CNN Interview Fallout, with a Few Happy Letters at the End
As result of the interview with CNN, I was introduced to a number of new acquaintances. Not all of them were enchanted.
Shame. Shame on you for wicked beliefs. Women deserve the same rights as men. I will pray that God may soften your heart so you may see his creation as equal.Audrey
Audrey, I believe that women have the right to keep and bear arms . . .
I am a Jew and I find your view and purpose to be antisemitic and deplorable. Oh I am also a gay woman and my mission is to get rid of any man who thinks like you. You are disgusting. !!!!!Bonnie
Bonnie, five exclamation points is overdoing it.
The title referenced . . . all of them. I see your views are that of a misogynist piece of s***. I note that you cannot hold a candle to any female because you feel afraid of their power. I note that you are scared, pathetic human being. I note that I am better than you and higher than you because of the way you speak about women. I note that you are hateful human being for way you have treated women and I am simply calling you out. I note that you are not an intelligent human being. Women are equal, not inferior and definitely not submissive. If you don’t like that, you are the one with the problem. Go to hell. You serve some old-fashioned words that only try to elevate men. Those words were written by self-serving men. How does it feel having a small d***?Dana
Dana, but if women are all that intimidating, why do they write letters like this?
Remember Doug,
You share 99.9% DNA with folks from Africa, Middle East, Malaysia etc.
Doug, you’re a Bubble Boy with very limited life experiences and zero cultural experiences. So, play God, Mr. Fraud!Al Capone
Al, when undertaking to refute non sequiturs, it is hard to know which direction to go.
You getting very close to the end, dear. . . tic tic tic toc . . . . It’s apparent you don’t really believe in religion, you don’t care at all about your soul . . . My wish for you is a long and excruciatingly painful end . . . I wanna watch you suffer . . . Myself, and millions of other women are manifesting this every day . . . . tic tic tic toc.
Zizzie
Zizzie, the skulls were an especially scary touch.
I think you should set down shut up and listen for one you say your a pastor well let’s take it back to the adam and eve when God took Adam’s rib and made eve now God didn’t make eve to submit to Adam when you have wife you build a marriage your wife can have different opinions and do what they want so maybe you should they Before you speak because you came from a woman.Ethan
Ethan . . . well, okay then.
I don’t think your ideology is right for me. I think you’re a radical group that believes there should be only one religion. I believe every religion should have their own beliefs as long as they don’t interfere or discriminate against anyone else’s.
I’ve been reading your comments on government and there was a reason for separation of church and state. Why should anyone who doesn’t believe in your God be subjected to praying to them?Michael
Michael, what religion teaches that it is wrong to interfere with or discriminate against the religions of others? And why I am being forced to support it?
CNN segment
You can’t be serious. What is your payoff for spewing such vile ideas? Are the republicans offering you status, position?
This is dangerous speak for all women
If God is a women you are in serious trouble.Donna
Donna, if God is a woman, we are all in serious trouble.
Thank goodness we have a Second Amendment to make sure we keep the First Amendment intact. You know the part about Govt. establishing no religions and such.
Remember that, preacher man.Buddy
Buddy, I think that way more people in my corner are thankful for the Second Amendment than can perhaps be rustled up in yours.
You are a f****** lunatic.
Also a money grubbing religious nut.Billy
Billy, that’s a point of view, certainly.
SHAME ON YOUR BELIEF. GOD SEES ALL OF US EQUALLY YOU AS A MAN CANT DISGRACE ANY SOUL OF A HUMAN ESPECIALLY A WOMAN. REMEMBER THAT. STAY HUMBLE OR GIVE UP YOUR FOUL TALK TO A PERSON THAT JUDGES. GOD IS EVERYTHING.Me Me
Me Me, if God sees all of us equally, then why should I accept your shaming?
Dear Mr. Wilson, I have just recently heard about and learned about some of your beliefs and views.
It is very apparent to anyone with even a smidge of reasoning ability that you sir are a complete nut. I’m sorry if the truth hurts, but so be it.
And if God does exist (highly unlikely or Trump would be in prison where he belongs, not the White House), then I’m certain that He is highly displeased with you.
Yours sincerely,Robert
Robert, ah, yes. But if there is no God, then there is no downside to being a complete nut. And there would be no such thing as truth, and consequently it couldn’t hurt me. And why should I be worried about the censures of a hypothetical Deity?
Regarding household voting in secular government elections: We will need to legally determine what constitutes a household. At what point, is a single woman independent of her parent’s authority? If the wife is a citizen and her husband isn’t, does she vote? These are some things that will need to be worked out in advance.Zeph
Zeph, yes. Reasonable points, and they would all need to be worked out in advance.
Just watched your segment on CNN about Christian Nationalism and thought it was terrific. Well done brother. Keep doing what you’re doing!Tony
Tony, thanks very much.
Books for Young Men
What would you list as the top five (or so) books for a mature young man of 16, specifically aimed at further developing a robust faith alongside a sense of place and purpose in life? Subject matter could be practical, theological, or biographical. (Bonus points given for each title available as an audiobook on Canon.)Collin
Collin, the books I would recommend along this line would be God at Work by Gene Veith, Rescuing Ambition by Dave Harvey, Thoughts for Young Men by J.C. Ryle, The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis, and my book Ploductivity.
