The Almost Christmas 2022 Letters

I am working on a sermon on idolatry and remember you recommending Schlossberg’s “Idols for Destruction” on your Plodcast, along with another book on idolatry. For the life of me, I cannot recall what the other book was. Do you remember or can you recommend other books on idolatry that complement or interact with Schlossberg? Thanks,

Derrick

I always enjoy your Plodcast episodes. Your review of Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” on episode #259 caught my ear, since I teach this book at Logos Online School, and wrote the essay about it for the textbook Omnibus VI: The Modern World (Veritas Press). You remarked on how much Paine quotes the Bible in “Common Sense” as he argues for colonial independence from Britain, and I believe you mentioned that he was an “atheist.” This is certainly what Theodore Roosevelt called him (“a dirty little atheist”), but Paine was actually a Deist. In his later book, “Age of Reason,” Paine mercilessly attacks the Bible, but it is because he is trying to promote “pure, unmixed, and unadulterated belief of one God, and no more” (“Age of Reason”). Both conservatives and liberals like to quote Paine, and he certainly said things that appeal to both. It seems he became more radical in his later years. I’m not enough of an expert to know whether Paine’s beliefs about the Bible changed between “Common Sense “(1776) and “Age of Reason” (1794). But, regardless, your main point stands—Paine knew his Bible, and used it in a rhetorical tour de force that helped tip the balance of popular opinion in the direction of colonial independence. He also knew the Bible better than our liberal elites today, who quote vague platitudes about “faith” and “love”!

Gregory

Although I have no direct evidence of it, my conjecture is that Thomas Paine was indeed the typical Christian of the time, well versed in the Scriptures. It is my opinion that when the American government left him in a French jail, it may have been that event that turned him against God. A “Why has God abandoned me?” sort of thing. C.S. Lewis said that most atheism is based on an emotional decision. French jails may inspire it as well as anything.

Thank you for all you’ve done.

Russel

Please write more fiction books!! Any chance you got something coming down the pipe?

Ryan

Has Wolfe actually said that America is a multi-ethnic ethnicity? Or are you putting words in his mouth? He’s gone on record as saying that he doesn’t know how to actually apply his ideas about ethne to America. He says in his book that people of different ethnic groups “cannot have a life together that goes beyond mutual alliance.” Sounds a little different from what you’re saying, doesn’t it? And he has some concerns about blacks, as a group. How sure are you that he thinks the same way you do? How sure are you that Tulius Aadland didn’t have a buddy? You should look into this guy “Abraded Anglo” on Twitter. He sure howls like a wolf, if you know what I mean.

Blessings,

Matthew

I’m confused by the title Chestertonian Calvinism and don’t want to purchase anything to find out what you promote and stand for. Are you a follower of Calvinism? I have received your emails for quite some time and did not know this. If I’m off base, please let me know. Thank you.

Peggy

Hello Pastor Wilson,

In your book “Church Music and Other Kinds”, you make sort of a passing mention of chanting the Scriptures, describing a few appealing characteristics of chanting, such as: it’s simple to learn, only 10 chant tones, text subject to the tune, it being a good aid to memorize scripture, etc.

This is something I would like to learn.

But, other than finding a few beautiful Roman Catholic chants on YouTube, some general googling (a few months ago, mind you) and scanning of your writings doesn’t seem to yield anything that a.) seems to fit the description of what you write about, and b.) would be helpful for someone like me, who is entirely ignorant about chanting, to begin learning the kind of thing you describe.

Could you direct me to a book, website, article, chantbook, or something that covers these basics well enough to start learning this?

Thanks for your time.

Matthew

Does it not seem possible to you that in America we embody both younger and elder brothers? There is certainly the hedonistic strand of egregious sins of the younger brother that you outline, but I’m becoming more convinced that we in the Reformed circle are in more danger of embodying the elder brother’s strand of unrepentant pride, blinded by the fact that we “believe” all the right things. When we see those who have not professed faith in Christ, who may in fact be wrong in various obvious ways in both life and doctrine, and yet are more courageous and more truthful than those in Christian positions of leadership whose lives are squeaky clean according to all our favorite measures, I have to at least allow that God’s using Assyria as his axe to hew down the forest of his unfaithful chosen may again be on display. No place for swagger for either younger or elder brother it seems to me.

