Contents
Thank You for Sharing
You mentioned in your wedding homily that, unlike humans, animals were made male and female at the same time. This runs completely contrary to a poem I recently wrote which I have submitted to theologians and biologists alike as I investigate whether its contents are divinely inspired. You may decide for yourself and see if it doesn’t change your mind on the subject:
Ahem…
I tell the truth
I dare not fib it
God made Eve Frog
From Adam-Frog’s ribbitHenry
Henry, did this come to you all at once, or did you have to work on it?
Sorting It Out
I’m wanting to interact with more of your content. Just wondering where to start. Can you please tell me what’s the difference between the Plodcast and Blog and Mablog podcast? Are they two different things and if so what’s the purpose for each one? Thanks mate. Love your work. From Australia.Matt
Matt, they are different. The Plodcast is a (short) week podcast in which I make a few ex temp comments on an issue of the day, do a brief word study on various sins in the New Testament and the Greek words for them, and then a book review. That is the Plodcast. The Blog and Mablog podcast is simply the video/audio of my Monday and Wednesday posts here on the blog. I was writing these long before we ever started recording them, so I still think of the written form as the main show—even though the recorded form has significantly more traffic now.
Sabbath Timing
In ‘My Life for Yours’ (and many other places) you mention your sabbath observance of 6pm-6pm, evening and morning esque, got it. You go on to mention others who observe “Roman hours” 12-12, and how we ought not to be Pharisaical with each other basically. Maybe that’s what I’m being. If the sabbath IS moral, then there has to be a point where work becomes unlawful, and becomes lawful. At some point it goes from pleasing God to displeasing Him. If God sees the sabbath within the Roman hours, you (and I) displease Him as we act unlawfully on Sunday at 8pm. If He likes the evening and morning system, others are acting unlawfully doing the same just before bed on Saturday night. If He doesn’t care then in what sense is it a moral observance? I’m sure you see my point
Also, 14 years ago I knew a man diagnosed with borderline PD. I don’t know exactly where you stand on diagnoses, but I’m not exactly a guy to take psychologists at their word, and I don’t think those things (generally trauma responses) can be put into boxes neatly, like tuberculosis or lung cancer. Anyway, that being said, I don’t know if you’ve had any experience in your pastoral life and if you had any resources to point to that you trust. Sorry if this is out there, thanksDoug
Doug, I agree that such ailments cannot be neatly cataloged, and I also know that there are real challenges that psychologists know about. But I am deeply suspicious of the general enterprise, and believe that the road to recovery needs to include moral agency before God. As far as the sabbath is concerned, all first-day sabbatarians would maintain that the 4th commandment is a moral commandment like the others, but that there are aspects of it—like the seventh day, i.e. timing—that were not moral.
Kuyperian Clay Feet
You’ve always expressed an admiration for Kuyper—even in how he’s shaped your view on government. You quote him positively in this regard despite the fact that your model is likely not compatible with his free church in a free state model. See Joe Rigney’s comments and James Wood’s. Have you ever critiqued his view before? What are your main reasons for chewing and spitting what you do from Kuyperian political thought?
ThanksCooper
Cooper, I am with Kuyper in wanting a free church—I am not an establishment man. But I am with Hoedemaker on the impossibility of the state being genuinely secular. The state can and should be neutral when it comes to different Christian denominations, but the state cannot be neutral when it comes to Darwin, Kant, Muhammad, Buddha, or the Christ.
Fastidious Christian Women
I want to offer a little pushback on what you’ve said about dating. Every professing Christian woman I have known who is still single into her thirties or even into her forties has rejected at least one biblically adequate candidate for the job of husband—and usually she has rejected two or three. You scratch the surface when you acknowledge that some women do not know what league they are in, but the problem is worse than that. Women generally have a serious problem with lack of contentment. That specific sin bedevils women much more than it does men—even many unbelievers can see it. One of the ways that unwillingness to be content manifests itself in single women is excessive pickiness when it comes to husband candidates—rejecting biblically adequate men who apply for the job because they’re not THIS enough, or THAT enough, or some other thing. I would also argue that it is not really a matter of standards. It is a feeling of entitlement to infinite optimization of prospects. I would further assert that this tendency in women is so poisonous that it impairs them from feeling animal attraction to men they would actually experience as attractive if they weren’t so picky.Daniel
Daniel, sure. But we still have to make distinctions. Turning down a suitor is certainly lawful. “. . . she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:39). What is not lawful is to be delusional about yourself and what you are doing. “For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith” (Rom. 12:3). And whether or not that is happened is between her and God, as well as wise parents or a pastoral counselor. It should not be determined by a disappointed suitor because many of them are also in need of Rom. 12:3.
