Category: Apologetics

R. Scott Clark’s Opining on Christian Nationalism Rejected — Part II

Just as Machen, though sick with pneumonia was bound and determined to keep his word to travel to South Dakota to preach and support a new Presbyterian work there, so I have lifted myself up out of my post-operative open heart surgery rest and recovery regimen in order to answer the absolute inanities of R. Scott Clark and Keven DeYoung on the subject of Christian Nationalism. Aren’t you impressed?

There is nothing quite so as stirring and enlivening to one’s spirit and health has to have the opportunity to lance, like so many piece of vegetable and beef on a shish-kabob, the non-Christian musings of the highly functioning lobotomized clergy class.

R. Scott Clark notes the desire of DeYoung to have “some form of Christian Nationalism,” and then as the cheek to say that no one has ever answered his previous queries as to what it means to modify “nationalism” with “Christian.” Clark, ever the intellectual autistic that he is, insists that no one has ever given him a coherent response as to what it means to speak of “Christian” plumbing or “Christian” math. All I can say here is that if he has seen no coherent response to this it is because he is looking with his eyes shut. Here is my response to that question a couple years ago. It is not the first time I have answered this question for he who runs “The Heidelfog.”

Not Getting R. Scott Clark’s Inability to Get The Obvious

Also, if R. Scott Clark would read my book he would see that I provide an answer for him again in that book in the chapter titled, “Transformation of Culture.” So, either R. Scott Clark is lying when he says he has seen no coherent response to his queries about how math, softball, or nations can be Christian or else his worldview won’t allow him to see an answer that everyone else can easily see.

Clark then insists that he is not a defeatist. All I can do is offer that such a statement is a real knee-slapper. Everything that Clark contends for in terms of his R2K social order project guarantees that Christianity will return to the catacombs. As I argue in my book in the chapter “Militant Amillennialism” R2K’s eschatology requires defeat. Quoting from my book, I note,

“The R2K eschatology is what I call a militant amillennialism. The Amillennial eschatology does not allow for the victory of the Gospel and Biblical Christianity in space and time. In Amillennial eschatology the return of Christ is a return characterized by a church that is under assault and is greatly diminished in the world. Christ returns to rescue the Church much like the US Cavalry rides in to save an almost depleted Fort Custer as surrounded by the Indians ready to make their final push to take the Fort. The R2K Amillennialists really believe this and so it is baked into their eschatology. Because they do not believe that victory is possible they have developed a theology under the tutelage of men like David Van Drunen, R. Scott Clark, Mike Horton, D. G. Hart, and others that by definition does not allow for victory. By creating a common square that, by definition, can not ever be anything but common the R2K Amillennialist has created a self-fulfilled eschatology. Since by definition the public square cannot be anything but common the public square cannot see the triumph of Christ in space and time in the public square. The is militant Amillennialism.”

Clark next insists that all he is arguing for is a return to the American project which means the restoration of secular government while pursuing a desire to re-frame the classical Reformed distinction between nature and grace.

We would note here that when Clark tells us that he desires to return to the American project what he is telling us is that he desire to return to the vision of the Enlightenment crowd numbered among the founding fathers. This is a vision that affirms neutrality as seen in the insistence that the State (as well as the national institutions) remains neutral when it comes to the issue of religion. Clark continues to not understand, and no power short of conversion can make him understand, that neutrality is a myth. Jesus Himself said that “he does not gather with me scatters.” Jesus Himself said that, “he who is not with me is against me.” Jesus Himself said, “You cannot serve two Masters.” Clark desires to serve Jesus as Master while having a neutral state that does not serve Jesus as Master.  This is not only not Christianity that Clark is pushing this is anti-Christianity. Let it be said clearly that there is no such thing as a secular State/Government if by secular you mean a State/Government that is ruling apart from a standpoint of religion and ruling apart from some god or god concept. Clark’s idea of secular is the idea that Roger Williams (He of Anabaptist fame) instantiated in Rhode Island. R. Scott Clark as more in common with Roger Williams than he does John Calvin.

Clark next invokes the sainted Abraham Kuyper. Clark would be better served reading Philippus Jacobus Hoedemaker’s critiques of Kuyper on this score. After Clark is finished reading Hoedemaker he can then buy a copy of Wm. T. Cavanaugh’s, “The Myth of Religious Violence.” From that work he can learn that all his chicken little screaming about violence from Christian magistrates is just so much hooey.

