The Baptist Flogging Issue . . . Welcome to Flog and Maflog
It appears to be the case—I don’t know that there’s any kind of hard-data religious census but certainly by gut-feel demography—that the states with higher proportions of Baptists are doing better to date than the rest of us at actually resisting (for instance) the killing and mutilation of children. Now, I’m not a Baptist myself, but that would seem to suggest a counterpoint to your piece on Rev. Holmes: Baptists may have some theoretical work to do, but maybe they also have some practical skills to teach?
Jonathan
Jonathan, I think you are right about the Bible belt, but I think the comparatively good results there are the consequence of the Christian consensus that Schaeffer used to talk about, and not the result of a worked-out public theology. I think that could be far more potent than anything we have seen to date.
Great work on the flogging (or not flogging) of the Baptists. The end of your post reminded me of the Dan Tyminski song “Southern Gothic.” “We got a church on every corner. So why does Heaven feel so far away?”
An homage to what remains of Christendom 1.0.
Joel
Joel, yes, and amen.
While reading Acts, it struck me that Evangelicals in America are trying to live under similar privileges as the Jews under Rome. “Let us be mostly self-governed and don’t make us do things we’re not allowed by our religion, and we’ll keep to ourselves.” Quite clearly, this is not the goal of the early church, evidenced by Paul and Silas’ reception in Thessalonica.
I fear most of us Evangelicals would agree with Caiaphas’ logic. Better to kill one man than ruin our entire peaceful way of life. So here’s my question. How do I stop living like religio licita is the status I must protect at all costs? I want to believe that secularism is a dead idol fit for destruction, but it feels so taboo to me to transgress the social norm by claiming “Christ is Lord.” I don’t think my head needs to be convinced, but my habits and heart do.
John
John, I think that is the case for many. So I would begin by doing things that could train your habits and heart, like saying things you wouldn’t ordinarily say.
Re: That Time Virginia Flogged a Baptist I am a Baptist who has been convinced for many years that the civil magistrate ought to look to God’s Word to find his standard of justice. So I have been watching the conversation around Christian nationalism with interest, and debating it with friends, as one does.
Out of that discussion, I’ve begun to think one of the weaknesses of CN is an unclear distinction between “Christianity” and “people who share Christian values.” As Christians, we must see a clear distinction between the Church and the world; our great commission calls us to go into the world, preach the Gospel, and make disciples. In the life of the church, we must have some idea who is a Christian and who is not, for we treat those who are differently from those who are not (e.g. 1 Corinthians 5:11 & following).
And yet when we begin to speak of “Christian nations,” the matter immediately gets fuzzier: when a nation is “Christian,” that identity transfers to its people as well (whether or not they have repented of their sins and believed in Christ.)
I think that the conversation around Christian Nationalism would benefit from a clearer, more exclusive term for “Christians influencing a society to set God-honoring norms” that draws that line between “Christianity” and the lawless world it restrains.
Cheers,
Jon
Jon, well put. Quite a reasonable point.
Re: That Time Virginia Flogged a Baptist
In which of those several well functioning centuries of Christendom would a Baptist NOT have been flogged—or worse? What happens when we don’t leave off being Baptist? When the people issuing the invitation, with the assurance “It’ll be different this time” aren’t Roman Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, or anything Calvinist, then it might seem like . . . still a questionable idea on theological grounds, but maybe a little less like a trap.
John
John, I think the American settlement was a really good one, and it ran for about two centuries.
Concerning “That Time Virginia Flogged a Baptist”
So now you have me wondering. In this mere Christendom of ours, what shall we do with confirmed heretics?
I concur; for Christ’s sake, we should not flog Baptists. But what shall we do with some character who takes a novel spin on things? Perhaps a man from Sharon, Vermont moves on down to Fredericksburg, Virginia and commences to preach a brand-new form of Arianism? If said upstart in said mere Christendom goes beyond the bounds of mere orthodoxy, how ought the magistrates of the New Commonwealth of Virginia deal with him?
Sincerely,
Elliot
Elliot, put him on a bus to Rhode Island! Mutatis mutandis.
Re: The Time Virginia Flogged a Baptist: Your question “by what standard” is a perfectly legitimate question, but you seem to have missed that it applies with equal force to Christianity. Some Christians are socialists who think the government has an obligation to feed the poor and provide a social safety net. Some Christians believe in women’s equality and support abortion rights. Some Christians are pro-gay. So when you talk about bringing back Christendom, the question is: Christianity according to whose interpretation? And if you cite the Bible as your authority, the question then becomes the Bible as interpreted by whom. Not every Christian interprets it the same way you do. So “by which standard” applies with equal force to you, and I don’t see that you have any better answer to that question than the secularists do. You acknowledged that the people who flogged Obadiah Holmes were sincere in believing they were doing the will of God. You disagree with them, and they disagree with you, and there is no celestial Supreme Court to resolve the issue, at least not this side of eternity. If you think there aren’t still Christians who would happily persecute those of other denominations you are mistaken, and God help us all if they ever acquire political power. So until you have a better answer to the question of “by what standard” for yourself, maybe a mutual non-aggression pact is the best we can hope for.
Kathleen
Kathleen, here’s the problem. By what standard would a mutual non-aggression pact be good? I agree that the question is inescapable, and that I have to answer the question also. I point to the Scriptures, as I read them in an evangelical and Protestant fashion, and I labor to preach and teach such that a broad consensus develops that this is the correct view. At that point, we are cooking with propane. Not until then.
Gary DeMar
Can you explain why Canon Press wouldn’t fire Gary Demar as soon as he refused to affirm the resurrection and the Second Coming? I grant that the bar for excommunicating someone from a church is much higher, but we’re talking about a teaching role here. Given that the resurrection and the Second Coming are foundational doctrines, asking a man to affirm them is the same as asking if he’s a Christian.
If you had a professor at New Saint Andrews who, when asked if he was a Christian, refused to answer, you’d fire him on the spot, right? Why do we need a drawn-out process for DeMar? It’s not like you couldn’t just restore all his content if/when he returns to orthodoxy.