When Catechisms Left the Public Schools
I read in your book Gashmu Said It where you [said you] don’t know when catechism was taken out of the public school in America. You should read McCollum v. Board of Education 1948.Rune
Rune, thank you. But as I understand it, that involved “release time” for religious instruction. There was an earlier time when the schools themselves taught from Protestant catechisms.
Thanks, and Thanks Returned
Thankful For Your 50 Years
Dear Pastor Doug,
I’d like to start by wishing you and Nancy a very Happy Anniversary. I am so thankful for you both and all God has done through your marriage in the past 50 years.
I definitely don’t have the words to express my deep gratitude for your faithful obedience to all God has called you to. I’ve been writing this letter in my head for the past 7 years. Trying to come up with a sufficient thank you. Watching your anniversary video stirred up the encouragement I needed to finally do it.
I was first introduced to the “Moscow Mood” almost 8 years ago through a friend who recommended I listen to a specific episode of the Sheologians podcast. It was the episode where your daughter Rachel was sharing about her new book You Who. Everything she said had me hooked and there was something about the way she spoke that had me longing for that kind of secured assurance. Prior to this pivotal moment I had been a later-in-life convert who had only attended Calvary Chapels and was under the impression that God loved me no matter what I did and if I ever got “too bad” I could always just raise my hand again and “re-dedicate” my life to Him. Easy peasy quick fix. No real necessary change required on my part. Until I became a mom. Then I found myself carrying the responsibility to train up my child in the way she should go. It was then that I realized I didn’t even know if I was sure I was going in the way we should all be going. How could I teach her about being a Christian, about what that meant, if I wasn’t sure myself? It was around this time I read You Who and dove head first into all Canon Press had to offer. I remember the day I connected the dots of who Rachel Jankovic’s parents were and I thought, “I want my children to have parents like that.”
I don’t quite remember when I first heard you explain covenant theology, but it was a life-altering moment. You touched on it again briefly in your anniversary video which reminded me how much life has changed for me and my family since. It was exactly that, “watching a good movie slightly out of focus.” Everything you and your family, and your church family are doing adjusted that focus for me.
There is a small family in Southern California that has been tremendously impacted by the faithfulness in Moscow, Idaho and I needed to thank you and your lovely wife. I wish I had the opportunity to thank each of your parents. And I thank God for blessing the work of all your hands which has been such a blessing to us.
With Gratitude,Christina
Christina, thank you very much. And thank you for having a spirit of application.
Bi-vocational Plans?
As I work through my MDiv program, I have encountered different possibilities for my future. I am at seminary due to a distinct call to preach, which has not gone away. However, being newly married and hoping for a flock of children despite the economy, I have been seriously considering bi-vocationalism. The current hope is to leave school, work full time in sales at my father’s company, while pursuing eldership and hopefully a pastorate in the next 15-ish years. The rub comes with my father. Right now he runs a very successful company and would love nothing more than to hand it off to one of his sons. As the eldest son, I have the best opportunity to take over this business. I know I could do it well and have a very successful career. But I do not know if I could maintain a pastorate at the same time. Is this sort of high-level bi-vocational work even possible? Is it wise? Would running the business instead of preaching be sinful? All questions I am pondering. I would appreciate any insight.Isaac
Isaac, you are asking a reasonable question, but unfortunately I cannot answer it for you. This would depend on your circumstances, your bandwidth, your personality, and so forth. What you are describing has certainly been done (think Michael Foster), but also realize that it is relative rare for a reason.
Two Books
I’ve just read two excellent books that seem to be out of print based on the cost and difficulty I experienced acquiring them. They are:
“The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant” by Lewis Schenk
“Christian Nurture” by Horace Bushnell
These form a one-two punch for paedocommunion against hyper individualism and the “Truly Reformed” crowd. Given what they argue I’m not surprised they’re out of print…any chance Canon Press can bring them back to the people?
