Februletters

RE: Moonbats
I agree with you regarding the entertainment (and other) value of the disruption to come if RFK Jr. is confirmed. It’s also good to keep in mind, though, that this nomination is balanced by the nomination of Marty Makary to NIH. NIH is the place that controls much of the funding for medical research and education. THAT nomination, if confirmed, will be one of the most valuable appointment ever to occur in our medical establishment.

Michael

In Moonbats you say that you “hope RFK gets through the Senate.”
This seems inconsistent with your strategy of Smashmouth Incrementalism that you articulated as your proposed Deal in Smashmouth Incrementalism and the Trump Train.  There you said:
“This fall pro-life activists need to call upon every Republican senator and every Republican senatorial candidate to commit, on the record, that they will refuse to vote to confirm any nominee for the federal bench, and especially SCOTUS, however qualified, if that nominee is not absolutely committed to upholding Dobbs. If they refuse to commit, or if they take the pledge but then waffle on it, then they will be challenged in the next primary election.” 
Abortion cases are relatively few and far between (e.g. 50 years between Roe and Dobbs) and most federal judges will never hear an abortion case.  Contrast with the Department of Health and Human Services which deals every day with matters that relate directly to the cause of the unborn (e.g. PP funding, abortifacient drug approval, procedure funding under Medicare and Medicaid etc.)
Question—in Smashmouth Incrementalism, there isn’t a meaningful difference between judiciary appointments and executive branch appointments, is there?
RFK has been a life-long Democrat and pro-abortion advocate. As an example; during his 2023 democratic presidential campaign, after giving an uncharacteristically anti-abortion response to a question, his campaign issued a press release: “Today, Mr. Kennedy misunderstood a question he was asked by an NBC reporter in a crowded and noisy exhibit hall at the Iowa State Fair. Mr. Kennedy’s position on abortion is that it is always a woman’s right to choose. He does not support legislation banning abortion,” they wrote in a press release.” (emphasis added) He also made statements to a podcast host that a woman has the right to make abortion decisions up until full term. 
It is credulous to believe that a life-long Democrat politician (and tort lawyer no less!) will follow through on his opportunistic 3-month-old “I side with Trump on abortion” position. We can’t really expect this leopard to change his spots, can we? Therefore:
Question—should a Smashmouth Incrementalist Senator vote “yes” or “no” on RFK?  
If RFK is not appointed; Trump could nominate any other “bull in the China shop for HHS” that wasn’t an all-in abortion supporter up until 3 months ago.  Therefore:
Question—how is your “hope that RFK be confirmed” consistent with your Smashmouth Incrementalism?
Thanks kindly.

Jess

Regarding “Tri(tr)umphant: Seven Observations on the Festivities Related to Round Two . . . So Far”
This was an absolutely beautiful summery of the good Trump has been doing so far, and how we’ve all gotten here. It evoked in me much gratitude by providing clear wording for so much of what I’ve already been thanking God for.
I’d just like to add that another positive side of the tariff form of taxes is that we get to choose (to a certain extent) whether or not we are taxed, and how much. Instead of being taxed on our income, and paying whether we spend money or not (plus when we spend money), we’re (sort of) able to decide how much we’re willing to give to the government by deciding how much we’re willing to spend. This goes along with what you said about reduced tyranny, but I think it’s looking at the issue from a different angle.
It’s an oversimplified view, but I think that this is how pretty much everything should work, even roads. So I’m a fan!

Liv

RE: Josiah and Jehu
Good article, but if you’re looking for a modern-day analogue to Jehu, then Pinochet’s your guy, not Trump. Unless Trump throws the entire Biden family in prison and starts prosecuting Democrat Molech worshippers (let alone putting them all to death) then maybe, just maybe, there might be some similarities.
Trump may not be a Josiah, but is no Jehu, either. Among all the other good things Trump’s doing, purging the fake religion of DIE and its proponents out of the federal government, thereby making their pronouns “was/were” (that never gets old), is not the same as piling up their heads at the White House gate. Deporting violent illegals first, then following up with ordinary illegals, is not the same as giving them free helicopter rides.
Bottom line: Jehu loved violence; Trump hates it and will usually use it only as a last resort. What Jehu did tore his nation apart; what Trump’s doing, which even Democrat propaganda organs like Newsweek admit is popular with Americans, is having a unifying effect—Exhibit A being all the former Democrats in his administration.
We have four years. Trump may be a wrecking ball, but he’s not a killing machine. We’ll see what happens.

