Uncategorized – Page 31

The R2K Chronicles — I — The Epistemological Problem

I am starting another series with this post. Much of this series will be drawn from previous posts I’ve made on Radical Two Kingdom theology (R2Kt). However, some of the posts will be new. The goal here is to cobble together a book for the purpose of critiquing R2K theology and the R2K movement as drawn from my work on R2K over the years. This needs to be done because R2K is not going to go away. Because of the disintegration of the West and a muscular Christian World and Life view R2K will remain a competing theology as to what constitutes Christianity. As it is, I would say that if R2K or some derivative thereof if not already the majority report in most “Reformed” pulpits across the nation it is a close second.

In this entry we will begin with a definition of R2Kt.

R2Kt is that expression of Christianity that replaces the totalistic expression of Reformed Christianity as being God’s explicit Word for all of life with an expression of Reformed Christianity wherein God’s explicit Word governs only the Church realm (realm of grace). The common realm (or natural realm) is to be ruled derivatively by God’s “left hand.” What this means is that for the common realm (the realm wherein all of life is lived save for our Church lives and our personal and individual ethics) the Christian man as well as the non-Christian man is dependent upon Natural Law to answer the question, “How shall we then live.”

Jesuit trained David Van Drunen defines Natural Law as;

“The moral order inscribed in the world and especially in human nature, an order that is known to all people through their natural faculties (especially reason and/or conscience) even apart from supernatural divine revelation that binds morally the whole human race.”

This Natural law that all men are to be governed by in the common realm is thus accessible to all men and is necessary and sufficient unto ordering the common realm.

The problem here is several-fold and immediately obvious. First, R2K’s problem is that it does not take into account the noetic affects of the fall upon the children of Adam who have refused Christ. R2K treats fallen man as if he is not fallen in the common realm and so still retains the ability to interpret aright, as acting autonomously, with respect to living in God’s common realm. R2K does not take into account the Scripture’s teaching that fallen man is suppressing the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18) of what he knows that he knows from Natural law. Man outside of Christ will never be able to live in harmony in any social order with Man in Christ as men outside of Christ become increasingly consistent with their God-hating presuppositions.

At the point of their reliance on fallen man reading natural law so as to govern the common realm R2K advocates actually act in contradiction to their own confession (Canon’s of Dort) when it teaches of ;

that he (fallen man) is incapable of using it (God’s natural light) aright even in things natural and civil. Nay, further, this light, such as it is, man in various ways renders wholly polluted and holds it in unrighteousness, by doing which he becomes inexcusable before God (Canon’s of Dort III & IV Head, Article 4).

At this point R2K becomes quite non-Reformed and even Arminian in its low estimation of the noetic effects of sin on man dead in his sin and trespasses. This observation alone goes a long way towards dismissing R2K as a serious project to be embraced by Reformed Christians.

Understand here the problem is not that natural law does not exist as God making Himself known in all creation. All Reformed admit the reality of natural law. The problem is that natural man is doing everything in his power to escape God’s testimony to and of Himself in natural law. The Belgic Confession of faith, Article 14 puts it this way;

(Fallen man has) “become wicked, perverse, and corrupt in all his ways, (and) he hath lost all his excellent gifts which he had received from God (Rom. 3:10) and only retained a few remains thereof, (Acts 14:16-17; 17:27) which, however, are sufficient to leave man without excuse; (Romans 1:20,21; Acts 17:27) for all the light which is in us is changed into darkness,12 as the Scriptures teach us, saying: The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth13 it not; where St. John calleth men darkness.”

Belgic Confession of Faith
Article XIV

Ontologically fallen man created in the image of God remains the fingerprint of God but by usage of his epistemological apparatus fallen man does everything he can to escape what he can’t help knowing due to his ontological status as God’s image bearer. This explains why natural law can never be used to form a consensus between regenerated man and fallen man as a consensus builder for social order. This is especially the case as fallen man becomes increasingly consistent with his Christ hating presuppositions as combined with the diminishing of the effects of a Christian shaped and influenced culture pressed upon fallen man.

The second problem with leaning on Natural Law as the norm that norms all norms in the common realm for fallen and regenerated men alike in the “knowing” endeavor is that R2K does not take into account at this point that Natural Law is never read by fallen and autonomous man apart from his presuppositions. This is really an odd fault for the R2K boys since many of them claim to be presupposititionalists and the inheritors of all things Van Til. R2K insists that autonomous man, starting from himself, can, quite apart from any presuppositions read aright and implement aright God’s natural law. Again, we butt into the reality that fallen man has an axe to grind against knowing and admitting what he can’t help but knowing.