Reject Scapegoating
There is no truly, faithfully Christian version of My-World-Is-Bad-Because-of-Them theory, neither the leftist version nor the rightist version. For the left, Them is capitalists, the patriarchy, white people, Randian figures, and sometimes the Jews. For the right, Them is the establishment, disloyal leaders, academia, Hollywood, and also, somehow, the Jews.
Moshe can’t catch a break; the Jew really is Emmanuel Goldstein forever and always. Orwell was a prophet, if an impious one.
But this is all syncretism.
The Christian truth is that my world is bad because of people like me. I’m a sinner. Perhaps you’ve heard of us. We’re everywhere. We do wrong all the time, and not just because we are short-sighted and incompetent; we authentically prefer doing wrong to doing right. It’s not just Jews who are like that. Gentiles are like that, too. Sinners aren’t Them. Sinners are Us. We’re all broken so badly we cannot fix ourselves.
But there is one who can fix us—a Jew, actually. The most famous one ever. In fact, He was called the King of the Jews during His earthly ministry. You may have heard of Him. He did the funniest thing ever. He actually came back from the dead after everyone, everywhere killed Him for no good reason! (Their reason wasn’t good. His reason was to sacrifice Himself for our redemption.)
And you can come back from the dead with Him and in Him. So come, and welcome to Lord JesusDaniel
Daniel, thanks.
On Postmill Worship
Re “Postmillenial Worship”: so far so good, but worship, and worshipers, are either humble before God, or self-satisfied which is pride which is sin. The earth shall be full of the knowledge of the glory of (triune) Jehovah. He’s perfect, we’re not; the best of us, in church services run (unlike much human activity) by the best of us, are not. So we need to keep improving. “Every man that has this hope in him is purifying himself as He is pure” (I John); if you’re not a puritan, you’re not a Christian. We thank God that we are not as those idolaters, nor as those baptists, nor even as those other presbyterians; but are we pressing on to take a hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of us? Say someone quotes “every man hath a Psalm” and suggests a church sing a new (or old) piece of music, not satisfied with its current reverence and beauty and vigor but adding some. Can it happen? What does it take? God is perfect. We are not. He has done plenty about it (Christ died for our sins, etc.) What does He want us to do? Are we doing it?Andrew
Andrew, that is always the question. Are we doing it? And the follow up is “how can we know?” Back to the Word.
A Parenting Question
On no post in particular, but about some of your parenting books:
I will start off by saying I’m a bit slow, so please forgive me if the answer to this question is obvious. I am a product of public education.
In your books on parenting, you emphasize the importance of using the rod. I took this originally to mean use it for every offense when they are little; but then I also read about times when you would have “little reigns of terror” where EVERY infraction would bring out the rod. Can you help me understand what this should look like on a regular basis, particularly when you aren’t going after every infraction? Thanks.
In Christ,Confused with a Wooden Spoon
CWAWS, it runs like this. In a household where things are basically stable and healthy, you will have a kid come in from the back yard whining about something. Mom stops him, and says something like, “Now go outside and come back in. Try again, sport.” He does so. When things are running like that, there is no need to crack down on every infraction with swats. But when this becomes a raggedy pattern with all the kids, you call a family meeting, and tell them that there will be a reign of terror for a few days until things are buttoned up again.
Not Yet
Don’t need my question posted ner nuthin’, but is the dedication service of your new church building available anywhere?David
David, not yet. It is in the works.
This letter is not in response to any particular post, but rather the concept of theonomy and how it would regard the freedom of religion. The main question is under a Christian government, which would be guided by Divine Law, how would other religions be treated? Would they be outright outlawed or would an Islamic style jizya type tax be levied against other religions or would you allow other religions to practice their beliefs and just simply deny them any office in government? I’d rather not assume totalitarianism in the name of Christ would be established, but I never truly know. So, perhaps a little more clarification would be in order before jumping to any conclusion. Thanks in advance!Chris
Chris, I would suggest something like this be added to the Westminster Confession:
“In a Christian nation, adherents of non-Christian religions, or those who claim to have no religion at all, are to be secure in their persons and property. Neither are they to be molested on account of their convictions, privately held and privately expressed. They may be residents in limited numbers, but not citizens, and all public offices and functions are open only to citizens.”
“In a Christian nation, adherents of non-Christian religions, or those who claim to have no religion at all, are to be secure in their persons and property. Neither are they to be molested on account of their convictions, privately held and privately expressed. They may be residents in limited numbers, but not citizens, and all public offices and functions are open only to citizens.”
Kuyperians
I recently heard a comment that the two most Kuyperian theologians/pastors of the last few decades were you and Tim Keller. By this I think they meant applying theology to all of life—think Keller’s emphasis on work and culture. I thought this was an interesting comment and I think I agree. If you think that has any merit, do you see any watershed differences between you that would lead to pretty different approaches and conclusions? One that stands out to me might be a different view of common grace. He often emphasizes things like “non-Christians could be way better at your job than Christians” and you often emphasize “Christ or chaos.” Thoughts?Cole
Cole, no, I don’t think we would differ on the structure of common grace. I think that we would differ on what sorts of things should be categorized as common grace. We would agree that there is such a thing as common grace, and that non-Christian scientists could be better at a particular field than a scientist who was a Christian. But he would say that an evolutionary biologist would be an example of that, and I would deny it.
