topics of great importance from a Christian perspective. In our last session we showed how the K-12 public education system in this country has deteriorated dramatically over the past 50 years and how much of that can be attributed to a concerted effort by zealous Marxists like Bill Ayers and Angela Davis. Their real goal is to destroy this country from within in order to make room for a new socialist nation that can become part of a world-wide communist utopia. Dr. Spencer, you said last time that you needed to say a bit more about the history of public education in this country. What more would you like to say?

Dr. Spencer: Well, first, I think it is important for Christians to realize that this war against Christian values is not a new problem. In Ephesians 6:11-12 the apostle Paul commands us to, “Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.”

Our real enemy is Satan. He uses all kinds of things to attack us and Marxist ideology and its neo-Marxist offspring are just tools in his hands. You really see this when you look at the history of public education in this country.

Marc Roby: And I remember that Whittaker Chambers said that Marxism is the second oldest religion, it dates back to Satan’s tempting Eve to sin in the Garden. But how do you see this when you look at the history of public education in America?

Dr. Spencer: Well, the neo-Marxist critical theory and its offspring are fairly new, but even prior to that public education in America has been decidedly anti-Christian for quite some time, at least in terms of the individuals most prominent in establishing and directing its course. I want to be clear that I am not speaking about the average individual teacher. Most teachers, even today, try to do the best job they can of educating our students. Unfortunately, it doesn’t take many who are zealous to indoctrinate our children into their ideology for it to have a huge impact. Good teachers know that it isn’t their job to provide the moral or religious education of their students. They freely leave that up to the parents and Sunday Schools. 

Marc Roby: And rightly so we would say. But what about the zealots and the movers and the shakers so to speak?

Dr. Spencer: Well, we need to go all the way back to the utopian socialist Robert Owen. We discussed his experimental voluntary socialist community called New Harmony in Session 165. But even before he tried that experiment, he had publicly presented his views on education. He wrote a collection of essays called A New View of Society, and then printed them and gave them out. He had a completely materialist view of man. He saw employees as nothing more than sophisticated machines that could be programmed to perform better.

Marc Roby: Which sounds very much like Karl Marx and all the communist leaders who have followed him.

Dr. Spencer: It does. They understand that communism cannot work with men the way they are. In speaking to a group of textile mill owners in the early 1800’s Owen asked them, “If then due care to the state of your inanimate machines can produce you such beneficial results, what may not be expected, if you devoted equal attention to your far more wonderfully constructed, your animate machines?”

Marc Roby: Wow. I thought maybe you were exaggerating a bit when you said he thought people were just complex machines, but that is what he actually said.

Dr. Spencer: Now to be fair, he was concerned with making changes that would make their work safer and their lives better, but of course the changes would also make them better workers and the mills more profitable. 

The real problem though, and my only point right now, is that he had a completely materialistic view of human nature. He ignored the soul and he ignored sin. Our astute listeners, with better memories than I have, may recall that when his New Harmony experiment failed, he attributed the failure to the people. In his view, they simply were not trained to have the proper mindset for a collectivist or communal living arrangement.

Marc Roby: Yes, I do remember that. I also recall that his son had a more realistic appraisal of why the experiment failed.

Dr. Spencer: He did, you’re quite right. And his son, Robert Dale Owen, was also influential in the early development of public education. According to Wikipedia, he “secured inclusion of an article in the Indiana Constitution of 1851 that provided tax-supported funding for a uniform system of free public schools, and established the position of Indiana Superintendent of Public Instruction.” 

Marc Roby: That’s very interesting.

Dr. Spencer: Even more interesting is a man named Orestes Brownson. He was an associate of Robert Dale Owen, and later converted to Roman Catholicism and renounced his involvement in socialist utopian ideas. He had worked on public schools with Frances Wright, who was an early feminist and utopian socialist who had worked with Robert Dale Owen at New Harmony. 

In a speech he gave in 1853 he spoke about his involvement in setting up public schools and said, “The great object was to get rid of Christianity … The plan was not to make open attacks on religion, … but to establish a system of state, we said, national schools, from which all religion was to be excluded, … and to which all parents were to be compelled by law to send their children. Our complete plan was to take the children from their parents at the age of twelve or eighteen months”.

Marc Roby: That’s truly amazing, and they wanted to start with toddlers. This man Owen had a lot of influence.

Dr. Spencer: We could go into more, but that is enough for now. Education has been an important part of the socialist agenda from the very beginning. In the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels gave what you could call a ten-point plan for socialism, and free education for all children in public schools is the tenth point. 

Now, on its face, that may sound like a perfectly good thing. But it is clear that in communist regimes education is synonymous with indoctrination. The purpose is to create cogs to fit into the socialist machine, not to create intelligent, well-informed citizens able to think for themselves, which is usually the goal thought of in democratic systems of government.

Marc Roby: Yes, that is a huge difference.