Unregenerate man is not reading natural law apart from a Christ-hating bias. As such unregenerate man, especially as he becomes increasingly consistent with his Christ-hating epistemological project, will never be able to form a successful social order with Christ-submitting men by virtue of them both sharing a rational epistemological basis for that shared social order. This is the death knell for the R2K project which believes that in the common realm the Hindu, the Jew, the Muslim, the Baptist, the Confucian, the Satanist can all come together and live in social order harmony because they all have access to natural law and will all use natural law to live in harmony and understanding. The absurdity of it makes one wonder how this project could ever get off the ground.

Just to be clear let us say this directly as possible. The unregenerate reads natural law presupposing his own centrality and own authority with himself as the center of all reality. The unregenerate man does so with ever increasing consistency over the course of time. The regenerate man, on the other hand, reads natural law presupposing the centrality of God and God’s authority as the center of all reality. When the unregenerate man reads natural law aright he is always inconsistent with his self-avowed beginning point. When the regenerate man reads natural law wrongly he is always inconsistent with his self-avowed beginning point. When fallen man reads natural law he reads it as creative. When regenerate man reads natural law he reads it as given.

At this point the R2K boys will protest that there have been many social orders that have appealed to natural law as their epistemic base. I do not deny this. However, what the R2K lads miss here is that the natural law that was being appealed to in Geneva, or in Wittenberg, or even in Rome in its better days was a natural law set in the context of cultures that were largely already Christian. That is to say that where natural law has succeeded apart from a tyrant’s force it has succeeded where the social order was suffused already with Biblical Christianity. Europeans through the centuries could appeal to natural law as social order glue precisely because they together believed in a natural law as read through the lenses of Christianity. As social orders become populated with fallen peoples with those who do not presuppose the God of the Bible there is no way that natural law can or will work.

The third problem of natural law is that there is no such thing as brute facts. All facts are interpreted facts. Natural law posits that all men receive the same brute facts and interprets those facts as they naturally are. However, there is no way that, for example, that a polygynist, a monogamist, and an advocate for sodomite marriage are going to agree on what natural law teaches on marriage. If natural law should find a consensus on anything one would think that the consensus that it could find would be on the alleged brute fact of marriage. However, we see that natural law can not even provide consensus here. All facts are interpreted facts. All facts come to us in terms of some macro philosophy of fact. R2K can write all the tomes they like but the current disintegration of the West along the lines of various interpretations of natural law on something as simple as marriage provides the proof that R2K can at best only provide a lowest common denominator social order cohesion.

The fourth problem with R2K’s natural law insistence that it alone can provide a social order glue is the multitudinous readings of natural law. Which natural law gives the best explanation of natural law? This is just to observe that for every philosophical system extant there will be a corresponding competing natural law. Do the R2K boys really believe that the natural law of Deism, Pantheism, Romanticism, Transcendentalism, Darwinism, Marxism, Nihilism, Existentialism, Calvinism, are each and all going to coincide for each and all? Do the R2K boys really believe that a social order populated by the adherents of those competing worldviews are all going to read a shared natural law in the same manner?

So, we see with this entry that R2K has a serious epistemological problem. It has not taken seriously either the impact of the fall in its totality on unregenerate man nor specifically has it taken seriously how the fall has twisted the epistemology of fallen man so badly that there is no way that fallen man, as he becomes increasingly consistent with his epistemological rebellion, will be able to sustain a shared social order regularity with the regenerate.

McAtee Contra DeYoung on the Enlightenment

While I often disagree with the conclusions reached by Enlightenment theologians and philosophers, we should not misread the Enlightenment as everywhere anti-clerical and anti-Christian. The leading lights in the Scottish Enlightenment, for example, were middle-class and upper-middle-class professional men. They were not bohemians, pantheists, free thinkers, revolutionaries, or otherwise alienated intellectuals. The Moderate literati were elite members of society, serving key roles in law, education, and the church. And whether we label them Enlightenment thinkers or not, there is no doubt stalwart evangelicals like John Witherspoon, John Erskine, and Jonathan Edwards were not afraid to enter the most contested philosophical controversies of the 18th century and employ Enlightenment categories when necessary.