Communion at Summer Camp
This is in response to your response to (ah, the internet . . . ) a fellow asking about communion at seminary chapel services in the Aug. 5th letters. I’ve been working at a Christian camp this summer, and this whole time I’ve had a very similar question about sacraments at camp (communion in chapel services with campers present with a barely-or un-fenced table, baptisms by camp counselors with mere parental permission). I came to a similar conclusion as you, namely that I can’t dogmatically exclude these things as unlawful because Scripture doesn’t define such rigid boundaries but that a greater connection with and oversight from a local church would be greatly preferred.
My question would be, what does “under the authority” of “the church” mean? Being an interdenominational camp, I’m sure they’d reply “but we are The Church!” which I imagine misses your point. I’m much more familiar with Baptist polity; are you saying e.g. that the teaching contained within the services should be approved by some High Council of Presbyterians, or that those running such a service should themselves be clergy in a particular nearby local church, or something else entirely?
While I don’t imagine the specifics of your answer will matter much for appraising our camp (women preach on occasion, etc. etc.), I also have a desire to pursue hospitality ministry in the future, and I’m curious about the propriety of communion (and other liturgical elements like preaching) at, say, a dinner party, esp. considering your Scripture reference about breaking bread in homes. It’s easy enough for someone like Rosaria Butterfield’s husband Kent to deliver a sermon to neighbors in their home because he is a pastor, but what about a layman? Appreciate your thoughts.
P.S. I should note that my sacramentology could be adequately described as “Gavin Ortlund fanboy” (spiritual-presence credobaptist with a sympathetic view toward young conversions), if that helps in tailoring your answer.Nicolas
Nicolas, the parachurch summer camp system is an excellent place to point when trying to explain why the whole thing gives me the willies. The central thing I would want to avoid is people just taking the honor to themselves. The elders of the church are responsible to see that the teaching that accompanies baptism and the Supper is sound and orthodox. I would say that a camp that wants accountability should go to an area church or churches and submit an outline of what they say and do, and ask for a blessing on it. That would be the minimum . . . and still not ideal.
A Tough One
My husband wants our family going to a Church of Christ congregation, and in short, they hold that children are not born sinful, and that in order to be saved you must choose Christ and “put Christ on in baptism.” I was baptized as an infant and so were my children. I know I am saved, but the church would consider me and my kids unsaved due to our infant baptism. I want to submit to my husband, but this has been very difficult. My oldest child now wants to be re-baptized due to the teachings at this church, although we know she has saving faith already. My husband is all good with her doing so. How ought a wife submit in a circumstance like this one?Caroline
Caroline, this really is going to be challenge for you. I believe that you are not in a position to prevent your husband from leading your children into the Church of Christ, baptism and all. The most you can do, and I think it would be significant, is refuse to accept their baptism yourself. If you clearly love the Lord, your “unbaptized” presence will be a walking refutation of that whole system. And I don’t believe a husband has the authority to require you to accept a spurious baptism.
Sign of the Cross
In your response to a recent letter asking about Protestants making the sign of the cross, you said, “As a public act, it is communication. And if a Protestant batter gets up to bat, and crosses himself, he just told thousands of spectators something erroneous. He just said, ‘I’m a Catholic,’ when he isn’t.”
Wouldn’t this also apply to the wearing of clerical collars—especially at the grocery store and other public places?Seth
Seth, yes. And that is part of the reason I don’t wear a collar.
A Course on Envy
Do you have any books, articles, resourses, etc. that explain more thoroughly about what you said about the insidious, hidden nature of envy?
You made some intriguing remarks about this, but I’m in the dark as to exactly what this looks like in the heart, etc.
I think I might have some of this envy in me, and by God’s grace I would like to see it and root it out of myself.
Thanks,Robert
Robert, I would recommend I See Satan Fall Like Lightning by Girard, and I believe there is a Girard anthology published as well. Also try his Theater of Envy. I can’t give Girard a full-throated endorsement because he takes it too far, but there are some invaluable insights there. If you want to know what my qualifications would be regarding his outlook on mimetic envy, look on this blog for any posts that have the tag It’s All in Girard, Man.
Caroline, as a Reformed credobaptist here are a couple of thoughts that may help you. The act of baptism is an act of obedience, The question is not when the child is baptized or if they are baptized twice. The question is, ARE THEY SAVED? I grew up in the church but I was never saved as a kid. A pastor pulled me aside and flat out told me, the well behaved member of a respectable church, that I was not saved and he was right. I wasn’t saved until my forties. Voddie Baucham has some good teaching on this.… Read more »
Jake, as an actual Reformed person, there is no such thing as a “Reformed Baptist.” You claim to be part of the Reformed tradition, yet every single Reformed confession without exception pushes away baptists as extremists who are outside our tradition, and are in significant error for having our children re-baptized. It’s unfair to claim to be part of the Reformed tradition, while you deny the inclusion of the entirety of the Reformed tradition within the visible church. You deny the validity of me, my Reformed children, all my Reformed friends and their Reformed children, and all my Reformed heroes… Read more »
Apply this same standard to non-denominational/non-seminarian Doug Wilson, who has been declared heretical by numerous Reformed denominations, and whose churches are denied communion with NAPARC.
