Letters Rounding into the Straight

Sharing Options
Show Outline with Links

Maricopa Yeah But

This is not the article I wanted to read on the Maricopa County audit. In the first place, I wanted the audit to blow the lid off of a massive fraud. But since that didn’t happen, I was hoping for an article that took seriously the fact that the audit didn’t uncover a conspiracy. It actually verified the results, and that comes from the chief Cyber Ninja himself, via his interview on CrossPolitic.

You are not applying the principles of presumed innocence. You’re hand waving them away, suggesting that those only apply when it comes time for someone to personally face jail time. This is nonsense. We are all morally bound not to treat accusations, whether of individuals or of institutions, as if they were verdicts nor to transform allegations into conclusions. The fact, and it is a horrible fact, that our country is one big walking sham lately is sufficient to question everything, but it is insufficient to conclude anything.

There is such a thing as getting away with it in this life. And there is sometimes a responsibility to pronounce “not guilty” about a situation we will find disturbing for the rest of our lives. We have a duty in these things, and sometimes our duty is to lose, to admit failure, to leave room for God to sort it out.

I am certain that you know all this, as you’ve written plainly and instructively about it in other situations. I hope you’ll give us a good example of how to speak about a situation one feels strongly about but lacks sufficient evidence to claim certainty.

We both know your opponents won’t be satisfied with that either.

Nathan

Nathan, thanks for the sober and responsible push back. I do know the principle, and not only pursue it other situations, but I seek to pursue it in other electoral situations. A bad outcome in an election does not equal a crooked outcome in an election, and I was (and am) prepared to acknowledge that here. But the question mark remains hovering over this particular election because of the behavior of those defying the subpoena, for example. I did not keep the question mark in play—that was accomplished by others. In the meantime, I would strongly urge you to get that Chronicles article I mentioned.

As a resident of Maricopa County, I need to say, first, thanks for your careful thinking on the issue. I’ve heard “There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud” uttered too many times at too high a volume to just buy it outright. I do need to point out, however, that the Maricopa County of the previous 72 years is no more. This Maricopa County is the recipient of California’s “Blue Flight.” This Maricopa County voted in an open-borders senator. This county has been subverted by the left for years now.

Stanley

Stanley, thanks and point taken. But the most relevant comparison is to just four years ago, and you have to factor in the strong Republican gain in the last four years.

Gotta Get Out of This Place

How do I unsubscribe? I repent of receiving your newsletter. I pray that you repent for not holding men accountable to love their wives as Christ loves the church. Douglas Wilson, you do have a lot to answer for but not to me. You will answer to your Lord Jesus Christ. God have mercy upon your soul.

Christie

Christie, you unsubscribe the same way you got in. There should be a button at the bottom of an opened up blog post. God bless.

Honest Inquiry

I just sent a similar letter in another area but it looks like this is the proper place for this inquiry.

My husband and I are faithful listeners and subscribers to Canon Press and we love all the great information. So when someone at church tiled me that there is a current sex scandal at Christ Church which involved the leadership of the church, I was shocked and heartbroken. So as we are commended to do, in Scripture, I’m going to the source to find out if this is true or just awful gossip. I hope this is not true. After the Ravi Zacharias, we have to be above reproach. Please put this issue to rest.

Thank you

Connie

Connie, thanks for checking. Not everybody does. There is no sex scandal involving the leadership of the church.

Is Evil Decreed?

I finished watching your debate on ‘Does God Decree All Evil’ and it was very eye-opening.

My question is; does this mean atheists actually have a point when they say, ‘If God is real, then why did He make me an atheist?’

It seems that God did, in fact, make them an atheist (at least for the moment) and God also wrote that catchphrase, as well.

Am I understanding this correctly?

Love your work. May His grace be upon you.

Myles

Myles, yes. God decrees all things that come to pass, and since atheists come to pass, He decrees that also. But when it comes to human agency, God not only decrees what men will do, He decrees that they will do it freely, and as responsible moral agents. So the atheist is right that God decreed his impudence, but wrong that he is therefore not to blame for it.

