Lame Excuse Right at the Top
I was traveling this last week for the Fight Laugh Feast conference, which was wonderful, but it did burn a lot of daylight. The end result is that this letters feature today will be a little light. It is still here, as you can see by merely scrolling down. But, alas, there won’t be nearly as many letters as usual, and apologies to the writers whose letters I would have usually answered.
Religious Exemptions
I am a pastor in Tucson, Arizona and I have been immensely blessed by your leadership and teaching over the last year. I am thankful to God for his work through you.
I am being asked by several of my parishioners to help them apply for religious exemptions for the vaccine mandate. Apparently, some employers are offering exemptions based on religious convictions. Forms are being sent to me this week to fill out on behalf of people in my congregation. Specifically, one of my parishioners works for the federal government and she informed me that religious exemptions are being considered. I am desirous to help them. The issue is that we don’t have a problem with vaccinations per se. However, we do have a problem with following a tyrannical mandate. I could argue that following unconstitutional mandates is a violation of Romans 13. I feel equipped to make that argument. However, I don’t think this argument is going to be sufficient. If you were to write a religious exemption from a mandatory vaccine, what major points would you include?
Thank you for your time and ministry.
Jeremiah
Jeremiah, our denomination, the CREC, has issued a statement that our pastors are using on behalf of their parishioners. Thus far we have had some success with it.
A Point of Grammar
I was listening to the YouTube interview with you and James White concerning the Federal Vision debate, and you used Ephesians 2:8-9 (“And by grace are ye saved through faith, and THAT not of yourselves . . .” emphasis on “THAT” added) to show that saving faith on the part of believers is itself a gift from God. I lean strongly toward this same view based on the overall tenor and theme of Ephesians 1 and 2 up to that point (and several other passages of Scripture), but I didn’t think 2:8-9 was a proof text for faith being God’s gift to the elect, since most of the commentaries (even the Reformed ones) I’ve read say that both “grace” and “faith” in 2:8 are in the feminine-noun forms in the Greek, whereas the pronoun for “that” is in the neuter. Is that a reasonable view? Could it be that the “that” just means that the whole act of salvation is all of God, and that it is not specifically referring to the “faith” as being God’s gift (even if we believe that the faith IS in fact God’s gift, based on other considerations)?
Bernard
Bernard, my understanding is that abstract nouns, like these, can take the neuter. If better grammarians than I challenge this, I will have to hunt for my reference.
Support After Leaving?
I live in a liberal city in a deep-blue state. The prospect of ongoing mask mandates, vaccine mandates at most employers, and the discussions of medical care being withheld from the unvaccinated, are together making me think there is little future here for my family. I am self employed, so it is tolerable for me now, but I don’t expect my sons to want to stay here when they grow up. I have the means to move to an area that will be much better for my family.
The only reason I would have to stay is that I am concerned for our church. Our church is very good, it’s just small and always has been, and is located in a lousy area (see above). Many members have moved out of state over the years, and there are several other families considering a move out of state now. We can barely fund our pastor’s small salary. I think the main reason we haven’t grown is that people don’t stay after visiting our church because we are so small (40-50 people, few young families).
I believe I know what’s best for my own family, but I’m concerned for the welfare of my church if I take that option. How should I think about this? Are there ways I can still support this church if I move away? Perhaps continue sending part of my tithe to them (assuming my new church is doing well financially)?
In Christ,
R
R, I believe that you have a responsibility to do what you believe is best for your family. That said, I do not see any scriptural restriction on continuing to support your old church with a portion of your tithe, or even all of your tithe for a time.
Principles and Methods Again
Hi Doug, was reading through Nancy’s “Fruit of Her Hands” and ran across this quote.
“The biggest danger arises when people begin to think their own methods of applying biblical principles are more spiritual. If we fall into this trap, then methods become an issue of first importance for us. The result is a feeling of superiority over others who differ. This obviously leads to self-righteousness, envy, jealousy, defensiveness, and quarrels.”
I’m just curious to know how to approach someone who is using a quote like this to defend putting their children in a public school. I know before you have discussed how it is your belief that parents are in sin for having done this/if they are doing this. What would be your response to this?
Samantha
Samantha, the principle is that Christian kids should receive a Christian education. There is no sin called “having your kids in a public school”—provided the kids are actually getting a Christian education. So day school v. home school is a simple methodology question. And government school would be the same thing also, provided the parents say, “yes, we know we have a responsibility to see to it that our kids receive a Christian education. That is why we read all our kids’ textbooks, have all their teachers over for dinner regularly and know their spiritual state, and have an hour and a half time of debriefing every evening to make sure no unbelieving assumptions have gotten through.” To this you should reply, “Well done. You do know that you could start a Christian school with half the effort . . .?”
Reading Some Tea Leaves
Sir, chief cook and bottle washer, why do you think Obama is pulling Biden’s strings as opposed to one of the Clintons or Soros, or even an EU leader?
Stephen
Stephen, I draw this (tentative) conclusion from things like Obama’s recent birthday party, where Washington functionaries had to dance attendance to his tune—some of them coming to Martha’s Vineyard to then not be invited. The court is where the courtiers are.
Pietism?
I just watched 2 videos from you on the Right Response Ministries YouTube channel (published within the past week).
In one you talk about resistance to tyranny and the true “law of the land” in the U.S.A. and in the other one you talk about obeying the law of the land in a pagan country (e.g. China). In these 2 short videos you have clarified the whole issue. AND it appears that your position is really not that much different that the pietist position. The only difference being that the pietists may be ignorant/uninformed/miss informed, etc. about the nature of our government and the biblical response to it. But I believe your advice to the e.g. Chinese Christian IS the Pietist position. Would you agree? Thank you,
Robert
Robert, I believe that in a heathen mission field, my behavior would be much the same as a pietist missionary. The difference would be in what each of us expected to develop long-term as a result of our efforts. I would be expecting a civilization, and the pietist would be expecting pietist churches, and perhaps a few more of them.
KJV Question
Why do you use the old KJV? We don’t speak that way today. It makes it more difficult to interpret. My Reformation Study Bible is in both ESV and KJV (new) versions. This is language I can understand.