Or apply it to nobody.
That is because your baptisms are conducted on a heretical basis.
Simple. Raised Baptist, become postmillenial. My church has a lot of people like me. A Confession isn’t Scripture. In Matthew 28, Jesus says, go teach baptize, not go baptize teach. Was Timothy a member of the Covenant, even though he wasn’t circumcised? Yes. He was a member of the covenant by the faith of his mother and grandmother. It is not baptism that makes a child a covenant member, it is the faith of the child’s parent. Baptism is an act of obedience. The big question is whose obedience is required? Romans 12 applies.
I replied to this last time it came up; every translation I’ve checked says go baptize teach. Where do you see go teach baptize?
KJV Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:”
Well, I stand corrected.
In my defense, I did look that up before commenting, and again just now, and I discovered that BibleGateway was showing me the NIV version, even though the drop-down menu said “King James Version.”
Looks like a number of the translations (KJV, AKJV) put “teach” where others (ASV, ESV, NIV, NKJV, NASB) put “make disciples.”
I didn’t answer last week, because I only looked at this website only once and didn’t see your question. A lot of godly people are on both sides of this question.
Simple. Raised Baptist, become postmillenial. My church has a lot of people like me. A Confession isn’t Scripture. Romans 14 applies.
“Reformed”? We have finished the reformation and are now, past tense, “Reformed”? God is perfect. We are not. Reformation is never finished this side of Glory or, eventually, Judgment Day.
So I don’t like the name “Reformed.” But I don’t lay down the law against it. It does convey meaning, including when “Reformed Baptists” use it. I don’t think they’re trying to boast; I think they’re trying to distinguish themselves from other baptists. “Particular Baptist” would need further explanation, more so than “Reformed Baptist;” less useful as a name. I don’t think RB confuses anyone; the “Baptist” part distinguishes it from such kind, humble TRs as yourself. As for trademarks (Reformed, Orthodox, Catholic): do unto others as you’d have them do unto you. You might or might not call yourself… Read more »
https://x.com/yourcalvinist/status/1947471564594675883?s=61
See London Baptist confession
Tyler – I am someone who has baptised those who were done as children. I have never been ordained to boot! The reason for this is your Tradition is not found in the scriptures. Those wishing to be baptised as believers had been told to thoroughly read the NT passages on this topic and make up their minds as to what the text actually says. There was no attempt at coercion. I have never known anyone who ever did this who didn’t come to the conclusion that they should get baptised after a sincere confession of faith. Were they to… Read more »
I’d ask people who believe in the Christ Church theology and approach to ask themselves; how did we get here? Is this really where we were meant to end up? Is it possible we took a wrong turn? Why have we made ourselves known for controversial and historically dubious views of southern slavery, for debating just how bad a wife has to be at doing the dishes before she is not a good wife, running through our theories of which precise laws we would or wouldn’t pass and what the rules of voting would be if we were put in… Read more »
I think this is a most impressive post, and I hope will garner equally thoughtful replies.
Hope so too (no time right now), but what if it gets the kind of replies Doug quoted at the beginning of this section?
Apart from the foul language which to me indicates the absence of an argument what struck me was criticism of male lust for power by women who wish to claim an equal right to lust for power!
It is impressive to those outside the circle, but those inside chose to be there over all other choices they could possibly have made. Remember that no one over the age of about 30 was born into any of these “covenantal” churches, they all chose them purposefully, mostly in adulthood. All of these issues with Doug were known this entire time, it is what attracted certain types of men — eg Pete Hegseth types, ie drunken abusers of women — in the first place. This type of man responds very positively when told that he should be more powerful than… Read more »
I really always enjoy your sales pitch for your position Buster. Its quite a marvel.
“Can’t you horrible evil selfish power hungry heretical monsters see that if you weren’t such awful pieces of garbage that you would be nice and kind and gentle like me!”
The pinnacle of niceness, kindness, and gentleness being, “I absolutely loathe, detest, hate, and wish death upon Trump, his entire administration, and everyone who voted for him!”
This is what happens when dead actors try their hand at armchair psychology rather than running locomotives off cliffs in Cottage Grove.
What happened to Buster’s “I’m almost done posting here. Then my work here will be complete and it will be clear what my purpose was” (not an exact quote–something like that).
That was like 3 weeks and 87 comments ago.
At least his comments have substance:)
Substance? It’s a bunch of self-congratulatory nonsense. But yes, he’s not quite as shallow as you are.
You must be completely out of the pool then:)
Agreed. And it gets the right people upset which is always entertaining.
What happened to you posting about how bad immigrants are but not a peep regarding Ghislaine Maxwell getting special treatment from the Trump admin? Think she’s cute or something?
All you have is guilt-by-association that’s aged like stale milk.
Meanwhile, I could show hundreds of examples of migrant invaders doing things like this. I suggest going offline and honing up on critical thinking skills you should’ve learned in grammar school, Christie.
What about the teens molested by evangelical ministers? Should we deport their congregations to CECOT?
The ministers, almost certainly.
I posited nothing about Trump’s guilt, but the fact is she has been moved to a low security prison and granted work release under Trump’s DOJ. Doesn’t that sort of leniency for an immigrant get you riled up? Or do you just think she’s cute?
