Letters in Early October

Sharing Options
Show Outline with Links

Warhorn and Moscow

You and Toby got into a bit of a tiff with the Warhorn Media guys last year, which finally settled down when you posted “On Leaving a Church Over Masks.” Unfortunately, your recent post “On Humming “A Mighty Fortress” Through Your Masks” has (possibly unintentionally) reignited the dispute.

In that post you explicitly said that people shouldn’t leave otherwise faithful churches over masks, and should return to reconcile if they had already left. However, your recent post seems to contradict the “On Leaving a church” post, especially this section: “Not only would I rather die, but if I were a member of a church that for some reason required this of me, I would rather be excommunicated than comply with it.” There are other sections, but I think this is the one generating most of the controversy, despite it not being entirely clear what you mean. You say “A church that required this of me,” but you don’t tell us exactly what “this” is. Was there supposed to be another sentence in there?

Given that your post has already generated very strong reactions:

. . . I urge you to be clear on precisely what that sentence was intended to mean. Has your position changed since the “On leaving a church over masks” post? If not, please be clear about that. If so, please try to lay out exactly what you’re setting forth as the principle here.

I write this in the hopes that men I admire and appreciate can work out their differences with a gracious spirit, and avoid what is hopefully unnecessary division.

With sincere affection and great appreciation for your ministry,

Tim

Tim, thanks for this letter. I was not aware that it had generated any controversy in Warhorn circles, and was certainly not intending to set off anything like that. I thought I was giving a hat tip to their statement, which I appreciated.

To answer your questions, no, I haven’t changed my mind since the earlier post. I still hold to that—solid churches should be able to navigate differences over masks, and to do so from both directions. But, as you probably know, across hundreds of churches, there are multiple variables. I get a constant stream of letters from parishioners whose elders are really into masks while also going woke, or they are strict enforcers of the mandates while making no room at all for conscience, etc. In the more recent humming post, I was talking about that kind of situation. I was talking about elders requiring masks, enforcing masks (and then vaccines?), requiring attendance, and refusing to make any accommodations for conscience.

But in contrast to this, if a sound church recommended masks, and worked with those who had a conscience issue with it, my earlier post would still apply. My strong statement about being excommunicated simply had to do with a requirement that I worship God, and that I do so in a mask. In other words, that I must attend, and that I must mask up. That is when I would seek to leave a church that I had believed was otherwise sound. I will reluctantly put on a mask for an airplane flight. It is tedious and stupid, but not a conscience issue for me. But I won’t put on a mask to worship God—that is a conscience issue. Hope this clarifies things. Let me know if it doesn’t.

Vice Article Debris Field

Tabloid Tarantula: Count me among those encompassed by this statement:

“ And so all of a sudden there are many more Christians who are willing to give us a second look, and they are doing so.”

I’ve been a dabbler for years but I’m all in now. Thank you for providing biblical clarity unencumbered by cultural pressure.

Tyler

Tyler, thanks. Thanks for paying attention.

I do not know much about you or your ministry. I have seen you featured on Apologia, and I always thought you handled yourself well. I also love your vocabulary!

I am thankful to Vice for helping us spread the gospel through your response. It is always good to see God use the evil intentions of the wicked in a way so as to spread His own glory through the proclamation of the gospel. Will also be keeping an eye on your ministry and may look into your books! Would not have done so without Vice’s hit piece article (I did not read it or even know about it, as I don’t like interacting with burning hot garbage—but I saw this response article of yours posted on a Facebook group and decided to give it a read!).

Thanks for all that you do. Keep fighting the good fight.

Zack

Zack, thanks very much.

Keep on going full speed and full measure, keep it up and don’t slow down, and Godspeed.

In Jesus Christ,

Ben

Ben, thank you.

All I want to say is simply this—thank you my brother.

But I have one question that is gnawing at my soul. I repent and I repent… how do I know my repentance means anything when the same sins seem to trip me up so often? And how is it that even after repenting, I can (in no time flat) long for that same sin? I fear what God must do to wring it out of me. But I pray He does. He has been so merciful to me. How can I not love a God like our God? And yet, if I truly loved Him, I would not need to repent of anything.

Your most recent post was beautiful, magnificent and full of grace. And it cut me to the quick. So the law was there too, accusing me and making me feel like a total loser. Thank you for that part as well. I needed that as much as the other. I wish I lived in Moscow. It seems like Moscow is becoming something of a bullseye for our wayward culture. You must be doing lots of things right to be considered so wrong.

Roger

Roger, thanks. Our lives are supposed to be lives of repentance. Every conscientious Christian should be seeking to repent constantly. The one thing to be careful of, though, if you are given to morbid introspection, is the hazard of repenting constantly for all the wrong things. That has tripped up more than a few.

Your ability to write such a clear rejoinder to the Vice article in light of those who would throw shade is, in my estimation, a clear testimony of the work of Christ in both you, and the ministry they seek to discredit. I doubt you need an “atta boy!” from a random woman in Memphis, TN, but I am sending one just the same.

Cindy

Cindy, thanks. And say hey to Memphis for me.

Thank you. This was well written and needed to be said in just this way. I received that article from Vice from someone upset that I have returned to this denomination. I have sent the link for “your response” to them. I am in the middle with lots of those I love against me for returning. Our story is very long and sad. But God!!! He is good and doing His work despite our failings. I “Continue earnestly in prayer, being vigilant in it with Thanksgiving; meanwhile praying for us, that God would open to us a door for the word, to speak the mystery of Christ,..” Colossians 4:2a

Jodi

Jodi, thanks. And God bless you.

I thought your response to Vice’s hit piece was well-reasoned, witty, biblical, and fair. I am curious as to whether you think Mike Cosper’s work for Christianity Today on “The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill” commits some of the same kinds of slander against Mark Driscoll that Ms. Stankorb does against you in her piece.

Thanks,

Keagan

Keagan, I have not followed that response, but I can say that I am extremely dubious about critiques of any sexual conservatives from any quarter that is woke, semi-woke, or if anyone in leadership has ever considered going woke.

Re: Response to Vice Magazine Article Pastor Wilson, thanks a lot for that article/reading.

I didn’t know anything about any of this stuff, but I saw some accusations in some of your comment threads recently and sadly it put a little wisp of cloud/question in my mind . . . Thanks a lot for your crystal clear, sturdy, intelligent, strong, gracious, fresh-air-common-sense, fresh-air-common-sense-Biblical, powerful, Gospel talk/article addressing all this.