Vaccines Still

I’m a civilian working for the Department of Defense. I’m curious about your thoughts on how a Christian should consider the current vaccine mandates. I have no religious objection to the vaccine and also believe them to be the best choice medically for many individuals. I swore an oath to the Constitution, not a president. My military leadership is set on enforcing the order (while acknowledging behind closed doors the order may not be legal). I may or may not become “fully vaccinated” by the deadline. I am having a hard time justifying spending my productive years serving a country that is trending more and more authoritarian. I would be leaving a very good career and don’t know what my next job would be. I have 5 children and a wife to provide for. Several of my peers have contacted me for advice as well. I look forward to any advice or perspective you may offer.

Michael

Michael, my best advice here would be that you follow your conscience. At the same time, if you can help it, you don’t want to be all alone in it, and this is a moment when you are most likely to have good company.

Your ministry has been a big blessing to me, and has changed my life in many ways. Thank you for your efforts. I have a question. We here in my town are starting a new church. One of our struggles is figuring out where to start when it comes to eldership, membership, and things of that nature. We have people coming from lots of different church backgrounds because we are the only ones willing to defy lockdowns. Everyone has different views on these leadership and structural issues. How do we avoid putting carts before horses? We don’t want to be alienating people by rushing into an elder-led structure before people are okay with it. How can a church leadership be all things to all men? Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks so much,

Rhys

Rhys, if you are worshiping together now, you have a default government, a default way of making decisions. And whatever that is will become the norm by the time this is all over. If you are good with that, let it be. If you are not good with that, then I would have the hard debates now.

A suggestion concerning those Christians and Christian organizations—churches and schools, etc.—who are eagerly and enthusiastically enforcing the pointless state masking (and now even vaccine) mandates: I don’t have time to write the essay, and you’d do it infinitely better in any case, but I can offer the title. It should write itself, really:

‘A Masquerade in Stockholm’

Feel free to use it–no attribution necessary.

Cheers.

Bryan

Bryan, too late. If I do that, this is your attribution. Great title.

I received an email from my company yesterday asking all of its employees to self report their vaccination status. They have not said they are going to mandate employees be vaccinated, but they said they will be complying with federal and OSHA standards. My question is there any reason not to report to them that I am not vaccinated?! Would there a viable reason not to report? I am attaching a portion of the email(see below)

“You are required to provide accurate information about your COVID-19 vaccination status. If you decline, we will be required to treat you as unvaccinated for purposes of the new federal vaccine mandate that is now applicable to our workforce. Additional, pertinent information about our efforts to comply with the new federal COVID-19 vaccine mandate will be shared as we receive it.”

Do you have any thoughts?

Ryan

Ryan, right now your response could be that there is no federal mandate to that effect.

You’ve been a beacon of light in these times. I’d love to hear you address your take on COVID testing in the workplace in one of your blogs. I work at a Christian university (along the coast of CA) that is requiring weekly COVID testing for both vaccinated and unvaccinated people. This really rubs me the wrong way. I feel like I’m losing my integrity to comply with this requirement b/c I feel like I’m participating in the hysteria of it all. It feels like allowing myself to be enslaved. Would love your thoughts here!! Thanks!!

Kelly

Kelly, this is the sort of thing that would strike me as tedious also. It is also revelatory, in that it shows that those Christian educators who are ostensibly providing students with a Christian worldview don’t have one themselves. But I wouldn’t put it in the same category as mandated vaccines.

After listening to your various commentaries on the subject of Christian vaccination evasion, and when it is proper to engage in these activities, I have been approached by the military to submit a questionnaire to apply for my religious exemption from this exercise of tyranny. In your post On Humming “A Mighty Fortress” Through Your Masks, you mention that we Christians should not, according to Westminster, give up the convictions of the Holy Spirit on any matter. As I am well convicted participating in the mass vaccination effort by the painted faces behind the curtain is an affront to freedom and Christian liberty, how ought I best to answer the myriad of confusing questions sent to me by my chaplain? If possible, I would like to send the document itself, if that would aid you in providing a thorough and informed response should you chose to. Thank you for your work in the Lord, may He continue to bless you as you bless others.

Michael

Michael, I believe that we can refuse the vaccine out of conscience, but I don’t think we need to consider “answering questions about our conscience” as a matter of conscience. We should be ready to explain, ready to answer, ready to testify.

