Letters in the Dregs of July

Great write-up of 5GW.
I was struck a few years back by the insight that since both spiritual warfare and fifth generation warfare are a fight over truth, the Venn diagram overlap between spiritual warfare and military doctrine is significant, to say the least.

Ian

In re: nothing in particular
Maybe someone else has shared this thought; if so, my apologies.
Humans created machines that learn by digesting human language. Its results are biased, incomplete yet presented as fact, and often outright deceptive. Maybe it HAS achieved consciousness.

John

I think I will like your series on Athletics. Here in Western PA, high school football is a great builder of Christian culture: the boys are the warriors and heroes, the girls are the cheerleaders, and everyone understands the roles.

John

On Christian Athletics . . .
Been jockeying for position ever since I first heard this series was coming. Thank you for tackling the hard topic, refusing to let it remain sidelined. It’s heart-warming to see you step up to the plate with a series that sorely needs to be heard, and at a time when many Christians have thrown in the towel. You’ll get mixed reactions, of course. Some will think you’re coming out of left field or that the whole topic is out of bounds. Others won’t know what hit them. Still other will think you hit the mark–a real slam dunk.
Full-court press, I say! Now that the gun has fired, no need to punt. If some of your listeners are having trouble with the curve, maybe they can watch the game film on your video blog.
Finally, it should always be known that baseball is God’s favorite sport, because in the Big Inning he created the heavens and the earth…
All for now…

Andy

My wife Linda and I follow most of your online content here in Hervey Bay, Queensland, Australia. We are interested to hear your take on whether Christians should be buried or cremated.
Thanks

Ian

Hope you’re having a very blessed day, Mr. Wilson. I am currently listening to the YouTube video “Doug Wilson on NPR—Oh, How I Love the Constitution?” where Chris Hume critiques a statement you made to an NPR reporter. Hume claims that what you say concerning the U.S. Constitution’s structure is sacrilegious and you should’ve instead praised God’s law in the interview. He cites Psalm 119:46 as support, and he asks how the Constitution by itself combats abortion.
In light of this criticism, I would like you to clarify whether a particular claim Hume makes about your theology is accurate. At the 23:07 mark of the video, he says:
“I don’t think he can fathom or imagine the idea of God’s law in the Old Testament being the standard of justice because he has to he has to imagine it in the context of the constitutional structure . . . If what I find here in the Bible doesn’t fit with the US constitutional structure, in Doug Wilson’s mind, what he says is, ‘Okay, well then I’m not bringing that over because the way I judge the Bible is by the US Constitution.’ And it really should be the opposite. The way we judge the Constitution should be by the Bible.”
Is Hume misrepresenting you, and could you please write a concise response to his critique?
Sincerely, your young brother in Christ,

Samuel

I had two questions for you, both related to the Ogden fellows, but one more peripheral and one more direct. First, (and I’m a bit late with this one) around a year ago the Kings Hall podcast had author David Edgington, who wrote White Knights and Reviling Wives on. This was to discuss the observance that even within conservative and CREC circles, there was a definite unwillingness to address wives in their sin of (broadly) un-submission. That this was often exacerbated and defended with the biblical principle of husbandly responsibility. That even when the wife was in gross sin, the attention was still placed upon the husband. They agreed the husband is responsible, but that responsibility does not equate to guilt. I cannot help but resonate with this observation personally, not just in my marriage but in the way it is handled in other marriages, even within like-minded churches. What is your take on this position and how might you go navigating such a situation biblically and specifically to address this issue? I assume you’re going to repeat the husband’s primary responsibility, fair enough, please do. But surely, you could envision a scenario where he is taking responsibility by seeking help with a rebellious wife and may run up against this kind of thing.
Second, I’m sorry for being in the dark, but when I went down this rabbit hole I found there is some rift/disagreement with the Ogden fellows right now. Could you help fill me in on what this is regarding and why there is such disagreement with a group I originally thought shared much good with Moscow?
Thanks.

Anon

My boyfriend and I want to . . . serve the Church! We fit each other so well! The first 3 months I felt so in love with him and clearly wanted to get married to him. Now after 6 months I live scared that I live in my feeling and sometimes find it harder to love him or feel like idk still. I have seen him in camping and I think I have realized that I lean on my feeling. Well, I need to love him even when I don’t feel it.

Rebekah

Unfortunately, I am only just now becoming more familiar with all of your work and influence in recent church movements. I am really appreciating all that you have to say and your straightforward approach to theology and its direct connections with culture and society. In a few podcasts recently, I heard you mention setting for yourself a goal to become more literate in theology during your early years pastoring through an intense reading program. While I can’t hope to parallel the speed at which you did this, I was wondering if you have a curated list created since then for someone who might like to pursue significant theological understanding, but in a more lay orientation. If so, could you point me to that? If not, would you have a shortened list of recommendations for someone hoping to just deepen their theological founding? I appreciate anything in this realm that you can provide. Thank you!
Best regards,

Samuel

I, for one, don’t mind your talking about the 19th Amendment at all! While it is way outside of the Overton window for most, the topic is just transgressive enough to spark real discussion among those of us who wonder what a truly Christian society would look like. Not to mention, it does a lot to ferret out the latent feminism among us. I do have one niggling concern—one that I have not heard addressed—that household voting could skew results to favor single voters /households of one. Should we be concerned about this? If so, would the votes be weighted by size of household? I grant that the more Christian the nation, the less this would likely be an issue, but in the secular present, it seems a troubling inevitability.

