Letters About Our Incipient Criminality

Sharing Options
Show Outline with Links

Fake Vaccine IDs

What if you made one of your books to contain a complimentary fake ID, based on a discount code field that only in-the-know people had and that actually makes the price go up a tad? It’s a struggle for me to read this without coming to the conclusion that you have one of these IDs yourself, and are quite pleased with it. I’m hoping to fight the battle without the need of one of these, but I also hope I don’t have to use my AR-15. I’d love to get my hands on one of these as a backup. Can you hook me up? I mention the “discount” field because I have a hard time imagining I’m the only one in your readership who wants to prep a bit on the paper side.

Martyn

Martyn, wish I could help, but this kind of thing is best navigated through personal relationships, with people you know and trust. And my expression I know a guy was written for a literary effect. And I would also suggest that you not use your AR-15 first, and then try the fake vaccine ID as “back up.”

Re: The Scouring of the American Shire “And listen for the horn that will raise the Shire.”

I just had another thought about this. What if the horn we think we’re waiting for isn’t from a particular leader or a specific person, event, call, etc.?

What if the horn is a bunch of us talking to neighbors, one by one, or simply going about life as normal while others enslaved to this madness look at us and envy us, and then decide to join us in freedom?

grh

GRH, that would be lovely.

Firstly, I would just like to express my thanks for your ministry, which across the Atlantic in my country (England) is a wonderful breath of fresh air. My girlfriend and I recently finished reading Reforming Marriage, which we thoroughly enjoyed and I pray will set us on the right course for our life together.

I am writing to enquire about the extent to which we should be taking our principled resistance to the imposition of various COVID measures, such as lock downs, mask wearing and lastly, vaccine passports (for leisure and workplaces etc).

I am in pretty much 99% agreement with you about the legitimacy of these COVID measures, and am in full agreement that Christians can peaceably disobey these laws and orders with a clear conscience. I also am of the opinion (which I believe you are too, though please correct me if I have made an assumption!) that Christians should seek to politically oppose the continued imposition of lock downs and the introduction of vaccine passports, on the grounds that we wish to live full lives as God intended and that loving our neighbour means that we are bound to disobey laws which prohibit us from doing so. Therefore, it becomes a point of principle to continue living Godly lives, even when the government imposes stay-at-home orders and tells us we must have a vaccine passport to go into a shop or a pub, let alone a church.

I hope that provides some clarifying perspective to my question. I can see that in your country and mine, vaccination may soon become a condition for keeping one’s job and that without a vaccine passport, one could be fired. My girlfriend is going to start working as a paramedic (I believe an EMT is the US equivalent?) in October, and I am hoping to move workplaces in the next few months. The government in England has already made vaccination a requirement for workers in care-homes for the elderly, with no major political opposition. With this precedent, it is a realistic possibility that healthcare staff, like my girlfriend, will need to have a vaccine in order to keep their jobs. Moreover, when flu and winter illnesses hit our atrociously-run hospitals later this year, I can foresee a situation where the government decides to make vaccination a condition of employment more widely, in order to apparently ‘stop’ the latest wave of COVID deaths—you know the playbook well.

My girlfriend and I are both vaccinated against COVID, though we were careful not to take MRNA vaccines. This was for the simple reason that although we do not think COVID is anywhere near as serious as it is made out to be, we are happy to be protected against some of the more severe symptoms. In any case, should it be decided that vaccination becomes a legal or contractual obligation for employment, logistically and practically it would not be a problem for us. However, I feel compelled to opt out of any vaccine certification process as part of these mandates, and would prefer simply not to disclose that we’ve had vaccines if asked by our employers. The real question I would like to seek your advice on is this: if disclosing whether or not we have had a vaccine becomes a condition of employment, on pain of being fired or being rejected for future job openings, should we comply or should we carry on and potentially get fired for doing so? I am conflicted by our need to oppose these tyrants, and the need to provide for my girlfriend and me when we get married next year.

If I may also ask, there is likely to be a so-called ‘booster shot’ programme in England later this year as well: another great way to siphon off public money into the coffers of Big Pharma no doubt. However, as my girlfriend is going to be in a patient-facing role as a paramedic, I can also easily foresee a situation where she is either forced, or heavily ‘encouraged’ to take a booster shot—ostensibly to protect her against the XYZ new variant. Again, in this situation, should she take the shot (having already been fully vaccinated and happy with the protection this provides) or would it be best not to?

My apologies for how long this message is—thank you for taking the time to read it.

Steve

Steve, it strikes me that your question at this point is simply a tactical one. The vaccine is not the threat you are worried about, in that you’ve already had it, but rather government overreach. That being the case, you can simply judge how likely it is that your resistance/protest will register, and then resist or protest accordingly. For example, I saw a report, from Italy I think, of fully vaccinated people burning their passports in protest.

I am writing to you from South-Africa and I thought you would be encouraged to know that your work is highly appreciated by many of our family and me.

Many of us also listen to the podcasts on Canon Press. I find your videos and blog posts on all things “pandemic” and COVID-related very insightful and helpful in these times. Thank you for your guidance.

I am a pastor in a small Afrikaans-speaking congregation in Graaff-Reinet, Eastern-Cape. Since the lock downs began in 2020 we have battled to stay open as a church. It has been quite the uphill battle and we have recently written a public declaration to provide brothers and sisters with a Biblical answer regarding lock downs and the closing down of churches.

