Despite Our Best Efforts, Letters Still Arrived

Sharing Options
Show Outline with Links

Fun Halloween Letter

Has it really been four years since that piece on Horror to which I responded? Having a large batch of children is like stepping into a time acceleration machine. As with a lot of your content on cultural issues, I agree with your premise but have concerns about the ambiguity of your advice.

“why on earth would you want them to dress up as something gross or vile or macabre or gruesome or cadaverous or ghastly or morbid?”

This is an entirely subjective standard. Anyone whose inclination is overly prudish, or cowardly, are anti-masculine, or severe in any regard can simply file any objection they like under “gross”. Anyone inclined to dress as something truly wicked can simply claim that the objector is falling into the first group.

Its a topic of particular interest to me having come up in Christian circles that consistently tried to micromanage their children’s culture while having no sensible standards by which to police that culture. Many of the most comically absurd parents would, on paper, have rules very much like you say . . . and then they would smugly condescend about parents who do not follow that rule . . . because they buy their children Count Chockula cereal. He is a vampire. That is technically a cadaver.

I remember in one instance I was at a school friend’s birthday party and had gotten them a game. After it was opened, the parent immediately took it away, and scolded both her daughter and me for the illicit material. See, it had a skeleton on the box. If it has a skeleton on the box, that must mean it worships evil. I tried to explain, the game is explicitly Christian. Overtly so. Bible verses and everything. That didn’t matter you see, it was “ghastly” and “morbid.

Love the content. Keep up God’s work. Bought my No Quarter November flag.

Post Script:

I have been reading on your positions on Calvinism and Paedobaptism, the two areas upon which we disagree, which I had asked about references for the last time I wrote. While I haven’t come around on Calvinism for reasons too wordy to put in this letter, I have come around on Paedobaptism. It wasn’t through any of the arguments on the topic I’d studied, which I have done quite extensively, but just listening to the Gospel. We recently had a temporary but extreme housing crisis, since resolved even better than our situation was previously, thank the Lord, but while I was moving all of our possessions twice in two weeks, I listened to the Geneva Bible on Canon+. When Christ ascended He commanded us to baptize. There was no qualification. Just do it. The burden of proof would then fall to me, the Credobaptist, to devise qualifications Jesus himself did not see as necessary to mention. I can’t. So I am now a Paedobaptist.


Justin, with regard to your postscript, you’re doing great. Just keep going. And good job on the flag too. With regard to your larger point about subjectivity, how this objection not apply to countless other judgment calls that parents are required to make? Like “that sweater is immodest”? And the fact that some parents will apply objective standards wrongly or hamhandedly (as they will) does not remove the need for such standards.

Family Starter Kit

First of all, thank you for your tireless output of bible based wisdom and good sense. Your teaching is wonderfully frank so I would like to ask you for recommended reading relating to pregnancy, new parenthood and being a federal husband. As you might guess from the last part I have found your family series which I intend to select from. Are there any others you would suggest? God bless you and your family,


Brian, I would start with Reforming Marriage, then Federal Husband, and then Why Children Matter.

Christian Nationalism Is Clearly All the Rage

In your article “On Shaking Off the Christian Nationalism JimJams” you seem to champion Christian nationalism. However, the way in which you describe Christian nationalism certainly would leave no room for Christians to be opposed. In other words, the only thing you seem to do is to ask, “in which society would you prefer to live?” If this is all that is involved as far as Christian nationalism is concerned, then I see no problem with one referring to themselves as a Christian nationalist, seeing as how one is only pointing out what they may prefer. The problem comes in when we have those who live in our society who are not Christians, who would prefer to live in a different kind of society? Christians should attempt to influence society by getting involved, (politics included) in order to attempt to persuade. However, when our persuasions fall on deaf ears, what options are left? Well, here in the U.S. we as Christians have the option to continue to live as we wish, without attempting to mandate that all others must, and have to do the same. Therein lies the problem. Because you see, I am convinced Christian nationalism involves far more for many Christians than simply what they would prefer. Maybe you know some of the Christians I am referring to, who believe we should infuse the Mosaic law, with all its penal codes into our civil law here in the U.S.? You know, like R.J. Rushdoony? Doug, the questions you need to answer here are, do you believe the general equity of the Mosaic law with its penal code should be enforced in our civil law here in the U.S.? Next, is this your aim? If so, then it certainly seems as if Christian nationalism for you involves far more than simply what you would prefer. Rather, it would seem as if you would like to enforce what it is you prefer upon others. You are indeed a champion of R.J. Rushdoony and his book “Politics of Guilt and Pity,” and Rushdoony was certainly in favor of such a thing. Therefore, since you are a champion of Rushdoony then you either need to explain you are not in agreement with Rushdoony on this matter or come out and own the fact that Christian nationalism would involve far more for you than what you would prefer. If this is the case, then you should stop attempting to shame Christians for not being on board with Christian nationalism as if it were simply what one would prefer.

