A Brood of Vipers & Marxist Rats

Facebook recently deleted one of my posts that was garnering lots of attention. Fortunately, before it was deleted, I felt led to copy and paste my post along with many of the great comments and save it. This allows us the opportunity to continually benefit from the iron-sharpening conversation that was taking place. It also allows others to see if the Book of Face was justified in violating free speech. The topic of the thread was about Marxists who have been infiltrating the Democrat Party, Universities, Media Outlets, and even the Church. Some of us have referred to those infiltrating these institutions and advancing these evil ideas as "Marxist rats." Some have questioned if that term should be used by those who follow Christ. This conversation inspired me to make the following post:

"A good friend of mine recently noted that some Christians (like my friend and colleague Corey Miller from Ratio Christi) have used "dehumanizing language" when referring to radical leftists as 'Marxist rats.' This PhD philosopher noted that Christians often point to the example Jesus provides in the gospels when he calls some Pharisees (the political rulers of the day) a 'brood of vipers' as justification for this use of similar language today. My friend asked theologians and New Testament scholars what they think of the words of Jesus in Matthew 12:34, and how this may or may not apply to the language we use today.

"You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of." - Jesus

I noted that the term 'Marxist rats' is referring to those who have infiltrated, infested, and infected a specific American Party even though Marxism opposes the philosophical foundations of America. It’s not meant to be 'dehumanizing.' It’s meant to expose an infestation and infection of dirty *ideas* that also oppose the foundations of America along with the Law of Christ." I added: "Josh Klein and I have gone to great lengths to expose these wicked and evil ideas that have infiltrated the Democrat Party (see A Moral Obligation to Vote for an Immoral Candidate). I see nothing wrong with referring to those who have intentionally infested a once decent party and now advance objectively evil ideas as 'rats.' If anything, we should apologize to actual rats who are not morally evil. What should we call people who advance objectively evil ideas that destroy humanity and oppose the Law of Christ?"

My friend replied:

"

Human beings made in God’s image in need of Christ." This sparked the following exchange:

TIM:

"Two things can be true at once. A human being is (i) made in God's image, and (ii) can advance horrible evils that cause your neighbors to suffer. Not only does Jesus refer to folks advancing false ideas that cause suffering a 'brood of vipers' (as you noted), he also refers to them as "blind guides" and notes how the political rulers of the day strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. Paul doesn't refer to specific animals, but excoriates people with bad ideas calling them 'foolish' and 'bewitched.' Paul, however, in the book of Titus, does refers to Cretans as 'evil beasts.' He follows that and tells his readers to 'rebuke them sharply.' Comparing a human to certain animals is not necessarily 'dehumanizing.' In fact, we use it as praise quite often -- this is why so many comic book heroes are named after animals: - Wolverine

- Spider-Man - Ant-Man - Batman - Robin - Catwoman - Black Cat - Black Widow - Black Panther - The Falcon - Wasp - The Crow The list goes on and on and I didn't even mention sports teams (the majority of which seem to have animals as their mascot). So, merely referring to a human or a group of humans advancing an idea as an animal is not necessarily dehumanizing. In fact, it is often a huge compliment. As Jesus and Paul exemplified, it is also appropriate to refer to those who advance evil as 'vipers' or 'evil beasts.' With this in mind, it is also quite appropriate to call out Marxists as 'rats.' Why is this the case? Because Marxists actually do what rats do. They infiltrate, they infest, and they infect. That's exactly what Marxists have done to the Democrat Party."

