Contents
Paths to Domestic Tranquility
I’m interested in your practical advice for husbands on handling disagreement with their wives. How can a husband firmly disagree, correct, or push back on something his wife is saying without responding in a way that either becomes passive or “sins all over the place” in the process?
And related to that, what practical counsel would you give a husband for responding emotionally when he feels attacked, criticized, or unfairly accused by his wife? In the moment, what should he be doing internally and externally to avoid becoming defensive or retaliatory while still being honest about what he believes is happening?
I’m less interested in the abstract principles than in what this actually looks like in the heat of the moment.
Also, this is another issue . . . My wife has told me that the way I apologize doesn’t communicate care to her in the way she needs it. (I’m trying my best to only apologize about things that God thinks I should). She mentioned some kind of “apology language” similar to the different love languages. Have you heard of this? Apparently, the way I apologize is too “judicious.” I admit wrongdoing if I have sinned against her and then ask for her forgiveness. But she is saying what she needs more in the moment of apology is an acknowledgment of how my wrong-doing affected her emotionally. And she needs to feel that I care more emotionally about it all.
I want to be the third option that you mentioned in your article about the Christian gentleman, but I feel exasperated by my wife’s emotions. I’m tempted to veer to the right side of the meme but I know that is wrong. Most of my marriage i have been the guy on the left. I don’t understand what it means to live with my wife an understanding way. Often I feel like she wants me to be both a man and a woman . . .
I loved the article you wrote on whistling by the longhouse. Best article I’ve read in a long time. I feel like I’m affected by the system way more than I even know. Trying to look for a door to get out of that thing and bring my wife and kids with me, but I’m stuck.
I’d be interested in your thoughts on the proper limits of a wife’s friendships when it comes to discussing difficulties within her marriage.
How would you distinguish between healthy female friendship, where a wife can seek encouragement, counsel, and perspective, and sharing marital struggles in a way that undermines the privacy or unity of the marriage? Are there things you think a wife ought to be able to receive from female friends specifically because they are women, and therefore are things she cannot receive in quite the same way from her husband simply because he is a man?
I’m especially interested in how you would think about this in terms of a wife’s need for other women versus the biblical priority of the husband-wife relationship. My wife doesn’t have any close female friendships because she is very guarded due to past hurts and I’m wondering if she is trying to get something from me that I can’t give simply because I am a man.
Thanks for any help.Anon
Anon, there is a lot here so I will just touch on the main points. When there is disagreement, or when you feel attacked, don’t try to solve everything “in the moment.” Take your time. I don’t mean argue for a long time though. Repeat her concerns back to her, tell her you will make a point to think and pray about it, and we will talk about his further tomorrow. Then make sure that you bring it up the next day. As far as apologizing in her register goes, I would encourage you to acknowledge any fault that God thinks you committed, and that you do so in your register. The issue is whether or not you mean it, and not whether it meets an emotional ideal that your wife has. If you have been in the longhouse a long time, then the way out is incremental. Start by picking just one recurring issue where disagreements are common, and then make a decision that you know will get resistance. And then, without losing your cool, stick to your guns.
Re: As a Gentleman Walks By the Longhouse, Whistling . . .
So we see the two memes in the article that fall into the simpleton and fool categories. Fair enough . . . self explanatory! How about giving us a meme using the third category of dwelling with your wife in biblical “understanding” when she is unhappy with us in a sinful sense for her unhappiness. Certainly, you must have a good one-liner that has worked for most occasions in your ministry.Rob
Rob, in those situations you have to play it as it lays, taking into consideration all the surrounding context. But, with that said . . . “I’m not happy with you.” “Honey, I do understand that. But our central concern should be whether God is happy with the two of us, which is why I want to be back in fellowship with you. And I also want to make sure that God is happy with me. So let’s pray together about this, and pick it back up tomorrow.”
Re ‘As a gentleman walks by the longhouse, whistling’:
Thank you for noting that egalitarianism requires strong enforcement / because it is unnatural (anti-realistic; insane) and reality keeps trying to pop out.
And of course the Enforcers are not exactly equal to the enforcees.
(Dankwart Rustow made the basic point, that egalitarianism requires a non-equal Equalizer, in his Freedom and Domination—which I do NOT especially recommend; not bad but not great for most people—somewhere near page 265 of the one-volume version, in a very insightful paragraph. That reality keeps popping up and that’s why ‘egalitarianism’ needs a strong enforcer is a very worthwhile extension.
Maybe care to expand sometime on how to tell godly dominance from excessive dominance? (I suspect self-satisfaction=pride.)
For example, it’s clear from the New Testament that church officers should exist, though some churches might lack them at times (Paul told Timothy to appoint elders in every church, so apparently there were churches without elders.) Overseers should oversee. It is not at all clear to me that they need to do all the baptizing and Lord’s Suppers: union-rule eldership. The only time Jesus addressed union-rule-ism, He rejected it: Don’t tell that non-apostle to stop casting out demons in My Name.Andrew
Andrew, you are right that leaders are not part of the esse of the church, but rather essential to the bene esse of the church. We are to have men in the church who “rule” (Heb. 13:7,17), but they are to wield their authority in such a way as to edify and build up (2 Cor. 10:8;13:1). When they do this, you have a godly enforcement of equity, which is not the same thing as equality. Godly rulers are responsible for climate control in the church; they stand by the thermostat.