In Christ,Matt
Matt, I have Schenk in my library somewhere, I think, but haven’t read him. I have read Bushnell, and it is a mixed bag. It is a wonderful book, full of common sense and common grace, but Bushnell was something of a liberal, heading in a bad direction.
Risky Career Jump?
Happy New Year and congratulations on 50 years of marriage! I like to think that our hearts are with you in Moscow even though our family (and the sun, from what I can tell) reside in Florida.
I am writing on behalf of my husband, who is navigating the Lord’s calling from Christian education into Christian writing. We have a ten-month-old daughter and would love more kids, so we’re not sure how to be financially wise while also trusting God on this risk of a career shift. From his perspective, there simply isn’t enough time in the day to prioritize his family, personal quiet time, full-time work, enough sleep to survive, and then time on top of that to write with any level of quality. I am blessed with a great job, but he (understandably) thinks it unwise to leave his job without anything in the pipeline for work.
Do you have any encouragement for him? Are there practical ways I can encourage him without nagging?
(Just to brag on him, he’s got a PhD in curriculum and instruction and his dissertation was Augustine’s theory of education. He’s the smartest, most Godly man I know and my whole heart yearns to help him in this endeavor, but I’m a little more optimistic on the matter—can I frame it as trusting in the Lord’s providence?—and his nature is much more cautious.)
Thank you in advance for your consideration. Again, we are huge fans of your ministry and can’t wait to enroll our kids in Logos Online once they are older.
In Christ,Emily
Emily, I don’t know your exact circumstances, but as a general rule, the launch of a writing career needs to be subsidized with a day job. I think your husband is right to be cautious. My advice on writing and on getting it done can be found in my Wordsmithy and Ploductivity.
Pajama Bottoms and Eschatology
Regarding “More Gay Than the Pope’s Pajama Bottoms” and the “traditional American values” that form one of the pillars of conservatism and the fact that heterosexual normativity is one of those traditional values . . .
Those holding to a preterist interpretation of Revelation might not find this as impactful (I’m more of an eclectic idealist myself), but I think that Revelation 13:16-17 is a pretty fitting description of how the spirit of this present age has captured the hearts of unbelievers. In an idealist perspective, the “mark” of belonging to the world will vary, but at present the affirmation of non-normative sexuality seems to be one of the most prominent signs of allegiance to the current zeitgeist.
My paraphrase of Revelation 13:16-17 is, “All citizens, whether important or unimportant, weak or powerful, rich or poor, business owners or employees, shall be required to demonstrate in both their actions and their words that they are ‘on the right side of history.’ Failure to reflect this commitment to ‘progress’ shall result in removal from commercial enterprises.”
Non-NQN qualifier: Obviously, being a political conservative is not synonymous with belonging to Christ, but the fact remains that the only values worth defending are those derived from the revealed truth of God.Steve
Steve, thanks. I can come as far as saying Revelation 13 manifests the inescapability of total allegiance. What you see as interpretation, I would call application.
Courtship and Calling Audibles
How does one do “courtship” when we’re talking about women who are more established and living independently—those in their late 20s, 30s, and beyond? How does it apply to women without active fathers, or in situations where the man and woman meet online and do not live near one another, where the majority of romantic relationships now begin?
Best regards,Robert
Robert, you remember the principles, and apply them as you can. But if a woman’s father doesn’t believe in courtship, or is a total pagan, a Christian woman will have to make her own decisions. Many times this kind of thing will look more like traditional dating. But if a woman has a healthy relationship with her father, the principles can be a blessing even at a distance. My sister was a missionary in her thirties when my father oversaw her relationship on the other side of the world.
When the Man Comes Around
I just wanted to send you a short letter regarding my appreciation of your commentary on Revelation. I have read through “When the Man Comes Around” twice. It all lines up so well and leaves little to confusion. I have always been inquisitive. My church that I was raised in and still attend does lean towards the futurist idea for Revelation and I am trying to open them up this idea. It makes the most sense and I have peace in embracing this way of thinking when I have prayed about it. I purchased a couple extra copies as well to provide to a couple friends who are leaning this way in regards to the preterist understanding of Revelation. I have also viewed your discussions with Apologia Studios. Thank you for teaching me through this study.
Regards,Brent
Brent, thank you very much.