Michelle

“It really is Christ or chaos. If you want to see an end to the chaos, then repent of your secularism. Repent of your overt secularism and your residual secularism.” I’m fully on board with you that the core of our cultural rot at the root of all of our problems is our turn away from Christ. We desperately need revival, now more than ever before. But I usually lump in with the libertarians at least partially when I hear statements like this—although I suspect we agree upon elaboration. The nuance that most fail to understand is how exceptionally lightweight our Federal government is supposed to be—I am completely against laws against just about everything sex related—including marriage definitions—*at the Federal level*. So while I do want Christian leaders pursuing God entirely throughout our government, there are many areas where I want power returned to local levels over and above “doing the right thing”. Thoughts?

Ian

I’d be interested to read your thoughts on the following article by Jay Green. How helpful are his four quadrants, and to what extent would you agree with where he locates you and others? Thanks.

Pierre

Re: A Meditation on Narnian Snow. On December 15th, a colleague returned to me a long-missing custom-designed travel mug, with a chosen inscription. I turned and handed it to our mutual colleague in the same room who is facing major surgery over the Christmas break. On December 16th, I read the Narnian Snow post, concluding with “Courage, Dear Heart,” which happens to be the inscription on the aforementioned travel mug. Immediately, I turned to my surgery-awaiting colleague and said, “God is telling us something!” The Deep Magic, for sure.

Jessica

Pastor, I was moved by your reflections. As one who oft-times is caught wringing my hands at the tyrannical aspirations (and apparent successes) of the globalists, it is so very helpful to remember their place in God’s story—they’re just the villains, and the good guys win. And also to maintain a little perspective—they’re really just “thousands of pajama boys.” Thank you for resetting my alert-o-meter to “calm.” I find the wintry air refreshing, actually. And if I don’t see the sunshine, I know my descendants will.

Andy

Merry Christmas-time to you and yours.

Thank you for considering my letter. It is two observations, then one separate question.

After a few weeks pause from your website, I just finished watching “A Meditation on Narnian Snow”, this was the BEST one of your talks I have watched in a long time . . . powerful, eloquent, “profound”, bitingly witty (ha, “thousands of pajama boys” ) . . . For inspiration I put it right up there with that powerful New Saint Andrews youtube video that came out soon after Joe Biden was elected . . . and if I may . . . being at a church Christmas program years ago, bummed out that Bill Clinton had just been elected, then hearing Handel’s Hallelujah Chorus and powerfully/happily reminded that it is the Lord Jesus Christ who is the Eternal King in charge of all presidents and all that happens on earth.

Pastor Wilson, you are a not-small influence in my life. I love your keen observations on current events as seen through the lens of the Bible, processed with cogent/ trenchant logic, explained, defended, “winsomely” and often humorously presented, etc. and more or less “accessible” to someone like me. And when I occasionally listen/read your Sunday morning sermons I am heartened that Doug Wilson is preaching (it seems to me) the true Gospel of Jesus Christ and Grace, etc.

But I sometimes feel it necessary to distance from your website and observations on current events, etc . . . because even though I may think you are at least 95-98% correct on all your analysis, etc. Much of your *emphasis* hits me as being on very “secondary” issues—i.e. not emphasizing the Gospel (e.g. like John MacArthur and John Piper emphasize the Gospel, etc.). But on the other hand, I believe you are totally good and right and correct when you hold to Biblical holiness, “common sense”, etc. e.g. in refuting the woke “BigEva” “country club” preachers who embrace or accommodate the woke insanity under the pretext of preaching the Gospel.

My mind is open to “Post-Millenialism”, and/but it has its (Biblical interpretation) problems, just like all the other end-time views.

But I wonder if your Post-Millenialism is why you spend so much time (as I see it) on non-Gospel issues. Is this emphasis what you would call “Kingdom Building”?

Pastor Wilson, you might think I’m not mature enough (spiritually or otherwise) to “handle” your content . . . and you might be right. But I think what I’m going to need to do is try to quit my “addiction” to your website, etc. and take Doug Wilson “with a grain of salt,” if you get my meaning, sir . . . i.e. to put Doug Wilson and his (let’s grant, true and accurate) observations into the proper perspective in my *own* life and my *own* walk with the Lord, which means to take many things you say “secondarily” or tertiarily in emphasis to the Gospel as far as my own level of wisdom/maturity allows. And yet . . . all the while knowing that the Gospel affects *everything* and *all* of life (“All of Christ for all of life”)

Any response would be very appreciated, sir.

…and now my Question Please…. Because of your expressed example I have begun regularly listening to audio books in the car. One thing I have noticed is that the READER of the audio book can have as much (or more) impact on the benefit, enjoyment, appreciation, etc. as the CONTENT of the book itself. (e.g. Andy Serkis reading The Lord of the Rings).

