Ehud Would On The Calvinist Concept of Culture — And Commentary

“Gordon H. Clark in his signal work, ‘A Christian View of Men and Things,’ juxtaposes the two modern canons of historical interpretation against one another: Spengler’s theory of history at one extremity, and Toynbee’s at the other. And he upbraids both equally. Where Spengler followed Herodotus in the pagan cyclical theory of history, claiming no ultimate purpose or end, his metaphysical narrative yet depicts history as the march of peoples. Whereas, Toynbee’s linear view of history envisions all, after the Aristotelian perspective, primarily as the march of ideas. Both are in equal measure right and wrong, albeit in tension; they supplement each other well. And Francis Parker Yockey has resolved that tension equally well:

‘Race is the material of History, it is the treasure which a people brings to an idea.’

This was the view presupposed in every jot and tittle of Bishop James Ussher’s Annals of World History, as well as Augustine’s City of God: history is neither solely the march of peoples nor ideas, but both; because certain ideas only occur to and resonate with certain peoples in any appreciable numbers. As it pertains to the Gospel, we know certain groups have proven more receptive than others, and in varying degrees. Some groups seem to continue demonstrating Christian principle in their culture even when the inward substance of that culture has slipped away. Other groups, having long accepted Christianity in abstract, have never gone on to demonstrate it in their societies. And others still, such as the Pirahã people have proven thus far incapable of grasping the most rudimentary aspects of Christianity.”

Ehud Would
The Calvinist Concept of Culture: Kinism

Here we see teased out and expanded the simple idea that has been articulated often here on Iron Ink that culture is defined as theology externalized as that theology is poured over particular peoples. If culture was simply theology externalized, without any consideration of the people who embraced the theology the inevitable outcome is a kind of Gnosticism where the creational and material reality that God ordained for particular people completely disappears into the ether. On the other hand if culture was simply the expression of particular peoples without any consideration of the impact of what particular people’s believed in terms of ultimate considerations (epistemology, axiology, ontology, teleology, etc.) then the results would be a naked materialism. Also, in each view there would be an arc towards a Globalist and Universalist reality as both views (Gnostic and Materialistic) would expect the whole world to move towards the singular reality that they espouse. We have seen this in conversation with Christian Alienists who expect that there will be a New World Order that will be Christian but a type of Christianity where all colors bleed into one — all ethno-distinctions disappear into the great miasma of Christian oneness. This is hardly dissimilar from the heathen Babel vision where the goal is the same. The only difference being is that the label “Christian” is slapped on this Christian globalist view.

In the Christian understanding of culture and eschatology, the world is converted to Christ so that the result is a variegated panoply of different Christian cultures, with each Christian culture finding a harmony of interests because despite their distinctions in flavor and arrangement there exists a unity given the reality that they each embrace “One Lord, One Faith, and One Baptism.” This stands in contrast to the uniformity of people demanded by the Christian Babel views that insist that Christianity will turn Chinese, or Ndebele, or Shona, or Intuits, or Mongolians into the same exact people with the same exact culture expressing the same exact Christianity. That this vision is a myth of exaggerated proportions is seen in Revelation 21 where we read of the existence of particular nations streaming into the New Jerusalem as particular nations;

24 And the nations [n]of those who are saved shall walk in its light, and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor [o]into it…. Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea.    

And then in this grand vision of John the Revelator we are told that;

In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, was the tree of life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

Even in the new Jerusalem when the great consummation has arrived nations and peoples do not disappear as distinct nations and peoples.

This reality is why Calvin Seminary Martin Wyngaarden could write in the 1960s;

Now the predicates of the covenant are applied in Isa. 19 to the Gentiles of the future, — “Egypt my people, and Assyria, the work of my hands, and Israel, mine inheritance,” Egypt, the people of “Jehovah of hosts,” (Isa. 19:25) is therefore also expected to live up to the covenant obligations, implied for Jehovah’s people. And Assyria comes under similar obligations and privileges. These nations are representative of the great Gentile world, to which the covenant privileges will, therefore, be extended.”

Martin J. Wyngaarden, The Future of the Kingdom in Prophecy and Fulfillment: A Study of the Scope of “Spiritualization” in Scripture (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2011), p. 94.

And again,


“More than a dozen excellent commentaries could be mentioned that all interpret Israel as thus inclusive of Jew and Gentile, in this verse, — the Gentile adherents thus being merged with the covenant people of Israel, though each nationality remains distinct.”


“For, though Israel is frequently called Jehovah’s People, the work of his hands, his inheritance, yet these three epithets severally are applied not only to Israel, but also to Assyria and to Egypt: “Blessed be Egypt, my people, and Assyria, the work of my hands, and Israel, mine inheritance.”


Thus the highest description of Jehovah’s covenant people is applied to Egypt, — “my people,” — showing that the Gentiles will share the covenant blessings, not less than Israel. Yet the several nationalities are here kept distinct, even when Gentiles share, in the covenant blessing, on a level of equality with Israel. Egypt, Assyria, and Israel are not nationally merged. And the same principles, that nationalities are not obliterated, by membership in the covenant, applies, of course, also in the New Testament dispensation.”

Martin Wyngaarden

The Future of the Kingdom in Prophecy and Fulfillment: A Study of the Scope of “Spiritualization” in Scripture — pp. 101-102.

This is the great contest that we find ourselves currently in. The question resolves to whether the Church of Jesus Christ will pursue a Uniformitarian Christianity where all colors bleed into one and where grace destroys nature so that the creational distinctions that each people group (and perhaps eventually even each gender) were assigned by the Creator God are snuffed out so that the current version of Babel distinction-less Christianity can flourish. The alternative is the embrace of the Trinitarian idea of Christianity as applied to culture where the whole globe is won to Christ but won to Christ allowing for unity in diversity as among the varied Christian cultures that each and all embrace “One Lord, One Faith, and One Baptism,” and yet that without becoming uniformitarian clones of one another.

May God grant us His grace to avoid the gray, bleak, uniformitarian cultures that the Christianity of modern churchmen desires to produce.

Observations on The Relation of Christianity to Christian Culture

Recently I have been seeing people say; “Christianity is not a culture.” I believe that is not a very nuanced statement.  Now the folks who I have been seeing say this are not R2K people. R2K routinely utter this kind of tripe because R2K does not believe that it is possible to use “Christian” as an adjective for anything but the Church and maybe individual Christians. R2K believes that all cultures are “common” (read neutral). R2K believes that all culture can and should be religion free prefering to think instead that Christianity as a religion that shapes culture will and should be replaced by Natural law.  R2K believes it is a confusion of categories to speak in terms of “Christian culture.”

However, the folks I see now saying that “Christianity isn’t a culture” are not R2K but are those who are chanting this, I believe, with the intent of avoiding the idea that says “since Christianity is a culture therefore all cultures that are Christian will be clones of one another.” If this is what the idea of Christian culture necessarily meant I would be forced to agree with this sentiment. However, the fact that cultures can indeed be Christian is not to say that all Christian cultures must look the same. Despite recent errant accusations that theonomy and theonomists desires a global Christianity where all cultures will look the same because they are all Christian, I still insist that Christianity produces culture. I just don’t agree that all culture that Christianity creates will look the same, and neither did the 1st generation theonomists, though many of their latter day disciples seem to embrace this knuckleheaded conclusion.

Theonomy has always held to the incarnation of the one and the many principal. As applied to culture this means that there can be many distinct Christian cultures that while differing in extraneous matters all remain Christian. Theonomists have always believed that not all Christian cultures will look alike. For example… Charlemagne’s Christian culture would have looked different from the Cavalier Christian culture in the antebellum South would have looked different from the Puritan culture in New England in the early 18th century would have looked different from Calvin’s Geneva would have looked different from Knox and Goodman’s England would have looked different from Lutheran Germany. Yet, as distinct as they each were they could all rightly be referred to as “Christian cultures.”

We can see this if we look at a map of the world. We can colour it according to the depth of Christian influence. In Europe Switzerland and the Netherlands there was once a greater moulding by Calvinism, whereas  German culture was shaped by Lutheranism, yet the Christian cultures were hardly clones of one another. Part of the reason for this is because each people group expressed a slightly different variant of Christianity and part of the reason for this is that the people group themselves were genetically and so constitutionally different peoples.

So, Christianity as a faith system does contribute to the creation of cultures. Indeed, one can’t have Christian culture without Christianity. Now, having said that the cultures that Christianity produces will be variegated and sundry depending on the people group who is embracing the Christian faith we still retain the fact that they are each and all Christian. There exists a trinitarian modeling of “the one” and “the many.”