Sam
Sam, I prefer the KJV for three reasons—manuscript tradition, translation philosophy, and copyright issues. The ESV gets one out of three, the NKJV gets two out of three, and the KJV gets three out of three. But I frequently quote from the first two also.
My Old Erroneous Self
Pastor Wilson, your “explanation” for why you supported quarantining the unvaccinated isn’t an explanation, you just handwave it away. You speak as if your mention of “unvaccinated” was simply an error when it was the entire thrust of the article. And you ignore the earlier paragraph where you declared: “Now I do have views on the efficacy of vaccines, but I want to address another element of this — the idea that even if they were effective, a requirement that everyone get vaccinated is necessarily statist and tyrannical. Why isn’t this a matter of personal choice and conviction? The answer is that it is not a matter of personal choice because everyone else is involved.”
As well as this line from May 2020:
“Kevin, I am against forced vaccinations. But I do believe that a family with whooping cough can be lawfully quarantined. And I also believe that if they break quarantine, and someone else catches it from them and dies, then they are liable. And the fact that they did not “believe in” vaccinations would not soften the sentence, but should rather be an exacerbating factor.”
Jonathan
Jonathan, this simply means that by this point you are not following the argument. My position, poorly stated in 2015, is that societies have a right to defend themselves through sane vaccine policies. I still believe that. But I don’t believe they have the right (for example) to mandate a vaccine for the common cold. With serious diseases, there should be options for the unvaccinated, and these should be options that keep the responsibility where it belongs—with the person who needlessly infects another. There is one other factor now, and that is what the last year and a half revealed to us about the power lust among our public health officials. We have to guard ourselves there now also.
Angry Red Pill World
Doc Wilson—After seeing your “angry red pill world” video, I have to encourage you again to read Gurri’s “Revolt of the Public.” He complements your point precisely. Example, in brief: he talks a lot about many aspects the “Arab Spring” protests. One aspect he discusses is that these protests brought together people around a common goal—dissatisfaction with the ruling powers. “We hate you.” But he goes on to identify a common problem with the protests— everyone could only agree on what they hated. There was no consistent and cohesive plan for what would come next—it was all “anti” and no “pro.” So in most cases, what came next was either “new boss, same as the old boss”—or general chaos, which was even worse.
So it is with “Angry Red Pill World.” It’s good to get to the point of being red-pilled and disillusioned with our beclowned liberal elite— but it cannot stop there, at the “anti” level. You have to get to the “pro” level and believe in something that can come next. What comes next? As Christians, this is where we need to be prepared.
Anyway—once again, I strongly encourage the book.
Thanks,
Austin
Austin, yes, thanks. I think it was at your earlier recommendation that I got and read the book. It was outstanding. Highly recommended.
Careful
I am a senior in college and recently began a relationship with a young lady from back home. She is also a a Christian, but experienced some pretty significant church trauma from a well-known SBC church. She is very sweet and has a heart for Christ, but struggles with some other parts of the faith. Namely the issues of complementarian roles, same sex marriage, & the seriousness of sexual purity. For example, after being sexually assaulted by a church leader and then coming out as gay, her friend faced some serious bullying & hatred from the church, her family was chastised for adopting an African daughter, & any teenage girl who fell into sexual sin was considered a whore whereas the boys were not held accountable, just to name a few of the more horrific things she has shared with me. This makes it a bit more difficult for me to sell her on the finer points of submission & modesty, as well as how we can still love our gay friends without supporting their lifestyles (i.e. attending a pride parade, which she did after her friend was kicked out of her house and faced other similar abuses). I truly believe her heart is in the right place and she is just misguided on how to love people and what true biblical Christianity is, because of all the hypocrisy she experienced. It would be greatly appreciated if you could provide some guidance for how I can lovingly and productively shepherd her without seeming legalistic or insensitive, but still standing firm in the truth. Thank you for your time.
We have began doing a devotional by Paul Washer together and attending church together whenever we see each other, but when she is home with her friends these issues come up a bit more.
P.S. I would like to remain anonymous if this becomes a youtube video, but would love to discuss this topic further with you or another pastor if possible.
DA
DA, I do not want to say anything about the hypocrisy your friend has encountered, because that kind of thing really does happen, and is a very real possibility. The issue is what kind of response to such hypocrisy is appropriate. Right now you are not agreed on the appropriate response, and you are not really in a position to lead her because being “in a relationship” with her is not the same thing as being in covenant with her. And Scripture asks if two can walk together if they are not agreed.
Regulation of Firearms
I have a question about Romans 13 and the state’s ability to regulate firearms.
In a blog post from April of last year you wrote:
“The way our system was designed to work is through challenges. Your governor says that the right to keep and bear arms means, in his lexicon, that you do not have the right to keep and bear arms. You, being literate, say something like “that is not what it says,” and you continue to keep and continue to bear. You get arrested, and the case goes to court.
This is not an instance where the existing authorities are trying to do the job that God assigned to them, and you are proving to be singularly uncooperative. Rather, it is an example of one portion of the existing authority (your leftist governor) is trying to supplant another part of the existing authority (you, your gun, your rights as a free man, and your Constitution), and you won’t let them. Good for you.”
And further:
“This is because the Constitution was written down for a reason, and it is because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Those who allow their governors to simply abrogate their rights, plainly outlined in the text of the Constitution, are themselves rebels. They are rebelling against lawful authority by submitting to unlawful authority.”
My question is, since I am living in the People’s Soviet Republic of California, my AR-15 must have a fin-grip instead of a regular pistol grip. If I were to replace the fin-grip for a normal grip like an American rifle would have, am I violating Romans 13, or is the California legislature? Then again, it is merely a piece of plastic held by a single screw, I guess if the σκύβαλον were to hit the fan, I could just screw on the normal one before joining the fight. Thoughts?
Gary
Gary, in this case, the California legislature is the culprit.
Right. Permission Denied.
After yesterday’s totalitarian press conference, are you sure we can’t take the bait yet? Really want to take the Bait. To be clear, asking for permission to take the bait.