Kevin DeYoung
Malefactor of the Church
TGC Article (2018)

Understand the whole idea of the Enlightenment was premised upon right reason (autonomously considered) and Natural law (also autonomously considered). The Enlightenment even gathers it title from the fact that it reason for existence was that it was pushing away the darkness of the historically prior 1st and 2nd Reformation in favor of a pagan brining of light. The Enlightenment was a return to the Renaissance era type thinking where man was the measure of all things. The Enlightenment was the Enlightenment precisely because man had collectively determined, as led by mankind’s leading lights, that God would not rule over them.

Keep in mind also that the maxim of the Enlightenment was not only the usage of autonomous right reason (humanism) and autonomously read Natural Law (more Humanism) but it also championed the idea that man is basically good and held in the inevitability of (humanist) progress, not to mention the perfectibility of man. The old Christian idea that man is basically sinful and fallen and that progress while possible was completely dependent on God’s providence as man walked in terms of God’s revealed word was cast into the wind. The Enlightenment taught the man would be his own God. Remember the maxims of the French Revolution which ushered in the Enlightenment;

No, God… No King.

Remember the motto of the French Philosophes;

“We will not be satisfied until the last priest is strangled by the entrails of the last King.”

This Enlightenment is the Enlightenment that DeYoung is swooning over? Keep in mind what has been mentioned were foundational building blocks of the Enlightenment project. From those foundational building blocks of the goodness of man, the inevitability of progress, and the perfectibility of man came four consequences that typified and typifies that period.

1.) The first was a shift in the intellectual community from a firm and highly rational epistemology to a rational but dualistic epistemology with a gradual shift in focus from the Bible the human intellect as authoritative.

2.) The State came to be looked upon as secular and profane, and it was argued that the church should have nothing to do with the state. The creeping influence of this Enlightenment mindset eventually hollowed out the previous Christianity that had existed prior to the Enlightenment project by applying the same principle to not only Christianity and state relations but also to Christianity and arts, to Christianity and family life, to Christianity and the Academy, to Christianity and Law, etc. etc. etc.

3.) The third consequence was the Reactionary counter-revolution that was incipient in the American War for Independence. The “American counter-Revolution” was an attempt to stem the far reaching impact of the Enlightenment in Europe. Unfortunately, the American counter-Revolution, such as it was, was still infected by Enlightenment thinking as the founding documents reveal a push me – pull you between forces Christian vs. forces Enlightenment. However, the moderate success of the American counter-Revolution prolonged until 1861 the old consensus of a Christian social-order.

4.) The fourth consequence of the Enlightenment was the reactionary establishment of The American Constitutional order and system. Again, the Enlightenment seeds of destruction were contained in the American Constitutional order and system, however those seeds took time to germinate in a full blown Enlightenment direction choked off as they were by the roundup of Biblical Christianity that was also fused in that American Constitutional order and system. In the time between the founding of America and its own French Revolution in 1861 the American Constitutional order and system provided a bulwark against the full tide of the Christian eating Enlightenment order.

DeYoung’s idea that the Enlightenment was, from a macro consideration, a mixed bag of good and bad for the Christian faith is just hooey. DeYoung is reading these Enlightenment authors who are lovers of this period and are themselves Enlightenment men. They are informing Kevin — the wonder kid — how grand the Enlightenment was and Kevin in turn is spilling that bilge on the young skulls full of mush that traipse through his classrooms. Those men will in short order eventually be standing in front of congregations telling their congregants that “the Enlightenment wasn’t all bad you know.” I suppose even Herpes isn’t all bad.

It’s enough to drive the epistemologically self-conscious nuts.

DeYoung saying that the Enlightenment was good for the Church in certain ways is just ministerial malpractice of the worst sort. Now to be sure there were godly men who lived (and are living currently) in the “age of Reason” (Enlightenment) but that doesn’t mean that they were at home in their times. That doesn’t mean that if they could have changed the tenor and macro movement of the Enlightenment project that they would not have. So, DeYoung citing men who lived in the age of Enlightenment does not prove the wholesomeness of the Enlightenment any more than children conceived in whorehouses proves the wholesomeness of whorehouses.

Those names that DeYoung drops were at war with their age. Men like Edwards, Witherspoon, and Erskine, or he could have added, men like Dabney, Thornwell, and Girardeau were each and all at war with key components of the epoch labeled “The Enlightenment.” Certainly not every child born starting roughly in 1789 and continuing to today are going to be children who have imbibed and digested the tenets and goals of the Enlightenment. God always has 7000 men who have not bowed the knee to Baal. But to suggest that the macro movement of the Enlightenment hasn’t been a God-hating project from its inception is worst than incompetence. It is dereliction of duty.