(Out of curiosity I wondered just who exactly are those woke pastors who just lately realized they chose the wrong side . . . but I’m sure I’m better off not knowing if it doesn’t concern me.)

Moving on to a TOTALLY different point . . . I just wanted to get this off my chest, Pastor Wilson if you see any value at all in reading this . . . Sir, you and John Piper are my two *daily* public/online go-to “preacher/pastor” type guys . . . I usually check both your websites every day—DesiringGod.org often before my “quiet time” in the morning . . . and yours some time later in the day . . . and much of the attraction is y’alls knowledge of the Bible and the ability to apply it in a pastoral and wise way to all of life . . . but it is only because of y’alls solid, robust teaching of the Gospel that gives the “gravitas” to the other things you say.

Nobody’s perfect except Jesus and people like me must beware of putting preachers/teachers, etc. on a pedestal . . . so if you are still reading, here are my 2 cent observations….

It seems Pastor John Piper is prone to err sometimes toward a well meaning “empathy/sympathy”(?) that causes some of his teaching (on some “current event” issues . . . e.g. race, social justice, etc.) to be mushy ‘PC’ . . . and so I just have to read a little of it and try to take it with a grain of salt as best I can . . . . and then get it out of my mind . . . but try to challenge myself with the love that motivates him.

Sir, Pastor Wilson, sometimes I think you are like Reepicheep who was so zealous for the truth and Aslan but it somehow tied in with the being zealous the the honor of his tail that at one point Aslan gave a low growl about all his concern about his tail . . . to me, the parallel of Reepicheep’s “tail” is what comes off as pride or haughtiness regarding your posture toward the world as you seek to promote Christ’s kingdom . . . and maybe I’m somewhat unfairly “conflating” you with many (it seems) of your followers (or other “Reconstruction”/Post-Mil type folks) . . . and so I try to take it with a grain of salt . . . but also try to keep something of an “open mind” to see if I’m missing something—AGAIN . . . this has NOTHING to do with your great “response” to the Vice article . . . TOTALLY a different subject I’ve been pondering for a while.

May, by God’s grace I can attain a fraction of the wisdom and maturity and zeal for Jesus Christ that you and John Piper have.

Best wishes in Christ,

Robert

Robert, thanks for such a kind and thoughtful letter. I do think that you are right that personality differences account for some of the different responses you see from John and from me. As Lewis puts it somewhere, moles must dig and cocks must crow. One thing that John and I have in common is an orientation to “the truth.” But the difference between us would not be John being concerned to sympathize and me being concerned with honor. It is more connected, I think, to my sense of humor. John is wired to see the tragedy in rebellion (which is really there), while I am prone to see the farce. Rebellion against God is preposterous—which it really is. You, the reader, can enjoy both perspectives and arrive at a perfect balance.

In a recent podcast you opened the door to questions but also pointed to existing responses to controversy. Missing from those responses is a response to one of the claims made in the Vice article: that you foster a culture where members of your community believe that wives can not be raped. Please respond.

Crystal

Crystal, thanks for posing the question with appropriate seriousness, and I am happy to answer it. Of course I believe it is possible for a husband to rape his wife, and I believe it to be a great wickedness. Depending on the gravity of the circumstances, it could be a matter for the civil authorities to deal with, or a matter of church discipline. I really believe that. At the same time—and this is why the woke-angelicals are so upset with me—I do not define rape as any act of sexual intercourse that the woman comes to regret afterwards. Men ought not to have sex with unstable women, but if they do, that does not make them guilty of rape.

Enought of That. Back to Vaccines.

I’ve been watching a lot of your content on Canon Press and on your YouTube blog channel for a while now. I’ve never reached out to many people regarding my situation and beliefs but this does involve the COVID vaccine. My Korean church . . . will not allow religious exemptions for the vaccine and I don’t know what to do. This is made worse as my college is mandating vaccines by Nov 1st. So now I’m cut out from my own group at church but I may also be forced out of school. Do I just submit and bend over or fight back? My own education is on the line here and I have no idea how to get out of this.

Kyung

Kyung, whether you comply is a matter for you and your conscience. What do you believe in your conscience to be the issues at stake? We can’t make that decision for you, and shouldn’t try. If you decide to comply, I believe the J&J vaccine should be out for fetal line issues, the Moderna should be suspect because of possible complications, which leaves Pfizer. If you decide not to, then you must either make a life transition, or find some fake documentation.

Thanks for what you are doing, your insights are very helpful, and my wife and I particularly appreciate the boldness, calling a spade a spade (can you still say that . . .?). Winsomeness has its place, but in our opinion has been WAY overdone in evangelical circles, we are “winsome’d” out. We have been practically very helped by your “less rules in parenting” clip for our 8 and 4 year old.

My questions pertain to masks and church. I understand your vaccine comments and position and respect it, but to put it on the table, my wife and I are vaccinated, so our issue and questions pertain to masks.

Our church where we are members is in a jurisdiction that now requires masks indoors. We have both sent emails, to 2 pastors separately, asking if there is a place to worship without masks indoors, and the answer is “we will comply with the mayor’s current mask order”. On our church’s website, under logistics, that lists things like options for distanced seating, encourages hand washing, as well as parking issues, has one bullet point says the exact same thing, verbatim: “we will comply with the mayor’s current mask order. The current order can be found here (link)”, along with the obligatory cartoon face with a mask. At the bottom of this logistical page it says “Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.” Our option is outside worship under a tent with simulcast. So, ironically, the outside people are at both ends of the spectrum: those so frightened by the virus they refuse to come inside, and those so un-frightened and feel so strongly about the mask issue that they won’t go inside with one on. We do not want to be disruptive or foment disunity. Our church is full of compliant people, and I believe fearful. I think a great many actually believe they are controlling the virus with paper masks (so they walk around with idols on their faces) who are unhappy and fearful with non-compliance because we have heard that sentiment expressed to us in our home when an occasional person or family does not wear masks in church (they were unaware of our view, and I assume they think we would agree). I certainly am open to there being many more members that have our view, and we just don’t know it.