So insightful. Do I need to post the picture of Ghislaine at Chelsea’s wedding? Maybe we could turn the whole discussion into one big gossip column.
Please do post the picture of Ghislaine at Chelsea Clinton’s wedding! Chelsea isn’t president, and we have no problem whatsoever with Bill being prosecuted.
Why do you have a problem with Donald being prosecuted? Ghislaine was trafficking girls out of Mar-a-Lago!
Bruh I’m all for outing the Clintons, bring it on! And it’s not gossip when Trump is granting leniency through a low security prison and work release to a sex trafficking pedophile who has committed perjury twice.
That was not “like 3 weeks ago”, that was last week.
And I never said that my purpose would be clear to you. It most certainly will not be.
The shadow boxing is really weak this Tuesday 🥱
The opposite of Trumpism is godliness, that is true.
Once again, Justin, I am not trying to persuade YOU of anything.
If these are honest questions they are odd ones. I don’t believe I should try to attribute specific errors to anyone simply because they don’t think and act like me, but I will say this: since I started reading Pastor Wilson’s work and joining a church that appreciates the same I have seen incredible spiritual fruit in my life and the lives of those around me. My wife is far happier, more fulfilled, and less anxious. Our kids love each other. Our church is full of joy and unity. Good works abound. Christ told us to judge prophets by their… Read more »
Sincere question: how long has it been? And how has it affected your relations with those outside of the CREC?
Several years. Less than a decade. I’ve never been part of the CREC so my relations with those outside the CREC are fine as mentioned above. Our church did face some external backlash over appreciation for Pastor Wilson but there haven’t been any other problems, whether theological or behavioral, between us and those around us.
Ah, you’re still a baby, only partially in the water. You’ll start to notice the wives having middle-aged nervous breakdowns (and/or suicidal episodes) a little later, perhaps. Right before that happens they are usually talking about how fulfilled they are. This has happened at least three times in churches that joined CREC after I became a member, and all of them were wives of elders who later became VERY vocal Trump fans; thankfully only one of them was successful in ending her own life, the others were saved by secular physicians after “Christian counseling” from CREC ministers made things exponentially… Read more »
Thanks for the words of warning. Our church has been consistent in theology, liturgy, and congregational life for about a decade now so I’m sure those problems will be cropping up shortly. And (un?)fortunately I’ve seen all those symptoms in various anti-DW churches I’ve attended in the past so I’ll know what to look for.
Yes, other churches with similar features have similar issues. Also a warning.
In that case, your pastor may not push the congregation into the CREC, and you may avoid some of the conflict produced in such circumstances. (The number of men who run to the CREC to avoid accountability elsewhere is very large; especially avoid these situations.)
Are you so sure? The early Christians were “known” for cannibalism, incest, and athiesm among the Gentiles and “known” for being unclean and rejecting Moses and the Law among the Jews. These were true servants, people on the right path, who did not misunderstand Jesus. As for Jesus, he was “known” for being a troublemaker, a glutton, a drunkard, a bastard, a friend of prostitutes and tax collectors, one who cast out demons by demonic authority, and worst, a blasphemer who made himself equal with God. We were warned by Jesus, Peter, Paul, and more that the world would misunderstand… Read more »
What if you are in Moscow and close to CREC churches and their members and still see the same thing? I have close proximity to each and can vouch for much of what was said, seeing my beautiful home, Moscow, overrun by these “Christians” and causing division rather than harmony with its community. They want to rule, to dominate. If you’re in Moscow, have you seen the Forged construction sign? proverbs 12:24 – the hand of the diligent will rule; but the lazy will be put to forced labor. Not something I want to “lord” over my non-Christian neighbors. Your… Read more »
Twenty-five years ago, downtown Moscow was a dump. The lazy did nothing to improve the town. Today, downtown is not trashy and improvement is from Christians working in town. Yes, the diligent are working steadily to make Moscow a town for Christ. E, if you live so close, you know that the spark keeping the controversy going is from Moscow’s homosexual group and those who support them. That includes lightweight Christians and our city government. The disharmony is then fed a bit more by liars online including those living near Moscow and Bell who came to disrupt, a straight indication… Read more »
Ha, you say those who hate God…how do you know? I assume I’m more familiar with Moscow than you…and it was certainly not a dump downtown because of lazy people, and then thank God she sent good Christian folks to clean it up. Just because someone is liberal doesn’t mean they hate God. Obviously, there are liars out there, but what about the liars in your camp promoting hate and division rather than love and unity? The great commission isn’t about dominion or domination…it’s about spreading the gospel, the good news of Jesus’ immense love for ALL people created in… Read more »
E, they didn’t do anything in Moscow. The country as a whole had a huge surge in college attendance from the 1990s, which is when subsidized student loans were passed by Bill Clinton and congressional Democrats. Full-time student enrollment in US colleges/universities increased by about 50% over the past 25 years (Dave’s specified length of time), which provided a huge demand stimulus in college towns nationwide. Nearly all college towns improved markedly over these years, most noticeably in their main downtown areas closer to campus. We have been in an Information Economy growth boom. Universities produce and distribute Information, thus… Read more »
Congressional democrats passed student loans in the ’90s? After president Clinton’s 1st two years, didn’t the GOP have majorities in congress the rest of the decade? (After two years of liberal disaster with Hillary, Bill was smart enough to dump her and shack up with Newt.)