I was wondering if you would mind reading the declaration and give your thoughts on it? (It would mean a lot to us is you decided to sign it, if that is at all something you would consider?)

May God be greatly honoured and glorified in your work!

Your “always reforming” brother in Christ,

Marnix

Marnix, very good. I have signed it, and others should as well.

Thank you for your article. I’ve sent it to friends and family. Where on earth did this all come from and so suddenly ? I understand now. Thank you for your very well written article. I especially liked the paragraph on American pastors. It was exactly what I experienced at our small church in Camarillo, CA. I told them if they continued with this nonsense, it would eventually impact the congregation. We left that church. I still think on it. I’m so upset , they abandoned the flock “so they wouldn’t break the law”citing Romans 13 to me.

Thank you for your article. You clearly lay out how we got here and what our only hope is.

Harry

Harry, thank you.

In regards to your thoughts on Christendom and political liberty, I would commend Reading the Bible with the Founding Fathers by Daniel Dreisbach (mispelling possible). Chapter 9 deals with how the founders understood and expounded upon texts regarding Christian liberty.

Jeremy

Jeremy, thanks for the recommendation. I ordered it.

“The road must be trod, but it will be very hard. And neither strength nor wisdom will carry us far upon it. This quest may be attempted by the weak with as much hope as the strong. Yet it is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: Small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere.”

J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring

Zachary

Zachary, yes, exactly.

Hey Doug, honest question. Would you consider it fair for the insurance companies and/or hospitals to say that if someone is unvaccinated then they should bear 80-100% of the hospital costs of ICU should you become infected? Asking the medical system to bail someone out financially if you’re unvac’d seems immoral. And yes I do see the “but what about xyz reason people go to the ICU” here with people going to the ICU due to behaviors that are completely their fault (diabetes, lung disease, heart disease—you know, modern life stuff). But that said, its a lot of hospital visits and a genuinely big bill when you factor in all of the ICU patients nationwide. Why should other entities/insurance payers be held responsible if a vac is refused and someone decides they may want to see if a hospital can save their life for say $250k of someone else’ money?

Thomas

Thomas, I agree with the principle—each person should take responsibility for his own life, actions, and bills. This would include the consequences of his behavior, which could include the kinds of things you mention. But this principle should also include pharmaceutical companies that want to give an experimental vaccine to tens of millions of people, and with all liability removed. Let’s start applying this principle to them first. In this morass, they are the only ones disclaiming responsibility for their actions.

I’m not particularly fond of the vaccination cards, although it seems they do play a role in the current situation—if it’s not the coronavirus filling up the hospitals world-wide, how do you propose to explain that? The politicians and acquaintances who seem to expect them to be relevant in perpetuity, though—the more or less blatant disregard for the laws about how we handle emergencies—the flip-flops and insistence that disagreement with the latest is “disinformation”—that’s the sort of thing that lends credence to your arguments.

But you know what damages your arguments?

You suggest that our Aussie friends might handle these “lock downs” by practicing house-churching: this seems eminently sensible, but I think it’s the first time I’ve seen it suggested. The Reformed, with our multiplicity of elders, would seem better set than most to accommodate themselves; but you and others have insisted the church falls outside the purview of health regulations at all.

And masks? I don’t like the things, but if there’s one thing that’s obviously going to limit transmission of an airborne pathogen, it’s covering up the nose and mouth. The studies purporting to show mask mandates are ineffective mostly say this is because people don’t follow them, which hardly proves anything other than a will to rebellion.

And finally, what on earth is prompting the rejecting of the vaccine, simpliciter? Show-your-card mandates, sure, especially if they continue; but the idea of vaccination itself? Granted this coronavirus is not particularly deadly, it is particularly infectious—even supposing as many as two thirds of cases in the US are misidentified through haste, panic, or malice, you’d be left with an astonishing number. And due to the case load, same for deaths. To say nothing of the situation elsewhere.

True, the vaccines don’t seem completely preventative, but they certainly appear to reduce severity of infection and chances of death. And while I’ve seen questions raised about the others, all the authorities I’ve seen investigate the development have concluded the Moderna and Pfizer products, at least, were free of the conscience-complicating stem-cell usage.

As far as I’m aware, there are quite a number of vaccines supposed to be administered to all of us, mostly as children. Are you going to shortly be telling us to object to all those too? And on what possible grounds?

Jonathan

Jonathan, I am not an anti-vaxxer at all. One of the most damaging things about all this is the damage done to the reputation of reputable vaccines, and done by governments with an idea so compelling that it needed to be mandatory.

The Afghan Debacle

Spot on as usual, Mr. Wilson. What a humbling read. As a Christian and a soldier, I’ve struggled to piece together exactly how I feel. But you’re pointing of the finger back at the U.S. could not come at a better time. How can we truly worry about another country at this point when we have a massive log in our own eye? How can certain people cry for women and children when they have abandoned the women and children in this country? What an awful predicament the powers that be have put us in. This quote means more currently then it has in my 34 years on this earth so far;

“I wish it need not have happened in my time,” said Frodo.

“So do I,” said Gandalf, “and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”

Greg

Greg, thanks, and amen. Stay true.

Thanks for your ministry and I normally agree with most of your viewpoints. However, I think I disagree with your viewpoint on the Afghan Exit and want to ask some questions in the hopes that I might learn something.

You said this in Afghan Travesty: “Whether or not you believe we should have been there in the first place, we had a solemn obligation not to leave in the way we did.”