Interesting VAERs Stats

Year CSV File Size

2021 480.51 MB (Jan – Sept 2021)

2020 42.23 MB

2019 41.38 MB

Of all the 2021 data – 97% of the adverse reactions are related to COVID vaccines – with symptoms of Death in 1.01%

Blair

Blair, thanks.

A Sad Situation

First, I want to thank you for your sound Bible teaching. I have been greatly blessed by reading your blog. I have a problem and I don’t know where else to turn, so I’m hoping you can help me.

I am a 71-year-old widow. My husband did not leave me anything so I live from hand to mouth. I have an adult son who is doing very well financially. Unfortunately he is a sodomite who lives with his partner. I did not raise him that way and I am so ashamed; my heart is broken and I pray for God to deliver him night and day.

Anyway, he takes care of me but he won’t give me any money because he knows that I tithe, and he doesn’t want any of “his money” going to churches that preach the truth about sodomy. So he pays my bills directly, takes me grocery shopping, and buys me things if I need them, but he will not give me money. That’s just for background so you know what I’m dealing with.

My health is beginning to decline, and I’m afraid I won’t be able to live on my own for much longer. I have asked him to put me in an assisted living facility when the time comes. He says why should he pay for an assisted living facility when he has a big house with lots of room where I can live for free. So I’m afraid that I’m going to end up living with two sodomites, which I don’t think I can stand.

His partner is a complete piece of work. Every time I try to tell them what the Bible says about homosexuality, he gives me a patronizing kiss on the forehead, says, “You’re very silly,” and changes the subject. I don’t want him anywhere near me.

So what do I do? I literally have no one else. Thank you for any advice you can give me.

SW

SW, I am very sorry to hear all this, and it really is a tragedy. I would encourage you to stop trying to persuade them verbally, which is likely to make them want to double down. I would adjust Peter’s instructions to wives (1 Pet. 3), and take what the Lord sends to you without a word. Having said that, I would pour out all the words you have to the Lord, pleading for deliverance.

Dictionary Query

I enjoy & appreciate listening to the content put forth by you & your family. Which edition of Brewer’s Dictionary did you read? I want to order one for my brother.

Thank you,

JIll

The edition I am reading is the 17th. I hope your brother enjoys it as much as I have.

Re Episode 209. Only one question. Has your philodiction “habit” brought you to Bierce’s Devil’s Dictionary? My guess would be “soytenly” (as Moe would say).

Deo vindice,

Bob

Bob, yes. I have read Bierce multiple times.

Baptism Debate?

I am not writing in about any specific post, but with a request. I know you and Dr. James White are good friends, and I have been waiting for y’all to sit down and have a debate on baptism. As someone who is a little up in the air on the issue, I would love to see y’all come together and argue your sides as brothers in Christ and friends. Has this been discussed or put in the works? Would y’all consider having a friendly debate on the topic?

Thanks,

Levi

Levi, thank you. Something is in the works.

The Mark of the Beast

What is your take on the Mark of the beast and where we going from here. We are in New Zealand and a lot of fear is been broadcasting all over.

We must stand on Christ, we need encouragement Brother. We have changed our outlook about all hell will break loose into a more positive future. Where Jesus is bringing rule and peace more and more.

What is your take on these days we are living in right now?

Brother in Christ!

Dear brother in Christ. I don’t think any of this is the mark of the beast from Revelation, but I do think that over the centuries beasts have a tendency to think in remarkably similar ways. But the beast of Revelation was Nero—and we are still here, and he is all gone.

Vice and All That

Greetings, Pastor Wilson. I just read your well-written response to the Vice brouhaha. While I’m saddened that so much vitriol is sent your way—both from pagans and “kinsfolk” in Christ—you’ve done a good job of responding with grace. I’m also glad you included the Gospel. My prayers are with you all.

Grace and peace…

Michael

Michael, thank you.

What a marvel and joy to watch a warrior of Christ capably pluck a twisted, haphazardly launched arrow from his shield, whittle the extraneous bent wood down to always-straight heart wood, then fit the reclaimed wood with a broad tip of surgical precision to answer a specific task. What beauty it was to witness the once crooked arrow, expertly fashioned a weapon of war, driven into the heart of the threat. Christ’s soldiers courageously answer threats with no more and no less force needed to subdue the enemy using resources at hand. Well done servant

Nicole

Nicole, thank you, and thank the Lord.