Dr. Spencer: It is a critically important difference, but our schools have been moving in the direction of indoctrination for a long time. Let’s now fast-forward to the 20th century and look at John Dewey, who is a man many of our listeners have probably heard of. He is sometimes called the father of progressive education and he helped the Frankfurt school, which we have spoken about as the originator of critical theory, get established in the Teachers College at Columbia University. 

Marc Roby: I’ve certainly heard of him. He was a secular humanist as I recall.

Dr. Spencer: Yes, he was. In fact, he was strongly opposed to Christianity. He was one of the signers of the original Humanist Manifesto I in 1933. The first affirmation of that Manifesto says that “Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.” And the fourteenth affirmation says that “humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible.”

Marc Roby: It is interesting that they refer to themselves as “Religious humanists”. And their socialist views are obvious from the fourteenth affirmation.

Dr. Spencer: That’s very true. And there was another humanist named Charles F. Potter, who also signed that declaration. He also founded the First Humanitarian Society of New York, and his advisory board included John Dewey and Albert Einstein. 

Marc Roby: Alright, that’s a fascinating connection. But why do you mention Potter?

Dr. Spencer: Because he wrote a book called Humanism, a New Religion. And in that book he wrote that “Education is thus a most powerful ally of Humanism, and every American public school is a school of Humanism. What can the theistic Sunday-schools, meeting for an hour once a week, and teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching?”

Marc Roby: Well, he lays it right out there, doesn’t he? At least in his view, the public schools were in direct opposition to Christianity. Given his comment about Sunday Schools, he obviously thought the “five-day program of humanistic teaching” was in direct opposition to them.

Dr. Spencer: Yes, he was very clear about his purposes. And remember the speech given by Orestes Brownson almost a hundred years earlier, from which I quoted a few minutes ago? He said, “The great object was to get rid of Christianity … The plan was not to make open attacks on religion, … but to establish a system of state, we said, national schools, from which all religion was to be excluded”. They all understood that if you teach children from a purely materialistic worldview, you are going to go a long way toward creating materialists! 

Now, as I noted, I don’t think that is the goal of most teachers, but even when it isn’t the goal, when the atheist’s materialistic view is assumed in science and history and all mention of God is either banned or relegated to the status of myth, there is a very strong influence exerted on young minds. And then when you throw in a few zealous teachers, the influence becomes even stronger.

Marc Roby: I think that point is abundantly clear.

Dr. Spencer: In 2013, Obama’s Education Secretary Arne Duncan wrote that “As Nelson Mandela says, ‘Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.’ Education is the key to eliminating gender inequality, to reducing poverty, to creating a sustainable planet, to preventing needless deaths and illness, and to fostering peace.” 

Marc Roby: Now, that statement Duncan quoted from Mandela could certainly be taken in a very positive way, education can be a powerful tool for changing the world by improving the lives of people.

Dr. Spencer: Yes, that is obviously true. But, unfortunately, Duncan then added a statement that made his social agenda for the schools perfectly clear. The first thing he mentions is gender inequality …

Marc Roby: To which I would say, vive la difference!

Dr. Spencer: And I would agree with you. But, unfortunately, he wasn’t referring to the God-given differences between men and women. He then mentions reducing poverty, which can obviously be a good thing in itself, but is that the second purpose of education? It is certainly an indirect result of a good education if people put it to use, but sadly, that is again obviously not what Duncan intended. He then goes on to mention creating a sustainable planet and so on. This is a social agenda. It is not basic education. All parents, especially Christian parents, need to be in charge of their children’s education.

Marc Roby: You aren’t saying everyone should home-school their children, are you?

Dr. Spencer: No. Home schooling can be very good, but private schools and a good system of public education are both good too. Not many parents are equipped to do a good job of teaching their children the intricacies of English grammar, algebra, basic physics, history and so on, especially not all the way through high school. But public schools should not be in the business of ideological indoctrination. And parents and society should not put up with having a substantial portion of the available time taken up with the so-called social justice causes and activism. That is not the proper role for public schools.

And the social justice topics being taught now are very destructive. They produce young people who are unhappy, angry, resentful, jealous and entitled.

Marc Roby: That’s a strong statement.

Dr. Spencer: But I think it is accurate. If you are a child with black or brown skin in our public-school system you are being taught that you are oppressed, you are a victim. And implicitly you are being taught that it is hopeless for you to rise above your position as a victim except by revolution and identifying with your group. If you are white, you are being taught that you are irredeemably racist, independent of anything you have ever said or done. All that you and your family have are the result of white privilege.

In addition, you are taught that you are entitled to all sorts of things. You hear a lot these days about everyone having a “right” to a job, to health care, to a comfortable place to live, a good retirement and so on. But there is no such entitlement. Everyone should and, for the vast majority of cases, does have the opportunity to have these things in our country, that is why so many people want to come here.

Marc Roby: Well, certainly immigration reform is yet another hot topic at the moment.

Dr. Spencer: It is, and I don’t think we want to spend any time discussing that. But for those who think this country is so awful and that socialism is so good, I have one question. Why is it that countries built on a Marxist plan, like the old USSR, Communist China, North Korea and Cuba to name just four, have to restrict people to keep them in, while the United States is having discussions about how to keep people out? I don’t see a huge number of people wanting to move to China, Cuba or North Korea. They don’t have a problem with illegal immigration.