Dwayne
Dwayne, super duper denied.
Deep Joy
Over the few years that I’ve been keeping up with your blog, videos, and having gone through several of your books, one things that has repeatedly struck me is your joy. You are such a jolly and glad man, and I really covet that. Brother, how can I have that joy? I think I have forgotten the joy of my salvation and I need help coming back to it.
Could you please kindly provide some directions for true and deep joy in the Christian life? On one of your podcasts you mentioned your daughters who do a lot of kingdom work, laughing the whole time. How can I do this as well?
Thank you very much,
Jake
Jake, this is obviously a huge subject, and a deep one, worthy of far more than what can mention here. I will just refer you to this, and also suggest that you type joy in the search bar and follow the trail. There is an awful lot of Scripture to instruct us here.
A Ticking Clock
I’m writing because you’re not afraid to read the writing on the wall… And I have a very deep fear that the writing on the wall says it will not be long before the state starts removing children from homes due to the scourge of Christianity. My children are 3 years and 15-days-to-slow-the-spread (you know . . . 18 months) old, and I’m trying to be faithful through all of this but the thought is too much to bear. They’re so small and I have a terrible feeling time is shorter than what I’ll need to teach them what they need to know. What’s a mom to do? My heart is broken.
Heather
Heather, that is certainly something they want to do. I don’t think we are far off from the conflict, but I certainly do think we are quite a ways off from the end of the conflict. Stay strong.
The Full Preterist Temptation
Mr. Wilson,
You’ve jacked me up and I invite you to unjack me. This invitation is quite exclusive, for few possess the sight to hear my quandary, let alone the grounding to dispel it. Before I synopsize my claim, there are a few things you should know. I have been reformed now for 5+ years (of course this as the culmination of a consistent diet of God’s Word coupled with a variety of teachers including you). I was introduced to Post-Millennialism shortly after concluding my study on the Doctrines of Grace. It didn’t take long for me to grasp the idea. Since that time, God’s Word has begun to take on a whole new shape (Kingdom reality). I’m still studying to reach a “conclusion” concerning my eschatological view, but having seen the Post-Millennial view in Scripture, I can’t see myself reverting back to any sort of pre-mill view (or A-mill for that matter). So why am I not yet concluded if I see Post-Mill in the Word? I would venture what I’m about to propose, you have either: 1. Already considered and worked through. 2. Not considered for how outlandish it sounds 3. Perhaps in a similar place as myself i.e. considering the implications of the truth of this proposal and the impact it would have on the Church.
For fear of hyping it up too much… here we go… 2 verses and a statement:
Isaiah 9:7 “There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace”,
2 Corinthians 5:8 “but we are of good courage and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord.”
Jesus is NOT returning visibly.
BOOM!!! … boom??? I would not expect these two verses to illuminate for anyone the entirety of how such a statement can be made. It is only through my coming to the reformed faith and subsequently Post-Millennialism that I was able to have any chance at drawing such a conclusion. Likewise, I would expect anyone would need to be able to connect many dots and in proper order and context to reach this end. I began this letter saying, “You’ve jacked me up.” I’m fairly certain, whether true or false, I will be jacked up. I’m either jacked up in my understanding of Scripture (which selfishly is what I hope) or I’m jacked up because my understanding is sound (which would then carry with it a great burden, considering my calling). To the latter all I would say is . . . it’s good the Kingdom has no end, because it may take that long for people to come to terms with this one. 😊
I respectfully and sincerely appeal to your wisdom and knowledge as I seek at least some resolve in this matter. After all, you are, at least in part, responsible for this most confounding predicament I find myself in. 😊 As I’m sure you could fathom, my spirit awaits this resolve with bated breath. As Abraham Lincoln aptly said, “I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live by the light that I have. I must stand with anybody that stands right, and stand with him while he is right, and part with him when he goes wrong.”
I’m not looking for a book deal, nor a renowned friend. I’m looking for peace in this matter.
If I may ask you to indulge me yet further, I anticipate what is likely. Any answer to this proposal will be founded on one or multiple scriptures which I have already found to be consistent with this proposal. In this instance, I would hope for the opportunity to respond in kind, that you might consider more fully the perspective which leads to this conclusion. However, I am not a zealot for this “newfound Doctrine of No Return.” I would prefer to be wrong and you may swiftly help me see the error of my way. In which case, I have no desire to aimlessly banter for banter sake. I will gladly and gratefully accept “defeat.” In God’s grace, you may trust these words.
Ultimately, I will follow your lead, in supposing you do. By the by, should you prefer I lead I would be happy to oblige.
I await your answer or preference for how to proceed.
Hoping this is a “Well-written and fair-minded” letter, not to be featured in a post, but to merely be taken seriously,
Josh
Josh, that is quite a responsibility to have laid on me. Let me respond to you by posing two questions for you. If there is no visible return of Christ, then precisely when will Christ turn everything over to the Father, that God may be all in all (1 Cor. 15:28)? And second, if there is no visible return of Christ, then precisely when will the cosmos be liberated from its bondage to decay (Rom. 8:22-23)?
Great Question
While working through our Bible classes and home-school work while using Veritas, Omnibus, Wilson’s intro to logic, etc. our 9-yr-old son asked a question that I can’t seem to find a reasonable answer to. His question: “if there is no sin in heaven, what caused Satan to “fall” into sin? If so was he in Heaven when this act occurred? There is quite a bit more of his inquiries but I trust you see his foundational inquiry.
On a side note, I am in a state of contradictory “feelings” and “emotions” due to you and your doings. I use quotations in the manner or “air quotes” because I understand feeling and emotions are not a substitute for facts. My issue is the fact that we have found the highest grade of education in and through Veritas, Classical learning, Latin courses and so on which has caused me to realize how stupid I actually am. My 12yr, 9yr, and 6yr old are far more knowledgeable about everything educational than I am. (Yes, I know it’s a good thing hence my contradictory feelings) I however am still advanced in the knowledge of combustible engines, for now. Their lessons have been slowly done as events emerge. Even the 2yr old is picking up the Latin and can answer the Catechism questions. It was once said( either by you or one of your daughters) that to be effective at homeschooling all we have to do is stay one day ahead of them. I am a lost cause but thankfully my lovely wife is more than capable. Thank you for everything you and your teams have done and please reach out if you could use a good hand for anything hands on related that would have us move to Moscow and be surrounded by awesomeness.
