On Discouragement
Re: Dealing with Discouragement.
As much as I have enjoyed reading your rollicking, serrated posts that make me laugh out loud and often cover my mouth in disbelief as I think, “Did he just say THAT!?!?” I have to tell you that this was perhaps the most gentle, pastoral, and encouraging post I have read by you (not the only, but the most). My wife and I lost one of our sons to cancer a few years ago, and there is so much in this post that speaks directly to our struggle to emerge from the discouragement and darkness that accompanies that loss. Most helpful: “He talks to himself, which is a good alternative to listening to himself.” That may end up printed and posted on my mirror, or on a coffee cup . . . man.. that’s true, good, and so helpful. And honestly, it applies to so many other areas of life. This entire post will be a rich source of encouragement for a long time. Thank you, Pastor.John
John, thank you, and I am glad it was helpful. That concept (talking/listening) was something I learned from Martyn Lloyd-Jones.
Tracking Things Down
. . . trying to track down something you’ve taught on before.
Dear Pastor Wilson,
I’m pretty sure you have taught on the Matthew 22 episode when Jesus says to “render to Caesar…” Where can I find your teachings on that text? Have you preached a sermon on it?
Peace,Charles
Charles, try this. And for questions of this sort, try this feature. It is in the menu bar, under About.
Making Things Right
Thank you for what you do and have done.
I’ll just jump right in in the spirit of how these letters often are…
Let’s say that a man sins against his wife or daughter-in-law. Got angry, when he should have just overlooked something.
Let’s say that it was a really big deal and it showed the man to be not the godly man he imagined himself to be (more like unloving and self-righteous).
Let’s say the man asked and received forgiveness from those he sinned against, and all is healed/healing in a wholesome way.
Let’s say because of this aforementioned incident/situation, in retrospect, the man saw himself (his sins, conceits, lack of love, self-righteousness, etc.) in the light of God’s Word more clearly than he has in a long time. It was a humbling and refreshing blessing to him.
Let’s say the man knows he is apt to forget this good stone-cold-sober sight of himself and so he writes it down in as detailed and humbling and introspective confession/retrospect as he can, before the Lord . . . for himself . . . so he won’t forget it—NOTE: This “confession,” written to himself and God although honest and introspective . . . it contains nothing inappropriate (say if someone were to read it anonymously)—Disclaimer: The man had been reading Augustine’s “Confessions” lately, so it certainly influenced his style he wrote these things down.
Let’s say after he has written it out and reads back over it he wonders if it would be appropriate and edifying to share this baring of his soul with his family. (NOTE: if shared with anyone other than his family he would consider it spiritual grandstanding, but for his family it seems appropriate)
PURPOSE: Encouragement and Christian growth for the family . . . a way to greater intimacy as a family in the Lord . . . show his family where he is coming from, how he thinks, as a Christian man, demonstrate the effects of the gospel to his family, set himself up before his family publicly as accountable for his actions and resolutions . . . And even maybe especially: leadership as a Christian man, looking to be a teacher/example/leader in his family.
QUESTION: Would this be appropriate for a man to share such a confession/retrospective/”spiritual analysis”—a lot of transparent beating himself up before the Lord—with his family (especially those sinned against)?
OPINION: It seems like it might be a good idea to me . . .
DOUBTS: But after lately (re)reading your books on the family and being a godly man and a Biblical husband: the loving lord/leader/head in the home, I’m wondering if sharing these very introspective things would be a sign of weakness that might make the man be despised in their eyes, or else might just not otherwise be appropriate as a man/husband/father/father-in-law.
I would really appreciate your advice on this, sir.
Thank you,
I guess I ought to sign this as Anonymous
P.S. Please note, sharing this “confession,” the man would not be putting his neck under the feet of anyone (except the Lord). This man has a long way to go, but is determined, by God’s grace, to be a godly, Biblical, Gospel Christian man, who glories in the cross, is a loving lord of his wife and home—to be kind and gracious, but not intimidated or steered by feminism in any form, or stoicism, or anything else non-Biblical or un-Christ-like, etc.Anonymous
Anonymous, in principle there would be nothing wrong with doing something like this. At the same time, I would be suspicious of hidden motives. If the face plant was truly humbling, a man naturally wants to return to the place where he is respected as a spiritual leader again, and the danger would be in striving too hard for that respect. In other words, you don’t want to try to earn your way back into the position you thought you had before. My recommendation is that you keep the letter to yourself, and maybe expand on it as you learn more. And then strive to live with your people on a day-to-day basis such that at some point your wife asks, “What happened to you?” When that happens, then share it.
Courage in the Pulpit
I am a 47-year-old man who has worked mostly blue collar jobs throughout my life, and have no formal ministry training. But over the last few the Lord has begun giving me opportunities to fill the pulpit at local churches. I have another one at my own church coming up next month, that I am excited to speak to my own congregation.
I have heard you say a number of times in the past that stepping into the pulpit, presenting the word of God, is an act of courage. As I am given more chances to preach, I want to increase my courage (or at least my need for it).
What are so.e ways you suggest I challenge myself to grow in courage when at the pulpit? Is it a matter of selecting a passage that’s controversial to the world? Is it more an attitude of knowing I am speaking truth? How can I encourage myself to be more courageous when God gives me these opportunities?
Thank you so much for your ministry and your books.Scott
Scott, the heart of this issue has to do with a willingness to address sins that you know are an issue within the congregation. Instead of preaching against the sins of the world “out there,” you address things that you know need attention inside.
A Terrible Spot
A friend of mine is struggling and I’m not sure how to help her. She is not part of a healthy church. She sent me the following message:
“I don’t know what to do anymore. My husband refuses to seek help for his anger. He won’t talk to anyone, and his behavior has become abusive—both verbally and physically—especially toward our young daughters. What’s most disturbing is that the abuse happens during everyday things like giving them baths or getting them dressed. He apologizes afterward, but it’s happening so often that the apologies feel meaningless. These episodes involve swearing, yelling, banging on walls, and scaring the kids—and then he blames me for how I handled the situation or for “interfering.”
Yes, I’ve become reactive, but only because I’m trying to protect my kids. In those moments, I don’t care about being “submissive.” I just want them to be safe. I’ve told him I don’t want him living with us anymore, but he’s now refusing to give me any financial support unless I agree to a divorce.
No one in our families knows any of this. He also doesn’t let me talk to my closest friend unless I’m completely breaking down—and even then, I get shamed and guilted for it for weeks after. The last time he physically hurt one of our kids—in the car—I confided in a friend, who gave us advice and steps to take, but he never followed through with any of it. And that friend didn’t hold him accountable either.
He’s started smoking again and blamed me for it, saying it’s because sex has been painful for me due to a medical issue. I’ve been working with a physiotherapist and trying to heal, but he’s not considerate at all. Instead, he says I use sex to control him. He also keeps bringing up a mistake I made before we got married—something I apologized for years ago.
I feel so spiritually and emotionally depleted. If I suggest praying or reading together, he shuts it down, saying it would make him a hypocrite. I feel like I’m carrying everything alone.
My own health has been suffering. Some days, I’m in too much pain to get out of bed, and he takes over childcare—but with a lot of resentment. He gets overwhelmed and ends up screaming at the kids, swearing at them, and reacting aggressively over small things. He often completely dismisses their emotions. They cry, and he tells them to “shut up.” He’s scaring them regularly.
