Of Gubernatorial Thanksgiving Policies, Wuhan, & Liberty

Gov. Logan says that the Constitution doesn’t embrace
Walking around without a cloth mask on your face
In Oregon, you’re facing Thanksgiving prison time
It seems gathering seven in your home is a crime

In California, the Governor demands masks at meals
But in the Governor’s mansion, he does what he feels
In Michigan the resident feminist Governor Gnome
Has dictated that citizens are restricted to home

In Kentucky the accidental Governor Andy Beshear
Is going all Chicken Little by stoking up Wuhan fear
In Pennsylvania Governor Wolf has closed the bars
So bodily fluids won’t travel very far

And what of Pritzker, Murphy and Cuomo
As well as the various Governor Homos?
What of Governor Janet Mills in Maine
Whose Wuhan policies suggest she’s absent a brain

Do you really believe that these Governors care
For your health, long life, and your families welfare?
Or is it that mercenary and wicked globalist elites
Are fattening their wallets by practicing Wuhan deceit?

Whether these Governors are stupid or just evil
It’s past time for a citizenry revolt and upheaval
Time to water Jefferson’s Liberty Tree
Time to remind our Tyrants that we will remain free

Church History for the Romans 13 Crowd & Application for Today

“Do you suppose that the gospel has no principles and guarantees for true liberty in terms of the different relations in state and society? Simply look at those who live in obedience to it. This is not an obedience to the arbitrary will of man, but to the will of God. In the government one honors God’s servant. It is an obedience for the sake of conscience and for the Lord’s sake: “Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart.” This obedience does not submit to earthly powers in anything that goes against the commands of the Almighty. Those who submit to government for conscience’s sake, would not yield to any government when that very conscience does not allow it.”

Guillaume Groen van Prinsterer

To make this concrete in relation to wearing a mask as mandated by the Government were we to take van Prinsterer seriously as Christians we would have to discontinue wearing masks since wearing a mask goes against the commands of the almighty. Wearing a mask is sin for those who are healthy because it violates the 6th and 9th commandments. The 6th commandment because mask wearing is self-injurious and the 9th commandment because in wearing the mask we are propagating the lie that is the fake pandemic narrative.

Similarly, shutting down our business for a fake pandemic is sin because it violates the 8th commandment if only because we are allowing ourselves to be stolen from by the Government.

We would also insist that not gathering for Worship on the Lord’s Day because the State has demanded we stay at home is a violation of the 1st and 4th commandments in the context of a fake pandemic narrative. The 1st commandment because we in obeying the State we have put the state before God as God and the 4th commandment because we are refusing to remember the Sabbath.

In all these cases (Mask wearing, shutting down our businesses, and refusing to worship in Biblical Churches that are open for worship on the Lord’s Day) we are going against the commands of the almighty.

The Strange Persistence of R. Scott Clark — II

Thus, there were long and bloody wars in the 16thand 17thcenturies for religious supremacy.  Most of the time it was Rome, as in the French Wars of Religion (1562–98), the Eighty-Years War (1568–1648), and the Thirty-Years War (1618–48) are outstanding examples. When the American Republic was founded, the Reformation and post-Reformation wars were relatively fresh wounds which the founders sought to avoid.

R. Scott Clark
Article – The Strange Persistence Of Theocracy In America (2)

I single out this from Scott’s article because even though it is not something that Scott spends a great deal of time on, I suspect it serves as one of the key foundations for why Scott thinks that Theocracies are evil. So I am going to spend just a wee bit of time dismissing the idea that by the founding of “secular” America the long and bloody wars in the 16th & 17th centuries for religious supremacy were solved. Now, keep in mind, that I have demonstrated that theocracy is an inescapable category and so there is one sense in which Scott is correct when he references religious wars, but not in the way he might think. Now, certainly, all wars are religious wars but Scott thinks he can solve these types of wars by the glories of the “secular” state. The problem here though is, as argued by William Cavanaugh in his book, “The Myth of Religious Violence,” is that what Scott thinks is solved by the dismissal of Theocracy (as if that were possible) is not solved by the so-called secular state.

Cavanaugh admits that states can commit violence in God’s name, however, he also goes on to insist that the stronger claim that somehow religion is more likely to cause war than a putatively secular state is just not so. Scott has a myth going here that Cavanaugh slays in his work. “Secular” states are not more prone to peace than what Scott is designating as Theocratic states. (One would think that any time spent considering the 20th century would forever dismiss that theory.) Cavanagh offers three reasons why so-called theocratic states are not more prone to religious violence than secular states.