P.s. Because or your lovely family’s influence we have started a “Sabbath Celebration Dinner” on Saturday.
P.s.s. Every time my wife listens to anything the ladies put out she has a severe urge to move to Moscow and become friends with them.
Joshua
Joshua, that is a great question. The same question could be asked about our first parents in a perfect world. My best answer is that when God creates finite selves in any given environment, He is at that moment creating a situation where various elements of the world could be arranged in a way that creates the temptation to sin. That arrangement in the Garden was explicit, indicating that God wanted that temptation to happen. I assume that something comparable happened in Heaven.
Where Boz Got His Quote
The original post from Barnhart . . .
Adam
Adam, thank you.
An Abolitionist Response
I am a fellow reformed minded, postmill brother, though I am Baptist in my view of church ecclesiology and the ordinances. I just watched your take on the incrementalism and abolitionism debate. I am an abolitionist and I want to lovingly challenge your perception of abolitionism. Below I have included a resolution I wrote for our state convention that I believe argues a biblical case against what is traditional incrementalism or gradualism as William Wilberforce would have called it. It is lengthy but much of my work and the work of brothers like Bill Ascol is to educate solid brothers like you to embrace abolitionism.
Here it is:
(1) WHEREAS, the unborn are not second class image-bearers of God from the moment of fertilization, they are full image bearers of God, and we believe that humans are created in God’s image by, through, and for Jesus to the glory of God, as Scripture declares that all souls belong to Him (Genesis 1:27; 4:1; 21:2; Isaiah 7:14; Colossians 1:16; Romans 11:36; Ezekiel 18:4), and
(2) WHEREAS, as God’s image-bearers, all humans display His divinely-given dignity, power, and attributes, and possess equal, objective worth before God, not varying on the basis of incidental characteristics such as ethnicity, age, size, circumstances of conception, mental development, physical development, manhood or womanhood, potential, or contribution to society (Rom 1:19-20; Gen 1:27; 9:6; Matthew 18:6), and
(3) WHEREAS, the premeditated murder of any preborn image-bearer of God is a sin, violating both the natural law of retributive justice as set forth in the Noahic covenant, as well as the sixth commandment forbidding murder, and as such, is ultimately an assault on God’s image, seeking to usurp God’s sovereignty as Creator (Gen 9:5-6; Exodus 20:13; Proverbs 6:17), and
(4) WHEREAS, God’s Word clearly declares that all human life is a sacred gift and that His Law is supreme over man’s life and man’s law (Psalm 127:3-5; 139:13-16; Rom 2:15-16; Acts 10:42; 17:31; 1 Corinthians 4:5), and
(5) WHEREAS, God commands His own people to “rescue those who are being taken away to death and hold back those stumbling to the slaughter” and holds them responsible and without excuse when they fail to do so (Prov 24:11-12), and
(6) WHEREAS, God establishes all governing authorities as His avenging servants to carry out His wrath on the evildoer; and commands these authorities to judge justly, neither showing partiality to the wicked, nor using unequal standards, which are abominations to God (Psa 82; Prov 20:10; Rom 13:4), and
(7) WHEREAS, in 1973, the Supreme Court of the United States rendered an iniquitous decision on Roe v. Wade, and in doing so set a precedent of depriving the innocent of their rights and usurped God and His law (Isa 5:23; 10:1-2; Psa 2; Matt 22:21; John 19:11; Acts 4:19; 5:29, Rom 13:1), and
(8) WHEREAS, in the Roe v. Wade decision, the Supreme Court of the United States subverted the U.S. Constitution namely, the Preamble, as well as the Fifth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments without any legal authority (Article 6, Clause 2 “Supremacy Clause”), and
(9) WHEREAS, governing authorities at every level have a duty before God to uphold justice asserting their God-ordained and constitutional authority to establish equal protection and justice under the law for all, born and preborn, by intervening, ignoring, or nullifying iniquitous decisions when other authorities, such as the Supreme Court, condone such injustices as the legal taking of innocent life (Daniel 3; 1 Kings 12; 2 Kings 11; Jeremiah 26:10-16; 36:9-31; 37:11- 21; 39:7-10), and
(10) WHEREAS, over the past 48 years there have been more than 63 million abortions in the United States, unbiblical pragmatic pro-life laws, which have been supported and praised by well intending brothers and sisters in Christ that we love that we acknowledge also want to see abortion abolished, but have failed to establish equal protection and justice for the preborn and on the contrary have appallingly allowed politicians who have no true intention of ending abortion to create careers by establishing gradual regulatory guidelines for when, where, why, and how to obtain legal abortion of innocent preborn children, as a side effect with incremental legislative actions and should Roe v. Wade be overturned would themselves keep the abortion industry in business, and
(11) WHEREAS, At the 2021 Southern Baptist Convention Annual Meeting in Nashville, Tennessee, a majority of Southern Baptists representatives called for the complete abolition of abortion without exception or compromise, and
(12) WHEREAS, our confessional statement, The Baptist Faith and Message 2000, in Article XV, affirms that children “from the moment of conception, are a blessing and heritage from the Lord”; and further affirms that Southern Baptists are mandated by Scripture to “speak on behalf of the unborn and contend for the sanctity of all human life from conception to natural death,” now, be it therefore
(13) RESOLVED, that as people of the Word of God, as our final authority on all matters of life and practice, do hereby state unequivocally that abortion is premeditated murder of an image-bearer of God, and we reject any position that allows for any exceptions to the legal protection of our preborn neighbors, compromises God’s holy standard of justice, or promotes any God-hating partiality (Psa 94:6; Isa 10:1-2; Prov 24:11; Psa 82:1-4), and be it further
(14) RESOLVED, that we call for the complete and immediate abolition of elective surgical and chemical (RU486) abortion, and be it further
(15) RESOLVED, that we, without reservation, support our local pregnancy centers that do amazing work on behalf of the unborn and the mother, and be it further
(16) RESOLVED, that we affirm that those who are complicit in the murder of preborn children must incur the same legal punishment as those who murder any other image-bearer of God, and be it further
(17) RESOLVED, that we humbly confess, lament, and repent of any apathy to the social injustice of the premeditated murder of the preborn and of our limited action in not seeking to completely end this holocaust with equal protection and equal justice for our preborn neighbor, and be it further
(18) RESOLVED, that as the Southern Baptists of Ohio we will engage, with God’s help, in establishing equal justice and protection for the preborn according to the authority of God’s Word and call upon all legislators, judges, police officers, city council officials, city mayors, county commissioners, and governors to use their positions as lesser magistrates to abolish abortion without exception or compromise and thus protect the rights of the unborn from conception, and we call on all pastors and all ministry leaders to use their God-given gifts of preaching, teaching, and leading to abolish abortion, with one unified, principled, prophetic voice and be it finally
(19) RESOLVED, that, because abolishing abortion is a Great Commission issue of loving God and our preborn neighbor, we must call upon governing authorities at all levels to repent of this sin of legislating premeditated murder, turn to Christ, and “obey everything that [Christ] has commanded,” exhorting them to bear fruit in keeping with repentance by faithfully executing their responsibilities as God’s servants of justice, and working with all urgency to enact legislation using the full weight of their office to interpose as lesser magistrates and defy Roe V. Wade on behalf of the preborn, abolishing abortion immediately, without exception or compromise (Mark 6:18; Matt 28:18-20; Rom 13:4, 6.)