Marc Roby: That’s certainly a valid point.

Dr. Spencer: There is so much more that we could say about the history of Marxism and its massive failures with the concomitant loss of life and misery it has caused, but I think we have said enough to move on to look at some of the manifestations of Marxist and neo-Marxist ideas in our present day.

Angela Davis said that Herbert Marcuse always used to tell his students that “When truth cannot be realized within the established social order, it always appears to the latter as mere utopia.” But this statement wrongly presupposes that heaven on earth is achievable, and that Christians and other conservatives oppose these Marxist ideas simply because they would require a disruption to our existing social order. But that is absolute nonsense. We oppose these ideas because they are stupid and wicked. History has shown that they simply do not work and they produce mass suffering, that is why they are stupid. They ignore the obvious reality of human sin. And they are built on a materialist worldview that rejects God and makes man ultimate, which is why they are wicked. Christians cannot support these ideas.

Marc Roby: We don’t, of course, believe that our existing social order is perfect. There is a lot of room for improvement.

Dr. Spencer: That is obviously true. And when you listen to someone on the far left speak, they often speak about wanting things we can all agree with, like less violence, less poverty, less bigotry. The problem isn’t always with their stated goals, it is with the fact that their proposed solutions make things worse, not better, because they are built on a fundamentally flawed worldview that ignores God and ignores human sin. And as we have seen, true Marxists aren’t really concerned with incremental improvements in our nation. If we allow ourselves to be deceived by their publicly stated goals, rather than looking at their actions, we will pay a very dear price. What we are seeing in many cities in our country these past few months is, essentially, mob rule. Mob rule can never bring about meaningful change, it can only bring about revolution. No less a sage than Abraham Lincoln spoke about this very fact. 

Marc Roby: Now what did Lincoln have to say about this? 

Dr. Spencer: Well, in January of 1838, a young Lincoln gave a speech in Springfield, Illinois. It was his first known public speech and the subject was some recent mob violence that had been going on. Lincoln spoke about the fact that our government is more conducive to the ends of civil and religious liberty than any other government in the history of the world. He also spoke about the fact that prior to his time, man’s baser principles had been held in check by first, a common enemy …

Marc Roby: Which, of course, was Great Britain. The Treaty of Paris, which ended the revolutionary war, was signed in 1783, only 55 years before this speech was given.

Dr. Spencer: That’s right. There were still people alive when he gave this speech who could remember the revolution. And the second thing he said kept people’s baser principles in check was, essentially, the unity of purpose in trying to make this grand experiment called the United States of America succeed. But he then said, in a way only Lincoln could, that these two checks on our baser instincts “were the pillars of the temple of liberty; and now, that they have crumbled away, that temple must fall, unless we … supply their places with other pillars, hewn from the solid quarry of sober reason.” And then, speaking about the passions involved in the revolution, he said that “Passion has helped us; but can do so no more. It will in future be our enemy. Reason, cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason, must furnish all the materials for our future support and defense.”

Marc Roby: That is a wonderful statement, as one would expect from Lincoln.

Dr. Spencer: He had pondered, early in the speech, what enemy might destroy our country given our geography and other advantages. He said, “At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.” 

Marc Roby: That is certainly an important point. The greatest danger comes from within. In our previous session, you quoted Jesus, who in Mark 3:25 said that “If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.”

Dr. Spencer: That’s right. And, as I noted, the main reason for Lincoln’s speech was to address mob violence. Addressing that directly, he said that “by the operation of this mobocractic spirit … the strongest bulwark of any Government, and particularly of those constituted like ours, may effectually be broken down and destroyed – I mean the attachment of the People.”

He explained that those who are prone to violent crimes will be emboldened by mob violence and those who are peace loving will soon lose their attachment for a government that is impotent to protect them. If that happens with too many people, the government will fall.

Marc Roby: Which is exactly what the Marxists want to have happen in this country.

Dr. Spencer: That is exactly right. And I think Lincoln hit the nail on the head. Our government must stop this violence and we all, as a people, must have reason – cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason as our guide. We, as Christians, should lead the way. Governed by the Bible. We know God’s purpose for us, which is to live for his glory. We know our place, which is that of dependent, sinful creatures in need of forgiveness. And we know our priorities, which are given to us by the Bible. If we use our reason in submission to these biblical truths, we can be a wonderful force for good in this country. If we are naïve and lazy and fail to forcefully oppose what is going on, we may find ourselves losing the liberties we enjoy today.

And so, in the upcoming sessions I want to address specific examples of how neo-Marxist ideologies are being used to tear this country apart and what our response, as Christians, should be.

Marc Roby: Very well, I look forward to beginning that conversation next week. And now, let me remind our listeners that they can email their questions and comments to info@whatdoesthewordsay.org. We will do our best to answer.

 

Play