Book of Mormon Comment
I don’t have a dog in this fight, but can you explain/defend your Book of Mormon comment?JJ
JJ, large portions of the Book of Mormon are lifted straight out of the Bible, I think Isaiah or Jeremiah. And it is the KJV, right down to which words are italicized. But the fact that these true words were included in a false book doesn’t make the truth false.
Fit to be Tied
I swear, nothing has humiliated me more in the last few weeks than Christian intellectuals using every page of a thesaurus to avoid typing “might makes right”.
When you blockade a nation’s port, fire missiles at their capital city, shoot their cops, land helicopters and capture their head of state, you are declaring war. We make clowns of ourselves when we pretend there is some kind of “five second rule” to war. I was flabbergasted to hear you explain that the Constitution as written doesn’t really matter on this subject and that objecting to violating it is a “sin of conservatism.” Do we believe in constitutional order or not? And no, it doesn’t comfort me to know that there are some lawyers willing to call this “legal”. Few things are more insulting to my intelligence than the Attorney General to the United States charging a foreign head of state with the crime of illegally owning a machine gun . . .
How many spins in your chair did it take you to get dizzy enough to write that an incursion into Latin America was part of Trump opposing “the deep state”? When has the Deep State objected to deposing foreign leaders? When has the Deep State opposed firing missiles? Venezuela’s current leader is a raging antisemite socialist, but I guess we’re only 15 more “second in commands” away from fixing their country…Daniel
Daniel, it pains me to say this, but you wrong me. Recognizing that constitutional norms are gone is not the same thing as being glad they are gone. But we have not declared war since 1941. We have been in numerous wars since that time, 85 years ago. Why is that?
Pastoral Availability
My wife and I were discussing earlier this week about the question of how accessible a pastor/elder/deacon should be to a member in the congregation regardless to the church size. In the pastor/elder/deacon roles as defined in Timothy, Titus, Ephesians 4 and some other scriptural places, what is the role of pastoral care from the leadership to the members in a given week/month/year etc.? Does the church size matter to pastoral care?
My working definition of pastoral care is the leadership is giving you the time of day as a bare minimum by saying “hi” to you and ask “truly” how you are doing and your family doing, and maybe, if we are lucky, to offer some encouragement and a willingness to know if we are going through some trials to pray for us. This too me is the bare minimum definition but I know that church size prevents that from happening if you have a larger church. The maximum would be the leader and yourself meeting together to have a coffee or lunch somewhere and talking and praying about things.
My expectations should be between the minimum and maximum definition, but my wife differs because church size does matter and we should expect more from our fellow church members to bear with and pray with through our trials, than to expect our leadership to be more available to us. What do you think as a “Pastor”? Am I expecting too much from you or not if you are my pastor? Does the member “always” have to seek out pastoral care or does the leadership need to include pastoral care to its members as its given job duties?
Our congregation is Baptist, where we have 3 pastors, 50+ deacons, many church directors over specific areas of ministry and many paid and volunteer staff positions. Our church population ranges from 1000-1500 on a given Sunday morning service. We have many life groups that meet prior to church services on Sunday mornings. Sunday evenings and Wednesday evenings are usually ministry groups meeting together like Awanas or Re:generation Recovery.
Sincerely,PSS
PSS, my view is that all the sheep need the watch-care of shepherds. When a crisis develops, or a spiritual challenge happens, someone in pastoral office should always be available. At Christ Church, the parish elders each have a list of members they are responsible to be current on, and they deal with a lot of the pastoral care. The helicopter crashes usually get handed up to the pastors.
Two Follow-Ups
My follow-ups are two-fold. First, with regard to the council of gods, what do you make of Jesus’s quotation of “ye are gods” in John. Second, with regard to heaven, by in this cosmos would that be within the bounds of the earth and firmament or within the bounds of creation (cosmos as I would use it would simply be all of creation but you may be using it differently)?PT
PT, the Lord’s use of that passage indicates the lawfulness of applying the word “god” to created beings, which would also apply to the council of the gods. By “in this cosmos,” I mean within this created order, the whole show.
Lectionaries
What is your opinion on lectionaries? I am responsible for putting our church liturgy together and we have always used the Revised Common Lectionary. As I have been trained to suspect most developments of the last century, I have started to wonder whether there might be a reason to be suspicious of it. Thoughts?Matthew
Matthew, I don’t know anything about that particular lectionary, but I share your suspicions. It would be wise to check to see what sorts of passages were left out.
Dabney?