Could you please explain the details of the “solemn obligation” you have mind? I was hoping to hear more on that in the article, but I do not think you got back to it. Here are my basic questions:

1) On what Scripture(s) do you base the foundation for the solemn obligation?

2) How specifically would the Afghan Exit have been different if the USA had respected that solemn obligation? (I don’t expect nitty-gritty details, but I think readers like me need to hear some specifics in order to understand.)

This is my viewpoint: There was no possible way to exit the country without it turning out this way. Afghanistan was doomed to collapse because the regime propped up by the USA had zero trust or legitimacy in the eyes of “the Afghan people.” I say that in quotes because I hardly even think you can accurately call them “the Afghan people”—that country is a madhouse of varying disconnected ethnicities and ruled by tribal loyalties that stretch across national borders into Pakistan, Tajikistan, etc. Bottom line: There were never any preconditions for a graceful exit regardless of solemn obligations.

But like I said, I am more than happy to learn something if you’re kind enough to explain to me.

Thanks,

Austin

Austin, I don’t believe we had a solemn obligation to leave behind a stable Jeffersonian democracy. As you point out, that wasn’t going to happen. What I had in mind is the prior evacuation of all Americans who wanted to go, the evacuation of all personnel who would be targeted by Taliban (e.g. translators, etc.), the orderly removal of massive amounts of military equipment, etc. The scriptural basis for this would be as simple as keeping your word.

To your list of the transgressions of which we ought to repent the following should be appended:

We must repent of our usury, our love of money and our contraception which rejects the children God wills to send us.

Michael

Michael, amen to most.

Good Old Revelation 20

I hope you and your family are well. I have a question about Revelation 20: is the resurrection of the beheaded martyrs a spiritual or physical resurrection? I ask because in the Reformed Study Bible the footnote says that if it’s physical than the premils are right because of what they say 1 Corinthians 15 says about when Christ returns. Can you shed some light on this? Could it be it is physical but Paul was just speaking about the general resurrection for all of us? Or is it spiritual? I feel like it is because Christ must be at God’s right hand until all His enemies are a footstool so if death has not been defeated yet He can’t have returned, right? Please let me know what you think. By the way, I have “When the Man Comes Around” but we are moving soon so it’s in a box! It will be out soon.

In Christ,

Grant

Grant, I don’t think it necessarily follows that if there is a physical resurrection at the beginning of the thousand years then the premill position is correct. For example, it could be something like the resurrection recorded at the end of Matthew, where raised saints went into Jerusalem to say hey to everybody. That said, the resurrection that I am confident is physical is the one at the conclusion of the thousand years.

Proper Governance

Do you have a recommendation for a book that provides guidance on understanding the role of government authority, the proper limitation of power, and Christian responsibility? You wrote about our responsibility to resist as a government tries to oppress, but also the responsibility to obey in a case where the government has successfully subdued the people under them (my apologies if that’s not exactly what you wrote). I need some help thinking through these kind of situations.

Thanks a bunch.

John

John, start with Gary DeMar’s God and Government.

What are some of the ways you engage young believers and children with texts such as Eph 2:1-3 and Titus 3:3? I’m in a congregation where most families would be . . . looking . . . as it were, for those enslavements, malices, evils to have definitively showed themselves in each child. A place where young belief would be looked at with some measure of skepticism, and believers are encouraged to look back, if not at a date, then at least for that “moment” of clear heart change away from deep rebellion. I love the church we are at, but we do have our differences and I need to anticipate some of the teachings for my own children that I’ll need to address and safeguard against doubt.

I think I would say that these generally describe who we are apart from Christ. The first century believers Paul is talking to had entire lives lived apart from Christ. They had maturity and ability that sin took a hold of and did dreadful things with. And we are roped in with them one and the same. Apart from Christ, we use every tool we have in rebellion. But the thing is, babies have such small tools to work with. I’m of the opinion that it can be hard to distinguish immature (tiny), but good, fruit, from small rotten ones. Difference between picking a tiny wild plum vs a swollen apple. Requires much discernment, yet fruit is the primary indicator that Scripture points us to in accessing belief. Not age, not a perfect doctrinal statement. And believers still sin, even young ones. Even me.

I know my children need Christ, just as I do. I know they were born in sin, they inherited a sinful nature from their father, me. But if John the Baptist leapt in the womb, and elsewhere we are told that we are not too dissimilar in nature to the prophets (James 5:17), then I have to accept that I may not have eyes yet to see exactly what work has been accomplished and secured for my toddler and infant. Either way, it will come out of the woodwork, as it were. They’re trees.

I feel like I’ve rattled on as I’ve been thinking about this. Any corrections you would have on that line of thinking?

Thanks

Alexander

Alexander, I can track with what you are saying. My problem with the scrupulosity of some parents is that they tend to use unequal weights and measures. “I don’t believe my child is regenerate because he told a lie. He sinned.” But I would ask the parents “why don’t you question your salvation in the same way? When was the last time you sinned?” Correct the sin, teach your children to confess it, and to turn from it. If they rebel against that, then that should be the concern—not the mere fact of sin.

Time to Head Out?

Thank you for all of your books, sermons and podcasts. I have benefited greatly from your biblical approach to raising sons, education and Bible-centered view on current affairs. My family and I have lived and worked in Saint Petersburg, Russia for 25 years. Over the years I have read your books and your blog. I have often thought about what it means to be an American Christian in a cross- cultural setting. During my time their I have seen the US lose ground to and then be surpassed by Russia in terms of moral clarity. Russian society is much more “biblically based” than the US, particularly in the matter of sexual identities and perversions.