We have began visiting other churches in the adjoining jurisdiction where we live, only a few miles, where no indoor mask order is in effect, and have told one of our pastors this in an email, that we were taking a hiatus from our church due to the mask order. I had a meeting with the pastor of the church we are visiting, and asked him what the church would do if the governor issued an indoor mask order, and he said they would comply. I followed that up with a hypothetical order to verify vaccine status of those entering, and he said they would not comply with that, and I asked him why one and not the other, which led to a long and good conversation. I believe I would get the same answer visiting other churches given where we live. I could spend months doing this.

Q: Shall we worship outside at our church? Shall I send an email to prospective churches to weed out this question early? (Lots of churches around here)

I have not yet met face to face with anyone in our senior leadership to fully flesh out the view I have come to, although have made my view briefly known on a few occasions.

We believe following the mask order for indoor worship is Satanic, basically.

Q2: Thought experiment: posit that there was strong, irrefutable evidence that mask wearing in indoor venues actually did significantly reduce morbidity and mortality, or there was a radical new mask technology that really worked, easy enough to worn by all. In this thought experiment it is given that the results are actually true, done without bias. Does that change the view of masks you have put forth? In other words, does your view (and mine) on mask wearing depend on community mask wearing not working? Thanks,

Preston

Preston, yes. I would at least check out other churches, and I would ask a few key questions at the front end to avoid wasting everybody’s time. At the same time, I would keep worshiping outside at your home church as an option, as it is an option made available for you. My views are affected by the uselessness of masking, but not wholly determined by it. I still think we should worship God unmasked—but if our church were downwind of a really bad forest fire, and the smoke in the sanctuary was terrible, I wouldn’t be judgey if the people with asthma wore masks. But I still wouldn’t.

I hope you are well. I’ve seen several of your YouTube videos and thought maybe you could give some biblical guidance on an issue gnawing at me. Should I give up my job, give up my health insurance, or take the vaccine? Starting 1/2022 my company will apply a $50 per paycheck health insurance surcharge for unvaccinated employees. I am not against vaccines, but don’t like to be coerced by government mandates. However, this is not an unfair way to handle the issue, especially when compared to government mandates. If I get Covid and am hospitalized, the health insurance company can expect to pay claims, and vaccination status seems to be a valid underwriting concern. I’ve seen several videos where you touch on this, and would like your opinion from a biblical perspective.

Thank you,

Joshua

Joshua, it seems to me that your company has provided you with a reasonable way out. I would do it. There is still room for an argument there because what if you caught Covid from one of your vaccinated co-workers? But I would not press the argument, and just grateful for a solution that doesn’t have a huge price tag.

Thank you for your insights. They are awesome. I am an Air Force service member and there is now a mandate for the COVID vaccine. I am hesitant and skeptical about submitting to that and I would like your insight on formulating a religious exemption argument for it. I think it may be difficult to base the argument on that vaccine alone because at boot camp we are injected with a myriad of other vaccines and I would not be surprised if they brought that up as a rebuttal. My aim is more focused on the hypocrisy of those mandating it and just overall the fierce oppression of freedoms. I feel like requesting this waiver is connected to my spiritual walk with the Lord in that not speaking up against oppression is not in accordance with James 4:6 “if we know the right thing to do and not do it then it is sin” and also Proverbs 31:8-9. Is there anything else that you think may help make a compelling argument? Am I missing something? Thank you!

Damian

Damian, here is a link to the CREC’s statement on it. I believe that the issue should not be vaccines in themselves, but rather that the requirement on you is happening in the context of mandatory vaccines being imposed all over the whole country.

I can’t thank you enough for the voice of reason you’ve been over the past 2 years. I’ve been taking a break from news and social media for a month or so, so I’ve been a little out of touch with your blog, so I may have missed a previous answer to this question.

I’m in the process of crafting a religious exemption request to my employer (gigantic federal contractor), objecting on the grounds that my religion prohibits me from obeying tyrants who issue tyrannical edicts. I’m not expecting it to be approved, I just want a chance to say my piece. But I’d like to give it a chance of approval, which might be helped by some concise Scriptural references. It seems to me that Daniel and his friends are good examples, and of course there are many other examples. But it seems like it comes down to Jesus’ teaching, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” I believe that a vaccine certainly falls in the latter category, but to my shame, I’m not sure how I show that from Scripture. Do you have any resources or advice, or any other general thoughts on submitting a request on this basis?

This seems like one of the few pebbles I have to sling at the giant. I’ve considered using the standard “aborted fetal cells” objection, but I’m not sure that’s a true conviction of mine (maybe it should be). I think that would have a better chance of approval, but I’d rather state what the real issue is. The issue is not the vaccine, it’s that Joe Biden thinks he’s joined the Pantheon. I’m also considering filing a medical objection on the grounds that I have natural immunity due to prior infection.

I also have a sneaking suspicion that all of these giant corporations, federal contractors, and the federal government are bluffing. Biden’s just trying to scare people enough to goose the vaccination numbers a few percentage points. My company has repeatedly and (I think) tellingly refused to outright say that they will fire an employee for non-compliance. They say “employment status may be impacted” and other corporate nonsense of that nature. I’m not convinced they can or will force compliance, when it comes to it. I’d love to just straight up call their bluff, but as a young man with a young family . . . that’s high-stakes poker. Perhaps these threats are like the lions Christian faces outside the Palace Beautiful. No way to tell until you walk through them though.

Finally, as an FYI to you and your readers, I just discovered the Pacific Justice Institute today, pji.org. They have a Q&A document that I thought distilled some of the facts in a really helpful way. Here’s the link:

I sincerely appreciate your time. God bless you

RK

RK, I would refer you to the link I provided in the previous letter. That, and I would encourage you to run all the plays you mention, and to make every argument.

Re: Humming “A Might Fortress” Through Your Masks. You mentioned in your blog that there are those in your congregation who have taken the vaccine and there are those who have declined it. How has Christ Church reconciled the two viewpoints? Was the matter of fetal cell lines mentioned from the pulpit or in any other context? How is allowance made for vaccination in light of this moral dilemma? Did the Session observe any disunity in the body? If not, how was it prevented? If so, how was it addressed?

Jeff

Jeff, in our community we have a lot of public teaching apart from the worship services (including this blog), and we have medical professionals who are current on the challenges. So our people are aware of the potential for ethical compromise, and have shown a good eagerness to be careful. We have not had any division.