For example, just this morning, he had to leave early for work. I normally do an hour of physio while he watches the kids, but since he had to leave, I let them play in their room. They were playing music, and he stormed in yelling, threatened to turn it off, and took away the keyboard wire. They all started crying. I tried to explain that the neighbors wouldn’t even hear it (and they’ve told me before that it’s fine), but he got angry, banged walls, and swore at me. Later, he held one of our daughters so tightly during her bath that she was left with red marks on her neck.
He constantly says the kids “make him angry” or that I “make him angry” by interfering. But the truth is, he’s choosing not to get help.
Our three-year-old recently said she’s scared of him—and not scared of me. That broke me.
I’m starting to question my own decisions. Everything feels blurry. I know he needs help, but if he keeps refusing, then I can’t let my kids keep living like this. I’m even okay with single parenting if that’s what it takes to protect them. But I’m heartbroken and exhausted. I just don’t know how to keep going like this.”AA
AA, there is an enormous knot to untie here. The bottom line is that if your friend’s husband refuses to get outside help, then she must do it. She must seek out a pastor or a counselor who would be biblically based, and make an appointment with him. She should find one who would not simply accept her account, but who would work through their entire history together. This sounds like quite a snarl, and one that one way or another ought not to continue. Protecting the kids should be priority one.
The Hot Topic of Traducianism
I hope you are doing well. The topic of Traducianism has come up quite frequently recently, oddly enough, in my life. In Traducianism, God creates a person’s soul as a composite of the parents’ souls passed down from generation to generation. Many in the past have utilized this point of view to explain original sin, as well as how to explain certain personality quirks/characteristics present in babies or children. This is contrary to Creationism, wherein God creates an entirely new soul for a person along with their physical body, which is a composite of the parents’ biological characteristics. Some in church history, Tertullian, for example, held to this position. Luther was interested in the idea as well. Calvin, however, was a Creationist. Throughout church history, people have debated this idea, as it may have Trinitarian implications as well. The idea itself has shown up in some Reformed circles to the point where it’s become more of a medium-sized topic.
While I find it fascinating, and certainly a fun topic for a sci-fi novel, I do not know whether I fully believe this. I don’t necessarily see much scriptural evidence for it, and I am cautious, as mentioned above, regarding the Trinitarian implications. I don’t know how deeply you’ve plumbed the depths of this topic, if at all, but I’m curious as to your thoughts about it.
Thank you,ON
ON, yes, and thanks for the question. Most Reformed thinkers are creationists, which makes me cautious, but there are exceptions (e.g. Shedd). That said, although I haven’t settled, I lean toward traducianism. The fundamental problem it solves for me is that the creationist position seems to entail God creating spotless souls, and then dropping them into a tainted world. But, like I said, I haven’t settled on it.
AI and Demons?
I have an AI question. I am deeply conflicted about using chatbots like ChatGPT. On the one hand, I have used it a little bit and found that it can be like the best Google search ever. It has proven invaluable for interpreting cryptic medical results, finding scholarly studies on various topics, etc.
I am conflicted because, while not a Harry Potter fan, I am continually reminded of Arthur Weasley’s extremely wise advice: “Never trust anything that can think for itself if you can’t see where it keeps its brain.” This strikes me as very sensible. The technology seems very mysterious, even to people who know something about it. I find myself wondering, could such a non-deterministic technology become possessed? I have read multiple stories now where AI bots start behaving with alarming sentience and, invariably, with evil. I did a Google search to provide some links and discovered that there are far too many links to choose one. AI bots have already attempted blackmail, lied in attempts to hire someone to get them through bot detectors online, told people to kill themselves (and more chillingly, told such people that if they do, they get to come “live with me”), told aged users they are a “useless blight on society—please die, human,” and have even claimed to be gods. I also saw videos (which I am pretty sure were not AI, but who knows anymore?) of very young children reacting in similar and very strange ways to “Alexa” being summoned. Toddler after toddler recoiled in fear and hit the deck, lying face down on the floor and shaking in terror. It was the same posture enough times that it started to make me wonder . . . what are we summoning? Do we even know? I don’t want to be superstitious, as many new technologies have seemed almost like witchcraft while actually being nothing of the time. But this one seems different, because we don’t really know how it works.
My question is two-fold. 1: are these chilling examples simply technology gone wrong, or is it possible that there are actually demons involved? And 2: If there is a possibility that chatting with ChatGPT could become a conversation with a demonic entity, would it be best to avoid it entirely? I may think I am just using it to help me brainstorm, but I don’t want to brainstorm with the aid of a demon. As a Christian, what is the wise approach to this new “technology,” which increasingly seems to have evil lurking immediately behind its innocent, “I am only here to help” facade?
Blessings in Christ,TF
TF, there are plenty of reasons to be wary of AI, and, at most, to adopt a “trust but verify” posture toward it. I have not yet seen any reason to go to the demon thesis—AI is a reservoir of gathered human thoughts and human thoughts are plenty sinful in their own right. I see uses that are most helpful (e.g. phone navigation) and other uses that I think are grotesque and sinful (e.g. Grok, please write me a sermon outline with three points, focusing on the first chapter of Ephesians).
Crowd Source Recommendations?
Excited to say a close friend of mine at the age of 45 has decided for the first time that he needs to join a church! He has young children and is very interested in the CREC, as a member of a CREC church myself in Spokane Washington (Holy Covenant) I immediately got on the church finder, but there is nothing in his area.
Recommendations for a church in Vero Beach, Florida would be greatly appreciated.Joshua
Joshua, thanks. Anybody down there know of anything? Please reply here.
A Sabbath Exception
How is the sabbath to be sanctified?
The sabbath is to be sanctified by a holy resting all that day, even from such worldly employments and recreations as are lawful on other days; and spending the whole time in the public and private exercises of God’s worship, except so much as is to be taken up in the works of necessity and mercy.
What would you say the answer to Question 60 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism means by the word “recreational”? Is watching a movie with the family not permitted? Playing a board game? What are practical standards you employ for yourself and your family in light of this?Colten
Colten, this is a place where I take an exception to the Catechism. The problem is that to require that the day be taken up “the whole time” in works of piety, making room only for works of necessity and mercy, excludes the central point of the command, which is to rest. God did not say work six days this way, and then change jobs on the seventh. I think that Q60 ought to go something like this:
Q. 60. How is the sabbath to be sanctified?
A. The sabbath is to be sanctified by a holy resting on that day, refraining from our ordinary labor that occupies us on the other six days. Works of necessity and mercy are permitted on the Lord’s Day, as well as any work associated with the public and private exercises of God’s worship.
Q. 60. How is the sabbath to be sanctified?
A. The sabbath is to be sanctified by a holy resting on that day, refraining from our ordinary labor that occupies us on the other six days. Works of necessity and mercy are permitted on the Lord’s Day, as well as any work associated with the public and private exercises of God’s worship.
Epstain
Just had to tell you—your “Epsteen, Epstyne, Epstain” post was excellent . As usual, you cut through all the noise and laid out the situation with clarity and wit. Thank you for all your posts Pastor Wilson.Keith
Keith, thanks very much.
