Here You Go
I ran into your video “The Face of Jesus Christ” which is right on. I would like to have the text of this that you read so I can study the several aspects that jumped out to me, quickening my spirit. How may I get that text.
You have my email address.
Art, here you go.
A QUICK THANK YOU.
As the Moscow community seems to be spreading to the ends of the earth via the internet, we are really experiencing a secondhand blessing of the culture and community you all have developed as you’ve submitted your lives to Christ, cultivating goodness, truth, and beauty that serves as an inspiration for many others to emulate.
I look forward to seeing all of the multimedia development and general content coming from Canon Press, Blog and Mablog, NSA, etc.
Thanks to all involved, and of course Doug for his willingness to put his name and reputation on the line as the public face of much of this content. God bless!
Noah, thanks for paying attention, which is the hard part. And look for a lot more coming in 2022.
Hi Mr Wilson, more of a general question than reply to a specific post. I’m new to your blog (and am not even in the same hemisphere as America!), but get the sense you are a Christian leader without compromise on biblical teaching and Christian living, no matter what waves of sociopolitical or cultural storms batter the Church. With this in mind, your opinions and input I can trust more so than even asking my pastor for example.
I’ve been looking to consolidate my faith for a while, especially thinking about having a family and what or how to teach them, and thought some creed-like catechisms on various subjects, particularly those currently under attack such as the family vs secular hatred of the family, man and woman vs the GayGB, and such things.
Such ‘creeds’ would be punchy orthodox summaries of what you believe, a catechism or statement of faith if you would, and are meant to be simple all-rounders to extensive topics. Like the creeds of old, they could be in response to unbiblical teaching that has crept up in our age, false teaching, dangerous social leanings etc. They wouldn’t be the sort to recite out loud in church right after the Lords Prayer or before the Nicene creed, or to judge a person’s salvation but perhaps in a personal or family setting. (yes a long or impossible way off for me but I like to think of such things.) Some might be ‘it is necessary to believe X to be saved’, or ‘a Christian ought to believe X’, or even distinguish sections or points as core Gospel issues or ‘non-essentials’. Of course there could be something like this I forgot of or don’t know of.
If you were to write new Creeds to summarise your biblically and logically based beliefs about hot issues facing the church and society in the lsat hundred years and future looking, what would they be and what format would they follow?
Thank you and blessings to you and your family from the southern tip of Africa
Doug, I would recommend a couple of things. For review of what the historic Reformed position has been, I would recommend the Westminster Confession. Linked is my study guide to that confession, a book called Westminster Systematics. On some of the more contemporary issues that the historic creeds did not address, I would recommend this publication, coming to you from New St. Andrews.
I have enjoyed your “letters” counseling people in various situations over the years. I usually wasn’t the intended audience, but I saw the wisdom in your counsel. I now find myself in a situation where I could use some of your letters. I am 47 and my wife of 22 years died on September 17 this year. She was a good and godly wife (not perfect, of course. No pedestals here, but a good wife) Her health had degraded for years, but I was always trying to care for her and look for the answer to her problems. I now find myself dealing with losing my wife and best friend, learning how to pay household bills, still working, dealing with three children (all adults) who process things very differently. All of this is while living in a rental house because we had a house fire in July and they’re still working on it. I don’t really want to move back there, but I don’t know what to do. While few people may find themselves in my unique position, I’m sure some of the things are common. Perhaps you could do one of your series of letters to those of us who have lost a spouse and in many ways feel lost themselves. I know I didn’t really lose her—I know where she is and will see her again someday, but I still get overwhelmed at times. I’m writing this email through tears, so please excuse any spelling errors
Charles, very sorry for your loss. From this distance, I know that I cannot say or do anything that will make it “better,” but I think I can say something that will make it less difficult. Lean in, and don’t shrink back. Don’t withdraw into isolation. Even though it is difficult to be around others who aren’t in your position, make sure to make a deliberate choice to be around others in those moments when you don’t particularly feel like it. This would particularly apply to church, and to family. God bless.
Dear Pastor. I work shoulder to shoulder with unbelievers night after night, I’ve achieved a certain comradeship with these fellows, we are a tight knit group of friends , yet they are as fragmented and irrational and close-minded as any in the world . Does the fault lie in myself?.
Any thoughts or comments would be appreciated very much
Ted, if you fit right in, then that would be a problem. But if you are the Jesus freak, and everyone knows it, and you get along well, I don’t see that as a problem. If a crisis were to arise, would they look to you for anything?