If one desire to understand the Enlightenment in categories different than offered by DeYoung I strongly recommend securing and reading Dr. Glenn E. Martin’s “Prevailing Worldviews of Western Society Since 1500.”

Atonement

These last few weeks we have considered the various strands running through the biblical doctrine of the Atonement. In the course we have considered in just a wee bit of detail

1.) Reconciliation
2.) Redemption
3.) Ransom
4.) Propitiation
5.) Expiation
6.) Justification
7.) Sacrifice
8.) Blood
9.) Substitution
10.) Satisfaction

So we understand when we speak about the Atonement we are talking about a grand and glorious doctrine that encompasses many mighty themes.

The Ohio, Missouri, and Colorado rivers flow into the Mississippi River. As do the Crow Wing River, Gull Lake River, Rum River, St. Croix River, Blue Earth River, Root River, Minnesota River, Red Cedar River, Chippewa River, Black River, Kickapoo River, Wisconsin River, Turkey River, Upper Iowa River, Maquoketa River, Wapsipinicon River, Cedar River, Iowa River, Skunk River.

And that is only in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa.

The Atonement similarly has all the doctrines that we mentioned emptying into it to make it the mighty doctrinal river that it is.

We have looked at the various tributaries. This morning we spend some time considering the whole glorious river.

Inevitably this means that some of this will sound familiar because when one speaks about the whole having considered the parts there is going to be repetition.

It is interesting that the English word “atonement” does not correspond etymologically with any particular Hebrew or Greek word. Therefore no mere word study can determine the biblical teaching of the atonement. This is just to say that by looking at one word in the Hebrew or Greek is not going to give you the total idea of the Atonement. Even the Greek and the Hebrew words here do not correspond to one another exactly.

As we look at the total testimony of Scripture we can get some beginning definitions

“Atonement means ‘a making at one’ and points to a process of bringing those who are estranged into a unity… its use in theology is to denote the work of Christ in dealing with the problem posed by the sin of man, and in bringing sinners into right relation w/ God.” (Leon Morris)

“Atonement refers to the event of the saving death of Christ in its whole range of results.” (Grounds)

We see the genesis of the doctrine as early as Genesis 3 where God covers the sinful Adam and Eve with coverings made of skin

One aspect of Atonement that we see immediately in Genesis is that of covering.

Gen. 3:21 Also for Adam and his wife the Lord God made tunics of skin, and clothed them.

The Hebrew words Kaphar and Kipper are not used here but the idea of covering which meaning those words give us for atonement are clearly present in the idea of the phrase “clothed them.”

Here we see our first parents must have immediately upon the fall been taught that w/o the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin. We see here also the beginning of the idea that God will accept sacrifice wherein one creature stands in for another.

Matthew Henry has to say here;

The beasts, from whose skins they were clothed, it is supposed were slain, not for man’s food, but for sacrifice, to typify Christ, the great Sacrifice. Adam and Eve made for themselves aprons of fig-leaves, a covering too narrow for them to wrap themselves in, Isa 28:20. Such are all the rags of our own righteousness. But God made them coats of skin, large, strong, durable, and fit for them: such is the righteousness of Christ; therefore put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ.

This idea of covering found in the Hebrew words Kaphar and Kipper are used to describe the effect of the sacrifices at the consecration of the high priest and the altar and the annual sacrifices especially on the day of Atonement.

What we see in the garden in seed form we later learn in revelation becomes explicit with the sacrificial system.

Exodus 30:10 And Aaron shall make atonement (kipper) upon its horns once a year with the blood of the sin offering of atonement; once a year he shall make atonement upon it throughout your generations. It is most holy to the Lord.”

Lev. 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.’

Here we find in this sacrificial system more than just a covering but also propitiation (turning away of wrath), reconciliation, to atone for.”

And it was the sacrificial system that reminded the Hebrews that one was coming who could take away the sins that the blood of bulls and goats could never take away. One was coming who would provide a once for all atonement.

As we come to the NT we find this idea of atonement covering the pages. These passages that were read this morning are but two examples.

Romans 3:24 being justified [b]freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a [c]propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Many of your translations offer “sacrifice of atonement” where we find the word “propitiation.”