Jeff Durbin does this same sort of thing. Durbin suggests Christian nationalism is simply a desire to see all people from all nations coming to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. Again, if this is all that is involved in Christian nationalism then you can count me in. The problem is, we all know for a fact there are Christians who champion Christian nationalism who goes further than simply having this desire. This should demonstrate to us clearly that we as Christians cannot even come to an agreement ourselves, but somehow, we want Christians to take control? Therefore, it seems to me we as Christians have enough trouble attempting to take care of our own affairs, without being concerned about the affairs of those outside the faith. As you yourself have acknowledged elsewhere, we as Christians are free to associate with the immoral of the world. However, we are commanded not to associate with an immoral brother, or sister. The reason we are free to associate with the immoral of the world is as Paul says, “what do I have to do with judging those outside”? This should put to rest the idea that we as Christians are to rule the world.


Jack, when I ask “which would you prefer” I am not basing which way we go on our preferences. The direction was set for us in the Great Commission, which requires us to disciple all the nations—which means Christian nationalism everywhere. We are under orders. The question about preference is meant to refute the scare tactic which says that Christian nationalism would necessarily be a totalitarian hellhole. Well, if Christian critics of Christian nationalism would themselves prefer to live there, then it wouldn’t be a hellhole, right? And I have a little trouble with your last argument from 1 Cor. 6 because v. 2 of that chapter says “Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?” (1 Corinthians 6:2).

You make a cogent and compelling argument regarding the name, “Christian Nationalism,” and you will convince 10 or 20,000 folks sitting in the choir. The other 300 million hear “National Socialism.” The left is revving up their balers because they have plenty of hay to make from this branding.


DCH, I grant that this is what they want to do. That is their play, but they are going to run that play regardless of whether we own the term. And out of all the terms that they are going to insist describe us, I think this one is actually defensible—especially since their project is in advanced stages of decay. They might be surprised at the reaction from middle America when they shout, “The Christian nationalists are coming to take away drag queens from library story hour!”

Regarding “On Shaking Off the Christian Nationalism JimJams”: It’s a great idea to clarify that Christians must believe in some level of organization, whether tribal, national, or international/globalist, but I think you missed two other important categories—there are also anarchists, and there are also (too many of) those who are unthinking/apathetic/blind to the world around them.


Ian, for the apathetic, that just means they are lethargic and waiting for somebody else to assign one of the three options to them. And the anarchists are not apathetic, but if they bring in their option it will only be fifteen minutes before the warlords take over, and we are into tribalism.

Infidelity in Marriage, Forgiveness and Trust

I’d like some clarification on your response to a letter about forgiving a cheating husband. You said: “I think we have to make a distinction because for Christians forgiveness is mandatory, and according to Scripture a reconciliation is not mandatory. “ I was taught that forgiveness requires reconciliation, and where there is no reconciliation then there is no forgiveness. The biblical defense for this view was that we are told multiple places in the New Testament to forgive as Christ has forgiven us. And He does not forgive us but then neglect to reconcile with us.

This teaching made a lot of sense to me, it seemed to check out in Scripture, and I’ve been dutifully following it ever since. So I was surprised to see you say that reconciliation and forgiveness do not necessarily go hand in hand.

Can you please explain briefly how Scripture does not teach that forgiveness and reconciliation must be linked?