I am not writing in response to any particular post but to a passing reference here and another one there. While I am a high church Anglican who mostly rejects Calvinism, your references to R. L. Dabney have interested me, both as a Christian and as a Southerner. Is there a particular edition of his works, in print, that you would recommend to me? (While I applaud your efforts with making e-books available, I prefer print personally.)
Sincerely yours,Tyler
Tyler, it depends on your interests. He has a book on preaching (Evangelical Eloquence), a systematic theology, a book on the Civil War (A Defense of Virginia), and there are collections of his essays available (Discussions). If you want to whet the appetite, Canon Press reprinted one of his essays, On Secular Education.
You’re Welcome
Thank you for publishing my letter without redaction and for at last, acknowledging my challenge to debate. You say you won’t engage because I have “misrepresented” you; methinks that’s a lame excuse. Is not your charge a sound reason for correcting my allegedly misleading characterizations in a public disputation? Moreover, in your rejoinder you don’t scruple to furnish even one or two examples of how I have supposedly made false representations.Michael
MIchael, very well then. Here would be a couple:
You said: “Wilson finds a smidgen of commendation for the Pharisees in Jesus’ statement about their occupation of the judgement seat of Moses. He seems to be attempting to demonstrate that in some cases the Pharisees are not the children of hell, murderers of the prophets, a brood of vipers and the implacable agents of spiritual ruin.” No, my position is that the Pharisees collectively were children of hell, etc. precisely because of the hypocritical gap between what they taught and how they lived. Jesus commended what they taught (Matt. 23:3). “All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not” (Matthew 23:3). You represent me as wanting to exonerate them, when what I am doing is explaining the nature of their condemnation.
You said: “His notion, and I am paraphrasing, that there are some good things in a bad book and we Christians should consult these gems for our edification, can be said about any evil tome, including Mein Kampf.” You say this, misrepresenting my argument. I am not arguing for a retrieval of the good bits from a bad book written by a bad man—although that can sometimes be done, that is not the comparison I would make, as I have repeatedly made clear. It is more like a bound collection of the Congressional Record, where it includes all the clashes and debates.
So the issue is not that you differ with me, but rather that you don’t understand or represent my position fairly. Couple that with the small size of your platform, and the game is not worth the candle.
You said: “Wilson finds a smidgen of commendation for the Pharisees in Jesus’ statement about their occupation of the judgement seat of Moses. He seems to be attempting to demonstrate that in some cases the Pharisees are not the children of hell, murderers of the prophets, a brood of vipers and the implacable agents of spiritual ruin.” No, my position is that the Pharisees collectively were children of hell, etc. precisely because of the hypocritical gap between what they taught and how they lived. Jesus commended what they taught (Matt. 23:3). “All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not” (Matthew 23:3). You represent me as wanting to exonerate them, when what I am doing is explaining the nature of their condemnation.
You said: “His notion, and I am paraphrasing, that there are some good things in a bad book and we Christians should consult these gems for our edification, can be said about any evil tome, including Mein Kampf.” You say this, misrepresenting my argument. I am not arguing for a retrieval of the good bits from a bad book written by a bad man—although that can sometimes be done, that is not the comparison I would make, as I have repeatedly made clear. It is more like a bound collection of the Congressional Record, where it includes all the clashes and debates.
So the issue is not that you differ with me, but rather that you don’t understand or represent my position fairly. Couple that with the small size of your platform, and the game is not worth the candle.
According to Goodreads, Doug, you read Schenk in 2009, and rated The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant four stars. So there you go.
More confederate apologetics and defending slavery. There should be absolutely no defense for slavery, especially from christians, and yet, here we are.
In the last week I read a writer who made the excellent point that, since a good number of enslaved people became Christians, those who claim to believe in the abiding authority of the civil law of the Old Covenant should also teach that, in accordance with the absolute ban on enslaving a fellow Israelite and the death penalty for those who did, such slaves should have been immediately liberated.
Why do you have a problem with abortion then? All this babies go to heaven, right?
Because all those who carry out abortions don’t.
