A Political Gambit for Presbyterian Women

In our congregation we have two circles (small groups of women who meet for bible study and the various rituals of the “Presbyterian Women” organization.)  Out of a sense of loyalty to that organization, the noon and now evening circle uses the recommended material, called “Horizons.” – It has nine lessons, which takes them through the nine months of their programmatic year.

I reviewed the Horizon Magazine with disbelief. Its scholarship is so far to the left that it amounts to political propaganda using the bible to give its left-wing political message some credibility, The true text was not the Beatitudes but a document from a meeting of Reformed Church representing 90 countries. In 2004 they met in Ghana and produced what they called a Confession.

The author of this study, Dr. Margaret Aymer, does not hide her Liberation Theology while leading a discussion on the Beatitudes. Just as in last year’s study of Revelation, her themes are about the struggle between the oppressor (Ancient Romans and today’s Rich) against the poorest of the poor; what Aymer calls the destitute. It amazes me that the Presbyterian Women organization can persuade a group of politically conservative women to study neo-Marxism with Christian devotion.

They use the material out of mere habit. It is simply associated with belonging to a Presbyterian organization for women. If you belong to that organization you study whatever they send you.  To their defense, much of the language is shrouded in double speak. Instead of free market capitalism the Accra Confession calls it "classical liberal economics" or the "neo-liberal economic global system." She uses words like “greatly honored” for “blessed.” For the “poor” she translates it as "the destitute.” When speaking of the rich (modern rich, that include these very women if the truth be faced) she translates “woe to you” as “shame on you.” Naturally, so to be politically correct, she can’t use words like “kingdom” so she translated the Greek as the “dominion of God.” Her translation leads one to conclude that it is the poor who are to be honor simply because they are poor and the rich shamed simply because they are rich. Do we really believe that being economically poor is honorable and being economically rich is shameful?

She declares “Honored are the destitute, the dominion of God is yours.” Then she claims that the words of Jesus were “deeply political.” The theme of this entire study becomes a political analysis. From herLiberation (neo-Marxist) Theology she tries to demonstrate a struggle between the owners of property and those who own nothing. Justice is achieved only when those who have nothing and those who have relatively more each have the same.

What is her plan for salvation? Is it for all the women in the Presbyterian Women’s organization to take a vow of poverty? Not simple poverty but destitution. The women are invited to consider how they might “honor the poor, the destitute and the helpless” in their communities. If you would ask her, “how is one saved” she would say, if she is consistent within her reasoning, “by becoming poor or destitute.”  She wants the truly rich to be taxed, corporation’s share holders to surrender their invested dollars so they can be immediately be transferred to the destitute around the world. What she commends is an end to democratic capitalism.

I just read a wonderful phrase on the Simon Wiesenthal Center website to describe the action of a General Assembly committee as "a political gambit wrapped in theological garb.” This is precisely what this Bible Study is.

The Gospel is not a stump speech for economic reform; it may however very well result in reducing poverty by inspiring generosity among the rich and honesty industry among the poor. The message our Lord delivers in this sermon is that both rich and poor are “poor in spirit” – the Gospel does address that eternal destiny with the grace giving message of cross, the message of redemption in Christ’s blood, the message of true and eternal liberation. Not only is Karl Marx helpless to save your soul, but history has proven that socialism only serves to make poor people worse off and takes away everyone’s (the rich and the poor’s) personal freedom. I believe it is true that Liberals haven’t had an original thought in two hundred years. The Presbyterian Women are taught to reduce poverty by forcefully redistributing wealth. There is nothing new in that message.

Poverty is real. Hunger is real. There are certain persons who are rightly described as "destitute." To that we all eagerly and sorrowfully accept as true and tragic. Where we differ is in its cause and in its solution. I am intellectually convinced that socialism increases poverty and decreases personal freedom. A free market economy is far from a perfect answer to profound deprivation. I will even concede that;irresponsible capitalism;can also cause suffering. While these are important questions, worthy of any Christian's thoughtful study, this bible study is not that; it is little more than socialist propaganda of the worse kind.