Would love to hear your thoughts. May the grace and peace of God in Christ be with you and yours,
Mike
Mike, thank you for your kind words, and thank you also for sending me this. I agreed with an awful lot of it. I believe that you represent the kind of abolitionist that I could talk to.
Pastor Wilson, the fact that your anti-mandate stance now relies on the conspiracy that Covid is not a “serious disease” or in any way comparable to the “common cold” makes it a weak case indeed. That means you’ve given up on claiming mandates are wrong, and now we’re just arguing a matter of degree.
And no one is going to take you seriously if you try to claim you didn’t think government was deeply into power-lust until this year.
Also, Demo has pointed out earlier that you wrote that previous pro-mandate letter in the context of an outbreak of Pertussis, a disease which is no more deadly than Covid and for which the vaccine is similarly effective.
” And no one is going to take you seriously…”
You take him more seriously than anyone, Jonathan.
If you mean that I think his words and agendas can have serious consequences, you are correct.
That’s a nice way of admitting he lives rent-free in your head
Great internet burn luigi. Not really seeing what that contributes to the discussion.
Pertussis is more deadly to healthy infants and small children while covid is more deadly to the immunologically compromised. The two diseases are not remotely comparable. It’s also proving to be increasingly unlikely that covid vaccines are as nearly as effective as pertussis vaccines.
Even for infants under 1 year of age, the pertussis death rate is less than 1%. Since Pastor Wilson virtually equated Covid deaths and vaccine deaths since they were “both less than 1%”, by his standards pertussis and Covid are remarkably comparable. Not to mention the flu, which he brings up in comparison all the time.
And the pertussis vaccine is less than 80% effective after THREE doses, only half as effective for those who are “undervaccinated”. It almost certainly is less effective than Covid vaccines are right now.
Unbelievable.
He specified public health officials–an arm of the government people previously presumed to be politically unaffiliated.
He also said that vaccine mandates are wrong even for serious diseases, but that those who don’t avail themselves of the vaccines are responsible if their decision harms others.
No, he did not say vaccine mandates are wrong even for serious diseases. Let me quote again:
He is clearly saying that a vaccine mandate is not necessarily statist and tyrannical.
He referred in his response to you to, “sane vaccine policies” (not absolute mandates) and made that clear with the following sentence where he says, “With serious diseases, there should be options for the unvaccinated…”
And don’t bother repeating that a disease that kills frail elderly, and people with extreme health conditions at a given rate is comparable to one that kills healthy children and infants at a similar rate, because that assumption isn’t shared.
Why are you ignoring Wilson’s first quote which I just posted for you? He said “a requirement that everyone get vaccinated”. That’s obviously a mandate.
And the rate at which Covid kills “frail elderly and people with extreme health conditions” is 10x higher than the rate at which pertussis kills infants under 1. So once again you’re incorrect.
The overall rate at which the two diseases kill, however, is extremely similar.
I’m “ignoring it” because he retracted it for goodness sakes. He’s acknowledged that the post wasn’t well put. Since the initial post was written, there’s been ample opportunity to reconsider his thinking based on how things have been playing out since day one of the announcement of a pandemic. I didn’t agree with the post when it was written and I’m glad to see he’s retracted it. “But he said, he said…” is not the argument of a mature adult when the person referred to has already retracted and refined their thoughts on the issue.
He didn’t “retract” it, he says, “societies have a right to defend themselves through sane vaccine policies. I still believe that. But I don’t believe they have the right (for example) to mandate a vaccine for the common cold.”
Where in there does he retract his support for vaccine mandates, or explain why he supported them in 2015 and 2020 but not now? He just downplays the seriousness of Covid as an excuse for changing his stance.
Considering that Pastor Wilson has referred to public health officials as “ghouls” in the past, I doubt he was presuming anything. Remember early in the pandemic when Pastor Wilson said that Fauci had “lost all credibility” for suggesting the death toll could exceed 200,000? That doesn’t sound like someone who gives public health officials the benefit of the doubt.
As to the factual claim of whether or not they are demonstrating “power lust”, I ask this – how have the recommendations of health officials in power differed substantially from the majority opinion of epidemiology experts not in power?
Jonathan,
you are trying to argue with the author about what the author meant. Surely you can see that this is foolish? What on earth do you hope to accomplish?
