Letters in the Aftermath of the General Assembly

Hmmm. “What we need now are true and good men ” . . . I’m not up on all the personalities , but what we we need is people to preach and teach the gospel and to disciple people . . . And the ” decorum assertion power grab guy” can wither away as we build a just , godly society.

DLV

Re: “Shushed by the Moderator,” there was nothing intemperate or indecorous about TE Brindle’s statements. And who knows? Maybe if they had allowed him to finish making his point, the level of temperance they desired would have eventually emerged. I doubt it though. Sadly, it’s occurrences like this which make many shy away from bringing up issues with their elders, pastors, and General Assembly members in the first place. Thank you, Pastor Wilson, for your observations and thoughts on this.

Ted

My SS class received a report on GA Sunday morning. We heard it was fairly contentious but the Brindle incident was not mentioned. We were informed that a study committee was formed to study “Christian Nationalism.” I was certainly glad to hear that. I responded to all that it was the 1st time I’d heard Christian Nationalism mentioned in our church and I was happy we were finally going to talk about it. A special thanks from this PCA church member to you. Thanks for keeping me informed.

Jerry

Side note: Pastor Brindle is a rapper . . . a really good rapper. Check out his works, including the Unfolding (regarding the unity of God’s redemptive plan), or Restoration, among others. Top shelf stuff. Really really solid brother and minister of the Word!

Mike

Re: Reading Tips (History) wondering if you have those written down somewhere. I would love to send a list of recommended history books to my son and daughter-in-law to supplement their homeschooling of the three grands.

David

I hope you are well.
I have been going steady with a lovely woman for a while now, and we are looking to get married. We want to homeschool our kids, and she wants to be a domestically-centered wife. However, she also loves history, has a history degree, and wants to teach in an adjunct capacity, perhaps online, at a university level. She would be great at that, and it would be nice to have the supplemental income. However, I am wondering what the biblical principles are concerning a woman teaching in mixed company outside of the church. Obviously, they are not permitted to teach men in the church. But does the natural principle Paul is referencing in I Timothy 2 also forbid or discourage women from teaching men in other contexts than the church as well?
I would appreciate your insight. I have tried to find things written on this specifically from a thoroughly biblical and conservative perspective, but it seems like there is not much of anything out there.
Best wishes,

Cletus

I saw your response to a letter asking about Stephen Wolfe’s claim that “2% of the population demand 100% of the wars.” I don’t know if you missed the point (hard to believe, but possible), or if you were playing dumb, but he is talking about the joooz and how they control the US government, media, and public opinion. You really need to get ahead of this. It has been festering for months, maybe years now, and more and more of my brothers in the CREC have been pulled into Wolfe’s orbit (and from there to darker places) and are at risk of having their faith shipwrecked. You have seen the rotten fruit yourself!
You were warned about Wolfe and his associations prior to publishing his book, and you shot the messenger. You accepted Wolfe’s obvious lies that he didn’t know about the views of his podcast co-host (despite Wolfe having promoted Achord’s kinist book, which was co-written with a well-known kinist). And the ratchet has continued to turn toward more and more explicit anti-Jewish and white nationalist content since that time. 
I’m afraid Canon’s response to date has a decidedly sulfurous whiff of mammon worship. I hope I am wrong and a separation is planned. I think a statement from presbytery is probably necessary, at this point, as well. 
God bless you and your ministry.

Demosthenes

Renting out a house:
In the UK it is illegal to discriminate who you rent a property to based on the usual ‘protected characteristics’. Letting agents responsible to let out your property don’t ask you they just get on with finding what ever tenants come to hand, the most you might know is that it is ‘a couple’. Landlords do not have direct contact with prospective tenants. Practically speaking it is not feasible to circumvent using a letting agent when the property is several hundred miles away and the amount of time and staff to find tenants and deal with all the paperwork is why people use agents.
In light of this, do you think a Christian renting out a property to an unmarried couple, or homosexuals is in the same category as baking a cake for a gay wedding? Or is it like buying stocks (some of which will undoubtedly involve companies doing evil with your capital)? Even if you let it to a single non-Christian, they will still sin in it. What to do—sell it all up?