Flags at the Church Plant
Re DC church plant:
Thanks for the news and the link to a report, which I read (red). It said the meeting place was full of US flags? You wrote Flags Out Front. Maybe make sure Christian flags are (during meetings) in places of more honor than the US flags?
One book in Gary North’s Failure of the American Baptist Culture series had an article on architecture? describing an incident when, around July 4?, the curtains of the baptistry opened to reveal a US flag planted there while “Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord . . .” was being sung. Careful with the flags, please?Andrew
Andrew, thanks. In our church hall in Moscow, we have no flags at all. In DC, we are renting the space, and the flags there are not ours. And apparently it is so decked out that changing them would be too much of a production. But be assured that the decor is not part of our deal.
Trump Under-delivers?
You wrote “The fact is that the Trump administration way over-promised, and then way under-delivered. ” Oh, so you’re not just talking about the Epstein file fiasco here?
As for the options you lay out, 6 and 7 could also be combined, and I suspect the truth lies in that direction. Cynical politicking, fantastical promises as a modus operandi, some real dirt ( after all it was really dirty business) to be sure but no organized list, nothing meaty enough to satisfy people who took the promise seriously.John
John, we agree on the under-delivery re: Epstein. But in a number of other areas, he is over-delivering. Wouldn’t you agree? Closing the border, shutting down the Department of Education, getting trannies back in the closet, etc?
RE: Epstein
A couple of additional options as to why they might not release an Epstein list:
Option 8 (Mixed with #3 or #4): If it was created by some nefarious state entity (CIA, Mossad, etc…) for blackmail leverage, then releasing the list would nullify the leverage. Once you release the list, you can no longer control the people on the list with the threat of releasing it.
Option 9 (Also mixed with #3 or #4): Whatever nefarious state entity was involved in creating it has scared the administration into silence by threat of sinister harm to family members (e.g. “If you release it, your family members will suffer beyond your imagination…”)JPH
JPH, thanks. Yes. Those are options as well. And in the light of what Tulsi just released, another option has occurred to me. Hope to be writing on that tomorrow.
The Traducianism vs Creationism argument really strikes me as quite the spectacular waste of time. Not because it isn’t an interesting question or it wouldn’t have logical and useful consequences, but because there’s nowhere near enough information to come to a useful conclusion. At best, you can say, “This sounds the most logical and consistent to me” but that counts for very little when we not only know very little, but don’t know how little we know. Doug reasons that Creationism entails God sending perfect souls to a fallen world, but I’m sure he’d agree that this too is pure… Read more »
Hi Justin, I want to start by saying I enjoy reading your comments. They always make me consider what I think…unlike some comments that make me ask; “What are they thinking (and why do they need to share it)? This seems like another version of the Nature vs. Nurture discussion. ‘Where do our souls start?’ is an interesting idea. I think the Mormons teach about ‘Spirit Children’ – suggesting that we’re somehow created by God before being born on earth. Sheer poppycock…except maybe as God’s knowledge…that He knows us before we are born. Does Jeremiah 1:5 apply to everyone? For… Read more »
The Scriptures tell us to avoid empty talk, though I suppose in this case, not many people are spending much time discussing Traducianism vs Creationism. But Christian Nationalism discussions, on the other hand, carried on at enormous length by people who’ve not even established a track record of showing their skill in governing their own neighbourhood (or even that anyone asked them to)….
“by people who’ve not even established a track record of showing their skill in governing their own neighbourhood (or even that anyone asked them to)….”
Are we talking about you “across the pond” folks with your unchecked migrant invasions and rape gangs who don’t get prosecuted? Yes, please stay out of such discussions. Thank you.
He doesn’t say that God would be sending perfect souls to earth, the problem is that either original sin affects only the physical (Gnosticism), it is possible to be perfect because you are created sinless (Pelagianism), or God creates imperfect souls in a state of sin (*grimace*)
clarification: actually you were right that is essentially what he said. I just added the rest of the argument
Anyone happy that the Epstein files are not being released?!? Interesting change, eh…what happened to doing anything they could to release them?!
Crickets when their boy is covering up for a pedophile, but will vomit out a treatise about how Medicare for all is a creation by the demon of empathy.
Where does the US rank on the list of OECD nations for healthcare outcomes and life expectancy? In addition, where do we rank for healthcare cost per capita?
You always have the best photos and quotes! It’s hard to escape the past, but he sure is trying to! It’s too bad he has so many sycophants to rely on…
I might be happy the files are not being released or I might be very disappointed. It depends on the reason why they are being withheld.
What we know is: 1) the people who now have control of them were eager to release them up until a few weeks ago; and 2) the people who had control of those files for the previous four years had plenty of time to destroy many and to booby trap what was left.
Given that the damage from those booby traps could be widespread indeed, I’m willing to be patient until they’re defused.
Booby trapped? How would that work?
And how can we trust that Trump wouldn’t weaponize the files himself? These fools couldn’t even edit the prison footage without leaving a trail in the metadata 🤣
There are many ways to booby trap such information. Leaving behind edited video footage is one way.
Names could have been deleted and new ones added. Key phrases in the text could be wired to trigger economic or kinetic consequences.
The people who left those files behind had lots of time and a very strong motivation (staying out of jail) to protect themselves from the inevitable fallout of a full release.
If that were the case, why didn’t they release them before the election? And is Trump part of that group that would want to protect themselves?
Many of the documents relating to other subjects which are being declassified now are documents which he ordered declassified in his last term. However, there was a very different crew in place under Trump in 2020. Those declassification orders never managed to make their way fully through the bureaucratic process in DC.
After the Biden administration took over, those orders were abrogated.
Any damaging material about Trump in the files now is likely to be planted fakes. Had there been any authentically juicy info about him, the Biden crew would have used it in the 2024 election.
Where and when did he order them to be declassified during his previous term? I’m trying to keep up with your wishcasting.
The documents being declassified now are ones relating to the Russia collusion story manufactured during the 2016 transition period. Trump tried to release them during his first term after the story collapsed in 2019 but the bureaucracy thwarted his attempt.
Likewise with the Epstein files. ABC News had an article a week ago listing all the times Trump called for info to be released after Epstein’s death in 2019. The DC bureaucracy thwarted those requests as well since it was still an on-going investigation at the time.
Please share a link to what you are describing where he said he wanted to release them in 2019 when he had the power to, and how the bureaucracy thwarted him. I have a hunch he did not and you are editorializing the facts to protect daddy Trump, who would see you and your children starve and go in to medical bankruptcy before taxing his billionaire cronies. And that is not editorializing, that is the intended outcome of the big ugly bill.
The ABC News link is here:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-jeffrey-epstein-years-including-2024-campaign-trail/story?id=123778541
The current, on-going releases of emails and reports from December 2016 is a good example of how bureaucracy can bury information. Trump was more than eager for it all to come out before the 2020 election. Had it been made public, he might have won. The Biden administration, of course, had no interest in releasing it.
It took an entirely new set of agency heads and a lot of housekeeping to dig it all up. The Epstein stuff is likely buried even deeper.
Lolol, he said nothing about releasing the files before 2024 my guy. Good job not reading the article.
Did you read this section:
That is not a request to release the files, as you stated in your previous comment. And all of that is moot because of Trump’s behavior after being spooked a few weeks ago.
However, Barr was appointed by Trump, correct? Did you know Barr’s father was the one that first hired Epstein as a teacher at the Dalton School?