“But in general, take my advice, when you meet anything that is going to be Human and isn’t yet, or used to be Human once and isn’t now, or ought to be Human and isn’t, you keep your eyes on it and feel for your hatchet.”—LWW, C.S. Lewis Praying for you and the whole extended fam. I would send you a bottle of wine (the cost of which corresponds to the amount of flack you’re receiving), but all of my discretionary income is tied up in canning supplies and ammo. Joking . . . not joking.

Onward and upward my friend…

Chris

Chris, thanks. Just name a box of ammo after us, and that should suffice.

Would you mind elaborating on your assertion about church leaders voicing “solidarity or sympathy” with the Vice piece being “DQ’d”? I frequently have great conversations regarding your posts here, but that particular paragraph created more heat than light, as they say. The sticking point seemed to be your use of the word “sympathy” in that context.

The thrust of your argument seemed to me to say that if a church leader is so eager to seek approval from the social media mob through dissociation and/or so quick to assign guilt (on the testimony of a witness like Vice, no less) that it amounts to a character unfit for leadership. As far as “sympathy” is concerned, we can and should have sympathy (“feelings of sorrow for someone else’s misfortune”) for victims of sexual abuse insofar as their stories are accurate. Conversely, we should not have sympathy (“agreement or approval of an opinion or aim”) with the author of the Vice article outside of determining that her conclusions are valid.

Can you settle this “once and for all”?

Michael

Michael, yes. I was talking about sympathy with the allegation, not with a particular person. I probably expressed it poorly, but I was talking about Christian leaders who would not be relieved if they found out the allegations were entirely false.

With regard to “Like a Tabloid Tarantula”, may I suggest that the following belongs on a plaque or a testimonial page (or something of the sort) for Doug :

“. . . A Christian philosopher-king . . .” —VICE

Nathaniel

Nathaniel, that’s the spirit . . .

My Fiction

Please tell me you have another fiction book ready?!?!?

Ryan

Ryan, I am working on another one, yes. The first draft is a little over half done.

Just wanted to let you know I just finished my third Douglas Wilson book (Ecochondriacs) and I have enjoyed all three books very much (Flags Out Front & Evangellyfish). My only complaint is that they need to be longer. I have to slow down my reading so I can continue to look forward to reading some of the book each day!

Gary

Gary, thanks very much. Part of learning how to write fiction (in my case anyway) has to do with pacing. But when the horse sees the barn, he heads for it.

Patriarchal and Then Some

Hello! I was virtually eavesdropping on a recent Twitter exchange and it sparked a question I hope you could answer. I’ve seen this particular person make this argument before, and it always felt a bit off to me. So, in a nutshell: This woman, we’ll call A, a patriarchal anti-feminist Christian, believes that wives may not correct or rebuke their husbands’ sins. At all. The husband has authority in the relationship and therefore only he may correct her, she may not correct him. Woman B is also a patriarchal, anti-feminist Christian, and pushed back. If your husband is falling into sin, a wife may and perhaps is obligated to call him to repentance. She mentioned that of course don’t be a nag on every little mistake he makes, and when you do confront him do it respectfully and lovingly. She brought up the verse about if a brother sins against you go to him about it. Woman A disagreed, and said that verse is only referring to men correcting men, women do not have that authority (hence brothers). She did cede that if your husband wants to correct him you can, but you should only phrase it as a suggestion. And a man who jumped in said that men should have friends and elders to correct them, not their wives. B brought up that this then leaves a wife with the only option of running around to ‘tattle’ when her husband falls into sin, which obviously wouldn’t fly with A and the other man either because it undermines the husband. So really . . . a wife has no options to correct/rebuke/confront/call to repentance—whatever you want to call it—when her husband sins (it seemed that the semantics may have been a factor in the disagreement. A seemed to view correcting and rebuking as reading the riot act, rather than ‘honey, I love and respect you but you need to repent.’).

So….what is the answer? Does a wife has the right to lovingly and respectfully confront her husband over sin, or does she just keep her mouth shut and hope his friends or elders notice?

Anonymous

Anonymous, as long as the qualifiers that you mentioned are remembered (respectfully, lovingly, not over trifles), Wife B is absolutely correct. On more than one occasion I have wished that wives married to Nabals were more like Abigail.