Megan, sure. Let me illustrate with another office. Suppose a pastor is caught having had multiple adulterous affairs. To keep the illustration plain, let us say that he is sincerely and genuinely repentant. Him being restored to the fellowship of the church is clearly a possibility, meaning that he can and should come back to the Table. But he should still be defrocked. He must be defrocked. His disqualification from office is not the same thing as being unforgiven. He is forgiven, but consequences still apply. And if he reasoned that because he was forgiven, he should still get to be the pastor, I would take this as evidence that he was not really repentant.

In your recent two paths back to trust, you said:

“A cheating husband could ask for forgiveness from his wife, and genuinely receive it, and still find himself divorced. An employee who helped himself from the cash register from time to time could seek forgiveness from his boss, and receive that forgiveness, and still get fired. “

In Matthew 18, Jesus tells a parable about a man who owed the king ten thousand talents, and after begging and pleading with the king, the king forgave the debt and let him go free. That is is stark contrast with the “forgiveness” of the wife and boss in your examples. In the parable, the forgiven man then goes on to demand one hundred denarii from another man that owes him. Then the king calls him in and asked him about it. How would it sound if the man said “Oh, I forgave him, but that doesn’t mean he won’t go to jail. Forgiveness and trust are different!” The king would not be impressed with that weaselly answer.

Trust guides our future actions. Maybe the king doesn’t trust the man, and so won’t lend him any more money. But he doesn’t go to jail because he is forgiven. Can you reconcile the forgiveness in your examples with this parable?



Joel, that is a good counter argument. I would want to distinguish forgiving a debt and forgiving a man. And I think the parable presents larger difficulties for those who would separate consequences from any possible future behavior. The unforgiving servant winds up in the slammer, neither trusted nor forgiven. If we applied this to marriage, we would have say that if a husband was unfaithful with multiple women, provided he always said he was remorseful, his wife would be stuck. But then if we took it one step further, we would have to say that if the wife subsequently caught him shopping for lingerie (each outfit costing 100 denarii), she could divorce him then. Which doesn’t make sense to me.

My Dodgy Ordination

Uncle Doug,

I recognize it must be wearisome, even for an anarchic personality, to have to wrangle with many-times-resurrected horses, yet I wonder if your plans for world domination (and the cause of Messiah even on a non-post-mil view) might be helped by a published summary from your perspective of the origins and history of your pastorship.

Especially troubling to me have been accusations made by Nick Gier about dishonesty with regard to an allegedly purported signed document (in the first part of his series on your “religious empire”, which series is fairly prominent in Google results).

After a decent chunk of time swimming in obscure details, I’ve found some comfort that Gier may not be a particularly reliable source on these matters, but still, I think a reasonable citizen who may want to benefit from and promulgate your teachings may be hindered in doing so after reading such accusations and not finding a clear explanation or repentance from you.

With love and respect,


C.J., thanks much. You are right that Gier is not a reliable source. An account of how I was brought into the ministry has been published—the details are found in the epilogue to Mother Kirk. The short form is that my ordination by the church was irregular, in a seventies weirdness kind of way, but not ephemeral.

Scriptural Aesthetic Standards

I have greatly appreciated your podcasts addressing the issues with ethical and artistic relativism.

I have a question I would love your help answering:

What are the objective tests/standards from Scripture we can use to evaluate music and art?

Thank you in advance for your help and I look forward to hearing from you.

Your brother in Christ,


James, this is obviously an enormous subject, but I would divide it into two parts. The first would be to establish from Scripture that such a thing as beauty and aesthetic skill exist and are objectively there. Play psalms skillfully (Ps. 33:3), the Spirit came on Bezalel to equip him for his cunning work (Ex 36:1). the Temple choir required talent (1 Chron. 15:22), and so on. The second step would be to study the Scriptures for teaching on and examples of basic aesthetic principles. For example, the Bible contains many examples of poetry, from which we can learn the value of simplicity, balance, repetition, and so on.

Abortion and Baptism

This question comes out of a desire for unity among the brethren and an attempt to clarify my own thinking as we work through this as a church. Some of these thoughts were actually prompted by the line during the recent Georgia Senate Debate when Herschel Walker asked Raphael Warnock, “If black lives matter, why are you not protecting those babies? And instead of aborting those babies why are you not baptizing those babies?” Not sure how engaged Walker is in the credo/peado discussions, but . . . How is waiting for a child to develop in maturity before the church administers baptism substantially different for covenantal paedobaptists and covenantal credobaptists? They both delay the sign. The former for the child to emerge from the mother’s womb while the latter waits for the child to emerge from the father’s household.