Glad for an Opportunity to Address This
“ wives are not commanded to love their husbands“
The long letter below addresses an error I have heard you teach that I believe is really hurting marriages, and I believe once you read this you will agree that a clearer exegesis and maybe retraction of former things said/written is needed.
It has to do with your statement “wives are not commanded to love their husbands“
You are not the first person I’ve heard make this statement about marriage, but you do have the unfortunate honor of being the last and therefore you get the letter. Congratulations. Being the last isn’t your only qualification I considered, however. I also believe you are best suited to correct the error I am speaking of with biblical, logical remediation in a complete way that would be helpful in correcting other pastors and teachers and counselors who continually repeat this error.
I will add one footnote, I have not read all of your books and only scanned your book for classical Christian schools when I helped found a school in Tennessee several years ago, so a fuller explanation of “wives are not commanded to love their husbands“ may be found in one of your other sources, but it wasn’t in any of the videos on YouTube where I’ve heard you say this. And I haven’t heard any of the other marriage counselors pastors teachers etc. give any helpful qualifiers that let us know they don’t really mean what they just said.
This idea that wives are never told to love their husband was said in reference to one of several passages where we are instructed something along the lines of,
“Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them.”
It’s amazing to me how many people (yourself included) repeat this line, that husbands are commanded to love their wives BUT wives are NOT commanded to love their husbands, just respect them. Really?? So are women supposed to somehow be relieved that they don’t have to actually LOVE their husbands?
Do the advocates of loveless wives find any other groups mentioned in the Bible where you can get off the hook for actually NOT loving someone? Or is the asterisk only found beside husbands? Sheesh.
According to these teachers of the “respect is the only requirement” crowd, husbands rank somewhere well below your worst enemies. Even enemies get to be loved.
Stinks to be a husband I guess.
IF this were correct, which it is not, and the, “wives aren’t commanded to love their husbands”, crowd wanted to be completely accurate to the Bible, maybe they should just say, “only young woman have to love their husbands, but they can stop once they get a little older.”(See Titus) Do you really think Paul is telling Titus to have the the older women to instruct the younger women “do as I say not as I do”. No, plainly he tells them to teach the younger women to “LOVE” their husbands and children.
Or would you concede this point from Scripture and say, “husbands at least qualify for the same general kind of love that wives give to their children and their enemies, but nothing more.”
“…train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.”
If you are taking the position that wives are not commanded to love their husbands in a unique way that is different from how they would love their enemies, and that the respect they have for their husbands would be similar to what they have for the policeman that just pulled them over, then I would ask you this:
If marriage is representative of Christ and the church, and you are correct about wives not being told to love their husbands, then why didn’t Solomon just say:
“Let her RESPECT fill you at all times with delight; be intoxicated always in her RESPECT.”
Yes, Solomon has much to say about husbands and wives loving, many of the references in Song of Songs of course are related to the one flesh, sexual nature of husband and wife love. Sadly, this particular expression of married love has been downgraded by women in the church and sits somewhere next to cooking, dish washing and laundry as something a kind, loving, spiritual man should never expect from his wife with any more frequency than a solar eclipse. And yes, I do believe that is a primary expression of the uniqueness of a wife’s love to her husband. If all of the marriage counselors out there are right, and a man’s primary need in marriage ISN’T love (expressed with some kind of affection and genuine feelings) and IS respect and encouragement, then I would ask them to take a poll of married men under the age of 70, to see how many would be willing to trade “yes sirs” and “atta boys” for a sexless marriage.
If husbands and wives are supposed to be representative of the church as the bride of Christ and Christ as bridegroom, then should we not also conclude that since wives don’t have to love their husbands, the church doesn’t have to love Jesus, just respect him?
This is what happens when we want to be seen as clever, straining to find something “new” in the Bible that no one else has thought of.
It’s sad that this is being taught to women as some kind of consolation- “don’t worry ladies, you don’t have to actually love him. Just grit your teeth and say, “yes sir.””
That’s some kind of really sick idea of marriage, wouldn’t you agree?
Wonder how many men fall into adultery because they felt a lack of respect? Wonder how that group stacks up to the ones that fall because they felt the lack of love?
Why don’t we find these men who are walking away from their marriages due to lack of respect, forming a line outside an army recruiters office to become drill sergeants, so they can fill that respect void they are suffering from?
If a husband should have no expectation that once married, his wife will continue to love him, even without a command to do so, (again, I contend wives are commanded to love their husbands) then maybe men should just forego marriage, move next-door to someone nice and attractive, and hope her pastor tells her to love her neighbor.
