Hoedemaker On the Myth of Neutrality — Advocate for State with the Bible

“After all, science is not an abstract concept. It does not have a life of its own. It varies in accordance with the Scriptural and worldview in which it is rooted. It becomes what it is through what its representatives may or may not believe. This is true of science considered as a whole, as well as in terms of separate parts. Men like Lombroso and Ferri arrive at different criminal law that Gratama or Groen.

But we hereby declare that the modern state, which by its basic principle must keep itself neutral, cannot establish or maintain schools of science, nor even act as its patron. Science cannot and should not be colorless. Neutrality here means unbelief. He who rejects the authority of the King is a rebel. Science that denies its guiding principle is unbelief.

This is not widely recognized in Christian circles. It is believed that the state as we know it cannot have theology taught; but it is forgotten to add that on the same ground and with the same right, no branch of science can be entrusted to it, and the less so, the less it shows the character of an auxiliary science. If the state with the Bible is rejected, then the University has been given its death warrant.

I am now considering the matter entirely in the abstract. But one arrives at the same result if one considers things from a practical point of view. The university is a fortress controlling the entire field of thought and action. It follows that no group in popular life will be able to leave it in the hands of those hostile to its principle. Here we have the key to the position.

P. J. Hoedemaker
The Politics of Antithesis — pg. 75-76

Hoedemaker makes the point here that Thomas Kuhn’s was lauded for when Kuhn’s wrote, “Structures of Scientific Revolutions.” Kuhn’s point there as Hoedemaker’s point here is that Science is not worldview free and does not exist in some neutral vacuum where it is unencumbered by apriorist convictions of the Scientists doing the “science.”

Of course the greater point here is that as long as either the University of the State operates apart from the compass of God’s Word in favor of a idealized but never realized “neutrality,” the consequence will be, as sure as night follows day, that the people of the nation will become pagan. If we cannot have God’s Word as our Lodestone in the University, and indeed in all our government education, than the result will be that our churches will soon become pagan as a result of our children being catechized by a different faith in the school system that is being covered with the fig leaf of neutrality. Having been catechized in the State religion in the school system, — all the time being convinced that they have not been since all their education was “neutral” — at least some of them will then return to the Church and via their “neutral education” reinterpret Christianity to comport with their “neutral education” that was never really neutral.
In my estimation this perhaps the chief problem of the Church in America. As long as the Education centers remain in the hands of the “neutral” statists, just so long Christianity will be a begging religion.

And R2K loves it so.

Just remember the words of Hoedemaker here. “He who rejects the authority of the King is a rebel.”

McAtee Analyzes Quote From “Conversations that Matter,” touching Soft-WOKE Churches

As long as seminaries fail to teach what the Bible assumes about nations and gender we will continue to have soft-woke pastors who think they’re just being biblical because “imago dei = egalitarianism” “every tribe, tongue, and nation = local church diversity telos” and “women can’t be in pastoral office = they can have any other leadership.”

The created order the authors of Scripture presumed is now universally forgotten in favor of blank-slate biblicalism.

We need history. We need reason. We need tradition. Not as final authorities but as tools and fences.

Conversations That Matter

1.) I’m sorry, but this not soft WOKEism. This is hard WOKEism. We have gotten so used to WOKE we ourselves are willing to call hard WOKE, “Soft WOKE.” Now, to be sure, doubtless there are even greater degrees of “WOKEness” but lets not allow ourselves to believe that the above is “Soft WOKE.” Churches and ministers that are that kind of WOKE should be abandoned with the purpose of saving your own soul.

2.) Of course Blank-slate Biblicalism is a non-thing. They really are not blank slate but are starting with WOKE presuppositions on their slate and so are finding it confirmed in Scripture. The problem is not that they are really “Blank-slate.” That is impossible. The problem is that their slate has scribbled all over it anti-Christ presuppositions.

3.) History, reason, and tradition are only as good as the theology they presuppose. They can not exist independently of theology. Our problem is not that we do not have history, reason, or tradition. Our problem is that Christian theology is not informing our history, reason, and tradition. Instead an alien theology is informing what we call “history,” “reason,” and “tradition.” History, reason, and tradition never exist independent of some a-priori theology. Therefore if history, reason, and tradition are going to help us at all we have to get our theology right, and we have to start explicitly connecting the dots between our history, reason, and tradition and our Biblical theology. If we don’t make those connections then history, reason, and tradition will not and can not serve as tools and fences.

4.) It is true that history, reason, and tradition can be tools but they are only useful tools if we see the connection between our history, reason, and tradition, and the theology that of which they are expressions.


