Letters During Remember-Lot’s-Wife Month

Do you think Independent Fundamentalist Baptists should be regarded as Protestants? Ordinarily, I would recognize any Nicene Trinitarian who isn’t in communion (and doesn’t aspire to be in communion) with Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy as a fellow Protestant. The reason I hesitate with IFBs is that they seem to be devoid of any doctrine or practice of catholicity. What are your thoughts about this?

Daniel

What biblical/practical advice would you give to help a young and godly mother with multiple small children who does not have family that lives close, and feels overwhelmed at times. Particularly, how do you best counsel that mother when all three kids are crying, the house is a wreck, etc.?

BIS

if a woman has been cheated on, and her husband, after confessing, doesn’t leave home “for the sake of his daughters,” and they sleep in separate beds, but then he suddenly becomes sexually interested in his wife, telling her “I love you” only during sex, and then withdraws and distances himself from her, should she continue playing along? Or should she stay away until he repents and makes it clear that he has left the other woman? Sometimes men just use you.

DJ

“On the right, there are now two kinds of “conservatives” aligned against Trump. The first would be the Georgie Bassett wing, aka the Mike Pence wing . . . The other kind of conservative opposed to the current administration is made up of those who discovered that being perpetually “in opposition” is way easier than actually trying to govern.”
I would argue there’s a third kind, which is where many libertarians have fallen into, especially since the Massie primary. This is the kind that thinks that Trump genuinely intended for serious DOGE reforms, spending cuts, prosecutions, and all of that, but that he doesn’t pay attention to the details—and when Congress and the deep state actively sabotage the agenda on page 1449 paragraph 6 subsection C they put Trump’s name on the bill and get him to accuse anyone who calls out the sabotage as a “grandstander”.
Massie’s opposition to the last omnibus wasn’t obstructionist, he offered clean, simple amendments to fix everything he opposed—simple things like not re-funding the censorship NGOs. All of which were blocked by Speaker Johnson.

Ian

In a recent Tuesday letter post you responded to the following question
“I’d love to hear your thoughts on what Trump and Hegseth are doing to Thomas Massie.”
Steve
“Steve, it appears to me that the central objection that people have is the Massie was being treated as a political opponent, which he was. Now the way Trump personalizes his political opposition is frequently distasteful to me, but I think what has establishment types upset is the fact that Trump has brought politics back into politics. And it struck me that Massie was grandstanding, and I don’t think we will miss him.”
I am confused and admittedly a bit disappointed by this response. I get that Trump was upset at Massie for not always voting with him, but from what I have observed, in those instances, Massie was voting the way Trump said he would. Trump appears to have changed from the drain the swamp, deport the illegals, no more foreign wars, cheap gas, drill baby drill America first platform which got him elected. Massie appears to still vote that way. I understand your point about being political about politics, but attacking someone for holding views that you claim to have held less than 12 months ago is not exactly what you were referring to I’m guessing.
It reminds me of Chesterton’s quip about the Eugenics movement
“If I gave in to the Inquisitors, I should at least know what creed to profess. But even if I yelled out a credo when the Eugenists had me on the rack, I should not know what creed to yell. I might get an extra turn of the rack for confessing to the creed they confessed quite a week ago.”—G.K. Chesterton, Eugenics and Other Evils
Conservatives are getting roasted by Trump for saying and doing the things he advocated saying and doing last summer. As a fellow CREC member, I was disappointed to see Hegeth campaigning against Massie. I want to grant the benefit of the doubt, but it is hard to understand why so much time, energy, and man power was thrown at ousting a rep from KY for holding to classic conservative principles (not to mention his insistence on addressing the Epstein files, which Trump ran, flopped on, and now appears to be fully committed to not addressing)
Sincerely,

Bummed Out

Post: Diamond Studded Turd
Dear Pastor Wilson,
What are the guardrails to the “Serrated Edge” that would prevent us who have been burned by “gospel centered” churches from joining perdition’s road race to be the most transgressive in the conservative church? Thank you.
Sincerely,