I like most of the content of this letter, but have to point out the one falsehood. There is nothing in the Bible about church membership and you can certainly apply church discipline to someone who is attending your church and is not a member. Paul was counseling discipline long before there was church membership. This was a concept that was started in the 1600s because the government started demanding it, which is why the 1644 LBC doesn’t address it but the 1689 LBC does. When I attend a church I put myself under the authority of the elders in the jurisdiction God has given them. So they can discipline me for sin or they could ask me to not enter the building (since they have been given authority by the congregation to manage the building affairs). The church is called to discipline Christians, not members.Lance
Lance, putting yourself under their authority is what becoming a member is. Membership is taught in Heb. 13:7 and 17. It is not possible to rule or to obey without having a list of names for the rulers (elders) and those who are ruled (members). You can’t be a babysitter if you don’t know how many kids you are supposed to be watching. Good babysitters end the evening with the same number they started with.
RE: The Longhouse.
Thank you so much, Doug, for giving me the term “servant lordship.” Where has this term been all my life? That is what the text in John actually says. Using this term (to be charitable) addresses the concern that those of us who use the term “servant leadership” in good faith and in accordance with the Word of God are trying to get at, without falling into the machismo overreaction that is equally disgusting, in response to the real issues of weak men listening to women when they should be leading.
Sarah called Abraham lord according to Peter. We should do likewise. God also came to Abraham in a dream re Ishmael and said, in so many words, Sarah is right, listen to her. We should do likewise. As always, the Word of God strikes the perfect balance, and that is the one I want to strike too.JP
JP, thanks.
I’ve benefited from and agree with the vision of masculinity, husbandry, and marriage you articulate in Reforming Marriage and Fidelity. However, I find myself nearly overwhelmed by my inability to move toward actualization. I recently listened to your post “A Gentleman Whistling Past the Longhouse” about how it’s difficult for a man who’s been a doormat to learn to stand up without sinning. Could you say more about how he can learn to start standing up?
You mention owning responsibility for your sins and your family’s sins (not fault, but responsibility). This has been my aim. However, it’s still mighty difficult to think clearly when a conversation turns into a chess match and then the squares start to blur into each other as your memory of the presenting issue becomes less clear. The two virtues of humility and courage start to look like two horns of a dilemma, cowardice and anger. How do I learn to navigate out of this dilemma?Michael
Michael, I mentioned this in an earlier answer above. On reflection, pick one issue that is a recurring issue. Just one. Think it through in the clear light of day, when you are not in the fog of a disagreement. Make a decision that is reasonable, but which you know will generate some resistance. You should have a two-fold goal—to not back down, and to not lose your cool. When that is all over, review the game film in order to correct any mistakes in preparation for next time. Don’t go for a global fix. You walked into this situation, and so make a point to walk out of it.
A Neglected Topic
What works are good out there on conscience? I remember you recommending one on the Plodcast, but I can’t remember what it was.
Peace,Charles
Charles, I think it must have been Conscience by Naselli and Crowley
Who’s the Cook?
I am dating a wonderful Christian girl. In the course of our courtship, it has become apparent that one of us (me) can cook, and the other (her) struggles with that (I’m still not sure yet if it’s a “can’t” or a “doesn’t want to” . . . I don’t think it’s a “won’t”.)
In the course of my singleness I have had occasion to learn how to follow basic recipes out of pure survival instinct, and the result has been a pleasant discovery that some of that has turned out to be rather palatable..I don’t particularly enjoy cooking as a hobby, but I also value eating a good meal, so it’s not a huge deal for me to cook, it’s just something I’d prefer not to have to do ALL the time.
So my question is this: looking at a prospective marriage, is it okay for the husband to sort of be the primary cook of the home? Or should that prospect cause me more concern than what I have now?AC
AC, I don’t believe it is a good idea to head into marriage with the expectation that you will be the primary cook. On the assumption that she really is wonderful, schedule a few dates with her that involve you giving her cooking lessons. See how that goes.
A Compliment and a Jab
Do you consider Gluttony and Sloth (i.e. eating to excess, avoiding exercise) to be Deadly Sins? 2) How does your wife stay so fit? Do you ever wonder about the contrast between you two? God gave us these bodies to take care of.Mike
Mike, of course Nancy is the way she is because she is wonderful. So much goes without saying. And I do consider gluttony and sloth to be deadly sins, and disqualifying sins for pastoral ministry. But I don’t consider it a sin to be accused of such things—remember that was one of the few moral charges thrown at Christ (Luke 7:34). For more on what actual gluttony is (and is not), I wrote this book entitled The Seven Deadlies. And to use time spent at the gym as the metric for evaluating sloth is truly worldly, and not biblical at all.
Commentaries on Isaiah
I was wondering if you had any recommendations for commentaries for the book of Isaiah. I come to the Isaiah every year during my Bible in a year plan and every year I think I need to take a deeper dive.
I appreciate it.Steve
Steve, as it happens, I am currently working through Motyer’s commentary, as well as Webb’s. Both are very good.
Those Pesky Rothschilds
I have loved your work for the last few years. You’re incredibly intelligent and articulate. However, whomever captured you to carry water for Rothschildistan are the enemies of GOD and they have turned you away from Christ.
You need to repent.Bill
Bill, I have been writing about Israel for over a quarter of a century now, and my position that entire time has been down-the-line consistent. Here is an early sample from 2004. I can assure you that the Rothschilds have had nothing to do with it, and my reading of the book of Romans does. My position is simply the historic Reformed position, as I demonstrated here. Some folks think I have been “captured” by the Jews in the last few years when what actually happened was that a large segment of the American right decided to align themselves with the views of Hasan Piker. I merely created the illusion of moving toward the Jews by the simple trick of staying put.