1.) Consistent with what we have argued in our response to Scott, Cavanaugh argues that the distinction between what is characterized as religious and what is characterized as secular is too unstable. Cavanaugh demonstrates that it is just not true that religious and secular can be easily distinguished. Cavanaugh notes that religion is given a black eye because it alone is supposedly absolutist, divisive, and non-rational and yet when counter-examples are offered that demonstrate that secular states are every bit as absolutist, divisive and non-rational suddenly the critics re-categorize the secular state’s actions as now becoming religious in its violence. Supposedly the otherwise secular state has suddenly fallen into religious behavior. It’s almost as if because a secular state is secular it can’t be violent and because a religious state is religious it can’t be not violent.

Of course, the fact that the distinction between religious state (theocracy) and secular states is unstable fits with what I’ve been arguing thus far. Indeed, I would go even further to say that the distinction between religious and secular is a complete myth.

2.) Cavanaugh offers that the religious/secular distinction is not one to be found throughout history. Historians, for example, do not find “religion” as distinct from non-religion in ancient Greek, Egyptian, Roman, Indian, Chinese, or Japanese societies. That probably is because the ancients were smart enough to not fall for the myth of secularism. The ancient world did not create a public vs. private realm. These ancients admitted what guys like Scott deny and that is that all of life is religious. By the late 1600s in Europe, the terms “religious” and “secular” are used in European nation-states, in Cavanaugh’s words to “exclude ecclesiastical authorities from certain types of public power. Religion … was invented as a universal and essentially interior impulse, completely distinct from the mundane business of politics and economics.” Once these European states colonized the globe, they took the distinction that they had created and forced it upon the third world cultures they had colonized – none to the liking of many of these peoples. Cavanaugh notes that in India for example, “to make Hinduism a religion was to take everything it meant to be Indian and confine it to a non-public sphere; to be public meant to be British.” This is not inconsistent with what R2K tries to do with its “theology” as for R2K everything it means to be Christian is confined to the non-public square (Church) while to be public means to operate as one dwelling in the common realm.

3.) The distinction between religious and secular allows the “secular” to push Christianity to the edges of the culture. Cavanaugh notes, “Until 1940 the Supreme Court invoked ‘religion’ as a unifying force in American society. Since 1940, however, the Supreme Court has repeatedly raised the specter of religious violence in banning school prayer, banning optional religious education from public school buildings, banning public aid to religious schools, and so on.” Clearly, what is happening here is that a new religion is operating under the guise of “secular” to the end of overturning Christianity as the public faith of the social order, all in the name of “secularization.” And R2K theology applauds this de-Christianization process.

The answer to what Cavanaugh identifies as a distinction that is too unstable is to realize that the distinction is a complete myth. R2K by supporting this mythic distinction is trying to provide theological support for the continuance of the Supreme Court’s creation of a post-1940 America where Christianity more and more slipped into public square abeyance so that different public square expressions of humanism are allowed to be the new public faith.

Further, none of this solves Scott’s seeming fears of the return of wars driven by theocracies that will fight for religious supremacy and it doesn’t solve it because theocracy never goes away. All wars are religious wars. Scott will just have to live with the idea that if Christianity isn’t willing to fight it will die, or it will commit R2K suicide.

In the next installment in this series, I will look at Scott’s interpretation of American History.

Herman Bavinck; The Kinist

“Though all have turned away from God and are by nature on the road that leads to destruction, not all have progressed equally far down that wrong road that leads to destruction, not all have progressed equally far down that wrong road and not all are equally far removed from the Kingdom of heaven. There is endless diversity and degrees of difference in the sinful life between the start of it and the highest levels of its development. Individuals, families, generations, classes, peoples are utterly divergent also in sin. There are those who are not far from the kingdom of God; there exist people who drink sin like water, who lives totally given over to wickedness, who are utterly hardened and impervious to any good impression.

This difference, however, does not originate among people as a result of their personal deeds but is congenital. The original sin that comes to us from Adam is indeed the universal presupposition and source of all actual sins of individuals, but these sinful deeds also impact, reinforce, develop, and direct that innate moral depravity. Just as a sinful deed when repeated over and over, forsters a sinful habitual propensity, say to drink, sensuality, and lust, so sinful mores, and habits can also reinforce an innate depravity in a family, among relatives in a family line, or among a people and develop in a certain direction. Also, that special modification of innate depravity often passes from parents to children, from one generation to the next. Human beings are not individuals in an absolute sense. ‘The individual, like the atom, is a fiction.’ A human being is born from the matrix of a community and from that very first moment lives in a certain situation and period. the immediate and larger family, society, nation, climate, lifestyle, culture, the spirit of the age and so on — all of them together impact the individual person and modify his or her innate moral depravity. Sin, therefore, though it is indeed always essentially the same, manifests itself in different ways and forms in different persons, classes, and nations and in different states and times. Also, as a sinner, each person has his or her own physiognomy. Sins in the East differ from Sins in the West, in tropical zones from temperate zones, in rural areas from cities, in civilized states, from uncivilized ones, in the twentieth century from earlier centuries. There are family sins, societal sins, national sins. Statistics show that in certain situations, periods, and circles, there is a horrifying regularity in the incidence of certain moral offenses such as homicide, suicide, illegitimate births, and so on. In every area of life, we are all subject to bad habits and sinful examples, of the zeitgeist and public opinion. Aside from what we call ‘original sin’ there is also ‘corporate guilt’ and the ‘corporate action of sin.’ As people are interconnected, so also are their sinful inclinations and deeds. Penetrating the infinite riches of all creation, sin also forms a realm of that, animated by a single life principle, organizes itself in multiple forms and appearances.”

Herman Bavinck
Reformed Dogmatics; Sin and Salvation in Christ Vol., III — p. 175-17

This quote provides for us why the Holy Spirit could confirm the poet’s maxim that “all Cretans are liars.” Lying would have been what Bavinck refers to as an innate depravity that was characteristic of the Cretan people as a people group.

If all this is so, then one can easily understand why, as armed with crime statistics as chronicled over years one might say that it is not a good idea for one people group who are, as Bavinck says, farther down the road of destruction not to have intermarried with another people group who are not equally far removed from the Kingdom of God. This is one of the reiterated points of kinism and the Bavinck quote reveals there is nothing unreasonable in that thinking in the least. There is nothing unreasonable in taking into consideration an ethnic people group or race’s corporate predilection to a particular set of sins. What parent would desire their child, who was not a Cretan to marry a Cretan who is given to the congenital of lying as being inherited by their people group?

This quote also provides strong support that people from distinct particular ethnic people groups and races should marry within their particular ethnic people groups and races. Different particular ethnic people groups and races are going to have in marriage an automatically better understanding of their mate as both are familiar with the strengths and weaknesses that they both are coming from. Shouldn’t marriage be characterized as man and a wife who are the mirror of one another in terms of their belongingness to the same particular ethnic people group or race? If Bavinck is correct then the marriage of people from decidedly different particular people groups or races is the equivalent of seeking to marry oil and water.

Now people may subjectively choose to find this kind of thinking offensive but objectively that doesn’t mean that it is offensive. For centuries the Biblical Christian, for the kind of reasons articulated by Bavinck above, did not find miscegenation to be a wise course of action and so actively discouraged it. I agree with Bavinck and those people, which means that historically speaking I am in the majority.

The Strange Persistence Of R. Scott Clark – Part I

Over here, Dr. R. Scott Clark continues to provide evidence why you should pray daily that your sons do not attend Seminary.


Make sure and read the article so that you can see that I am accurately representing Scottie’s thinking. In this article Scott continues to attack that which can never be eliminated. Scott attacks Theocracy as a form of Government when in point of fact there is never a government that isn’t theocratic.

Scott opens his piece by giving a definition and then explanation of the word Theocracy. I wholeheartedly agree with this definition of Theocracy. My beef with Scott is that he has no capacity to look beneath the surface to see that the whole idea of non-theocracy is impossible.

Scott writes,

The word (Theocracy) came to be used regularly in the 19th century to denote a “form of government in which God (or a deity) is recognized as the king or immediate ruler, and his laws are taken as the statute-book of the kingdom, these laws being usually administered by a priestly order as his ministers and agents; hence (loosely) a system of government by sacerdotal order, a claiming divine commission; also a state so governed: esp. applied to the Commonwealth of Israel from the Exodus to the election of Saul as King.” This is the way Josephus (Against Apion, 2.165) used the Greek word, which we transliterate theocracy.

