The Erosion of Theology by Socialism and Historicism

In the 21st century, nothing is more destructive than socialist thought. Marx was not the originator of socialism; the blame lies primarily with the pernicious influence of the German Historical School in the late 19th century. As a result, philosophical theory has made no substantial progress to this day, yet it continues to dictate the course of human civilization. Unlike philosophy, economics—as an extremely young discipline—has erred repeatedly. A hundred years ago, the warnings issued by economists went unheeded. While the current economic conditions and political problems of the world cannot be entirely blamed on earlier economists, contemporary economists must reflect. However, this intellectual collapse cannot remain confined solely to the economic sphere. Human reason is an indivisible whole; one cannot practice relativism in social sciences while attempting to retain absolutism in faith. The German Historical School and its successors introduced the fatal toxin of "Historicism"—the belief that there are no eternal universal laws, only "historical truths" that shift with the times. Once this epistemology is established, theology is destined to be compromised: if economic laws are viewed as products of a specific historical stage, then the revelation of the Bible is logically relegated to "historical literature" within a specific cultural context, rather than the eternal Word.

The culprit is precisely socialist thought, which has penetrated Western universities today. Without exception, they inevitably employ the bankrupt philosophical theory of dialectical materialism—a theory akin to "playing house." They claim to offer a "theory of diversity," yet they label scientific philosophical theories with the extremist tag of "black and white." In those universities that flaunt "inclusion" and "diversity," they become completely intolerant the moment someone points out their errors. This appears profoundly contradictory: the "diversity" they speak of is, in essence, an exclusionary dogma—any thought that does not fit within their materialist framework is treated as an impurity that must be purged. This "inclusion" does not include dissent; it includes only mediocrity and compliance. To maintain this false purity, they utilize ossified academic assessment systems to systematically eliminate any voice pointing toward eternal truth. Fundamentally, this is because they use dialectical materialism to prop up their so-called diversity—which is utter nonsense. True diversity is incompatible with dialectical materialism because the essence of the latter demands the "cleansing of dissidents," viewing the opposition as heretics that must be destroyed. Fundamentally, this is the inevitable epistemological result of dialectical materialism. It seeks not coexistence, but the annihilation of the opposite. When the younger generation squanders their time in this logic training of "cleansing dissidents," their reason can no longer bear the weight of theology. And when our young people graduate from these places, how can they possibly realize the problems within theology? After all, if one's starting point of thought has already excluded the Absolute, then no matter how one deduces subsequently, the result can only be void. Does not zero multiplied by any number remain zero?

Undoubtedly, so-called "Applied Theology" is also fundamentally a pseudo-proposition, a mistake commonly made by young pastors today. If there truly were such a thing as "Applied Theology," how, pray tell, does one realize perfect "love" on earth? If one seeks a strategy, the conclusion inevitably leads to the implementation of a socialist system! But if a perfect utopia could be established on earth, why is there a need for the Second Coming of Jesus? Does the Book of Revelation not become a farce? The leaders of heretical churches obviously understand this, so they simply stop mentioning "the Second Coming" or "Eschatology" altogether, replacing them with the rhetoric of "Pacifism." In doing so, the "Great Judgment" is also logically erased by them—after all, if peace has already descended, what need is there for judgment?

In reality, achieving this utopian vision of so-called "eternal love" on earth is hardly a difficult feat; it certainly requires no emulation of Jesus. One need only bow before Mr. Hitler, the Führer of the Third Reich, to accomplish such a task with far greater efficiency. As for those intent on displaying strict hierarchy within the church to model collectivism, they need only look to the ant—there is no need for elaborate theological pretense. Yet, here lies a fatal logical paradox, Proverbs Chapter 6 explicitly states that ants have "no captain, overseer or ruler." If this is their model, on what grounds do these pastors crown themselves as dictators? This leads to an inescapable conclusion, all socialist Christians are, in theoretical essence, anarchists, yet in practice, they act as the most tyrannical of authoritarians. When challenged, heretics offer no explanation other than the same tired clichés—either claiming to be "God's chosen dictator" or quoting "the sheep hear his voice" to suppress dissent. By this preposterous logic, Christians should never have opposed Hitler; they should have simply allowed him to trample Europe underfoot—after all, that too was a "voice," and by their own reasoning, was it not also a form of "Divine Election"?

Their doctrine is cheaper; they need only extract fragments from the New Testament—such as the "Sermon on the Mount." We must ask: As a special revelation, if the Bible is only used to extract fragments as doctrine, is this not typical contextomy and heresy? Can anyone deny this? The Christian movements that supported socialism in the Middle Ages were all heresies; we can find countless irrefutable proofs in historical documents, so there is no need to elaborate here. If the younger generation of pastors insists on forcing this utopia into reality, they will either lean towards socialism in political-economic systems or implement a massive, strictly hierarchical dictatorship within the church, building a circle of fellowship maintained solely by "sympathy" on that basis. Once this game is established, its outcome is destined to be a tragedy. Although this differs from the Chinese church—the former being a tragedy of new political movements, the latter a style of stale bureaucracy—both problems will inevitably lead to the same end: the decline and extinction of the church and the Christian faith.