Or another way of putting it, why don’t paedobaptists sprinkle pregnant bellies? Waiting until after delivery seems to give credence to the pro-abortion rationale. Would a consistent pro-life, paedobaptist practice be to sprinkle as soon as life was detected? Get the baptism in before the pregnant momma takes communion next, ha!

Also, could it be that covenantal credobaptists who raise their children as Christians (e.g., pray, repent, forgive, etc.) and to meaningfully participate in church (e.g., singing, saying “Amen,” raising hands, etc.) can have quite a strong view of federal headship since their children function as Christians under their father’s baptism instead of their individual baptism?

It seems that the gains of each approach results in the loss of something worth striving for. Covenantal credobaptists strive to limit the number of unbelievers who are given the covenant sign at the risk of keeping the sign from true believers, while covenantal paedobaptists strive to limit the number of true believers who do not receive the sign at the risk of giving the sign to unbelievers.

I send this chuckling at the memory of your slip at the Grace Agenda men’s seminar this year referencing the “1689 Project” instead of “1619 Project.”


Paul, you raise a curious question. The problem is that to baptize a baby that way would be to allow baptism by proxy—you are actually baptizing the mother, again. This would make baptism a mediated sacrament, which I don’t think anyone wants.

A Good Illustration

Geologic rock strata can be interpreted as representing millions of years or the catastrophic activity of single event. If radiometric dating is to be believed, then there was presumably plenty of time for all the slimy things to evolve into less slimy, ambulatory things. However, if the dating points to a catastrophic cause, this means there was no time for geologic, biologic or chemical evolution, and you then have to wrestle with the very real possibility of a God staring you in the face, all because of the dating.

It seems to me the dating of the book of Revelation, 90’s or 60’s AD, has similar implications for eschatology as well. If John was writing in the 60’s before the fall of Jerusalem and the apocalyptic poetry can be attributed to that time period, it seems like it excludes the possibility of those prophecies also being in our future, as a premillennialist would think,. In this case, we find ourselves forced to do some serious exegetical acrobatics, or potentially change the way we view the entire Bible and what we presumed was God’s plan A.

Would you agree that the dating of the book has such an implication for how we view eschatology, or am I overstating it’s importance? Also, do you think it is possible for someone to read Revelation and the Olivet discourse, accept them as referring to the Jewish wars and destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and still hold to a premillennial eschatology?



Tim, your second question first. Yes, premills can take on a first century fulfillment of those prophecies by understanding them as prophecies with a double fulfillment. That said, with regard to your basic point, I believe that an early date for Revelation virtually necessitates a particular eschatological position. And I take Revelation that way, as written prior to 70 AD..

A Mental Virus

Thanks for all your labor on behalf of Christ and the Church.

I was wondering if you might offer some advice. Specifically, I have been struggling with what I can only describe as a mental virus. Allow me to describe. It seems that in our age, we have been infected with the tendency to double-speak. Post-modern man so carefully parses his words and polices others’, so as to buttress certain false realities. As one who is perhaps too sensitive to language, I have unfortunately been beset with this tendency. I find myself unwittingly, unwillingly monitoring my speech and others. It’s very 1984-esque, this awful sensitivity to language, and I find myself like Winston Smith, feeling increasingly besieged. It’s like I’m Big Brother to myself.

I have been spending time in the Word, and I know that it is *the* antidote we have been given (Romans 12:2). I have been meditating on and memorizing Scripture. Still, the spirit of the age seems to have settled into my language centers, constantly offering its political commentary on texts, both spoken and written—noting pronoun usage, sniffing out the slightest instances of virtue signaling, etc.

Beyond spending time in the Word and in prayer, what can a man do? I feel so horribly hounded, and am afraid that should I share this with another, his response will simply be, “Wow—you totally need a therapist.”

Any books, beyond the Book, that you might recommend as a corrective to my malaise? Courses of action? Sometimes the anguish of it all makes one want to head for the hills.

Yours in Christ,


CAL, I would recommend you read Orwell’s The Politics of the English Language. And then Animal Farm.