Clark then offers a real eye-popper when he writes;

 “As a historian, I am endlessly puzzled by the desire, expressed by Wolfe and others, for a return to a state-church. What do they imagine the outcome will be? They claim that they will get it right this time, though virtually all other attempts before them have failed. This reminds me very much of the Marxist claim that we should give that another run because the right people have not tried it yet.”

I too am a historian, though I never earned a terminal degree in the field. (If Clark is an example of a Historian with a terminal degree I thank God I never went on to get the terminal degree.) History was one of my under-grad degrees. I took all the historiography courses. I examined the different schools of history. I read the heavy hitters. So, as a historian I am endlessly puzzled by Clark’s inability to see that a state-church is an inescapable category. Our nation is covered with state-churches, supported with state-funds, manned by state-educated state-Priests. Somewhere in the vicinity of 90% of American children (ages K-12) attend these state-churches being indoctrinated thoroughly with the state religion. Yet, Clark is so jejune that he can suggest that we, in America, do not have a state-Church. It is amazing. Clark complains that too many people are like Marxists and yet the man can’t see that our state-Church pushes some one form or another of Marxism.

R. Scott Clark’s Christianity is completely novel. No Reformed person before Meredith Kline thought anything like this. As Dr. Stephen Wolfe has written regarding R2K;

“Van Drunen (Clark belongs to this school of thought), for example, resolves the ‘contradictions’ of traditional two kingdoms theology with a theological system that affirms post WW II norms of secularism, multiculturalism, and anti-nationalism. His political theology might rightly be called ‘post WW II consensus theology,’ and I suspect that historians, looking back at it, will conclude that his theology is highly historically conditioned.”

Van Drunen, D. G. Hart, R. Scott Clark, Mike Horton, Sean Michael Lucas, Matthew Tuininga, David T. Gordon, and countless others are spewing a “theology” that is perhaps 80 years old at best. It is completely novel and it is a theology that none of the Reformers or their descendants would recognize as Reformed. Yet, despite the truth of that these posers are all over the place screaming that they alone are orthodox. Jesus refused to turn stone into bread but these highly educated dunces have gladly complied.

 

R. Scott Clark’s Opining on Christian Nationalism Rejected — Part I

Here I find myself just a tad bit over 3 weeks out from open heart surgery. On top of that I have managed to contract a very slight, but still discernable cold. I am, to say the least, feeling blah and quite lackluster. I have been kicking myself about not blogging more but I have just not had the oomph to do so.

Until now. Leave it to that grand idiot Dr. R. Scott Clark to write with such determined torpidity and stylistic buffoonery to cause me rise out of my languid pose of recovery so as to expose his shallow offerings and lampoon his “insightful reasoning.”

Recently, at his blog, “The Heidelfog” Clark had yet another go at the concept of “Christian Nationalism.” Naturally, as Clark is a stupid man he is opposed to this Biblical concept. It is ironic that a man who wrote a book on “Recovering the Reformed Confessions” would insists that those who wrote the “Solemn League and Covenant” (a steroidal advocacy of Christian Nationalism if there ever was one) and were largely responsible for penning the Westminster Confession of Faith were foursquare opposed to any idea of Christian Nationalism.

I mean R. Scott Clark is trying to tell us that the guys who penned the following were against Christian Nationalism;

LC#191 Q- What do we pray for in the “second petition” of the Lord’s prayer which is Thy Kingdom Come?

A – the Kingdom of God is to “be countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate.”

Or

Q-108 which asks what are the duties required in the second commandment.

A – “the disapproving , detesting, opposing all false worship; and, according to each one’s place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry.”

The magistrate’s place and calling requires him to remove all false worship and all monuments of idolatry.

Or

Q-118 “What is the charge of keeping the sabbath more specially directed to governors of families, and other superiors?”

The answer says that it is directed to other superiors, because “they are bound not only to keep it themselves, but to see that it be observed by all those that are under their charge.”

Other superiors include the civil magistrate.

It looks to me like Dr. R. Scott Clark needs to recover the Reformed Confessions on the issue of Christian Nationalism because those documents clearly support Christian Nationalism.