That Wilson Character

I do not know if you will be comfortable answering this or not. If not, no big deal.

My family and I recently found, and began attending, a faithful OPC church. It is not a stretch to say that we have been looking for this church for years. The worship is well ordered and scripturally faithful. The preaching is true to the text. Christ is the central focus in all of it. The people are genuinely friendly. The elders are all, near as I can tell, qualified and godly men.

Our family is in the category of what one might playfully call “Doug Heads.” We stop pretty well short of offering fruit at the feet of golden statues, but we really appreciate you and yours. Now, you may or may not be aware, but you are a semi-controversial figure in much of the Reformed world. Really. I hope you were sitting down when you read that. Here’s the situation.

I knew that it was not beyond the scope of possibilities that your name would eventually come up in conversation at some point. So I decided to send a private email to the pastor, telling him of my appreciation for much of your material, etc. His response was very gracious, essentially saying that he doesn’t care for your shenanigans, but that my personal appreciation for your writing, teaching, etc, would not be an impediment to our continuing through the membership process or to friendship between him and me.

He did ask that I not promote any Doug Wilson/Moscow related material at the church, to which I happily agreed. There are many glorified saints who lived and died, never having heard of Doug Wilson. So, no problem. However, he did express openness to sitting with me and talking about the issues involved at some point, to which I responded that I would be very willing to do so, but that I don’t feel like I absolutely need to. I don’t think it is necessary to try to convert everyone to my view of everything and everyone.

In one of his emails he briefly mentioned several of the undying, but as I have come to see it, canardic charges that swirl around the internet (plagiarism, toleration of sexual sin, fuzziness on sola fide, and so on). What I wonder is this: If he and I were to ever sit down and discuss the troubler of Moscow, is there any advice you might have as to how I, as one who desires to show respectful submission to those in authority over me, yet as one who believes very strongly that you have been grossly slandered, might approach such an interaction? If he is open to looking at counter-evidence, are there maybe two or three articles, lectures, books, sermons that I might show him? I do have the Blog & Mablog controversy library in the holster already. But if you were to offer a defense of yourself to an open minded Reformed pastor, what might you want him to hear or see?

I don’t plan to push anything and this conversation may never happen. I refuse to jeopardize our relationship with what is truly a very good church, which I often despaired of ever finding, over this, and I am sure you wouldn’t want me to. But, my question stands. In the event of a meeting and an willingness on my pastor’s part to re-examine things, what might you encourage me to bring to his attention?

I am not leaving a name in order to maintain confidence. I am sure you understand.

X

X, my advice would be this. Tell the pastor that you agree to all his stipulations (which you have already done), and that you would like to sit down to discuss these thing after you and your family have been members for a year. That way, he can see that you did not just promise to not make trouble, you actually did not make trouble. With that as the backdrop, I would then suggest that the way you have lived in their midst has been, in part, a fruit of the ministry here.

The Savage Gods

RE: Savage Gods As sometimes happens, though thankfully not often, I came to the end of this without much understanding of what you were saying.

The next day I went at it again, and it all fell into place.

And so I write for my brethren who may be similarly slow on the uptake- hang in there, it’ll always be worth the effort. II Peter 3.15-18

Steve

Steve, thank you for persevering . . .

Your piece, “Preparing for the Savage Gods” brings conviction to my heart about the common idols that need to be dethroned, and leave me fearful of the possibility that I may have idols that must be torn down. I will be seeking the Holy Spirit’s conviction in this regard. Thank you for this prompting. I would like to comment on the idea that the gospel is apolitical. Based on your evaluation, they who hold to an apolitical gospel are wrong. The triune God has a people, a polis, set aside for Himself. That being true, the gospel is political. The reasons why our culture, even our brethren in some cases, want it to be apolitical is so that it won’t get into their politics and start tearing down, oh, say, Molech, or Asherahs. The gospel is political, we humans just keep trying to find a new party to try to avoid what it requires while trying to steal what if offers.

Mark

Mark, thanks.

Preparing for the Savage Gods

Holy smokes, man. Great post. Thank you very much.

Matthew

Matthew, thank you.

And Abraham Piper . . .