All that I am saying here was said by Abraham Kuyper long ago;

“The Javanese are a different race than us; they live in a different region; they stand on a wholly different level of development; they are created differently in their inner life; they have a wholly different past behind them; and they have grown up in wholly different ideas. To expect of them that they should find the fitting expression of their faith in our Confession and in our Catechism is therefore absurd.

Now this is not something special for the Javanese, but stems from a general rule. The men are not all alike among whom the Church occurs. They differ according to origin, race, country, region, history, construction, mood and soul, and they do not always remain the same, but undergo various stages of development. Now the Gospel will not objectively remain outside their reach, but subjectively be appropriated by them, and the fruit thereof will come to confession and expression, the result may not be the same for all nations and times. The objective truth remains the same, but the matter in appropriation, application and confession must be different, as the color of the light varies according to the glass in which it is collected. He who has traveled and came into contact with Christians in different parts of the world of distinct races, countries and traditions cannot be blind for the sober fact of this reality. It is evident to him. He observes it everywhere.”……

Abraham Kuyper:
Common Grace (1902–1905)

Part of the problem we are having here in understanding what I am saying and what Kuyper said before me is due to the fact that our cultural Anthropology as found among churchmen today is not particularly epistemologically self consciously Christian. My South African Friend Joshua Paries nails this matter on the head when he recently wrote;

I think the main problem with mainstream Christian anthropology and why it gets culture so wrong is two-fold:

1. Any distinct and genetically homogenous collective of mankind is not seen as a sacred expression of God’s Image equal to that of individuals. And therefore such collectives, in the eyes of the Church, have no right to advocate for a unique identity separate from the influence of other distinct peoples.

2. The first mistake bleeds into the second.The Church fundamentally misunderstands the nature of “culture”. “Culture” has become shorthand for the standards of religion, ethics and morality on a collective level.

“Christian culture” has thus become a generic code of faith and conduct that completely disregards the specificity of a people’s collective identity to which it is being applied.

An apropos analogy would be the Church ignoring the Creational distinctions between men and women and insisting that the “culture” or expression of Christianity should be identical for both genders.

Christianity should not be understood as a culture; rather, culture is the manifestation of a unique collective identity informed by religion.

It is this inability to reckon with God as the author of both the Creationally-ordained distinct and varied identities of mankind’s races and the general standards/principles of worship and obedience set forth in the Word that creates the reality-denying anthropology of the Church.

No one denies that both an artist and an engineer can both serve Christ while freely allowing for the manifold differences springing from their inherently distinct “expressions of being.”

The same would go for a Christian with Down’s Syndrome on one hand and a Christian with an IQ of 200 who started calculus at age six. And yet no amount of shared faith could bridge the gulf in their day-to-day existence and the expression of their personal identities.

Yet the idea that genetically homogenous individuals might share and live out a distinct cultural identity or expression of being common only to those of the same blood is deliberately disregarded by the Church as ‘Darwinism’ and ‘racism.’

To date, as far as I can see as I look over the theological landscape of the Church, the only blokes who are getting this whole matter of Christian culture correct are the Kinists. All other parties out there (Moscow, Ogden, Natural Law following Wolfe) are fuzzy on this matter seeking to fold into their definitions of “Christian culture” allegiance to concepts where propositional dynamics are forefront resulting in the Kinists being seen as “the Darwinist” and “the Racists.”

Linguistic Deception

Until the days of Magnus Hirschfield men who copulated with one another were tagged with the biblical word “sodomite.” Eventually, the word “sodomite” was changed out for the preferred word “homosexual,” with the intent to sanitize somewhat the bestial nature of the predilection. Eventually though, even that word was found to be too base and disgusting and so the word “gay,” was lighted upon in order to neutralize the detestable behavior so as to be found acceptable.

However, even that was not sufficient for the social engineers in our midst. Even co-opting a word that once meant “merry” and “happy” didn’t go far enough in mainstreaming a behavior that once found God destroying cities because of the prevalence of said behavior. No, another bridge had to be crossed in order that a mentally unbalanced group could be seen to be “normal” and that bridge to normativity was used language as a weapon to marginalize and diminish those who insisted that sodomy as hiding under any word was insane, sinful, abnormality.  And so the word “Homophobic” was birthed.

The advantage of coining the word “homophobic” to describe those who point out the twistedness of sodomite behavior was a genius linguistic move. In the ability now to label and complain about “homophobes” the table was now successfully turned and it was those who thought normally who were now the ones who were seen as social deviants and derelicts. Now the problem in society was not the sodomites, homosexuals, and gays. No, the problem in society are the homophobic who must be either re-educated or become social outcasts themselves. It is the homophobic who are the haters and who constitute a social disease that must be eliminated.