My son and his wife are also working and living in Russia and they delivered my first grandson there in the midst of COVID. My question is about emigration for religious reasons. I read what you have written to your Australian readers and wonder if you think its time to think about leaving the US to raise the next generation?

John

John, thanks. While not taking anything away from your work there, I don’t think it is time yet for us to bail. There is plenty of fight in the old girl yet.

This is more for Jacob and Barry who wrote to you last week, and anyone else in Australia struggling with the apparent lack of biblical courage from servants of the gospel. When we locked down last year we decided to take our church underground. We could have publicly appeared as normal but figured it would not do anyone any good to give the media something to point to. Our goal was to remain faithful to Christ in worship and petition him by our actions rather than Caesar.

We gave people the option to come or not, wear masks or not, sing or not and sit where they felt most comfortable.

We’re doing the same thing now and I suspect we will be doing this into the future.

I hold out very little hope for the future of denominational Christianity in our country and for those whose allegiances are to those denominations.

As for the government injectable, taking coverage under the blood of Christ, rather than the blood of the unborn, is a hill I am willing to die on.

Repentance is the only thing that will bring us through.

Richard

Richard, thank you. And stay strong.

Different Views on Eschatology

I am unable to find what I’m searching for online. Would you be able to recommend a single work (book or YouTube video) that reviews all of the major biblical eschatological views. (i.e. Amillennial; pre-trib; post-trib; etc.) As a Christian, in light of current events. Obviously, I have access to the Bible, myself, but I am looking for a “guide” of sorts.

NOTE: I’m sure you have your own view on this subject that you subscribe to, but I’m asking for your support to help me explore this topic exhaustively.

Thank you in advance!

Best,

Nick

Nick, I think the best place to start would be with Steve Gregg’s book Revelation: Four Views. Click here.

Fractals

Are you familiar with the book “Fractals” by Jason Lisle?

He is a Christian who, according to Amazon is the Director of Research and a featured speaker and writer for the Institute for Creation Research.

This book summary is from Amazon:

What if mathematicians discovered a secret code embedded in math disclosing an amazing work of art hidden in the numbers? Just such a code of astounding beauty was discovered in the 1980s. The artworks displayed in this book have always existed, built into the numbers at creation. Dr. Lisle suggests that only the Christian worldview can make sense of this secret code. As such, the images in this book are a demonstration of the truth of that worldview.

* Demonstrates that even abstract concepts like numbers could not exist apart from God

* Shows the beauty of God’s design and creation through full-color representations of numbers

* Confirms that the Christian worldview makes sense of mathematics and mathematical properties

I just heard about this book from Wretched Radio.

Robert

Robert, thanks. I was familiar with Jason Lisle, but had not heard about this book. Ordered it.

Ploductivity

I’ve read your book, ‘Ploductivity’, and was greatly blessed by it, but it left me wondering. When I look over into Moscow world and see the incredible amount of content you all are putting out over there, and even simply you personally with how prolific you are and all your teaching ministries and being a grandpa of so many and everything else you’re up to: I have to ask, how in the WORLD do you do it all? Coffee?

I am 20-years-old, recently married, a full time painter (houses, not canvases), studying to be a minister some day. I have a great desire to do what you all are doing in Moscow wherever I am and wherever the Lord brings me. That being said, I can barely keep up with classes at times, work often consumes my mental energy, loving my wife who has a chronic illness often weighs heavily on my heart; how might I imitate you, Pastor Sumpter, and the many many other hard working Christians I have learned so much from, as you imitate Christ in constant hard work? I often feel as if I can barely keep up with what you’re all putting out, much less as if I could someday produce so faithfully!

To put it simply, how does ambition, contentment, desire to produce, need for rest; how does it all play out in your world, how do you remain so steady in abundant fruitfulness?

My wife and I have been more blessed by your ministry than you could ever know, and if I could say nothing else to you ever again; know that we are grateful to God for you, and you and yours are often in our prayers all the way from Louisville, KY.

Isaiah

Isaiah, thank you. The question for you is not so much how you could match the productivity of those who are in a different stage of life, but rather whether you could start on the same course. When my kids were little, I was not doing anything close to what I am doing now. What I was doing was investing in them, paying my dues, and establishing my qualifications for doing what I am doing now. I didn’t publish my first book until I was almost forty. Don’t compare yourself to people who have rounded into the straight.

Motive Check

It may be early days to be worrying about this, but then again, maybe not. When does flight equal cowardice, and when not? I mean scenarios where there is live action, like the cops busting an underground church service. Or showing up to arrest you because you didn’t get your vaccine papers in order. Or your church gets torched by protestors. My working hypothesis is that flight is not cowardice if you manage to clear everyone else out first. But I can see there also being times where, due to the principle, you might resist to arrest or even bloodshed. What I’m not clear on in my mind yet is the line between the two.

Douglas

Douglas, yes. And in order to make such wisdom calls, you need to be preparing yourself in wisdom. We know from Scripture that flight is not necessarily cowardice—Jesus Himself slipped away from the mob at Nazareth, Paul escaped from Damascus as he was lowered in a basket from the city wall, and Jesus said that when we were persecuted in one city we were to flee to the next. So we know it can be done. But all those texts could also be used to justify a faint heart, and so we need to be constantly reviewing our motives.

