Letters to Improve the Lives of All of Us

You missed one of the issues I have encountered with worldview thinking. It has to do with this paragraph from your post.
“And of course Scripture addresses everything at the root, and not at the twigs. The Bible doesn’t speak directly about computer fraud, or online porn, or the godly way to maintain jet turbines, or dishwasher repair. The Bible is not a DIY YouTube video. But there is nevertheless a biblical way to think about all such things. The Bible addresses everything in principle.”
You are correct that Scripture addresses everything at its root, but an additional problem arises from errors in our interpretation and when deciding which biblical principle to apply to a specific situation.
An example of this issue became very evident to me during a conversation with a friend from church. I had recently been reading books on our nuclear warfare deterrence policy and how foolish it has been for a long time. This friend from church, who is postmillennial, said he didn’t think this is really an issue because he didn’t believe God would allow that to happen. I told him that I didn’t want anyone who thought like him to be making decisions on foreign policy and nuclear deterrence.
This is the issue with root and branch worldview thinking. People are lazy. Like you mentioned about applying catechism answers to an issue, thinking you have solved the problem without putting in any real work, the difficult work of applying wisdom gets avoided. Like you, I want God’s Word to be the foundational standard for all areas of life. However, churches are full of pastors whose study of Scripture, history, and theology has surpassed their grasp and their ability to understand people is terribly lacking. Study has become a replacement for acquiring wisdom through accomplishing things in the real world.

John

In today’s column “In Defense of Worldview Thinking” there’s an evident error. In the section “A Wheel Not a Pogo Stick”, second paragraph, you say “The spoke is the grace of God”. I think you meant to identify this as the hub, since you list the rim and the four spokes later.
Hope this helps.

Mark

On a “defeated religion.”
I think your assessment is spot on. I also think Charles Finney’s bunch had a lot to do with it, too. When Dispen-sensationalism replaced sound theology and all the focus was on getting saved instead of Kingdom building, it no longer mattered whether the Federal government stayed within its sphere. They could implement women’s suffrage, prohibition, forced integration, affirmative action, abortion, sodomy mirages, and Watergate . . . and no one cared anymore because . . . Hal Lindsay said we’d all be going to Heaven soon. So did Edgar Whisenant, but I digress.
Ours is a defeated religion because we capitulated, we became exceedingly lazy. We assumed God was going to whisk us all away at any moment, so why bother? There was no “Plan B” just in case Jesus was right when He said, “no one knows the time.” We were fools, and so the power-mongers mongered more power.
But the stage was set for that long before the Methodist circuit riders conquered the Western frontier. The very nature of our Federal government came into question almost immediately after it was formed. Arguments ensured, Hamilton was shot, and Big Brother was born. By the mid-1800’s, he was a strapping young lad, full of piss and vinegar and ready to fight anyone who suggested the sovereign States had the right to voluntarily leave their voluntary union. By the early 1900’s, Big Brother had become Uncle Sam, dipping his greasy fingers into our pockets every time we got paid, promising goodies at every turn, and sending our boys off to endless wars. In his decrepitude, he became Joe Biden, a fitting figurehead for our metastasis.
But we still don’t understand. Some still think Jesus will return any day now. Others think Jesus will hold off because we have Trump. Pfft . . . some even equate the two . . . But most folks are still taking their Soma tablets each morning, wondering how in the world everything will continue to function if USAID is shuttered. It’s a deep cancer indeed. And because they still think 492 Federal agencies is legitimate, they also think the 10 million Federal workers are our rulers. But I’ve got news for them, Walter Cronkite—they’re not.
Until we recover the underlying principles of our unique form of government—The Law is King—we will continue to misapply Romans 13 to the servants. We don’t have a bodily king; our overlord is a sheet of paper. And if that document doesn’t require us to mask up, then we should feel no obligation to do so when one of the servants comes around telling us to. For example . . .
American Christianity is spineless because 1) we swallowed the lie that our servants are actually our rulers, and 2) we believed we would be raptured out of our responsibilities.
No wonder the concept of Christian Nationalism gives everyone the heebie-jeebies . . . we have a lot of repenting, recanting, and reconstruction to do. And that might cost us our precious Facebook accounts.

Andy

In your very helpful blog post, “Understanding Bad Words,” you mentioned (after giving the examples of one place the Scripture says NOT to, and then another where it DOES IT), “Now the point of this talk is obviously not that the Bible is contradictory, and therefore not a reliable guide for your life and conduct. That’s not the point. The point is that this whole topic is obviously complicated, and requires more Christian thought . . .”
Now, I DO understand what you’re getting at here, and know that this is a terrific example of how the Scriptures will never fit into the little, nice boxes of the legalists. Even still . . . my question is, when someone brings up the question “how is this not the Bible contradicting itself?” what is your “nutshell” answer to that objection? The main reason I ask is because I plan to use the examples you gave with some family that could really use this, but I want to be prepared in case that objection comes up. Thank you!