Therefore, would you please consider… that when you mention an audio book, in articles, but especially in your yearly reading log—would you please consider adding the READER and/or the EDITION/YEAR of the audiobook” … i.e. for positive identification?

Thank you!

Robert

Greetings! Just a comment about the Canon+ app from a happy customer. I signed up for the free trial in Nov (mostly out of curiosity) and ended up keeping my subscription. The amount of content is staggering and I’m not sure it would be possible to get through even half of it in the course of a normal life. I had no idea. I thought it was going to be all preaching, but there are documentaries, books, audiobooks, audio dramas, conferences, lectures, etc, etc. I’m mostly listening to the historical lectures and have already learned a lot.

For years I’ve been bouncing around podcasts, YT channels, etc, to find historical content: but you have it all in one place, and from a multitude of voices/teachers. I feel like I’m going to class when I open up my app in the AM, and I’m finding what I learned that day translates well to the dinner table later that night. It has pretty much replaced my podcast and YT time. The content is exactly what I was looking for: it’s edifying, encouraging, educational, and sometimes entertaining all at the same time. And the price? Less than my Quarter Pounder meal cost for me for lunch this week.

Anyway, I’m chiming in to:

1) say thanks, and

2) to encourage anyone on the fence to sign up for the app. You won’t regret it.

SC

Merry Christmas! I just finished listening to God Rest Ye Merry, and I found it tremendously helpful in preparing for the season that is too often filled with self-inflicted guilt over being too materialistic. Prior to this year, I don’t know that I had ever considered Jesus’s incarnation as a material as well as a spiritual blessing. I also appreciated the distinction between “being holy” and “being holy with the stuff” as you covered in your sermon/post on being Earthy & Holy. Thanks for helping me see Christmas in a new (or at least renewed) light.

Tim

I was recently hired to be a part time youth pastor at the church I am a member of. I am in seminary, and have spent most of my life ministering for the most part to adults, and my three daughters. I do not particularly agree with the modern approaches to youth ministries, or to the segregation of the youth into a separate ministry category. Nevertheless, most people do not agree with my assessments on youth either, so I am left with a youth ministry to oversee. All this being said, I am wondering if you have any general wisdom on how to approach this. I have purposed to the elders that I would simply teach biblical theology, systematic theology, presuppositional apologetics, spiritual disciplines, and biblical assessments of modern philosophies. Is there a summarized philosophy of approach that you would recommend, and any resources that you think would be helpful? Thank you,

B

I remember a while ago you told a story, maybe it was a sermon analogy, I don’t recall.

It had a prisoner in a cell in absolute darkness, and the prisoner was petting something and it turned out to be a cockroach or something like that. I remember it really drove home a point. I would like to remember that point, could you direct me where to go to find that story, so it can hit me again? And maybe this time stick better? Thank you

Jon

Does true knowledge precede faith?

Kevin

RE: We Already Live In A Theocracy (On YouTube [They still let you on there?] ) Hello,

I write as a friend, or at least as one friendly to your cause. I especially think your point of “not whether but which” is very relevant: we live in a theocratic state _now_, and the new religion that came into town does not hold the same view of religious tolerance that we do. Anyone who doubts that need only publicly resist (to pick one example at random) Drag Queen Story Hour and see how the adherents to the new religion sweetly bow to your right to freedom of conscience.

I think if I were on Joe Rogan’s show, or in a conversation with any other non-Christian who has started to notice that the Wokesters are really starting to go bananas and show no signs of stopping, I’d point them to That Hideous Strength, and especially the conversion of Jane Studdock:

“You mean I shall have to become a Christian?” said Jane.

“It looks like it,” said the Director.

Lewis, C. S.. That Hideous Strength: (Space Trilogy, Book Three) (The Space Trilogy 3) . HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

Mr Rogan (I’d say,) you say you want to stop this insane new religion? This new thing that seems as powerful and evil as the Nazis themselves, and yet that people seem peculiarly blind to? This new whatever-it-is that drives people to glassy eyed insistence that women are defective men and men can get pregnant? Well, I know how to stop it. You shall have to become a Christian.

Okay, having established that I’m really on your side (at least I think I am), I have a question now:

Religious tolerance is a good, right? Shouldn’t we be quick to point it out when others (like this R Scott Clark in the video I’m responding to) accuse us of wanting to start a state religion? I think in your ideal American Biblical Republic 1000 years from now there would be no Mosques (or at least very few), but assuming you got your way, would there be any Mosques in 10 years? What about Temples? What about Baptist churches? I’m sure you get my drift.

