NQN Stuff
As you can see, my name is Deborah. You have articulated what I have been thinking perfectly. Thank you.
May I be a true Deborah, if in no wise other than supporting my leader-man.Deborah
Deborah, thank you.
Happy NQN! . . . can you provide a list of all the words that were on the Trojan horse that you torched? I couldn’t see all of them.J
J, thanks. The words inscribed on the horse were: Respectability, The Hewlett Foundation, The Anglican Longhouse, Hallmark Movies, The Administrative State, The Committee to Reelect Lindsey Graham, and Far Right Fartulence.
What About Mark Tooley?
I know you can’t possibly see or respond to everything, but I’d be interested in seeing how you respond to Mark Tooley’s article here.
While I find Tooley’s work, overall, more helpful than not, I feel as though he mischaracterizes Christian Nationalism a lot here, especially considering that you’re not afraid to speak against antisemitism when it’s *real* antisemitism.
If you don’t mind, could you give your thoughts on what Tooley says here?Wendell
Wendell, I think he was talking about other folks. For example, see this.
Child Dedication
What’re your thoughts on child dedication? Is it just a “dry version” of the infant baptisms in the CREC?NN
NN, if parents are trusting in the promises of the covenant, it amounts to a dry baptism. If paedobaptists are just going through a feel-good ceremony, it amounts to a wet dedication. But when our kids were little, and we were still baptistic, we dedicated them all. I’ll take it.
A Fun Debate
Hi there! Back in the late 90s (I think!) there was a fun debate between Douglas Wilson and Douglas Jones regarding baseball and other sports. I have thought about Wilson’s response on why baseball is the better sport numerous times but I can’t remember all of it. I’ve looked for it online and I can’t find it. Can you PLEASE send me a copy of both responses? Please? Pretty please. I want to share this to my friends at church while we watch the 2025 World Series.Vilo
Vilo, I remember the debate, but I don’t remember it being written down . . . I do remember an in-person debate we had at NSA’s Disputatio. Just one point of correction—Doug Jones was championing baseball, and I had football.
Maybe a Bummer, Maybe Not
I am dating a woman and have run into some difficulties. We dated once before, and it ended because she was not having romantic feelings for me. However, she said that I am everything she is looking for in a husband (minus romance, ha ha). We remained friends after the breakup, and I reinitiated the relationship a few months later after some encouraging signs. Now we are in the same spot—she says that I am everything she is looking for in a husband (which inspires a lot of hope), but is having doubts when it comes to the romantical side (which inspires a lot of fear). For my part, I have no problem with the romantic side and would love to marry her, but don’t want to drag either her or myself into a one-way marriage. Should I just end it now? Can these feelings grow? Does getting along with a woman in every other way not indicate that we should date/marry? I do not get along with women generally; she is a rare exception. Please advise.
I love your work, and am thankful for your writing and entire ministry. I just finished Ploductivity and am currently rereading Get the Girl. Any other suggestions are welcome, and I pray for God to continue to bless you and your family.Robert
Robert, there are three basic possibilities here. In one of them, the “spark” that should be there just isn’t, and is not going to be, and the two of you should not marry. Another possibility is that she has built up a set of unrealistic expectations in her mind, and you don’t meet them. This problem would be solved through her getting wise counsel and adjusting her expectations. This is not the same thing as “settling,” and is more like laying off the chick flicks for a while. If she respects you, that is what Scripture would require of her. The third possibility is that you have not yet wooed her, and your talk of marriage is more like talking about a prospective business deal. The ingredients of a fire are there, but nobody has lit a match yet. So you shouldn’t discuss with her whether or not the “feelings”are there, like you are doing some lab project together. Buy some flowers and a ring, and propose. Tell her what you want, and then the decision will be all hers.
How Much Agreement?
To what extent should a local church expect agreement among its elders and members on secondary theological matters (such as Calvinism) or moral and cultural issues (like modesty or schooling), given Paul’s teaching in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 that believers could faithfully differ on disputable matters such as eating meat offered to idols?Moses
Moses, a higher degree of like-mindedness is necessary in a leadership team because you are going to have to act together. Say one of the elders gives counsel on a modesty issue, and other elders differ. Is it a difference they can stay silent on, or would they have to say something. Or someone preaches a sermon and misrepresents Calvinism. If the differences would be “action worthy” in such scenarios, then you shouldn’t work together. Can two walk together except they be agreed? That’s somewhere in Amos.
Helpful Suggestions on the Messy Child Question
On the letter about a messy child, the suggestion of keeping one thing tidy, and then building from there, is good. ‘Be more tidy’ and ‘don’t forget stuff’ are overwhelmingly open-ended and some kids take longer learning to manage their belongings. I think specific structures/habits can help along the way:
Checklists. Help her make a written list of everything she’d regularly take to school. Help her go through her list as she’s leaving. (Did you bring a coat? Do you have that coat? etc.)