Okay, Brother Wilson, I’m finished. As you may have gathered, the “wives aren’t commanded to love their husbands” line hit a personal nerve with me, and I did my best to address it in a “Wilson-like“ fashion, giving the best imitation of your witty writing style that I could come up with in the 15 minutes of blowing leaves off of my yard that it took me to think this through. Hope that made it a more interesting read for you and that the fact that it is personal and flavored as such doesn’t reduce the seriousness with which you take my letter. Looking forward to your response.
PS, I don’t normally include my middle initial to things but I thought it added weight and made me look a little more intelligent than I really am. I’m really just plain old David.
David, thanks for taking the time to write this. Fortunately, we don’t have to disagree. On this subject, I teach that this is a matter of emphasis, not exclusion. The thing that wives need to work on is respect, and the thing that husbands need to focus on is love. Of course, men are to respect their wives—Christians are to honor all men, and so how much more our wives? Of course, wives are to love their husbands—Christians are commanded to love everyone, and so how much more would this apply to husbands? The thing that Paul does not specifically instruct husbands and wives to do is not because they don’t have to do them, but because they are probably already doing them. The thing they have to work on is the thing they don’t do, and which the other person very much needs. And to be clear, I have taught and emphasized this kind of balance in multiple places.
Doctrinal Arguments in Marriage
I am 24 and am newly married (7 months as of the beginning of this month). One of the ongoing arguments my wife and I have is on the security of salvation. Even though she believes that salvation happens by God’s power and that once someone receives the Holy Spirit they are new creations, she still believes that people can lose their salvation if they behave wicked enough. She supports this belief with passages such as Psalm 69:28, Romans 11:23-24, Revelation 2:5 and 22:19 because she feels that these passages should be taken seriously even though contextually they don’t speak to one’s salvation.
It has turned into a difficult conversation to bring up because she often turns emotional quickly and views my disagreement as almost a personal attack against her and I get accused of not listening well to what she is saying.
So I am asking for insight and strategy. I want to be able to have these conversations with her and lead her well spiritually while also being able communicate to her that I am listening and not launching a personal attack on her. I don’t yell at her or raise my voice and try to ask questions rather than talk down to her. Any insight will be a blessing.
Thanks for your blogs, videos, books, etc. I just discovered all of the resources that you, Canon, and Christ Kirk earlier this summer and they have been immensely helpful in my walk with God. Y’all successfully convinced another Arminian dispensationalist of the reformed Postmill perspective. Got lots to learn!
Matt, I would honestly encourage you to do whatever you can to avoid debating this kind of thing with your wife. Just love her and treat her right. Don’t debate the love of the Father for you—a love that will remain faithful to us regardless of our failures. Rather model that kind of love for her. You love her that way. And love her that way until you can have a conversation about the doctrine without it seeming unloving to her.
Ye Old Headcoverings
Let me begin by again expressing my gratitude for your ministry. Please stay encouraged that your labors are blessing others.
Someone wrote in this last Tuesday and made a passing comment to your view on headcoverings. Previously you’ve indicated that you understand a woman’s long hair to be the covering spoken about in 1 Corinthians 11. But does it really do justice to the full passage? Yes, the long hair is a covering (referred to in verses 14-15 of 1 Corinthians 11) but there also seems to be a reference to a removable covering (verse 5 and 10).
I’m not sure how to make sense of verse 6 if long hair is the only covering Paul has in mind. Just try substituting long hair where you see the word covering. “If you do not have long hair you should also cut it short?” It doesn’t seem to fit and I’m not sure what to do with that word “also” in there.
The fact that Paul only commands covering for certain times seems to hint that he has a removable covering in mind. Or what would only specific contexts, like praying or prophesying, even be a part of the command?
Do you think that it’s possible that when Paul references a woman’s long hair as her covering he says this not to define what he had commanded in verses 4-13, but to support his argument for a physical covering?
In other words, it’s odd that Paul only provides the “long hair” explanation at the very end of the passage, seemingly in support of the point he has made earlier.
Given the understandings of Augustine, Martin Luther, John Bunyan, Charles Spurgeon, and other respected teachers on the topic it doesn’t seem like a physical covering should be ruled out without careful exegesis. How do you sort though this?
Thank you for thoughtfully considering the matter.