Henry

America . . . Christian From the Get Go
I take your points about the constitutionality of hard establishmentarianism. But permit me to challenge the idea that soft establishmentarianism was the singular, agreed-upon foundation of America.
Imagine two marbles, side by side. Flick one straight and the other just a degree off. At first, they seem aligned—but give it enough distance, and the divergence becomes obvious.
Yes, many Founders believed in soft establishmentarianism and sought to build a nation on that basis. But others did not. So when modern America rejects soft establishmentarianism, is it really rejecting the Founders—or just those Founders?
Consider Jefferson: “It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” Or: “All men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion.” (Given the “twenty gods” remark, this isn’t confined to Christianity.) Or: “Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind . . . We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” Or: “I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”
Strip the 18th-century style, and Jefferson reads like a libertarian—Ron Paul, even.
America no longer reflects the soft-establishment dream. But perhaps we’re simply following the other marble—the disestablishmentarian one Jefferson flicked. This isn’t to suggest America doesn’t need repentance–but repentance how and for what? Maybe we’re not living in a Witherspoonian nightmare, but in a Jeffersonian fever dream. In other words, we may have missed Witherspoon’s vision by a mile . . . but hit Jefferson’s on target, just off center.
Would your contention still be the same—return to the soft establishmentarian Founders? Can your Christian Nationalism vision exist under the disestablishmentarian vision of Founders like Jefferson? Or should this view be round filed?

Seth

I struggle with the commonly-mentioned “command” to leave an inheritance to one’s children. I usually see it used as justification for someone forsaking their family and the more immediate responsibilities of manhood to justify being the rich man of Luke 12. And frankly, I don’t plan to retire (retirement is nowhere in Scripture, we’re called to work, and people die when they retire!), so I don’t face an existential need to rake in the doubloons so I can sit on the beach from 65-75.
How much does a “good man” leave? Seems to me that this passage is more naturally taken as “a good man does not squander that to which he is entrusted, and therefore has something to pass on,” not “get as much as you can as fast as you can, because the greater the inheritance, the greater the godliness.” (exaggerated, absolutely.) In other words, it’s a commendation of stewardship, not an exhortation to gain.
My concerns probably stem from my deep-seated conviction that many Christian men keep themselves in jobs/industries where they shouldn’t because they’ve convinced themselves that the manly duty to be a provider requires provision of a certain level of luxury, not just reasonable provision for their health and talents. Think of how much more work the church could do if fewer men were lawyers, bankers, and executives propping up immoral institutions and practices!

Samuel

I am a father of 5 who only came fully around to the idea of courtship after my eldest son announced that he wanted to date a young lady. That led to some intensive study and reading (including Doug’s book on the topic). Having come late to this perspective, we did not teach our boys as well as we could have about the way to find and pursue a wife. I now find myself in the situation of being the father of a 19-year-old who is interested in a young lady living 8 hours from us.
Without delving into too many specifics, I have a couple of questions and I’m hoping you can point me to some resources to help resolve these.
My eldest son is several states away, in college with his prospective wife. We have discouraged dating one-on-one, but he maintains that this is the only way to really determine if she is good wife material. How should we handle the intermediate period between “kinda interested based on group activities” and “I’m ready to talk to your father about marriage”? Should there be an in-between stage? How to manage that remotely?
My second son has an interest in another state. For him, that exploratory stage is more complicated since he can’t see her at the drop of a hat. Is it reasonable to get to know her better over the phone? The downside of that is there is no effective oversight (Although much less physical risk, there can be strong emotional attachments built in that telephonic intimacy.)
I don’t presume to expect you to address these questions directly, but I would appreciate your direction to any resources that deal with these modern questions surrounding courtship from a Biblical perspective. Does anyone tackle the practical “how to” questions of our modern era?

Mike

I am writing in reference to the post you wrote about your father “Such a Father”. One of the things that I have been helped by in your writings is the simple expectation of obedience to Scripture and the blessings that accompany that. One of those expectations seems to be that we would care for our parents and “make a return” to them in their old age and failing health.
I am struggling because my dad has kidney failure, and is asking me if I would be willing to supply the kidney and to allow him to live in our house. It seems like the simple straight forward obedience answer would be to say “yes” to both. But I am struggling because he has not been the kind of father that you wrote about in your post. He cheated on my mom and they divorced when I was young, and since then he has been fairly absent. When he is not absent there is a good bit of pain and conflict that comes with his presence. I love him and it appears that he has recently been converted to Christ, but he and my wife do not get along at all. She is concerned that he is manipulating me into giving him a roof and a kidney!
Should I feel guilty for not wanting to give him my kidney or have him move in? I do feel terrible about it, as it appears that I am not the generous man that I thought I was. However, I think in the end that I will give the kidney, but I don’t know about him moving in. it seems like it would be tough on my wife to have him here all day as I am working. Is there a time to say no to your father moving into your house in a time of need? Or a time to say no to donating your kidney?
Thank you!