Tim
Tim, the answer is that we wanted to confirm what his position precisely was exactly. Gary told me directly that he was not a hyper-preterist, and so we wanted to evaluate everything carefully. After we confirmed his unwillingness to affirm of certain essential doctrines—outside the online controversy—we made our recommendation to Canon Press and Fight Laugh Feast. We did this even though he doesn’t deny them either. But our recommendation was that they discontinue platforming Gary on eschatology.
I have appreciated your ministry tremendously over the past few years as I have just recently been introduced to you and your ministry. I have been so blessed from your teaching and others associated with you that are featured on Canon+. It is through these teachings that I have made an eschatological shift from Amillenialism to Postmil. This has been such a joy, especially in the times we live in. It has birthed so much hope in my soul that kind of oozes out into everything I do or say nowadays. I am very grateful for that, because it is so easy to have a negative or pessimistic outlook on life.
In recent months, I have been following this eschatological tussle that has been going on with Gary DeMar (of whom I am also very grateful for his teaching). I have been wrestling with all sorts of texts in the Scriptures and have been listening to Gary’s podcast with Kim Burgess called Covenant Hermeneutics and Biblical Eschatology. They seem to be making some seriously sound arguments for this approach to interpreting biblical prophecy (specifically in the NT).
I have a couple questions. First, have you listened to any of it? Second, Gary seemed to make a great point that those who signed the letter (including yourself) don’t seem to agree at all on which texts are referring to the “Second Coming” of Jesus Christ and which are referring to His coming in judgement on Jerusalem and first century Jews in 70 AD. He goes on to say that even though you all don’t agree (as partial preterists) on which texts are which, you still seem to be able to agree that when they are all taken to be referring to the judgment coming in 70 AD it is an error (and a serious one at that!). One of the questions I have is how do you personally draw the line at which ones apply to the “Second Coming” and which ones don’t? What are your criteria? And my follow up. If they all were to refer to the judgment coming, what really is the issue with that? I don’t see any issue when it comes to salvation. (It doesn’t seem to be when it is an argument between partial preterists). A note: YOU were the one who convinced me that 2 Peter 3 was not talking about the actual destruction of the earth and that we are in the New Heavens and the New Earth. I still listen to that sermon series over and over. So what if the Bible doesn’t say anything about the “Second Coming.” Does that mean I’m not saved? And what if it doesn’t say anything about the end of time? I believe it does though. Habakkuk 2:14, Isaiah 11:9. I believe this world will be saved just like Jesus said. Is that so bad?
Jeremy
Jeremy, I have not listened to Gary’s podcasts on this, but I did read through the paper he wrote for us on it, in which he made the same arguments. The difficulty with the “different texts” argument is that you can do the same thing with other essential doctrines. Not all who affirm the Deity of Christ use the same texts. Not all who affirm the substitutionary atonement agree on all the texts. Not all who argue for the inspiration of Scripture argue the same way. The method is flawed, in my view. And I do believe the error is a very serious one.
Tongue In Cheek
I appreciate your commentary on many topics.
I am requesting some clarification pertaining to a comment you made during your talk on ‘brothers’ in the above referenced message.
At the 3:30 mark in the video, you say “I wonder if Jesus knew that this was a possible downstream implication of his parable?”.
How would Jesus (God in flesh) not know all things? “. . . For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily..”(Colossians 2:9).
Fair to assume that was ‘dry humor’. . . or? Thank you.
Kind regards, in Christ.
Mike
Mike, yes, that one was dry humor. But on the point, the incarnate Christ did experience what limitation of knowledge was like (Mark 13:32).
Three Screws Loose
I appreciated the article about the current jumble of people on the conservative side. A couple questions about how to handle Christian nationalists with three screws loose. I’m not sure you meant to communicate it this way, but you made it sound like there’s groups of us ‘normal’ Christian nationalists over here and there’s three-screw-loose Christian nationalists over there. Unless things are radically different in Moscow, that’s a bit too simplistic in my world.
In reality, the normals and crazies are a bit blended together. You’ve got a family of mostly normals, with that one uncle and aunt who go on and on about ‘the Jews.’ Or you’ve got a church of mostly normals, with a few people you’d rather not sit next to at the all-church picnic because they won’t stop going on about Qanon.
So how do you handle these types of people in your circles? If a family shows up at Christ Church who is well known to be deep into conspiracy theories, do you work through that before allowing membership? If a family member starts veering a little into the Q crowd but the rest of their lives shows godly fruit, how quick do you provide some admonishment?
Yes, the bigger battle is against the evil coming from the left. And I’m glad to have the three screws loose people at the ballot box when evil issues are being voted on. But within the church / family / community, how much do you push back vs let slide?
Roger
Roger, when it is happening at family reunions, you just adjust as best you can. But when it happens in the church, if the folks are “evangelistic” with their news, the elders need to tell them that they can’ t spread the word. Other than that, I would say they should be welcome. But silly talk needs to be shut down.
Nuisance Lust
In your blog post “Dealing with Nuisance Lust,” you say that rules regarding technology use, etc. to guard against lust cannot solve the problem and it is a mistake to think that they can. You characterize your advice as “lighten up or its going to get really bad,” and say that having a large reaction to a temptation to lust may indicate that there is more of a problem with the lust than a benign reaction would. However, I know that you also advocate the “Mike Pence Rule” (or Billy Graham Rule) that a married man should never be alone with a woman who is not his wife, mother, sister, etc. While I share your view that this is largely a wise rule, its critics would say this is an example of adding rules that can’t solve the problem. How do you reconcile these two pieces of advice? Would you say that rules such as this one can be wise and should be adopted, but we should fall into thinking that they will solve all the problems on their own?