Put it more succinctly: Why not point this out and say that in one view of the future (ours) people would be free to practice the religion they choose (wrong though they are), and in the other view of the future (theirs) people wouldn’t.

“Mr Rogan, you say you want religious freedom? You’re worried about a state church? *Me too.* That’s not an argument against Christian Nationalism, that’s why we need Christian Nationalism.”

I write this acknowledging that the ideal American system, even in the near term, should have some public acknowledgement of Christianity’s truth. I think an amendment to the Constitution that establishes an ‘Article 0’ that consists of the Apostle’s Creed would be reasonable. The ‘0th article’ appeals to the programmer side of me, and perhaps the presuppositionalist side of you?

[I guess that would mean Federal officials and others who swear an oath to the Constitution would have to be Christians (or at least Christians in name only.) Perhaps people would balk at that, but perhaps as the Wokesters get more crazy people will look at the two of us (Christians and Wokesters) and decide that maybe the Christians are less crazy. God has saved people whose conversion seemed to consist of deciding that maybe being a Christian is less miserable than being drunk 23 hours of the day. He may deign to save America in a similar way.]

Even with the proposed ‘Article 0’ above, I think we should point out that this is _not_ an establishment of a state church, that people would still be 100% free to go to whatever Church/Mosque/Temple they want to on Sundays, and that we are in no ways proposing a state religion or a state church.

What do you think? Is this too much of a compromise with the existing secular order? Or is this the kind of thing that just might work?

Looking forward to your thoughts,

Jason

It is often said that the neighbor is someone who is in need. When it comes to finding a wife, who is a man’s neighbor? Is his neighbor the attractive girl or the unattractive? Is his neighbor the girl in his own league, or one out of his league. Or, is his neighbor another man who wants to fish from the same pond? Don’t these people all have the same need?

Justin

I really like listening to your podcast but I’ll have to say I was quite taken aback by your stance on Ukraine. Do you really think that arming Nazis is a good thing? Do you not know what has been going on in Ukraine over the last 8 years? Do you not know about what has been happening in Eastern Ukraine to the people of Donbas? They have been terrorized by their own countrymen for years. Do you not know how the US has been involved in creating the current situation? The West is more to blame for what is going on than Russia? The West made no effort to deescalate the situation and to really listen to what Russia’s issues were. You really need to look into what kind of people we are arming in Ukraine. You really need to look into what happened on Maidan Square during Obama’s presidency and the US’s involvement in what happened there. You really need to look into how Ukraine and the West has violated all the agreements they have made with Russia including the Minsk Agreements. The US should not be arming Ukraine nor trying to push NATO right up to their border. Can you imagine what the US would do if Russia and/or China decided to set up coup in Mexico and then arm that government? The US thinks they are allowed to act anyway they want all around the world but no other country is allowed to do the very things that the US does all the time. It’s shameful. I would say it’s a rather uninformed position to believe that the US should be supporting Ukraine with weapons. If the US really cared about the people of Ukraine, they would be doing everything they could to create peace, not doing all they can to create a longer conflict which only leads to more death and destruction. If you think that all Russia cares about is taking more land, you are listening too much to the main stream media. Russia has been provoked and they are doing what they have to to put an end to the western-backed nonsense that has been going on in their neighborhood. With all due respect, I think you need to do a little more research. You could start by listening to the Duran podcast.

Sincerely,

Michael

Good afternoon (or morning, evening, whathaveyou); I wanted to see what your thoughts would be on a bride taking her new husband’s last name, but also keeping her father’s last name as a second middle name. So if I were to marry a Mr. Smith, the name would be Nellie J. Aspen Smith.

One reason to do that is so that artistically I would be able to keep my current portfolio, which I have spent many years building.

Another reason is that it would be more comfortable to me. I have been an Aspen all of my life, and after so many years I had assumed I would die an Aspen. Letting go of that name and the rich Christian legacy I have tied to it seems like such a mournful thing. I really love my family.

I suppose the hard part is that the Bible talks about us leaving our fathers and mothers to start our family. It seems unfair that I should have to set aside my family name but my fiancé can keep his. Family legacy and genealogy isn’t even as important to him, his mother has passed away and his father is distant. His extended family are not Christian.

In whatever I did I would want it do be something that was a decision me and “Mr Smith” made together, because I wouldn’t want it to be something that came between us or symbolized a lack of submission I suppose. And I would probably be generally known as Nellie Smith, but, I just want to hold onto the last name I grew up with.