Numbers 5 contains the only reference to abortion in Scripture: if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife … this will be the result: When she is made [by the priest] to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse Priest-administered abortions if the “feelings” of snowflake husbands are wounded? No other mentions anywhere in the text? Completely unmentioned by Jesus and 100% of his Apostles? Doesn’t sound very abolitionist. Definitely treated differently… Read more »
But the babies go to heaven so…
Dabney was not a good person and should only be read for historical insight and not a guide in how we should actually live as christians. “Dabney’s legacy is one of sad insularity. He constructed an inflexible theology and nurtured a seething hatred for the North. It was his all-consuming racism, however, that seared his view of life. Immediately after the war, he was alarmed over the freedmen in the Mercy Seat community adjacent to Hampden-Sydney. He could not stand to see former slaves become landowners and prosperous, and his solution was to leave. At various times between 1865 and… Read more »
“…rotten through and through.” And yet you (and a few other scolds) habitually visit Doug’s site every Tuesday to air your weekly grievances regarding all things Doug. Why not just move on and do something more constructive with your time? Does it feel good to scold Doug week in and week out? What are you gaining, or achieving, by doing this?
Right back at you, Dan! Don’t YOU have something better to do with YOUR time?
Buster, you make no sense. I don’t peruse sites that I don’t like just to scold the proprietor and his followers week in and week out. I peruse sites that I like and which I find helpful and interesting. That is why I’ve been a follower of Doug’s blog for almost 15 years. Moreover, I don’t need to agree with Doug on everything, even though I agree with him fairly often (and this from someone who is a Baptist and not a Christian Nationalist or Reconstructionist). Also, I find it beneficial to read “constructive” letters to the editor in order… Read more »
Dan, I make no effort at pleasing you. I could not care less if you understand. I adopt the tone of the proprietor. You are thrilled by the rhetoric when it is directed at someone else. So now, ask yourself: is Doug building any bridges? No, he is destroying churches. He is supporting child traffickers, sexual abusers, wife-beaters, and overt authoritarians. He is supporting them — on grounds he had previously rejected — as they plunder and murder. In support of this evil he routinely slanders others. He refuses to repent, ever, always falling back on technicalities, esoteric readings, or… Read more »
Buster, you said that Doug supports child traffickers, sexual abusers, wife-beaters, and overt authoritarians. Good grief, this is utterly hyperbolic and simplistic on your part. You make Doug out to be a monster. Sorry, but Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Chairman Mao were monsters. Whereas, Doug is someone you don’t like, which of course is fine, since it’s your choice not to like him. But why the need to make him out to be some kind of monster? You also said that Doug refuses to repent, ever. But how do you know that? He has a wife of 50 years, so… Read more »
I compared him to dabney, not those you mentioned. I think the shoe fits there. If Doug and others are willing to espouse faulty doctrine, slavery apologetics and misogyny, then yes, I believe there should be people who call them out. Also, I peruse this site because it’s close to home…closer than I assume most people who are watching from afar. We need to know what we’re dealing with, so it’s important to keep up with the latest. When someone has a platform like Doug’s and uses it to promote non-christian ideals, like slavery apologetics or hate in general, people… Read more »
E, thanks for your reply. I don’t live in an echo chamber – not at all. I’ve been a reader of Doug Wilson’s blog for almost 15 years, even though I’m a Reformed Baptist and an Amillennialist. Moreover, I do not subscribe to Christian Nationalism or theonomy or dominion theology. I have also read several of Doug’s books. I find him to be courageous, insightful, and quite witty. Do I agree with Doug on everything? No, I don’t. But I also don’t agree with C. S. Lewis on everything, nor Saint Augustine or Martin Luther or John Calvin. Nonetheless, I… Read more »
I have alleged no brain-washing, Doug attracts white supremacists b/c he gives them theological cover. The fact that Doug supports child traffickers, sexual abusers, wife-beaters, and overt authoritarians is a fact. And it is also a fact that he profits from this practice. Whether profiting from this evil makes one monstrous is, frankly, obvious. If you have trouble assimilating these facts right away that is not my problem, but I am glad that I have gotten you to think about them more. Btw, have you noticed how Doug’s previous obsession with Epstein conspiracy theories has… disappeared completely? How his certainty… Read more »
That our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ ‘supported’ prostitutes and tax collectors “is a fact,” eh? When people repent, which is hard enough (takes powerful grace), their brethren have to deal with repentance, which can also be hard. “Slavery” under Moses, and under Caesar, and under Jefferson Davis were three different things. Moses encouraged masters to free slaves, with a mule after 6 years and 40 acres after 49 years, so to speak, tho a slave could volunteer to stay enslaved. Caesar didn’t bat an eye at slaves learning to read or masters freeing them. US slavery, tho moderated by… Read more »
I’m not really sure why that comment is directed to me, but Jesus did not support prostitutes and tax collectors politically, he supported them socially against the predations of politically-minded nationalist zealots who put earthly concerns first.