Men’s Forum

Not in regard to a particular post, but having just finished Mother Kirk, I am interested to learn more about your Men’s Forum. Where might in find additional information?


Jay, we held them regularly when the church was small enough to do that. Now it is more occasional and ad hoc. And I am sorry I don’t have anything written on it.

The Size of the Thing

Wondering your thoughts on Brion McClanahan’s view that the US is simply too big, that we should focus on regional govt’s instead of national ones, and how this might apply to Christian Nationalism.

He shows, historically, how States have the right to secede and makes good cases for ‘originalism.’


Rocky, that may well happen, although I believe that if it does it will not be a matter of size, but rather of a loss of shared faith. And if a region does not have a shared faith, it can fragment even further. As far as the right to secession goes, he is correct. In fact, about three of the states ratified the Constitution with the express rider that they had the right to withdraw.

Loan Forgiveness

As far as student loan forgiveness, why can we not just accept the forgiveness with the similar thought of Joseph—they meant it for evil, but God meant it for good (Gen 50:20)? If they wipe my debt out, I’m certainly not going to vote for Biden, and I didn’t vote for him in the first place. Just because someone else acts in an evil way and it benefits me and others, does not mean I always need to give up the benefits, does it? Otherwise, shouldn’t Joseph have renounced his title as a ruler in Egypt, and not have helped all those people live another day? Also, all those people that ate the food that Joseph provided should have gone hungry, because otherwise they would be complicit in the evil perpetrated on Joseph?

If someone confiscates a pirate ship with gold and silver that was stolen. And lets say it’s not possible to return it to the rightful owners, because it’s not known who they are. Is it wrong use that to the benefit of the society that confiscated it?


TR. there is a point where you have a point. Let us say that the president tyrannically disbanded the company you owed money to, and declared all their accounts receivable null and void. There would be nothing you could do about it. But so long as there is something you could do about it, I believe it is a better testimony for Christians not to participate in the looting.

Almost Uncanny

“The globalists are the Tisroc, the nationalists are fighting alongside King Tirian, and the tribalists are the dwarves, shooting the horses.” I just finished reading through The Last Battle a couple of nights ago for the umpteenth time. Does anyone else have the same feeling about things right now as I do when reading through the first 2/3 of it?


grh, yes. Nancy and I just finished it a few days ago. Certain ungodly things simply stay the same always, and Lewis saw them clearly.

Quite a Tangle

Thank you for your reply regarding the appropriate response to apostasy. I wanted to follow up with more details of the situation in case you could help with the three specific questions at the end of this letter.

I was married nine years ago to my wife. Seven months after being married, my wife and I visited her parents in Germany, where her parents worked as missionaries. They had been missionaries there for 15 years. During that visit, my father-in-law announced to my wife and me and my two sisters-in-law that he no longer believed in God. Having grown up in the church, having professed faith from young adulthood, and having served as a missionary with a mission organisation, he had now come to the point of no longer calling himself a Christian. My wife states that as a teenager at home, she had seen her dad struggle particularly with the doctrine of predestination and balk at the teaching that a sovereign and good God allowed people to suffer greatly. In his quest to reconcile for himself the seemingly incompatible realities of a good God and the prevalence of evil and suffering, her father explored Arminianism and universalism, eventually giving up entirely because he could find no answers to satisfy himself. My wife’s parents resigned from missionary service and returned to Australia roughly six months after my father-in-law told us that he had given up the faith. A letter from the missionary society told supporters that my father-in-law had resigned due to struggles with core Christian beliefs.

I was troubled by the way our church responded to my father-in-law’s denial of the faith. I came to believe that not only a period of mourning in the church was appropriate, but that my wife’s father should receive church discipline, including excommunication, in the hope of his being brought to repentance and restored to Christ and to the church. I based these beliefs on passages such as 1 Corinthians 5, where the man who has borne the name of brother sins in a defiant way and receives dissociation as a consequence. Also Matthew 18 and 1 Timothy 1:20. My wife and I had little contact and strained relationships with my parents-in-law while I was seeking to convince our church leaders that church discipline needed to be exercised. During this time, our first son was born. That was way back in 2015. Since then, we have spent some time overseas and also time back in the same city as my parents-in-law where we have had semi-peaceful relations, despite ongoing unease about the situation. My mother-in-law still professes the faith but goes to a different church to my wife and me.

