Self-Righteousness Dressed as Caring Christian Populism

The following is admittedly subjective, but based on decades of experience, interaction, and observation. Allow me to pause from my usual study style as I address an issue that I believe will be part of a future end-time deception; a Christianity not based on the cross and resurrection, but rather built on the supposed goodness of humankind.

populism noun

pop·​u·​lism ˈpä-pyə-ˌli-zəm 

a political philosophy or movement that represents or is claimed to represent the interests of ordinary people [plural] especially against the Establishment

Mirriam-Webster Dictionary (emphasis added)

Populism usually arises from a general discontent. … People feel that things are out of control, socially and economically. … The idea that this is the fault of the meritocratic elite is an easy sell. 

—Nicholas Lemann

… anti-government populism is beginning to give way to the more classic, anti-corporate populism … 

—Leslie Savan

… Elizabeth Warren summoned the familiar and fiery spirits of Democratic populism. "Our job is to fight for the families of America," the Massachusetts Senator yelled over applause. … "Stitch up the tax loopholes so that millionaires and billionaires pay at the same tax rate as the people in this room." 

—Jay Newton-Small


The move comes amid a rise in economic populism in the GOP, Republican strategist John Feehery told the Washington Examiner. Even as the party writ large is generally supportive of the business community, an insurgent crop of Republican lawmakers is pursuing a more working-class-friendly agenda … 

—Samantha-Jo Roth

"Populism" has always been the smiling face of harsh, authoritarian Socialism. I figured this out form my world history class in high school in the 1980s. From Marx to Lenin to Stalin to Mussolini to Hitler to the Mao to Ho Chi Mihn to Castro to Maduro to Labour to the DSA to the American Democratic Party to the current state of the GOP... it's all built on the idea that a powerful central government is needed to enforce the foundational beliefs of either end of supposed spectrum (including massive wealth distribution programs championed on both ends of the political spectrum). 

The reasoning given is always the same: we care and we will use force in the name of goodness and righteousness (as we define it) to take care of our lessers.

For wealth redistribution to happen to any degree, there must necessarily be an authoritarian government to exert its force over individual liberties and private property. One of the things these seeming opposites (Leftist Populism vs Rightist Populism) have is a hatred of private property and capitalism (the two things that have created more wealth, comfort, and health in the history of the world). And when they confiscate wealth from those who created it, they invariably take a generous chunk for themselves (but that's another matter).

As the youth in the West start to embrace the language and beliefs of Marxism, they do it in the comfort and with the advanced technology that western capitalism (free markets, I use "capitalism" because of common usage, but it's a Marxist term) has created for them.

The following are just a few examples of many populist quotes we could review from Adolf Hitler who is on the supposed Right (the sources are secondary referring to the original). 

“National Socialism derives from each of the two camps the pure idea that characterizes it, national resolution from bourgeois tradition; vital, creative socialism from the teaching of Marxism.”  [Source: Interview by Hanns Johst in Frankforter Volksblatt (January 27, 1934), quoted in David Schoenbaum, Hitler’s Social Revolution: Class and Status in Nazi Germany]

“Capitalism as a whole will now be destroyed, the whole people will now be free. We are not fighting Jewish or Christian capitalism, we are fighting very capitalism: we are making the people completely free.” [Source: April 12, 1921 speech via Hanover College course archives; Foundations of the Modern Age, Fall Semester 1998, Frank Luttmer]


“The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners. If you say that the bourgeoisie is tearing its hair over the question of private property, that does not affect me in the least. Does the bourgeoisie expect some consideration from me?... Today’s bourgeoisie is rotten to the core; it has no ideals any more; all it wants to do is earn money and so it does me what damage it can.” [Source: "Nazi Economics: Ideology, Theory, and Policy". Book by Avraham Barka]

Likewise, we could find numerous quotes from the other totalitarian Marxists, but I'll will just quote Stalin (on the supposed Left) to show that the assumed "opposites" had far more in common in their philosophies than many want to admit. And both murdered millions. 

“Without getting rid of the capitalists, without abolishing the principle of private property in the means of production, it is impossible to create a planned economy."[Source: Marxism Versus Liberalism by Josef Stalin]

 

Without the references or specific markers, the concepts and beliefs are almost identical. 