Commenter Formerly Known as FP

Not two years ago, I would have expected the obvious answer to JD Vance to be “To hell with your Christian principles” and not an extended discussion about how the Bible actually requires something different from governments. Nice to know that even the British political celebrities are once again operating on the assumption that America is a Christian nation.

Laurette

RE: Tri(tr)umphant
Wonderful article! Great observations! In light of Trump’s victory, I have concerns that I would like to run by you, and I wanted to see if you thought they passed the proverbial “smell test.”
I’m incredibly thankful for Trump’s victory, and I’m excited for the next four years (and possibly 12 years if Trump has secured enough of a victory for Vance to possibly have a 8-year term), but what concerns me is what happens after. If society doesn’t see a dramatic positive shift, then I’m concerned that the left won’t simply be looking for a political victory in 12 years; they’ll be looking for total vengeance, and if they can manage to win (or steal) an election at that time, they’ll want to push for a full and open persecution against conservatives and/or Christians.
Do I just need to be thankful for what I have now and not think too far ahead, or do you think I have valid concerns?

Logan

Pastor, all keen observations.
The Internet is abuzz with such rousing discussions, and all parties are agog—the Right because it feels like they’re dreaming, and the Left because it feels like a nightmare . . . which is also part of the Right’s vibrant dream.
(Side note: I had not given Mrs. Trump’s choice of dress/hat a moment’s thought. She has always tilted classy with a touch of vogue—or vogue with a touch of classy—so it seemed on par with past outfits. But now that you mention the hat…hmmm . . .)
On the economic front, you are correct. Tariffs applied broadly will be punitive if there aren’t 1) reduced taxes, 2) significantly reduced spending, and 3) reduced oppressive meddling from bureaucratic Karens. Tariffs applied precisely could be neutral to us if 1) they are meant to force behavior, as with Colombia, or 2) they are meant to create US industry to replace imports, as with China.
I love that Trump understands the power and authority of Naming. One thing you didn’t mention—probably because there’s just so MUCH material right now—is his desire to reclaim Panama, purchase Greenland, and tweak Canada with becoming the 51st State, straight up bypassing Puerto Rico’s decades-long desire for that spot. More than controlling the dictionary, he’s controlling the narrative! While the Liberal go into apoplectic fits over the Gulf of America or Mt. McKinley, he’s making deals. What would Shakespeare say about the “state of Denmark” now?

Andy

On the Gulf of Denali, and the power of a name.
Having made a strategic relocation after the peaceful insurrection in Seattle in 2020, I’ve been settling nicely into my dramatically superior new home in Alaska. Superior it is, though not without its own idols. One of these idols is a deep seated racial bias in favor of the indigenous tribes. This bias is not exclusive to the left as it is in many other areas, but left, center, and right. All politicians, Democrat or Republican, must pay homage to glory of the native Alaskan race. There’s an odd cultural sense that, despite the fact that America literally never stole any land from them, and in point of fact rescued them from almost certain death at the hands of the USSR in the 20th century, that America owes them not only a favor, but infinite favors. While the tribal villages and self government are more or less pure disaster areas, tribal mismanagement and injustices aren’t common so much as constant, we all must collectively agree to the wonders of the culture and the dire need for reparations.
It is for this reason that I’ve been calling it McKinley for years.
Alaskans come in two stripes. Either they don’t care about the name, or they are deeply religiously offended at you not calling it Denali. That is their idol talking. You are not allowed to call it McKinley because that would be heresy against the imperial truth that the indigenous tribes are the rightful rulers of Alaska. It is a beautiful name in that it offends exclusively people who deserve offending, and exclusively for good reasons to offend someone.
I don’t know Trump’s mind. I don’t know why he personally cares. I have assumed its taking a cheap pot shot at Obama. But intentional or not what he is doing is in effect smashing an altar to racial hegemony.
I made some of my own comments about Bnonn’s thread last week on the letters column which I won’t bother repeating. This was me discovering he existed. He’s certainly interesting . . . if wildly overconfident in some brazenly inaccurate readings of Scripture. In his article on why you’re not allowed to vote strategically which is the underlying basis of that Twitter thread he does enough reading into Deuteronomy 1:13 to make the Magisterium blush.

