The Erosion of Theology by Socialism and Historicism

In the twenty-first century, few intellectual currents have proven more deleterious than socialist ideology. Karl Marx was not the progenitor of socialism; rather, the blame lies primarily with the pernicious influence of the late nineteenth-century German Historical School. Consequently, philosophical theory has made no substantive progress to date, yet it continues to dictate the trajectory of human civilization. Unlike philosophy, economics—a comparatively nascent discipline—has compounded error upon error. A century ago, the warnings issued by economists went unheeded. While the current global economic landscape and political malaise cannot be entirely attributed to early economists, contemporary practitioners must engage in critical introspection. However, this intellectual collapse is by no means confined to the economic sphere. Human reason functions as an indivisible whole; one cannot adopt relativism in the social sciences while attempting to preserve absolutism in matters of faith. The German Historical School and its successors introduced the fatal toxin of "Historicism"—the contention that there are no immutable universal laws, only "historical truths" contingent upon the era. Once this epistemological stance is established, theology cannot remain insulated: if economic laws are viewed as products of specific historical phases, then biblical revelation is logically relegated to the status of a "historical document" conditioned by cultural context, rather than the eternal Logos.

The primary culprit is inevitably socialist thought, which has permeated Western universities, universally and unavoidably employing the intellectually bankrupt theoretical framework of Dialectical Materialism. While purporting to be "pluralistic theories," they paradoxically brand scientific philosophical inquiry with labels of "black-and-white" extremism. In academic institutions that ostensibly champion "inclusion" and "diversity," there is a total intolerance for those who identify their errors. This presents a stark contradiction: the "diversity" they espouse is, in essence, an exclusionary dogma—any thought that does not conform to their materialist framework is treated as an impurity that must be purged. This brand of "tolerance" does not tolerate dissent; it tolerates only mediocrity and conformity. To maintain this pseudo-purity, they utilize ossified academic evaluation systems to systematically excise any voice pointing toward eternal truth. Fundamentally, this occurs because they employ dialectical materialism to underpin their alleged pluralism—a notion that is patently fallacious. Genuine diversity is incompatible with dialectical materialism, as the latter’s essence demands the "cleansing of the alien," viewing the "other" as a heresy to be eradicated. This is the inevitable epistemological consequence of dialectical materialism; it seeks not coexistence, but the annihilation of the antithesis. When the younger generation squanders its time trained in this logic of "purging the alien," their intellects become incapable of bearing the weight of theology. How, then, can graduates emerging from this milieu perceive theological problems? After all, if one’s intellectual starting point excludes the Absolute, any subsequent deduction leads inevitably to nihilism; zero multiplied by any quantity remains zero.

There is no doubt that the attempt to utilize socialism as a vehicle for so-called "Applied Theology" constitutes, fundamentally, a fatal conceit. This is particularly strikingly manifested in the younger generation of clergy. They remain oblivious to the fact that once they become overly enamored with "praxis," they have already stepped into the abyss of heresy. The terminology of "application" itself is fraught with peril, implying that to achieve certain anthropocentric ends, existing means must be mobilized. However, the essence of theology is the elucidation of God and biblical truth; how can it be reduced to a mere instrument for the realization of human objectives? If a utopian "Applied Theology" were truly viable, how might one actualize perfect "love" on earth? Any strategic inquiry into this question inevitably leads to a coercive socialist system. Yet, if a perfect utopia could be established on earth, what necessitates the Parousia (the Second Coming of Jesus)? Does this not reduce the Book of Revelation to mere triviality? The leaders of heretical churches clearly understand this; consequently, they cease all mention of the "Second Coming" or "Eschatology," replacing them with the rhetoric of "Pacifism." In doing so, the "Great Judgment" is logically erased—for if peace has already descended, what need is there for judgment? naturally, when it comes to epistemology, applied theology is irrelevant; no one discusses "how water is used" when the subject is "how to observe water."

Indeed, if the objective is merely to actualize this so-called "eternal love" utopia on earth, divine intervention is superfluous; one need only pay obeisance to the Führer of the Third Reich, Adolf Hitler, to achieve such feats with greater efficiency. As for those who are keen to demonstrate collectivism within the church through hierarchical structures, they need only look to the ant for instruction. However, herein lies a fatal logical abyss: Proverbs Chapter 6 explicitly states that the ant has "no captain, overseer, or ruler." Since this is the case, by what authority do these pastors crown themselves as dictators? This leads to the absurd conclusion that all socialist Christians are, in theoretical essence, anarchists, yet in practice, the most tyrannical of totalitarians. When faced with skepticism, these heretics merely regurgitate repugnant platitudes—either self-aggrandizing as "God’s chosen dictators" or citing "the sheep hear his voice" to suppress dissent. Following this preposterous logic, Christians of that era should not have opposed Hitler, but rather allowed him to trample Europe—after all, that too was a "voice," and could it not be construed as a form of "divine election"?

The doctrines of these heretics are even more reductive, requiring only the extraction of isolated fragments from the New Testament—such as the "Sermon on the Mount." One is compelled to ask: given that the Bible is a form of special revelation, does utilizing mere fragments as doctrine not constitute a textbook example of contextomy and heretical deviation? Can this point be denied? Historical records provide abundant evidence that medieval Christian movements supporting socialism were invariably heretical; there is no need to belabor the point here. If the younger generation of pastors intends to forcibly realize this utopia, they must either capitulate to socialism in political-economic systems or implement a draconian, hierarchical dictatorship within the church, establishing a fellowship circle maintained solely by "empathy." Once such a dynamic is established, the outcome is destined to be tragic. While this differs from the Chinese church—the former being a tragedy of nascent political movements, the latter a relic of ossified bureaucratic style—both trajectories inevitably converge toward the same terminus: the decay and eventual dissolution of the church and the Christian faith.