Head Coverings

Greetings Doug. With respect to the Chimp, reconstructionism and “making all the ladies wear head coverings” (ha ha); the statement seems to be making sport of 1900 years of Christian worship, tradition and culture that acknowledged our creation and sexuality before the Lord Jesus Christ. A simple, milk of the Word, biblically understood command, practiced by all churches for centuries, but cancelled in modernity. And on our failing to “listening to others”, I really do wonder if his name should be called crazy Calvin or is he more prophetic in wisdom regarding this same subject? Calvin says this about women wearing a hat or scarf in worship, “Since this is the way it is, we see that the order of nature is changed and perverted unless we govern ourselves as He indicates.” A society changed and perverted by worship? Really? Could Calvin be correct in believing the way we worship (as we say we believe), actually changes culture? Could it be that centuries after Calvin, higher criticism came along infiltrating seminaries and churches, attacking the creation narrative, and slowly but surely one by one each denomination gave into modernity, being embarrassed by the practice of wearing a simple hat? And now, succumbed by pride, we have convinced ourselves with a multitude of reasons, it’s just not necessary anymore. We are more mature and understand that as Adam would eventually be allowed to partake of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, we no longer have to observe this obsolete command. We can go ahead and take down a physical symbol in our garden sanctuary acknowledging God’s headship, because He knows, we understand it in our hearts.

The way I see it, all ministers, from conservative to the LGBT type, now have this in common when it comes to the way we worship. They have all been inoculated into modernity at a stage of infancy. And those who profess the deepest knowledge of God, have in later life, willfully taken its booster. If you would allow me, I’d like to share a little more of the wisdom of Calvin respecting this subject. Our worship is that important and transformative.

“When we move backwards and abolish a thing which is good and proper for the common benefit of the Church, where does that lead except to this; we show that the Church of God is just a game to us, rather than showing the decency with which it should be treated.

“If we are hardened in our evil customs, let us take great pain to escape. Let us not be as the obstinate who say, “Hey, look! We were brought up this way, and never saw it any differently.” Indeed. And yet if there is no foundation, ought one to build upon such obstinacy? Being an old evil makes it so much the worse and more displeasing to God. Therefore, let these abuses be reformed, and let no one answer back, “We have grown accustomed to it by practice.” Indeed. But must God be wronged by an evil practice?”

Steve

Steve, thanks for the letter, and I agree with much of it. As for giving the practice of centuries the back of my hand, that was not the point of the joke—and apologies if it came off like that. We have women in our church who cover their heads in worship, and nobody gives them the stink eye. We do not “make sport” of anyone’s conscience. Having said that, the apostle’s teaching is grounded in the creation order, and not in the customs of his day. And he does not require a “hat,” but rather a “covering,” he says that a woman’s hair is given her for a covering, and he only requires it while the woman is praying publicly or prophesying.

Reading List

I hope this finds you well. I have a question regarding reading and discipleship.

If you were to make a reading plan for men in the church, what might be on the list?

That is, what would you recommend if you had a limit of 36 books/resources that would be carefully considered?

I’m especially interested the works which formative to your thinking. Thank you for your consideration.

In Christ,

Nick

Nick, here is an initial list, off the top of my head.

Idols for Destruction by Schlossberg
We Become Like What We Worship by Beale
Mere Christianity by Lewis
The Abolition of Man by Lewis
Total Truth by Pearcy
Love Thy Body by Pearcy
The God of Sex by Jones
Intellectuals by Johnson
The Vision of the Anointed by Sowell
Economics in One Lesson by Hazlitt
The God Who Is There by Schaeffer
Lectures on Calvinism by Kuyper
The Politics of Guilt and Pity by Rushdoony
He Shall Have Dominion by Gentry
The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self by Trueman

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
54 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Joshua Lister
Joshua Lister
2 years ago

I found a picture of Martyn.

istockphoto-1173283181-170667a.jpg
Jeffro
2 years ago
Reply to  Joshua Lister

Nice.

Martyn’s next letter will casually mention a plot to kidnap a governor of a blue state.

JSM
JSM
2 years ago

Doug you said, “ Steve, thanks for the letter, and I agree with much of it. As for giving the practice of centuries the back of my hand, that was not the point of the joke—and apologies if it came off like that. We have women in our church who cover their heads in worship, and nobody gives them the stink eye. We do not “make sport” of anyone’s conscience. Having said that, the apostle’s teaching is grounded in the creation order, and not in the customs of his day. And he does not require a “hat,” but rather a… Read more »

Sarah
Sarah
2 years ago
Reply to  JSM

The whole passage also talks about women who have shorn their hair. Since they have cut off the covering God gave them, they should cover their heads with a veil, but that veil is only required during public prayer and prophesying. Obviously, the long hair may only be “required” at those times, but is also not coming off at other times.

JSM
JSM
2 years ago
Reply to  Sarah

The passage says that if a woman won’t cover she should just shorn her hair. This is why you can’t say Paul is only talking about hair being a covering

Sarah
Sarah
2 years ago
Reply to  JSM

This is a sticky passage, to be sure. I just listened to a recording of R.C. Sproul talking about it, and he made some interesting points. https://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/hard-sayings-of-the-apostles/to-cover-or-not-to-cover He advocated for head coverings for women in church. His reasoning was basically this: in scripture, we have issues of principles and issues of custom. In this particular passage, he identifies three points which you have to determine whether they are principles or customs: women should submit to their husbands, women should show they are submissive, and they should show it by wearing a veil. Two other considerations are propriety (don’t look like… Read more »

Last edited 2 years ago by Sarah
Sarah
Sarah
2 years ago
Reply to  JSM

Frankly, I think Sproul kind of spoils his own argument by allowing for hats. If the method of covering the hair is a cultural issue, why is not the method of showing submission?