Justin

Considering Vice President JD Vance’s interview with Margaret Brennan, the decision of the First Lady to wear the “I really don’t care, do you?” jacket back in 2018, just seems prescient. Talk about fashion forward.
Thanks for the commentary. It’s going to an interesting four years.

Sarah

I enjoyed your insight on how we should be seeing the current political situation. Interesting that my pastor had planned a three sermon series in II Kings ending with Jehu and Joash this past Sunday, a series planned before the outcome of the election. Insightful minds think alike. I wonder how many other evangelical churches also heard something similar exposited. We should pray that the President goes from Jehu to a Joash (the beginning of his reign, not the end).
In regards to President Trump, the problem the ruling class has is that they hear what he says, but not what he means. What he says sometimes sounds strange (Gulf of America, and the like; the supposed pet-eating illegal immigrants) and sometimes he doesn’t do what he says, but he always does what he means, within his power to do so. Interesting that the rural population primarily responsible for his election, on paper “less educated” than the folks where I live here in the DC area, wisely both hear AND perceive.

Preston

Thank you for Tri(tr)umphant, I’m looking forward to more commentary on Trump 2.0.
Your two points about tariffs makes sense, and perhaps tariffs could be seen as even better than you paint them to be when we consider how buying from home (now a somewhat better decision from an economic impact) will help the national economy.
However one thing keeps nagging at me—the only divinely inspired tax is an income tax (plus a small census tax). I can’t see the idea of tariffs in Scripture, which makes me nervous about using them and makes me inclined to believe the warnings on using tariffs (e.g. the temptation to turn it away from a replacement revenue source to a protectionist policy that stifles local productivity/innovation and increases the cost of goods on everyone).
Should the lack of support for tariffs in the Bible cause us to be worried about relying on them?

Josh

This is regarding plodcast #360, where you said, “if [Hamas/Hezbollah] one day put down their weapons and said ‘we are not going to fight anymore’, what we would have in that region is peace. But if Israel did the same thing [there wouldn’t].” If true, this might change my friend’s mind about who is right/wrong in this conflict. But how could we be sure that it is true when neither side is willing to beat swords into plowshares (yet)? Is there a good way to reach out to my friend (who claims to be a believer) about this topic (if I even need to)?

T

As much as I enjoyed your book “Easy Chairs Hard Words,” I was surprised that you didn’t suggest for the voracious reader friend of “JC” the book that I would think is the most exhaustive treatment on the subject of what most people categorize as Calvinism (that being the ol’ TULIP, even though Calvinism is certainly more than merely that, but I digress . . .) the book by Loraine Boettner “The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination.” This was in fact the book that was suggested to me back some 30-odd years ago, when I was one of those people arguing on the internet with Calvinistic people, and making a fool of myself because I didn’t actually understand the position of my opponents. And by God’s grace, by the time I was 3/4 of the way through the book, I was shocked to find myself becoming . . . one of them. I can’t imagine a better book on the subject, especially for a voracious reader. Cheers!

SK

I came from a church where the pastor and male staff would not ride in a car with the opposite sex because of the way it could appear. However, in my secular job, I sometimes have to ride on business trips with members of the opposite sex . . . totally business-related. In fact, my company states that we cannot discriminate against the opposite sex in such a way. However, because my church has made a big deal about how they handle such situations, my wife believes that it is not appropriate for me to ride alone with another female, even if it is work-related. I understand both sides and believe that a man in either position should be above reproach. Still, contextually, I feel that a ministry position should be viewed differently than a business one. Thoughts?

