What are your thoughts re Hegelian dialectic?

[MaxPC]

Excellent summary, Josh.

In essence, do we see this tactic operating in other denominations as well?

This tactic has operated in many denominations, including The Episcopal Church, the PC (USA), and the one I am most familiar with, the takeover of the MC USA by the leftist-liberal wing. I should know, because I was part of that wing during the organised, orchestrated, and well-funded takeover.

It is my understanding that Church of the Brethren has undergone a split for the same reasons that caused the mass exodus out of MC USA. The Biblically adherent groups formed their own (Covenant Brethren Church).

The end result is denominations with no young people left in them, plummeting membership counts, church agencies in financial crises, empty church buildings, and your denomination's only "values" left being the mainstream liberal-left agenda.

I would be interested to hear from your Catholic perspective of where these kind of tactics are operating in Catholic circles. I witnessed quite a bit of it going on when I was embedded in a Catholic institution from ancillary organisations such as (for example) the RSCJ. Of course, I was a left-wing progressive myself back then, so I thought all of this was a good thing.

These tactics by left-wing progressives have been growing in the RCC since Vatican II but were/are held in check by those keep the Deposit of the Faith and the Bible front and center of focus. Feminist groups, pro-homosexual groups and the rest are always nattering about how badly they are misunderstood.

We get a few Bishops who try to kick up the dust, such as those liberal Bishops in Germany right now. We get Bishops who even leave and form their own groups (the conservative Lefebvrites).

This tension has occurred for almost 2000 years in the RCC. Some Bishops settle down. Others leave. The RCC still exists.

Recently in the US, 59 Bishops signed a letter that said in essence (paraphrased): "we don't want to talk about politicians who call themselves Catholic and support abortion at the June Bishops' meeting." That was only 59 out of 271. The others will indeed talk about it and it remains on the agenda for that meeting.

You will hear or see quite a few op-eds out of the secular media, second guessing this June meeting: yet they do not have a clue about church procedures, church terminology and church teaching. So they will guess and write the most inflammatory headlines to get people to click on links, buy their papers or tune into their channels. Nothing changes in that regard.

Sorry Josh, I forgot to post this link as a part of my answer to your question. It's from a reasonably accurate source. Originally 60 signed but 1 withdrew his signature. Link

[Josh]

Boot,

Beth Moore has moved in the direction of lgbt affirmation - are you sure you’d say she’s following sound biblical doctrine and staying true to the text?

[temporal1]

an aside:

.. this has a lot more to do with sweeping sexual abuse under the rug ..

one of the most bizarre and regrettable outcomes i witnessed in the 1990’s Catholic priest abuse scandals was .. the remarkable boost it gave to the homosexual bloc, and other agenda, such as women in ministry, in churches.

sin does not stay confined. on this there has been untold damage. so many alienated from their churches over all these things.

in this case, the statistics are not in debate, church membership and attendance are down. many flounder, believing they did not leave their churches nearly as much as their churches left them.

some have visited this forum, esp MD, because of it.

[Falco Underhill]

In this article The Synthesis Moment of the SBC is an interesting insight into the secularization of church leadership. What do you think about it?

This is exactly how the left took control of the Roman Catholic Church at Vatican Ii. Want to see how that was done? Just look at what's going on here. Same game plan. This is an good analysis of the Thesis/Antithesis/Synthesis tactic created by Hegel. Hegel is the source of modern ideological activism. Marxists use the same tactics because they are Hegelians. (Marx was a Hegelian scholar before he was a Marxist. Marxism is really just a modified form of Hegelianism.) So many just unknowingly play right along - what Marx referred to as "useful idiots."

"Conservative" Hegelians are the real wolves in sheep's clothing. They go in first to prepare the way for the more openly leftward.

The Overton Window. As Bill Clinton explained, you have to pick the fruit that's within reach first. Then maybe later the fruit higher up will be within reach. This is called being "realistic." That's how it works. Every new gain will be used as another step to reach more the next time.

[temporal1]

In this article The Synthesis Moment of the SBC is an interesting insight into the secularization of church leadership. What do you think about it?