The first iteration started before the GOP Congress was elected in 1994, re-authorizing Great Society legislation and rolling out a massively expanded direct-lending program that had been piloted under HW Bush:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_Act_of_1993
There were some minor tweaks later in the 1990s, then Obama made a few more, but the creation of a nationwide direct lending program of federally-subsidized student loans was done by Clinton.
We were warned by Jesus, Peter, Paul, and more that the world would misunderstand and revile us when we follow in His steps. When Doug claims to be misunderstood he is almost always referring to ecclesiastical audiences: is he FV or not? Is he confessional or not? Is he Reformed or not? These questions are not being asked by the world. Doug is most controversial within the church, and the role he plays in these communities is straightforward: he is schismatic. When the world recognizes what Doug is up to he proudly says “yep, that’s exactly what I’m after”. E.g.,… Read more »
Well, prosecution for putting up posters = persecution?
That’s called “law enforcement” — it was never in dispute whether they broke the law, they 100% did and did so with intent to injure– which is enough to get brown people deported to countries they have never set foot in. Besides, nothing came of it. White boys are a protected class in this country. When Doug’s family is faced with the barest possibility of ever having to face the barest consequent for intentional violation of the law they call it totalitarian. When brown families are round up by masked secret police and renditioned to Guatanamo or South Sudan or… Read more »
Actually it was very in dispute.
the law was against advertising not protest. Also that protest was because they were being persecuted for a psalm sing.
Persecuted for a psalm sing? Do you know what actually happened because it was not persecution…they were being a-holes, looking to get in the news with their stunts. Christians in America are absolutely not persecuted…it’s an odd fetish for y’all to have, but I guess it’s something like the religious version of bdsm.
If the US is anything like the UK some Christians who get into the limelight are very definitely being persecuted, even if as a rule what goes on on Sundays is still left alone. People have lost their jobs for not bowing down to LGBTQ or woke insanity.
Fortunately there is a group called Christian Concern with lawyers prepared to fight the antics of the secular and left, and this has had some success in reigning in grief given to Christians who wish to follow their conscience rather than the latest trend in idolatry.
“Grief” given to Christians…that’s the point…it’s not persecution.
Don’t hide behind the figleaf of the word ‘grief’. People have lost their jobs and had their careers ruined because their Christian convictions and conscience would not allow them to go along with the trendy flow. Sometimes even in Church of England schools! (I have kept up to date with this listening to Anglican Unscripted which deals with current Christian issues in the Anglican communion.) You could be arrested for appearing to be praying silently within about 150 yards of an abortion clinic. Literally the thought police will want to know what you were thinkings in case you were thinking… Read more »
“Why have we made ourselves known for controversial and historically dubious views of southern slavery, for debating just how bad a wife has to be at doing the dishes before she is not a good wife, running through our theories of which precise laws we would or wouldn’t pass and what the rules of voting would be if we were put in charge of a Christian government for this or that situation, parsing whether the things our pastor told courts were in fact the whole truth and nothing but it, putting out clever defences of foul speech, thinking that it’s… Read more »
“Doug did not seek out CNN to talk about voting policies. ”
Doug is the single most attention-seeking figure in all of “Reformed” Christianity.
Why CREC? Well, if the comments here are typical of CREC, and the comments quoted by Doug at the beginning of this letters post are typical of anti-CREC, would you agree there’s something to be said for CREC? /// Let pastor Wilson tell you how he got here. I think his theological growth had something to do with it. /// Me, I grew up fundamental baptist MK: Jesus saves and no other saves; the Bible is inerrant. I went to Covenant College and became Presbyterian; kept seeing other things pointed out in Scripture, which of course I’m reading myself too… Read more »
“Racism? Like pastor Wilson, I’m against it” Doug talks out of both sides of his mouth on nearly every subject, which is why he is so commonly “misunderstood”. What Doug wrote just last week: “Remember when American normies were being told that the “great replacement” idea was just a conspiracy theory that was only believed by skinheads and white supremacists? Now we are at the stage where we are being told that it already happened, and that it was a good thing too … They take away from white Americans a cultural identity … You know, things like ice cream… Read more »
Global financial crisis? Didn’t Barney Frank refuse to let Fannie and Freddie be reformed?
///
Jesus and a tableful of prostitutes and tax collectors with Pharisees looking on, who’s in charge? What kind of table is it?
///
US slavery was racist; segregation was racist; quotas are racist; DEI is racist, sexist racism chose justice Jackson and veep Harris; plenty of racism on the left. Right too I suppose, or fringes associated with it. Replacementarianism I didn’t see pastor Wilson endorsing in your quotes–he said we were told it’s nonsense, and we’re now being told it’s happened.