Tim's friend (TF):

//I don’t know your heart, or Corey’s, this was just the example that jumped to mind among way too many these days.//

TIM:

"I'd love to share my heart (and as one who works with and knows Corey Miller, I am positive that I speak for him as well): First, I am driven by a love for my neighbor. I take Jesus's greatest commands extremely seriously, and since I love others, I seek to protect others from evil. As one who was relentlessly bullied as a young man, I always dreamed of someone with strength to speak up and stand up for me. During my college years, when I finally started to grow stronger in my faith and physically (it was a radical metamorphosis), I decided that I would be the one I always wished would have spoken up and stood up for me -- as well as others -- who were being attacked. God has transformed me and called me to be a protector (that's the reason why I got into apologetics in the first place), and that's exactly what I am doing when I call out those who advance Marxist ideas as "rats." I could call them much worse. Second, I'm also driven by a fear of being silent in the face of evil. History provides us with a warning today: the silent 12,000 pastors during the rise of the Nazi Party in Germany should remind Christian leaders with a platform to speak out against evil. Those silent 12,000 pastors who were afraid to get "too political" failed the the Church, the German people, the Jews, and the rest of the world morally. There were also 3,000 pastors who supported Hitler, they were worse and remind me of the so-called Christians who have been bought off my atheist Marxists today (see the new book, "

Shepherds for Sale

" by Megan Basham). Both groups of pastors are utter failures who should be ashamed. These 15,000 Christian leaders were "Nazi rats" as they either promoted evil or stayed silent in the face of evil. I, for one, have learned from history. I will continue to expose evil and will use the term "Marxist rats" if that helps to communicate truth to those I love and seek to protect from their infiltration, infestation, and infection. Because of these two "driving influences" in my life, nothing makes my blood boil more than a pastor or ministry leader who refuses to use his platform to speak out and take a stand against evil -- even if it's deemed to be 'too political.' He is no better than the boys who watched me get assaulted in the locker room when I was in seventh grade. He is no better than the pastors who turned a blind eye to Hitler's atrocities. This is why I cannot stay silent.

TF:

//If it is the case that our speech reveals our hearts. . .//

TIM:

"My speech definitely reveals my heart (and my mind). I seek to expose evil which threatens the neighbors I am commanded to love. I'm not going to sugar coat anything because one is convicted of their sin in the process and their feelings get hurt. That's not love.

TF:

//I would also suggest thinking about sharing Christ with a Marxist, and what impact these words might have in that conversation.//

TIM:

"Again, two things can be true at once. I seek to expose the evils of Marxism, and I also share the gospel with Marxists. If Stalin were alive today, I would speak out against his evil . . . but if we were FB friends, then I would also share the truth of reality with him. Same with Hitler. Same with Biden, Obama, Harris, and Trump. We should always call out and expose evil. We should also always seek to share the gospel. That's the story of my life."

Bottom line:

don't be so nervous about saying the right thing incorrectly, that you become paralyzed and fail to speak out against evil at all." Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18), Dr. Tim Stratton PS: Jesus did not merely refer to Pharisees as "broods of vipers," he reserved the worst label for his number one disciple, who he also referred to as "the Rock." When Peter lost focus of the most important matters, Jesus admonished him in Matthew 16:23:

²³ Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”

These words were reserved for Peter -- whom he always loved -- when he was not focusing on the things of God. Was Jesus being nice? Absolutely not. Was he speaking the truth in love? Absolutely.

 Thoughtful comments from Christian thinkers

Corey Miller:

“Marxist rats.” Well-articulated, Tim, and yes, you’ve captured my heart behind it as well. Rat infestations and infiltrations are perilous as they carry and transmit many diseases (in our context, for example, the woke mind virus) “Nice Christians” aren’t always the most effective or accurate Christians. Instead, they’re often feeble. Such Christians fail to pursue exemplary Christian lives at times. For example, I’ve seen some Christians fail other Christians when they failed to pursue excellence and didn’t fire a Christian school principal for incompetence because we’re supposed to be “nice,” and that wouldn’t be a nice thing to do. Meanwhile, they allow excellence and great education for the kids to suffer. Such people also are sometimes the ones who “punch right and coddle left.” That is, in order to appear acceptable they virtue signal and say nothing against evil doers that might sound “offensive,” sometimes even seemingly defending them. They want to look good and moderate at certain wine and cheese parties, sometimes hoping that if they’re likable that they’ll have a platform for the Gospel. Great intent, even if the world still doesn’t like them. They’ll sometimes take it a step further and punch right against conservative Christians in hopes that they’ll be further accepted by their neighborhood, justifying it as being like Jesus who was, well—nice. “Nice Christians” have a “nice Jesus” who like a good politician loves to kiss the babies in public around election day and say nothing but “nice” words. Jesus would simply want to refer to people as those “made in the image of God” and no more, right? Unfortunately, these “nice Christians” aren’t always the most robust Christ followers capturing the fullness of his ministry (speaking of sending people to hell, cracking the whip in the Temple, etc.). Many haven’t gotten far passed Matthew 7, citing generously “don’t judge,” out of context. “Nice Jesus” seems to have gone unnoticed in Matthew 23. There alone Jesus called his detractors (e.g., scribes and Pharisees) names 16x: “hypocrites” (7 times), “fools and blind” (3 times), blind guides” (2 times), “son of Hell,” “whited sepulchers,” and “offspring of snakes” (one time each). Since Christ was without sin, we can infer that name-calling as such is not a sin. Since everything Christ did was righteous and virtuous, we can rationally infer that a certain level of accurate name-calling is a virtue. But Christ is not alone. John the “beloved,” was so loving, even if not “nice,” that he calls certain persons known to his readers “liars” and “antichrists.” Paul denotes someone a “fool” during his case for the historicity of the resurrection (I Cor 15:36). These Jewish people couldn’t have failed to notice the word fool, used by David, for atheism in Psalms 14:1 and 53:1. Further, in 1 Timothy 4:2 Paul refers to “hypocritical liars” and in 5:13 he calls out “gossips and busybodies.” Poor Jesus, John, and Paul just didn’t get the memo from “nice Christians.” Sure, Jesus said in Matthew 5:22 that anyone who says Raca (fool) is in danger of hell fire. I hope David and Paul had fire insurance… or maybe they just had a better understanding. Doesn’t this verse, like Matthew 7:1, prohibit name-calling and judging? It is not name-calling or judging per se that is proscribed, but inaccurate name-calling and judging. Jesus, John, and Paul used names accurately and achieved a specific purpose: telling the truth… in love. Could the real reason behind someone being upset over “Marxist rats” be because one is at least a “Marxist rat sympathizer”?

Mike Licona:

This is a valuable discussion! Thanks, Tim, for raising it. I have no problem with Corey, et al referring to Marxists activists as "Marxist rats." Corey and Tim have made a good case for using it in an appropriate manner. Something in me hesitates though. Perhaps it's the culture that has influenced me. Of course, we want to ask ourselves what our objective is in referring to a particular person as a "Marxist rat." Is it intended as a rebuke while hoping for positive fruit? Is it to point out the poison such people instill in our culture in order to wake others from their apathy? Is it righteous anger? Is it emerging from the flesh? It seems to me that all but the last are justified. I have no qualms saying far leftists are doing the bidding of demons. In some way, that seems stronger than referring to them as Marxist rats.

Kelly Burton:

it seems that Jesus and Paul use strong language when the conversation gets to a certain point where people are resisting reason and argument. Perhaps we argue with people until they are resistant (dug in) and unwilling to live with the implications of their position (lack of integrity). Then there is nothing left but to silence and expose them. That is what Jesus seems to do with the seven “woes” he pronounces at the end of his public ministry.

Tito Santiago:

If using animals as a descriptive is intrinsically wrong, why would Peter use the term "natural brute beasts" or "unreasonable animals" to describe evil men? Or why should believers be wise like snakes but innocent like doves? Too many Christians are too "thin skinned" and need to develop "thicker skin." Evil must be exposed for its brutality using every media/artistic means possible. Racism took a turn when actual photos of lynched or beaten to death blacks began to circulate. Abortion began to be seen for the bloody heinous crime that it is when photos and videos put little faces and bodies to the brutally torn apart dead babies. In essence, standing against evil means we use all the God-given creative tools as good stewards at our disposal to descriptively expose it, awaken the human conscience, and hopefully bring conviction to the mind. If that means writing with descriptive language that unmasks evil and imprints a vivid photo or scene on the screen of people's hearts, then we grab a thesaurus and we have at it.