What are your thoughts on all of this? Am I wrong? Am I missing something? Can you help me understand what is good and biblical?

Nellie

Keeping the guidance to not take the bait at the forefront, at what point should praying for our leaders include imprecatory prayers?

Robert

My husband and I have valued your insight and teachings on various subjects. As we navigate parenting adults children, we’ve hit a learning curve and would love some insight and help. We have listened to your talks on parenting teens, and the freedom they should get, but what about when they want to move out for good, specifically daughters, and for no other reason than to be “independent”.

1) Is it wise for a young lady say 20, to leave her parents home and live alone, because she wants independence?

2) should daughters be viewed differently than sons in this regard?

3) How long is a child under their father’s authority, and obligated to obey? What, if any, circumstances break free from this command?

4) how do we react to/treat/and view an adult child who moves out against her father’s wishes and wisdom? Forsaking a family home for “independence”? Is that child wayward, or just being an adult?

Thank you.

Katie

Regarding chaos on the southern border. A thought experiment. Let’s say that big revival that you and I have been praying for finally comes. PCA people start repenting of their effeminacy. Silicon valley tycoons get baptized and repent of their social media company’s taking “requests” from the FBI. Walmart CEOs repent of putting out Christmas decorations before Halloween. (Hey, I’m thinking big here.)

In fact, the POTUS gets saved and joins a CREC church, and you become his spiritual advisor. (We Christian nationalists can dream, can’t we?)

He comes to you and says “Brother Doug, I’m going to deal with the chaos on the southern border. Folks just can’t live like this anymore.”

“Our immigration policy explicitly states that potential death is one of the deterrents for folks crossing the desert and coming into Arizona. I’m changing that. Nobody should even be detained for coming here without some goon’s permission, and they certainly shouldn’t die. Plus, death penalty for all coyotes who leave anyone to die. Eye for an eye.

Furthermore, there are people clamoring to trigger federal codes about invasion in order to invoke a more militarized response. That is statism, pure and simple! Real Patriot act stuff. I’m ending that nonsense.

And then, folks are are clamoring to build walls on private property. As if eminent domain was not a harbinger of the doom of Christian civilization. I’m giving every rancher who doesn’t mind Mexicans walking across his cactus patch permission to shoot any federal drone out of the sky.

Since the Bible ties the prosperity of a nation to how it treats immigrants, I’m giving dollar-for-dollar IRS tax breaks for every American who brings a penniless, paperless immigrant into their home and helps them get a job so their kids can have bread put into their mouths.

Finally, I’m going to incentivize the dissemination of poor immigrants equally across the interior of the country, so that the unavoidable and glorious messiness which always accompanies caring for poor people is not shouldered exclusively by border states.”

When you hear your new parishioner’s plans for the nation, do you counsel caution and patience, or do you give his radically biblical Christian Nationalism your blessing?

Affectionately,

Judd

I feel the only way I can present this question is hypothetically (and understanding that counsel is difficult to give in hypotheticals).

A married couple with young children live in an extremely remote rural area. The husband is distrustful of church government and keeps the family distanced from any real church community.

Work has become supremely difficult, along with a good handful of other genuine stressors including some difficult and unexpected deaths in the family, and the wife has started to notice a lot of despairing talk from him, with even some mentions of suicide on especially bleak days. When he’s not in despair, he’s often irritable and prone to flares of temper, venting his spleen on the wife and the kids.

What is a wise course of action in this sort of situation for a wife whose husband would consider a cry for help to the elders (whoever they might be) an utter betrayal of his confidence?

The isolated nature of the family means no way for her to do it “anonymously” . . . any spilling of the beans, so to speak, would be immediately traced back to her. Her husband has already commanded her to speak of their troubles to no one.

She understands that crying out to God is a real and effective course of action, but the fear of what is frightening in the meantime is something of a looming temptation.

If you have any broad wisdom for situations such as these, I would be blessed to hear it.

Best,

N

You have undoubtedly addressed this topic elsewhere. My apologies, if so.

I am a new convert to the form of paedocommunion practiced in the CREC. I have just recently allowed my 3-year-old, baptized son to partake in the elements because he has regularly expressed both his love for Jesus and a desire to partake. We attend a CREC, so no problem there. But how should I handle the Supper when visiting other churches that do not practice paedocommunion? For instance, my parents attend a faithful PCA that we visit with some regularity. I suspect it’s something of a “when in Rome” situation? If so, can you offer any practical advice for how I can explain to my son that he is welcome to the table at our church, but not elsewhere?

Grateful for your faithful ministry.

Samwise