AC, I don’t want to rule out a physical covering. There are some women at Christ Church who cover their heads during our worship service, and we have no problem with that. And the issue is not whether artificial coverings violate the scriptural requirement of a submissive demeanor in women, because I don’t believe they do. The issue is whether that demeanor can be achieved without artificial means, which I believe Paul urges. And so if a woman has really short hair, such that it cannot provide that kind of covering, she should go whole hog and shave her head. I have read somewhere that the sacred prostitutes at Corinth shaved their heads that way, and so the argument would be a reductio—if you are going to be partly abandoned, then why not be completely abandoned? But I have not been able to confirm this.
Greetings from the United Kingdom and many thanks to God and to you for your ministry.
I was wondering whether you had any thoughts on how an elder should balance his duty to visit the sick and to pray over and anoint them (Jam 5:14), with his care for his own family, especially if some of them are weak etc. and it would likely be very problematic if they became ill.
The effectual prayer that heals in James is the prayer of faith so is that the end of it? It also says that it is the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man so it righteous to disregard all possible consequences?
I’m interested in the general thinking and question but as an added bonus would the response look much different if you were a young church which started in the lockdowns and has a regular preacher but hasn’t appointed any elders yet?
Stephen, a minister has a duty to his flock, and he also has a duty to protect his family from undue risk. What to do in a particular situation will always be a judgment call. But if a man occupies a calling that brings risk with it (as the ministry does), then to be the family of that minister also entails risk. And that, in my view, is a good thing. Check out a title that Canon Press released last year
Love the “contagious” new label for our COVID commanders (the Mandatorians) . . . but one huge problem is evident with your article: no Baby Yoda!
Brett, yes, but I was laboring under the difficulty of not knowing anything about Baby Yoda.
Enjoyed “The Mandatorians”. It is interesting to track your cogent arguments from here in Melbourne, Australia.
My state is 91% double vaccinated. The Victorian state Premier is congratulating all on a job well done despite the fact that hardly anyone can go to work or participate in society without their COVID vaccine pass. Over recent weeks we have seen some of the largest protests ever in Melbourne. These are against vaccine mandates and newly passed “Pandemic” laws. Of course these crowds of 60,000+ are dismissed in the usual way – “Extremists”, “Anti-vaxxers”.
The unvaccinated cannot attend church. I see one or two pastors writing letters of complaint to government MP’s about this whilst at the same time saying how they believe the vaccine to be a good thing and urge all to get it. Others are just hoping that it all ends soon and they can stop having to think about the issues and awkward questions that come with hanging a “Do Not Enter” sign on the church door for the unvaccinated.
Victoria’s neighbouring state of New South Wales has set a date of Dec 15th for when the unvaccinated are allowed back into the world. For us Victorians —no such promise. It might be sooner it might be later. We also might need a booster the Premier tells us.
The vaccine is a false idol. We worship at it’s feet and ex-communicate any who blaspheme it’s name.
Andrew, thanks for the report. All of this that they are doing is wicked, and no less wicked for being so stupid.
Revelations 22:2 describes the New Jerusalem as a bit of a return to Eden, with a river flowing through its midst, a tree of life with fruit-laden branches and leaves for the healing of the nations, and a place where we can once again walk in peace with God.
But the New Jerusalem is also painted in Revelations 21 and 22 as a “garden-city.” Do you think that, especially from a post-millennial standpoint, this means that paved streets, cars, technology, skyscrapers, computers and the like—or perhaps futuristic flying vehicles, shiny spaceships or fancy submarines—will be a feature of the New Jerusalem? I’m just trying to mentally overcome the seeming paradox of pollution, traffic, slow internet (ha!) and the like being part of our eternal existence and curious if that’s something you’ve thought about.
Ben, I think the stumbling block here is how the science fiction writers (the utopians and dystopians both) have painted the future. Those who describe it positively describe it in terms of plastic and titanium, as though the future was going to be like the Jetsons. But I much prefer the green Edenic picture that Scripture paints. In the final cities, the garden motif is going to be predominant.
What Is Instability Then?
In one of your posts you say, referring to feminism and feminists, if I remember correctly, that men should not have sex with unstable women. I agree completely, and I do not mean to be flippant or insincere with my question. Would you advise a young man to break off dating a godly girl whom he intends to marry, and who has a problem or a burden of anxiety?
In other words, would this be something you would put under what you mean as unstable? I am dating a girl who I very much like and who I believe is good for me, and I believe I also am good for her. She is godly and loves the Lord, and I am convinced would be a great helper to me. But she does have something of a recurring pain, as far as I can tell, with anxiety. In all fairness, I also have a problem with anxiety.
Your thoughts on this are coveted.
Thank you kindly.