While in my high school class, I created a circular continuum listing various political parties and movements from history. The Left and the Right populists meet at essentially same place no matter which extreme you head towards. As you go farther Left the circle brings you back to the same place those going farther Right go. Again, it is not a straight line Left to Right continuum, but a circular line. 

There are variations on which ethnic or religious groups that might be persecuted under any particular system (and to what degree), but both "ideal" versions are built on some sort of hate. Whether it Hitler killing Jews or Stalin killing Jews or American Leftists celebrating the death or murder of Bible-believing Christians )and wishing death on more), hate is hidden under masks of works like "love" and "joy."

Strength Through Joy (KdF - Nazi Germany)

Vote Joy

Joy, and its companion, fun, are powerful political weapons — weapons that have been used successfully to undermine the ridiculous habits of white supremacy.

-Sheryll Cashin (Politico) september29, 2024

It may be seen as a stretch to connect Hitler with Kamala Harris, but the thinking is the same. To enact the programs each desired they would require absolute control over wealth, property, and liberties. Each one believes that people should cede rights, liberties, property, and even our children to a powerful centralized government for our own good. And it will all be in "joy" with an accompanying smile. You see, they're the good guys. They're the righteous ones and by extension the other side become the enemies of joy. Note how joy is connected to the boogeyman "white supremacy" on the American Left to be sure that hate is stirred under the guise of "joy." And I would add here that the burgeoning Democratic Socialist-Muslim alliance on the American Left is virulently antisemitic (just as some previous antisemitic movements in history).  

I would also add that if someone thinks the comparative is ridiculous, we all know the media would go berserk (with 24/7 coverage) if a candidate of whom they disapprove remotely reflected Nazi propaganda. The media and Left freak out when anyone to the right of Mao raises his arm. They scream "Nazi salute!" The choice of words is far more telling than some accidental gesture. The media is on the side of the authoritarians as they also pretend they speak for the "common man." 

The takeaway here is not to be taken in by the words they use. As is the biblical model, it is by their fruits (not their words) that will judge what they offer.

Just one personal story. While a friend and I were visiting New York City on the 10th anniversary of the assassination of John Lennon, we visited an underground record store. They were playing an underground radio station and someone I didn't recognize was talking about the Utopian vision the "revolution" would usher in. After describing the peace and love and joy that would prevail, the speaker added, "then we can kill all those people we hate, like Jesse Helms." Jesse Helms was the Republican US Senator from North Carolina at the time. My friend and I looked at each other and quickly made our way to the door.

The end of a successful takeover of a society by either extreme (two sides of the same coin) will mean the fall of the West and the world will enter a Dark Age it cannot imagine. Ironically, the group that will suffer most are women of European descent, the same group leading the charge into the abyss. Out of the darkness will arise the most dedicated and strict and oppressive philosophy of them all, Islam. Islam, which aligns itself with the immoral and hedonistic Left (solely for political gain) will usurp and overpower its willing soldiers and enslave the population, subjecting women (especially white women) to second-class status at best, complete degradation of person at worst. 

Yugoslavian writer Bogdan Raditsa called them "useful idiots." The college professors and radical feminists pushing for the fall of the West will be the first to be rounded up for "reeducation" (if they're lucky). 

In the Serbo-Croat language the communists have a phrase for true democrats who consent to collaborate with them for “democracy.” It is Koristne Budale, or Useful Innocents. 

A significant precursor appeared in an article titled “Yugoslavia’s Tragic Lesson to the World” by Bogdan Raditsa published in “The Reader’s Digest” of October 1946. Raditsa joined the Yugoslav government of communist Josip Broz Tito, and by 1945 he had become the chief of the foreign press section of the Ministry of Information. As the communists consolidated their power in Yugoslavia, Raditsa became disillusioned. He watched as individuals he respected were being arrested, imprisoned, and executed. He believed that his decision to join the government of Tito had been naive and misguided. The communists employed a sardonic label that prompted the shudder of self-recognition. 

But we will have to leave that there. It can be stated (and I admit) that I did not fully flesh out my theories above. I will have to point to history and let it be the judge. Whether it be the hundreds of millions starved, imprisoned, and murdered by Marxist regimes (Left to Right) or the subjugation of women in the Muslim world, I think only the western "True Believers" in the Utopian lie will refuse to see reality.