Then there is the reality that the word “homophobic” doesn’t even describe the reality of the situation. People who are opposed to faggotry are not fearful of sodomites. If they were fearful of sodomites they would keep their mouths shut and not say anything. Rather people who are opposed to the ghey lifestyle understand that it is the destroyer of civilization when it is allowed to be given sanction and celebrated. Really, if the truth was known those who oppose sodomy should be known as “homo-philes” since opposition to sodomy is the most loving disposition one can take in relation to the practice of sodomy. It is nothing but pure hatred for sodomites and those judicially innocent who will be lured into their lifestyle to accept sodomites as being normative. Just as one does not love a disobedient and errant child by not disciplining them so a society or culture does not love the sodomite by communicating that their aberrant behavior is not aberrant. It is love for the sodomite that causes the Biblical Christian to raise their voice against the perversion that is sodomy.

This linguistic deception that we are speaking of here, of course, does not end with the movement from sodomite, to homosexual, to ghey, to homophobe. No, this social engineering tool has been used repeatedly to move the Overton window leftward on what is counted and not counted as socially acceptable.

A recent linguistic weapon that has been unleashed against Western Civilization in the hopes of destroying it is the term “White supremacy.” This sobriquet is hurled at white folks for preferring their own people, culture, customs and history. It is thrown like a javelin in the face of people who want to maintain the ways of their Christian fathers. Now, the ironic thing here is that those who are doing the hurling are those who we might rightly label as “Multi-Cultural supremacists.” Their complaint of “white supremacy” is born of their hatred of white people due to the mixed multitude pursuit of multi-cultural supremacy.

Remember, there is no such thing as neutrality. As such the end of white supremacy (which is simply the age old habit of all peoples to prefer that which is familiar and known) is the rise of multi-culture mixed multitude supremacy. The complaint against “white supremacy,” is in fact a linguistic tool to untether white people from the normal and godly instinct to want to protect Christian civilization as it has been built by Christian white people over the centuries.

Think about it this way. Nobody in China or Japan complains about Yellow Supremacy. Nobody in Nigeria complains about Black Supremacy. However, in countries settled by the White man there is a hue and cry to end White supremacy and, as hinted at above, this is only because there is a desire to turn the Christian white man into a slave who becomes a hewer of wood and a drawer of water.

Ultimately, as has been said before many times on Iron Ink, this attack on the White man and “white supremacy” is a proxy war against Christianity. In God’s sovereign providence and completely by grace alone it is the white man who has been perfumed with Christ and having the smell of Christ about us we have built great civilizations that were anchored in the tenets of Biblical Christianity. Naturally enough, Christ hating civilizations and men hating Christ and Christianity are now insisting on the need to end “White supremacy, but what they are really after is rolling Jesus Christ off of his throne so that ugly cultures can be built in honor to the gods of the mixed-multitudes. These are gods who delight in seeing wombs scraped of life, gods who delight in surgeons cutting off breasts and penises, gods who delight in statutory raised to honor those who excelled in casting off the “chains” of Biblical Christianity.

Of course the potency of this movement to overthrow “white supremacy” comes not primarily from the mixed multitude, though there are plenty of haters here. No, the primary potency of this movement comes from white people who have been turned into Orcs, Goblins, and Necromancers by consuming (usually quite unknowingly) the premises, assumptions, and presuppositions of the Marxists. These useful idiots and Shabbos Goy have been employed to pour dross into Biblical Christianity so that our churches spew the ugliest and most vile lies from pulpits thus turning Christianity into a repellent and poisonous sludge stew. These useful idiots and Shabbos Goy have been employed to normalize the abnormal so that nearly of all our Institutions are tripping over themselves to see who can first hoist the rainbow flag while putting kitty litter in all our public places so that the Furries among us can feel welcome. These Shabbos Goy and useful idiots have spent generations crafting legislation that weakens the central Christian Institution of family so that normal family life is now seen as a key expression of white supremacy that needs to be eliminated.