S

I want to just thank you for your blog post “Why I Don’t Mind Talking About the 19th Amendment“ which was an inspiration to me to make the closing line of all of my mail and emails to anyone at all: “I wish I could forgive you for being a pathetic human being”.
Appreciate your work and ministry!
I wish I could forgive you for being a pathetic human being,

Jeff

Re: “Why I Don’t Mind Talking About the 19th Amendment”
I assume you are already aware of this, but since the Constitution delegates to each of the states the ability to set their own election laws, including the laws that determine voter eligibility, then a complete transformation of our voting system to “household” voting would have to happen state by state. Unless you would be in favor of amendments to the Constitution to effect household voting as federal law?
If state by state would be the favored approach, then repealing the 19th Amendment would be to tacitly approve the possibility that some states could bar women from voting entirely, irrespective of household status. I think this is among the reasons that even most conservative, Christian women would be averse to the idea. Even if we could say we were at a place where it was extremely unlikely that any state would actually do that, our modern sensibilities would be offended by the notion that a state could bar women from voting entirely and that doing so would be perfectly compatible with the Constitution.
On the topic of the Constitution, I think household voting is just generally difficult to square with its principles. Even though it uses the language of “all men,” I think we’re all agreed that it means “all individuals,” so it is kind of atomistic from the get-go, isn’t it?

Kenneth

You posted the following statement: “We are saved from the wrath of God by the love of God as these two attributes of God collided in the agony of Jesus Christ.”
Do you believe that “wrath” is an “attribute of God”? If so, doesn’t that mean that God’s immutability creates problems for you? How could “wrath” be an attribute of the eternal and simple Godhead who is in himself love?
Isn’t it more accurate to say that God is love—a holy and righteous loveand that when his love is scorned and spurned and ridiculed, his immutable love displays itself in wrath (not natural to God—c.f. Lamentations 3:33)?
Thanks,

Caleb

Hoping we’ll get a Doug Reacts on the Vance/Rogan Christian Nationalism discussion.

Jason

I hope you’re doing well. In the great grand world of the Internet, something of a controversy has, unsurprisingly, come up. This time, it hinges upon the benefits, or lack thereof, of colonialism. I grew up, going to Christian schools, where there was at least some attempt to save face with colonialism by stating the original explorers wanted to spread Christianity.
It goes without saying there have been many failures in and because of colonialism. However, there have been some blessings as well. I would say that a lot more people became Christianized, and are now Christians, through and because of European colonization. We also have to ask at what cost.
One of the main focal points of the controversy online is the current state of Zimbabwe, and the former state of Rhodesia (this video is usually what pops up on the internet: ). Compared to other people, I know next to nothing about Rhodesia. I am very embarrassed to say that I had just heard about it about a year ago. I know next to nothing about Cecil Rhodes, and I’m not the biggest expert on colonial history anyways. I know your son depicted Cecil Rhodes as an antagonist in his Ashtown burial series. What I would like to know is what to think about this, and how to properly understand colonialism.

ON

I ran across this short (30-second) reaction video by Webbon to a debate on feminism (attached below), and I’m having a hard time identifying exactly what’s wrong with it. On the one hand, I would agree generally with the idea that feminism is a bad thing, from the first wave all the way through to our current tsunami. But the attitude seems unnecessarily harsh and dismissive. He may expound elsewhere on the glories of the image of God in females, and I really hope he does, but there is a smell to his response that reeks of arrogance. Christ is the stench of death to those who are perishing, but if you are the stench of death to 98% of Christians, perhaps one should consider giving their words the sniff test. My intention is not to divide; he is a pastor, and I don’t want to impugn the office. It just feels like there is danger in the spirit that I want my teenage boys and me to steer clear of, and so I want to clearly identify exactly what is out of place. How would you identify the problem with this response? Or is there any problem at all, and he just needs to work on tact?

Tim

I have an issue. I struggle with lust and tried sticking to an accountability group that used the spiritual disciplines as a means of overcoming porn. Now I can’t access it, and I’m left alone again. On another note, I have some confusion in regards to getting married. The same group said that porn causes addiction and therefore marriage will not solve it, whereas you on the other hand have stated that marriage solves the issue. Who should I believe and why?