Detailed ‘missions’. Instead of ‘clean your room’, try ‘put away all clothes; now put away all books; etc.’ (I used to give my daughter book-themed room-cleaning missions. ‘Bilbo spends all morning washing up the kitchen after the dwarves! Bring all dishes that have mysteriously found their way into your room down to the kitchen. Bilbo runs to join the dwarves, forgetting his hat and handkerchief! Gather all loose clothes; put dirty ones in the laundry and clean ones away.’)
Reminder ‘mantras’: Three from my parents are ‘don’t put it down, put it away’; ‘look behind you’ (every time you leave an area with her, remind her to turn around and see if she left anything); and ‘search with your hands’ (when something’s missing, remind her not just to glance around, but to pick up or move items that might be hiding the missing item).
Tidying practice: Can you ‘hire’ her sometimes to organise the plastics cupboard, or younger kids’ toys, so she can practise tidying without getting distracted by her own projects?
More/fewer/clearer/more-opaque boxes: Does she have enough boxes/drawers/folders to keep her things tidy? If not, try getting more. Or, does she have so many specific places for things that she gives up and doesn’t put them away? Maybe a simplified organisation system would work better for her. Out of sight, out of mind? Try labels and/or clear/open containers. On the other hand, does she seem to be overwhelmed by seeing too much stuff? Help her organise in a way that makes everything disappear.
Less stuff: You can (temporarily) take things away so she has fewer things to manage. For instance, if she’s always leaving clothes around, help her pick ~6 outfits to have available, and keep the rest in a box/suitcase. If she can’t take care of books, maybe the books have to live somewhere else, and every day at bedtime, any books in her room have to be ‘returned to the library’. Maybe certain crafts or puzzles can only be done at the dining-room table, so they have to be put away before supper (whether she’s done or not). If she keeps forgetting rules about where/when things can be used, put them on a high shelf (not as a punishment, just to make things easier for her).
I hope some of this is helpful. My mother tells me I couldn’t keep things neat until my early teens, when ‘the switch flipped’; now I’m (pathologically?) organised. My impossibly messy daughter suddenly started being able to manage her bedroom last year. Keep at it!Mamma of a former Miss Messy
Mamma, thanks very much. Very good advice.,
Charlie Kirk and the Jews
Re: Who Frogmarches Whom?
This article is apropos. There is definitely a spirit of accusation, blame, and disunity prowling in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s martyrdom. I’m seeing a huge group eager to blame—of course—the Jews for everything, but also a rather large contingent eager to insist that all sorts of people must be denounced as antisemites—usually for things they never even said, all media-matters style with badly clipped edits and such.
At this point we’re something like two weeks into an insistence on the right that because of the Young Republicans’ group chat leak everyone must denounce and other Tucker Carlson?Ian
Ian, thanks. I think your last sentence got garbled, but I take your point.
On the Abolitionist Debate
I have enjoyed listening to you engage in the Abolitionist vs. Smashmouth Incrementalism abortion debates with T. Russell Hunter and Durbin/Pierce. I am all for a smashmouth approach that will, Lord willing, lead to ending all abortion
In the latest debate, Toby correctly pointed out that all human law is approximating God’s perfect justice. The abolitionists acknowledge that there is not one golden bill that perfectly enshrines God’s law as the law of the land, and so they are okay working on this approximation one subject at a time. This came up when you questioned them about their abolition bills riding on top of unjust homicide code.
In a future debate (and I hope there will be another) I’d love to hear a line of questioning that presses down on the seemingly arbitrary nature of the boundaries placed around each subject. In their words, passing a heartbeat bill would be “Biblically forbidden, morally compromised, and practically counterproductive” because it shows partiality towards pre-born babies with a heartbeat. What if the boundary lines were not drawn around abortion as a whole? In their view can I be an abolitionist on two separate subjects of abortions before six weeks and abortions after six weeks. In that case, can I in good conscience promote a bill that is abolitionist on the subject of all post-six-week abortions? On the topic of pre-born babies older than six weeks, this bill shows no partiality. Killing them is wrong and illegal. How is this not a righteous increment toward abolishing abortion on the whole? The abolitionist bill on the subject of pre-six week babies is one that I am fully in favor of but it hasn’t passed yet (just like the bill dealing with unequal weights and measures in the homicide code).
Along the same lines, if a governor of a state where all abortions are currently legal was presented with bill A, “All abortions past six weeks are illegal” and bill B, “All abortions past six weeks are illegal, but abortions before six weeks are legal” would the abolitionist say he can sign A and not B, or that he can sign neither?