But it all begins with linguistic deception. The subtle changing of our language to push us, societally, in a certain aberrant direction. Statist education becomes known as “public-schooling.” Equality (which itself is poison) morphs into the pursuit of equity. The glorious and dignified work of keeping hearth and home is dismissed as “oh, you’re just a housewife,” as if such a role is worse than being imprisoned. Formerly, when one was convicted of a crime they went to prison or jail. Now they go to a “correctional facility.” The Department of War (a properly labeled office if there ever was one) was changed out to the more benign “Department of Defense.” “Father,” and “Mother” on official documents has now become “Parent 1” and “Parent 2.” I am sure that soon enough the word “parent” will be eliminated for something thought to be less offensive. And let’s not even begin to mention the laundry list of acceptable labels for the sexual deviants. My favorite among these is how “pedophile” is now known as a “minority attracted person.”

When the language changes it is a precursor to a cultural change that is coming in its wake. Keep your eyes peeled for these subtle and sometimes not so subtle changes because they are going to only accelerate in their arrival upon the cultural scene.

Le clergé dans les affaires

“Therefore let the one who thinks he stands firm [immune to temptation, being overconfident and self-righteous], take care that he does not fall [into sin and condemnation].”   

I Corinthians 10:12
(Amplified Bible)

I was 16, way back in 1976, when for the first time I witnessed, up close and personal, the crash and burning of a minister (youth) due to sexual infidelity. It was a royal mess and looking back on it over the years my sympathy and compassion for all parties has only grown together with my sorrow for the injured parties and anger at the ones inflicting injury. The Senior minister of the Church was left with the impossible task of trying to hold the work together since people in the congregation had a dozen views of what did and did not happen and who was really at fault. A young marriage with young children was scuttled. The popular youth minister in question, who had a huge influence on a rather large youth group,  was out of work leaving behind him a large group of High Schoolers who were more than a little disillusioned with Christianity. I was disappointed, to be sure, but frankly in 1976 I was so trying to survive my own sitz-im-lieben that I didn’t have enough time or energy to get overly distraught by other people’s naughty behavior.  Still, I was not so self-involved to not be able to see that this behavior had sent shock waves through the Church.

Since that summer of 1976 I have seen repeatedly, both up close in Churches I was connected to and from far away as more of a spectator the damage that marital unfaithfulness does in the Church when that unfaithfulness is contracted within the church. Now again, with the case of the former Rev. Stephen Lawson the Church is party to having to bear the shame, along with Lawson.

Naturally, when clergy are involved in sexual infidelity the blowback is even more intense. All of us who are clergy have to hear the refrain of “typical clergy, they think they are better than us and just look.”

Perhaps, the first thing that should be said then is, “we are not better than the laity.” The best of us are only unprofitable servants seeking to do what we ought. As you have known for sometime now, as clergy we are marvelous at disappointing you, of not living up to your expectations, and of being in need of grace as much as any of you who are not clergy. St. Paul was not kidding when he wrote, “Here is a trustworthy saying, worthy of full acceptance; Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.”

That admission does not excuse Lawson. Neither is it an attempt to do so. The sin of sexual infidelity combined and then dwarfed by the sin of climbing into the pulpit to preach as God’s spokesman while involved in said infidelity is beyond words. Beyond words, but not beyond forgiveness.

The challenge here is how to be, at one and the same time, squarely against sin, while realizing “there but for the grace of God, go I.” After all, Elders are required to be “gentle” and being gentle is a must when a man is repenting. (And it is my assumption here that Lawson has repented and is repenting.) If we only rail about the sin we come across as the self-righteous prigs we so easily can be and too often are. If we elide too quickly past the sin we may treat the sin too lightly and so not communicate the necessary warning to others.

Then there is the factor that leadership is ideally supposed to be held to a higher standard. Paul writes Timothy that the Overseer is supposed to be “above reproach,” and the “husband of one wife,” and Lawson has read himself out of both those qualifications.

Look, I bleed for the man. I know what I am capable of. I bleed for his wife. At this age she is supposed to be enjoying the sunset of children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and some kind of slowing down. Instead, she has to deal with this five alarm fire. Then there is “the other woman” who though responsible as well may well have swooned into the illicit relationship based upon some misguided admiration for “the man of God.” Alternately, it is possible that she was and is a real Jezebel. Have we mentioned all the hurt now that his children and grandchildren are dealing with given the devastation this has wrecked? Have we mentioned the congregation he served and the countless others across the nation that may well have looked up to Rev. Lawson? Really, the impact I witnessed first in 1976 remains the impact when this kind of sin bomb goes off. The hurt and shattered lives makes my soul ache. The greatest ache is that the name of the ever glorious God is brought into disrepute.