I enjoy listening to your sermons and videos and especially your blog presentations. I am a Christian and a reformed Christian at that. One area of interest that I would appreciate your comments on is our global response to the Covid-19 pandemic and, particularly where Christians should be united. I am a public health professional and have been for 46 years. I won’t get into the details of my background but only to say that a lot of my time is devoted towards supporting our efforts to limit the spread and dread of the pandemic. To no surprise, I’m a very strong advocate for the preventative measures that have been introduced, imposed or, if you like, forced upon our populace to stem this pandemic. None of us ‘like’ these restrictive measures but I deal with case counts, the reality of outcomes and various individual case characteristics such as transmission maps and immunization status. From my perspective, the epidemiology speaks for itself. Now I gather, and with respect, that you’re likely on the polar opposite end of my position. So, my question or point of discussion, is how do we reconcile these differences between faithful brothers ad sisters in Christ? It seems that the whole issue of support or non-support, ie. pro-vax, anti-vax, mask – no mask, is such a divisive issue and it concerns me that this is regrettably becoming a defining issue and point of contention between professing Christians. I wonder if the church is missing a golden opportunity during these very trying times to demonstrate resiliency and unity within the body of Christ. Thank you for your time and bless you for the work you do . . .

Kevin

Kevin, thank you for your letter, and thank you for the work you do. The burr under the saddle is not differences over vaccines, but rather over the coercive measures being taken by one side of the debate. Even in the area of health care, these power play measures are unparalleled. I believe that if governments and health care officials had focused on recommendations instead of mandates, they would have gotten a lot more compliance. As it is, I believe they have created a crisis of confidence in the whole system.

Too Far Gone College

I’m hoping this might spur a lengthier post in reply. I work at a nominally Christian college that is well into the process of capitulation. There’s a sizable number of committed, conservative, orthodox Christians who work as best we can to slow the rout, but we’ve still got, as just one example, a weekly queer Bible study hosted by a college-funded LGBTQIA+ student organization. On the worst days, it looks like we’ve been ineffectively participating in a decades-long drubbing. I’ve praised the Moscow model to my co-conspirators here and often receive the bristly (but not entirely incorrect) reply that your model is excellent for starting new institutions, but is perhaps less helpful for reforming an existing institution. I still believe that this place is too valuable to simply turn it over without a fight, and that the fight may be winnable if the horizon is long enough—but what might an effective strategy for revival, reformation, and reclamation look like? Can you outline some general principles of war (e.g., espionage, sabotage, strategic retreat, etc.) for those of us who are playing the long game in these sorts of institutions? Many thanks, and may God continue to bless you and your work.

Josh

Josh, you are right. This does deserve a fuller treatment. Let me give just one central principle here. You and your fellow insurgents need to move from trying to fix the problem to a different stance—that of becoming the problem. In other words, don’t pester the admin about what they are going to do about the LGBTQ+ Bible study, and make them start worrying about the Men Only Bible Study that you started. Make them play by their rules with you. Don’t try to put out the enemy’s fires. Start fires. Become arsonists.

The Genesis of Liberty

Good day To God be the glory for your work that benefits many believers around the world.

I would like to know if you could point me to an article/book which gives the biblical foundation and arguments for the inalienable rights (i.e. free speech, freedom of movement etc.)?

Much appreciated

Joseph

Joseph, I would suggest that you begin with three books—The Emergence of Liberty in the Modern World by Kelly, Vindiciae ContraTyrannos by Junias Brutus, and Slaying Leviathan by Sunshine.

A Thoughtless Sting

I recently entered seminary coming out of a summer landscaping-maintenance job. Hard and satisfying work was my day. Having now come to academic work, I am having trouble seeing it as real work. I watched an old Ask Pastor Doug episode addressing this, but I still find myself somewhat unconvinced. I recently got out of Bible College as well, and while it wasn’t exactly a breeze, the thought still lingers in the back of my head, that it’s certainly not digging out a tree stump. A misunderstanding on my end during the seminary application process, as it relates to financial aid, meant that I did not apply for on-campus work or elsewhere. The admissions representative, as it seemed to me, suggested that the financial aid committee may have seen me as a slouch in this regard.

I am having a hard time not being resentful at that man, who has otherwise been helpful and kind to me, for that remark. Perhaps I am overcompensating in my own mind. But I find myself slacking off and feeling rather unconvinced that what I am and am supposed to be doing, and what the faculty and staff are doing, is real work. I feel a nearly overwhelming urge to prove myself.

One professor did encourage me, saying that it does not matter what any professor thinks of me, and he urged me to press on to become a prepared and competent minister. And I have found a lot of strength in those words. But I am still holding on to those words before. I do not want to be seen as a slouch, but I wonder if I maybe don’t want that perception attached to me more than I want actually to be diligent.

I feel deflated and bored, if I may use such terms, like I’m not doing real work being at seminary or like I am not welcome. The landscaping work itself was on the seminary’s grounds and I often feel very frustrated at the thought that I may have put in a summer of sweat and sunburn to turn around and be called a slouch.

Am I being arrogant and wrongly self-defensive? Do I need to get over it, or is there something else you would urge me to do? Perhaps these are not even the right questions, but in that regard also I am unaware.

Thank you very much,

Jake

Jake, yes, I think you are being a tad defensive about it. I would urge you to drop it, and forget it completely. I would then encourage you to pour yourself into your studies. I would also suggest that if you don’t find it challenging enough, there are always additional books in the library. If it does not strike you as real work, make a point of making it real work.

A Fine Distinction

What is “the division of soul and spirit” described in Hebrews 4:12? Essentially the question is what is the soul and what is the spirit? Obviously they are closely related if it requires the piercing quality of the Word of God to divide them.

Eric

Eric, there is a theological disagreement about this. Some are dichotomous, holding that man is simply body and soul. Others are trichotomous, holding that we are body, soul, and spirit. I lean trichotomous, but recently read something, I think from Berkhof, that made a good case for dichotomous. But even if you are trichotomous, the distinction between soul and spirit is so fine that only the Word of God can make the distinction. I sure can’t.

A Big Question for Many

In your Man Rampant episode with George Gilder, Sexual Suicide, you talk about the effects of pornography on young men, mentioning its corrosive and demoralizing side effects, as well as its leading to performance anxiety.