It’s foolish to hold someone to their past statements and point out contradictions?
What I’m hoping to accomplish is to point out that Pastor Wilson’s objections to recent public health measures are not based on long-standing moral positions, but instead have changed just as the political winds have changed. Before opposing public health measures became a political goal, he had a very different position.
Might you actually have said, “before public health measures became a political means…?” Because that would be more accurate.
What “political means” do you think vaccinating people accomplishes?
The end, rather, than the means, is the thing accomplished, the means is how it is done.
Sorry about the pedantry, and yes, your question stands, I’d just phrase it differently is all. “Vaccinating people is means to what political end, do you think, and how does it serve as that means?”
Now I’d ask that as an honest question. I might disagree with the answer; might wonder what good answer there could be, but I would ask assuming Ree has something in mind.
I was referring not merely to vaccines, per se, but to the whole covid response, from lockdowns to mandatory masking to mandatory vaccines, to tightly controlling information about bad vaccine outcomes, to discrediting simple treatments, and to the relentless fear-mongering that lets them get away with all of these things. The end, of course, is to train a population in fear-based compliance with whatever the ruling elites want to impose–it’s unchecked power.
That’s a wide range of extreme claims that should require strong evidence to support them. And I certainly haven’t seen such evidence presented. When I have seen the claims presented their only support appears to be circular reasoning – if you assume a priori that public health officials intend to enable “ruling elites who wish to train a population in fear-based compliance so they can impose unchecked power”, then you’ll reach that conclusion.
Strange, though, that so many epidemiological and viral health experts with no interest in political power have the same recommendations as the supposed power-hungry deceivers.
Jonathan: “And I certainly haven’t seen such evidence presented.”
Of course not. The blind can’t see what’s right in front of their faces.
Don’t injure yourself falling into that pit.
“You lost the argument. Get over it.”
“So I’d say by the standards of the statements I’m replying to, my own comment was rather measured.”
Jonathan, if you didn’t know that you wrote those two statements, would you think that they were written by a Christian?
The point is that it is not a contradiction unless you bend both statements. There is a charitable reading of both statements that is perfectly plausible, as Wilson already pointed out, so your attempt to make them grate against each other is unnecessary, motivated reasoning, and looks like an interpretation in bad faith. Which is why nobody is taking your remarks very seriously. Sure, maybe you’re lonely prophet who sees what none of us can bring ourselves to acknowledge. But what seems a great deal more likely is that you simply missed it.
His first statement CLEARLY says a mandate can be justified. If it wasn’t a contradiction unless you bend both statements, then why did Ree just claim that he hadn’t supported a mandate under any conditions and why is Pastor Wilson going with the “but Covid isn’t a serious disease” defense?
You’re asking someone else to compare and contrast two extremely vague groups, that are both gross generalizations. What constitutes an expert, how did you derive that definition objectively, and how did you reliably compile their opinions on a few hundred separate medical suggestions?
“Experts” in this case are people who make a career of studying respiratory viruses, epidemic disease, and public health measures. And if you’ve been reading the research and speaking to people in the community then you can see the general consensus.
Wouldn’t it be more fruitful to challenge Pastor Wilson to defend his claims that vaccine policies are not “sane” and come from “power lust in our public health officials”? Strange but not at all unexpected that, instead of even starting to question Pastor Wilson’s completely unwarranted generalization, you instead dive into the minutia of my objection to it.
Ummmmm…. forcing anyone to inject a substance into their body without their will is not “sane.” I don’t understand why that’s hard for you to understand…
As to the political ends, it is simply the fact that they can. They are testing to see if they can force everyone to comply. Once they’ve succeeded with that, they’ll move on to actual drastic measures.
Once again, Pastor Wilson himself has already stated that mandates can be sane. Do you think Pastor Wilson was insane when he wrote this?
Now, of course I don’t believe anyone should be strictly forced to take a vaccine – there are other options such as not enrolling in that school or line of work. No different than the regular vaccine mandates that schoolchildren and nurses and certain travelers have been subject to for decades. Mandates which were generally regarded as sane by the vast majority of people here.
He didn’t say it was comparable to the common cold. He gave that as a deliberately extreme example of something it would be inappropriate for which to demand a vaccine.
Your record of inaccurately reproducing others’ words remains intact.
Literally anyone can just read what Pastor Wilson said right here in this very letter and decide for themselves. What would I have to gain from supposedly misrepresenting his words?
Pastor Wilson’s statement creates two categories – one for “serious diseases” and one for non-serious diseases like, “for example”, the common cold. Which one of those two categories is he implying that Covid belongs to?
“You lost the argument. Get over it.”
“So I’d say by the standards of the statements I’m replying to, my own comment was rather measured.”
Jonathan, when we literally read your words there is plenty of social justice, but not any Christianity.
Why is that?
Read your Bible. Social justice is a hallmark of Jesus’ ministry.
The Bible also says that homosexuality is a sin and that we should not practice that abomination nor suffer it.
Try to stay on track. Social justice is a hallmark of Jesus’ ministry.
FWIW, the Bible says a lot of things. Most of which Christians have somehow managed to figure out, that since we don’t live in a bronze age tribal culture, they don’t really apply to us.
If you need a list, I’ll be glad to supply one.
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.” 1 Corinthians 6:9,10 It doesn’t take much to figure out what scripture tells us. Yes, the Bible still applies to us even here in our sainted America. Jesus did not advocate social justice, but instead advocated obeying God’s word. That also doesn’t take much to figure out. There isn’t much Christianity in Social Justice… Read more »
M&M is a troll. Don’t respond.
Paul certainly seemed to think homosexuality’s status as sin still held true in the New Covenant
What does that have to do with my original comment to Dave?
And the prophets, too.