Brent

To the esteemed Editor,
In somewhat of a contradiction, I have been trying to comprehend the idea of ‘the serrated edge’ even though I don’t think I will ever have an opportunity to use it . . . nonetheless here I am asking follow up questions!
Quote #1: “”Serrated edge for me, but not for thee.” Correct. Christ can call his adversaries whited tombs, while they do not get to call him a demon-possessed drunkard and glutton. This is because he was right and they were wrong. The fact that Nathan called David an adulterer and murderer did not give David the right, in the interest of fair play, to call Nathan an adulterer and murderer. It is lawful and right for the serrated edge to be used on hypocritical postures. It is not lawful and right to use the serrated edge on widows and orphans.”
—A Diamond Studded Turd
Quote #2: “A similar taunt of defiance was written by C.S. Lewis in his classic That Hideous Strength. Speaking of the “fabulously learned and saintly Richard Crowe” he notes that the last words of Crowe had been “Marry, Sirs, if Merlin who was the Devil’s son was a true King’s man as ever ate bread, is it not a shame that you, being but the sons of bitches, must be rebels and regicides?” Sons of bitches about pegs it. I use these words deliberately, because it reveals how much postmodern thinking has penetrated the evangelical world. I am not here speaking of those writers who are openly cheering postmodernism and throwing their hats in the air. I am speaking of churches and individual Christians who flinch and wince at the free use of sons of bitches” and who do not wince at all when someone says that “objective truth” may be a concept that will not serve us well evangelistically in these postmodern times. “Jesus is Lord” is a truth, to be sure, but it is a truth in our linguistic community. And the compromised say that they may not agree with this, but surely, we can conduct our discourse on a higher level?”
—European Brain Snakes
With these two recent examples I have encountered in your works the effect of the ‘serrated edge’ still eludes me.
(1) Is it used to demonstrate that the only thing your opponents’ notice in statements like these are the ‘jalapenos’ and not the deeper intellectual point? Thereby showing that they are ignorant of their slipshod thinking? But what if they are intentionally ignoring your deeper point and using your colorful language as an escape?
(2) And if that is the case, why is it not better to avoid using a ‘jalapeno’ so that they are forced to respond to your deeper point? For example, in your infamous ‘cu— article’ why not say something like “by making that trophy out of purity rings these women have demonstrated that they have debased themselves from images-bearers to mere anatomical parts.” Would being more circumspect lose their engagement with your article? How is it not as effective to simply say, “Hey! Your reasoning/actions are hypocritical!”?
(3) Based on the first quote above, are you implying that using the ‘serrated edge’ is only justified because you believe the point your making is correct? And if you found out you were wrong you would willingly retract your statement?
I appreciate your willing engagement with all our letters! (Phil. 3:1, 2 Peter 3:16)

Jonathan

I have some thoughts on the recent “Creationism, the American Founding . . .” post, specifically in regards to the age of the universe (or maybe one could say “age of creation”?)
For the sake of discussion, let’s grant full agreement in all that you say. But there is an area of thought here that I have rarely seen discussed either by the full-up creationists or the committed evolutionists. Specifically, it may be that the universe is actually young (i.e., not billions of years old), but some say that it certainly looks old.
And to turn a phrase, within the young creationist crowd, there is sometimes a “reverse cornpone” (maybe this reverse cornpone is a conservative Christian that is also scientifically minded) that is derisively asked “How can you even suggest the universe looks old? How ridiculous can you be?? What a theological cornpone you are. You are just too blinded to see that the universe is young.” BTW, one thing I have appreciated about your discussions on this topic is that you don’t tend to take this stance; but there are certainly those in the young Earth tribe who do.
Now to a thought experiment about age of the universe. Let’s say someone could show up on the scene two hours after Adam was created (I recognize there are theological problems with this supposition, but its a thought experiment, so let’s work with it :-) ). Presumably, Adam was not created as an infant, but as a full grown man. If this someone were asked “How old do you think Adam is?”, and all he had to go on was looking at him (no revelation yet from God), what would this someone say? He would probably say something like “He is somewhere in his 20s or 30s.” Of course, one could follow this rabbit trail down various paths, which I don’t have time to do now. But to bring this into a landing, can one treat our looking at the universe in a similar manner as this “someone” observing Adam? Or put another way, why should some in the young creationist crowd disparage those who look at the universe and conclude it at least looks old?