“Didn’t Barney Frank refuse to let Fannie and Freddie be reformed?” — No. Moreover, that’s not what caused the crisis, Fannie and Freddie performed better than the private sector in the crisis. Have you ever read a peer-reviewed study on this topic? Doesn’t sound like it. “What kind of table is it?” — Not a Nazi table! “quotas are racist” — that very much depends, but if this is *actually* your view then you must never demand representation again. “DEI is racist” — no it isn’t, and anyone who says so is fully ignorant on the topic. “sexist racism chose… Read more »
Nixon is possibly the worst example you could have chosen as we have no actual evidence he was involved
Sir, you were born from a woman. Without a woman, Jesus wouldn’t exist. If there’s God, he came out higher feminine power. Otherwise, why he would create humans to reproduce this way? Sadly, you have no respect for your own existence if you dare to foster such a hate speach.
If there is something higher than God than God is not God
Hopefully, you received more than one letter like Tony’s. I, for one, took no issue with the Christ Church representatives in the CNN segment.
I figured at least part of this week’s letters would be, as the kids say, “lit.” I was not disappointed. Some of the nonsense seems to have spilled over into the comments as well.
The kids stopped saying “lit” around 2005.
Not true, I was a kid until recently and we did still say “lit” well into the 20-teens
Thanks a lot for answering my question about envy, pastor Wilson.
I’m going to (re)read that post you linked to, and plan to buy/read beginning with the first of the books you mentioned.
“And if a Protestant batter gets up to bat, and crosses himself, he just told thousands of spectators something erroneous. He just said, ‘I’m a Catholic,’ when he isn’t.””
What?? Luther commended the sign of the cross before prayers and before communion. It has also held a place of honor among some strands of Anglicanism since the 16th century. It was a common practice of the church at least as far back as the 3rd century.
There is much more to protestantism than Geneva.
Anglican and Lutheran officiants have the option to use the sign of the cross at baptism. Priests/pastors and people of the higher sort might also use it at other times in public worship (and also in private worship).
But someone making the sign out in public is most likely Roman Catholic (or Orthodox), n’est-ce pas? And the high church Anglican doing it there will have to explain, “No, I’m not Roman.”
(Translation: “Is it not so?”)
Luther explicitly stated that Lutherans should cross themselves before prayer. It is right in the shorter catechism. American Lutherans stopped doing it because they were afraid if making a display of their faith. Anglicans have had different positions but crossing an infant in their baptism and then using the sign of the cross as a memorial of baptism, an invocation of the trinity, and a memento mori has been the majority position. Methodists, likewise, used to cross themselves due to their Anglican root. Crossing yourself is a heritage from the early church, labeling it as Popery is ahistorical nonsense. The… Read more »
Why do you cross yourself when someone else has a tragedy or accident? Why before driving, or taking a test? Why when you pass a church that has “Christ” in the tabernacle? Is it being used out of superstition or not? Is it for personal protection? An invocation of saints? A prayer for those in an accident, or who just died? Has God promised to help those who do it? It may not be “inherently” popish, but in a country where Catholics are the largest denomination, using it in public communicates “Catholic.” So it has fallen into disuse among Lutherans… Read more »
Any good thing is subject to misuse, but the misuse doesn’t invalidate the proper use. I certainly am not planning to look to Rome to determine what practices I can or should participate in! Crossing yourself has a number of distinct meanings including these: *remembrance of the Cross of Christ *remembrance that we are cross shaped people. The design of our body and the cross are not arbitrary, Christ took on a death that was made for the shape of us men and used it for our salvation. We are cruciform beings. *invoking Gods protection. Just as you would say… Read more »
Actually, it is supposed to be a free gesture, not something demanded of Christians (since 200 AD? So not by divine warrant?).
I doubt that you don’t care what it communicates to observers, since you write here what you intend by it. The question is, will folks get that message immediately, or will they need your explanation?
The meaning of a word is its general use, unless you have a personal or technical parlance. Protestants crossing themselves in public is idiosyncratic, and, without explanation, says “Roman Catholic.”
Right, that was not well articulated on my part. The counsel of the doctors of the church from Cyprian and Athanasius to Luther and Cranmer was to make the sign of the cross upon yourself. But it is not demanded, and it is a free gesture. I agree with you that you (I, we?) are always concerned about what your behavior, appearance, etc. communicate. However, that is a minor part of my decisions about how to behave. My point was that I am not going to conform my behavior to conform to the mistaken expectations of the masses. I also… Read more »
I use it to pray (often for salvations and sanctification)or express reverence or ask God to involve himself with some situation or thank Him for doing so. It’s a shorthand, including Trinity and two natures doctrine, much meaning depends on context. Use my left hand if right is busy, don’t care if hand ends up on left or right, add an upward gesture at the end, don’t claim any special power for it…
I think Catholics publicly making the sign of the cross outside their homes or churches is probably more common in movies than in real life these days. Eighty years ago, Catholics who walked past a Catholic church were encouraged to do a quick head bow (men were told to doff their hats but I have never seen anyone do that) but these pious practices (called sacramentals) are pretty rare these days, at least in public. Catholics traditionally begin and end prayer with the sign of the cross and the words “In the name of the Father, the Son, and the… Read more »
The point was that it happens with Catholics in movies. It is associated with Catholics in public opinion so you would be making them think you were Catholic. As a personal thing when you aren’t on a big screen there is no issue.
And you can tell the difference because the Orthodox cross themselves right to left rather than the other way round.
Do you have a good handle on why the traditions split? There seems to be a lot of speculation, but little fact.
Also, the use of the crossed fingers as a cross sign is very ancient and little used in the west today. I wonder why?