Grimshaw

I have been foraging the Christian blogosphere and Youtube for a pro-incrementalism argument that relies on passages like Deuteronomy 21:10-14 (excerpted below) to argue why incremental bills and laws are actually righteous despite their apparent partiality. I have found none, so I want to outline the argument here and hear what you think of it.
The argument would go something like this. Incremental pro-life bills and laws are not offensive to God despite their apparent partiality because they serve to restrain a celebrated evil social practice, which God did in the Ancient Near East (“ANE”) through Israel.
In Deuteronomy 21:10-14, for example, God prohibited Israelite warriors from joining the evil ANE social practice of celebrating military victory by boastfully raping and degrading female captives. Instead, a warrior was to show compassion to a female captive by allowing her to “lament her father and her mother for a full month” and to be free rather than a slave in the event “he no longer delight[s]” in her. To us modernites, this is still appalling—why not just abolish the social evil of taking female captives altogether? Why the incremental progress? But God is not a modernite, and to the ANE world, this law was shockingly compassionate even though it seems still too barbaric to us. The law was righteous even though it did not abolish the social evil it targeted because the social evil otherwise would have stood celebrated and unopposed.
When die-hard abortion abolitionists oppose incremental laws as unrighteous, I think they make the same mistake a modern person makes when impose modern standards on texts like Deuteronomy 21:10-14. They forget the age in which we live and that abortion will go celebrated and unopposed without incremental laws.
Do you think it is right to say that God’s law in Deut. 21:10-14 is comparable to pro-life incrementalism today? And if so, do you think it gives us pro-life incrementalists scriptural license for our position?
Deuteronomy 21:10-14:
“When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her.”
I look forward to your comments.

Jacob

I agree that a woman’s hair is her covering. Would this only be the case if her hair is “down” because Paul says if a woman refuses to have it “covered” let it be shorn . . . so would it be improper for a woman to have her hair up in service?
At what age would a young girl/woman need to begin worrying about this? Sorry if that one doesn’t make sense
Thanks so much, as always.

L

That is a PAYBACK hat?
How do we know?
Where can I get one for Mrs. Bro. Steve?

Bro. Steve

Have you written anything or have any tips for walking with a couple after the wife committed adultery? Young marriage (3 yrs) and me, our pastor and one other friend know. How might you determine if restoration or divorce is most wise? Who/how might you go about letting others know, like our small group and others in the church?

A Reader

I hope you have been doing well. This might be one of the silliest questions I’ve ever asked, but I am curious as to your thoughts. We know that we are not married in heaven, and I do not advocate for any such thing. It does make me a little bit sad, since my husband and I are such good sweet friends, we enjoy each other tremendously, and we love doing so much together! Will we still be friends in heaven? What will relating to your husband or wife (who held those titles only on earth) be like?

OG

Re: Epistemological Impudence…
Hi again Pastor Doug! This is my 2nd visit.
I posted this to the YouTube comments also, but as I’m a few days late…
“in the shadow of the mushroom cloud” . . . did you just quote the Queen song, Hammer to Fall? That is a turn of phrase I have not heard in any other place, so, Bravo! if you did.
I have heard you quote The Who before, you know, “meet the new boss”, so your musical palette brings a smile when I catch you doing it.
Growing up in the 70s, Queen was my favorite band, until I learned what a queen was, with regards to the singer. But I was drawn to them by the musicianship of his bandmates anyway, not him.
Demon Hunter is my favorite band now. Check out “Fear Is Not My Guide”. An achingly beautiful masterpiece of a slow song, for a Christian metal band.

Gordon

Thank you for being so available to answer tough questions. Here is one I’m wrestling with:
My oldest daughter (17/junior) attends a CCS. On top of that she is the star basketball player for the girls Varsity team. Because of this talent—much to my chagrin—many people often encourage her to seek scholarships, regardless of whether the college glorifies God or not. From the time that my girls were very young I have stressed that all education is for the glory of God and not a meaningless future endeavor that may lead to a career. I have also stressed that the destiny of a woman is to marry a man and help him take dominion. Nevertheless, I still have people in this CCS influencing her otherwise.
Today, after a game, a college coach approached her about coming to play at their school. When my daughter arrived home she told me the news with excitement. The school is not a school that recognizes God. I have made it clear to my girls that there are less than a handful of colleges I would support them attending, because I believe that most colleges’ agendas would fly in the face of their entire education at the CCS, and all they have learned growing up. All this being said, I don’t want to squelch her excitement for doing well in sports. I could tell when she told me about the coach approaching her she was looking for affirmation. I know this is a complicated question, but would you have any insight on how I should approach this situation moving forward?