David

Re: Creationism, the American Founding, and Individual Rights
As an old-earther who allegedly “cares way too much what the secularists” think, I take umbrage, sir (with all due respect, of course). I stand to lose or gain very little from the secularists on this matter, whether friends, employers, The Academy, etc. But as one aspiring to the ministry, I feel a strong incentive to rationalize my way to full YEC. Most of my friends would think I’ve become a Bible-denying heretic if I shared my old earth views. I don’t want to cause anyone to stumble, so I mostly keep quiet. But . . . secularists shmecularists, I say. The Lord knows whether I am self-deceived. But I am thankful for you and all my stalwart YEC brethren. Keep doing the Lord’s work.

JS

Re: Creationism, the American Founding, and Individual Rights
Regarding old earth creationists and theistic evolutionists, you wrote: ‘There is a critique to be had, but it would run along the lines of “you guys care way too much what the secularists, those to whom the critique does apply, and I think you should stop doing that.”’
Surely that would be a poor critique to aim at such brights as Lewis, Warfield, Spurgeon, Augustine, and many others, wouldn’t it? I get that this was just kind of sidebar in your article, and that you can’t always say everything at once. But with that big, broad stroke of ad hominem-ism, you’ve painted quite a few of the Church’s best as cultural compromisers.
You might respond that you were only referring to contemporary proponents of those beliefs. Nonetheless, it’s still an egregious Bulverism, and as such, fails to make an actual argument.
I know that in other places, you have addressed the arguments. But here and now, you have only ascribed bad motives to everyone who disagrees with you, and I think you should stop doing that.

Ken

I assume that everything in the Apostle’s Creed was put there for specific reasons by the men who met, debated, and ultimately wrote this statement of faith; that nothing is just there as a poetic phrase to make the rhythm just right. As I reviewed it recently to examine the meaning of each statement I had two areas that I couldn’t quite understand and hope that you can clarify.
I’ve heard your discussion on the difference between Hades and Hell and why the statement should be Hades but why is the statement that Christ descended into Hades so important that they were compelled to include something that doesn’t seem to have a lot of emphasis in the Bible or modern Christian teaching? Not questioning the validity of the statement; just trying to understand why they thought this was significant enough to include with all the other obviously important statements in the creed.
What is meant by the statement “the communion of the saints?” What’s included and excluded in that belief?
Respectfully,

Allen

I have been thinking about funerals and would love to hear your thoughts. What do you think of open casket?
There is obviously something unnatural and strange about artificially preserving the body for more than a couple days to be presented before extended family. I say before extended family, because usually immediate family are there when the person dies or shortly after. So why do we make the immediate family and friends involved in the dead persons life prolong the burial of the loved one for extended family to show up?
This can also puts a lot of pressure on the immediate family to host/entertain extended family while they are mourning most intensely. Obviously there are times where delaying a funeral makes since (e.g. bringing a body home from overseas) but I am now wondering if we are doing it all wrong. How do you approach funeral planning? And what do you think is most ideal to care for those who are hurting most?

Raven

I’ve heard a lot about the Moscow mood. Could you speak to the Masters Mentality? (MacArthurites)

Nathan

Concerning AI, I have been in the medical field for 57 years and at 76 almost, still working full time as a hospital pharmacist. We have an AI driven medical app that I think will revolutionize my practice into lightning speed answers to difficult clinical situations in our ER department that require immediate answers. This AI app saves me hours of research in literally seconds. Initially I was wary but after using it over the last two months have found that it checks out with multiple other standard reference works.