Never argue with a fool, because from a distance…

As of a few weeks ago, I didn’t know who Abraham Piper was . However, per the Canon weekly emails, I have since been made aware of his existence (and have been reminded of it, more than once).

After watching one of your responses to him, I ended up looking him up.

I read a tweet of him mocking the individuals “responding” to his videos as if he was one giving a doctorate dissertation, and not simply some jackass who is on YouTube.

I thought about it, and realized that he had a valid point . . .

Look, I get it that John Piper is one of the most highly regarded theologians of this century, and that Abraham is the son of John Piper. However, being John Piper’s son doesn’t make Abraham an individual with authority. He is nothing more than a troll (and a troll who openly admits this). The more you talk about him, the more air you blow into his balloon. Sure, if his balloon gets REALLY big, it might nudge some clicks toward your online content, but is that really the type of clicks you desire to get? I think a Zero Point Energy approach might be better. If you don’t give him attention, he doesn’t draw the narcissistic energy he craves to pull from you.

Surely, he’s got a lot of followers on TikTok, and seems to be making a nice little nest egg for himself. However, not a single thing in the world could get a guy like him a more sustainable measure of attention (criticizing Christianity in the way he does), other than the most significant theologians of our day making a fuss over him.

He has no authority, and likely never will have authority. However, if you keep making arguments to his videos, people might get confused about this.

So many times I’ve been filled with joy over the last few years with your use of Chesterton quotes. So many times, I’ve been encouraged by your eschaton. However, last week I was so disgusted to see you (again) speak of this individual that this week, I was unable to stomach to open the Canon email that came to me. So, I figured I’d write you and let you know.

Regarding Abraham Piper, I think you should revisit some of your own recent posts, and the advice which is contained within…

“Let Caesar have what is Caesar’s,” and “Don’t take the bait.”

Sincerely, And With All Due Respect,

Daniel

Daniel, Abraham appears to be steeped in his sin. But he has millions of followers, and I am speaking primarily to them.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
75 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
JSM
JSM
5 days ago

None of your responses showed up

Jordan
Jordan
5 days ago

First!

Elisabeth
Elisabeth
5 days ago

Jag-Croc!Oof!

Mert Nixon
Mert Nixon
5 days ago

He gave two responses. The rest he has answered over and over and over. He is not God! God is God! Pray and go “To the Word, To the Word.” Do you remember who it was who said ”what’s wrong with you people?”

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
5 days ago

“Abraham appears to be steeped in his sin. But he has millions of followers, and I am speaking primarily to them.”

While the videos make for good content, I’m not very confident they’re productive if they are targeted at Abraham’s followers. A fairly universal constant of anti-Christian social media channels is that their followers are not people curious for analysis. They’re people who utterly revile Christians and Christianity already. Watching an Abraham Piper or a Thunderfoot or a Hasan Piker is like watching professional wrestling. Nobody’s in it for the sport.

JohnM
JohnM
5 days ago

Should SW look to her church, rather than to her son, for support? Could/ should her church treat her as a true widow?

Leslie
Leslie
5 days ago
Reply to  JohnM

It seems to me that her son is taking 1 Timothy to heart. Her son seems like a really good person. Would she feel the same way if her son was a glutton, thief, taking advantage of widows and orphans? She should count her blessings that her son takes care of her in spite of her hateful, judgmental spirit. I saw a post yesterday that said “ be careful who you hate, it may be someone you love “

Kristina Zubic
Kristina Zubic
5 days ago
Reply to  Leslie

He’s taking care of her on HIS terms. I wouldn’t feel too badly for him.

JohnM
JohnM
5 days ago
Reply to  Leslie

Whatever nice things he may do, it is not possible for her son to take 1 Timothy to heart, 1 Timothy being instructions written to Christians. If her son categorically identified as a glutton or a thief, and unabashedly lived out his professed identity, then she might well feel the same way. He kind of is an abuser of widows – at least one. If he really wants to be good to his mother then he will not take advantage of her penury and senescence by limiting her alternatives to one that she can’t stand, and that forces her to… Read more »

Nathan Tuggy
Nathan Tuggy
5 days ago
Reply to  Leslie

SW’s son can’t be taking I Timothy to heart if he’s deliberately ignoring what the author of I Timothy said about his lifestyle of sin, refusing to submit to or support churches that are preaching the truth. (On the other hand, it’s fairly straightforward for an average person, purely out of fleshly self-interest, to put a bit of effort and money into sponsoring someone close to them who is clearly very dependent on them. That’s a nice way to demonstrate what a good, rich, high-status person you are without having to really give up all that much. Nothing her son… Read more »

Jane
Jane
5 days ago
Reply to  Leslie

If her son were a thief who took advantage of widows and orphans and she used parallel language to what she has used in this letter to express her unhappiness over his way of life, would you call her hateful and judgmental?