Historians and theologians disagree among themselves about which differences and disagreements were ultimately responsible for the split. As with so many things, the “final straw” may have been less consequential than all the straws that preceded it. My own view is that it was ultimately a disagreement about authority. The eastern tradition was less hierarchical; there was collegial, shared authority. In the western tradition, the pope was the absolute authority. Cardinals and bishops exercised authority delegated by the pope. The eastern tradition saw the pope as “first in honor;” Rome saw him as first in authority as well as honor.… Read more »
Thanks, Jill…. I wasn’t actually asking for the reasons behind the Great Schism! That is way too much for a combox!
I was just asking about left-right vs. right-left when crossing yourself.
Wherever I’ve seen an explanation attempted, it’s usually said that East and West learned the sign differently by mirroring the priestly large sign of the cross differently. The large sign is the extended right hand gesture over something or someone. Supposedly the priest’s large sign is (from his perspective) left to right in all locales.(If this is not true, the explanation doesn’t really work.) In the East, congregants proceeded to touch the right shoulder first, matching (from their perspective) the priest’s movement. (Somehow, Eastern priests perform their personal sign the same as their congregants.) In the West, congregants touched their… Read more »
I was told it’s to copy what the priest does when he blesses you. The Roman church did it the same way until the Middle Ages, and I have no idea why it changed. For a few years, I (though Catholic) attended an Episcopalian church that had a lot more in the way of ritual, bells, and smells than a typical Catholic mass. I noticed that they used the sign of the cross in ways Catholics typically don’t. When a priest needed everyone’s attention during the coffee hour in the parish hall, he raised his hand and said “In the… Read more »
Will have to, or, may have an opportunity to?
Will have to, if queried. I don’t think Protestants who cross themselves are particularly seeking an opportunity to share why they are not Roman Catholic, but I could be wrong.
You’d be right about me; if someone asks about it (never happened, hence “MAY have”), I’d say Christian and gospel of Christ; discuss “Catholic” only if it came up.
As a female voter, and yes I do have rights, I was the faithful wife, my husband cheated, left us with nothing and moved to a foreign country so I became head of our household, I worked many jobs to raise my children, I paid taxes all of my life, I retired at 66, I find your words and opinion of a woman’s place offensive and disgusting. You obviously have an unrealistic view of what a woman’s role is in a marriage, or what many women go through. I would not stay and submit, cook, clean, and wait hand and… Read more »
Sorry. I’d think a CREC church would excommunicate a proven adulterous man if he didn’t repent (anyone know if it’s happened?). Proven abuse, agreed to be serious enough, I think so, but those qualifications are rather steep. (Again, anyone know?) I’ve put it here (or to Doug?) that in a he said/she said situation, don’t punish anyone, but register the complaint–don’t blow it off–and maybe ask or require the accused to take specific precautions (e.g. the Billy Graham/Mike Pence rule.) A false accusation is as serious as the conduct accused of (equal penalties in law of Moses.) ///My parents had… Read more »
By Wilson’s own stated beliefs, he would grant a woman in your situation a divorce, freedom from submitting to your adulterous husband, and full voting rights in his church as head of household 👍
The comments about hating women/having low regard for women are hilarious. If you think Doug Wilson hates and fears strong women, you don’t know anything about his family.
His family are privileged and not “ordinary” women in their churches. Women are told they can’t preach or teach, so why then do Doug’s daughters get a pass and a platform? Because he makes exceptions for his own…plus they make him money and bring him sheep.
Nepotism at its finest.
Additionally… I do know things about his family. I first met them decades ago, and that comment is incorrect! Doug likes women just fine as long as they do exactly as he says at all times, and he hates them relentlessly as soon as they do not. Which is to say that he fears women having any power over him, in any domain, for any amount of time, ever, in any context. He also fears women having power over themselves, because that sets an example to other women that it is capable to live happy, healthy, productive lives without an… Read more »
They write books, but do they preach, or teach men, in church?
Even worse: their books are sold in many churches!
What does it matter?
Their books are primarily intended for a female audience, and nobody thinks that women can’t teach other women in the church–the Bible explicitly commands it. Also, we would make a distinction between a formal ecclesiastical office (limited to men) which is authoritative in nature, and simply the giving of advice, which we see mature women Christians in Scripture giving to less mature men (Acts 18). Obviously, these two points are not simultaneously relevant to your objection: if one holds, the other is unnecessary. But they’re both true and compatible, so you’d need to address both to refute my point…if their… Read more »
That’s weird. I think they’re fairly prototypical of a lot of CREC women, from my experience. Maybe you should actually spend some time in one or more of the Moscow CREC churches…we’d love to have you.
https://lifecenter.net/news/askpastorjoe/2018/doesnt-the-bible-say-women-shouldnt-preach/
I doubt you would “love to have me”…do you open your doors to anyone of any belief? Do you practice showing Jesus’ love to EVERYONE?
the cultural argument is a bad argument and can be used on any Bible verse. Once you start using it you can render any verse you don’t like irrelevant.
With regard to praying and prophesying, those are different categories from teaching and holding authority.
Yes and yes.
Actually there is a woman run CREC business that sells books in Arkansas.
Good anecdote
I was replying to the first comment about his daughters being exceptions