We see in this passage the heart of the meaning of atonement. There is a restoring of a broken relationship that up until the atonement is characterized by hostility of each party towards the other.

In this Romans passage we see many of the ideas that we have looked in the mighty word “atonement.” We see here propitiation, substitution, penalty, blood, reconciliation, redemption, etc.

Note in the Romans passage that God is both Just and Justifier. God is just because the penalty that sin always required is finally met in Christ. God is justifier because with the penalty being met nothing can bar the way from God visiting the publication of His justification upon the elect. This bespeaks of the necessity of Christ being set forth as an offering for sins.

Sit back now and be washed with just some of the other passages that contain this great theme of atonement. Listen for the themes we have covered these past few weeks and remember that they all are contained in the idea of atonement;

I Peter 1:18 knowing that you were not redeemed with [g]corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.

Rev. 1:5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who [b]loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood,

As we consider the Atonement we are reminded again that it is God who provided the Atonement. God is the original and efficacious cause of the Atonement.It was God who gave the animal skins as covering to Adam and Eve. It was God who gave the sacrificial system to picture Christ. It was God who provided the animals used on the day of atonement. It was God who sent His only begotten son out of eternal love for His people.

We must keep before us that atonement finds its ultimate explanation in an unfathomable urge in God towards elect sinners wandering out in the far country. God, in the atonement, was eternally pleased for reasons known only to Himself, to set His love upon those who had heretofore had only violated His great love.

Because God is gracious he provides atonement and because God is just He requires atonement.

In the atonement we see the truth that God’s love and justice kiss. Out of Love for Himself and for His people God provides Christ so that His eternal justice can have its due. No love, no justice. No justice, no love.

Away then with your sloppy luv gods who have no justice. Away with your statements that “my loving god wouldn’t do that.” Away with your refusal of hell and damnation because God is a God of luv. You refusal of the reality of Hell is a refusal of the atonement. It is a statement that God didn’t really need to demonstrate His love in the cross work of Jesus Christ because your lousy god wouldn’t do that. The love of that god is the love of a harlot.

Give me the God of the Bible. Give me the God who provides an atonement wherein both His love and His Justice are put on grand display in the pivotal point of all human history. Give me the God of the Bible who quenches His own justice in his own love and who does not compromise His own justice by surrendering His deity to squishy and ugly notions of love.

Not only did God provide the Atonement but we also note of the atonement that it is objective

We have noted this through this series but since we live in a church age that is awash in the subjective we note it again. The atonement makes its primary impression on the person to whom it is made. It is made to the Father… the atonement serves to propitiate and reconcile the Father.

Romans 3 teaches that also. Note in that passage that it is God who displayed Jesus publicly as a propitiation in His blood. In that we see a definite god-ward reference in the atonement.

This objective character of the Atonement distinguishes the biblical concept of the Atonement from all other theories. We have not gone into competing theories of the Atonement that have walked in the Church over the centuries but if we were to do that we would see that all other theories explain an atonement that is primarily subjective … that is primarly manward in its effect. To own such an atonement moves us in the direction of humanism, where man is the center of our theology. God’s problem is not an angry man. Man’s problem is an angry God. Only an Atonement that is primarily objective can deal with that problem.

This is one reason why the Reformed Church needs to continue to exist. We are one of the very few who have a doctrine where the atonement is objective and if you do not have an objective atonement you are without God and without hope. Unless atonement is God-ward in its primary effect you remain lost in your sins. Historically, the Reformed Church has been perhaps not the only but certainly one of the few places where you can find that. The world thus needs the Reformed church because it needs the biblical doctrine of the atonement.

Yet, as we have said once we talk about that God the effect of the atonement is that God is propitiated and reconciled to the sinner we can then gladly speak of the sinner being reconciled to God.

“For if while we were still enemies, we were reconciled to God, through the death of His Son.” (Romans 5:10)

II Cor. 5:19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not [a]imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God.

So we see that there is both an objective and subjective movement of the Atonement.

Well, there is more to be said here but we will end with a quote from one of the greatest minds ever produced by America

“This issue is cardinal. As the Churches of all ages has understood the Scriptures, the whole plan of gospel redemption rests upon this substitution of Christ as its corner-stone. He who overthrows the corner-stone overthrows the building. The system which he rears without this foundation may be named Christianity by him, but it will be another building, his own handiwork, not that of God — another gospel.”