But let us not deal merely in generalities. Let us dig into the subterranean chambers of Dr. R. Scott Clark’s and Dr. Kevin DeYoung’s idiocy. Let us take the time to pop their ponderous puss-filled pontifications on the position of Christian Nationalism. In order to do so we examine Clark’s 07 June offering on the same subject on his “The Heidelfog” wherein he quotes Dr. Kevin DeYoung to sustain his vile bile against Biblical Christianity.

First Clark argues that it was the end of sodomy laws combined with the rise of SCOTUS’s Obergefell vs. Hodges decision that made the way for the return of discussion supporting Christian Nationalism. Here Clark is only half right, which means he is completely wrong. Should we be surprised? It is true that pro-sodomy laws and pro-sodomite marriage may have lit the fuse to a return of conversation on Christian Nationalism but the larger issue was the realization of more and more Christians that their nation was embracing a Nationalism that was thoroughly pagan and anti-Christ. More and more Christians began to realize, because of the rise of sodomy and now Tranny-ism and child abuse sex change laws that their nation was indeed embracing a Nationalism but that that Nationalism was pinioned upon hatred of Christianity. So, instead of giving in to the rise of humanist Nationalism a chord was struck to once again begin thinking about Christian Nationalism. So, Clark is right about those issues driving conversation but he is wrong in not realizing that people began waking up to the fact that Nationalism is an inescapable category and that if we have to choose between a anti-Christ Nationalism where sodomy, Tranny-ism, pedophilia and sodomite marriage are expressions of the theology of the land and Christian Nationalism where Biblical morality is the law of the land they would rather rally around the flag of Christian Nationalism.

Clark then goes on to cite Paul Miller’s 2021 Christianity Astray article on Christian Nationalism as a beginning point of conversation on the subject. Clark ties together Miller’s work with Samuel Huntington’s writing on the same subject. Clark then goes out of his way to try and tie Dr. Stephen Wolfe’s “The Case for Christian Nationalism” in with Theonomy — which Clark hates with all the passion of Juliet’s love for Romeo. Clark fails to mention that Wolfe goes out of his way in his volume to communicate that he is no friend to theonomy. Indeed, it is my conviction, as a general equity theonomist that Wolfe’s book fails magnificently precisely because he pins his Christian Nationalism on Natural Law’s anti-theonomic thinking. However, the fact that Wolfe goes out of his way to distance himself from theonomy does not stop the libelous R. Scott Clark from disingenuously seeking to tie Clark to Theonomy. (Alas, if only it were really true.)

Clark next appeals to fellow well educated chucklehead Kevin DeYoung for support for Clarks own vitriol. DeYoung pleas for rejecting Wolfe inveighing;

“The message—that ethnicities shouldn’t mix, that heretics can be killed, that violent revolution is already justified, and that what our nation needs is a charismatic Caesar-like leader to raise our consciousness and galvanize the will of the people—may bear resemblance to certain blood-and-soil nationalisms of the 19th and 20th centuries, but it’s not a nationalism that honors and represents the name of Christ.”

Now, I am 75% finished with Wolfe’s book and I would dearly love to have the page number where Wolfe expressly said that “ethnicities shouldn’t mix.” I wish he had said it. I was disappointed he didn’t say it. As such I’d love the exact quote from DeYoung.

Second, how can DeYoung be a Christian minister living in a land where we still routinely kill the unborn and even the newly born and contend that violent revolution isn’t already justified. On this basis alone I think any pulpit worth its salt would be ashamed to be filled by DeYoung.

Third, while I think it is dang near impossible for a Christian prince to rise in Weimerca I certainly would not be opposed if one did arise to set matters straight. I would love for a Protestant Christian Franco, Pinochet, or Salazar to take the helm in this country. Would that God would raise up a Alfred the Great, a Charlemagne, or a Cromwell to lead this country. Can anyone tell me why DeYoung is opposed to a Christian Prince rising up to destroy all the high places in the nation?

Do not fail to notice how DeYoung subtly suggests, via his “blood and soil” descriptor that all who disagree with him on this are closet Nazis. Can DeYoung please tell me why Christian Nationalism that Wolfe puts forth (and frankly which I think is weak sauce) is not a Nationalism that honors and represents the name of Christ? Methinks when Kevin DeYoung talks like this Kevin DeYoung and Bret L. McAtee are serving different Christs because I think that Jesus Christ would be well pleased with that kind of Christian Nationalism.