Maybe this belongs in a “Letters to the Editor” equivalent on the abolitionist’s sites, but I’d appreciate your thoughts anyway.Ethan
Ethan, I think you are putting your finger on the issue.
Mr. P. Bear (best I can tell, the proper address when someone is douggling up to you),
Sean Lucas reflecting on the legacy of the custodial arts from 20th century Southern Presbyterianism, and the ambition bequeathed with it:
“I’m thankful for the founding generation—for their heroic stand for the gospel, for missional partnership, and for mainline custodianship. I trust that our generation might build on their foundational ministry.”
Obviously they earnestly agree with you on the task at hand, but that isn’t what a custodian does.
Distracting and confusing with your potty humor.Ben
Ben, thanks, I think.
Accountability Group Astray
I was wondering if you could provide some pastoral counsel about a situation I’m in. And seeing how your last post mentioned the problem of pornography, I think it’s appropriate.
I serve as a small group leader with three other men in a ministry at our church that is trying to tackle the problem of pornography in the congregation. Essentially what we do is we try to provide a space for a man to confess his sin and be prayed over and then to walk along side other men who are in the same place who want to be free of it. We realize the Gospel is the only way this is possible.
Recently though, all three of my co-leaders have confessed that they have been in various ways not walking in purity. The offenses range from masturbating occasionally, looking at images on Facebook of other women (non pornographic), and using an AI chat bot.
I believe the leaders of a group like this need to be walking in purity. So far as I know nothing has been kept in the dark at this point and the leaders have confessed to their men what has happened. As the group is fairly young we don’t have a policy in place to direct what the lay leaders should do, so we met with the pastor over us and all was confessed and we asked what path we should take forward. Some in the group are voluntarily stepping down and others don’t feel that they need to, although they are willing to.
The pastor did not give us a direct action to take as far as stepping down. He said it was a matter of conscience and that a leader may or may not need to depending on the situation.
This led to a little confrontation on my part and caused me to have questions about the policy of how the pastors of my church deal with pornography use if one of them failed in that area. I won’t get into all that. But essentially a pastor who has looked at porn can retain his position as long as he is taking steps to get help and it isn’t a recurring problem.
What do you think?
If the leaders who fell stepped down, then one of our groups wouldn’t have anyone to lead. We could try to find a qualified replacement to finish out the group perhaps.
Should we let the group just end until we have qualified leaders?
Also how long do you think a lay man needs to be walking in purity after sinning sexually before he can lead a group like this again?
Thanks for your time,Josh
Josh, I have no problem with friends holding one another accountable, as friends. This would be fine if everybody is just friends, even if there were periodic failures. The problem lies with the idea of “leaders” of a formal group within the church. You shouldn’t have people giving guitar lessons if they can’t play the guitar.
Well, you worked for years to gatekeep Nick Fuentes and you failed miserably. You had to gatekeep him because you couldn’t successfully counter his arguments. Now any time anyone listens to a full Fuentes show, people like you lose credibility. You took the side of alien elites against your own people and told your readers that was the godly thing to do. You took the side of the Ivy League presidents, genocidal Israelis, those sexually blackmailing and bribing our politicians, those suppressing free speech. You didn’t carry water for these people for years because you were a rank opportunist currying… Read more »
Fuentes is an offense to the thrice Holy God of Scripture.
Also, now any time anyone watches a full Fuentes show they might see some naked dudes. Lol.
Fuentes, at least in the past, has acted like a 26 year old kid who never got over his early middle school girl – hating phase. If he has changed, good for him, but there’s no reason to think he has, as far as I know. I don’t have a problem with him being anti- Israel, but his celebration of Kanye West made him look rather foolish.
Be careful lest 90% of the “jews are evil but we aren’t jealous” branch of the CREC doesn’t get ahold of you.
Foolish to you, but you don’t matter. Young men are more important than old men because old men aren’t going to do anything to fix the situation, save writing “open letters” or whatever.
You shall rise up before the hoary head, and honour the face of an old man, and you shall fear your God: I am the LORD.
Yes, I must honor literally every old man, regardless of what he has (or hasn’t) done. lol
So honor this WW2 veteran, who says the sacrifices he and his comrades made weren’t worth it for the rat hole of a country England has become? He’d probably rather be speaking German than Arabic–and watching his great granddaughters get raped by Pakistani gangs.