JSM
JSM
2 years ago
Reply to  Sarah

The problem with the idea of claiming head coverings were cultural or asking does a woman wearing a covering on her head display submission to her husband is it ignores the clear reason given by Paul. The reason wasn’t do we think it is a sign of submission. That reason is “because of the angels”. Praying or prophesying in the New Testament could be understood as referring to corporate worship. When we worship as a body we are in the presence of angels. As another commenter suggested 1900 years of Church history and this wasn’t an issue. All of a… Read more »

Sarah
Sarah
2 years ago
Reply to  JSM

How, then, do you interpret his closing comment, that a woman’s hair is her covering?

Sarah
Sarah
2 years ago
Reply to  JSM

Also, do you, like Sproul, feel a hat is sufficient? If so, why? If not, is there guidance on what kind of veil or how much of the hair ought to be covered? Does this apply to daughters as well as wives (my reading of the text says no)?

Genuine questions–not trying to nit-pick.

JSM
JSM
2 years ago
Reply to  Sarah

Paul talks about two kinds of covering. He talks about the removable covering over a woman’s head while praying and prophesying and the natural covering a woman has by nature which is long hair, He compares the dishonor of a woman who refuses to cover her head while praying or prophesying with the dishonor of a woman who shaves her head. He then goes on to explain how nature shows that a man with long hair is a dishonor while a woman with long hair is her glory. Her long hair was given to her as a kind of covering… Read more »

Steve
Steve
2 years ago
Reply to  Sarah

Greetings sister Sarah. Forgive me for being long winded. But here’s what really is at stake and why our culture is created by the way we worship. The “GLORY” of our Lord Jesus Christ, is either singly/only acknowledged in our worship, before the heavens and His holy angels, or, it is vainly attempted to be shared by the creature (men and women) and He who has created them. This sharing by men, appears to have the deepest theological reverence for God, but the reality is that its most often a vain Shekinah kind of shenanigans (on a side note, Dr.… Read more »

Matthew Hoover
Matthew Hoover
2 years ago
Reply to  Steve

Hi Steve. If this was the Apostle’s concern, why doesn’t he just state it clearly and plainly as the primary issue at stake? What could be more of greater concern than the glory of God? Instead his first comment about a women is not that by being uncovered she dishonors Christ or God, but that she dishonors her head, which I take to mean husband. She is making her husband look bad in the worship service when she is not covered (although I grant that even the Corinthian women appeared to be covering). And so the question for us becomes… Read more »

Steve
Steve
2 years ago
Reply to  Matthew Hoover

Hello Matt. The worship of our Lord has nothing to do with honoring you. Man and Woman not Man and wife. “I am the Lord, that is My name; I will not give my glory to another.” Is 42:8 1900 years of practice Matt.

Sarah
Sarah
2 years ago
Reply to  Steve

Yes, but in context, first Paul talks about headship–the head of man is Christ and the head of woman is man. If a man dishonors his head (Jesus) by covering his head in prayer or prophecy, it makes sense to conclude that the head a woman dishonors with her uncovered head is her husband. And if the comments about shorn hair really refer to the way prostitutes wore their hair, that would make sense–your shorn or uncovered hair is shame to your husband. I would note that the word the ESV uses for “wife” can also be used for woman,… Read more »

Sarah
Sarah
2 years ago
Reply to  Matthew Hoover

This is how I have understood it–not so much relating to honoring my husband, although that certainly could be a piece of it, but in terms of propriety in worship, which I interpret as not giving an appearance of evil, or making some kind of spectacle of myself.

Sarah
Sarah
2 years ago
Reply to  Steve

This makes sense to me: “The entire creation’s glory is now covered in worship, that only Christ our true husband and head, is lifted up and glorified.”

In other words, we mortify our own glory (mine and my husband’s, if I am his and my hair is mine) in order to focus on Christ’s glory. Yes?

Steve
Steve
2 years ago
Reply to  Sarah

Hello Sarah. I’ll attach a link to Pastor Tim Bayly commenting on the ESV translation of the Bible, which I’m assuming you are using. ESV: the complementarian subversion – Warhorn Media
God created them male and female, not husband and wife. It is about the creation order, headship and glory. Modern ministers love this new translations because it brings into confusion 1900 years of translation and teaching.

Sarah
Sarah
2 years ago
Reply to  Steve

Thank you for the link.

Ken B
Ken B
2 years ago
Reply to  Sarah

Interestingly enough, because of the angels women who pray or prophesy need an authority on their head, not a sign of submission (v 11).

Once this is in place, the women may participate in the meeting and exercise spiritual gifts etc. on the same basis as the men.

It is a good corrective against men who go overboard on male headship and female submission discussed earlier in the chapter.

Cherrera
Cherrera
2 years ago
Reply to  Ken B

It is a good corrective against men who go overboard on male headship and female submission discussed earlier in the chapter.”

Yeah, let’s go after that 0.001% of the church while the woke egalitarians have their way everywhere else (including “conservative” denoms). I’m sure that whatever 1 Cor. 14:34 means, it’s obviously not the plain reading of the text either….

Ken B
Ken B
2 years ago
Reply to  Cherrera

Women praying could be private only, but prophecy is by definition public. The silence enjoined on women cannot be absolute, but like the other instructions to remain silent targeted to a specific context, e.g. tongues speakers to remain silent if there is no-one to interpret.