Also, the Mike Pence Rule is usually advocated married men, but should the same rule apply to single men who also must guard against temptation to lust and sexual sin? Are there any differences between how this should rule should apply to single men and married men? I can see how there would be some ways that it would apply in the same way and some ways in which it would be different. For example, it might be appropriate for a single man to have dinner alone with a woman that he is pursuing in a way that it would not be appropriate for a married man to have dinner alone with a woman who is not his wife. However, I think it would still be unwise for a single man to watch a movie in a bedroom alone with a woman that he is pursuing if they are not married yet. Where would you draw the line? Should a single man never spend time alone in private with a woman whom he is pursuing but has not set made a commitment to? Should he never give her a ride home alone in the same way that you say a married man should not give another woman a ride alone? How do you balance guarding your sexual purity while also being able to pursue a woman that you are interested in or even find a woman that you want to pursue in the first place, especially if you are in an environment in which the courtship culture that you advocate is not in place.
thanks,
Will
Will, here is how I reconcile those two things. When you are dealing with nuisance lust on the screen, the issues involve one person—you. Consequently, it matters what is driving you . . . to look, to run away, etc. The Pence rule has to do with your behavior around other people. (And of course, all of this is waived if you are dealing with an emergency and have to get a woman to the hospital because a bone is sticking out of her leg.) But in ordinary daily affairs, spending time alone with a woman might be absolutely fine as far as you are concerned. But there is another person there. What about her? And what about the prospects for slander? A man could spend the night in a hotel room with a woman not his wife, and not have sex with her, but the outside world would have every right to assume that they did have sex. In short, I think the situations are very different.
Art Questions
Does the second commandment forbid any creation of art? What’s the reasoning for or against? This commandment has confused me for quite some time, and I’d like to understand it better. I know a lot of Christians say that it only applies to worship, but I don’t ever see any line of reasoning to support that claim.
Best regards,
Wyatt
Wyatt, I am with those who say that the prohibition is that of making images for worship. We know that this is the case because God required artistic renderings of cherubim and blue pomegranites, but which were not to be worshiped.
I had a question in regards to classical education and teaching art with nudity. I was wondering if you already have a written opinion on this topic or if you would be willing to address it? My friend is an art teacher for a Christian classical school and they are teaching art with nudity to their students. I asked her for an answer of biblical support to the school’s position, not just a classical view. My friend was unable to give an answer other than, it’s classical and it’s good.
When I read the Word, what I see is that God blesses nudity—inside marriage. Am I missing a bigger principle in this area? Can you point to some passages that support or a theme in the word?
Thank you for your consideration.
Ashlee
Ashlee, here is something I wrote on feminine modesty, which might represent a good start. When it comes to art, I would refer you to the Omnibus textbook series. Because they reproduce some artistic pieces with nudes, they needed to print an explanation of why we did so. I forget which volume has it though. Readers?
Christendom 2.0
“I am advocating Christendom 2.0, which assumes that Christendom 1.0 had some bugs in it that needed to be fixed.”
I am having trouble distinguishing between this and the canard that Communists like to throw out that “real communism hasn’t been tried yet.”
I’m not accusing you of being a commie (far from it!) but I’m having trouble sorting through how your statement above doesn’t amount to “real Christendom hasn’t been tried yet.”
grh
grh, I think it is different this way. I think the communist disasters have been disasters. I think the first Christendom was incomplete, but a great start. Communism is like flunking kindergarten, and burning the school down. Christendom is like making it through fifth grade with a C+ average, with the understanding that we need to make it through grad school
The 4/28 IX Marks Journal (now called Church Matters) is entirely devoted to your “wheelhouse,” with multiple citings, a book review, and general discussion both complementary and critical. The reformed Baptists have noticed and are taking notes. The publication originates close to home for me, from the church in which I am happily a member, and has a good reading among reformed Baptist pastors and those interested like myself. I’m curious whether any of the authors that engage what you have written ever directly reached out for a conversation.
It seems to me it comes down to eschatology.
I look forward to your comments on the edition.
Preston
Preston, I just heard about it today, and have only glanced at it. The only thing I object to thus far is the description of our position as “authoritarian.” Compared to what we have going on now, my proposals might make a more judicious observer think that I was an anarcho-theocrat.
Our word Race is related to the latin Radix meaning root and as Christians the root of the vine we have been grafted onto is the Root of Jesse.
Our word Nation relates to the latin Natus meaning birth and as Christians we are called to be born again into Christ out of Adam.
Our word Ethnic comes from the Greek Ethnos and it is the ethnoi who will constitute the great multitude before the throne of the most high. It strikes me that no matter which way you carve this bagel it’s bread all the way through. If you aren’t in the body of Christ you’re going to end up without your race, nation or ethnicity. The tighter you hold on the more it slips through your fingers.
Hank
Hank, thank you.
I am reading Defenders of the West: The Christian Heroes Who Stood Against Islam, by Raymond Ibrahim. Reading this book has reminded me of a question. I am newish to covenant theology. In the medieval era, Muslims killed, subjugated, and enslaved Christians, and I think I am clear on the theodicy regarding God allowing that to happen. What I would like to understand is the Muslim taking of Christian children and women for wives, concubines, and sex slaves. Their children were born Muslim, and there is quite a lot of European DNA in some Muslim populations (according to Ibrahim). This is something I have thought about as well in connection with modern authoritarian states brainwashing and removing children from their parents’ care. Should the Islamic invasions be generally considered a judgment on Europe like the exile or more like the Roman persecutions?
Why would Christian children be cut off from the covenant? Were they the children of nominally Christian parents?
Thank you for your work.
Kaylie
Kaylie, I believe that it was more like the exile to Babylon. It was a severe judgment on the Christian nations, which I believe was visited upon them for their use of images in worship. Islam was a radically iconoclastic wrecking ball.
In reading your various posts on Mere Christendom 2.0, it’s occurring to me that part of the sad way we got into our current state is by completely misunderstanding the entire “natural law/natural rights” discussion that the founding fathers were having. It was not a humanist/secularist discussion—it first and foremost acknowledged that we are in a world created by God as described in Genesis 1, and carefully sought to reason out which spheres of authority were entrusted with which responsibilities. But the fact that religious matters were in the sphere of the church somehow let the secularists mis-claim that the entire framework was atheist.