Pastor Wilson, thanks for responding to my letter on “Pietism”. Maybe I should write another letter for this…. but you said the difference between you and the Pietists in evangelism, is that of long-term goals… The Pietist’s being more Pietist churches, whereas your long-term goal is a (Christian/Biblical) civilization. …. However … wouldn’t the expansion of Christianity by the Pietists eventually (i.e. “automatically”) result in a change in the civilization toward a Biblical/Christian culture/foundation? ……… I mean, like the Great Awakenings in the U.S. and U.K. wasn’t there a massive infusion of Grace into these nations in the conversion of… Read more »
Heather, keep one thing in mind. The Puritans expected to have at least one child die by the time they were five. They trusted the Lord with their children’s souls because there simply was no other way. Maximize your time and trust the Lord. There has never been any other way.
Hmmm. I wonder why that child morality rate has dropped so low from the Puritan days?
I think Heather’s concern is not quite the same. A Christian parent can look at a child’s death and say, “My child is absent from the body and present with the Lord.” It’s a different sort of thing to have to say, “My child is absent from the family and present with those who want to destroy his faith so that he may never be present with the Lord.”
I understand that. It doesn’t change my answer. Every faithful Christian mother in Nazi Germany had the same concerns. Same for the Soviet Union.
Gotcha.
Regarding Ephesians 2:8-9, it is true that there in no immediate antecedent to explain the use of “this” (Gk “touto,” neuter); but immediately following it the Greek reads: “[it is] the gift of God.” “To doron”, “the gift,” is neuter here, and would, in my opinion, explain the apparent anomaly. Thus, it’s God’s “gift,” so not something we can earn or have a right to.
Re: Religious Exemptions It really seems like vaccines using fetal cell lines in production or in testing is the way to go. I’m not sure why so many religious “leaders” are pretending like it’s not a thing. The longer that goes, the more I wonder what the deal is. I guess we can refuse to take a vaccine for something like rubella, but this Covid stuff means we throw all that out the window. Some dude once said “the burden of proof lies with those Christian ethicists who believe we are not doing that. They need either to show that… Read more »
I don’t understand your last line at all, because there is nothing resembling silence on the subject from Pastor Doug Wilson. You quoted something he said previously on the subject that is still germane, and, for the last eighteen months, he has not argued for a conclusion that would appear inconsistent with that (such as insisting that Christians should take a coronavirus vaccine), and has instead argued strongly for a position consistent with his past post that you linked. What, then, is your objection? Is it that his evidently strong agreement with you is not strong enough, that every single… Read more »
I have had success with a religious exemption letter I wrote. Other friends used pieces of it successfully as well, so take what you wish from it. I reminded one friend who felt like a religious exemption was a little disingenuous for them (since they didn’t think taking the vaccine outright was an actual sin), that they should “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.” This is the path they have given us to assert our freedom…so give it to them with a clear conscience and go serve God…. ————- Re: Assertion of religious exemption to coronavirus vaccination To Whom It… Read more »
242010535_6040567825985110_3845897260040466894_n.jpg
The trouble I see with mandatory vaccines is that the ‘mandatory’ bit means they are the ones deciding. Surely, one can’t say, “Mandatory, when I agree with it, or on the terms I lay out”? If it must be done, if it is demanded by law (which is what I understand mandatory to mean) then I don’t get to discuss the ins and outs of it. You might want to limit the use of the mandatory powers or add some provisos, but once they are in the government’s hot little hands, then they are out of yours. You say, “I… Read more »
You make a strong point. But Pastor Wilson gave the reason for why we don’t get to make our own personal decisions on this. His words:
Pastor Wilson’s suggestion that his evaluation is better than the epidemiologists is countered by the false statements he’s made about Covid since it started. Why should public health be put at risk by the personal choices of people who neither have accurate information nor use sound logic?
And to be clear, I personally don’t support any sort of universal vaccine mandates. But it makes sense to me to tell persons in certain positions that they need to make choices. If you’re not willing to get vaccinated, then I understand why you shouldn’t be in positions that would unnecessarily expose vulnerable people, potentially create super-spreading events, or make it likely that essential public services would be difficult to keep operating. And Pastor Wilson clearly argued for something similar in the past.
And now, reason #39,728 for why you can’t trust the mainstream media:
The first of those headlines is a news story. The second is the opinion of a columnist who disagrees with the tone of the news coverage. And the articles agree on the statistics, but the question is whether you consider 0.35% of the state population leaving in the last year (more than the year before) to be an “exodus” or not, which is a bit subjective.
So I guess you can’t trust mainstream media because they’re willing to publish columnists who disagree with the tone of mainstream media?
The first and last are news articles that both use the word “exodus” in the body of the article, not just the headline, one as though it is real and significant, and the other calls it a myth. You can drop the opinion piece out and the point is still extremely clear — a newspaper is publishing news articles on a topic that it calls a myth promoted by “haters” months after it wrote a news story describing how it is real and significant. You might argue that it’s a single data point about which not too many conclusions can… Read more »
All we learned from this comparison is that the LATimes doesn’t dictate that its columnists regurgitate the “company line” on every issue. Funny thing is I think some would complain just as much if they did require that.
If you think of newspapers as some monolithic “it” then you can call that unreliable. If you realize that legitimate newspapers are willing to print columns by people with contrasting opinions then there’s no contradiction. As I already pointed out, the statistics are the same in both articles – that is what is reliable and what editors insist on checking.
And right on cue, here comes Jonathan trying, and failing miserably, to spin away the obvious.
For his next trick, he’s going to tell us how water isn’t wet.
In the meantime, reason #39,729 for why you can’t trust the mainstream media:
That’s just another opinion column. Someday you’re going to learn what an opinion columnist is….wait until you find out that Jonah Goldberg was an opinion columnist for the LA Times, Charles Krauthammer at the Washington Post, and Michelle Malkin at the Seattle Times. Opinion columnists come in all flavors, and some are silly.
Thank you once again for hopping up and down, screaming and flailing about, completely oblivious to the point. Your incompetence at spin (well, at just about anything) is most amusing.
Since pointing out the foibles of your precious media seems to really bother you, here’s reason #39,730 for why you can’t trust the mainstream media:
Again – two opinion pieces, by two different people, four years apart. You could have seen that Slate published a different opinion piece long before Trump was elected titled “Why Don’t We Abolish the Electoral College?”
In other words, they published different pieces by people with different opinions. The horror!