People like Doug.
Doug is the Pharisee, not the servant. He debates the law endlessly, in pursuit of power. His own power.
“He is digging the grave of American Christianity — just as European Christianity was destroyed by its embrace of authoritarian white supremacists in the 20th century.” Again, this is hyperbolic. Doug cannot “destroy” American Christianity. Moreover, God’s providence will determine the trajectory of Christianity in America (and elsewhere). Did Christianity survive the Russian Revolution? Yes. Did Christianity survive Mao’s Cultural Revolution? Yes. Did Christianity survive slavery and the Civil War? Yes. By the way, it was the Democrat Party from the 1820s through the 1960s that demonstrated what white supremacy looks like in practice. To even compare modern Christian Nationalists… Read more »
Dan, I have asked this exact same question of Buster. His tenacity is incredible and his faithful following of Doug’s blog is admirable. Probably Doug’s biggest reader!
Yes, Buster and E are very faithful followers of Doug’s blog! And no matter how much they say they abhor Doug, they just can’t stay away! Doug is in their brain like a mind virus!
And Worley you never miss a chance to comment on mine.
Unlike Doug, I’m not even semi-important, so what does that say about you.
He grew up in segregated Maryland, which was more-or-less the South.
Daniel nails it. “I swear, nothing has humiliated me more in the last few weeks than Christian intellectuals using every page of a thesaurus to avoid typing “might makes right”.” Our maker: “No one engaged in warfare entangles himself with the affairs of this life, that he may please him who enlisted him as a soldier.” Not our maker: “What’s actually important is that you buy my hot take on the developments in the current news cycle, and what it means for all the players on the current political scene”. If the apostles had been postmillennial theonomists, then they’d have… Read more »
… Doug worships a false god, the god of mammon.
Matt 7 : 1 ‘Judge not lest you be judged’ as often been abused to try to prevent Christians from testing, examining or discerning the current winds of doctrine and their promoters.
Your current comment, however, struck me as the kind of judgement Jesus was warning against.
Kind of like Doug judging others?!?
Whatever Doug does is righteous, don’t you know how cults work?
I John 4:1 ‘test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.’
Doug is a self-appointed ‘reformer’ who divides the church and unites its opponents. If he was sent by Satan to bamboozle Christians the results would look exactly like this.
I don’t see anything wrong with attempting to analyse current events from a biblical perspective, but I reckon this is a much harder thing to do than often realised.
A good knowledge of the Bible needs to be supplemented with expertise in politics, history or economics.
If such expertise is missing you get the danger of Christians who say have no scientific training in a relevant discipline making fools of themselves when they comment on things like Genesis verses science, appearing to justify accusations of blind faith or faith being belief in the face of no evidence, Dawkins style.
At the risk of having this week’s trolls descend upon this reply with all manner of brainless blathering, I think there is actually a bit more nuance to the Venezuela actions that should be considered…at least by men willing to pause a moment and engage in dialog. For starters, it really must be noted that the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war, which means, among other things, the President (who is the top military chief) cannot declare war by himself. More subtly, this also requires a definition of what “war” is. Now, before you think I’m about… Read more »
Trump left the regime in place. Venezuela does not traffic fentanyl to the US. Trump pardoned a Central American leader who was convicted of trafficking drugs to the US in American courts, for no explained reason. Trump is very clear that this is about seizing Venezuela’s oil, not democracy or freedom or even crime. I.e., this is not only war, it is war for purposes of theft. And it will be used as a pretext to remove Venezuelans in this country, in fact the Trump administration has already alleged that we are at war with that country, which is the… Read more »
Dude the DOJ dropped the cartel leader part of the indictment this week 🤣
How does staying single = discontentment?
“We have been in numerous wars since that time, 85 years ago. Why is that?”
Because men like you are power-seeking hypocrites who abscond responsibility and snort at accountability. Didn’t you read the letter you responded to?
Doug putting time on the line at the consent manufacturing factory, legitimizing all conflicts outside of the Civil War and WWII.
Too true