Ian
Ian, yes. I believe you are exactly right.
Succession Plans
Hello! I’ve watched your movement/ministry for several years and have benefited a lot. Pastor Wilson is the “face” of it all and the main draw. I’m wondering what happens to all that you’ve built when Pastor Wilson is gone someday. I’m sure there are plans in place to keep the schools and church going, but what about everything else that is presented to the public?
Side note:
I have a friend who has said for years that there is going to come a time in our culture when people are going to be looking for solid counsel, actual wisdom, answers, and guidance on how to live. I think that time is upon us. I personally gave up on mainstream evangelicalism a long time ago when I realized there was no real help for me there. I now look to blogs like this for help.
I suppose my point is: Please find a way to keep this thing going. The world desperately needs wisdom, and as far as I can tell there aren’t many voices like yours out there.
God bless.
jam
jam, thanks. We have talked and prayed about this issue, and it is very much on our minds. I believe we have a decent plan in place, and we offer it up to the Lord. At the same time, I like to quote Charles de Gaulle, who once said that graveyards are full of indispensible men.
Becoming a Vertebrate
Hi Doug, just wondering if you have resources that equip men with how to ‘stand up to their wives?’
Jaimee
Jaimee, reading lists generally don’t foster the development of the kind of vertebrae that is needed. But some books might help a little. Try Foster’s It’s Good to be a Man, and my Future Men. And then find a church where the men are strong and the women secure, and worship God there.
Coalition on Revival
In your “True Reformation & Revival: an Explainer”you note, “The problem was not in the fire, but in the arrangement of the combustibles. But when the real conflagration hits, there will be no doubt about whether this is what we have been praying for.”
I’m interested in your thoughts on the work of the Coalition on Revival (COR) that started back in the 70’s and 80’s. In particular, given that the effort was broadly evangelical, underscored the need for repentance, advanced a clear understanding of Christian worldview applied as well as the practical effects of the Kingdom of God it established what I would consider a Christian consensus needed for Christendom 2.0. As a general equity theonomist, their position papers advanced the Lordship of Christ. I suspect you know of some of the individuals who were a part of the effort.
Perhaps the current discussion of Christian nationalism should revisit the work of the COR as a means of bringing focus to the ends of a mere Christendom. And I continue to pray for the stroke of divine lightning that will set the whole mountain range ablaze.
For the King,
Ricardo
Ricardo, yes. I have been generally aware of that work, and supportive. But I don’t know a whole lot about it. Thanks for the recource suggestion.
How We Burned in the Camps
“How we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”—Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago
How do we avoid this? When does too soon become right now and too much become just right?
In other words, how does a sense of proportion defend itself against no sense of proportion?
Todd
Todd, that is the question right now.
Global Flood
What do you think of the idea presented here that the flood was a regional, not a global event, and that the floodwaters may not have actually covered the whole earth? The idea is presented here, for example.
Main points:
-The text of Genesis does not definitively say the flood of Noah was a global event and could just be describing a regional flood.
-The flood account in Genesis contains hyperbolic language and cannot be taken literally, suggesting that it may not necessarily record a global flood but instead explains various events in metaphorical language.
-The flood account in Genesis may not refer to a global event, as the word used for “mountain” could also mean “hill” and Noah’s perspective may have been limited to his local region.
-The phrase used in the flood account does not necessarily refer to the whole planet, as there are indications that it was just a regional event and the Greek word for “world” can refer to local or relative areas.
-Noah sends out a dove to see if the waters have subsided, but it finds no place to land, contradicting the earlier statement that the tops of the mountains were visible.
-The passage in Genesis refers to a regional flood, not a global one, as the waters had not receded from the whole land but the mountains in the distance were still seen.
-The word used in Genesis 7:23 to talk about those who survived in the ark is ambiguous, and there is no reason to suggest the flood account necessarily must be understood as a global flood.
Seems plausible, and obviously doesn’t seem to be a matter on which our salvation hangs in the balance based on our opinion of it, but curious what you think . . .
Ben
Ben, two responses, one scriptural and the other having to do with outside evidence. If it was a local flood, then why didn’t God just have Noah move? Why all the rigamarole of building an ark for all those years when he could have just walked over the mountains they could apparently see in the distance? And the outside evidence is that there appears to have been a local flood . . . everywhere. All the tribes have a flood story. Why? Then there are the sea shells on the mountain tops. Like that famous trout in the punch bowl, it raises questions.
The Porn Battle
This is an “Ask Doug” question. Here is the backdrop: My husband struggles with porn. He has since he was a boy and while marriage has decreased the frequency, it’s still a battle. He has talked with our pastors, we’ve locked every digital device, implemented curfews, and raised our minimum rendezvous quota. Its still a problem.
Now for the question: Knowing that I can’t lead him and that prayer is the main weapon in my arsenal, is there anything else a wife can do to help her husband?
We have been given the discouraging encouragement that we should count it a victory that it doesn’t occur every day, but I want so much more for my husband! I want to kill the dragon. But it sort of feels as though my kids and I are stuck standing in the splash-zone watching my husband ride a rollercoaster in a waterpark rated 2.3 stars on Yelp. The safety harness has malfunctioned, the ride won’t stop, and suffice it to say my clothes are soaked.
Any advice would be treasured.
Catherine
Catherine, you say the kids know? How old are they? And how public is the family drama? I guess my first set of questions would have to do with your family dynamics when porn wasn’t the subject. Is the something that your husband finds attractive about the porn doghouse, in addition to the lure of the porn?
Oops
A quote from your “Weekly Round Up” email. I imagine you meant to say “advises AGAINST arresting . . .”, but maybe not! “Doug advises arresting people purely because of politics, even if they deserve it.”
Have enjoyed your blog since 2010. Thank you for sharing what the Lord has taught you.
Robert
Robert, you are exactly right. You surmised my meaning correctly.
Steven Crowder
Hey pastor! Just wondering if you have any commentary to make about the whole Steven Crowder debacle. (It’s obviously super disappointing(if it is all true). But it does bring to mind Ravi Zachariah, Mark Driscoll, Harry Thomas, and the like. It raises the question: At what point does an issue like this cross the line between church gossip and church accountability?
Call me controversial, but I am still inclined to want to root for guys like Crowder to get his act together so he doesn’t ruin himself. Of course, I’m also inclined to sympathize for his wife. Again, that’s assuming it’s true.
Another question can be raised. What do we do with all the things they’ve already said?
Thanks for always approaching these things with caution.
Laura
Laura, I do want to approach these things with caution. I won’t comment on the particulars because I really do know next to nothing about it. But I do want to note that I am really doubtful that any complicated situation could be made better through public adjudication on the Internet.
Heartache High
I am a high schooler who is blessed to take classes from Logos Online School. I have had the honor of asking you a couple questions in the Apologetics class interview we had with you a couple months ago, and I would like to thank you once more for agreeing to do that! I have a question that I was not able to ask in said interview for two reasons: it wasn’t a problem yet and it is too complicated for a Q&A.
I have a friend (a sophomore) whose parents have chosen to keep her in the public school system for the remainder of her high school years. Long story short, over the span of this semester, she has had friends betray her, teachers show unreasonable cruelty to her, and has been involved in some alarming school drama, none of which was any fault of her own. Because of these things, and some other problems, she has been dealing with a lot of depression and anger.
I and her other remaining friends (5 in number, including my sister and I) are Christian homeschoolers who only see her twice a week. There is a substantial barrier between us and her because of our different schooling (none of us have ever gone to public school) which keeps us from being as close as we might otherwise be. She sees us as unable to relate to her or understand her problems, and therefore does not tell us anything, until her feelings build up and it all spills out, an emotional and self-pitying jumble, after which any advice or encouragement we have is shrugged off in the relief of having gotten it off her chest.
We are her only friends, as far as I know, and she spends her time in an anti-Christian environment. She often shows her depression/anger but when asked about it, turns away from us, invariably saying something like “you wouldn’t understand” or “it’s not a big deal.” I know she is a Christian, and I love her very much, so this hurts me and my other friends because we want so much to help her and encourage her.
My question, in the end, is this: How can we more actively minister to her and encourage her to be open to us so that we can help and encourage her? What can the friends of public schoolers do to help combat the anti-Christian influence of the public schools? This seems to be a pretty common problem nowadays for high schoolers.
Sorry for the long message, and thanks for reading! –
Alice in Clownworld (They’re all mad here…)
Alice, stick close to her, and pray that God would give you an obvious opening. Pray that it would be stinking obvious. Don’t try to force your way in. Pray that the door opens, and then, as you please. Love her in the meantime.
Still Lawful But . . .
Hey there, sorry to bother, I was wanting know if you think that joining the military is a biblical option or not. I wasn’t thinking of this as a subject matter in a post, this is just the way I can reach you. Thank you for reading this, my email is above (obviously) if you have time to answer.
Jackson
Jackson, I still think it is lawful to join the military, but you will need to be ready to wreck your career every day. It is really bad. I would advise against it.
Hacked
A question about the Femina blog: Today my feed-reader showed a new post, titled ‘Making Your Home an Oasis’ and attributed to Nancy. It looked a bit under-edited (e.g., an unfinished sentence) but was otherwise a familiar blend of encouragement and challenge, until about three-quarters of the way through, when it recommended and linked to something that (guessing from the URL; I didn’t click) seemed to be an intimate toy—uncharacteristic, to say the least! The blog itself doesn’t show any posts since 2017. What happened? My first hypothesis was that a spammer had reposted an old essay with the mini-advertisement inserted, but searching for sample sentences from throughout the post turned up nothing (either in Femina archives or elsewhere on the internet). Is this an unfinished draft of Nancy’s that a spammer highjacked? A spammer-written (or AI-generated!) post mimicking her style?
Em
Em, the old blog site was hacked. Three articles had to be removed. Thanks for checking.
An Ominous Start
My wife and I have been married over six months. She is a good and loving wife, loves God, and things have been going pretty well. My issue is that she is overweight and it has been a major up hill battle not to compare her to thinner women whom I find more attractive, even women within our church. How do I fight this sin and obey God’s command to love her? How do I bring it up to her that losing weight would be a blessing to me? I cannot be the first man to struggle in this way.
M
M, I am glad you recognize it as temptation and sin. Given the fact that you have only been married a matter of months, she was likely this way when you married. This is no time to pivot. I can assure you that bringing it up to her is not going to help you with your temptation, and will almost certainly make things worse for her. I believe that the apostle Paul teaches us in Ephesian 5 that love bestows loveliness. Work that end of it.
Christian Nationalism is just an astroturfed trap to keep Christian whites from being white nationalists. Just a con to keep you from taking your own side while your children are dispossessed. It’s not a challenge to the system, it’s capitulation pushed by grifters.
I’ll give you a VERY LARGE benefit of the doubt. Suppose you are right. Then suppose that, somehow, a new country arises made up of only whites. They will still continue to sin and all social troubles will not magically be solved. Will harmony be achieved through further fracturing this hypothetical nation? Will the different types of whites need their own nationalism? Must we subdivide until we are back to tribalism? In Christ, we are able to transcend petty differences like skin color. If you are indeed a Christian, you need to go back to the basics. Read your bible… Read more »
My goodness, man, this is some goofy stuff. Maybe don’t comment on race stuff?
Proving you can’t refute his argument.
“Goofy”? The idea that everyone, of every color, has a sin nature?
I read the Old and the New Testaments though you’ll find all the practical political instruction in the Old.
I like the part of the New Testament where Paul says he’d gladly spend eternity in hell in exchange for the salvation of his non-believing co-ethnics.
If you ask a hundred different people to define “Christian Nationalism,” you’ll get a hundred different answers, making it essentially a useless term. White nationalism does not have this problem.