David

I recently finished listening through Patrick Buchanan’s Hitler, Churchill, and the Unnecessary War, and while I will not pretend to know enough in my own right to conclusively state Buchanan is right in his thesis (that Britain’s war with Hitler’s Germany was foolish, albeit brave) he seemed to make some very strong arguments which frankly made me uncomfortable with how persuasive they were. One of the chief questions I have after reading it is this; would it have been morally permissible (as in, not a sin) for the Western allied nations to ally with Hitler to fight Stalin, similar to how they coordinated with Stalin to fight Hitler? I ask because one of Buchanan’s most convicting points was that, at the outbreak of WWII, while Hitler was obviously an evil, murderous man, Stalin had been responsible for an order of magnitude more deaths than him. The chief portion of the Holocaust (which to be clear, I do not deny) took place during the war, while the Holodomor had claimed millions of lives in 1933, to say nothing of the millions more who would eventually die in Cold War USSR and China. Comparing the two possibilities, on the face at least it appears that the Allies, had they chosen to ally with Hitler to fight the USSR, could have ended communism before it spread across the globe, and they would potentially have even had more leverage to keep Hitler from killing the Jews.
None of this is said in an attempt to whitewash what actually took place (Hitler was no Christian prince, to say the least), but at the very least it seems that, if it was okay for us to team up with one mass murderer, it would have been equally moral to team up with the other. Is there a key feature I am neglecting here, and if so what is it?
God bless,

JS

Regarding Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s recent speech at West Point correctly pointing out that DEI was a threat to national security.
I would add that if podcaster Taylor Marshal and journalist Elizabeth Yore’s research is correct that the Obama administration indeed sabotaged conservative Pope Benedict 16th and put in leftist Francis who then promoted many liberals to Cardinal who then elected this pope, Leo 14th, I would tell the secretary that this is a monumental threat to national security.
The influence of the pope is large whether people approve of the concept of a papacy or not and having a pope in league with the globalist new world order thanks to Obama is a harm that I pray to God that someone with the righteous opportunity can expose and reverse.

Vince

I understand if this question is not possible to answer in-depth in this setting. I am wanting to understand better how to reconcile 1 Timothy 2:11-15 about women not teaching or having authority over men with 1 Corinthians 11:5 about women prophesying.
This question of course leads to how this looks practically, in every day life. Many agree that women should not be pastors or elders in a church. But I think things can get a little confusing a step down from that. For example, with a woman like Elisabeth Elliot. She was not a pastor or elder of a church. But she taught the Bible, and I’ve seen videos of her teaching in settings with men in the audience. Or the question of women who teach biblical topics on their podcast. Neither of these examples fall in the category of older women teaching younger women how to love their husbands, etc. They are teaching or expounding biblical topics, and men are in their audience. This is different to me than your daughter’s podcast, which is meant for women to listen to. Of course your daughters can’t help if a man listened to their podcast, but they certainly are not aiming it at men or intending for men to listen. I’m seeing two sides of a pendulum swing I think. One side says women can’t think and that is why they shouldn’t lead or teach. And the other side of the pendulum swing seems to say women can do whatever they want except hold the title of Pastor/Elder. And it seems a lot more women are vying to be a Deborah (who I think is supposed to be a more rare occurrence) instead of seeking to be a Lois and Eunice. Many would disagree with this sentiment . . . but I believe Nancy Wilson has done more good for the world than Margaret Thatcher. Most of what Margaret Thatcher accomplished has been undone. But I would wager that what your wife has accomplished in being your help-meet, and producing the three children she produced, will not be undone. I have heard that Margaret Thatcher’s children did not turn out well. I very much appreciated your book about the Neglected Qualification . . . how we look at every qualification for elder except whether a man runs his household well, and the state of his children. In the same way, I think we should “judge” how well a woman is performing her role by whether her husband and children are thriving.

Not ECS

I have a family member who was recently the victim of (non-intentional) medical malpractice; a real doozy, “getting struck by lightning” kind of odds. The doctor is a professing Christian, and is in fact one that my family member would consider a friend (so he knows his testimony more than a random Christian doctor). Everyone in my family member’s circle is highly encouraging him to sue—in order to cover for the loss of income, medical expenses, and follow up procedures/rehab—but his conscience is not liking this advice, which I sympathize with. The doctor already offered to cover all expenses, telling them to send him receipts for everything. But even being 100% reimbursed for expenses won’t make up for the lost income during his 6 weeks of missed work. What would be your advice in such a situation?