Immigration and Bible Verses
I was reading the blog on American ethnicity. A few verses sprung to mind and I just pop some in here as examples
“Show hospitality to one another without grumbling.”—1 Peter 4:9
“For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me.”—Matthew 25:35
“Give, and it will be given to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you.”—Luke 6:38
“But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.”—Matthew 6:3-4
“And he answered them, ‘Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.’”—Luke 3:11
I understand that the USA has had a lot of migrants, indeed there would be very few people in the USA were it not for five centuries of immigration, some good, some not so good for the immigrants ( shall we say the black slaves) and for the residents (perhaps the native indigenous people). Perhaps if the indigenous people had had a stronger attitude towards dodgy immigrants history might have been different.
I appreciate that immigration is seen as a problem nowadays for various reasons, but what concerns me is that although I have read the article in what I perceive as a Christian publication (Is that the correct word) the underlying feel of the argument and the attitudes expressed fall rather short of what I consider a genuinely Christian standpoint or heartfelt belief in the goodness of all people. Sadly it rather smacks of the worst excesses of a poorly-run Republican administration that is damaging the standing of the US across the free world and encouraging less dialogue with other faiths and cultures.
I may be wrong and you will convince me with excellent arguments that do not depend on rhetorical flourishes. I am listening.
Yours sincerely and most interestedlyLewis
Lewis, the verses you cite are of course authoritative, and we should come to them with an eagerness to obey. But what you are doing is taking verses that command private generosity and hospitality, and making them apply to public policy, particularly policy on immigration rates. This has the effect, not of you giving your goods away in obedience to Christ, but rather of you making other people give their country away. They are not the same thing.
When the Church Black Pills
We live in a small town and have been part of a church for a number of years. We have loved it, been sanctified through it, have seen our extended family come to faith and attend with us, and it represents nearly all of the community we (and our kids) have here. Our church family is wonderful and the teaching has been excellent.
Lately we have grown concerned with the black pilling of a large portion of the men, including a majority of our plurality of elders. Think Dale Partridge, Antelope Hill, Nick Fuentes, Joel Webbon, etc. This isn’t coming out from the pulpit (yet) but it seems to dominate conversation otherwise.
We’ve seen almost all of the older men leave within the last year, although the reasons stated were more generically summed up as “can no longer submit to the elders.”
We feel sick at the thought of leaving. Perhaps there’s a church nearby that would be a good option, but we don’t know of one. The nearest known solid option is an hour away. We are plagued with doubts—are we staying just to make life easier? Or are we staying because there is no perfect church and we just need to make the best of it where we are at (without backing down on our principles)? We’ve differed on other small issues and have been able to cheerfully cover those with charity, but this feels different.
We worry there will be collateral damage; we haven’t voiced our concerns to others to avoid gossip, but are unsure how to leave (if that’s the right answer) in a peaceful way, while answering the inevitable questions from those we are close to. Where do you draw the line on what constitutes no longer staying? Do we leave without knowing where we’d go and just trust the Lord to provide?Conflicted
Conflicted, at the very least, you should leave by the time the Spirit of God leaves. Black pills can get pretty black. But I would not leave without clearly stating your concerns beforehand to the leadership, and the earlier you do that the better. Just let them know that leaving is on the table, and that, if you do, here are the reasons.
Wherever Possible
I have a family of 5 kids. We live comfortably within our means with a little bit of expendable income. However, we also qualify for wic, snap, and medicaid benefits.
I am torn on the morality of taking advantage of those government offerings. Obviously it would help our bottom-line, especially with groceries and medical bills. But I also feel like I am only “feeding the beast” of big government by accepting handouts that I don’t necessarily need. Any recommendations on thinking through a Christian approach to these programs?
Thanks,Bill
Bill, my advice would be to avoid all such blandishments. Stay away.
Complicated, Yes
As someone who loves America in a way but rejects some of the founding ideals, I would, with room for disagreement, argue it is more family and ethnicity than the ideals. But I’ll admit it is colored by my experience. It is right and good to love family who have different political views than you, even if they have questionable lifestyles and whether they are Christians or not. I love my relatives, even the ones I’m not at all sure know Jesus or who have been led into bad lifestyles and/or politics I have strong feelings against, far more than most church people. In Britain, I felt that the people there had more in common with me than the blacks here, even the ones who I like, and all the (white) British people I met treated me much better than many (though not all) black Americans have, including some who had the appearance of being highly religious Christians. And on a somewhat happier note, I think you would agree that, even if I agreed with almost every word of the constitution and declaration of independence, an English monarchist who loves Jesus, or for that matter a German or Finnish social Democrat who loves Jesus, would have much more in common with me than a black American conservative who didn’t know Jesus. It is more complicated whether a Vietnamese American Christian or an English agnostic would have more in common with me, and I am not at all suggesting that certain races should be expelled or lose their citizenship. But I feel that, overtime, Americaness has become meaningless, partly because it has been reduced to ideals, and maybe a location. I would like to know how much we stand on common ground here.James
James, yes, it can get complicated. But make sure you run all the comparisons. What about a lily-white European who hates Jesus, and a black conservative American Christian who loves Jesus. When you run the variables, just make sure you run all of them.