Ryan, by “unstable women,” I was not referring to ordinary people with ordinary problems. I was talking about wild emotional swings, unsubstantiated accusations, fits of rage, and the like. If you would like to marry your girl, I would encourage you to propose by this time next week.
I assume you hold to the Regulative Principle for Sabbath worship. If so, how do you square that position with the celebration of Christmas and the use of non-Psalms in Sabbath worship?
Thanks for your ministry. It has been a huge blessing to me.
BJ, I believe that consistent Protestants must hold to the regulative principle in some fashion, but I do not hold to the stricter forms of it (e.g. “that which is not expressly warranted in Scripture is prohibited”). Rather I hold to the form that Hughes Oliphant Old articulated, which is, “worship must be in accordance with Scripture.” If someone asks about any element of our worship, we need to be able to show them in Scripture why we are doing that. With regard to worship, our church has two worship services a year which are not Lord’s Day services—Christmas Eve and Good Friday. Because they are not required of us in Scripture, we do not require them of our parishioners. Our sanction would be the fact that the Lord Jesus observed Hanukah (John 10:22-24), which was not a festival required by the law. And Hezekiah composed a song that was not included in the psalter, and yet was sung in the house of the Lord (Is. 38:20). There are other issues and arguments, but that is the center of it.
An Oblique Argument
I have been watching your videos and I deeply appreciate what you are doing. My church is “fiddling while Rome burns,” I fear.
Deuteronomy 23:1: One of the videos alludes to this. I realize that there are ceremonial commandments which do not apply today, however, there is usually some principle contained therein.
I would really like to hear what Pastor Wilson things about this.
Is it a hint that Birth Control for its own sake displeases God?
What does this prohibition mean for us today?
Thank you for your time.
Bill, at best I think that would be an oblique argument for fruitfulness or, as you put it, “a hint.” I think the principle would be that fruitfulness should be considered a blessing, and a blessing that is received coram Deo, before the Lord.
I would agree that the vaccines are not the mark of the beast. But the mandates are a mark of a beast. The mandates are medically unnecessary. The vaccines are medically ineffective, not preventing infection, transmission, hospitalization, or death.
They are however, a good way to burn incense and genuflect to Caesar.
James, amen. The behavior of these secular governments in their draconian measures has been appalling.
Thank you for taking the time to answer our questions.
I’ve read a few of your books on classical education (a while back) and have watched some of your other content on education (Man Rampant, “Geronimo, Amen!”). I am inspired by the vision that education should shape a person, and the goal is a God-worshiping, virtuous individual who rules and innovates rather than a “cog in the wheel.” As I’ve pondered I’ve had some questions and am hoping you can practically flesh out a few of these for me.
How do you reconcile this vision with the need for actual vocationally trained individuals? For professions like health care, plumbing/HVAC, etc, there needs to be vocational training beyond a liberal arts education. I imagine your ideal may be a virtuous plumber who can think and speak well, who may eventually own his own company, patent and license new products, own and manage real estate on the side, rather than just the “cog in the wheel.” But from a strictly practical standpoint regarding education, how does this look for a high school student who is planning the next several years? I disagree that STEM is everything, but surely there is a need for STEM/technical professions?
What if this student is a young woman who wants to get married and have children sooner rather than later, but if God were to tarry bringing a husband (or never brings one), she would prefer working in a profession that requires vocational training like nursing, dental hygiene, etc. Does this look like 4 years of liberal arts education plus additional years of vocational training (a lot of years and a lot of money)? Would you steer young women away from vocational training for this reason? I remember being single and wrestling with how to prepare well for the future and I am now wondering how to counsel daughters when they reach that age.
Is a rigorous, quality, godly K-12 education enough? If someone received a good education through high school, do you think he or she could reasonably do something more technical after high school, or would you still strongly encourage a four year liberal arts education?
Mallory, it depends on the circumstances. A solid K-12 education could be sufficient in some situations. And I agree that vocational training is needed at some point. But I should learn how to be a doctor after I have learned how to be a human being. And New St. Andrews is currently working on some creative measures that would enable a student to get (for example) a pre-med degree in five years (instead of eight), and which included a wise use of electives. But to take the basic issue—take a room full of people with college degrees, say a hundred of them, and ask all those who are currently working in the same field as their college major to stand up. What do you think would happen?
