We’ve addressed a lot of weird and heretical stuff overflowing the banks of Christendom today. But the weird just keeps getting weirder. And more heretical. Did you know Bo Marinov now teaches that patriarchy is the predicate and efficient cause of Sodomy? The fact that zen koans of this sort evoke anything other than uproarious laughter from his readers only redoubles the comedy thereof.
Turns out, post hoc, ergo propter hoc can be a real knee-slapper.
Even to assert that patriarchy entails the LGBT phenomenon would raise the question of why the queer stuff asserted itself so starkly only as of the late twentieth century. And for corn’s sake, what’s so oppressive about a husband consoling his wife after she burned supper?!
In any case, this article is a redress of Bojidar Marinov’s most recent elaboration of his new theology.
I am Bo Marinov, and for the next 30 minutes I will try to expose a religion that is as old as the Fall and yet always young … and creeping into Christianity under many new excuses and emotional reasons. . . . It is a religion that often has no specific idols for worship, and even sometimes sneaks into our lives under the disguise of “strong and vigorous” Christianity, but in reality, it is more idolatrous than the worst superstitions of the most backward tribes in the corners of our world. And unlike those backward superstitions, it is quite rational, and quite appealing to the spirit of our age. . . . [T]he religion I will be talking about has always laid out in open, and we have been way to [sic] eager to practice it openly. And it is about time for us to stop.
This primordial evil he goes on to term “power religion.”
Comically, Bo’s first illustration of this pernicious sin is that Christians, for the most part, don’t believe in tipping subpar waiters. So the arcane sin of which he speaks manifests, among other things, as free enterprise. The presumptive answer for which is a equal gratuity for all. Which is to say, socialized service. So, according to Bo, the alternative to ‘power religion’ entails economic communism.
But there is more Bulgarian buggery afoot:
What is important to understand here is that power is a privilege.
This not-so-subtle indictment of ‘privilege’ the reader will readily recognize as the vernacular pioneered by radical Leftist Peggy McIntosh circa 1988, and since ossified into the jive of every balaclava-clad radical and Black militant.
Cain gave the start to the fallen mankind’s solution to all problems: Instead of doing good, use the power given to you to solve your problems in your own way.
Bo here juxtaposes good against power. As if they are antitheses. And by associating his theory of ‘power religion’ with Cain, who forever stands for murder, from this point on, everything he deems ‘power religion’ will denote murder. And he has already told us power is privilege. So he associates all privilege with murder.
Five generations after Cain, one of his descendants, Lamech, took two wives (a statement in itself of wielding superior power) and bragged to them. . . . (You can’t miss the irony of this macho man bragging to women about his power.)
We only pause here to note the uncanny similarity between Bo’s rhetoric and the feminist incoherence of every Ms. Magazine editorial: ‘Oh, big man, intimidating defenseless women! We’re all equal, mmkay?’
Bo also also takes opportunity to segue into the most self-contradictory explanation of the Tower of Babel this writer has ever heard. I won’t bother treating it here beyond saying he scoffs at the whole history of exegesis which takes Babel to have been an elite/egalitarian global government conspiracy; after which he immediately turns around to describe it as exactly the same thing. Pure schizophrenia.
Relative to which he says “unity is good and it is unity, not division, that is the true normative state of mankind.” Never mind that his identification as a member of the Marinov clan, as well as a Christian, clearly refutes this statement. And never mind again that it flies in the face of the Trinitarian resolution of the problem of the one and the many.
But no sooner had he declared unity a categorical good than he describes the great evil of Babel as the “religious tenet … that power is good.” How unity can be extolled as a categorical good while denouncing power as a categorical evil he does not even begin to answer. As with most things, he simply asserts them, not unlike the mysterious Israeli fortune-teller whom he reports to have anointed his ministry.
But now we come to his favorite empty Leftist platitudes:
Objectively speaking, ethnic minorities are always the weaker partner in all ethnic or racial relations, when we speak of groups. (They are minorities, for crying out loud.)
They are? Erm, then why does Bo not sympathize with the White Confederacy wherein Whites were outnumbered by Black slaves? Or the White men who won the Americas from the Indians? Or the Whites under South African apartheid outnumbered ten to one? And why not sympathize with Whites in general who make up less than 8% of the global population presently, and are uniquely plummeting in numbers everywhere? Ironically, Bo’s aphorism here would only validate White anxiety at waxing into a minority status in our own countries.
But the Kinist position offers relief on this front, as Rushdoony reminded us that “history has never been dominated by majorities, but only by dedicated minorities who stand unconditionally on their faith.”
And again, Bo even refutes his own maxim:
Jews, who are wealthy, family-oriented, and community-organized, are by default cunning, corrupt, conspiratorial, treacherous, etc.
So Jews (an extreme minority) who run Hollywood, the media, academia, the courts, Capitol Hill, and the banks, are ‘objectively the weaker partner’ with all the White Christians who drive trucks, dig ditches, and build houses? And this despite their still having affirmative action set-asides, and presumptive authority over Gentiles in all things political, social, and even religious? Simply brilliant, Marinov.
The rise of patriarchalism in the last two decades, especially in Reformed circles, is another evidence of the religion of power: behind the pious rhetoric, the final appeal is to power and submission, not to service and ethics.