The Place of Satan
I was reading the book of Job, and I came across the part where Satan, in answering Yahweh’s question as to his whereabouts, says he was “roaming about on the earth and walking around on it.” This got me thinking about Satan’s “daily doings” and how the earth is his dwelling of sorts, or so it seems to me. Forgive my question as I am sometimes hopelessly confused about these things, but first, what is the Bible’s view on Satan’s place in history let’s say BC, AD (in other words: now), and in the future ultimately? For instance, Satan seemed to have a certain measure of power back in Job’s day. Is that true? And if so, does he still have such a measure today, or perhaps less so? And what, if any, were the consequences on Satan as a result of the death and resurrection of Jesus? Lastly, this “roaming about on the earth and walking around it” got me thinking about Lewis’ Out of the Silent Planet and Perelandra and if Satan would have a place in a non-earth civilization, like on Mars for instance which seems like a likely future reality. Or when it comes to Satan is it not so much about the rock but the sinners on the rock which causes it to be his dwelling? A flurry of questions I know; answer however you seem fit.A confused brother
ACB, I believe that prior to the coming of Christ, Satan was a power behind a number of thrones. But he has been currently bound with regard to his ability to “deceive the nations” the same way he was able to do before. He is still active, but cannot build another Babylon.
So to Speak
As you’re discussing the differences between the sexes and marriage and the like—and as my church is similarly doing a teaching series on the biblical principles around family—I think I’ve come up with a great analogy for the differences in focus that each partner brings to the marriage. You’ve pointed out that Adam’s eyes are on the mission and Eve’s on Adam, and I think a great analogy is that of a military pilot and his chief mechanic.Ian
Ian, thanks.
I hope you are doing well. I would like to know how Christians really ought to think about ethnicity. The reason I ask is that I’m a product of (what the internet bros like to call) an “unideal marriage,” or a marriage with two different ethnicities represented. I “resonate,” I suppose, with both cultures, but I also grew up an American in a certain part of a certain state. I sometimes feel more like I am from that certain geographical and cultural group’s “ethnicity,” as it were. Other times, I “relate” more to one of those two ethnic groups in the way I see the world, reason, and react to things, etc.
Growing up, most people would say that one’s parents’ ethnic backgrounds didn’t matter; all that matters is that you’re a Christian. I can agree to an extent, but there must be a reason the Lord made us with these ethnic realities. If so, what is the proper way to understand this, and how ought we to go forward?ON
ON, with regard to “spirituals,” your primary allegiance ought to be with Christ and His elect. With regard to “temporals,” I want to encourage our people to be Americans first, and then after that, whatever subculture God gave them.
Long Distance Encouragement
Shushed by the Moderator
Thanks for encouraging us, Pastor Doug. This is just one example of common sense well said when we needed to hear it. Posts and podcasts like this one changed my husband’s life before we were married, and the work that you and your family have done continue to teach us both. Thank you for inspiring us to fight well and make our local churches and families stronger—for God’s glory and His big story.Abby
Abby, thanks very much.
Grist for the CN Mill
To the esteemed Editor,
Thought I’d throw this your way . . . I trust the boys at Canon+ will let you know if its worth reacting to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwYzhKZD4Bk&t=355s
Until my next question, sincerely yours,Jonathan
Jonathan, thank you. Yes, the boys at Canon+ make these decisions. I just go where I am pointed.
One should beware of inventing reasons not to obey Scripture. Especially when their invented reason doesn’t come from Scripture. Also fascinating that you regularly argue that government should enforce Christian norms on others in sexual and family issues, but then want us to ignore Christian norms when it comes to our approach towards immigrants and the poor. I’ll copy in my letter, which wasn’t printed. While arguing why Americans need to more selfishly hoard their wealth for themselves, you state, “There is a point where compassion does not scale, and pretending that it does simply creates counterfeit compassion.” I’m not… Read more »
We have to consider that Lydia, Philemon, Sergius Paulus, and other wealthy people outside of Israel were not told to give their wealth to the poor when they became believers. Jesus may have given the Jewish Christians that command because he knew there would be a time when they would have to flee, and when it would be best not to waste time packing. He did not tell the Romans to let in immigrants, and there are many poor people in America, a plurality who, last time I checked, are white. Working class whites, in my experience, are rarely fond… Read more »
“We have to consider that Lydia, Philemon, Sergius Paulus, and other wealthy people outside of Israel were not told to give their wealth to the poor when they became believers.” You are making that assumption without evidence. We are never told that all the believers of that age were perfect in obedience and without fault. “Jesus may have given the Jewish Christians that command because he knew there would be a time when they would have to flee, and when it would be best not to waste time packing.” That’s one of the most creative excuses I’ve ever seen too… Read more »
I will not keep arguing about this, but Jesus did not tell the centurion, the most faithful man he had met, to give away his possessions, and I’m sure the centurion was a relatively wealthy man for the times. As for the good Samaritan, there is a world of difference between taking an injured Mexican to the hospital and helping an able-bodied Mexican who may or may not want to work get in the country illegally. (In any case, they were both Roman subjects!) And while we should treat well-behaved, law-abiding foreigners kindly, that does not mean that government should… Read more »
Jesus also didn’t tell the Centurian to get baptized. He didn’t tell him to pray with a community of believers. He didn’t tell him to not sacrifice to Roman gods. He didn’t tell him to stop ANY sins at all….I guess this means he was sinless? Using a single interaction as the basis for an “Argument from Omission” is a useless way to do Scripture. If we relied on that, we could argue that no command is ever normative, because they’re all omitted in some interaction. No one is asking you to help the “able-bodied Mexican man”, though of course… Read more »
Thank God for the rich. They provide 100,000’s jobs.