The problem with white nationalism is our white ancestors decided to not keep it a white nation in the following ways. They created a market for the importation of millions of Africans. They also didn’t completely eradicate the indigenous population. They also allowed for the immigration of Asians. Our white ancestors were, at first, not unified on the subject of from which country constituted “their people”. Many were opposed to the immigration of italians and irish. Today it is predominantly whites who support the march towards sexual debauchery. If you ever got your white nation it would be a repudiation… Read more »
No one’s saying a white nation would be problem-free. It’s just vastly preferable to the unworkable circumstances created by diversity, particular low-IQ third world diversity.
No one accused you of saying a white nation would be problem free. What we are saying is your desire for a white nation is historically ignorant, biblically indefensible, and would result in a worse outcome than what is happening currently in the USA. The vast majority of white people hate the idea of white nationalism. Most white people in our country hate you and they hate Christ.
“Today it is predominantly whites who support the march towards sexual debauchery. If you ever got you white nation….It would also be full of sexual perverts.”
Based on what? Whites support same-sex marriage madness more than other races, but if you look at behavior (more important than viewpoints), abortion and out-of-wedlock children are more common among blacks.
Abortion in the U.S.: What the data says | Pew Research Center
Hasty generalizations are never helpful, nor is virtue signaling.
Modern Feminism, homosex rights, and transgender madness started in and has been propagated by the west. We are imposing these views on the world.
On the issue of minorities disproportionately getting abortions is only because that stat only considers surgical abortions. If you could track chemical abortions and the sexual debauchery they allow the disparity would disappear.
Yep, all those social ills are spread by Christian missionaries and charities as well. Of course, if your strain of Christianity spread then there would be Pakistani grooming gangs in Tokyo and race riots in Singapore. Or is it just white people who aren’t allowed a country?
White people have a country in Northern Europe. But they would not want you because they don’t define themselves as white. The point is no color of people have a country. Japanese, Egyptians, Sudanese, Iranian people all have countries to themselves. White , black, etc. are not nationalities. That’s why no nation defines itself based on that category.
So you support nationalism for European countries? You’d be in favor of Sweden to deporting all non ethnic Swedes including the Christian ones? No you don’t. More tactical nihilism.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Tactical%20Nihilism
If a country wants to deport everyone that’s not of their ethnicity I have no problem with that. It’s their business. However, white isn’t an ethnicity. Swedish is an ethnicity. White nationalism is a contradiction in terms.
I don’t have any objection to an actual nation – the French, say – being nationalistic. But “White” is an unstable category which includes too many edge cases, and too much diversity, to be useful. It’s not real in the way that, say, African American is – implying a shared history and heritage. Whites all came to the US at different times, with a huge range of antagonistic cultures. Increasingly the pressure of tribalism may fuse American whites into an ethnicity (like happened, e.g. to the German principalities in the 17th-19th century). But it has not happened yet, and until… Read more »
You’re doing a great job of backing up my assertion the Christian nationalism is just anti nationalism.
White nationalism (solidarity) is most necessary in a diverse society.
America was a great nation when it was a white nation and a racist nation. Your anti-racist conception of Christianity is just another product of a corrupt age. Your arguments are merely tactical nihilism.
I found the Fed
Time to learn from their mistakes.
Actually, it’s the Bible that prevents us from going into the White Nationalist trap.
Nope. Try again.
Asking which is the better race is like asking which is my favorite influenza strain. Ever hear of total depravity? Whichever race one hates (or considers inferior), it is child’s play to find bad, awful, horrible and detestable things done by members of that race, and sometimes specifically because they are of that race. This is obvious to anyone with eyes. What is an utter laugh riot is the idea that any other race is any better. For every bad thing Armin and Barnabas can find to say about Blacks or Jews (either historical or contemporaneous), a Black or Jewish… Read more »
You’re projecting ideas onto my statements that I’ve never promoted.
Yes, we need to clean house. But you don’t clean your house until you’ve established that it is, in fact, your house, and that you have a right and duty to secure it.
Your error is in thinking that you have title to the whole house. Other people live here too, and purchased their equity with blood, toil and sweat, just like you did. Just because they are of a different ancestral strain doesn’t mean they’re not entitled to enjoy the country that they, too, worked hard to build.
Perhaps a better analogy is a family. Your family is your family, even if you don’t get along or have serious disagreements. Just because your family has problems doesn’t mean you don’t try and stop outsiders from doing harm to it. You put your differences aside, at least for the moment, instead choosing to focus on your commonalities, to deal with the more pressing threat. Sure, there might be some who side with the enemy, and they must be punished as traitors, perhaps to the point of being disowned, but that doesn’t mean that somehow your family doesn’t exist or… Read more »
I think the neighborhood is a better analogy as no one is seriously suggesting that you should share a house with people you don’t wish to live with. But I disagree with your premise that minorities are causing harm to any greater extent than whites are. Appalachia is meth country and it’s almost all white. Fentanyl is mostly a white problem. White teenagers have out of wedlock children at almost the same rate as blacks, and white families end in divorce at almost the same rate of blacks (when they bother to get married in the first place). As I… Read more »
Plenty of groups have thrived after being persecuted, such as the Jews. The problem with blacks is that they’re on average unintelligent (average IQ 85), and also have a higher genetic propensity toward violence.