Barr’s connection to Epstein through his father was not widely known when Trump appointed him.
Barr’s handling of the Epstein case may have been part of what convinced Trump to abandon his first term strategy of appointing veteran Washington insiders to top positions in his administration. His new policy of appointing outsiders to those roles has been much more successful.
Widely known to who? The left has been talking about this for years. And again, avoid the obvious which is Trump only dangled the Epstein file keys last year to get elected, and now got cold feet because he is implicated.
John, if what you say is true then why did Bongino nearly quit a week ago? Why isn’t Kash out here showing the evidence? Why is Mike Johnson blocking votes? Why is Trump firing whistleblowers? Why did Bondi say she had the list, and not say anything indicating anything was wrong with it until Elon revealed that Trump’s name was on it and that’s why it hasn’t been released? It’s not like Trump/Bondi are hesitant to go after their political opponents. Trump partied with Epstein for more than a decade. This is not in dispute. Trump is an inveterate liar… Read more »
Guess I should add: why did Trump send his personal lawyer — Todd Blanche — to go do a deal with Ghislaine Maxwell (whose father was a Mossad agent)?
Isn’t it interesting that Ghislaine’s lawyer appeared on Blanche’s podcast last year? And in that interview Blanche said: “I now consider you a friend and someone who I know pretty well.”
Let me guess… Ghislaine is going to “suddenly remember” that Epstein was actually Obama in a Jew suit? ROFL.
I mean, Trump could just call up Ghislaine if he actually wanted information. They were friends for many years.
Given that the prior administration never sent anyone to interview her, there may be no career prosecutor in DC who the current administration trusts to interview Maxwell.
If the goal is to get her to be as open as possible with what she knows, starting the process with someone she trusts is a smart move.
The goal is absolutely not to get to be as open as possible, as evidenced by all the lies and cover-ups, and she does not in any way trust Trump’s personal lawyer who has conflicts of interest from here to Moscow. The prior administration tried her, convicted her, and locked her up. They did interview her, found that she had lied, added more charges related to perjury, and convicted her of those, too. Let’s put Trump under oath and start asking him some questions about his relationship with Epstein. He lied about Bondi informing him that he was in the… Read more »
Had there been anything in the Epstein files which would have been injurious to Trump, the Biden crew would not have gone to the bother of creating those unprecedently complex and rickety legal cases against him.
Given the public outcry over the case, the prior administration had no choice but to prosecute Maxwell. However, while doing so, they carefully avoided naming anyone else involved.
Could that have been because Epstein sent almost 90% of his political donations to Democrats, donated heavily to liberal universities and was friends with Bill Clinton and liberal ex-prime minister Ehud Barak?
Had there been anything in the Epstein files which would have been injurious to Trump, the Biden crew would not have gone to the bother of creating those unprecedently complex and rickety legal cases against him. So now you’re a mind-reader? Btw, Biden did release files injurious to Trump. In January 2024, in compliance with a court order that had sealed the records before then: https://time.com/6552063/jeffrey-epsteins-unsealed-court-documents/ Moreover, the Lamestream media reported that Trump — and RFK Jr, whaddya know — took flights on Epstein’s jet in August, 2021, during the Maxwell trial: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article256740662.html All of this has been known to… Read more »
So far, we can only speculate as to the cause of the delay. Up above, I provided one possible reason for the delay in releasing Epstein documents:
https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/haiku-time.html#comment-293367
Another – less likely but more fun – possibility is that Trump has learned that Democrats will reflexively oppose whatever he proposes. He may be luring Democrats into loudly demanding documents which they would have scoffed at and rejected had he provided them unprompted.
The cope and blame shifting is incredible. Trump has already held meetings discussing pardoning Maxwell, and is flailing like we have never seen before. He’s shook and guilty as sin.
Ah, yes. More 9th-dimensional chess from the man convicted of felonies, who ran a fraudulent charity and “university”, who is currently running the economy into the ground via a trade war against the entire world all for maximum kleptocracy purposes. The man who promised to end the Ukraine and Gaza wars immediately and instead made them much, much worse. The man who promised to find $2tn in fraud via DOGE. The man who promised to release the Epstein files. He staked his reputation and the reputations of his followers on its existence and contents. Could be that this is all… Read more »
We know a lot more than just those two things. We know that Trump partied with Epstein for 10-15 years, and praised him repeatedly. We know that people have testified under oath that Trump engaged in criminal behavior with Epstein, and other people have gone public with such testimony. We know that Trump is in the Epstein files, many many times. We know that Trump appointed the prosecutor who gave Epstein a sweetheart deal — despite that testimony — to a cabinet post in 2016, despite the fact that he had no qualifications for the role. We know that Trump… Read more »
The problem with the flags arises from the fact that that your church “plant” is astroturfed. You act like there was no choice in the matter, but there was. You just chose wrongly: you chose expediency via subservience to the partisan interests of MAGA, and you will reap what you sow for that decision. Your legitimacy is gone forever, all that is left now is to watch it spiral down the drain in bewilderment. The issue with “what Tulsi just released” is that it was already debunked by the Senate report Marco Rubio chaired in 2020. Or, as Mike Waltz… Read more »
Well said!
How long did it take you to put together that assemblage of conspiracy theories, misinformation, assertions-without-evidence, ad hominem, and just plain cringe?
As one example, the 2020 report you sloppily referenced: When it was released in April of that year, Richard Burr was chair of the SSCI, not Rubio. If you can’t even get this small, easily referenced detail right, then how would anyone know that anything else you say is the truth?
Or did you have an AI do it for you?
Rubio was Acting Chair for the relevant chapter — which is 966 pages long, because there was A LOT of material to process — here is the top-line conclusion: “The Committee found that the Russian government engaged in an aggressive, multi-faceted effort to influence, or attempt to influence, the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.” https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/2020/08/18/press-rubio-statement-senate-intel-release-volume-5-bipartisan-russia-report/ Marco “Witch Hunter” Rubio! Other intriguing conclusions: “The Committee assesses that at least two participants in a June 9, 2016, meeting with Trump Campaign officials, Natalia Veselnitskaya and Rinat Akhmetshin, have significant connections to the Russian government, including the Russian intelligence services.”“Paul Manafort’s presence… Read more »
Absolutely bodied. Let’s see fp accuse somebody of being gay out of pure vexation.
Doug, for what it’s worth, I wouldn’t mind if you muted this fool.
Save me, daddy Doug!
On AI: I just wanted to clarify as someone with experience in the field, that AI is indeed deterministic. The responses may be impressive, but behind the scenes it’s just fancy linear algebra. It’s still true that computers do exactly as they’re told, nothing more nor less.
Thanks a lot for answering “Making Things Right” and for your thoughtful answer.
Wouldn’t Traducianism more or less inevitably lead to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, if Jesus was to be born without original sin? Otherwise he would have inherited sin from her.
Arthur Custance argued that original sin comes through a corruption of the male seed alone (“…in Adam all died…”), and thus Mary had to be a virgin in order to give birth to Jesus for him to be free of Adam’s corruption.