Simmer

Dear Uncle Douglas,
I was very pleased to read your “letters to a Young Man in Need of a Wife.” I must admit I am sorrowful that I discovered these letters three years after they were written. Had I read them sooner, it would’ve saved me a lot of grief and pain.
I feel inclined to tell you a little bit about my past, just the parts relevant to this letter. I was raised in Africa by a single dad. I got to witness what some would call “Natural Masculinity”—the type that occurs naturally in men. The type that tends to make them analytical, courageous and ambitious among other things; but the very type that could make them harsh, brutish or barbaric.
I moved to America as a college age adult. All my life I had been a Christian, well, a “Christian.” You see, I was a charismatic Pentecostal. I had been around the dating scene but due to my less than honorable motives for seeking out girls, I had never gotten into anything serious. I knew little to nothing about gender roles and I often dismissed verses like 1 Timothy 2:12 as ancient attempts at subjugating women perpetuated by supposedly “anointed” men.
However, when it pleased God, he called me out of that type of “Christianity” into a Calvinistic understanding of the faith. I started to think more soberly about these “difficult verses on gender.” If the Scriptures were sufficient and inspired, I thought, then these verses had to be just as true as any other verses in the Bible. They were God’s word, and they had to be obeyed. Because I desired to marry, I determined that before I got into a relationship with any other girl, she had to agree with me about this issue.
I found one here in the northeast where I live. By God’s grace she was a political conservative, but she struggled a fair amount with male headship. Having been raised by a single “Christian” mom, she affirmed Scripture’s portrayal of gender and authority, but this didn’t always translate well into our real-world relationship. Just as an example, she wanted me to leave my church after we got married. In the end, I called off our engagement.
It is not until I found your letters that I was able to articulate what I had been feeling inside for a very long time. I thought I was losing my mind. My pastor along with the book that we used for premarital counseling, subtly encouraged the “sexual catechisms taught by the beta MDivs” that you alluded to in your letters; notions of servant leadership with a disproportionate emphasis on serving. There was a veiled attempt at telling me that, as a man in marriage, I would have theoretical leadership while my wife guided most of the decisions—this wasn’t explicit, but it was very clear to an attentive mind. After all, we were complementarians, right? I knew a lot of godly men who were being steamrolled by their wives, but this was always explained away as “sanctification in marriage” and “servant leadership.” Usually at weddings everyone cheered when a pastor said “Husbands love your wives” but “Wives submit to your husbands” was taboo to even utter. I couldn’t quite put my finger on it, but it felt like something was out of place. Often, I thought maybe it was because I grew up in a different culture and that I just did not understand the American culture when it came to marriage, even in these seemingly conservative churches.
When I finally broke it off with my now-ex fiancée, I went through a dark period of self-doubt, thinking maybe I should’ve stuck it out and been a “servant leader.” There are certain pressures that would make a man waver when all his friends are getting married, and it seems like he is about to be past his prime. As one does, I went to the internet to find answers since it was very clear to me that my complementarian-heavy shepherds were not going to resolve this confusion for me. By God’s grace I found biblical patriarchy and I found your letters—I wish I had found them sooner.
So why have I written this expository letter to you, Uncle? Well, as a detoxing complementarian, your letter “Calvinism and Girls” has left me distraught. In my mind, when you married my aunt-in-law, it was in an era where women, whether by choice or by societal pressure, conformed to biblical femininity—or at least something that was close to it. Today, in the year 2025, these types of women— whether in pretense or sincerity—seem to be as scarce as a rare gem on a unicorns’ horn.
I believe in God’s sovereignty, and I also believe that passivity is irresponsibility. I considered moving to Moscow, since in my maybe-flawed-thinking, it would guarantee that I would meet such a lady. I am in the unenviable position of agreeing with your letters while despairing that such godly submissive women are nearly non-existent. It seems that the egalitarian rot is so deep and so severe that it threatens to cause us—men who want to do the right thing—to die single. When I hear men like you talk about your wives, my heart desires that but in this gynocracy, where does one go to find such a wife?
Undoubtedly, I’ve worked out that nothing is guaranteed and since I’m not God, I can’t divine my own future. Simply moving to the South will not guarantee that I will find myself spoilt for choice in a sea of godly submissive women. As you yourself have noted, even in conservative evangelicalism, subversion of God’s order with regards to gender is rampant, so, Uncle, what does a man like me do?
Your nephew,

Dawson