Armin, in London in the Middle Ages you had one chance in ten of being murdered. Most ofO the recent mass shootings, the shooter has been white. Do you have any actual evidence that blacks are more predisposed to violence than whites, or is that just more confirmation bias? On the intelligence issue, my IQ is 152 (I’m a member of Mensa) and what that means is that I’m good at doing logic puzzles. It does not mean that my character, my work ethic, my integrity, or even my common sense are any greater than the general population, or that… Read more »
“Do you have any actual evidence that blacks are more predisposed to violence than whites, or is that just more confirmation bias?” As a card-carrying Mensa member (I could’ve joined as well but can’t bear that crowd), you really have to ask this? Okay, here’s some evidence and there’s a LOT more. It also shows the bias in reporting racial crime–and we know God hates that kind of partiality as it’s mentioned in the OT and NT. https://www.karlstack.com/p/his-name-was-seth-smith “I hate to be “that guy” who brings up FBI crime statistics, but in 2018 there were about 590,000 violent crimes (assaults,… Read more »
Cherrera, assuming your numbers are accurate (I have not independently verified them), I did not ask if blacks actually commit more crimes; I asked if they are predisposed to commit crimes. It’s an important distinction and I’m disappointed that someone who is Mensa eligible did not read more carefully. The reason it’s an important distinction is that racism is founded on the assumption that blacks are genetically inferior to whites; it’s a nature problem rather than a nurture problem. Boys who grow up without fathers are more likely to commit crimes, drop out of school, and live in poverty, but… Read more »
Ah, so the incredibly skewed violence is completely explained away by victimhood and systemic racism. I believe in the latter, BTW. DEI, affirmative action, hate crimes applied only one direction, media coverage of only certain racial crimes, etc. are all examples. But to believe woke explanations like a pre-schooler and question my Mensa creds? Wow. That Kool-Aid you attorneys drink must be something else. I don’t deny that gangsta and baby mama culture has been horrible for the black community. But it was created by “safety nets” you’ve supported elsewhere. I’ve also been around real abject poverty in parts of… Read more »
Did I say it’s “completely” explained by victimhood and systematic racism? No? I didn’t? So then why are you putting words in my mouth? (And I didn’t question your creds; I said for a Mensan you should do a better job of reading more carefully, which advice you seem not to have heeded.) What I said is that why blacks went from having crime numbers comparable to whites, to the current state of things, requires an explanation, and genetics appears an unlikely candidate. But hey, at least you know who are the real victims of racism — whites. And here’s… Read more »
Kathleen, do white people’s genetics explain their past collective racist and oppressive behavior toward blacks? If so, then why would it be such a stretch for black dysfunction to be grounded in genetics as well? And if not, then why don’t we examine from a place of empathy the external causes of white people’s racism instead of just throwing around all these accusations and moral judgments at white people that could lead to anti-white hatred?
I don’t believe white people’s genetics explain racism (except to the extent that we are all sinners by nature). And I am curious as to what you consider the “external causes” of white racism. But back up for a minute. I’m a Calvinist; all five points. I don’t think Hitler or Stalin or Charles Manson had any free choice about being Hitler or Stalin or Charles Manson; at least not in any meaningful sense of the term “free choice”. Neither did Pharaoh or Judas Iscariot have any real choice about being Pharaoh and Judas Iscariot; Romans 9 tells us as… Read more »
Poor blacks with the chip on their shoulder (no doubt exacerbated by constant anti-white media propaganda) probably can’t help themselves either. But that doesn’t mean society shouldn’t protect itself from the ill effects of their bad behavior. A black criminal may not be able to help himself, but that doesn’t mean you make him a policy maker or allow him to mistreat other people. If I see a rattlesnake coiled to strike at me, I’m going to protect myself, even though the snake had no choice about being a snake.
Society is entitled to protect itself from bad behavior of all kinds, but you’ve yet to show that blacks are uniquely bad behaving. They may engage in different types of bad behavior than what whites typically engage in. I’ve spent forty years representing major corporations and the social costs of their bad behavior — and they are mostly run by whites — far outpaces what black criminals do. Wall Street costs the country far more because of its bad behavior than South Chicago or Detroit.
The (in)famous Table 43, for your perusing pleasure. Don’t know how you could deny the over-representation of blacks in violent crime after seeing this.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/table-43
Also, Europeans (and Middle Easterners, and both South and East Asians) built civilizations long before Christianity as we know it existed. The only black civilizations that reached the level of ancient Egypt or Babylon were Nubia (North Sudan) and Ethiopia, likely due to runoff from Arabia and Egypt, whereas Rome, Greece, Scandinavia, India and China, among others, built up literate, advanced civilizations long before they were Christianized, the latter two are still not Christians, and neither are the highly intelligent Japanese. The Germans in the time of Christ, as described by Tacitus, were monogamous, (and apparently faithful in most circumstances)… Read more »
James, have you read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond? It explains a lot in terms of the issues you raise.
The Sumerians were probably black. So were the Dravidian races that built cities in India before the arrival of the Aryans. There are large ruined cities with a circular layout being discovered all the time in subSarahan Africa. The Mayan civilization was much more extensive than previously realized, as LIDAR technology is now showing us. We are also finding traces of villages and roads in what is now the Amazon rainforest. Long story short, human beings are very smart and wherever they settle, they immediately begin building civilization whenever circumstances allow it. These civilizations vary in moral quality, depending upon… Read more »
I appreciate your respectful tone, but it seems that, according to the mainstream sources I was able to find, the Sumerians were not black, the theory they were having developed from broad-nosed wall carvings, realistic sculptures showed Caucasoid features. There is some evidence that Great Zimbabwe was founded by middle easterners, and while Dravidians are black skinned, are they related to Africans? I agree with your last sentence, but I would make this theory: you can get Maasai culture with 19th century English, but may not be able to go the other way
This is rich coming from someone who believes “Christians” can support murder (abortion), sodomy, an inversion of Gen. 5:2, Biblical roles of men/women, totalitarian regimes, etc. I don’t agree with Armin’s views but some things considered “Christian” in your letter are more problematic than racial separatism (be it white or black). In fact, those “Christian” views are more aligned with the occult and Satanism, where abortion is a sacrament and sodomy/gender-bending have long been embraced as an attack on God’s order. This is in addition to your bad takes in the past on CONVID lockdowns (didn’t age well) and burning/loot/murder… Read more »
See my comments above about the massive chip on your shoulder.
And the reason you don’t agree with Armin’s views is that he is at least honest enough to say what he really believes. You’re every bit as much the white supremacist as he is.
I’m not a “white supremacist.” Please don’t put dishonest labels on my comments and/or beliefs.
And I would like to know how you define white supremacy in such a way that your views don’t qualify.
You clearly love white people far more than you love Christ. Do you think heaven will be segregated? Christ’s body, the church, is not exclusively white. The apostles were Jews. Would you deport Peter if he were here today?