Dale Stark on X: “I’m starting to wonder if liberal democracy/globalism is the most self-destructive ideology ever devised. When communism inevitably fails at least you’re not a tiny hated minority in your own homeland surrounded by foreigners who want to kill you. https://t.co/Mqtx4ozKil” / X
In online discourse in the UK the woke right posts unrepresentative horror stories of the very worst excesses of degeneracy in the US, warning people that their only salvation is in joining the woke right (and don’t ask too many questions about what you’re signing up to, no enemies to the right!). Personalise, polarise, radicalise, as a recruiting tool to gain followers. In online discourse in the US, the woke right posts unrepresentative horror stories of the very worst excesses of degeneracy in the UK, warning people that their only salvation is in joining the woke right (and don’t ask… Read more »
These are literally Doug’s tactics, and the tactics of most evangelicals (evangelicals from most sects/religions have common features): erect strawmen, exaggerate decline, portray isolated incidents as macro trends, then rage against the imagined machine.
You cannot purge something while doing that same thing.
The liberals — including conservative liberals, like Romney and McCain and Kinzinger and French — were right.
Keaton busted this one out: “…portray isolated incidents as macro trends, then rage against the imagined machine.”
This right here is the best description of the death of St. Floyd, the patron saint of Fentanyl, and the resultant Summer of Love. It’s so good, I’m going to liberate it in the Name of the People.
The Party extends its thanks, Comrade. Now, off to Siberia with you.
To keep gaining new followers for oneself, one has to keep upping the ante, keep the stream of outrage bait going. People who aren’t angry and afraid are in danger of deciding that they would actually be serving God as intended if they were active in their local church and community, loving their flesh-and-blood brothers and sisters in Christ, and serving the needy, being primarily patient and prayerful in the face of upheavals in society; and they might understand that they could increase their understanding of God’s word through taking in a suitable range of writings from different authors from… Read more »
It is very odd to conflate liberal democracy, globalism, AND unfettered immigration as precisely the same thing.
Liberal democracies and trade or political globalists can and have opposed mass immigration in the past. The world didn’t begin in 2008.
The young are the people of action to be certain.
Whether or not those actions fix anything remains to be seen.
“ you couldn’t successfully counter his arguments.”
Maybe one day I’ll hear one? All any of his fans quote or send are insults and ridicule, which is incidentally all you have done. Did you want to give one by the way? An argument? A series of substantiated facts combined with logic connected those established facts to propose a culminating thesis?
No?
Ok. Well then there’s not much to say. See you next time you decide to jump out of the woods, declare victory, and leave again.
Ethan’s point against the non-incremental abolitionists is fantastic. I think he could take it one step further and argue that to be consistent, the strict abolitionists should be against any law outlawing or punishing homicide unless it covers abortion as well. After all, it would be encouraging partiality in favor of the born. In effect, any law banning homicide but not including abortion bans would, in their logic, be an ungodly compromise, an unrighteous law. All or nothing, right?
I don’t think Ian’s last sentence is garbled. He’s using “other” as a verb.
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/594381/when-did-other-become-a-verb
Vilo mentions Doug Jones. In the last year whilst my mind was drifting I had the thought “what happened to Doug Jones”?
With a bit of searching I came across this book, which looks very interesting and I’ve ordered a copy – https://www.amazon.com/Dismissing-Jesus-How-Evade-Cross/dp/1620325357 . From the preface and sample on Amazon he describes a significant change of thinking from his Christ Church Moscow days.
The interview here (video and transcript) is also edifying: https://veritaspress.com/blog/doug-jones-rhetoric
He went the woke apostate route….and now supports the party of sodomy and child sacrifice.
Either you are thinking of some other Douglas Jones (there are several) who has no relationship to this one and you didn’t bother to find out before posting, or you’re one of those people who just reflexively posts slander on anything that suggests anything in the slightest way uncomfortable to your current thinking. Both of those actions are wicked.
> “if parents are trusting in the promises of the covenant, it amounts to a dry baptism” Paedobaptist brethren, what are these promises? God will save your children… without conditions? On condition that you or they are faithful enough? If they repent and believe? If (some other condition)? Presumably not “without conditions”, i.e. universal infant (of believing parents) salvation: Abraham had an Ishmael, Isaac had an Esau. Few would be bold enough to claim that the paradigmatic man of faith wasn’t actually faithful (or was less faithful than they are, etc.). On condition that the parents or children are faithful… Read more »
“else were your children unclean; but now are they holy“ – 1 Corinthians 7:14
The promise you believe is that they are, in some sense, holy. Presumably, in some specific sense, that entitles them to baptism. That doesn’t logically follow. All kinds of things or people might in some sense be “holy”; whether or not that means they can be baptised, needs demonstrating from Scripture (which can’t be done). Note, though, that according to *the very same verse*, the unbelieving spouse is said to be holy. Not only that, but *their* holiness is the thing that establishes the child’s holiness. The child’s holiness, whatever it is and whatever it means, depends on an unbeliever’s… Read more »