My wife and I now have three children. In June this year, I sent my father-in-law an email severing contact between my wife and I, and my parents-in-law. I had been troubled again over continuing to relate with my father-in-law as if he had not left the faith. Our daughter, Elizabeth, was to be baptised on the 19th of June—this was a catalyst for my thinking again on the subject of my father-in-law’s apostasy because we had originally invited my parents to the baptism. Obviously, my father-in-law no longer attends church. However, on reflection, I thought it was wrong to invite him to celebrate our daughter’s union with Christ in baptism when he is crucifying Christ all over again (Hebrews 6:6). My father-in-law has also recently published a book of poetry including a poem which denies the existence of God. I understand that a senior leader in our church wrote a foreword to that book, which said something along the lines that my father-in-law’s journey was not over yet. I felt like something was out of place there, because it seemed to condone my father-in-law’s apostasy. Since sending that email, I have been encouraged to re-establish contact with my parents-in-law by others in the church, people who disagree with excommunication as being the appropriate response. So, I met with my father-in-law and mother-in-law separately recently. However, I am still confused. I have also begun looking at passages such as Matthew 12:31-32 and 1 John 5:16 about the unforgiveable sin (which Calvin thought was apostasy) and Deuteronomy 13 and 17.

Much tumult has resulted from my sending that email in June. When our minister became aware of it, he visited us and said that he would not baptise Elizabeth on the 19th of June. He subsequently told my wife that he couldn’t baptise Elizabeth unless we invite my parents-in-law to the baptism service. Our minister and I disagree about how to act towards my parents-in-law in this situation. Someone in our church told me that Jesus showed grace to Judas (his betrayer) right up until the end, so I should show grace to my father-in-law (something that G.I. Williamson disagrees with, in his treatment of the unforgivable sin in his book The Westminster Confession of Faith, at p 214, 2004 edition). I realise that excommunication is for the church pastors to do, but in a way my father-in-law has excommunicated himself by leaving the church. What does this mean for our relations with him and his professing wife now?

The three questions I have are:

1.) Should the church excommunicate my father-in-law?

2.) Should I invite my parents-in-law to the baptism?

3.) Should my wife and I have friendly relations with my parents-in-law (i.e. birthday lunches, Christmas celebration, let our children have sleep overs with them, etc)?

With thanks,


David, I am very sorry for your tangle. I am also sorry that I can’t go into all the reasoning behind my answers, but I trust I can at least indicate the direction of that reasoning. Yes, if your father-in-law was a member of the church, then his denial of the faith means that he should be excommunicated. And excommunication does not mean that his “story is over.” It simply means that the church is recognizing where things stand right now. That said, I think that unbelievers should be welcome at baptisms, as should your father-in-law be. He should not be asked to offer a prayer or anything, obviously, but to be present ought not to be a problem. And last, I think that you should seek to have cordial relations with them, as far as is possible with your conscience and the well-being of your kids. There are times when grand kids ought not to be left with grandparents, but I don’t think that should be decided just because of their unbelieving status. So the answer there would be, it depends. If there is porn all over the place, then no. If they are sensitive people who don’t believe in God, but who keep that to themselves, not sowing doubts in the grandkids, then yes.

But with all this said, it should not go unremarked that your church does practice church discipline. They applied a more severe restriction on you than they have done on your father-in-law. They are withholding a sacrament from you because you are “judgmental,” while not withholding anything from someone who has denied everything. We see, yet again, that discipline is inescapable.

Song Time

My family has started a “song time” after dinner to sing fun songs and teach them the joy of music. What songs did you enjoy playing for your children and grand children?


Sky, in addition to various hymns and Scripture songs, we also had what I call “dumb grandkid songs.” The songs below were recorded once for some of my grandkids when they were in England.

Kevin DeYoung

I’m not sure how much you follow Kevin DeYoung. I’ve greatly appreciated the some articles he’s written recently. Specifically one about Christians having more children, links here and here.

1. Is it just me, or does it seem like Mr DeYoung has been on fire since leaving TGC? He seems to care less and less about being at the cool kids table.

“Just once I’d like to see a Christian college spotlight a stay-at-home mom in its alumni magazine. From the way Christian schools market themselves, you would never imagine that most of their women graduates become mothers or that normal family life is an honorable calling.”