I don’t know about Barnabas, but many Christian white advocates, myself included (I would not consider myself a white nationalist, especially due to the terms connotations with skinheads and other extreme groups, which I do not appreciate) will support asylum for non-European Christians fleeing persecution. The Apostles were Middle Eastern, but to say that they were Jews in the sense of today’s Jews is a stretch, the ethnic link is tenuous, and the apostles never followed the Talmud, so they would not be accepted in Jewish communities today. If Peter has descendants today, they would almost certainly be Christian if… Read more »
The analogy I like to make is that if someone came to your house and said, “I’m a Christian like you, therefore you should let me be a part of your family,” you would be under no obligation to accommodate them in any way. My family is a “Christian family” in the sense that most of us are saved, and thus the values and norms which govern our day-to-day lives are based in the Christian faith, however, even if we all apostatized tomorrow, we would still be a family, with all of the common graces and obligations tied to that.… Read more »
Scripture recognizes no such thing as race, at most “tribes” which are far narrower than “white people” (as someone said, you’d have to say polish or swedes or something like that to use tribes) and there is no biblical argument available that a country can’t run on common Christian foundations, ethnicity aside. You want to root yourself in your family. But whoever doesn’t (comparatively) hate their family compared to Christ is not worthy of him. You would put your earthly family before the Bride of Christ? The household of faith is, according to the Bible, far more binding than your… Read more »
Scripture does talk about families of nations in the Psalms, indicating some meaningful connection beyond “tribes” and nations. Certainly, most Europeans are related fairly closely to each other, in comparison to the rest of the world. Scripture doesn’t talk about biological race very much, because, except for the Ethiopians, who only show up a few times, all the people in the Bible (Israelites, Egyptians, Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, and Romans) are Caucasoid. It does mention the Ethiopian’s black skin (Can an Ethiopian Change his skin or a leopard his spots) in a way that is less than flattering, indicating race is… Read more »
Unbelievable. I literally just proved by Jesus’ own words that the family of Christ is more important than the perishing family of biology, and you still simply assert that it is good to love your family more. No. Nobody is saying you are not also to love your family (and you ignore that there are specific duties toward biological family that don’t require you to love them more) so your missionary example is bunk. If you despise part of the body of Christ, and prefer to keep company with people bound for hell, enjoy it. But I doubt you want… Read more »
That Paul calls the church the Bride of Christ or the Body of Christ, and that Jesus says whoever loves his family more than Him is not worthy of him, is not proof at all that we should love the church more than relatives that aren’t Christians yet. That would contradict some things both Jesus and Paul said. Jesus strongly condemned Pharisees who honored men who freed themselves from honoring parents for religious purposes, and Paul told women to stay with their unbelieving husbands, if their husbands accepted them as Christians, in the hope of drawing them to Christ. I… Read more »
Armin, you say “It simply involves recognizing and respecting the way in which God has expressed his creativity through the rich diversity of the human race.” You said earlier that black people have an average IQ of 85 and are genetically prone to violence. You have said in the past that Ashkenazi Jews are intelligent but genetically prone to being evil. Is it your view that God created blacks to be dumb and violent (according to you) and Jews to be smart and evil?
Yes, there are two groups who will be segregated in heaven from each other and everyone else. These are American evangelicals and British Baptists.
In the coming ages neither group will ever be able to cope with the idea they are not the only ones there …
And trad Catholics who would probably stage a mass exodus if they found any Protestants there.
Sea shells on mountains?
Evidence of plate tectonics that are still happening today. They were not mountains when the sea shells were originally embedded in them.
I recently discovered that it appears
AiG YEC goes back to Morris and Whitcombe, who got their ideas from one George Price an Adventist, who got the literal 6 day creation from a supposed prophecy of Adventism’s founder Ellen G White.
Somewhat off-putting to say the least.
Six Day creationism was the predominant position in Church history long before 7th Day adventists existed. AiG is not adventist, nor are most YECs. Whether Whitcombe and Morris got their ideas from Price is not even relevant to the truth of the matter.
I used to believe a literal 6 day creation was the only possible interpretation of Gen 1. Just as no-one now believes the earth is established on a foundation and doesn’t move, a reappraisal of how literal the days are intended to be is not the first sign of apostasy. The fact of creation is far more important than exactly how long it took. The judgement on Noah’s generation was of a society like ours – materialistic, rebels against authority, kinky sex and obsessed with violence. Whether the entire globe was inundated (which I have traditionally believed) or just the… Read more »
It’s truly sad to see the compromise of Christians to culture by accepting nudity in art. Those who accept that have completely abandoned the Bible.
It really is just Classical Pornography.
God made people naked and called it “good”.
I hope your gripe w/ nudity is not ontological.
The sin is “public nudity” not nudity. And God clothed Adam and Eve.
Alice, ask your friend who else in school is getting the sour treatment. She isn’t the only Christian in the school. She just needs to find the others. Pray that she does find them.
There’s no reason whatsoever for an art class to require full nudes for figure drawing.
In the University of Idaho Administration building, there is a picture of a figure drawing class from the early to mid 1900s. The model, male, wears a pair of brief swim trunks.
You can get all the anatomical benefit of a nude model by keeping the model swim-decent.
Wow! This may be the biggest attack of kinist trolls on this blog to date! Douglas Wilson, I think the Feds are trying to start something on here. You should try posting something to lure them out.
They can’t be legit, or they would actually interact with your arguments instead of posting the same drivel on every thread. They are now making the same claim as the tweet you analyzed last week.
Why don’t y’all just leave?
Catherine, the truth is that there is a part of your husband that doesn’t want to stop looking at whatever he is looking at. I strongly encourage your elders consider the possibility that your husband isn’t really saved. If he is saved, then he is not confessing all of his sins daily. I don’t just mean porn. I mean all sins. How To Maintain Joy In Your Life – Jim Wilson – Meridian, Idaho – Sept 18, 2011 – YouTube Watch this video. It is from Doug’s father.