Parker

With the recent DOGE efforts by team members with engineering degrees, has NSA considered expanding degree options to the engineering discipline? Many agency and industry leaders come through engineering or science programs, which would open further areas for Christians to lead in careers and culture. As an alternative to developing a program in Moscow, a cheaper alternative may be to establish a second location in an area with a high number of Christian engineers to leverage their ability to teach classes part-time.

Matthew

Hello from the People’s Republic of Portland. I am on staff at a church that has a Hispanic congregation. There has been fear and anxiety for those who attend. Many who know people (or could themselves be) who are illegally here. Our church staff is working on a plan for what we would do if ICE were to raid us (doubtful, but the Hispanic pastor is worried). Note: You can comment on the untethered empathy here if you would like to as well.
When we have a federal government do one thing and a state do another, which do we submit to? How can I explain to my fellow pastors the issue with submitting to the state when I believe they are wrong?

RJ

Thank you for your ministry and your thoughts. You have been a blessing to me through the years that I have followed your videos, blog, and some of what is going on in Moscow. While I believe the Lord has me where He wants me right now, it is not an unbelievable future reality that I may find myself moving to your area simply to be a part of what is happening there.
I will be honest, I did not fully put my name in the “name” category as I wish to remain anonymous on this one. I am interested in your opinion regarding the morality of owning a business in an industry (agriculture, janitorial, landscaping, etc.) seemingly, to my eyes (and in the eyes of everyone I have consulted on the matter), dependent on the labor of illegal immigrants at least in some percentage. I am on the cusp of buying a business of this type from my in-laws, and recently have realized I hadn’t done as much deep thinking and due diligence to figure out where I truly land in my conscience. The dilemma is this: the letter of the law states that a business is only required to have new employees fill out a Form I-9 when you hire them, at which point you can inspect the documents they provide to you. And, providing they don’t look fake, you have no way of knowing whether they are fake or not. However, an employer does have the option to use E-Verify, which, though not perfect, does do a better job of making sure the workers a company has are legal. In Texas, at least, E-Verify is not mandatory. So although the tool is there to use, it is not required, and I believe not using it still satisfies Romans 13’s requirement to obey and respect the authority above us. Even if a person tries to take it to the level of obeying the “intent of the law”, in Texas at least, the legislature intentionally has voted down legislation to make E-Verify mandatory. This begs the question of who is voting it down and do I agree with their reasons, but it still stands that a good argument can be made that the intent of the lawmakers is not to have businesses in our industry use E-Verify.
The question becomes one of conscience, then, I think. What do I believe is right before God based on what He has revealed in the Bible? How does He think about it? It becomes in a way a Romans 14 question of my own conscience. What does faith lead me to?
I believe illegal immigration is a sin. It blatantly disobeys the laws of the USA. And the argument is there to be made that owning a business that employs these illegal immigrants while not using every tool at my disposal to prevent them from working for me (E-Verify) is being complicit in this illegal immigration. It’s not the same as driving a bus down to Mexico and bringing them across the border myself, but it’s on that spectrum, just a good bit further down the spectrum. My understanding, both from talking to people who have tried it and those in the industry who are more familiar with it than I am, is that a business in these industries is not viable if it uses E-Verify because it cannot compete with everyone else who is not using it. I’ve talked to many Christians whose consciences are clear because they are both obeying the law through using I-9s and also blessing the immigrants through giving them jobs, treating them fairly, and in many cases sharing the gospel with them. Another note is that even if I “kept my hands clean” and went to work for another industry, say oil and gas, I would still be working for a company that probably relies on low-cost janitorial companies to clean for them. There isn’t much getting away from it in our current economy. Unless I quit my job and go be a lobbyist for immigration reform (for immigration reform, against the welfare state—there are many facets to this problem), but there are probably better hills to die on and better ways to use my time and bless people in a fallen world this side of heaven. It’s not a 1:1 example, but I did think about Jesus eating with Zacchaeus—someone could argue that Jesus was supporting and creating a demand for Zacchaeus’s stolen money by eating food paid for by it in a home paid for by it. I realize it’s not exactly the same thing, but at the same time there is a point to be made there that to live this side of heaven means you will touch things tainted by sin. There’s no getting away from that.
Bad means do not justify good ends. Disobedience to get to obedience doesn’t work logically or morally. What I am trying to work out is whether only using I-9s actually qualifies as disobedience and maybe a lack of trust in God to provide, or if it is simply doing the only thing possible to make the business work while glorifying God through following the law and blessing others.
I could say more but I have made my quandary clear, I hope. I am asking for your opinion on if you think only using I-9s is morally defensible and something God would be okay with.