I fear that I have fallen prey to this. I am routinely intimated by the prospect of getting down to my seminary studies, or pursuing a relationship with a woman, or finding a job on the side.

If it is an appropriate question in this regard: How can I recover the natural, masculine hardness that it is good for a man to have?

Thank you kindly,

Jake

Jake, thanks. There is no easy way of choosing the hard path. You simply have to do it. Get up on the high dive, and take a header. Quit porn, for good, and go do the things you find yourself reluctant to do.

Fathers and Sacraments

I’m trying to be the federal head of my house and have a question about baptism. My church subscribes to the Baptist confession of faith of 1689 and chapter 28 defines baptism as an ordinance only to be administered by the “qualified” and “called.” They hold this to mean the elders. As federal head I believe I’m in this position. I also don’t see a clear biblical definition on this matter. Your input would be helpful.

Thank you and all of my brothers and sisters up there for your unwavering stance on biblical issues in this foolish world we live in.

Jacob

Jacob, I am with your elders on this one. I believe that “the keys” are entrusted to the church, and not to the family. You are federal head within your realm, but they have authority also. But if you were to baptize one of your kids, and then move here to Moscow, we would receive that baptism, but would deem it “irregular,” not a non-baptism.

Not So Deft as That

On Accenting the Intelligent:

Pastor Wilson, I laughed so hard this morning. I was catching up on your blog entries when I read the erratum in “Don’t Meander” from “The Joy of Preaching.”

“Hmm…” I thought.

Then I moved up to the next one, and for a moment did not connect the two. Quickly, however, I caught on—more coffee coming soon—and just had myself a good belly laugh. God is wonderful, and so on Monday He had you trip on the word “intelligent,” and with your faithful sense of humor, you hung a lampshade on it in the most delightful way. Thank you for that.

Malachi

Malachi, thanks for giving me credit for that—although I don’t deserve any. That was simply a straight up blunder which I did not realize until just now. Fixed it.

Don’t Take the Bait

Re: “Don’t Take The Bait” Let’s say “we” follow your advice and don’t “take the bait”. Uhm . . . given the rumors surrounding January 6th, I’m inclined to think someone else, maybe not even on “our” side, is going to “take the bait.” In other words, I’m concerned that the bait will be taken one way or the other. Once the bait is taken (not by me!), what do we do _then_?”

E

E, what you are saying might well happen. But I think there are too many people watching and alert now.

William Lane Craig and Evolution

I know many in evangelical and even reformed circles (assuming one is not a presuppositionalist) hold William Lane Craig to be one of the greatest, if not the greatest, Christian apologists of our time. He, no doubt, has the acumen and the credentials for such a title, but I know some of his theological positions are heterodox. His most recent book, “In Search of the Historical Adam” literally has a caveman on the cover and the blurb tells us WLC’s conclusion: “…ultimately determining that Adam lived between 750,000 and 1,000,000 years ago as a member of the archaic human species Homo heidelbergensis.” What do you make of this book? Should this be the doctrinal “straw” that breaks the camel’s back with Craig, or are you already past that point? How should Christians handle/interact with Craig’s work in light of this?

FA

FA, yeah, I have no use for this kind of thing. Any apologetic that does not reject Darwin is defending the castle by leaving the moat bridge down, and all the doors wide open.

Back to the Nephilim

In August 2021 book of the month (Nephilim) I am reading through it—thanks for the endorsement, it is a very good read—the author points to Noah, and family, as untainted by the Nephilim’s DNA, so that the human race, after the flood, would be somewhat reset. But then the author says that Goliath was a result of the Nephilim DNA. Not sure how he arrives at that conclusion if the flood was God’s way to cleanse the human DNA of Neplilim DNA.

Whenever I come across what I see as an inconsistency, it makes me squirm at bit. I find that squirming in my seat has become routine over the past 18 months—and you have been great in pointing out the why.

All the Best,

Blair

Blair, I would encourage you to go back and take another look. Pitterson argues that while the point of the Flood was to wipe out the corrupt DNA, it did not entirely succeed. He argues that there was some corrupt DNA carried by Ham’s wife, which is why the giants were all descended from Canaan, their son.

Greetings from Annapolis

My name is Cole and I am a senior at the Naval Academy in Annapolis. A few brothers referred me to your content about a month ago and it has become a constant in my spiritual and intellectual diet throughout the week; for that I am very grateful. I wanted to thank you, as I am sure thousands have, but I also have a request. I am engaged to another midshipmen—who loves Ms. Nancy’s podcast by the way—and we both have ambitions for serving the Lord full time after our military obligations. I’d like to hear more of your story, how did you make the transition? I cannot imagine how busy you are, you have more ministries to keep busy in than I could ever imagine, but if you find the time I would love to hear from you. Maybe even a podcast episode on your testimony. Thank you for wisdom and love for the Kingdom, may he continue to bless you in your endeavors. I have family in Coeur D’Alene so I hope to visit Christ Church sometime!

Cole

Cole, thanks. I might just do that on an upcoming Plodcast.

On Being a Useless Republican

Over 100 House Republicans voted this week to add draft registration for women to a must-pass Defense funding bill. It doesn’t look good in the Senate either. Should this be enacted, how should Christians respond? After seeing how church leadership did in the COVID unpleasantness, this seems a much bigger, and clearer-cut issue for them. Sadly, I fear their track record will have left them unprepared for leading on this issue.

Mitch

Mitch, I agree. Covid was the beta testing for other more gnarly challenges coming at us, and the church at large did not cover themselves with glory in that challenge. And the matter of drafting our daughter is a much bigger deal, one that should be met with widespread and flat defiance. Let us think about it, no.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
65 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jennifer
Jennifer
2 months ago

Re: Joshua’s question about the health insurance surcharge for not getting the jab…Another option to explore would be refusing the health insurance your employer offers and joining a Christian healthcare sharing ministry, such as Samaritan Ministries, Christian Healthcare Ministries, Medi-Share, etc. It might be worth looking into how it compares to your employer-offered options.

Thomas Bauer
Thomas Bauer
2 months ago
Reply to  Jennifer

Anecdotal: Those medishare plans stink.

Will
Will
2 months ago
Reply to  Thomas Bauer

Compared to health insurance, yes. I was with Samaritan for several years. I have no complaints with them.