Jonathan

Thank you for your work! What is your opinion on churches investing money? Let’s say a church has a significant savings account and they are funding the ministries that need to be funded and, all things considered, are honoring God with their budget and spending. Should they invest a portion of their money into a mutual fund (or something similar)?
If so, how scrupulous should they be in determining what companies get what money? Should they 1.) review each company or 2.) invest in any company as long as they don’t hear about any evil dealings. 3.) Invest in any company no matter what they do?
Any other guidance on this issue, such as types of investment, length of investment, etc.?

Caleb

Thanks for your conversation with Robert Netzly.
The biggest “red flag” with their approach is that it seems pietistic, shallow, and prone to a posture of drawing away from any company that is deemed to have too much “ick” on a handful of dimensions. But other aspects of these companies (often wildly positive!) are ignored.
For example, their website proudly boasts that they own none of the “Magnificent 7” (Microsoft, Apple, Alphabet/Google, Amazon, Meta/Facebook, Nvidia, and Tesla). Why not?
A significant portion of the revenue from hundreds of thousands of small-and medium-sized businesses in the U.S. goes directly into the hands of Google, Meta, Amazon, and Microsoft (and, thus, their shareholders) to fund various forms of paid advertising or productivity software. Similarly, on the backs of their efficient, targeted digital advertising, a proliferation of niche brands and products—including many Christian businesses—can be matched to the right customers, when previously these businesses would have struggled in an era of mass-market TV/print advertising.
Similarly, when you own Tesla, Google, Nvidia, or Amazon stock, you own shares of AI and robotics businesses (like self-driving cars or warehouse automation) that reduce toil and reduce death (from everything from car accidents to workplace injuries).
God is actively using many of these companies to “reverse the curse.”
On top of this, imagine if salty Christians actually owned a significant interest in major American corporations? Might that power be able to be effectively wielded?
Now, of course, there are unsavory aspects. In some cases, there is some truly gross stuff. But I can’t help but think that the desire to “clean our hands” is based more on being unfamiliar with, or actively refusing to see, any redemptive purpose in these companies.

Erik

Since your post on Servant Leadership a few weeks back, I have been reconsidering the phrase. It has been illuminating, as are many of those dusty Christian keepsakes inherited from my childhood, when they are finally scrutinized, they are found wanting. I liken it to being led through the wilderness of adulthood towards masculinity, guided by a gent who has all the backwoods equipment, and huge, swollen calf muscles, presumably from acting as a sherpa guiding many males to manliness. Then he starts taking odd routes, is skittish around inclement weather, and his tent set-up looks like a toddler’s couch fort. Turns out the guide is some guy named Gerald from accounting, and was never properly vetted. 
So I queried AI to find the frequency of the term “servant leader” in Christian literature over the past 100 years. The first appearance was in the 70’s, coined by a businessman named Robert Greenleaf, in an essay targeted to the business world. From there, the phrase was co-opted by Christian authors.
In an effort to rethink leadership through a lordship frame, I stumbled over the word headship and was hoping you might give some direction. I read an essay (https://istoriaministries.com/kephale/) about “head”, Greek kephale, and the author insisted that, among the many figurative meanings in Greek literature, the idea of authority is not one of them. Another meta-study (https://www.cbeinternational.org/resource/meta-study-debate-over-meaning-head-kephale-pauls-writings/) of the word yielded similar conclusions. Instead, the claim is that “source” is more accurate to how the 1st-century Christians would have understood kephale. I’m sure this is not news to you. The author goes on to surmise from this that Paul was not meaning for husbands to exercise authority over the wives, but instead be . . . source??  
To me, it seems like a formidable resistance to the case for authority, at least in kephale and the relationship between husband and wife. Since “headship” and the assumption of authority packaged into the word is important to the lordship case you are making, how would you respond to this claim that it means source? Have you ever addressed it in a book or sermon? 
Thank you, 

Tim