Was it sin in our Lord Jesus not to evangelize China? He gave what he had as a man; he did what the Father required of him; and the Chinese were out of ‘luck’ then. (Not now; also earlier–read By Foot to China by Dr John M. L. Young of blessed memory.) Compassion does not always scale. Paul: what you give is acceptable according to what you have, and not what you don’t have. The US has a lot, so copy Paul and organize a massive donation from the willing. Paul reasoned of Judgment to come to Roman imperial judges,… Read more »
I think Doug’s analogy of the foster family is the right response. A family with 4 kids and 2 foster kids is humming along and the state drops a school bus filled with 30 kids and forces the family to take care of them all. The state just doomed 36 kids with this move. Modern immigration is a lot like that.
Among the other problems with the analogy, they aren’t helpless children. 90% of them don’t even need a meaningful time commitment from you. Most of the people we’re talking about just want a fraction of the opportunity to work for their living that you have. Second, it relies on the false assumption that Americans are on the edge of survival. When this false claim is near-poverty is used to justify the greatest act of wealth-hoarding in human history, then it’s just a justification for sin. When John, Jesus, and Paul asked their early followers to stretch themselves to do better… Read more »
I also think we should flip this. How about instead we just go conquer Mexico in the name of Jesus? We can make it Puerto Rico 2.0 after a while.
Yes I agree with you – we are to give what we have, not what we didn’t have. And we as an American Christian body have a great deal more than any of the people he was speaking to when he told them they had way too much, and needed to give away it all.
So, like Paul, organize your own donation project; don’t tell Caesar to organize it for you. Jesus told the woman at the well to call her husband. He told the rich young ruler to sell all and give to the poor and follow Him. Generosity, and calling people to Jesus, are general commands for which He set the supreme example, but “sell all” is not. The Acts 2-5 church features selling real estate; other churches were generous, but selling real estate is not specifically recorded of them. And selling it at Jerusalem set up a contrast with Jeremiah, who had… Read more »
You’ve gone strangely off-topic with your lead sentence. Where did I ask Caesar to arrange the donations? We were talking about immigration, not welfare, and the fact that American Christians have become so attached to their obscene, unprecedented wealth that they don’t want to share the country with anyone else. Y’all are the ones asking Caesar to help you hoard wealth. In terms of the commands being “specific not general”, you’re only reading the parts you want to see. Jesus followed his specific statement to the rich young man with the general statement that the rich don’t enter heaven. (And… Read more »
Koinonia, a couple of questions for you. 1) Have you or your family personally taken in any illegal immigrants who’ve crossed the southern border? 2) Have you or your family personally taken in any foreign refugees who’ve sought asylum in America? 3) Do you currently live in a neighborhood where the school systems, health care systems, and local resources are being stretched too thin due to mass migration? The reason I ask is because I know some well-meaning people who like to characterize any criticism of unfettered illegal immigration as racist, xenophobic, heartless, or uncharitable. Yet these same people live… Read more »
Yes, I lived in a Christian community that took in migrants applying for asylum status after crossing the Southern border. The community collectively provided for them and we all lived as one with our resources, so no one family was burdened. Our church continues to support such people but they do not require housing as they are doing just fine working and providing for their own. However, we contribute to support other local Christian communities who continue to house migrants, and my wife is working to found another such community ourselves. While our communities and other friends of mine have… Read more »
The claim: “Migrants seem to do a great job housing themselves and caring for each other so long as they are allowed to enter and work.” The refutation: According to the Center for Immigration Studies: The 2024 SIPP (Survey of Income and Program Participation from the United States Census Bureau) indicates that 53 percent of households headed by immigrants — naturalized citizens, legal residents, and illegal immigrants — used one or more major welfare programs. This compares to 37 percent for U.S.-born households. The rate is 59 percent for non-citizen households (e.g. green card holders and illegal immigrants). Compared to… Read more »
Migrants are different than immigrants…
Potato, potahto.
Words matter:)
That they do. And illegal aliens are different than immigrants.
And yet just 3 comments up in this conversation you quoted a bunch of stats that didn’t apply to them while trying to tear them down. Now you show that you KNOW they’re different groups, and are willing to point out that difference when in attack mode, but you just pretended that difference doesn’t exist when being deceptive about it benefitted your narrative. If hypocrisy was a person…..
Apply to whom? The illegals or legal immigrants? If they’re illegal, they shouldn’t be here in the first place, let alone be on welfare. If they’re legal, then they shouldn’t be public charges, especially when the degree to which they’re on welfare is higher than the native-born population.
You’re confused. About a lot of things.
That nonsense response has nothing to do with the false attack you made, and I’m sure you had no problem understanding what I called you out on. This is one of the main reasons that I keep asking whether you even consider yourself a follower of Christ – while even some Christians are deceptive in conversations, you take it to such a degree that you don’t appear to have the slightest shame or anticipation if judgement for your words.
How is what I wrote nonsense? You keep summarily dismissing what I have to say without evidence, yet when I say you’re misrepresenting Doug and others, you demand reams of proof.
Is your narrative really that fragile?