H

I do enjoy the Bechdel Test. However, it has its limitations. I’ve read thrillers that “pass” it, but the female characters are all men wearing woman suits. And The Lord of the Rings does NOT pass it, but clearly views women as people and has a high view of us.
Another, similar literary test is the “sexy lamp.” If a female character could be replaced by a sexy lamp with no injury to the plot . . . that’s bad.

Jennifer

I’m going to give you a hypothetical, but I believe your answer to it will help parse out some things that will help me in my real-life understanding of this issue. Let’s say a godly man, who has been diligent in his work and successful in business (even building his own multi-million dollar company), has 5 adult sons.
Of the 5 sons, 3 are incredibly loyal to their father, and have also emulated his diligence and care in business, and are godly. The other 2 are loving kids, who respect the father, but who have had patterns of foolish behavior and choices in several chapters of their own lives, living ungodly lifestyles at points; but they have never “denied the faith” or anything extreme in that regard. Just foolishness, unrighteousness, and periods of slothfulness as well. And one last variable: the godly sons have MANY more kids than the 2 foolish sons. The grandkids outweigh heavily in one direction, and so now the father/grandfather is factoring that into his vision of the future and how to divide up inheritances.
How should the father think about BIBLICALLY apportioning inheritances for these 5 sons? Are there any portions of Scripture that give some direction as to how to divvy things up in a way that comports with their godliness (or lack thereof) or is the biblical model “even Steven” all the way across? This is a puzzle to me, and any guidance you could share (or written works you’ve read/written on this subject) would be very helpful.

Anon

I’m writing in response to Candace and the Bathtub Admirals, but also as a follow-up to a letter I wrote in January and your response.
I wrote a letter looking for the “reasonable” response to the investigation into Charlie’s assassination. I raised some objections to the official narrative. You responded that you had some non-public information and you thought when that information came to light it would answer the objections and you said if that information was public it wouldn’t stop the conspiracy theories.
After the preliminary hearing I believe you’re at least partially vindicated. It turns out we have video supporting the narrative that someone transported an (intact) rifle under their clothes to the roof, took a shot from the roof and then exited the roof with the (intact) rifle.
Unfortunately, I still believe we’re in a bi-polar world where people are either too accepting or too dismissive of the official narrative, and I still take issue with the way you’re approaching the matter.
Let me use Lindsey Graham’s death to explain. On Sunday we received news that Graham had died of an aortic dissection caused by arteriosclerotic cadiovascular disease. If Graham was any normal Joe we’d chalk his death up to natural causes and never question it again. But Graham isn’t a normal Joe. He’s one of the most prominent mouthpieces supporting Ukraine against Russia and Israel against Iran. Graham died after returning from Ukraine on trip to support Ukraine’s war against Russia. We have credible claims (from the British government) that Russia has previously poisoned people in a way to cause cardiac arrest.
In light of these facts I believe it’s unreasonable to confidently attribute Graham’s death to either natural causes or a Russian assassination. The only reasonable response is to say “I don’t know” (unless you have some highly specialized or non-public information that informs you one way or the other.)
The problem is that nation states break down the Means Motive Opportunity paradigm. For most normal people when a suspect has Means Motive and Opportunity it represents the convergence of 4 independent, fairly rare factors (means, motive, opportunity and the murder) and that statistical improbability is weighty. (Most Joes have few, if any, people with motive to kill them. Means, opportunity and murder are also generally rare across the general populace.) But controversial public figures tend to have many people (and nation states) that wish them dead and (rich) nation states inherently have means, can create their own opportunity and can even make make a murder look like natural causes. The result is that MMO loses its rarity when it comes to nation states and this leads to a statistical analysis of “I don’t know.”
If Charlie was a regular Joe this would be an open and shut case. I’d be ready to throw the book at Tyler. But Charlie wasn’t a regular Joe. The fact is there’s very little physical evidence pinning this on Tyler. We can connect Tyler (and others) to the rifle, but we can’t connect that rifle to the bullet that killed Charlie. The new evidence actually made that connection less likely when they ruled out exotic cartridges and said it was a normal hunting round. We can’t definitively place Tyler on the roof. Almost all of the evidence is around Tyler’s confession and it’s compelling if you trust the sources. Do you trust the Furry that received immunity for his testimony? Do you trust the investigators?
And now we get to my real point. (Sorry it took this long.) It would be great if we could trust our government to do the best possible investigation possible into Graham’s death and then fully and transparently report the results to us. That would move the needle from “I don’t know.” But I’m not holding my breath for that. You mentioned Butler in your last reply to me. I hope you haven’t been holding your breath for transparency in that case.
It would have been great if TPUSA had been transparent and truthful about the details surrounding Charlie’s death. But they weren’t. It would be great if I could trust the government to do a full investigation of Charlie’s death and then transparently release the results. But I can’t. I still believe the only reasonable take on Charlie’s assassination is “I don’t know.”
And I believe that’s the primary fuel for the conspiracy theories. The world needs Truth and Light. If it had Truth and Light (or even just truth and light) we’d have way less conspiracy theories.

Ryan