We turn from the Sociological to the Theological

I am trying not to create word salads here. I do hope a more plain, straightforward argument has been presented. To state it again: either in the form of Leftist or Rightist "populism," the concept is incompatible with liberty and, as I see it playing out, incompatible with a biblical Christian worldview.

 

How I see things moving, again, is not based on simply a guess or a form of fearmongering, but on the witness of history. From the Soviet Revolution to the Khmer Rouge, individualism (especially individual biblical beliefs) is anathema to their end goals. The Catholic Church's own Spanish Inquisition had a goal of stamping out (by any means necessary) individual study and enlightenment outside the approval of Rome. Christians will suffer under any of these regimes. If the movement takes a Muslim turn, this will absolutely be the end result. 

Historic Christian communities in places like Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq have been utterly decimated. The genocide in Armenia effectively wiped out an entire population of professed Christians there. 

Every new chapter in the story of Turkish misrule raises a fresh storm of indignation throughout Europe. The conscience of Christendom is outraged by tales of oppression and cruelty and wrong inflicted on the Christian subjects of the Porte.

-Sir Robert Anderson (The Silence of God, p.2)

 

Here is a testimony to the Armenian massacres of 1895

“ Over 60,000 Armenians have been butchered. In Trebizond, Erzeroum, Erzinghian, Hassankaleh, and numberless other places the Christians were crushed like grapes during the vintage. The frantic mob, seething and surging in the streets of the cities, swept down upon the defenceless Armenians, plundered their shops, gutted their houses, then joked and jested with the terrified victims, as cats play with mice. The rivulets were choked up with corpses ; the streams ran red with human blood ; the forest glades and rocky caves were peopled with the dead and dying; among the black ruins of once prosperous villages lay roasted infants by their mangled mothers’ corpses ; pits were dug at night by the wretches destined to fill them, many of whom, flung in when but lightly wounded, awoke underneath a mountain of clammy corpses, and vainly wrestled with death and with the dead, who shut them out from light and life for ever.

“ A man in Erzeroum, hearing a tumult, and fearing for his children, who were playing in the street, went out to seek and save them. He was borne down upon by the mob. He pleaded for his life, protesting that he had always lived in peace with his Moslem neighbours, and sincerely loved them. The statement may have represented a fact, or it may have been but a plea for pity. The ringleader, however, told him that that was the proper spirit, and would be condignly rewarded. The man was then stripped, and a chunk of his flesh cut out of his body, and jestingly offered for sale : ‘ Good fresh meat, and dirt cheap,’ exclaimed some of the crowd. * Who’ll buy fine dog’s meat ? ’ echoed the amused bystanders. The writhing wretch uttered piercing screams as some of the mob, who had just come from rifling the shops, opened a bottle and poured vinegar or some acid into the gaping wound. He called on God and man to end his agonies. But they had only begun. Soon afterwards two little boys came up, the elder crying, ‘ Hairik , Hairik (Father, father), save me ! See what they’ve done to me ! ’ and pointed to his head, from which the blood was Streaming over his handsome face, and down his neck. The younger brother — a child of about three — was playing with a wooden toy. The agonising man was silent for a second and then, glancing at these his children, made a frantic but vain effort to snatch a dagger from a Turk by his side. This was the signal for the renewal of his torments. The bleeding boy was finally dashed with violence against the dying father, who began to lose strength and consciousness, and the two were then pounded to death where they lay. The younger child sat near, dabbling his wooden toy in the blood of his father and brother, and looking up, now through smiles at the prettily dressed Kurds and now through tears at the dust-begrimed thing that had lately been his father. A slash of a sabre wound up his short experience of God’s world, and the crowd turned its attention to others.

‘ ‘ These are but isolated scenes revealed for a brief second by the light, as it were, of a momentary lightning- flash. The worst cannot be described .” — Contemporary Review , January, 1896. [as quoted in The Silence of God by Robert Anderson]

“In no place in this region has the attack upon the Christians been more savage than in Egin. Every male above twelve years of age who could be found was slain. Only one Armenian was found who had been seen and spared. Many children and boys were laid on their backs and their necks cut like sheep. The women and children were gathered together in the yard of the Government building and in various places throughout the town. Turks, Kurds, and soldiers went among these women, selected the fairest, and led them aside to outrage them. In the village of Pinguan fifteen women threw themselves into the river to escape dishonour .” — The Times , December 10, 1896. [ibid]

We could go on. And this wasn't even the worst of the Armenian slaughter to come. 

As the Reformers rightly said of Catholicism hundreds of years ago, we can say of certain ideologies and theologies today:

• In minority, as gentle as sheep
• In equality, as cunning as foxes
• In majority, as ravenous as wolves

In purely political terms, we can expect this pattern in civil matters with the sellers of a false "peace, love, equality" message. As George Orwell pictured the pigs in his wonderful allegory of the Russian Revolution, Animal Farm, the pigs at the top will one day change the rules from "All Animals Are Equal" to "All Animals Are Equal, But Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others." 

In the age to come, especially regarding the nation of Israel, the lure and lie of peace will be propagated.

When they say, “Peace and safety!” then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor upon a woman with child, and they shall not escape. 

-1 Thessalonians 5:13


My people superficially,
saying, “Peace, peace,”
when there is no peace. 

-Jeremiah 6:14b

It is no surprise that the most prominent American Socialists come from wealthy, privileged backgrounds or they've become relatively rich through government affiliations. America's most famous Socialist, "public servant" Senator Bernie Saunders, owns three homes and has a net worth close to $3 million. He used to rail against "millionaires and billionaires" until he became a millionaire when he suddenly dropped those attacks. And unlike many millionaires and billionaires in the US, Senator Sanders has created nothing and offers nothing that will improve any lives. No products, no jobs, no innovations.

The way to preserve their exalted financial status is to a create a system that demands a tight fist of control which requires centralized decision-making, which they assume will leave them, at the top, untouched and unchallenged. Destroy the ability to become wealthy as you preserve or steal your own. This was very true of a monster such as Fidel Castro who promised Utopia and wealth distribution, but succeeded in only making himself and his inner circle wealthy as the nation wallowed (and still wallows) in misery, persecution, and poverty.

The Castro-Communist supporters blame US embargos for Cuba's woes. Bit to make this argument they have to admit that a communist paradise is dependent on a capitalist slave system for its wealth. Their system creates nothing. Eastern European cars during the Cold War were atrocious, extremely low-quality items that no one in the west would ever consider buying. 

As the proletariat were forced to live in housing with varying access to water or heat on any given day, the leaders of those nations were chauffeured in western luxury automobiles. Today, Cubans are still driving cars decades old because the sick Socialist system can produce almost nothing. And it's not because the US decided on an embargo (the problem with that still remains as noted above), but it was Castro's decision to prove Communism didn't need the West. Whether a US embargo or a Cuban embargo, the results of collectivist thinking speak for themself.

The 1959 Cuban Revolution and the beginning of the Cold War saw a change in the island’s automotive industry. As old friends became foes, Fidel Castro placed an embargo on the US and foreign imports, which meant that no American cars were exported to the island. The embargo even extended to include car parts, which had serious implications for Cuban car owners. With no new cars coming into the country and no parts available to make repairs, car owners had the make a choice: Either let their cars rust in the garage or use what parts they had available and make repairs themselves.

-Source: Why is Cuba Filled with Classic Cars? [excerpt]

The idea of "collectivism" is central to both political and theological populism.

So, we must leave the politics and government and turn to theology. Sadly and dangerously Christendom has embraced much of the populist, collectivist message. From Thomas More's ideal of communal property and Utopia to the Catholic Church's version of the idea of "Social Justice." While in a very broad sense, under the umbrella of true justice being blind, based on sound reasoning and a Christian moral system, the general concept can be useful. But as it has been presented and further corrupted over the last two centuries. "social justice" has become an evil with the mask of Christ. 

In a libertarian system of individual liberties and rights (including rights to property and wealth), the phrase can be a simple offshoot and basic result of such liberties. However, when presented in a theological sense, as coming from Jesuit philosophers (like Luigi Taparelli d’Azeglio) or 19th and 20th and 21st century popes (or from other Christ-denying "Christians"), it becomes a battering ram against the very foundations of both society and sound theology that have created the wealth, safety, and comforts they promise to magically provide..