Be careful who you accuse of the sin of hatred without evidence, because that’s actually a sin, too.

Jane
Jane
5 days ago
Reply to  Leslie

Also, do “really good people” keep their needy parents on a tight leash so that they can only have enough of their worldly needs to survive and refuse to consider their desires in how they wish to be taken care of? Is it hateful and judgmental to keep your mother so poor (despite being well off yourself) she can’t even give some money to the church, because you hate the church and judge it negatively?

Mike Freeman
Mike Freeman
4 days ago
Reply to  Jane

Jane, have you priced assisted living facilities recently? They’re hugely expensive. Without knowing just exactly how well off her son is, putting her in one could be a major financial hardship, and in point of fact, all kinds of people have to live with people they’d rather not for a whole host of reasons. I’m also not entirely unsympathetic to the concept that people should not contribute, even indirectly if they can avoid it, to causes they disagree with. It’s easy to take SW’s side because most of us agree with her on the gay issue. But if you look… Read more »

Jane
Jane
4 days ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

I’m not talking about the assisted living facility. I’m talking about the way he only gives her material things and refuses to give her any money. Providing enough for your mother to allow her to function like an adult is not “indirectly contributing” to anything. It’s providing for your mother, and letting HER decide where the money goes. When your employer pays you, he’s not contributing to any cause you contribute to, he’s giving you money because that is the reasonable and appropriate thing to do in the situation. And yes, I would agree with this if I was helping… Read more »

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
4 days ago
Reply to  Jane

If he is paying all her bills, she might not be in penury–but she has been forced into a state of unhealthy (and undignified) dependence which is probably more damaging in the long run. They’re both treating her like a tiresome child–with the result that she really doesn’t feel competent to run her own life. If the son is genuinely well disposed toward his mother, his goal should be to keep her living independently for as long as possible and to bring any necessary caregivers into her home, not his. Time to give her a monthly income and let her… Read more »

Jane
Jane
4 days ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

By penury I simply mean not a dime to call her own. He’s paying all of her bills but won’t let her have a dime. She may be living comfortably enough but he is not treating her “well” by any measure that any of us would wish to apply to our own situations, was my point. She really does need to have a church intervene here. They probably can’t do anything about son and partner, but I’m sure they could find a way to provide for her at least as well as she’s being provided for, without the passive-aggressive hostility… Read more »

Mike Freeman
Mike Freeman
4 days ago
Reply to  Jane

Actually, what Mike would say is that we need more facts. How well off is the son exactly? If she’s living in poverty, then even lower middle class may appear to her to be well off financially. For as much as we know, he may be flush with cash or not much better off than she is; we just don’t know. And we also don’t know if his hostility to her church has more of a basis than she let on; if he grew up in that church and they were nasty to him and treated him like dirt (which… Read more »

Jane
Jane
4 days ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

If you think that it’s a “good guess” that “telling someone what the Bible says about homosexuality” is “nasty,” your seeming agreement with Leslie that the son is “taking I Timothy to heart” is even less reasonable than I thought it was. If your go-to likely assumption (absent any real evidence one way or the other) that quoting scripture is being done “nastily”, you have no part in a conversation about how people should be living and relating to their relatives.

Mike Freeman
Mike Freeman
4 days ago
Reply to  Jane

When did I say that I agreed with Leslie that he is taking I Timothy to heart? You and f/k/a fp both seem to have a bad case of attributing to people arguments they never made.

And I said it was a good guess, not that it’s an established fact.

The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
4 days ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

Mike: “You and f/k/a fp both seem to have a bad case of attributing to people arguments they never made.”

Says the guy who spent two lengthy paragraphs speculatively attributing to a person a disposition she may not even have.

Glass houses, