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 »
I don’t think the Numbers 5 passage has anything to do with abortion, which is a human act to bring about the death of the unborn baby.
The Exodus 21 passage used to discuss this is clearer, and to my mind indicates the bringing about the harm or death of an unborn baby is treated as more than manslaughter. The unborn are treated as persons rather than a collection of cells. There are plenty of passages that support this.
Abortion is not the unforgivable sin, but continued assertion that it is a moral good is, imo.
Numbers 5 describes a set of human actions that culminates in the intentional death of an unborn baby. Exodus 21 does not describe “more than manslaughter” it describes far less: the punishment is the same as for property crime. That is because according to the OT women and children are the property of the patriarch. Which is why Numbers 5 is written the way that it is: the woman’s womb is the property of her husband, and no one other man’s child belongs in it. Removing an unwanted child from it — on mere suspicion of infidelity, in the absence… Read more »
My version of Numbers 5 the RSV doesn’t mention a misscarriage of any baby the woman has conceived by her adultery. A quick check of the notes in the NET bible reveal this to be a translation issue regarding Hebrew idioms. To my mind the text is about the judgement of God on a woman whose husband suspects her of adultery. Since God gives life he has an absolute right to take it back again. This right has not been delegated to mankind when it comes to the unborn. If the woman is innocent then she is promised children. The… Read more »
Love your unborn neighbor as yourself.
But the babies go to heaven so…
I don’t at all follow the connection between my comment and your question, but, for what it’s worth, I don’t believe Scripture has directly revealed what happens to those who die in infancy – which is in keeping with the general pattern of Scripture in revealing things that we need to know. The secret things belong to God, but we are assured that he is always perfectly just, incapable of making any mistakes and is also astonishingly merciful – and thus, we can trust him.
Well said.
Agreed, but Doug seems to have “insider information” about who’s in and who’s out. I think there are more gray areas in the Bible than people want to admit or recognize. I just think it’s a double-standard. And if life is so precious, why do so many Christians fight tooth and nail against abortion but not for ANYTHING after the baby is born? What about immigrants?
I do not know enough to comment except in general terms upon what proportion of Christians do or don’t interest themselves in which areas. In general I’m not opposed to people have areas of special focus; and all believers will answer to the Master for their decisions in his service. The sheer number of babies killed in the womb, and the severity of that particular evil, surely justifies having a large number of Christians deciding to focus upon it.
Faith cometh by hearing. Unborn babies can hear at some point. Babies with devout Christian parents will be hearing their parents’ prayers, family devotions, Christian discussions, church services…the Gospel. Babies without such parents probably won’t. When John the Baptist in Elisabeth’s womb heard Mary’s greeting, he ‘leaped for joy’–said Elisabeth speaking by the Holy Ghost, whether He was inspiring poetry or inspiring knowledge, or both, let argue who want to. PCA A.D. 2005 G.A. at one of the book? tables, the father of a young infant said his (born) baby had favorite Psalms? and others not liked so well, from… Read more »
The can hear “at some point”…so they also can’t hear at some point…
Indeed, this argument was salient in those days too: By 1706, this fear by slaveowners had spurred legislation in at least six colonies declaring that an enslaved person’s baptism did not entail their freedom. (Via: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/02/16/a-brief-overview-of-black-religious-history-in-the-u-s/) That is because in the 1600s some slaves had won their freedom by appealing to Common Law traditions, which prohibited Christians from owning other Christians as property. Others chose the more direct route of prohibiting the evangelization of slaves at all, thus avoiding the question. Still others prohibited slave literacy on the grounds that slaves might read the Bible, become converted, and thus require… Read more »
Such things as these highlight that there is a vast difference between someone launching an argument on one hand that the Bible does not, in all times and circumstances, require immediate manumission of all slaves…. and on the other hand, attempting an argument that slavery as found and practised in the USA in the 18th century was defensible or compatible with Christianity, rather than a grave moral crime.
I needed to slow down there; there’s no reason why I said “in the 18th century” specifically; it should say “up into the 19th century”.
I would argue that it consistent through Jim Crow in the 20th, and the forces that Doug is eagerly aligned with intend to reimpose it in the 21st.