Ben

I am aware of a Christian nonprofit board that has defamed their former executive director in a public letter posted to the internet. The letter makes claims which I know to be false.
The former executive director is not the type to debate on the internet. He has pursued conversations with the board, but that conversation is stuck in a loop and the board is unwilling to pursue Christian mediation. I’ve pursued conversation with the nonprofit’s board, but when I ask questions, they say they’re unwilling to talk. This to say, all of the standard “through the proper authority channels” have been pursued.
Given that, and given the false public claims, is it appropriate to post something on the Internet stating that the nonprofit has made false claims about their former executive director? If so, is it legitimate to substantiate those claims with evidence?

Cornelius

Two separate ideas occurred to me to write you about. First, our pastor mentioned in our service yesterday the story of Francis Scott Key what became our national anthem and he shared the 4th verse which is unequivocally, explicitly Christian. The thought simply occurred to me that American education in modern times, certainly American public education, though the “public” qualifier here is hardly needed except in rare cases (Classical Christian Schools, as an example, are not the only, I’m sure, but a great instance of this), is much like a rebellious, disrespectful second grader who has learned things he ought not to have learned from his parents or his wayward friends—things that make him seem to himself and his peers that he is “wise” or at least knows more about how the world works than them (which he probably does, in a sense)—and takes it upon himself to instruct the people around him why he is right and how the world “really” works, at the expense of the actual, full truth in the textbooks that teaches real history, the actual way the world works, etc. Forgive me as I know my example may be a little muddled by using the example of a rebellious boy in a classroom where truth is actually taught as a metaphor for many of our current classrooms where truth is disregarded and not taught. But I think you get the picture. So many places to take this, but I think it is unbelievable that we have such a glorious heritage in this country of men (and women) who loved God dearly and staked their lives on his truth and resolved to live by it—and BECAUSE of this were incredibly wise men and women who also bettered society tremendously in many ways, scientifically, economically, culturally, etc. Yet today you’re more apt to walk into a classroom and hear, “the cell is made up of mitochondria—the energy center of the cell, the nucleus—the core that holds the DNA and instructions for the cell . . . because things just evolved that way from primordial goo eons ago— and by the way you should listen to me because I really know what I’m talking about, I’m an authority on this. Things work this way because, well, things just work this way. They just exploded into existence and worked their way to where we are now, you bunch of sophisticated glorified primordial goo thingamajigs! But let me tell you, there’s definitely no God. These intricate and super-sophisticated things that you should be proud of me and respect me for understanding and knowing and listen to me because I know them—they definitely couldn’t have come from a creator. Believe me, we know that, because, uh, fundamentalism and the crusades and slavery and Footloose, and hypocrites, and you know, stuff. It’s all very scientific.” Okay, maybe the teacher wouldn’t say ALL that—they would have used “powerhouse of the cell” instead of “energy center of the cell” to describe mitochondria. All this to say, to tie it back to my starting place with F. Scott Key—it’s amazing to me that I am in my thirties and I can’t recall ever being taught the full story of the national anthem and even the full song! By teachers who would have probably explained away his Christianity as “uninformed or misinformed fundamentalism” that “we know now isn’t true” and would have taught us only the distilled down and filtered out “important stuff” like the “rocket’s red glare” and “the white house was burned” and whatnot. True enough stuff but as helpful as food that’s so ultra-processed it has hardly any nutritional value at all and is barely recognizable from it’s original state. These are thoughts the likes of which I have had forming and rolling around my head since at least high school, probably middle school, and as I am now preparing for our children to reach the age where public/private/classical/homeschool/hybrid/other school must be decided, I am thankful for your work and example here. I have much to learn and, short of reading everything you’ve written or done on this subject, which I believe is pretty extensive and I aim to shoot for something of that nature—is there any place you would direct me as a starting point as I decide how to raise my children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, specifically as education is concerned?
Well, after all that, believe it or not, the letter is not over. The second thing I wanted to toss out there is related to AI. You touched on this in your “AI and the Cream Rising” post recently. I am, I think, one of the people you refer to in your post as seeing in AI an “opportunity to multiply his fruitfulness 10x” as opposed to an opportunity to “cut more corners.” It’s a tool that like any other can be used for good or for evil purposes. I wanted to hear you expound a little on the need to combat the potential glorification/idol worship of AI by gathering on the Lord’s Day with God’s people, singing the psalms, hearing the Word taught, and taking communion together. And later you mention the need for a religious (aka Christ-centered, scripture-based) commitment to meaningful work—”orthodox worship in a vibrant community of real people making real things.” I could not agree more on both of these. These are to be highly sought after as wisdom in the Proverbs. I suppose I want to hear you expound a little more on this so I can hear maybe some more helpful ways to think this through. As with anything, whether dealing with and using AI or going to the grocery store for milk, it is all to be done in love and I must be abiding in Christ, leaning on him and trusting in him to work through me, otherwise I am doing “nothing” as Jesus tells us in John 15. I must rely on and obey Christ. Doesn’t matter what I’m doing, if I do that, I’m golden. That is period, end of sentence, end of paragraph. And obeying him and his word means doing all these things—meeting together for worship, hearing the word, taking communion, not worshiping anything or anyone but God, working hard in all things six days a week for God’s glory and not for human approval, etc. I suppose my question in this is “Is your argument in the post mostly what I just said—do these things because God says them, and you’ll be golden, whatever context or issue comes your way—, or is it more specifically answering pitfalls that may come with AI?” Or is the answer, “yes to the former, and this is just how that works out in the context of AI.”
I’ll be honest with you, I know these aren’t the most clear or best questions, I was just inspired to write you something and wanted to connect with you and engage with you on these things. Thank you.