S

What is the biblical case for or against Christians being involved in renting/leasing property that they own? I own a home that I bought before interest rates went sky high and have a fairly low mortgage. I am in a position where I may be able to rent the house out and at the going rate, I would charge almost twice what my mortgage currently is.
Is it right for a Christian to be landlords and to profit off of something like a person’s basic need for housing? Does the Law of God about interest/extortion/usury come to bear here?
Thanks!

John

On the heels of that horrendous “bishop’s” statement to President Trump, I’m seeing a lot of rightful pushback . . . but also a fair amount that I think veers into legitimately ugly misogyny. It seems to me that Paul’s instruction in Titus 2 to older women make it clear that there is a role for women in ministering to other women—and in fact I can think of some situations, such as women’s prisons or women’s colleges, where having a male minister could get dangerously tempting. And I see no scriptural prohibition on calling that position a “women’s pastor,” as long as that role is not being conflated with Elder, Deacon, or teaching in front of the congregation (although it’s probably smarter to call it “minister”), and as long as there are the proper strict guardrails.
The sort of ugliness I am seeing is the type that would have told Deborah to deny God’s calling for her life without realizing that he was having her step up because they weren’t.
I feel like a post pushing back against this crowd by highlighting where it is lawful and good for women to step up when God calls them to, along with where the guardrails are located to keep it from going too far would be helpful.

Ian

This is a bit of a niche question perhaps. It’s about running a Christian school. I have read much material from you, Rushdoony, and others on Christian education, and it’s been very helpful. You (and others) have highlighted the reality of the Depravity of Man having to be a foundational understanding in the mind of the teachers and administrators, because the kids will still be sinners in need of the Gospel—they won’t be perfect just cause they’re in a Christian school with godly parents.
My question has to do with a specific disciplinary situation. How should an administrator handle teens doing teen things, like acting like punks, creating cliques, and just having an air about them that looks no different from the rest of the world? Where is the line in “bringing the hammer down” on stuff like that? I know that sanctification can’t be forced—is just a matter of needing harsher discipline? If so, what kind? Again, we’re talking Juniors and Seniors in some cases.
For context, I am a newly installed Elder at a church that also runs a Christian Academy (not classical, unfortunately). I’m not a teacher or administrator, but an Elder that is suppose to help oversee this ministry. I have noticed that, despite having a very solid, godly administrator, there’s lots of what I described above happening in the class rooms. Any thoughts on this would be of great help.

Ben

I have associated with a few families to establish a classical Christian school. I would kindly like to ask for some long distance advice.
The more we study about CCE the more some in the group are pushing back. After much debate it does seem like we’re going to be pulling in different directions for a long time. Trouble is that we can’t split the group in two and build two different schools because we depend on each other in terms of finances and skills. It also happens that we’re friends.
What would be a good principle to follow when making compromises in this situation? I am a big fan of CCE in all its corners, but how do I draw the line between when to compromise and when to think about leaving the group? It’s quite clear in a church setting, but not so in a school.
And secondly, the way the majority wants to set up the structure of the school’s government is highly questionable. I am part of the same group, so I am not excusing my own responsibility in that. But it does seem like an organized, transparent board with equal votes is not the majority view in terms of government, at least not in practice.
What would be a good principle to follow here as well? how much can one compromise in sound governing principles until he ought to think about quitting?
I am no perfectionist, but I am also unsure how far can I move away from perfection until I should just decide to homeschool our children.
I should note that there are no classical Christian schools in the area.
Cordially,

BN

“The War Between the Shameless and the Unashamed”
Thank you for this post. It has shined a new light on the relationship between the shameless and the unashamed, and showed me how my studies of the unashamed follower of Christ could be further clarified. This post is such a blessing. Looking forward to reading more, sir. Thank you.

Logan

I hope you’re doing well. I was a kid during the “purity culture” era. Now that I’m married, I’m curious as to your thoughts on both Joshua Harris & his books?

ON

I’m curious how deacons operate in your church. Are they over specific ministries (and if so, what are those?), do they help administer pastoral care, or something else?
Thanks!