Heinrich Bullinger on the Implications of the Unity of Scripture

“For the apostle Paul, speaking to the Hebrews, as concerning Christian faith, doth say: ‘These through faith did subdue kingdoms, wrought righteousness, were valiant in fight, and turned to flight the armies of aliens.’ Now, since our faith is all one, and the very same with theirs, it is lawful for us, as well as for them, in a rightful quarrel by war to defend our country and religion, our virgins and old men, our wives and children, our liberty and possessions. They are flatly unnatural to their country and countrymen, and do transgress this fifth commandment, whatsoever do (under the pretense of religion) forsake their country afflicted with war, not endeavoring to deliver it from barbarous soldiers and foreign nations, even by offering their lives to the push and prick of present death for the safeguard thereof.”

Heinrich Bullinger
From collection of sermons preached in Zurich entitled “The Decades”

Consider the implications of this quote from one of the Princes of the Reformation;

1.) Clearly David Van Drunen and Radical Two Kingdom theology would insist that Bullinger was being irresponsible (and probably sinful) as a minister of the Gospel to be enjoining that Christians fight to defend their homeland and religion. The clear implication here is that the country that is being fought for (defended) is a Christian country. For R2K, it is not possible to have a Christian country.

2.) Similarly, R2K would bring Bulllinger up on charges for implying that a people (nation) can be so Christian that the people of that nation are responsible to take up arms to defend it against those who would overthrow their land and their religion.

3.) Notice how Bullinger draws together country, religion, liberty, possessions and people into one net. They are distinct, to be sure, but they also are inter-related. There is no Christian country populated by Christian people without liberty and personal possessions. They  imply one another. For a Christian people (nation) to live without liberty and possessions is a giant oxymoron. A Christian nation is defined by the people therein having liberty and possessions.

4.) I am convinced that one implications of this Bullinger quote is that no Christian should be serving in the US Military since to serve in the US Military today would be to take up the cause to defend an alien religion and a people who have foresworn fealty to Jesus Christ. The current US Military is in the service of a god-state with aspirations to completely overthrow Biblical Christianity. It is in league with the New World Order.

5,) I am convinced that one implication of this Bullinger quote is that Christians should be taking up manly resistance against the current NWO State. We are now being forced  to defend, in Bullinger’s words, the enslavement of “our country and religion, our virgins and old men, our wives and children, our liberty and possessions.” If we do not rise up to resist the current NWO state we will be found to be violators of the 5th commandment, per Bullinger.

McAtee Notes Leithart’s Irrationality

The Different Levels of Thinking & Thinkers

In Undergrad, we learned there were 4 levels of worldview thinking and thinkers.

1.) Original Thinkers — These types show up once every two or three generations. Though honestly, Solomon said a millennium ago that there was nothing new under the sun. Examples might be Newton, Ptolemy, Calvin, Augustine, J. Edwards, etc.

2.) Sociological Applicators — These are the synthesizers and they likewise are geniuses. These chaps take from the geniuses and synthesize so that new plausible worldview paradigms arise.

Men like Erasmus, Herbert Spencer, Neil Postmen, Kuyper, Bavinck, Karl Popper, M. Polyani, R. L. Dabney, R. J. Rushdoony etc. You and I probably won’t meet one of these in our lifetime.

3.) Eclectic — These are those who randomly take from different thought systems as your lunch diner takes from the noon buffet. Often they have deep contradictions embedded in their thinking. These are most college professors, shrinks, social workers, lawyers, bureaucrats, politicians etc. They make up the professional white-collar class. These are dull people. This doesn’t mean all in these white-collar categories are Eclectic but many are.  Think Barak Obama, George Bush, Donald Trump, Fauci, Gates, Sean Michael Lucas, J. Ligon Duncan, Kevin DeYoung, Joel McDurmon, Greg Johnson, etc.

4.) Conglomerate — They catch their worldview like you catch a common cold. They are just mouthpieces for the floating zeitgeist as found in media and pop culture. This represents 90% plus of the world we live in today. This is your cousins, your co-workers, your average pew sitter, and the average minister standing up in front of the average pew sitter.

After I first wrote this a friend from Australia offered a slight correction that I thought was quite good.


The 2  you have is a rare genius while the 3 you have is a dullard. We

need something between 2 and 3.
Suggested – 3. Deep Reader. Produces nothing new, nor a master of synthesis, but strives for consistency and relentlessly follows – learns without new production nor synthesis. Guards and transmits systems that others have invented and refined. Examples are Gary North, N. T. Wright,  Daniel Ritchie,  Joel Beeke,  Shelby Foote, Winston Churchill, Thomas Paine, etc.
1. totally new worldview generator
2. refines and systematizes worldview
3. comprehends and reiterates worldview
4. a mess of different world views and contradictions often loudly proclaimed
5. Hoi Polloi Eloi… Rank & File