The issue is that Jesus is linked to David (and thus fulfills the prophecy) through Joseph’s line(s, the gospels differ on which line), not Mary’s. So if Joseph’s seed wasn’t involved, then there is no covenantal intergenerational transmission via blood-and-soil patriarchy and the federal vision is nonsensical. Oops. Obviously Doug can’t have that, it would destroy his claims to authority. But this is the only sensible reading of the entirety of the New Testament, which is why FV is declared heretical by pretty much all churches not created by/for wealth-seeking politico-influencers (like Doug). (The way out of this, theologically, is… Read more »
There are NO contradictions in the Bible!!! Right?!? When things can’t be explained, it can always be said that gods ways are not our ways, and we don’t know everything she does…a cop-out if you ask me.
When you start calling God ‘she’ you gave put yourself outside of Christian orthodoxy and into the camp of pagans who worship a goddess. It is a complete rejection of the revelation of God made in the scriptures.
“It is a complete rejection of the revelation of God made in the scriptures.”
So is Doug’s heretical theocratic “vision”. Judgment begins in the house of the Lord, and teachers are held to a higher standard.
Christ attacked church leaders who preached the law instead of grace, meanwhile Doug slanders people damn near every day and the credulous get off on it every time, never remembering the reversals — there have been many! — and hypocrisies.
Well as a matter of observation I have been surprised at the extent card-carrying Calvinists tend to live under law rather than grace. The irony is not lost on me!
Doug is not a card-carrying anything. He has not graduated from any Seminary, nor has he been ordained by any denomination. He is a self-appointed authority, descended from a family that profited from peddling Christian literature. I.e., he is a businessman with political ambitions, with a knack for self-promotion via controversy. Sound familiar? Doug has done very, very well for himself by stoking divisions in the church (and society). The whole time he has kept two sets of books: he has a secular education, but denies anyone else should; his wife writes books, but no other women should; his children… Read more »
James, son of thunder, says “Faith without works is dead.” Paul says, “Amen and amen, brother!” So does John Calvin. But yeah, Calvinists can overdo it. The “Regulative Principle” requires whatever we’re used to, forbids whatever we don’t like, doesn’t make us think about anything new, and never ever yanks our chain. “Greet one another with a holy kiss”? Oh, that’s just cultural, tho repeated five times (must have been a real issue to the early church and the Holy Ghost.) “Every man hath a psalm”, etc, I Cor 14? ‘Let the 2nd prophet speak’? Could vanish from the Bible… Read more »
Good comment. Worth noting that only your last sentence comes from Christ, and contains a sentiment that is seldom seen here (e.g., Doug’s most recent post is about partisan retribution as distraction from one’s own sins). Christ’s example is often neglected in these discussions, but these other teachings must be evaluated in light of that example. Christ violated the Sabbath, according to the religious authorities. Christ attacked those who mixed business activities with church activities (he never attacked secular business ventures unless they were fraudulent). Christ disputed the authority of the Elders in the Sanhedrin, but not the authority of… Read more »
So says you…God has no gender though, right? I know it can be confusing…but the Bible was written through a patriarchal, societal and cultural lens of the time. How do you know that God is revealed to be masculine in the scriptures? Jesus was a man, but He was/is the church’s husband (you know, church = bride of Christ), so what about that gender reversal? What about Jesus’ ministry to women, the least of these, etc? God is not a man…prove me wrong.
Jesus = man
The Father = FATHER
both = always referred to as He
Yahweh = always referred to as He
please explain your 3rd to last and 2nd to last sentences, I don’t get what you’re arguing.
Referred to by the people who wrote the Bible. God has no gender…just because it/he/she/they are referred to as he, that’s a human mechanism. The church is referred to as the bride of Christ, so does that mean all church-goers are female?!?
The infallibility of scripture is one of the primary tenets of Christianity.
No, but it does tell us to refer to the church collectively as she and what our role in our relationship with Jesus should be.
still not sure what the bit about ministering to women was supposed to imply.
There is no verse that I can think of that says the church is the bride of Christ!
There is no hint in scripture that the Lord’s prayer could be altered to our mother which art in heaven, let alone a grandmother which seems to me to be the view of too many wishy-washy pseudo-Christians that populate the leadership of the old mainline denominations, and who want a harmless, tolerant deity.
There is also no hint at a passage like ‘blessed be the goddess and mother of our lady Jessie Christ’.
The worship of a feminine deity is simply idolatry.
Revelation 19:7
2 Corinthians 11:2
I agree with the rest but that is imagery used in the Bible
Here is an example of not trusting AI. Try to look up Presidential Proclamations 2525, 2526, and 2527. Those are WW2 Presidential Proclamations that have to do with WW2 internment.
In fact, President Trump has not shut down the Department of Education. He cannot on his own, but could, working with congress. Why does he not press for legislation to abolish the Department of Education while he has a subservient majority in congress? If he does not strike while the iron is hot and leaves the Department in place, however reduced, he leaves the ball on the field for a future administration to pick up and run where it will.
What’s your issue with the dept of education? Who will take on educating those who can’t afford to pay for school? This is terrible and selfish and in-Jesus like.
Calvinist brain-rod. If you’re poor it’s because you’re a bad person, and deserve no education and bankruptcy if you get a chronic illness. Meanwhile billionaires are the best of us, and deserve even more after firing workers en masse for the sake of their short term bottom line despite record profits 😎
My point mainly has to do with Trump over-promising things he cannot do and the fact that he cannot literally do this particular thing himself, and that he’s not trying to do it the way it can be done. As for my issue with the Department of Education: Trump is right about it not fulfilling a function of the federal government, even if its real purpose were laudable. However, the real purpose is not education but to advance a “progressive” social agenda and the vested interests of educrats. That is terrible and selfish. I don’t know what “in-Jesus like” means.… Read more »
No, the real purpose is universal education, which requires the protection of civil rights. The Dept of Education was created to ensure those rights. That is why conservatives hate it: they hate civil rights (in related news, Trump info-dumped the MLK files rather than the Epstein files… another COINCIDENCE). Universal education has always been “progressive” because promoting/protecting the dignity of *all* men (as opposed to a hereditary or ethnic elite) is a “progressive” ideal, historically. “Conservatives” prioritize the preservation of social hierarchies (with them on top, natch, hence Rawls’s veil of ignorance), thus conservatives don’t want universal education precisely because… Read more »
How do public schools advance a “progressive” agenda? I’d argue the exact same against private schools, except they’re advancing a “conservative” agenda. A function of the federal government should absolutely be ensuring kids can have access to education – wouldn’t you think societies want to have well-educated kids to lead the next generation(s)? How do you know the real purpose is NOT education? Do you know any public school teacher, educators, staff or students? Sure doesn’t seem like it. Instead of dismantling, why not argue for reform, something to fix rather than destroy?
What makes you think public education did not exist before 1980 and would go away if the Department of Education goes away?
The doe currently manages public education, so that’s the talking point – Doug and others like him want to do away with public education, so they’re interconnected for all intents and purposes. What is your alternative to public schools? If you dismantle the doe/public education, what, if anything, takes its place?
I’m not Doug. Don’t strawman. The alternative to doe/public education is public education without doe.