Because white men not being on top, always, everywhere, of everything, is “woke”. And of course there’s nothing worse than that.
If there were a referendum to restore slavery for blacks only,
how do you think pastor Wilson would vote?
If you agree with me about the answer to that question,
would you want him preaching the answer from the pulpit where he works?
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 »
One man’s working-out of the differences between men and women is another man’s misogyny. Am I misogynistic to lift heavyish boxes for some of the ladies at my job?
Probably
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.
Because “supported.”
You debate Doug endlessly in pursuit of what?
Criticism can be fair (or not), but are you doing unto him as you’d want him to do unto you? Tho I harp on Doug’s sins with the harping of men and angels, and have not charity…
“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 »
This the Democratic Party is the same since slavery line of argumentation needs to go to jail with Dinesh D’Souza. So embarrassing people still earnestly use it 🙈
Chris, did you not read the last couple sentences of my comment?
I obviously did not say “the Democrat Party is the same since slavery.” I specifically mentioned the period from the 1820s through the 1960s. Moreover, I concluded my comment by saying “fortunately the Democrat Party eventually reformed itself (at least in that regard).”
I think Kevin Williamson didn’t like it–but the party of slavery was the party of segregation is the party of quotas, of DEI (those poor inferior blacks need our help, they presuppose.) Racism, racism, and racism.
Since Doug is a slavery apologist, is he a democrat?
God’s providence does not remove man’s responsibility. Claiming it does is heresy. Did Christianity survive the Russian Revolution? Yes. You miss the point. Christianity thrives when it is persecuted. It shrivels when it persecutes. That is why Christ instructs the church to rejoice in suffering (something I have never observed, not even a single time, in any Christian Nationalist church): it furthers the spread of the gospel. Bombs and abductions other forms of state murder do not. By the way, there is no “Democrat Party” now, and there was no “Democrat Party” in the 1860s. However there were Christian Nationalists… Read more »
Buster, you said “there were Christian Nationalists in the 1860s. They were known as ‘Confederates,’ they killed hundreds of thousands of Americans in defense of evil, and Doug supports them to this day.” Yes, and these Confederates were of course Democrats (as you most surely know). And no, Doug does not support the Confederate cause over the Union cause in the Civil War. You also said: “We are happy to accept you warmly, and are even happy to offer you an education that consists of more than cliches strung together with unsupported assertions.” Speaking of an education, I cut… Read more »
Thank you for dropping your naked partisanship enough to admit that there is not now, nor has there been, a “Democrat Party” for anyone to belong to. I am very well-versed in the history of political parties in America, thanks. You seem to be trying to trap me in some hypocrisy that does not exist, probably so that you can next draw a false equivalency. But this is a dead end: the next time you find me defending Democratic politicians who supported segregation in the 1950s will be the first. The next time you find Doug supporting those politicians will just… Read more »
Buster, I don’t need to ask Doug more questions, since he makes his views known and clear, both in his blog posts and his books. As I’ve already stated, I don’t always agree with Doug, nor do I have to agree with him on everything. Just like I don’t agree with C.S. Lewis on everything, or Saint Augustine on everything (actually, a lot of things). Yet I have profited greatly from reading Saint Augustine. Regarding Doug describing himself as a paleo-Confederate, this term can encompass many things, therefore it’s not monolithic. But one thing I’m certain of is that Doug… Read more »
he makes his views known and clear, both in his blog posts and his books Then why are you claiming that does not support the Confederacy when he very plainly does? paleo-Confederate, this term can encompass many things, No it can’t. This is a rationalization. Doug has been clear: the Confederacy was correct on EVERY IMPORTANT QUESTION. He would’ve supported the Confederacy in 1861 and he would support the Confederacy in 2025. He claims that this is the biblical position. You are in denial. As I’ve stated many times here, Doug is not the monster you make him out to… Read more »
Buster, no one is changing the goalposts, and certainly not 50 times. You tend to speak in hyperbole. It’s just that you want to focus on various things that interest you or annoy you, which is your right. And your plea to “pay attention” doesn’t mean much, since I do (and have) paid attention. It’s just that you and I have different hobby horses and different things which fire us up in a way the other person may not agree with. Different strokes for different folks. I do, however, think you view Doug as a monster, whether you’re willing to… Read more »
4 paragraphs of ad hominem, without a single defense of Doug on the merits.