Robert
Robert
2 months ago
Reply to  Will

Me too. My wife and I had Samaritan for a couple of years waiting for Medicare. No complaints and will recommend them. I never had to “file a claim” with them, but as Sam Rutherford mentions below, 11 months out of the year, Samaritan gave me the name of a family and their specific medical issue/bills and I wrote my ~$220 check to them.

Sam Rutherford
Sam Rutherford
2 months ago
Reply to  Thomas Bauer

I beg to differ. I have Samaritans and it has been great. Some people don’t have the benefit of having an employer pay all or most of their health insurance. Not only that, but 11 out of 12 months my payment goes straight to an individual. Not to an ungodly insurance company.

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
2 months ago
Reply to  Thomas Bauer

That depends on what it is you are shopping for. My family was on medishare for several years and were perfectly happy in spite of never getting a dime in services from them, precisely because what we were interested in purchasing was catastrophic only protection.

Marjorie
Marjorie
1 month ago
Reply to  Jennifer

My husband and I have been longtime members of Christian Healthcare Ministries. In recent years they’ve reimbursed every penny of an endometrial cancer treatment, a total hysterectomy, and a hernia repair. Absolutely no complaints from me.

Gray
Gray
2 months ago

I think that conscription of wives, daughters and sisters for military duty will be just another capitulation checkbox. Christian men have zero problem sending their daughters to the government, most weekdays, in yellow buses. The same “conservative” Christian men that would raise howls of indignation regarding registering their firearms (admittedly bad) will quietly acquiesce to the registering of their daughters. They have already been conditioned by practicing the religious ceremonial “honor to our brave service men and women” that is offered up regularly.

Mike Freeman
Mike Freeman
2 months ago
Reply to  Gray

I am opposed to drafting anyone, male or female. That said, if drafting women is a real concern, evangelicals could stop voting Republican since most of the wars of the last half century were started by neo-con warmongers like Bush Pere and Bush Fils. Biden may have bungled getting us out of Afghanistan but he’s not the guy who sent us there in the first place.

Cherrera
Cherrera
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

Bush, Bosnia-boy Clinton, Obama and Biden aren’t much different when it comes to foreign wars. I’m not sure whom you want people to vote for (third-party?), but Christians should never vote for the party of abortion, sodomy and now tyranny.

Mike Freeman
Mike Freeman
2 months ago
Reply to  Cherrera

Obama didn’t get us into any wars; he just tried to manage the ones Bush left him. Bosnia didn’t drag on for twenty years.

Vote for whomever you like. Just sayin’ that if you vote Republican, it increases the likelihood of another war. Trump was making rumblings about invading Iran, remember?

Cherrera
Cherrera
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

Trump was the least war-mongering president we’ve had in decades. In addition to not pulling out of wars like he promised, Obama gutted the military/intelligence agencies of some of their best officers and replaced them with evil, woke fools. That’s why we have the likes of Milley Vanilli and his copycats running the show now.
Why has Obama Fired 197 US Senior Military Commanders in 5 years? (nine Generals in 2013) | America-Wake-Up

Again, no Evangelical should be voting for this.

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

Bush was President whilst we were actively physically attacked as you may recall. There are some who might not consider the Americans as having started that war…..

On the whole though the idea that Republicans engage in combat and Democrats don’t is just statistically absurd. The big difference between the two isn’t in bloodshed, but in which party pretends to oppose all bloodshed when the opposing party is in power.

Micael Gustavsson
Micael Gustavsson
2 months ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

Iraq didn’t attack the US. Neither did Afghanistan, but they hosted the leader/leaders of the terrorist organization that did, and refused to give them up, so that seems more justified.

Ken B
Ken B
2 months ago
Reply to  Cherrera

Would it be possible to drop the word tyranny? I have just watched three programmes on the former East Germany, and that really was a tyranny. The complete control of both public and private life by the Party. There are many countries today where this is still the case, and Christians are suffering in them. The West may be drifting in an unhealthy direction in this regard, compulsory vaccination comes to mind, but for example mask mandates as irritating as they are are not tyranny, nor represent the persecution of believers as they apply to everyone. I have a similar… Read more »

Cherrera
Cherrera
2 months ago
Reply to  Ken B

Nope. I’ve been in communist countries. The U.S. may not be close to than level of tyranny yet, but calling them the party of at least incipient tyranny isn’t a stretch. 1) Biden & the Dems have been calling roughly half the republic “domestic terrorists” since January. This is the same Biden who called Antifa an idea. And that’s the same Antifa who played a large role in $2 billion of damages in George Floyd rioting, has declared multiple “autonomous zones” (clear acts of sedition) and taken part in murders and hundreds of assaults in recent years. Biden’s Dept. of… Read more »

Ken B
Ken B
1 month ago
Reply to  Cherrera

The U.S. may not be close to than level of tyranny yet, but calling them the party of at least incipient tyranny isn’t a stretch.

I think that is reasonable. If is very difficult to judge just how serious the situation is when, for example, James White on the dividing line seems to equate any government interference in personal liberty (like masking or restricting gatherings) with the country slipping in to Soviet mode.

Even evangelicals seem to have drifted into an each man did what was right in his own eyes mode of thinking.

The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
2 months ago
Reply to  Ken B

“Would it be possible to drop the word tyranny?”

Sure, as soon as we drop tyrants such as President Asterisk and the Dwarf.

The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

Mike: “Biden may have bungled getting us out of Afghanistan…” May have bungled? Either Grandpa Badfinger severely bungled getting us out of Afghanistan, which means he’s royally incompetent and not fit to hold office, or he takes orders from the CCP, which means he’s a traitor and not fit to hold office. Come to think of it, if Biden bungled the exit, that also makes him a traitor, because he gave aid and comfort to the enemy, the Taliban, by leaving billions of dollars worth of functional military equipment behind. Mike: “[Biden’s] not the guy who sent us there in… Read more »

Mike Freeman
Mike Freeman
2 months ago

Commenter FKA FP: No one expected the Afghan forces would fold in days. Based on what was believed at the time — that they would hold out for at least several months — Biden’s actions were not completely unreasonable. And given the short time crunch before the country fell altogether, he actually did a pretty good job in the time frame he had to work with. As far as your either/or, the name for that logical fallacy is “false alternative.” Try googling it if you’re not familiar with it. (“If it ain’t Christmas, it must be the Fourth of July”)… Read more »

Jonathan (the conservative one)
Jonathan (the conservative one)
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

Correction: Biden is every bit the incompetent fool the conservative media makes him out to be, but he’s corrupt and evil on the side, too.