Caleb

I come today as a really happy man who found a precious woman a year ago and is now talking about child-rearing, just to make it short. I thank God for her.
We now have come to found an issue with something and I would like to get some guidance.
I live outside the States and a year ago she came to my country as a missionary with an organization. She had to accept some conditions and sign a contract. Now, she did not think that the section “not able to date, nor get engaged, nor marry” would be a problem, but now we think it is.
So we come to the main issue, where would the fact that she accepted the conditions be placed when it comes to the obedience to the earthly laws (not being a law but the organization’s stipulations). I have no problem spending time with her and we enjoy being with friends and hang around, but I have come to realize that she may be feeling a little bit guilty. Her contract ends in December/January and we do not want to wait until then to get married. Her reputation would be damaged if she would decide to quit. The organization now is talking about restricting our relationship by prohibiting that we spend time alone (we do on cafe shops and on parks).
To be honest, I don’t know how long I’ll be able to wait.
What are your thoughts on this?

ANK

Alistair Beggs the question that we must answer.
We are first-generation Christians, and we have failed in the area of biblical courtship for our daughter. We didn’t understand how to navigate the situation until it seemed too late. Although we prioritized the importance of her finding a “Christian“ man, we didn’t realize we needed to include a man not part of the charismatic church movement. There are a lot of details that I will spare you, but this situation has turned quite messy. We have spent countless hours combing through sermons from this boy’s church, hoping to find something to help us decide that it could be a good church home for our daughter. Instead, we found serious doctrinal errors. Prioritizing the baptism of the Holy Spirit if you want to fully “experience” your salvation, promises of healing if you have enough oil, enough faith, and speak the words out loud, and abundant returns on all financial sacrifices. This boy has no idea what he believes or why. We have tried to ask and discuss with no success. This is the church he has “grown up” in, where he feels comfortable and safe and will never be challenged to grow. After pre-pre-marital counseling with our pastor and the two of them, we have decided that they should not marry, our Pastor included. Our daughter is considering disagreeing with us. As I play this out, I think of “Alistair Beggs the Question.” Is this the same? Do we even attend if our daughter says she is marrying him regardless of our decision? Of course, we do not want to break our relationship with her completely. We have future grandchildren and their eternal souls to consider. But if we attend a wedding that we do not support, isn’t that showing support?

Danielle

As you are an avid social media user you might have seen reports of a school shooting in the town of Örebro, Sweden. Ten people died after a man with various psychological problems opened fire with his hunting rifle.
The governments response to this tragedy? Ban AR-15’s of course !
Which by the way only been available for Swedes since 2023.
This attack happened on Tuesday this week and today the government addresses their new gun reform.
It’s interesting that they can’t do anything about organised crime. It takes years and years of different kinds of bureaucracy to reach the conclusion that violence and crime is bad. But it takes less than a week for our Prime Minister to pass a law letting 16-year-olds change their legal gender.
I really don’t know what my purpose of this letter. I might need to vent my frustration with someone who isn’t from my own country.
What is your advice to the faithful in Sweden? Should we emigrate or stand up against our society? Many likeminded as me have serious plans to emigrate. Which would be a defeat in my eyes. But I don’t judge them.
I would really like to hear your thought about my country.

Johan

I found this and found it interesting. Redeeming Babel, founded by Russell Moore, @DavidAFrench, and @curtischangRB, took $308K from the USAID-funded Rockefeller Foundation and $200K from @BillKristol’s Defending Democracy to push The After Party curriculum in churches. The leftist infiltration is fully exposed.

Mark

Doug, you famously wrote in “Fidelity: What it Means to be a One-Woman Man” . . . “When we quarrel with the way the world is, we find that the world has ways of getting back at us. *In other words, however we try, the sexual act cannot be made into an *egalitarian pleasuring party. A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts.* This is of course offensive to all egalitarians, and so our culture has rebelled against the concept of authority and submission in marriage. This means that we have sought to suppress the concepts of authority and submission as they relate to the marriage bed.”
These 3 sentences (marked with * * above) have drawn the ire of not only God-hating feminists, but also many God-fearing Christians. I’m wondering if you have unpacked precisely what you mean by all of these metaphors in these three sentences. What do you have in mind by “conquers,”, “colonizes” “plants,” “receives,” “surrenders,” “accepts,” that all adds up to the conclusion that the “sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party?”
To be transparent, I think that the sexual act is egalitarianly pleasurable. In that the act ought to be pleasurable to both the man and the women . . . every time. Displeasure ought not be associated with sex. If it is, then something is wrong that needs to be fixed.
If you only mean that the anatomy of sex is clearly distinct between men and women, then I don’t see what the fuss is all about. But I think you likely have more in mind. I’d very much like to understand what that is. Please advise.
P.S. What sparked my thinking on this was the interview you did with Jake McAtee about George Gilder’s book, “Men and Marriage” in which you describe the unequal stakes that men and women have in the sexual act.

Jono