Chase

To make a long story short, I’ve been researching transhumanism for a story I’m writing. Simultaneously, C. R. Wiley’s book “Manmade” is coming out through Canon Press. I’m excited for this release, and wanted to ask you a question regarding certain ideas within the transhumanist movement.
Many transhumanists believe that we must create artificial wombs (called ectogenesis) to eradicate the need for women to be pregnant and carry babies to term. Some reasons for this include either “reaching the next step of our evolution,” “creating equality between the genders,” or even eradicating health issues for mom and/or baby during pregnancy, birth, and postpartum. Obviously, the first two reasons are absurd or downright evil, but the last option might be a more interesting one. I can imagine that Christians in the future might become more interested (should this technology be available in the near future) in this option, especially to avoid certain health issues/concerns. I’m not a fan myself, and think it might have scary repercussions long-term.
However, I wanted your thoughts on the possibility that Christians might use this option in the future to avoid possible birth complications, or even to avoid the labor process altogether. Could one argue that it’s another step in alleviating women’s Genesis 3 curse? Or, is this unarguably evil and irredeemable regardless of intent?

ON

John 3:16 “The most misunderstood verse in the Bible.”
Pastor Wilson,
I had a wonderful Pastor (Martin Dawson) who years ago preached on John 3:16. Below are notes from that sermon and was interested if you agree.
John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
Misinterpretation
“For God so loved the world (every single human being), that he gave his only begotten Son (for every single human being), that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
By this interpretation, Jesus’ death did not work for those sent to hell.
Spurgeon said, “I couldn’t bear to believe a gospel where Christ’s work failed.”
Proper Interpretation
“For God so loved the world” (all the tribes and peoples of the world, not all the individuals). 1 John 2:2 says, “And he is the propitiation for our sins (meaning us Jews); and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world (meaning all nations, the Gentiles).” When he says “for our sins,” meaning us Jews, does he mean all Jews? We know that it is a remnant of the Jews that are saved. “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel.” (Romans 9:6) Likewise, when he says, [Propitiation] “for the sins of the whole world,” meaning the Gentiles, does he mean all the Gentiles? The elect remnant is saved. Those whom the Father gave the Son to save.
God has his elect among every nation, people, and race—not just the Jews.
Second part of the verse, “that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
God sent his Son to save believers only.
In the Greek, “whosoever believeth” is “the believing ones.”
God sent his Son to secure the salvation of the believing ones. And who are the believing ones? Only the elect, whom he caused to be born again so that they would have faith, the gift of God.
Properly understood the text is saying, For God so loved all nations of the world (not just the Jews), that he sent his only begotten Son to secure the salvation of the elect. That is who believers are. The non-elect cannot believe.

Chadd