I've bitten off more than we can chew here. I understand that. I refer to history again in consideration of the effects populist social justice ideals have had in the world so I can turn to the religious.

We have already looked at Muslim brutality. We shouldn't have to make an argument as to how Islam is wholly incompatible with biblical faith (despite the Catholic Church declaring that Muslims adore the same god they do). 

“But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place among whom are the Muslims: these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

-Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium 16, November 21, 1964
(repeated in the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church)

Only Certain Sins Will They Judge

We will leave that there and concentrate on how selfish and destructive populism and social justice are packaged with a smiling, tolerant Christian face. We are not writing a book here, so I will focus on one example and let the reader extract and apply in his own experience. The larger warning and strategy here should not be missed, however.

"Racism Harms Us All" sign posted by a local church

This a picture I took of a sign in front of a local church here in Greensboro. An immediate thought might arise asking me why I would object to such a sentiment. It's not the sentiment we should see here, it is what is behind the motive to post it. Judging sentiment is admittedly a dangerous game, but I don't think they would disagree with what I am about to say about their motives, even if they wouldn't appreciate the thoughts that follow. 

The Progressive Church behind the sign (which proudly displays a picture of this very sign on their website as well) is very upfront about their commitment to "inclusiveness." They also list "integrity" among their values. Here is where we have to be careful with our definitions. Let's start with their own statement of essentially believing nothing. Granted, that's my assessment and I realize they would disagree. But here is part of their stated and publicly posted beliefs:

Some of us don’t believe in God, some of us like God but still have questions. We have a wide range of beliefs about God.

Of course, this is meaningless. If you can have a "church" which readily accepts a belief in God as much as no belief in God, you have nothing. To further complicate things, they have as part of their belief system:

Some of us believe similarly to mainline Christians, faith in God as creator, sustainer and redeemer.

 We don't want to wade in too far, but just on its face, if you believe in the all-sufficient sacrifice of Christ (as God) for sin (and the necessity of that finished sacrifice for redemption) as well as in a Creator who recognizes sin, you have nothing in common with someone who denies any of those things. Such a group cannot even define "sin." And if they tried, they couldn't possibly agree as to what would constitute a sin or why it is a sin or what is the consequence of sin.

Let's take adultery. A clear "mainline Christian" belief would be the sanctity of marriage and that adultery is therefore a sin. Some that don't believe in God, or those questioning God, have no basis to either argue for adultery being a sin or anything to appeal to unequivocally accept that adultery is a sin. If a congregant who doesn't believe in God or in an objective morality is presented with absolute "adultery is sin," he can neither recognize with the idea of adultery or the existence of sin. Even if he agrees in some way by the argument of "consensus," he has no way to assert any absolutes. As we saw in our previous study on evolution, he has to believe that any thought he has is merely an accidental chemical reaction and subject to grave error.

But I guarantee  you will never see this sign posted outside that church: 

ADULTERY HARMS US ALL

Let me close the loop by noting two logical things we might notice about my supposition.

1. They wouldn't even say it harms people, let alone call it a sin, lest they offend somebody
2. The sign they have posted judges "racism" (however they define it) and thus "racists" (however defined), yet they would never judge an adulterer.

 The atheist can agree, and is almost certain to agree, with the idea that racism is bad. No one is going to write to the church and argue that racism is good. That is, it's a rather safe and meaningless sign. Then why do it? I would contend it is born out a sense of self-righteousness. This is where Christian populism and inclusiveness ends: a world which can only define sin by manmade, utopian, leftist ideologies. 

Does that sound harsh? Well, if I put up a sign on my lawn that reads "FORNICATION HARMS US ALL" or "HAVING OTHER GODS APART FROM THE GOD OF SCRIPTURE HARMS US ALL," these inclusive Christians would almost certainly condemn both signs. They have no problem condemning thoughts and actions, just thoughts and actions they have decided are wrong. 

But wrong based on what?