“The Bible never says “Thou must finish thine education before marriage,” or “backpack through Europe before marriage,” or “make time to binge-watch Netflix before marriage.” The Bible does say that it is better to marry than to burn”

Great stuff. The gloves have come off and he’s writing more like you every day. I’m enjoying it.

2. I’m thankful to attend a church where 4-5 kids in a family is much more the norm than 1-2. However, one thing I have noticed is that some families that have the most children (and most outspoken about the need for large families) are the ones led by men who do the least to help their wives with the extra work of those large families. I hear phrases like, “not my job to change the diapers.” So while I do appreciate many of your encouragements in the areas of husbands and wives each attending to their respective roles and thriving in them, certain quarters of the American church could use the gentle encouragement of, “hey, help your wife out a little bit you blockhead.”



Nate, yes, I appreciate Kevin DeYoung. And with regard to men who have strong opinions about lotsa kids, and equally strong opinions about the need to contribute little after begetting them, I have seen some really unfortunate consequences of this attitude. Such men seem to want to be little more than breeding farms for the secularists.

Glad for It

Your words have consistently come as an encouragement to me at my lowest moments. Thank you, and praise be to God.

Best regards,


Wyatt, thank you, and thank the Lord.

Our Church Building?

Long time listener, second time e-mailer: keep up the good work. Is there a way for folks to keep up with the Christ Church building project? Any updates? I’m sure i am not the only one chomping at the bit to see the good Lord’s work over there. Very excited.

May He still Bless,


Cole, thanks. As it happened, we just now cleared the final permitting process, and had a ground breaking ceremony last Sunday. I will post progress reports here from time to time.

No Real Option

What do we do when we have no choice bu to go to the corrupt institution because they are the only option we have? I married my wife in April and we got pregnant soon after. We were devastated yesterday when our midwife told us our ultrasound revealed abnormalities in our daughter’s heart and brain. We are now at the mercy of the corrupt medical system in Grand Rapids, MI whose local children hospital (DeVos) refused a kidney transplant for a Ukrainian orphan whose adoptive parents did not allow their daughter to be a COVID lab rat and then whistled CPS on them for refusing the statist sacrament. Please pray that God will allow my daughter Ashlee to live a full, healthy life. Thank you.



Brent, very sorry for your trial. But using the system in circumstances like yours should not be a conscience issue at all. And all, please pray for this little girl.

NQN Flag

Have been blessed with your Mablog content for many years now and just recently moved to Moscow. Is there any way I can get my hands on an NQN flag to help usher in this happy season?


H.S. yes, I believe they are in stock down at Canon Press. Just head on down.

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
1 year ago

Thanks for those songs. I’m sure I will remember some to sing to my grandkids!

CAL, I can relate to your plight somewhat and am encouraged you are looking to God’s word for help. I am going to check out those 2 George Orwell books Doug Wilson mentioned.

Last edited 1 year ago by RobertandVicki Wood
1 year ago

I am sorry for what your family is going through. My niece also had some extreme medical conditions. Her parents (my sister and brother in law) did end up traveling a bit for her medical care. I encourage you to do some research about other hospitals, you don’t have to be stuck there if you don’t want to be.
God Bless,

Brent Hartnett
Brent Hartnett
1 year ago
Reply to  Joel

Dear Joel,

My daughter is terminal. She has a deformed face, heart, and brain and will die either in the womb or shortly after birth. The medical staff were good and saw our grief. Please pray for my wife and I.



Dan H
1 year ago
Reply to  Brent Hartnett

God be with you Brent. I’ll be praying, especially for your next ones too.

1 year ago

Joel, I just submitted this letter and thought it was worth replying here as well: “He is forgiven, but consequences still apply.”“I would want to distinguish forgiving a debt and forgiving a man.” Some months ago, you replied to a letter that asked about forgiveness and consequences and those who make it their mission to ensure the full measure of consequences are experienced by the offender. I believe you called them “The Holy Spirit’s personal assistants” or something like that. I’m having a hard time reconciling that thought with the subject matter of the quotes above. Particularly when I apply… Read more »

Dan H
1 year ago
Reply to  grh

I felt the same as you on this grh. You’re not alone. The responses to the question felt disconnected.