Wait a cotton-pickin’ minute, now. Not only does Bo allege Patriarchy to be contrary to Christianity, but he thinks Patriarchy has risen in the last two decades? From 2000 to present? What? That would come as quite a surprise to Calvin:
Yet consider now, whether women are not quite past sense and reason, when they want to rule over men. In a word, it is madness. For, were men made for women? It is true that today men are as channels through which God causes His grace to stream down upon women. For, from whence does labor come? From where do all the most excellent things and highly esteemed things come? To be sure, it all comes from the men’s side. So God is well pleased for men to serve the good of women, as experience shows. Yet St. Paul has an eye here to the beginning of the creation, where it was said that it was not good for the man to be alone, and that he needed someone at hand who would always be ready to help. Since God was thinking of the man, it certainly follows that the woman is only an accessory. And why? Because she was only created for the sake of man, and she must therefore direct her whole life toward him. She must confess, “I am not supposed to be without direction here, not knowing my purpose and station. Rather, I am obliged by God, if I am married, to serve my husband, and render him honor and reverence. And, if I am not married, I am bound to walk in all soberness and modesty, cognizant that men have the higher rank, and that they must rule, and that the woman who disregards this forgets the law of nature and perverts what should be observed as God commands.” This then the place to which St. Paul brings back women.[1. Men, Women, and Order in the Church: Three Sermons by John Calvin [Dallas: Presbyterian Heritage, 1992], pp. 35-36.]
Bo references Matthew 25:31-46 where Christ divides the nations, heaven-bound from hell-bound, as proof that, “Very clearly, Jesus establishes a contrast between the power religions of His day.”
This on the heels of identifying patriarchy as the sin of ‘power religion’ — the faith of Cain, according to Bo. But we’ve seen patriarchy was unambiguously Calvin’s position, and, in truth, that of the entirety of the historic Church. So according to Bo, Calvin and basically everyone prior to the cultural revolution, as ‘power religion’ advocates, are damned.
Dispelling all doubt, he contrasts the ‘power religion’ of patriarchy, nationalism, and hierarchy against a very different form of “justice”:
God didn’t believe in impartial justice. His justice was very specificaly [sic] partial, and it was skewed in favor of the weakest members of the society.
The reader might recognize this thesis as the same promulgated in the Belhar Confession. It is the notion that the poor, women, and non-Whites are to be regarded as socially, morally, and spiritually superior to the financially solvent, men, and White people. It is the Trotskyite worldview of Antifa, otherwise known as cultural Marxism, and pregnant with all egress back into economic Marxism.
Yes, everything Marinov says amounts to a drunken scramble of refrigerator magnets. But this discombobulated ersatz religion Bo pawns off as Christianity has traction only because it echoes so precisely the values of all the schools of humanism ascendant today. And Bo’s umbrella term — ‘power religion’ — defined as privilege, economic solvency, patriarchy, familism, nationalism, borders, hierarchy, and White people represents a sin paradigm wholly foreign to Christianity.
But we agree on one thing: these principles are very much connected. Particularly, the identification of kinism and patriarchy as representative of the whole bailiwick of their disapproval is also apt. Indeed, kinism and patriarchy are shorthand terminology encompassing all the other things Bo and his braying Bogomils revile.
What’s more, kinism and patriarchy overlap and entwine to such a degree that they are, to a large extent, interchangeable terms. Both denote the biblical family order. The only thing which keeps them from being total synonyms is a question of emphasis. As much as kinism is covenantal identification with our patria and their clans, it is patriarchy; and as patriarchy is acknowledgment of federal headship over a kin-group, it it kinism. Either way, both necessarily imply the other. And neither can truly exist apart from the other.
So as the neo-Christians are finally coming round to noticing this correspondence, it is only for the purposes of smearing one or the other. When speaking to a self-identified kinist, the Alienist says, “You’re no better than one of those filthy patriarchy people!” And to the self-described patriarchy advocate they say, “You’re just like those vile kinists!”
No wonder then that when pressed, kinists alone stand consistently for patriarchy.
The lines are drawn: to one side of the battlefield we see Marinov and his cohort gathering arm-in-arm amidst the hordes of third-wave feminist divorcees, sodomites, catamites, hipsters, Aztlan invaders, BLM, Antifa, secularists, communists, unitarians, Wiccans, Jews, satanists, and all the anarchocommunist death cults. They are one in ethos.
And opposite stand all the traditional chivalric patriarch-led clans who cherish the heritage of their countries, communities, folk, and folkways under God. Here is life abundant as it was ever recognized in Christendom past.
Clearly, if the neo-Christians share in all the core values of contemporary heathendom, then those values do not descend as an epiphany of heaven. Apart from the hated ‘power religion’, the sole alternative is the godless faith of the HR department and the SPLC. Which is to say, the ethics of reprobation.
“If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!” (Matt. 6:23b)
So we see the alienists like Bo, in their own way — via negativa — form one of the best apologetics for kinism and patriarchy as the Christian order: by crystallizing the antithesis. In track with Van Til, the kinist-patriarchy denounced by Bo as ‘power religion’ is proven true by all impossibility of the contrary.
| Tweet |
|
|
|