I don't recall Progressive pastors condemning the assassination of Charlie Kirk as they did the fentanyl overdoes death of George Floyd (by ignoring the M.E. conclusion of an actual fentanyl overdose). Their hate is thinly disguised behind their cloak of "joy" and "tolerance." They won't even recognize facts if those facts don't fan their self-righteous hatred of their perceived lessers. 

The Judgmental "No-Judgment" People

With no other standard apart from group affirmation, you have nothing. But don't miss what is true here. The "judge-free" people most certainly judge. They judge any faith system that doesn't accept any all beliefs or even non-beliefs. They judge things like racism and define it for us. They judge and judge and judge all under the guise of being "inclusive" and "nonjudgmental." 

They would judge this post as harmful and those inclined might even call it sin.

They would judge "greed" as wrong and most likely "capitalism" as wrong and sinful. They would judge people with whom they disagree politically as not only wrong, but probably as "evil." I am almost certain they would assign motives and beliefs to those they disagree with in the Christian world. Surely they must believe their system of belief is superior to others or why hold to it? 

It is either an act of insanity or it requires a conscious denial of logic to say you accept all faiths as valid and equal while necessarily rejecting exclusive faith systems. One cannot hold two contradictory, mutually exclusive beliefs simultaneously. Not if one is sane and also honest.

• I accept all belief systems as valid and equal
• My belief system excludes all other believe systems as invalid and unequal
• I accept your beliefs as valid and equal

Impossible. They must judge the second statement as being both false and wrong.

So, the "Populist Christian" makes judgments. The Populist assigns value. The Populist condemns. And the Populist believes his system is the best. Buts just as in politics, the Populist convinces himself he is doing whatever he does because his system of belief is superior to all others. We could say this is true of any faith system. I wouldn't argue that point. But the Populist is not honest about it. 

I obviously believe my approach to handling scripture and truth is superior to other systems of interpretation. And the adherents to those systems believe their approach is superior. There is nothing evil in that (unless someone starts killing those who disagree with his system). It is merely logical. So, I understand why the populist thinks his system is superior to mine, he just won't admit that's what he believes.

This is admittedly anecdotal, but in my experience it is the Populist (Inclusive) Christian who is the most judgmental. They look upon the fundamentalist (as they define it) as somewhere between naive and evil. Despite their talk, they have no place for him. That's fine. Just stop deluding yourselves. 

I drive by that church every day. I am sure they are probably very nice people (that's probably more than most progressives would ever say of a Scripture-only believer). But I would also guess they are very judgmental and have a very low opinion of Bible-Alone, Christ-Alone theologies. And I do not expect to ever see an "Adultery Harms Us All" sign on their lawn any time soon. That level of judgmentalism is judged to be too judgmental. And the wheel of illogic goes round and round. 

I tossed around a lot of word salads here to get to my point. In sum, the populism of politics is built on a self-righteousness very similar to the self-righteousness of "non-judgmental" Christianity. Both are inherently dangerous. 

Christianity is a fiercely individual faith system. That is what this blog is all about. Populist politics seeks to make the individual bow to the whole just as Populist Christianity does. Religious systems of any stripe hate 2 Timothy 2:15.

Study to show yourself [singular] approved by God [his standards, not man's], a workman [singular] who need not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth [a judgment of service based on the handling of scripture].

-2 Timothy 2:15

All Bible study must in the end be individual. As with ordinary bodily food: others may prepare the food and serve it up in various forms: they may cook it in more senses than one: they may present it in "made dishes": they may carve it, and cut it up, and even put it in the mouth, as with babes; but, after all, there is no more that they can do. They cannot eat it or digest it for us; they cannot assimilate it for us; even so it is with the spiritual food of the Word of God. Notwithstanding all that has been said in the foregoing pages, the great necessity remains: the work of Bible study must be, to the end, intensely personal and individual. Each one must look out the reference for himself. He must trace the words through all their occurrences where these are given; he must consider their usages; he must read the contexts; he must make his lists and tables, and do his countings for himself: for so only can he feed upon the Word and the words, and be nourished, and be strengthened himself, and grow thereby: so only will he be able to say with Jeremiah: "Thy words were found, and I did eat them; And thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of my heart." 

-E.W. Bullinger, excerpt "How to Enjoy the Bible

We seek truth and truth is not dependent nor extracted by how we feel about it. I neither question God's reasoning nor do I believe I have morality superior to his.