“he actually did a pretty good job in the time frame he had to work with” -you sure you want to stand by that statement? Because, no? He didn’t? Like, at all?

But when you are this deluded, I’m not sure anyone telling you so is going to do much good…

Jane
Jane
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

If something happened in a country where we had significant military and intelligence assets that “no one expected,” then there was a colossal failure somewhere along the line. And the person in charge of the situation is in charge of the failure. “Buck stops here” and all that.

But that’s not what happened. Some people did expect it. Biden and his national security staff had the analysis of those who expected i presented to them. They chose to disregard it in favor of other analysis. Which is also a failure.

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

And given the short time crunch before the country fell altogether, he actually did a pretty good job in the time frame he had to work with.”

He created the short time crunch, for no reason whatsoever. Then he failed to secure the pathway to the airport. Then he promised on national television that no Americans would be left behind. Then Americans were left behind.

You either have to be deeply uninformed, or devote yourself to the pursuit of moral corruption to take this position Mike.

Will
Will
2 months ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

You might want reconsider your conclusion.

From factcheck.org

The Trump administration in February 2020 negotiated a withdrawal agreement with the Taliban that excluded the Afghan government, freed 5,000 imprisoned Taliban soldiers and set a date certain of May 1, 2021, for the final withdrawal.
And the Trump administration kept to the pact, reducing U.S. troop levels from about 13,000to 2,500, even though the Taliban continued to attack Afghan government forces and welcomed al-Qaeda terrorists into the Taliban leadership.

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/08/timeline-of-u-s-withdrawal-from-afghanistan/

Jane
Jane
2 months ago
Reply to  Will

And Biden is 100% responsible for following the Trump plan if that is in fact the reason that things went south. He was under no obligation to abide by a plan that the Taliban had already violated. So again, it’s Biden’s incompetence in following a bad plan, if that is indeed how it went down. There is no way that Biden is not responsible for the execution and sticking with previous plans that he had absolute freedom to alter (and arguably obligation to alter given the facts on the ground), regardless of whether someone else came up with the idea.… Read more »

Will
Will
2 months ago
Reply to  Jane

If you and Justin had taken an equally hard stance at Trump’s maleficence over the last 5 years (e.g. his Covid debacle, his inciting of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, his continuing spread of false claims regarding the election), your criticism of Biden would be much more credible. Your double standard weakens your criticism.

Jane
Jane
2 months ago
Reply to  Will

What information do you have about what stances I have taken about Trump?

Will
Will
2 months ago
Reply to  Jane

Would you care to enlighten me?

Jane
Jane
2 months ago
Reply to  Will

No, not really. It’s off topic and not germane. How about you just withdraw your baseless, speculative assertion about what stances I’ve taken about Trump and we’ll leave the conversation there?

Will
Will
2 months ago
Reply to  Jane

That’s pretty much what I expected from you. I’ll stick with my assertion. I’m confident it’s accurate.

Jane
Jane
1 month ago
Reply to  Will

And I’m confident you beat up puppies for fun. I have just as much evidence for that as you have for your assertion. Does false witness mean nothing to you?

Will
Will
1 month ago
Reply to  Jane

You tell me. You just did.

Jonathan (the conservative one)
Jonathan (the conservative one)
1 month ago
Reply to  Will

hmmmm, while we’re busy looking at false claims, why don’t we find where Trump incited the Jan. 6 attack? Because I’m pretty sure he said not to…

But of course, I’m not a lefty, so facts don’t change to suit my opinion like they apparently do to suit yours :D

Only someone who likes dead babies can vote for Biden in good conscience Will. Or Jonathan. Or whoever you are.

The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

Mike: “[Biden] actually did a pretty good job in the time frame he had to work with.” Yup, the Taliban is back with a vengeance, with way more firepower than they had in July. Heckuva job, Joey! Mike: “As far as your either/or, the name for that logical fallacy is ‘false alternative.'” There is no universe where an American president* acting against America’s interest by deliberately handing America a humiliating defeat in a time of war is a good thing. You might want to see a doctor about that cranial-rectal inversion you’re sporting before you suffocate. Mike: “And yes, he… Read more »

Kabul Saigon.jpeg
Gray
Gray
2 months ago
Reply to  Gray

While I understand zeal, the conversation engaged in mission creep. The original premise is draft registration (and subsequent conscription) of “wives, daughters and sisters for military duty.” The R vs D is a straw man; judgement starts first in the house of God. The modern E trait of being the “shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition” is the fundamental reason we are here on the X. That trait has genetic similarity to the same mentality that sends children into government indoctrination centers on a daily basis. Of course they will send them into military conscription; they… Read more »

Robert
Robert
2 months ago

Thanks a lot for your clarifying, very helpful, corrective, insightful response to my letter about you and John Piper, pastor Wilson. The more I see you both getting along robustly together in Christ really does my heart good in encouragement.

Mike M.
Mike M.
2 months ago

So…time to stick the fork in the power socket. I am in full agreement that it is possible for a man to sin sexually against his wife. I would agree that there exist contexts in which a woman may lawfully refuse the advances of her husband, and that for him to force himself on her would be a terrible abuse and sin against her and God. And in a society that had a marginally sane view on sexual relationships, I would not hesitate to refer to both this sin, and that of a man forcing himself sexually on an unwilling… Read more »

Last edited 2 months ago by Mike M.
Jill Smith
Jill Smith
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike M.

You present the problem very clearly. There is clearly such a thing as marital rape and, even when it wasn’t considered criminal in itself, the injuries done to the wife often were. But most married people don’t have the same understanding of consent that colleges these days are teaching their incoming freshmen. “May I unbutton your blouse? Are you okay with my kissing you? Can I undo your bra? Is this okay with you and do you want me to keep going?” Remembering back to my married days, it seems to me that spouses sort of feel free to make… Read more »

john m
john m
2 months ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

On the other hand isn’t it abandonment if the wife always has a “headache”? Obviously if a marriage reaches the point where either spouse is withholding sex then there are far deeper problems in the marriage than just sexual deprivation.