At this point R. Scott Clark leaves off from quoting DeYoung and gives us more of his own blather. Red Clark, like any good Commie, directly ties Christian Nationalism to Nazism, making explicit what DeYoung offered implicitly;

“Segregationism (known among theonomists as “kinism“) and the lust for a “charismatic Caesar-like leader” should cause any decent American’s blood to run cold. These two features were also essential to the very “blood and soil” nationalism of the Nazis. We fought and won a war against these very things. The idea that religious heretics should be put to death is a repudiation of the first amendment of the Constitution and constitutes an anti-American revolution. Miller has seriously understated the nature and intent of the most popular form of Christian Nationalism.”

Here, I, in a decent and warm-bloodily manner, note;

1.) There have been many many Christian Kings throughout history and many many Christian Kings whom God’s people loved. To suggest that a rise of a good Christian King should make any Christian’s blood run cold reveals again that R. Scott Clark is historically ignorant.

2.) Is it R. Scott Clark’s position that any people who want to retain their heritage, traditions, and even their common bonds of blood are automatically wicked? Is the desire to belong to a set people in a known place really the kind of realities that should make the blood of Christians run cold? I mean, I know that thinking that way makes the blood of Cultural Marxists run cold but why should we think that thinking in such a manner as to love people and place to the point of wanting people and place to carry on into the future is something that makes all decent American’s blood run cold?

Honestly, R. Scott Clark saying that about Kinism makes my blood run cold.

 

 

Westminster Larger Catechism & R2K’s Hatred of Theocracy

Many R2K fanboy “theologians” are Presbyterians. These fanboy theologians insist that God hates theocracy. They insist with their doctrine of “intrusion ethic” that God’s law does not apply to the common realm. Do these fanboy “theologians” realize that they are in contradiction to their own confession? Have they taken an exception?

LC#191 Q- What do we pray for in the “second petition” of the Lord’s prayer which is Thy Kingdom Come?

A – the Kingdom of God is to “be countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate.”

Or Q-108 which asks what are the duties required in the second commandment.

A – “the disapproving , detesting, opposing all false worship; and, according to each one’s place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry.”

Or Q-118 “What is the charge of keeping the sabbath more specially directed to governors of families, and other superiors?”

The answer says that it is directed to other superiors, because “they are bound not only to keep it themselves, but to see that it be observed by all those that are under their charge.”

Other superiors include the civil magistrate.

Lazarus Chronicles IV

I think this shall be my last entry on this subject. In this last entry I merely want to offer a flurry of verbal Knick knack  accounts.

1.) One of my nurses was a Muslim. I found that hard to get my head around given the inflammation of the Muslim world against the what little remains of the Christian West right now. This nurse was exceptional in their care, and I was glad to be under their supervision. However, I couldn’t help but wonder what the mindset might be if it was known that I am an ardent Christian Nationalist?

This is something that constantly went through my mind. If these people knew my Christian convictions would they still care for me? If they knew that the love of Christ requires me to command all men everywhere to give up their self-centered lives and turn to Christ would they still provide the same care? Maybe they would.

I went into this surgery nervous because of all the hostility I received from the Michigan media in 2020. Would anybody have heard about that? Would they remember and connect the dots? Would that matter to anybody?

2.) For some unknown reason we had a hospital social worker show up and desire to have a conversation with us (Jane and I) about some of the matters I’ve brought up earlier in this account. I can only imagine how she ended up in my room. I am fairly certain this visit was not protocol. To her credit she immediately introduced herself as the hospital social worker. As such there was no need for Jane or I to guess. She implored us to converse her concerning some of the matters we had conversed with the hospital staff about concerning the strangeness of some of the events that had happened. She assured us that there was a wall of separation between her and the surgical/ICU staff so that she could be an advocate for us.

Sorry … as long as the same person is signing her paycheck as is signing the paycheck of everybody in the hospital I’m not getting all conversationally intimate with a stranger.

PLUS… Did I mention she was a “Social Worker?” In my world telling me that you are a social worker is like waving a red flag in front of an angry bull. It’s like someone insulting my wife and mother in one breath. It’s like pouring salt into an open wound. It’s like making a meal out of the Holy wafers used for communion. It’s not a good thing in my world to be a social worker. I have, over the course of almost my whole life, had to deal with these people and I have yet to have one not negative experience. Their training is steeped in humanism and their logic is made of overcooked spaghetti.