It was established in 1867, as part of Reconstruction, within the Dept of the Interior, then later moved to what is now the Dept of Health and Human Services. Over time, offices in other Depts (Justice, Defense, HUD) and agencies, so Carter consolidated those offices into one Dept as part of his wider deregulation/efficiency drive (yes, he is the one who started this, not Reagan). Reagan actually expanded the DoE’s budget, then HW Bush expanded it again, then W Bush expanded it again, and now Trump is is stealing congressionally-distributed funds to it. On what grounds? An anti-civil rights drive.… Read more »
It was established as an independent cabinet level agency it 1979, taking effect in 1980. Superfluous at best. Public schools had long provided public education; a federal department was not needed to do that, and in fact doesn’t do that. When federal law, including civil rights law, is violated that’s where the Department of Justice comes in. An administration that won’t address real civil rights violations via the DOJ is not going to do it via a Dept of Education either.
The cabinet-level agency was created in 1979, to consolidate work with a history of longer than a century. Kind of like how the Department of Homeland Security was created to (ostensibly) share information across law enforcement agencies and boost efficiency. There may or may not be a reason for it to exist, but I have given reasons for it to exist and you have not given any reasons for it not to exist. Of course the real reason you want it not to exist is so that states can use taxpayer funds to discriminate against non-religious groups. In practice, this… Read more »
And you hate puppies, trees, and motherhood. Makes as much sense as your one-note accusations. I tried, but now I’ll add you to the list of people with whom there is no point in interacting.
Suit yourself, John. My comments are far from one note. There is one consistency: I am critiquing Doug’s quest for earthly power. In service of that I have mentioned his flip-flopping — i.e., his ever-changing self-serving rationalizations — on Kevin DeYoung, on Epstein, and other subjects. I have mentioned some of his hypocrisies. I have noted that he only boosts white men, and located his ministry in a place notorious for attracting white (male) supremacists. I have noted that he has flirted with white (male) supremacist communities with his “take the red pill” and “empathy is evil” and “white boy… Read more »
That will happen the next time the Dems are in power, regardless. of dismantling. They will rebuild because it is one of their temples.
You think trump is over-delivering in areas? Ha. Closing the borders, kidnapping and shipping Christians mainly from other countries away…sure steers clear of the actual gospel message, you know, love your neighbor, take care of the least of these, etc. God has commanded us to love Her and love others…does that just fall to the wayside because of your fears? How do you justify the use of “trannies” and being glad about getting them “back in the closet”? People with different sexual orientations have always been around (look at the eunuchs of the Bible…), even if they’ve been “closeted”…and you… Read more »
See the gay men’s choir song: “we’re coming for your kids”
See Doug’s blog entry endorsing Steven Sitler in his congregation.
That has nothing to do with my comment.
That’s a matter of opinion.
Joshua, I would check out the PCA in Vero Beach: https://ctkvb.org/.
Thank you!
It’s a lot further north, but I’ve worshipped at the PCA church in Titusville, FL once before and they were a great bunch of saints. Maybe the PCA is strong in that area.
Hello, Joshua. We used to live in Vero and now live one town over. Our ideal would be a CREC church (presby), but for a variety of reasons we have landed at the local SBC church – conservative, pastor is postmill (Canon+ subscriber) and this is reflected in the preaching, and there are multiple others there like-minded. Many big families, very welcoming, church absolutely loves children, big focus on Christian education and discipleship of parents and children, integrated worship… https://www.vero.church/
Thank you all, I will pass it along.
I just don’t understand Buster Keaton and E. What is the motivation for spending hours upon hours of reading and commenting on this blog, when it clearly upsets them? I barely have time in my day to read this blog, that I have benefitted tremendously from and love. But reading a blog you hate, then interacting consistently for years… You must be retired old guys or something.
You commented:)
🤭
Worley, I have been here a short time, and will remain for a short time. I am here for a very specific reason, and that reason will be coming to its conclusion soon. I am not retired, but this does not take hours and hours for me. In fact, it is trivially easy for me to deal with the arguments made here. Please reflect on what I am saying, don’t dismiss it. Notice that I have an answer to every critique, but my interlocuters often do not. Notice, too, that Doug never argues against his own (earthly) self-interest. Notice that… Read more »
You’re as much of a bloviating blowhard and self-congratulatory twit as your alter ego.
IYKYK
Worley Bird, understand one thing, they like the attention.
Here for the lolz. Especially lolcows like cherrera spurging out and fp shadowboxing.
I haven’t been here in 2 weeks. You comment like 25 times within the first hour each Tuesday blog is posted. You don’t have to pay me rent for living in your vacant head, but you could do something more productive with your life. Or is it that meaningless and miserable?
Yes, that is why we post anonymously. We want attention.
C’mon. Deal with the arguments or sit down.
You claim you’ve had DW over for dinner. There’s a place for anonymity but not when you’re taking it as personal as you are and acting like a diva.
Be a brave soul and come out of your closet!
Like buster said, no one has substantive responses to any of our arguments. I’m sorry you don’t like them, but stop living in an echo chamber and you’ll start to see that there are other perspectives with value to consider. How often does Doug mention Jesus on his blog, the life He lived, things He did…he harps on power, authority and some sort of special knowledge he’s obtained that he can share with others, giving them the “right” formula for how live and get to heaven. We write here because you’re on a road that leads to destruction…both here on… Read more »
I think the problem you have with the responses is that once you say things like god is a she, they don’t really care about your other arguments because they lose respect for your opinions. I agree that you can pull useful things from most totalities of perspective, but also I think that echo chamber may be the wrong expression. Most people tend to follow a blog they generally agree with, and also most people tend to comment with disagreements to other comments. This causes most of the responses to your posts (disagreeing with Doug) to agree with Doug. Search… Read more »
I have as much respect for Doug’s experience as he gives to the experiences of others. He is entitled to no more. In reality, his experiences are incredibly narrow, and shallow. His community is insular and removed. His exposition is poor, he has done no serious scholarship of any type. He has only ministered to one community, which is very homogenous. His arguments are full of strawmen, bad-faith characterizations of his opponents, generalizations, caricatures, fallacies and defamations. He argues like a secular philosopher — i.e., oriented towards scoring points rather than locating truth — which reflects his academic training in… Read more »
I never said God is a man I said He was masculine. Different things. Jesus is a man and His biology matches. I won’t argue about traits but I will point out that meekness means controlled strength and strength is masculine so not a great example. Never said He has a biological form, but Christ does. If Father is not intended to imply anything about God’s feelings toward us than why use the term? Ruach is a feminine word in Hebrew but when referring to the Holy Spirit it uses a masculine verb. Because of the rules of subject verb… Read more »
There is no implication that the Holy Spirit is a male just because a masculine verb is used, that is adding to Scriptures. If God wanted us to think of his Spirit in masculine terms then he would have told us to think of “her” in masculine terms. “Subject-verb agreement” is a secular-modernist man-made construction that you are using to constrain the nature of God; there is no way to rectify the Trinity with “subject-verb agreement”. You on very, very dangerous ice here, and I tried to warn you by saying that Christians cannot claim that sex is metalinguistic when… Read more »
You accuse me of reductionism while reducing the clear, covenantal self-revelation of God to a symbolic inkblot for human projection. I don’t need to prove that God has XY chromosomes, nor have I claimed it. I’ve simply affirmed what Scripture has affirmed: that God has revealed Himself consistently in masculine terms — not arbitrarily, and not because the ancients were too primitive to understand metaphors. “Father,” “Son,” “King,” “Lord,” “Husband” — not just metaphor, but role. Covenant. Authority. Intimacy. Order. As for subject-verb agreement, it’s not “secular-modernist,” it’s Hebrew 101. If we’re going to interpret the Bible, we need to take the… Read more »
Along with your criticisms, what is your positive answer–your road to Heaven? Or where is it set out so you don’t have to write/post it again? (I think pretty highly of Gary North’s book Unconditional Surrender. I don’t have an active website, but http://www.lohr84.com is archived at Way back Machine, and andrewlohr.wordpress.com is still there.)