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
2 months ago
Reply to  john m

Yes, of course. “You can’t proceed without my consent–and good luck trying to get it” is abandonment and what the Catholics of my youth called “refusal to pay the marriage debt.” They were sure good at coming up with repellent terms for nice things!

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
2 months ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

And nice names for terrible things. I sure like the sound of indulgences.

The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
2 months ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

“The whole thing would be easier to sort out if we had clearer categories.” Jilly, is marriage not a clear enough category for you? Last I checked, “I do” is consent for sex. 1 Corinthians 7:3-5: “The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote… Read more »

Will
Will
2 months ago

Are you married?

The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
2 months ago
Reply to  Will

Is Scripture authoritative?

Will
Will
2 months ago

I’ll take your dodge as a no.

The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
2 months ago
Reply to  Will

And I’ll take your dodge as a no.

That being the case, you’re on the wrong blog. You can vamoose now.

Will
Will
2 months ago

Since I asked you first, how about you answer my question and then I’ll answer yours.

The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
2 months ago
Reply to  Will

Your question is irrelevant. A dodge.

Mine isn’t.

If you can’t deal with what I wrote, then say so. Otherwise, get lost.

Will
Will
2 months ago

On second thought, skip it. I’ve no interest in your reply. I hope you find help for you anger issues.

The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
2 months ago
Reply to  Will

Typical. When you can’t deal with the message, go after the messenger. Same old play out of the same old, musty playbook.

It never ceases to amuse me, though. One can’t be angry when one is laughing.

Jonathan (the conservative one)
Jonathan (the conservative one)
1 month ago
Reply to  Will

I bet Will is just an alt account Jonathan the lib created. He’s mysteriously absent from this thread after all…

Thomas Bauer
Thomas Bauer
2 months ago

Of course it is. Additionally, understanding how a wife and husband relate requires wisdom. Wisdom most often only obtained by applying Scripture in the context of marriage. If you are not married, your prior response is easily understood as a foolish one, because from the looks of Will and Jills comments, I don’t think they would argue with the verse you quoted. But it takes wisdom to understand how to apply that verse. When should I yield and when should she yield? When do we watch the movie I want or go to the shop she wants? We have a… Read more »

The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
2 months ago
Reply to  Thomas Bauer

Thomas, you don’t understand how this works, do you? Whether or not I’m married is irrelevant. Going after the person making the argument is a poor attempt at hiding the fact you have nothing. Only fatheads engage in ad-hominem.

Now, if you’d like to dispute what I actually said, then feel free. If you think I said something foolish, then it’s your job to identify the statement and tell us why it’s foolish, not my job to divine it.

Thomas Bauer
Thomas Bauer
1 month ago

So its fairly relevant to the case. It’s not ad-hominem to ask if you have wisdom on a wisdom topic.

I did dispute what you said. I specifically argued that the application of that verse in marraige requires wisdom and cannot be applied ham-handidly.

The scripture you quote is accurate. However, you present your argument as if the “I do” gives a license for one spouse to railroad the other. The remainder of your argument is sound.

The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
1 month ago
Reply to  Thomas Bauer

Unless my marital status somehow magically changes what I wrote and the Scripture I quoted, then it’s not relevant. You didn’t dispute what I said; you disputed what you thought I said. Big difference. I gave no specifics about how the verse should be applied. Thomas: “However, you present your argument as if the “I do” gives a license for one spouse to railroad the other.” Based on what? Your assumptions? Look, I get that this whole discussion thread isn’t taking place in a vacuum, but how about making an attempt to determine what I actually believe before jumping to… Read more »

Will
Will
2 months ago
Reply to  Thomas Bauer

Thomas,

I’ve conclude that it’s counter productive to attempt to have a reasoned discussion with The Commenter Formerly Known as fp fellow. A brief look back through the last several weeks of his postings reveals a rude and angry person. Further engagement is a waste of my time.

Last edited 2 months ago by Will
Thomas Bauer
Thomas Bauer
1 month ago
Reply to  Will

I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he’s just fed up with people not taking scripture seriously. Because there is plenty of that going on in the threads on this site.

Also, “rudeness” can very useful against the hard hearted. While it gives them “ammo” (which they would get anyway), it gives no ground.

What’s unfortunate is that he’s attacking someone who is also a Biblical absolutionist.

Jonathan (the conservative one)
Jonathan (the conservative one)
1 month ago
Reply to  Will

A brief look at you reveals an SJW liberal troll. Further engagement is a waste of our time.

Cherrera
Cherrera
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike M.

Based on surveys, online forums and conversations I’ve had in the last decade or two, sexless marriages are a big elephant in the room that few want to discuss. And some men I’ve talked to have been threatened with marital rape charges if they even get fresh with Mrs. “I’m done after three kids.” I’m not saying men should force sex in such situations–not at all. But many are left with the unfortunate dilemma of unwanted celibacy or a costly, painful (especially for the kids) divorce.

Thomas Bauer
Thomas Bauer
1 month ago
Reply to  Cherrera

You gotta do the dishes if you want in her britches.

demosthenes1d
demosthenes1d
1 month ago
Reply to  Cherrera

I wonder about the contours of that phenomena. Surveys show that Americans are having much less sex, but the main reason is that so many fewer people are getting married and, contrary to popular depictions, married people have sex much more often than unmarried (should be obvious). However, surveys have found smaller declines in sexual frequency among married people – it is pretty small when you control for age (old people obviously have less sex, and as younger generations don’t get married the median age of a married person has climbed significantly) but it is definitely there, and it seems… Read more »

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
1 month ago
Reply to  demosthenes1d

I think that long work days also play a role. When both spouses are working 70 hours a week in the hope of making partner, they come home too tired and irritable to want to do anything but sleep!

demosthenes1d
demosthenes1d
1 month ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

Jill,

IFS looked into that and found that hour worked had a positive effect on frequency for men and basically no effect for women (going off memory here, could be wrong). I thought that seemed like an obvious culprit, given that most of the drop is in more affluent couples.

Also worth noting that educated peoples marriage rate held up ok while working and lower class peoples plummeted, but for younger Millenials and on the marriage rate for those with bachelor’s is plummeting too.

Jon
Jon
2 months ago

My error. Disregard

Last edited 2 months ago by Jon
Malachi Tarchannen
Malachi Tarchannen
2 months ago

Spanky McFarland!! Yay!!
That brought a smile to my face…