Koinonia, you said without evidence: “…the fact that American Christians have become so attached to their obscene, unprecedented wealth…” What’s obscene is your blatant dishonesty and your hatred of Christians. Arthur C. Brooks, in an article entitled “A Nation of Givers” published in the American Enterprise Institute, found that Americans, specifically religious conservatives, are the most generous people on the planet. No other developed nation even comes close. Religious conservatives are more likely to give of their time and money than their secular, leftist counterparts when controlling for demographic variables. And of course, it is “The Rich” who give the… Read more »
As usual, you immediately abandon any pretense of following Scripture, and instead just cite the secular rich defending the secular rich. Who needs the commands of Jesus when we have the self-justification of the American Enterprise Institute? “And of course, it is “The Rich” who give the most in terms of actual dollars — “the top 10% of households in income are responsible for at least a quarter of all the money contributed to charity, and households with total wealth exceeding $1 million give about half of all charitable donations.” Considering that the top 10% control about 70% of the… Read more »
No, I don’t believe I’m abandoning any pretense of Scripture. If you think I am, you’ll have to make the case first.
And no, I don’t believe I’m merely citing “the secular rich defending the secular rich”. If you think I am, you’ll have to make the case first.
I cited a study. Evidence to refute your claim. You cited… your opinions. Which are worth exactly what we paid for them.
You didn’t refute the claim, you failed to even address the claim. From reading your post, it would be difficult to tell whether you even knew what I was claiming.
Do you believe that wealthy Americans in any meaningful number have chosen to give up their wealth and not be wealthy anymore? Do you believe that anything you posted from the AEI “study” suggested that had happened even once?
Your claim: “…the fact that American Christians have become so attached to their obscene, unprecedented wealth…” The refutation: a study from the American Enterprise Institute, by Arthur C. Brooks, showing that Americans, especially religious Americans (Brooks specifically mentioned churchgoers) are generous with their wealth — even moreso than their secular counterparts. It’s all there, in writing, above this post. The study is accessible via the Google. You can read it for yourself, but you won’t because you don’t like having your prejudices challenged. There’s a word for people like you who are obstinate and narrow-minded in the adherence to their… Read more »
None of them gave up their wealth. None of them gave up their status as wealthy.. I’m intuiting from this exchange that you don’t even know what that means. Do you think that giving small percentages of their wealth as tax-deductible donations even impacted their wealthy lifestyle at all? By the way, you still haven’t made the case that I’m “abandoning any pretense of Scripture.” Are you dropping this claim, or are you just lazy? You haven’t made the slightest attempt to argue from Scripture for three straight comments now. I didn’t think I had to “make the case” when… Read more »
I love how you shift the goalposts. You accused American Christians, with dripping, condescending malice, of being “so attached to their obscene, unprecedented wealth”, but apparently being generous, even moreso than those from other developed nations, such as France, Germany, and Italy, who also have Christians, is not enough. No, according to you, the arbiter of all morality, they must GIVE IT ALL UP, otherwise they are in grave sin. You type your accusations of sinful wealth from your laptop over an internet connection. Both of which were brought to you by Obscene Wealth. What, you thought it was your… Read more »
FP, either you don’t know what “giving up wealth” means, or you do know and are purposely trolling. Either way, I don’t see the value of continuing the conversation. And you were the one who claimed that Jesus was saying they must “GIVE IT ALL UP”, not me. Then again, you also appear to think that argument is absurd, so I guess you’re mocking Christ? I already gave you my interpretation of what I think Jesus was saying, and here you are ignoring that in order to attack the strawman you man up instead. We already discussed the technology angle,… Read more »
Either you don’t know what “giving up wealth” means, or you do know and are purposely trolling. Either way, I don’t see the benefit of continued discussion. When I say, “They’re too attached to their wealth to give it up”, no, I did not consider actions which had no meaningful impact on their wealth or lifestyle to qualify as “giving up their wealth”. I’m pretty certain that Jesus wouldn’t have considered the rich young man to be in obedience if he walked away from that interaction and then deposited 1.2% of his wealth into a carefully construed tax shelter that… Read more »
Ooooh… a twofer. I must have rattled you something fierce.
“Also, you keep equating vanity donations to alma maters and orchestral halls with giving to the poor.”
Did I? Where? You’re so good at quoting, I’d like to see the quote where I said that.
While you’re at it, I’d like to see the quote or series of quotes where Doug argues “why Americans need to more selfishly hoard their wealth for themselves.”
And if you can’t produce the quotes, then produce the retractions. You do want to be a better Christian, don’t you?