From here Scott quotes others in order to expand on this basic idea.

However if we take this definition as is we can clearly see that America is a Theocracy. That American is a Theocracy is also clearly seen after Scott expands on the above definition. Scott’s problem is that he doesn’t think a Theocracy is possible unless it has all the pomp and circumstance. Scott’s problem is that he thinks Theocracies only exist where they step up and scream into the microphone that “We are a theocracy.” One would think that someone with a D. Phil would have the ability to look beneath the surface.

That we are currently living under a Theocracy can be seen in this quote from Rushdoony;

“God’s law begins with the fundamental premise, ‘Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods before me,’ which means also this, ‘Thou Shall Have No Other Laws before me.’ Other laws mean other Gods whether we admit it or not.”

R. J. Rushdoony

Rushdoony can say that other laws besides God’s laws mean other gods because all law is derivative of some God source. (If Scott disagrees with that he can show us how law is not sourced in God, god or a god concept.) In other words laws are the incarnation in a social order of the God who is ruling the social order. Pull on the strings of a nation’s laws and it will lead you back to the god or gods of the social order. As all nations have laws whereby they are governed so it is the case that all nations have a god or gods who exist as those entities who are the originators of those laws. Hence theocracy.

Further, a Priestly order exists right now in America. That Priestly class is filled by our bureaucratic and educational class. These folks fill the role of Priest every bit as the Levitical Priesthood filled that role in ancient Israel or the Islamic Imams and Mullahs fill that role in Islamic Saudi Arabia. The only difference is that in OT Israel and in modern Saudi Arabia those nations explicitly recognize their Priestly type role whereas in America that Priestly role is implicit and not overtly recognized. However, the lack of recognition of the agents of the Theocracy doesn’t make us any less of a Theocracy. All civil governments are governments by some sacerdotal order. However, in the age of R2K – Anabaptist theocracy one just as to look a little harder for that sacerdotal order.

Scott goes on to cite that a Theocracy occurs when one has a union of Church and State. However, once again we are required to understand that our humanist Theocracy doesn’t announce with a bullhorn the reality of the existing union of Church and State here in the good old USA. However, if one understands the Church as that Institution which is responsible for educating the populace in what pleases the God of the Church & State then it is easily seen that we do have a union of Church and State here and that the Government schools are now serving in the capacity of the Church. The Government schools are now to our State what the Church in the Holy Roman Empire was to the various Roman Catholic States. We find in the Churches of our modern Theocracies (Government schools) everything that was present in the Churches of the Holy Roman Empire. We find prayer-books (textbooks), Priests (teachers), Holy Calendar (have you ever seen a School Calendar? The Middle Ages never had more special days), Stations of the Cross (ringing of the bell moves them from station to station), etc. We do have a union of Church and State but because Scott’s thinking is so static and compartmentalized he hasn’t the ability to see that Union and so doesn’t think we currently live in a theocracy. However, in America, right now, we have a Union of Church and State under the God of Humanism. Scepter and Miter continue to walk together.
When Scott disagrees with this all he is really telling me is that he prefers living in a humanist theocracy where the humanist State is in union with the Humanist Church (Education centers). My challenge is to realize that Scott really isn’t treasonous but instead is just intellectually challenged.

Scott insists that all of Europe was, for 1394 years, ruled as Christian theocracies until the formation of America. However, Scott is in error here. America, in her colonies, remained theocratic as seen in the fact that 9 of the 13 colonies before the war for Independence retained State Churches that were funded with public monies. After the war for Independence that was true of 7 of the 13 colonies. As a nation our movement from a Christian Theocracy to a Humanist theocracy began in earnest in 1861. At this point in time we are a thoroughgoing Humanist theocracy.

Scott gets painfully close to the truth of the matter when he writes,

“It was assumed that there must be a state-church. They only and great question, especially from the Reformation forward was which church?”

That is exactly what I am saying only I am adding that the Church Scott mentions became a question of which church of which religion. Scott is looking for a Lutheran Church (Germany) or a Catholic Church (Italy) or a Reformed Church (England) to be the state-church whereas I’m saying that we still have a state-church but of a different religion (humanism) and that we hide all this from ourselves by pretending that we live under pluralism.

Next Scott argues the old canard of the “wars of religion.” We will go into that in part II of this response.