R. L. Dabney

Creedal Baptism & Social Contract Theory

“The central assumption of social contract theory is that ever individual human being is sovereign and independent of both God and the reality that God has created…. Consequently, for the likes of Rosseau, there exists no natural authority in society. Everyone is equal. Parents have no authority over their children. God has no authority over humanity either. Because there is no created structure to society, human society is brought about by this implicit agreement between sovereign individuals rather than by the will of God. Every man, woman, and child are their own God.”

Dr. Jan Addrian Schlebusch
Assailing the Gates of Hell; Christianity at War with the West — p. 14-15

If a child before being born does not choose his own mother, nor the family he is born into, nor the name he will be assigned, nor the nation he will be born into then why do Baptists insist that the child gets a choice as to whether or not he will be in the family of God and named by God in Baptism?

Isn’t the Baptist denial of infant Baptism just another expression of Locke’s social contract theory where each individual is sovereign unto themselves and as sovereign must create reality by their fiat word? Reality, being created by each individual, and not a givenness authored by God the Baptist insists that since a baby cannot yet choose the reality they are going to inhabit therefore they are not to be “forced” into any given reality as coming from the hand of God. Given realities like being born into a Christian family, a Christian church, and at least once upon a time, a Christian nation are to wait upon the decision of the sovereign individual. Therefore Baptism for the Baptist cannot be applied to a child since the child has not yet spoken that reality into existence for themselves by their decision. It is all very much social contract theory Christianity.

The Baptist religion is the religion of the Enlightenment.

The Hate State

“Working hours had been drastically increased in anticipation of Hate Week. It was more than a month distant, but the enormous, complex preparations that it entailed were throwing extra work on to everybody.”

George Orwell
1984

In Orwell’s 1984 the idea of Hate Week first shows up on page 3 and becomes a mini-theme throughout the book. For Orwell, Hate Week is an operation put on Oceania’s government in order to increase the hatred the population feels. The hatred is directed at the two opposing superstates, Eurasia and Eastasia, as well as at Emmanuel Goldstein, the leader of the mythical “Brotherhood.”

Hate Week was for Oceania what Christmas and Easter is for Christians today. It was a high and holy day anticipated by everybody and celebrated by all. It came each year with a new “Hate song.” Orwell describes the preparations for Hate Week;

Processions, meetings, military parades, lectures, waxworks, displays, film shows, telescreen programmes all had to be organized; stands had to be erected, effigies built, slogans coined, songs written, rumours circulated, photographs faked.

I note all this to say that art has become life. While we do not yet have official Hate Weeks or the other Orwellian fixture of official daily “two minute hates” we have in our culture embraced the substance of this Orwellian reality.

Today I read in the Washington Post that a substitute teacher was fired somewhere because the sub dared to try and provide background for why Vladimir Putin is doing what he is doing in Ukraine. However, while this firing dynamic may be unique in relation to the whole Russia and Ukraine affair it is not at all a new dynamic in terms of the hate that is required by the FEDS for certain unsanctioned and so unacceptable behavior.

Hate required of the populace by the FEDS? How about the hate that is required for the amorphous and impossible to define thing called “racism?” How about hate required of the populace by the FEDS for those who say “Vaccines can go bugger themselves?,” or, “You can take your mask and shove it up your southern most aperture where it might actually do some good?” How about all the Hate pushed by the FEDS that results in what we now airily refer to as “Cancel Culture.”

Hate Week? Hells bells that would be a vast improvement of epic proportions. We are currently living under a Federal regime that demands Hate Year, year by year. The FEDS push us to hate those who love the historic definition of family, who love the idea that marriage is reserved only for one man and one woman, who love the idea of loving their nation, etc. etc. etc. The FEDS are even assiduously working on, via Critical Race Theory taught in Government Hate schools, getting the population to hate all white people

Are people so stupid that they can’t learn the lesson that Orwell was teaching in 1984? The State is not our god people and if anything should be hated right now it is the Hate State who is conniving to constantly keep us in a lather.

Now, I know a thing or two about hate, constantly being accused myself of being a “hater.” Why just a couple days ago someone reminded me again of how hateful I am;

“I will pray for the congregation as they are being misled by these posts, your words, your hate.”

And because I am an expert on being a hater I resent the Hate State encroaching upon my bailiwick and so insist that the Hate State quit with their organizing of hate and leave the hatred to us professionals.