So, it is with mixed emotions I write about this. Fear, because the ability to write about this kind of event is so fraught with getting it wrong, thus doing even more damage. Sorrow, because of the trail of tears this thing leaves in its wake. Shame, because Christ’s name is dishonored and because I realize that I am perfectly capable of the same thing. Anger, for the obvious reasons. Funny, these are some of the same emotions I had in 1976.  All of it makes me fleetingly toy with getting out of the ministry before I do something this wicked.

Some have written on this subject, probing the question, “How could this happen.” On that score, let’s be honest — this kind of thing is getting fairly common. While writing I can think of a half-dozen plus other similar high profile clergy that have been caught in this particular snare over the last 10 years or so.

The answer to the “why” questions are both simple and complex. At the simple end of things man has a sin nature that is only eradicated with his death. Simple explanations also include the truth that “stolen watermelon is more sweet.” The more complex range from living in a culture that drips with perverse sexuality, to the fact that high platformed clergy begin to believe the adulation that they are covered with (they begin to believe their own press clippings) and believing that no longer take heed, to the fact of the ego sizes that are often characteristic of too many clergy (can you say “narcissism?”) I am tempted to also offer as a possibility the lack of accountability but, frankly, it seems accountability anymore only works to keep orthodox men from being orthodox as heterodox men love holding the orthodox “accountable.”

Be sure of this though. Nobody who gets in this situation gets in it apart from a mega dollop of self-deception. The clergy who gets into a strange bed, while simultaneously maintaining the ability to climb into the pulpit week after week, really is a man to be pitied. He has seared his conscience while grieving the Holy Spirit. He has crossed some kind of Rubicon that one wonders how many return from.

But there is grace with God. Our Baptism reminds us that there is no sin we cannot return from if we will only do the grace given hard work of repentance.

Petition God, as I have been, that He will be honored in all this, and keep in mind that there is no reason why this couldn’t be you or I.

What To Expect To See At The Annual Halloween Reformed Ball

What costumes they’re wearing this year to the annual Halloween Ball?

1.) James White is dressing up as a Crusader.
2.) Al Mohler is dressing up as Winston Churchill
3.) Russell Moore is dressing up as a Christianity Today Editor
4.) Sean Michael Lucas is dressing up in a R. L. Dabney costume
5.) Doug Wilson is dressing up as Confederate Sec’y of State Judah Benjamin
6.) John Piper is dressing up as a Ferret
7.) Aimee Byrd is dressing up in what her son recently modeled
8.) R. Scott Clark is dressing up as Oliver Cromwell
9.) Michael Horton is dressing up as a CIS Gendered white dude
10.) D. G. Hart is dressing up as court jester
11.) Toby Sumpter and Jared Longshore are wearing Doug Wilson costumes
12.) Michael Foster is wearing his Elmer Gantry costume
13.) Matt Walsh is dressing up as a raw dairy salesman
14.) Thabiti Anyabwile (aka – Ron Burns) is dressing up as a KKK Clansmen
15.) Francis Collin is dressing up as a Christian Humanitarian
16.) David Van Drunen is dressing up as a 16th century AnaBaptist (John of Leiden)
17.) Rachel DenHollander is dressing up as dutiful housewife
18.) SBC pastors are dressing up as strict moralists
19.) Stephen Wolfe is dressing up as Klaus Schwab
20.) Chris Gordon (AGR) is dressing up as the anchorman from “The Simpsons.”
21.) Kevin De Young is dressing up as Tim Keller
22.) Greg Johnson is dressing up as a Anita Bryant
23.) Matthew J. Tuininga is dressing up as a Dutch Theologian
24.) Reggie Smith is dressing up as the head butler of a Plantation home during the ante-bellum South era.
25.) Clay Libolt is dressing up as a Theonomist
26.) Ken Bieber is dressing up as “a reliable source.”
27.) Owen Strachan is dressing up as an patriotic American
28.) Rev. Aldo Leon is dressing up as a Kinist
29.) Rev. Brenda Kronemeijer‐Heyink is dressing up in one of these;https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-a-portrait-of-a-young-muslim-woman-covering-her-face-by-a-black-veil-89138149.html

30.) David French is dressing up as a tabloid journalist
31.) Rod Dreher is dressing up as a faithful loving husband and father

It ought to be quite the affair.

Me?

I’ll be the guy dressing up as Doug Wilson wearing a “Have You Hugged A Bagel Today?” T-Shirt while carrying a tankard of “Pale Ale” around with me.