Now, social workers, as far as training goes, are not any worse than most of today’s white collar professionals filling the posts in modernity, but they do seem to be the cream of the crop. All our white collar professional core has been steeped and saturated in humanist categories but very few more so than social workers.

The conversation didn’t last 30 seconds. She told us she was there to help us. We told her that we found that odd since there was nothing we needed help on. She said, “I sense that you don’t want to talk to me.” (“Jeepers, your spidey senses are awesome,” he thought sarcastically without saying.) I said, “you are correct. We are not interested in talking to you but thank you for making the effort to come up and speak with us.” She wanted to know what the reason was for our indifference. “Maam,” I said, “for my whole life you people have been nothing but a headache to me, but again I thank you for reaching out.” She wrote her name on the blackboard and told us to contact her if we changed our minds. I had Jane erase that name and number the minute she left so that I would not have to see it. The conversation didn’t last 30 second. I don’t like social workers and I don’t mind that throughout my life they have not liked me.

3.) I went home right from the Intensive Care Unit. Something they said which was very very uncommon. There were a good many things about this stretch of time that were very very uncommon. Indeed, the uncommon-ness of much of what happened and my stay could be a theme for those six days.

4.) A personal word of thanks to the surgeons and doctors. One particular Doctor would show up every day at appx. 0630 and the first thing words that would fall out of her mouth was “you look amazing.” It became a standing joke because the morning after the flatlining event, when she swept into the room I deadpanned… “wait … don’t tell me … I look amazing.” She protested that on paper I did look amazing. Sigh … it has been my life’s lot to look better on paper than I do in real life. 😉 The surgeon who did the surgery and who suggested he might try it with his eyes closed showed up in the room once for a few minutes. He seems to be the quite type. A man of few words. But, hey, I wouldn’t care if he is a deaf-mute as long as he can cut and sew the way he can cut and sew. From my understanding and research, he is one of the best in the world on this particular surgery. I am thankful to God that he was in Michigan and that God in His sovereignty linked up surgeon with patient. His #2 was also quite able and the ICU Doc who ran the floor was also exemplary.

Doctors are like ministers. We all have a ego the size of Texas. We each are in a calling where a good deal depends on us being right and anybody who is being depended upon to be right is someone who must develop a confidence level that strikes most other mortals as “arrogant.” I worked with airline pilots for 15 years and you can throw their egos into the same category.  This explains why the good Doctors, the good Ministers, the good pilots exhaust themselves in seeking to hone their craft. The burden of needing to be right for the good and sake of other people and for the glory of God is not a light burden. Happy is the man in these or other like careers who can finally push on through to the other side and be able to, at one and the same time, retain their confidence while also donning a genuine humility.

Someday I may get to that point.

5.) I should end by noting two more folks. The first is the Nurse Practitioner on the day shift. I found her at one and the same time extremely concerned for my well being while at the same time maintaining the professional distance necessary. I always believed that she was in my corner and was genuinely concerned for my well being.

The second chap is someone who without I am not sure I would have gone through with this surgery. As you can well imagine all of this, from the patient’s perspective, is a high trust venture. As the patient you are putting your life in the hands of strangers. That is even more challenging when the culture is no longer homogenous in its worldview orientation. This chap is a cardiologist in another part of the country and I came to know him via my writing ministry. With 20 years of practice under his belt and a familiarity with everything I was facing I could turn to him over and over for his expert opinion knowing that he was a man who both confessed Christ and who shared by world and life view. He was someone I could much more easily trust. So, at each juncture I turned to him about the medical counsel I was getting and at each turn he patiently held my hand and gave me assurance. I am pretty sure that I would not have gone through with this surgery if it was not for his voice in my life at this time.

You can understand my being overwhelmed by God’s providence and goodness. At each step of the way He provided what was needed.