I don’t think Paul would contradict himself in a section of the epistle relating to the conduct of meetings (women may prophesy with head covered but must keep silent).

Sarah
Sarah
2 years ago
Reply to  Ken B

What is the distinction between being under authority and being in submission?

Ken B
Ken B
2 years ago
Reply to  Sarah

The covering (either veil, hat or long hair – that can be debated) shows that a women has authority to prophesy or have other gifts and ministries. A bit like when an ordinary member of the public puts on a police uniform, he or she then has an authority to act in ways not permitted to the general public. When Paul talks of male headship, which includes at element of authority, I think he is keen here to prevent what has so often happened in practice that the women are denied a place to contribute to the common good by… Read more »

Tyler
Tyler
2 years ago
Reply to  Ken B

> shows that a women has authority to prophesy Eh, that’s a stretch. The veil when praying or prophesying (anywhere, not just in church) is representative of the creation order. Just like angels to God. Jewish women of the time (and today) would always have their hair covered, including praying. Christian women for a long time borrowed this tradition, keying off of 1 Cor 11. This helps color in some of Paul’s context. They also wore it for modesty, as Christian women also did in public, in America, until recently. Let’s get back to this tradition of covering anywhere while… Read more »

Tyler
Tyler
2 years ago
Reply to  Tyler

In fact, the queen still keeps the tradition alive: https://www.townandcountrymag.com/style/fashion-trends/g22550728/queen-elizabeth-headscarf-photos/ “Oh,” people will say, “but we’re not Muslim, or Jewish”. No? Try Christian. Calvin was asked in the institutes if it was sin if a woman left her home without putting her bonnet/covering on. He rightly replied “no (for ex. running out to save someone drowning), her religion is not in her covering”, but let’s get back to a culture where that was even a question! My grandmas’s grandma in the 1930s in south Georgia would always put her bonnet on before going out. This tradition hasn’t been gone long,… Read more »

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
2 years ago
Reply to  JSM

I really have trouble understanding what Paul means. I thought that Paul said a woman should not be praying or prophesying before the congregation. If she calls attention to herself by doing this out loud, she is shaming her head. So is Paul saying that if a woman shames her husband by speaking up during the assembly, she should at least cover her head? Or that if she behaves in an unwomanly matter. she might as well go hog and shear off her hair in order to look like the men? I understand (1) keep quiet and (2) cover your… Read more »

Steve
Steve
2 years ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

Greetings Jill. I hope you don’t keep quiet in church:) All women, not wives, along with men, must prophecy in church. Not in a new revelatory way (as it was), but like praying imprecatory psalms, we confess Christ in warfare before His throne. We confess His kingdom which will be done on earth. “For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” Rev 19:10

Steve
Steve
2 years ago
Reply to  JSM

Greetings JSM. You are incorrect with respect to long hair as a covering and Doug never addressed it in his comments (via blog back in 2014?). Throughout all of 1 Cor 11 many times back and forth, over and over again, Kalumma from Kalupto and Katakalupto in the Greek is used for covered and uncovered. A man must not cover and a woman must. But when at the end in v15 “her hair is given to her as a covering” the word for covering is completely rooted in another greek word used once,(Peribolaion). So for a fun exercise, and for… Read more »

AC
AC
2 years ago

You made a passing comment above regarding headcoverings. You 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… Read more »

CDT
CDT
2 years ago

With regards to Jason Lisle’s book about fractals, see 02AUG2021 Youtube interview James White had with Lisle which included short discussion about fractals and the book. https://youtu.be/AGG-Gsj1zls

Robert
Robert
2 years ago
Reply to  CDT

Thanks CDT!
Have “queued it up” and plan to watch it soon.

Last edited 2 years ago by RobertandVicki Wood
Robert
Robert
2 years ago
Reply to  Robert

Thanks CDT, no offense, but I just spent 25 minutes or so wading through the video and not much on fractals :) …. fun video, but not much meat :) but thanks anyway.

Robert
Robert
2 years ago

Pastor Wilson,

I’m really glad your ordered the book! … maybe you might comment on it sometime?

I just “discovered” Fractals, the Mandelbrot set, etc. as they relate to the “proof” (in quotes because no amount of evidence will convince who refuse to open their eyes) of God’s existence.
Maybe somebody here will leave a comment about more info on these things from a Christian perspective.

Robert

P.S. also, thanks for the reading list you gave Nick.

Last edited 2 years ago by RobertandVicki Wood
demosthenes1d
demosthenes1d
2 years ago
Reply to  Robert

Robert,

If you are interested in Mandelbrot, et al. you should get the book Chaos by Gleik. It will be a lot more challenging/rigorous than anything by Lisle, but Gleik is a great science writer and brings the math alive

Robert
Robert
2 years ago
Reply to  demosthenes1d

Thanks demosthenes1d, I will check it out!

PB
PB
2 years ago
Reply to  Robert

Robert, for those not inclined to order a book on fractals, Jason Lisle has a good number of YouTube videos designed for the average person to follow. Here is one on the Mandelbrot set.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kEyPWJVYp84

Robert
Robert
2 years ago
Reply to  PB

Thanks PB.