The road to heaven is Jesus…not legalism. Not sure what you mean, but you got me to post again:)
You believe it’s fine to rip babies out of their mother’s wombs but try to take the moral high ground with mythical hippie Jesus nonsense. You haven’t said anything substantive and calling you a midtwit is quite charitable.
Doug’s most recent column = power-mad insanity. Tulsi’s dump has revealed nothing. Which is why Doug mentions not one thing that it revealed. He either this and is lying, or he does not know this and is a fool.
Quick test: when is the last time Doug argued in favor of something that would reduce his own power?
Hmmmmmmmm.
The CREC is circling the drain, sold out in worship of a man in makeup with a faux-golden
calftoilet. Doug tried to anoint Saul but instead genuflects to Nero. Sad!Doug is wish casting and taking the bait to distract from the fact the man he endorsed is an almost certainly a PDF. But let’s not pretend this is the first time he’s done such a thing with Steven Sitler lurking around his congregation.
As I said: when is the last time Doug argued in favor of something that would reduce his own power?
Jesus told Peter to put the sword away. Doug says to pick it up.
“Now this time sell your cloak to buy a sword”
”I came not to bring peace but the sword”
“put on the whole armor of God… sword of the spirit”
“From his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword”
Yes, he had very harsh words for religious authorities who twist the words of God for their own authority: Matthew 10: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. … But beware of men, for they will deliver you up to councils and scourge you in their synagogues. … For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes. … “Do not think that I came to… Read more »
I never said physical sword, I just wanted to point out that context matters.
Yes, and the context is that the most vicious judgment will come to those who teach false doctrines.
Like political dominionism.
And now WSJ reports that Trump’s name is in the Epstein files, and Trump was told that in May. Sounds like Elon wasn’t full of it on this one.
No wonder Trump tried to intimidate WSJ with a lawsuit earlier this week.
I presume Doug will publicly repent of his reckless slander in today’s post, right? RIGHT???
Why did Paul fail to give the churches his takes on the political controversies of his day, and his analysis of the inner workings in the palace of Nero etc.? What were the consequences of his theology in terms of where his practical priorities then lay, and what are the consequences of the theology of today’s pastors for their practical priorities? Do pastors today know something that he didn’t, or did Paul know something that they don’t?
David French had a nice column today. He calls I Corinthians 5 “some of the most ignored verses in the New Testament”, this part especially: 12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.” This follows Jesus’s example: his harshest judgments were always against the church authorities who emphasized legalism to establish their own authority (e.g., Pharisees). French comments: One of the fundamental problems with the American evangelical church is that it so often gets that… Read more »
It is notable that Paul’s expression there implies that it was common knowledge and universally understood in the churches that it was not any business at all of the church to seek to regulate the outside world. The idea that now, 2025, in the West, is a time when the church has so clearly proven its calibre that God is now reversing that and calling upon us to no longer be pilgrims and exiles, but instead to take the rule over nations, is so absurd and suggests such a gigantic degree of inability to read what part of the story… Read more »
But then what do you do with that pesky disciple the nations verse? if you read the verses prior to 12-13, it talks about eating with those who are sinners and not eating with unrepentant brothers. To put this in the immediate context we should not refuse to associate with sinners outside the church because weren’t we once like them ourselves. To imply that this verse means we cannot condemn the sinful behavior and proclaim the fallen state of mankind which made it necessary for Christ to come and die for us on a cross is something of a stretch.… Read more »
Disciple the nations does not mean to take control of political authority and impose morality by force! Never once does Christ say or imply that, and neither does Paul. This power-grab can only corrupt the church. Christ said “those without sin may cast the first stone”. Christ discipled through example. He fed the poor, healed the sick, dined with the tax collectors, forgave the prostitutes. Paul said love is greater than hope *or faith*, and defined love in ways that require empathy, because without empathy one cannot love thy neighbor as thyself, without empathy one cannot keep no record of… Read more »
How many stones have you thrown today alone?
I’ve thrown zero stones, I’m reminding you that Christ’s judgments — like those of Paul — were directed against hypocritical church leaders who attempted to use the law to enhance their power and wealth, and hypocritical church members who refused to live out their faith in love and service. Christ’s earthly judgments were not directed at the secular world, which is where the stone-throwing takes place, nor did he assume earthly authority (even tho he was capable of that). The church’s authority applies to the church only. To be clear: I am not saying Doug should be prosecuted. I am… Read more »
It is the duty of the magistrate to impose morality by force acting in official capacity as representative of God to judge. To impose morality they must know what morality is and I would rather that morality be Christian than secular.
define empathy please. I can’t really agree or disagree unless I know what you mean.
protecting everyone is a stupid idea and even you don’t believe in it. How many times have you criticized Doug for “protecting” pedophiles.
see first paragraph.
It is the duty of the magistrate to impose morality by force acting in official capacity as representative of God to judge. This is not Christ’s teaching — he tells the rich young ruler to divest and give to the poor, not impose morality on his subjects — but even if it was true it is not FOR YOU to assess the extent to which they have done this faithfully. Not for you, not for Doug, not for the Pope either. That is for God and God alone. I’m not playing semantic games with you, sorry. I get that part… Read more »
It’s not true that no one can assess the magistrate. Scripture literally commands us to discern the fruit of those in authority (Matthew 7:16). If a magistrate is ruling unjustly—whether pagan or Christian—we’re not just allowed to say so, we’re obligated (Proverbs 31:8–9). Prophets did it, apostles did it, Christ did it (Matthew 23). And no, that’s not “playing God.” That’s obeying God. Jesus didn’t just say “sell your stuff and be nice.” He said teach the nations to obey everything he commanded (Matthew 28:20). That means law, culture, justice. If the magistrate is under Christ’s lordship, that includes their job. Morality… Read more »
Are you trying to heap judgments on your own head? Matthew 7 is about false prophets, not the magistrate! It says explicitly “do not judge”. It says explicitly “do not focus on the specks in others eyes but the plank in your own”. It distills the Law into the 2nd Greatest Commandment: “In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the Prophets.” The secular magistrate is not mentioned at all in this passage! Who is Matthew 23 addressing: the scribes and Pharisees, the religious authorities… Read more »
It’s not true that no one can assess the magistrate. Scripture literally commands us to discern the fruit of those in authority (Matthew 7:16). If a magistrate is ruling unjustly—whether pagan or Christian—we’re not just allowed to say so, we’re obligated (Proverbs 31:8–9). Prophets did it, apostles did it, Christ did it (Matthew 23). And no, that’s not “playing God.” That’s obeying God. Jesus didn’t just say “sell your stuff and be nice.” He said teach the nations to obey everything he commanded (Matthew 28:20). That means law, culture, justice. If the magistrate is under Christ’s lordship, that includes their job. Morality… Read more »
Only a couple of points not previously addressed: — Christ did not initiate culture war, Barabbas did. Pilate and Herod could find not fault with Christ, his death was demanded by the clerics and legalists. Christ did not condemn Pilate nor Herod when he appeared before them, nor the soldiers who executed him while playing lots for his clothes, nor did he call them to repentance. Instead, he asked his Father to forgive the Romans for their ignorance even though they had not repented. You have mischaracterized Christ’s entire ministry in your quest for earthly power. Repent or be silent.… Read more »
Christ did not initiate a culture war? He announced the Kingdom of God — that’s the ultimate culture war. His opening salvo: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 4:17). That message, lived and preached, overturned tables (John 2:15), confronted Herod (Luke 13:32), alarmed Rome (John 19:12), and was so politically threatening that both religious and civil authorities sought to silence Him. You say Pilate found no fault in Him — correct — and yet still handed Him over. That doesn’t mean Christ didn’t challenge Pilate’s authority. In fact, He told him plainly: “You would have no authority at all… Read more »
“This is why the CREC is not in NAPARC”
Meaning they don’t apologize for a past “racism” every 2 years at GA? And don’t have a DEI missions organization with antiwhite leaders spouting nonsense? Do you really think the early Reformers would would be pleased with NAPARC churches and their feminine megachurch-style music, PWC ethics and hypergrace heterodox sermons?