How about we have some higher standards for our clergy than “not literally Jim Jones”?
Buster, no ad hominem at all. Again, you’re being hyperbolic. Also, you said, “How about we have some higher standards for our clergy than not literally Jim Jones?” Obviously my comments were not abut “standards” for clergy. So not only are you consistently hyperbolic, but you’re a terrible debater. And you say that I move the goalposts? Your disdain for Doug is palpable. It oozes, it drips. So I’m simply making an argument that Doug is not a monster. He’s not Jim Jones. He’s not a member of the KKK. That’s all I’ve been saying. It’s not about “standards” for… Read more »
8 more paragraphs of ad hominem.
Let’s keep this focused. This all started because you thought Dabney — chief of staff to Stonewall Jackson and inveterate racist until the day he died — should not be critiqued, but recommended. I have not said that Doug is in the KKK. I have proven that he is a self-proclaimed Confederate, which you continue to deny against the evidence of Doug’s own words, published in multiple sources and outlets, across decades. (Recall that the original name of the CREC had ‘confederacy’ in it; this was changed for marketing purposes later). You have made the connection from the Confederacy to… Read more »
Buster, you said: “Let’s keep this focused. This all started because you thought Dabney — chief of staff to Stonewall Jackson and inveterate racist until the day he died — should not be critiqued, but recommended.” Good grief, I made no such recommendation of Dabney. Dabney doesn’t mean anything to me. My only comment regarding Dabney was actually a response to E, not to you. This is quite fascinating. Even more fascinating, you said: “You provoked an argument over this man.” No, you did. I reviewed all my comments, and my first interaction with you was YOU responding to my… Read more »
For the record, I’m from Chicago, and have always lived in the Chicago area. Apologies, I must’ve gotten you mixed up with someone else who tells me I shouldn’t comment in the section designated for comments. Not that I care, but BB Warfield’s views on Dabney were fueled by the types of misperception created by Dabney’s propaganda. He wrote “The southern slaveholders did what they could to teach a true Christianity to their slaves,” which is patently false as discussed elsewhere in these threads, but it is the claim made in writings by Dabney. And it was on false premises… Read more »
Okay, we’ll leave the discussion there. Peace.
Chicago? Is your current mayor worse than pastor Wilson?
You don’t think he has influence anywhere except Moscow or other Christian nationalist bubbles? Look again…check out Canons influence/reach. I don’t think you give Doug enough credit, which may be why you don’t have a problem with him. If you consider what we say as slander, check the source (Doug’s mouth/words) that we’re providing. We relay what Doug says…he’s heretical in a lot of his views, misleading in other views, defensive if anyone questions his thoughts or take on a subject and rarely, if ever, apologizes or repents for things he says/does. He is the one who demonizes and causes… Read more »
E said:
This from someone who refers to God (the masculine form of the title for deity) as “she” and “her” when God has clearly listed His pronouns in the Bible.
Oh, my aching sides. I think we can stop here, as E clearly has no clue about anything else she says.
Haha, god listed their pronouns in the Bible…who wrote it? Who translated it?
The irony of woke creatures insisting they can use any pronoun of choice for their identity, as though they are sovereign over their gender, but they refuse to acknowledge the Creator when he reveals himself using particular pronouns.
This warfare of creature against Creator can only have one outcome.
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base [debased] mind and to improper conduct.
No pronouns for god there…
“Democrat Party” may be bad grammar, but it gets used and everyone understands what it means.
Buster Keaton (not it’s real name) hysterically screamed like a hyena:
Hey, you know who else supports and profits from child traffickers, sexual abusers, wife-beaters, and overt authoritarians? That’s right: The Democrat Party. Which you support. Which means you support all these things.
It’s a fact.
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.
My existence is meaningless now, instead of being special, I’m just an average guy. I used to be able to say I was different, then I found out that every Bible believing Christian was a racist too.
No enemies to the right, amirite?