If you had merely been saying you had to be poor to be a good Christian, I would have shut up. But you seem to have come close to trampling on the gospel, or at least the gospel I know, to claim that you have to be poor to be saved. Paul encouraged the rich to use their wealth to help needy Christians, implying some Christians are rich. And Philemon used his (presumably sizable) house to host Christian meetings, and there was no objections to that. In a way, I respect you for living as you do, and maybe God… Read more »
“If you had merely been saying you had to be poor to be a good Christian, I would have shut up. But you seem to have come close to trampling on the gospel, or at least the gospel I know, to claim that you have to be poor to be saved.” I don’t know where you got that from, unless you simply don’t like the Bible verses that I posted. The words that Jesus, James, and John said about the rich were much stronger than anything I said. When I referred to “rich” Christians of the 1st century, I said,… Read more »
Wasn’t it just last week you got your panties in a twist when, according to you, Doug “completely misrepresented” a passage out of some book? And now, here you are, misrepresenting Doug completely: “While arguing why Americans need to more selfishly hoard their wealth for themselves, you…” And then you continue, misrepresenting what the Bible teaches about wealth. Neither James nor Jesus condemned the rich simply for being rich as you implied. Channeling you from last week: Seems like you owe a retraction. Of course, it won’t come. You’d rather make uncharitable, broad-brush accusations in a vain attempt to look… Read more »
No, I don’t believe I misrepresented Doug. If you think I did so, you’ll have to make that case first. No, I certainly don’t believe I misrepresented the Bible. If you think I did so, you’ll have to make that case. Yes, I did sell everything (well, gave away most of it), to the point that my best understanding of the text required. Meaning that my possessions were reduced to that which fit in a duffel bag and a backpack. At times I have had a small laptop, phone, and/or Internet connection if the ministry I was engaged in required… Read more »
Huh, so you still have a laptop, phone, and internet. All things no rich person in Jesus’ time ever had. You’re richer than they, obscenely so; therefore you must give them up. How many changes of clothes do you have? If the answer is more than two or three, then congratulations, you’re richer than most of the ancient world. Give them up. Here’s what you said at the top: “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” Getting rid of everything means EVERYTHING.… Read more »
I have had that conversation with someone who will remain nameless. “Why does Zuckerberg actually need 17 houses, most of which he uses only a few times a year if that?” “I don’t know, dear. Why do you need 65 pairs of shoes, most of which you wear only a few times a year if that? Why not sell the Jimmy Choo slides and donate the money to a homeless pantry? If Zuckerberg is hoarding mansions, you are definitely hoarding shoes. The shoeless women in a desperately poor village might look at your shoe closet and wonder how anyone could… Read more »
Has this nameless person ever complained about Zuck’s houses on Facebook?
Seems too many people like to complain about rich people using things rich people built.
They seem to have high tolerance for cognitive dissonance which is a gentler way of saying their beliefs and actions are imperfectly aligned. Maybe they shouldn’t have read Emerson in tenth grade English class seeing as the only thing they remember is “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”
“Huh, so you still have a laptop, phone, and internet. All things no rich person in Jesus’ time ever had.” Arguments of the form “Technology has advanced, therefore let’s ignore Jesus’s commands” are always the most goofy possible way to dismiss Scripture. How does the fact of gradually progressing technology change the meaning of Scripture? “You’re richer than they, obscenely so; therefore you must give them up.” Someone is richer because they live in an era of greater technological advances? Please make that argument from Scripture. Do you think Paul was wealthier than David because he could wield more technologically… Read more »
There you go, retreating to the motte: “I want to understand the Gospel and follow the commands that Jesus made.” …while running from the bailey of Doug “arguing why Americans need to more selfishly hoard their wealth for themselves.” …and on the way getting in a swipe at commenter James upthread: “I’m just asking that you not use your own wealth-hoarding as an excuse to actively oppose him.” Let’s talk about loving your neighbor: Why aren’t you loving your neighbors here? You honestly think accusing people you don’t know of sins you don’t even know they’re committing is being loving?… Read more »
Where in this discussion have you even made an attempt to discuss how we should follow Scripture?
Look up. I quoted Matthew 7:1-2. You came in, misrepresenting what Doug said about wealth, one week after whining and moaning about how Doug misrepresented a passage in some book, for which you demanded a retraction.
Are you seriously this daft?
I would love to hear how you actually interpret Matthew 7:1-2 and apply it to your own behavior on this blog, considering the version of FP we see every week.
And I would love to hear your retractions. But we all know you won’t do it — anything to keep from admitting fault.
I guess you don’t want to be a better Christian. Pity.
As I note every time you participate – you don’t show any desire to follow Christ or discuss how He should be followed. Your sole function on this blog is to make personal attacks on people you don’t like. You claimed you liked to discuss Scripture, but you keep refusing to discuss it. You have refused to discuss the meaning of any of the passages I brought up, and then when you brought up your own passage as a retort it turns out that you don’t want to discuss that one either. As I’ve asked before, do you even follow… Read more »
Still not seeing the retractions. Being honest is really hard for you, isn’t it?
Responding to Bill and the Rothchilds…
Riddle me this….
What do Doug’s stance on Israel and the Doppler effect have in common?
Hmmm…Its got to do with hummus, I just know it. Doug probably likes hummus…the Jews make hummus…Doppler sounds like dippler which sounds like dipping…and you dip chips in hummus..
Hummus. Final answer.
I bet Doug knows Ben-Gvir had a picture of a mass murderer Baruch Goldstein in his living room and still has the gall to say only one side is OK will killing innocents.
He also dressed as Baruch Goldstein for Purim.
Re: Anon’s letter “Paths to Domestic Tranquility”:
This is a tale as old as time. This seems like a perfectly consistent marital situation almost across the board.
Re: Lance
You’re absolutely correct. Doug has a fundamentally flawed set of assumptions making him have flawed conclusions.
The church (gathering of believers) is to discipline Christians. It’s not a matter of removing someone’s name from a membership list. What a silly idea. Are you baptist? It seems Reformed (TM) folk struggle to think or read carefully in this area.
No, not Baptist. Mostly reformed, but non-denominational mostly because all the denominations have similar views about membership, formalities, official “pastors,” etc.
Glad to see you also can read the New Testament without those preconceptions!
Doug, in your response to Lance, you support your concept of formal church membership and obedience to “ruling elders” by referencing Hebrews 13:7 and 17, which exhort Christians to obey those who have the rule over you. Unfortunately, Doug, love you–but you have interpreted these texts through the lens of your own presuppositions, and entirely out of context. As to context, please note that these verses are included in a long string of teachings about personal rather than collective Christian conduct, such as don’t forget to entertain strangers, remember those who are imprisoned, the marriage bed is honorable and undefiled,… Read more »
Re Anon and domestic tranquility, and your wife’s lady friends:
Paul does say older women should teach younger ones how to love their husbands. IF there is such a woman, or more than one, to whom your wife might listen, that’d be according to Scripture. (I imagine maturity in Christ matters more than years of age; a well-reared pastor’s wife in her 30s might have wisdom a sloppier, less devout lady in her ’50s might well heed,) Gossip parties no, but wise counsel yes, if the wisdom is there and being received.