Zeph .
Zeph .
1 year ago

David, even though your father-in-law has renounced, your wife still has the obligation to help him when he is elderly. Honor your father and mother is still in play.

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
1 year ago

The thing that needs to be objective is what qualifies as a sin. I’m glad you used immodesty as your example, as it happens to be the example for which I have a ready made response. In Mere Christianity, a book I’m sure you’re familiar with, Lewis discusses the standard for sinfulness in immodesty. He also draws the important distinction between immodesty and impropriety. “When people break the rule of propriety current in their own time and place, if they do so in order to excite lust in themselves or others, then are offending against chastity, but if they break… Read more »

john k
john k
1 year ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

Romans 14?

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
1 year ago
Reply to  john k

You’ll have to be more clear with what you mean to say *about* Romans 14.

Good chapter though. Overlooked.

John k
John k
1 year ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

Objective truth about sin is not the whole story. Something objectively okay can be sinful if the conscience is ill-informed. We bear with ill-informed subjective judgment calls presented as objective truth because fellow-servants are answerable to the Lord, and not to one another.

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
1 year ago
Reply to  John k

“Something objectively okay can be sinful if the conscience is ill-informed.” That sin is still objective, its just extremely difficult to detect from our perspective. Whether or not there’s sea life at the bottom of the ocean in one spot at one time is still a matter of object, measurable truth, I’m just not someone in ownership of that information. I can still, however, clearly define the parameters of what it means when I describe what deep sea life is like. This is true, it just doesn’t interact with my point. “We bear with ill-informed subjective judgment calls presented as… Read more »

Last edited 1 year ago by Justin Parris
John k
John k
1 year ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

Objecting to a skeleton can be borne with, no?

The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
1 year ago

Nate, Slate (of all places!) had an article in 2013 entitled, “Guys Who Do Housework Get Less Sex”, which was based on a study in the American Sociological Review. I’d link it, but my linking privileges were revoked a long time ago. 

It’s an interesting article. Check it out. And afterward, if you still feel the need to “encourage” the “blockheads”, well, that’s your prerogative, but I can think of better things to do with one’s time than argue with results.

1 year ago

Here you go.
Guys Who Do Housework Get Less Sex (

Interestingly, the article mentions Naomi Wolf, a leftist feminist at the time. She’s now been completely red pilled on COVID and other issues.

1 year ago

Re: Jack “we as Christians cannot even come to an agreement ourselves, but somehow, we want Christians to take control? Therefore, it seems to me we as Christians have enough trouble attempting to take care of our own affairs, without being concerned about the affairs of those outside the faith.” Great stuff, Jack. Christians can’t even agree on baptism, so we should let our moral and intellectual superiors run the world. You know, the folks who think ripping children out of the womb is a wonderful thing. The ones who believe there are hundreds of genders and the “God created… Read more »

Jack O'neal Hanley
Jack O'neal Hanley
1 year ago
Reply to  Cherrera

I do not recall saying a thing in the world about us as Christians disagreeing on baptism? Rather, what I am talking about is the fact that not all Christians agree with Christian nationalism, nor what it would be, nor how in the world it would operate. And yet, we have Christians who seem to want to rule the world. So then, either you acknowledge the fact that not all of us as Christians agree on Christian nationalism? Or I guess you can insist those of us who are not on board are not really Christian?  As far as abortion… Read more »

1 year ago
Reply to  Cherrera

RE “mass formation psychosis”… The official framing of the mass formation (or mass psychosis) “phenomenon” is misleading and wrong in terms of what the whole true reality is. The false hope-addicted psychologists and their acolytes want you to believe this is “just some temporary occasional” madness by the masses when it is but a spike of a CHRONIC madness going on for aeons with “civilized” people — read The 2 Married Pink Elephants In The Historical Room –The Holocaustal Covid-19 Coronavirus Madness: A Sociological Perspective & Historical Assessment Of The Covid “Phenomenon” One of these mainstream psychologists who have been spreading this whitewashed reality, Dr. Desmet,… Read more »

1 year ago

I had to post this because I at least thought it would give a chuckle.

1 year ago

Christian Nationalism is just another dead end purposefully set up to keep White people from taking their own side while they are dispossessed,