I'm sure the "inclusive" Christian would reject many of things I believe, and that's OK. We'll all answer for ourselves. But don't lie to me and tell me you're "inclusive" and that anything I believe is OK. Such an idea is literally insane. 

Populist Theology Follows Populist Political Beliefs

It is no surprise that the Populist Christian is almost universally a Populist voter. The desire to control and the self-righteousness that buoy the Populist political movements also buoy the Populist religious movements. Ironically, most of the populist movements are downstream from Marxist thinking and Marxist thinking is based on envy, jealousy, greed, anger, and hate. They should be posting signs reading "Marxism Harms Us All." As noted, it has killed tens of millions and enslaved hundreds of millions. 

Populist theology merely masks horrifying evil and evil thoughts in a sense of self-righteousness. As Mark Heard wrote, "everybody loves a holy war." He probably wasn't thinking about Populist Christianity, but the movement tends to suffer from some degree of projection. 

Some say that God has approved of their mob
Esteeming their purposes alone
Choosing sides with a definite pride
And taking their cause for His own
Everybody loves a holy war
Draw the line and claim divine assistance
Slay the ones who show the most resistance
Everybody loves a holy war

I would imagine Heard was envisioning some caricature of Evangelicalism cast as "extremist." My entire ministry is to trumpet the utter foundation of an individual faith. I rail against the clergy/laity system and the danger of denominational identities. But when it comes to those claiming some sort of "holy war," in my experience, the extremism I see if from the progressive populists. Politically speaking, the progressives are purists. Disagree on any single matter and watch the mob descend.

We use the phrase "virtue signaling." When you enter a progressive Christian environment, you will start to see this signaling. It will mentioning things like race or render or identification out of context. There will be a desire to be known as one who checks every approved belief. Step out of line on any of the approved beliefs and you will be judged. If not openly, in their hearts and minds. But you will be judged and judged harshly. There will be no "inclusiveness" without noting your infidelity. Your out-of-step belief will be considered inferior and unenlightened. 

This may seem extreme, but (again anecdotally) when I scratch a Populist, I almost always find someone filled with a judgmental spirit. In politics there is jealousy and greed behind the smile. In religion their is an absolute sense of "goodness." Both the smile and the goodness are masks that cover the hate just below the surface. Perhaps not a seething hate (although that is often the case), but a hatred of your beliefs if not a hatred for you.

We Have Nothing to Offer God But the Populist Believes We Do

In Christ, we know we have nothing good to offer God. He is the only hope we wretched creatures have. The Populist Christian cannot accept either of these about himself or about anyone else. And that denial is a denial of the only hope for mankind to rescue itself from the wickedness of the carnal nature; including a social evil like "racism." 

If Christ alone isn't the foundation, the center, and the only hope, the builder builds in vain. All else becomes meaningless. This very exclusive belief cannot be accepted by the populist (whether he pretends to accept it or not). Dolly Parton once claimed Christ as Savior then later claimed many paths to God. The two are mutually exclusive ideas, but the latter appeals to the masses. This is a reflection of the populist mindset.  It must necessarily reject Christ Alone if it wants to be "inclusive." It becomes antichrist in every sense of the word. 

The government of Antichrist and the religion of Antichrist will be Populist. It is currently the politics and faith of the many antichrists that are already in the world. An Apostle to the Circumcision wrote of the Acts Age (an age that will soon be upon the earth again), that the spirit of antichrist was rampant in his day.

Little children, it is the last hour. As you have heard that the antichrist will come, even now there are many antichrists. By this we know that it is the last hour.

-1 John 2:18

Granted, this entry is more personal and subjective than most, but just as Mark Heard or others have created straw men "fundamentalists" they can openly mock and burn, on a far simpler level I have tried to pull out of the darkness a hidden reality. This is quite the opposite of a caricature, it is an unmasking. It is not based on whims, but rather on decades in Christendom.

And no surprise as Satan presents himself as the champion of "enlightenment."

For such are false apostles and deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder! For even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also disguise themselves as ministers of righteousness...

-2 Cor 11:13-15 

Brooklyn's Dad Talks About the Bible (podcast)