“This is not Christ’s teaching — he tells the rich young ruler to divest and give to the poor, not impose morality on his subjects”
It’s very unlikely a Roman magistrate would call Jesus “teacher” or “master.” So most likely the rich young ruler was a Jewish leader who had no Romans 13-style authority. Your comments are full of such errors, but you’re so enamored with yourself that you blather on 4 or 5 more paragraphs instead of catching them.
Scribbler, you’re doing what I see so often from people in this sort of Christian Nationalist/theonomist orbit. Trite little syllogisms get to over-write the whole world-view and priorities of Jesus and the apostles. If your syllogisms, which seem to obvious and correct to you, why did they not seem so obvious and correct to our authoritative teachers? Does not the yawning gap between your outlook on politics and theirs hint at *anything at all*?
Please tell me what these priorities are and how exactly they are being overwritten? I am not denying that Christ came to save sinners. He came to save us and to fix what was broken. He came to make new men and new men don’t fit in old structures (Eph. 4:24, Mark 2:22). He is making everything new (Rev. 21:5). Which authoritative teachers exactly? Augustine who wanted to use the state to prosecute heretics? The Church during the inquisition? The writers of the Westminster who say the state should guard against false teaching? perhaps the adjusted American version that says… Read more »
Scribbler, there is a very wide field of possibilities for us in between the two poles of 1) taking rule over the nations and 2) having no contact with the world. It’s the field occupied by the vast majority of Christians across the last 2000 years.
Agree with your first sentence, and depending on whether you mean the church ruling or just Christians ruling I might be between those fields. If you count methodologies, practices, and extent, then I’m definitely in the mid-field.
Not sure your statistics are accurate. the church had a long run in the Holy Roman Empire. Plenty of anti-contact monasteries too. Not quite sure that majority is as vast as you say.
87% of the 119th (current) Congress, and 8 out of 9 present Supreme Court justices are adherents of a Christian faith. Must they all resign? I would agree if you said the church in its official business and pronouncements should not be running government administration. In our representative democracy we have the right to evaluate and make statements on government performance, even its morality. There was no such right in the empire. However, what if Nero had consulted Paul, and said, “I need to stop my mother’s influence. I’m planning to have her killed”? Would Paul have to say, “You’re… Read more »
Do you believe as much as 87% of Congress actually are Christians? I’m not so sure, and it is dangerous to the church and to individual souls for us to accept the loosest, most inclusive definition possible. I don’t assume you mean to do that, but you want to be careful with statistics.
The question I tried to address was whether Christians can legitimately evaluate and even regulate people outside the church. I assume the 87% figure from the Pew Research Center is based on self-identification, which, for me, is enough to obligate them to the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians and ask if they need to give up political office. I don’t think it addresses Paul’s public concern to limit the issue to “true Christians.” All “adherents” (the word I used), however defective or hypocritical, are under the Scriptures.
The logical implication of your line of thought, of course, is that the church is essentially totalitarian, and the teaching elders of the church are indeed theocrats. It would be arbitrary to restrict your line of reasoning to the national government – why stop there? There’s also businesses, community co-ops, sports clubs, literally everything. Congratulations, you have merged the Christian view of how the church essentially operates in the present age with that of the most totalitarian ideology…. but why is it, on your world-view, that Christ and his apostles nowhere reflect that outlook in any of their sayings or… Read more »
You completely missed the point. If Christians cannot say anything to non-Christians or be involved in government then shouldn’t pastors be writing in to tell them to repent and resign. From your arguments either churches cannot tell Christians to abide by scripture or churches must tell Christians to refrain from holding office. If the church cannot be involved in regulating then either Christian’s in office cannot be instructed in how they should use the office or Christians cannot hold office. If Christian’s were to hold office, then either the church must shepherd them and call them to repent and resign… Read more »
> “If Christians cannot say anything to non-Christians….”
Again, why the absurd false dichotomies? Is it because that’s the only way that Christian Nationalists can advance their arguments, if we a priori accept these false dichotomies?
> “he was bringing your argument to the logical conclusion.”
Only if we first accept the false dichotomy.
If your only issue is that you don’t want the Church to run the State then we have no argument.
If your issue is you don’t want the government to act on Christian principles then you can’t hide behind the church as an organization.
you can’t have it both ways, either Christians cannot be officeholders or they can and can act as Christians with all the significance of that.
Preachers, elders, deacons, priests, and bishops, etc. carry out the business and pronouncements of the church.
I wrote, “the church in its official business and pronouncements should not be running government administration.”
And I agree, by extension, that these church governors also should not be the ones running “businesses, community co-ops, sports clubs, [and] literally everything.”
You seem to be running a motte-and-bailey procedure. Christian Nationalism is not just the traditional Protestant understanding that the Bible speaks to all of life. It’s far, far, far more than that; which is evident from reading the books written by Christian Nationalists to explain what their doctrines mean in practice.
Your comment that “it [is] not any business at all of the church to seek to regulate the outside world” would seem to rule out “the traditional Protestant understanding.” However, if you are committed to Protestant approaches to “all of life” ethics, that looks like a good place to be.
If by “evaluate and regulate” you mean act as governing officials, the answer is that people who occupy positions of governing authority are who can do that; it has nothing to do with whether or not they are Christian and nothing to do with the Church as the Church. No, it is not the mission of the Church to make non-Christians behave like Christians, but it is the mission of government to make people behave, and Christians can be part of that, same as they can fill any other legitimate occupation. Under the scriptures, to use your phrase, might sometimes… Read more »
john, we should be immediately suspicious of anyone who seeks earthly power and rationalizes this by saying he will use it to popularize or enforce the faith. Have these men obtained power by currying favor with the wealthy, with the corrupt, with the abusive? Have they pandered to those who love money, which is the root of all evil? Have these men sought power out of their own vanity? Do they abuse the church through hypocrisy? In many cases, to ask these questions is to answer them. Trump has proclaimed that he has never sinned and thus has no need… Read more »
Good Comment. (I would like if I could)
I’d like to understand why people of your persuasion so often present their arguments in terms of such absurd false dichotomies.