Yup, Slate published “Why Don’t We Abolish the Electoral College” in 2000. And what party won the Presidency that year, hmmmm?
Oops!
Meanwhile, reason #39,732 for why you can’t trust the mainstream media:
The 2000 article was published before the election, not after. “Oops”. I hope you weren’t trying to deceive other readers into thinking the article was a reaction to an election that hadn’t even happened yet.
Jonathan, #1 and #2 are news articles, not columns. That is the point. News articles are not supposed to be based on “opinions”. If the LA Times is not an “it” then it’s just a random collection of loosely assembled news articles from sources of varying reliability, placing its credibility approximately equal to “the internet says.” If it wants to be considered a news source with a degree of credibility, then it only makes sense that it ought to be regarded as cohesive at the very least in its reporting of the facts. Either there is or there is not… Read more »
Sorry, that’s #1 and #3 are news articles.
Jane,
I’m confused here… the article is titled “column:…” and is by Mark Barabak:columnist. Are you saying this is actually from their newsdesk, or am I reading a different article, or what?
BTW, I am concerned about the way many outlets are failing to differentiate between news and opinion. Just not sure I see an issue here. (Or in the Guardian example, which is stupid, but it is clearly a rad-fem opinion piece in a prog paper).
You confuse a single tree for the forest, and then sit there and wonder why you’re confused.
You’d think the people who write for these publications would at least read their own publications. You’d think the editors would do the same. You’d think they’d have at least a little concern over how this affects their credibility.
And yet, low-info people like Jonathan still fall for whatever they put out. It was in Vice, therefore it must be true!
Speaking of Vice, here’s reason #39,731 for why you can’t trust the mainstream media:
Thanks, Jane. I hope I didn’t come across as snarky. It was an honest question, but I’m afraid internet snark is too often my native tongue. I don’t read the LA Times, or really know anything about their editorial direction; but, contra FP, I think this is a good example of a paper behaving responsibly. Their news desk writes a piece, and the editors give it a somewhat sensational title (Exodus, implies something big/biblical), and they run a column which objects and presents and alternative analysis/framing. Isn’t that what we want? I for one would like Tom Cotton’s op-eds to… Read more »
Yes, Demo: A paper contradicting itself, publishing a falsehood, effectively calling itself a hater and a purveyor of myths, is a really good example of responsible behavior when it comes to their credibility. And you’re supportive of an American newspaper running the op-eds of a terrorist organization — the same terrorist outfit that, among others, habitually chants “Death to America!” So stunning. So brave. Come to think of it, seeing American Pravda run those op-eds makes sense. It’s not like they don’t share the same goal. Perhaps I should start asking you the same question I’ve asked Jonathan the leftist:… Read more »
Not at all. Your correction was most courteous and I should have been more careful when I looked at the articles myself the first time.
#2, #3, #4, #5, and #6 that FP posted are all clearly opinion columns.
It would be a rather different comment section if people like you went as strong after commenters like FP who are trying to mislead others rather than people like me who are simply correcting them.
Amen.
I get that you’re a legend in your own mind, but you’re not correcting anything. All you’re doing is shrieking that most of the examples are opinion columns. So what? How does that change the clear inconsistency from the same media outlets? Funny how Doug supposedly contradicting himself on one issue chaps your hide, while you go out of your way to defend mainstream media outlets — which have far more influence than Doug — contradicting themselves left and right on a whole host of issues. It would be a rather different comment section if people like you went strong… Read more »
FP, literally all you’ve demonstrated in this random effort is that “mainstream media” is willing to publish opinion columns from a wide range of viewpoints.
They’re not “contradicting themselves” because they’re not a monolith. Different people have different opinions.
I had no idea that was considered a bad thing.
And sometimes the very same people have contradictory opinions. Like Joy Reid, MSNBC, about literally the same vaccine, made of the same physical matter residing in the same universe:
You’re perfectly correct FP – some silly people Tweet silly things on social media. Strange how you’ve now given up on even pretending to post news stories and are left with mere personal Twitter comments to prove that somewhere out there are persons who contract themselves.
Hey, speaking of contradictions, what do you think of Pastor Wilson contradicting himself on vaccine mandates? Do you think that discredit’s him just like you think Reid’s contradiction discredits the entire media establishment?
I do wonder what your alternative to “mainstream” news is, considering that you’ve lumped the LA Times, Guardian, Yahoo, Vice, and Slate all under that title? I guess you prefer something like Newsmax? At least you don’t have to worry that they’ll ever allow any contrasting opinions to be aired on their network.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIU2DDFONig
“You lost the argument. Get over it.”
“So I’d say by the standards of the statements I’m replying to, my own comment was rather measured.”
Jonathan, why are you so interested in pounding others, but unable to actually post as a Christian man?
If I had known showing the LA Times shooting itself in the foot would cause you this much angst, I would have done it a long time ago. Watching you roll around on the floor, whining and moaning helplessly about your precious media torpedoing their own credibility is most amusing.
Meanwhile, reason #39,734 (Joy Reid was #39,733) for why you can’t trust the mainstream media:
Bro this proof of how Jonathan licks the boots of the mainstream media is hilarious XD
“tHeY aReN’t A mOnOliTh!”
And he actually believes they give journalists free reign and their own opinions! Does he come from Neptune or Pluto?
I can’t tell if you’re agreeing with FP or making fun of him. Do newspapers post contrasting opinions or don’t they?
FP has done a great job of proving that opinion columnists have wide latitude to post opinions that contradict the paper’s own news stories or other opinion columnists. While I doubt such latitude is without limits, there are almost infinite examples of columnists with different opinions who are allowed to post them in the same newspaper.
The first is a news story by a journalist with no such snark, the second is an opinion piece by an outside person who isn’t even employed by the newspaper. If you click on the links there’s no contrasting statements by journalists at all.
The comment by whoever runs that social media account is immature and stupid, but since Metro is a tabloid paper owned by the conservative Daily Mail, I’m not sure what you’ve proven. Tabloids owned by conservative outlets hire immature people to run their social media?