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.
> “I don’t see anything wrong with attempting to analyse current events from a biblical perspective” I agree with you. However, it should also be recognised that a) it’s not part of the pastor’s ministry in particular to appoint himself as the interpreter of events for his congregation, and that pastoral gifts neither confer nor imply any particular ability in political analysis, b) moreover, that appointing themselves to a role of providing continual political commentary causes confusion over their actual ministry and over what the message of the gospel and the teaching to do be delivered to believers under the… Read more »
Does the bible support either the right or the left? The sin of the socialist left is envy and the sin of the capitalist right is greed!
This was once said to me by a friend somewhat tongue in cheek but it contains an uncomfortable amount of truth.
Ken, I don’t find anything disagreeable in what you say there. Leftist elites want resources and control; rightist elites desire accumulation without responsibility. The left wants to make itself the centre of all things; the right wants the state to protect its ability to live as if his fellow man doesn’t exist. Sweeping generalisations, of course, in the nature of things – but a pretty good one inasfar as generalisations can go, in my view. On the left the things Jesus says about money and discipleship are routinely re-interpreted as if they were prefixed with “the state must enforce a… Read more »
a) It’s just a blog post. Don’t make more of it than it is. A pastor’s political thoughts don’t have to be characterized as interpretations from a “magisterium of one” that his congregation must receive and affirm. What’s the evidence that such blog posts here are all about that? Pastoral gifts involve counseling Christians in life situations. Being a pastor most certainly does imply some measure of ethical discernment, even in politics, true though it is that additional experience, training, and situational knowledge make some people more astute in analysis. The changing nature of life places such counsel and comments… Read more »
At the atomistic level, each blog post or short book is just one blog post or book. But over the years and decades, a large body of work with a collection of emphases, and another collection of subjects seen as unimportant, builds up.
On reflection, I think I’d be justified in being more blunt and saying that your post gas-lights us. If you hold and follow the approach of Doug and his fellow elders of Christ Church, Moscow, then you will host and appear on regular podcasts about politics, you will seek to be and will be interviewed and giving your views often at conferences and interviews in both the Christian and conservative world, you will prioritise planting churches in places of political influence, you will see it as important to get people in your circles into positions of power and to publicly… Read more »
The discussion was about blogging. Now you’ve broadened it to podcast and news interviews, and machinations to install Christians (of the wrong kind?) into civil positions. I’m not an Anabaptist, so elders encouraging people to hold civil office looks okay to me. (I’m not a fan of church officers giving up their calling to in order to hold civil office.) Maybe many Reformed churches are not as active, but on paper they are committed to the lawfulness of Christians serving in government, in which “they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each… Read more »
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 🤣
Whatever could be said about any and all of those things, it’s a very US-centric analysis. Suppose that a country bordering the US considered the US president to be a moral criminal. Suppose that its laws and constitution say that it can respond to this by taking the US president from Washington DC into custody. How would you feel about that? i.e. If the US can take into custody a foreign citizen who is not on US territory, then do you also believe that foreign countries can potentially do the same with US citizens on US territory, if they consider… Read more »
Neither Trump nor the administration exceeded Constitutional constraints. They colored exactly inside the lines and did not scribble all over the Constitution as the news desires viewers think. The actions in Venezuela were not a declaration of war. Yes, there are differentiations between various types of force from showing the flag, to shouldering combatant ships, missile strikes and such up to Congress declaring war. If you want to stop the drug trade, you have to stop the use of mind altering substances by Americans. That will come from prayer and telling Christians that one puff of weed takes you over… Read more »
How does staying single = discontentment?
One of my colleagues was divorced and leading an extremely sinful life. When I last saw him, he was couch surfing at different friends places between work assignments. Keep in mind, that wasn’t a spare bedroom, but the couch. Now, he kept bragging about the prostitutes he hired and how he went here and there, but he was broke. Financially. Morally. Spiritually. And contentment was not in his life. “He who finds a wife finds a good thing, and obtains favor from the LORD.” Proverbs 18:22 Of course, if you don’t like Proverbs, you may prefer this: And I come… Read more »
“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
How many years were you under oath to the US Constitution?