This is exactly how the left took control of the Roman Catholic Church at Vatican Ii. Want to see how that was done? Just look at what's going on here. Same game plan. This is an good analysis of the Thesis/Antithesis/Synthesis tactic created by Hegel. Hegel is the source of modern ideological activism. Marxists use the same tactics because they are Hegelians. (Marx was a Hegelian scholar before he was a Marxist. Marxism is really just a modified form of Hegelianism.) So many just unknowingly play right along - what Marx referred to as "useful idiots."

"Conservative" Hegelians are the real wolves in sheep's clothing. They go in first to prepare the way for the more openly leftward.

The Overton Window. As Bill Clinton explained, you have to pick the fruit that's within reach first. Then maybe later the fruit higher up will be within reach. This is called being "realistic." That's how it works. Every new gain will be used as another step to reach more the next time.

This describes why there is never any satisfying through negotiation in politics.
Those who negotiate in good faith are constantly disappointed that nothing is ever resolved.
Every concession is simply met with more demands. Leveraging. Manipulating. No moral compass. The end justifies the means.

“Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”

Thomas Sowell, former Marxist, wrote a chapter on Hegel: (Chapter 2)

[Josh]

In this article The Synthesis Moment of the SBC is an interesting insight into the secularization of church leadership. What do you think about it?

This is exactly how the left took control of the Roman Catholic Church at Vatican Ii. Want to see how that was done? Just look at what's going on here. Same game plan. This is an good analysis of the Thesis/Antithesis/Synthesis tactic created by Hegel. Hegel is the source of modern ideological activism. Marxists use the same tactics because they are Hegelians. (Marx was a Hegelian scholar before he was a Marxist. Marxism is really just a modified form of Hegelianism.) So many just unknowingly play right along - what Marx referred to as "useful idiots."

"Conservative" Hegelians are the real wolves in sheep's clothing. They go in first to prepare the way for the more openly leftward.

The Overton Window. As Bill Clinton explained, you have to pick the fruit that's within reach first. Then maybe later the fruit higher up will be within reach. This is called being "realistic." That's how it works. Every new gain will be used as another step to reach more the next time.

The proper thing to do with any "conservative' Hegelian is to kick them out, forcefully.

Notice how Moore levies lots of accusations against his enemies, such as that they are pro-sexual abuse, racists, and white supremacists. There are two sides to every story., and it's quite likely Moore is simply lying.

[Falco Underhill]

Correction: the phrase "useful idiot" was not used by Marx.

[Falco Underhill]

The proper thing to do with any "conservative' Hegelian is to kick them out, forcefully.

Probably too late to do that. They've already got themselves entrenched in leadership positions. Any leaders who vote against the agenda will lose their positions/jobs. Probably the only way out of their clutches now would be to schism, in which case they walk away with half the organization''s assets. Thanks for playing.

"Striking the shepherds so the sheep will be scattered" is their MO.

Collosians 2:8

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy,(A) which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces[a] of this world(B) rather than on Christ.

We give them leadership positions instead.

[Bootstrap]

Notice how Moore levies lots of accusations against his enemies, such as that they are pro-sexual abuse, racists, and white supremacists. There are two sides to every story., and it's quite likely Moore is simply lying.

Actually, Moore did say any of that in public. Someone leaked his email. And I agree, there are two sides to every story, and we are unwise to start threads on every conflict out there and take sides as though we each know the inside scoop. I have been unable to find anything online where Russell Moore attacks his accusers as vigorously as he did in that email to a friend and colleague. I would hate to see my emails leaked like that.

But you are making accusations in public. With zero proof. Frequently. In this thread, attacking Christians, including some very respected Bible teachers. And it's quite possible that these accusation are lies.

Can you point to anything that Russell Moore says that affirms LGBTQ positions, abortion, or any of the other things mentioned in this thread?

[ken_sylvania]

Notice how Moore levies lots of accusations against his enemies, such as that they are pro-sexual abuse, racists, and white supremacists. There are two sides to every story., and it's quite likely Moore is simply lying.

Actually, Moore did say any of that in public. Someone leaked his email. And I agree, there are two sides to every story, and we are unwise to start threads on every conflict out there and take sides as though we each know the inside scoop. I have been unable to find anything online where Russell Moore attacks his accusers as vigorously as he did in that email to a friend and colleague. I would hate to see my emails leaked like that.

Wow! So it's OK to level accusations like that privately but not publicly? I haven't read his email at all, so I don't know what he said, but I don't know why such accusations would be more acceptable if made privately to a friend than to make them publicly. Do you really think they are?