A Translation Issue
How important is it to maintain the distinction between singular and plural pro-nouns in Bible translation? I grew up with, and still use, the KJV, and, while it’s not perfect, the singular (thee/thou etc) vs the plural (you/your) pronoun distinction is maintained, in contrast with modern translations. I don’t know any modern translations that attempt to maintain that singular/plural pronoun distinction. I realize that it doesn’t make a big difference in the meaning of most passages, but if it is God’s Word and we are not supposed to take anything out (Rev 22:19), then doesn’t even something like this distinction, which exists in the original languages, matter enough that it should be maintained somehow when we translate God’s Word, regardless of how big or small the difference to meaning is? I’m sure that from my question it’s obvious that I think it matters, but if I am making a mountain out of a molehill where I shouldn’t be, then I’d like to know why I can let this go.
If it is important, than what sort of English language conventions would you suggest for a modern translation to maintain that distinction without having to use thee/thou/thine etc, along with the more archaic English that seems to necessarily come along with using thee/thou/thine, etc?
Alex, I would suggest some sort of typographic signal—italics or something like that.
Enns and Means
I’m currently reading Peter Enns wrote The Bible Tells Me So and How The Bible Really Works as means to interact with someone who actually thinks he can be trusted. What books would be best to recommend to him? And what in essence is wrong with Enns?
Siegfried, I am sorry I don’t know of a good book-length treatment. But you might start here.
An Exhortation from the Studio Audience
As a retired, nearly 70-yr old video producer who is a Calvinistic Christian, and suddenly now also an interim pastor (because our reformed pastor was suddenly taken by cancer last April and we can’t afford a new pastor) in need of instruction, and one who enjoys greatly your Reformed, postmillennial commentary immensely, a pro video tip: slow your reading down and, for goodness’ sake, BLINK every once in awhile as you read the prompter. This may be my sanctified evening bourbon talking, but you don’t have to rush through your well-thought-out, and always stimulating, mablogs. :-)
Keep up the fight: I’m with you.
Daniel, I do extra blinking on the drive down to Canon.
This is a request for pastoral advice. My wife and I are elderly and recently moved to Northwest Georgia to be near our daughter and son-in-law. The purpose was two fold. First was to leave the corrupt state of Illinois. The second was to be near our family for the need of care as we grow older. The problem is that we have not been able to find a church home. Literally on every corner is a baptist church. I have nothing against Baptist but “ good ole boy” preaching is not what we are looking for so please give me some advice as to what we can do. The other issue is related in that because of no church home we have not celebrated communion for some time. Is it permissible for us to do that in our home. I am not an ordained minister so I don’t know if having communion would be allowed. Thanks
Tony, I wouldn’t celebrate communion at home, no. I think your choices boil down to two. Find the best church available, join it, and then supplement the teaching you get with online stuff. The second thing would be to start praying about a church starting up near you, and becoming part of the support for that happening.
In Evolution and Sexual Selfishness Doug states, “egalitarians and feminists want the women to win” and I agree this is what they want. Which goes to show their name, egalitarian, is a misnomer—a distraction to hide behind in order to mask their true motives and make their position appear more reasonable. They really don’t desire equality, they want equity.
Robert, I believe their ultimate goal is androgyny, and so they don’t want real women to win. They want their construct to win, which would include all sorts of things leveled out. So the term egalitarian might still be suitable.
Creation in Two Movements
I have a Biblical question for Doug Wilson: Genesis 1:2. Why was the earth without form and void causing the Holy Spirit to hover over the surface of the water, ‘remake’ it? Was this when Satan and his angels were cast down from heaven causing the destruction of the original perfect earth that God had created?
( between Genesis 1:1-2) ?
Connie, I believe that the Lord created in two stages. First He made the “stuff,” the matter, and it was a chaotic, shapeless mass. And then He shaped it.
Thanks for the great discussion on maintaining pastoral independence. Can you provide some insight into how the parishioners should aid that process? It seems a given not to be in the “we elected you” crew, but I suspect there is more to it, especially when one finds oneself in a position of monetary and social influence outside the church. How should the “man with a gold ring and fine clothes” avoid being placed in the best seats and displacing those with fewer earthly goods?
Grace and Peace,
N, a man of independent means ought not to be a man of ostentatious display. In other words, he is not beholden to others, but he does not try to manipulate others either. His wealth is his independence, not the dependence of others.
But What About Aragorn?
I recently wrote about Gandalf and you answered, thank you for that. His case, that of an angel, may be more clear cut. But I suppose that Aragorn would have had a surprise trial when he got back from speaking with the men of the mountain. No dealings with the dead and all.
Tyler, except that the Lord descended in Hades and preached to the spirits in prison. That would be “dealing with the dead,” right?