I think the benefit of having emotionally healthy, well-intentioned women friends is that they’re willing to listen to all the emotional stuff and then point out the obvious. So are good mothers and sisters. “Look, at least he apologized. You can’t expect him to listen to your victim impact statement and address every point to your personal satisfaction. Don’t use his apology to try to make him miserable. Accept it graciously and move on.”
Conflicted: if several older men have left the church you’re in, any chance of a nucleus for a church plant, some of them + your family + maybe some others? FWIW.
Lewis: “the goodness of all people” is NOT a Christian belief. The value of all, the presence of some goodness in most, OK, but the sinfulness, not the goodness, of all. And Matthew 6:3-4, Let not your left hand know what your right hand doeth, is an odd verse to apply to public immigration policy. For the rest, no more total immigration than we can handle; overloading and thus sinking a lifeboat loves no one. Anyone here illegally and allowed to stay, go to the back of the line for citizenship behind those who are obeying the law. People who… Read more »
Another week, another dance around the Iran war. Still calling my shot that Doug will not speak on this until Pete is fired to protect his boys sensitive fee-fees. Then he will probably blame Trump like it wasn’t the fault of all involved. Time will tell…
I was watching a clip of Curtis Yarvin discussing Progressive “interchangeable baby theory” and I thought to myself that this sounds very familiar. It was very familiar because I’ve seen it probably 20 times on Doug Wilson’s blog when he discusses ethnos. You’ll notice that by Wilson’s beloved ethnos theory it would be no problem if my newborn baby were swapped with a Chinese baby at the hospital. It’s actually quite a radical statement of human fungibility.
Oh, bang up job your boy Hegseth is doing by the way.
When is this madness gonna end?
These theological debates are so complex and easy to lose track of. I use Taskai on my Android to capture important points and follow-up questions as they come to me, so I don’t lose the thread of the discussion.
On the question of illegal aliens and the Bible, a few points: – Christianity is not about legislating religious rules via politics. Jesus, for instance, refused to be king when the people tried to make him king by force, because his kingdom was not of this world. – The law of Moses declares one law for strangers and for those born among Israel. One law, however, is not what’s being proposed or enacted in the USA or in other Western nations, inasmuch as illegals get away with violent crime, while citizens are arrested for pointing it out. – Judas Iscariot… Read more »
Yup, city slickers like our friend Koinonia here.
Almost every week you make up a new lie about me. How can you consider that Christian behavior?
Not only do I not live in a city (I’m outside city limits of a small town in a reddish-purple state, with the nearest city an hour away), I’m certain I can hike, hunt, and camp circles around you.
Trying to live life off of insults and hate isn’t healthy. Can we talk about how we interpret and practice Biblical command instead?
OK then. Prove I’m lying. When I said you misrepresented Doug, you can prove I lied by providing the direct quotes from Doug, with citations, where he argued “why Americans need to more selfishly hoard their wealth for themselves.” I am quoting your claim, it is your responsibility to back it up. And then you said that I “keep equating vanity donations to alma maters and orchestral halls with giving to the poor.” I would like to know the multiple occasions where I said this. I would also like to know where the study I cited said this. I am… Read more »
Beyond your frequent refusal to answer my question of whether you follow Christ or not, this constant dishonesty is why I have to keep asking. You lied about me being a city slicker (just as you previously lied about me being a woman, unmarried, rich, among other things), and in response to me calling you out, you then gish gallop through completely unrelated disagreements that have nothing to do with the lie you just made about me living in a city. To #1, I already quoted Doug directly when I made the claim, so asking for a quote is nonsense… Read more »
You know what’s funny? You getting royally offended by being called a city slicker, yet letting slide the whole “trying to guilt, bully, warp, twist, and otherwise scam Western culture into accepting being destroyed” thing, which was the real gist of my agreement with Reepicheep. Talk about the dog that didn’t bark. Guess it’s true, then. Thanks for showing your real intentions. You acting all butthurt and offended about anything I say is just that: an act. Kayfabe. Which is S.O.P. for any typical leftist. Can’t spell p-r-o-j-e-c-t-i-o-n without Koinonia. And with that, I bid you adieu on this thread.… Read more »
So you still won’t answer whether you follow Christ or not. Then by the very logic you just used, I’ll have to assume you don’t.
Which I had already suspected, given all the previous times you have refused to answer the question.
Then why are Doug and other Christian nationalists trying to legislate religious rules via politics? That is absolutely what is happening in the US, and I agree, that’s not what Jesus was about. Jesus said that how we treat the least matters…so, how do you treat the least? Obviously if judged solely on your words, it would seem rather terrible…
Doug, as a former Navy member, do you find the conditions for the sailors aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln acceptable? Or should we expect an essay on how people or weak nowadays like Mark Levin.
Interesting answers. Now let’s look at the comments.
.
.
.
Ah, the schoolchild bickering continues, I see.
There are certain commenters whose entire persona is “make personal attacks in the comments to derail every conversation they don’t want to deal with.”
And neither Pastor Wilson nor anyone else seems to call them out. So they will persist.
Yeah, uh… I was talking about you.