The Lazarus Chronicles #3

We left off promising more about the matter of “WOKEness” in the hospital. That it was glaringly present was indisputable. There was the evidence of the “quiet posters” I mentioned in the previous post. There was the bulletin board pushing the “Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity” (DIE) agenda. There was the constant reminder as stated in the hospital’s “Core Values” that they would be characterized by;

  • Integrity: I will adhere to the highest ethical standards, demonstrating courage, truth and transparency in my words and actions.
  • Teamwork: We will work together with a shared purpose rooted in equity and fairness where diversity is celebrated, respected and valued.On the issue of integrity what has to ask the question, “By what standard?” Ethical standards, courage, truth and transparency in words and actions but as living in this WOKE world one has to ask what standard … what barometer is going to used in order to measure ethical standards, courage, and truth and transparency? This is an especially important question to ask if it is the case that diversity is going to be highly prized. After all, diversity inevitably means that there are going to be diverse standards and so diverse definitions of ethical standards, courage, and truth and transparency. Of all these diverse peoples with their respective diverse worldview how will these matters be determined? Again … by what standard. This is but one problem with WOKEism. It is inherently irrational. A prioritization on diversity means any unity on standards for ethics, courage, and truth and transparency goes right out the window. A prioritization of diversity means unity on standards are literally impossible.On the issue of “Teamwork” we have the same kind of problem. There is a plea for “fairness.” Whose fairness? Fairness according to what standard? What if I am a employee and I don’t think WOKE is fair? Is anybody going to listen to me? Second, it is literally not possible to have equity and diversity at the same time. Equity in WOKE world is defined as recognizing that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome.  However, diversity means that people will be different and that difference is not to be tampered with. Yet, that is exactly what equity does. Equity tampers with differences in order to achieve equality of outcomes so that the natural diversity is eclipsed.

    And is it really true that all “diversity is celebrated, respected, and valued?” Will the Biblical Christian’s diversity be celebrate, respected and valued, when the Biblical Christian objects to, say, the usage of blinkered pronouns?

    I ask this because I noticed rainbow nametags among at least some of the hospital staff that instructed me on what pronouns the staff member wants to go by. Now, I didn’t meet anybody whose pronouns did not match their biology but I have to think that such people exist. What if such a person was to come across a patient who refuses to honor their preferred pronouns? What happens then in the hospital? Do they tell the patient to find healthcare someplace else? Do they just switch staff around?

    The funny thing is that, for now, this system seems to be working for them. However, I do not believe such a system can work for very long. Eventually the contradictions will come to the fore and create numberless untold problems between this cherished diversity.  The hospital is working on borrowed capital from Christianity. The hospital is taking the notion of right and wrong for behavior and then introducing a code that is sure to undermine the integrity that they are calling for.

    Having said all that I want to emphasize that the system is working for them right now speaking in relation to the care I received as a patient. The care at the hospital was top shelf and I could not have asked for a nursing staff that was more longsuffering, gentle, and tender. I had several nurses come and go but I had two specifically (a night nurse and a day nurse) who I saw for several days consecutively and I thank the God of the Bible and His Christ constantly for their work.

    Unless one has been there one can not understand how vulnerable a patient is. Completely stripped of his independence the patient is completely shut up to the care both of his nurse and his advocate. But advocates are not typically medical people so as excellent as they might be they can only do so much. The patient will prosper in his recovery in direction relation to a combination of his determination, and his care. If he gets substandard care it will make it more difficult to excel in recovery.

    Not only did my nurses excel at the medical side of the equation but they were personable and quite good at encouraging their patient. They had both the medical side and the psychological side down.

    My wife spent her career in nursing. She was just the kind of nurse that I had while in the hospital. Nursing is a thankless job that is not paid nearly commensurate with the value that a good nurse brings to the table. Right now nurses, consistent with the rapacious morals of most of Corporate America, are being asked to do more and more for less and less. It takes a special person to rise above the abuse inflicted by Corporate to still come to work day by day and give top shelf care.

    I am not a big believer in common grace the way that term gets slopped around but I found myself thinking more about common grace as a very sick patient in the hospital. These nurses were not Christian and yet the care they gave was the kind of care one would expect from Christians. All of this goes to what Cornelius Van Til spoke of in terms of “borrowed capital.” My nurses had a worldview where they borrowed capital heavily from a Christian World and life view even if their worldview was not expressly Christian. I pray that they might come to know the joy of serving Jesus Christ.

    I round off this entry by noting that hospitals scare me. Not for the obvious reasons, but even more so because of the hothouses they have become for political correctness and WOKEness. I prayed going in that I might be able to get out of the hospital without tripping the wires of WOKEness whereby I would be come instantly persona non grata.

    I came close a couple times to tripping those wires but praise God I did not trip those wires and came out of the hospital unmarked by the vengeance of WOKEness.

    More on that in part IV.