Cherrera
Cherrera
2 years ago

“The studies purporting to show mask mandates are ineffective mostly say this is because people don’t follow them, which hardly proves anything other than a will to rebellion.” Wow. This is from someone who mocks any explanation that questions data or studies he cites. I guess Germans, known for productivity and rule-following to the point they built two huge war machines in under 30 years despite incredible economic problems between the wars…secretly all rebel or just can’t figure out how to put on masks. I mean anything to support your narrative… 5c9f31fcf7a9670e.jpeg (532×300) (gab.com) (Germany vs. Sweden on COVID and… Read more »

Jane
Jane
2 years ago
Reply to  Cherrera

It’s also irrelevant. A measure is only effective insofar as it can be implemented in the real world. If the “will to rebellion” is real, then it’s part of the equation that can’t be written off. So another way to put it is, “the studies show that in the real world, due to human nature, masks are ineffective.” That’s why masks worn by hospital workers who assent to the process, are trained in their proper use, and understand them to be part of the system, are useful, and why it doesn’t translate to everybody walking around Walmart wearing a mask… Read more »

Jane
Jane
2 years ago
Reply to  Jane

I meant to add: whether or not you agree with the assessment that it reflects a will to rebellion, the problem remains that if it is that, unless there’s a plan for fixing the “will to rebellion” among the mass of humanity in the next 12 months or so, the mandating of homemade or cheaply manufactured masks being worn in all indoor settings by everyone will not be a useful tool to prevent community transmission.

Cherrera
Cherrera
2 years ago
Reply to  Jane

In addition, a long-term, masked-up, socially-distancing society is very concerning, sociologically. This isn’t just a transmission debate. I know where I live, it’s been sad to see formerly friendly people treat others like dangerous germ factories. And I don’t think we understand the implications this has on kids who mostly see other masked people all day. Much our communication is non-verbal, and removing facial expressions certainly affects this. I also think masking had a hand in the rioting/violence we saw last summer, that’s still going on in some places today. Recently a group of anti-vax demonstrators were assaulted by Antifa… Read more »

Cherrera
Cherrera
2 years ago
Reply to  Cherrera

Even HuffPost writers were saying this about masks pre-COVID:
Why ISIS and Hamas Wear Masks | HuffPost

Jane
Jane
2 years ago
Reply to  Cherrera

I agree. The reason efficacy matters is both because a high bar has to be met for government to mandate personal behavior, AND because there is a huge social cost. I hope I’m wrong but I expect to see an extreme rate of neurological and speech pathology diagnoses in children under five over the next several years, as they’re being denied a really important aspect of their development — interaction with human faces and unmuffled voices. Obviously they get a significant amount of that at home where nearly everyone is unmasked, but it’s completely unnatural to not interact with human… Read more »

Nathan James
Nathan James
2 years ago

I’d like to suggest that rather than making plans for fake vaccine passports we should all lobby our state representatives to prohibit anyone requiring them at all.

PB
PB
2 years ago

Nick,
I enjoyed this discussion and have listened to it a couple of times over the years.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4S0TQ2dXnms

Andrew Lohr
2 years ago

Re headcoverings, Sarah Ruden in “Paul Among the People” says respectable women wore coverings and despised ones didn’t in Paul’s culture, so having the prostitute converted yesterday dress the same as Caesar’s pure-as-the-driven-snow, and converted, daughter made a powerful statement about how we stand in Christ. (Not saying Ruden worships triune Jehovah–she might be a modernist Quaker, maybe–but she’s a classical scholar, and her book makes very clear how dreadfully awful paganism was and how revolutionarily good Christianity was then, even by modern standards. Cf the book “Dominion,” in which a secularist says similar things about specifically Christian impact on… Read more »

Zeph
Zeph
2 years ago

Alexander Getting your young to turn to Christ has to be predicated on Acts 26:18 Before you can have anyone truly look to Christ and really see him, their eyes have to be open or they really won’t see Christ. Doug’s father wrote a book called Taking Men Alive. Mr. Wilson Senior explains how to open people’s eyes. Community Christian Ministries sells the book. ccmbooks.org

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
2 years ago

When I was young,it would have been unthinkable for a woman to be in a Catholic church without her head covered. It was actually part of canon law.: “women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord.” The head covering could be purely token–a lace doily or even a handkerchief if that’s all you had on you when you decided to pop into a church to say a prayer. The law was taken from the canon to be revised after Vatican 2 and it never got put back in.… Read more »

Brian
Brian
2 years ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

Faithfully obedient babes look excellent in MAGA hats, so this passage to the church in Corinth shouldn’t seem too frumpy for (post-)moderns.

Sarah
Sarah
2 years ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

I forget why I was recently reading about Catholic hair covering, but I understand that many Catholic women still cover. I’ve never attended a church where it was customary, hadn’t even really known there was any debate about it until the last 15 years (or so, time goes so fast these days). I’m with you on the yoga pants and crop tops in church although the ladies and teens at my church dress with reasonable propriety, so it isn’t a present issue in my life! My own teenaged daughter wouldn’t be caught dead in yoga pants, regardless of where she… Read more »

Cherrera
Cherrera
2 years ago

“Christians” enthralled with the new sacraments (masks and vaccines) may want to reconsider their positions…or maybe their religion. The FDA-approved Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine may not have used abortion-derived cell lines in vaccine production. But post-production lab testing did use abortion-derived cells. 
Pro-Life Scientists: Pfizer Vaccine Used Abortion-Derived Cells in Lab Testing – LifeNews.com

Cherrera
Cherrera
2 years ago
Reply to  Cherrera
Josua Botha
Josua Botha
2 years ago

This is a fun comment thread… :)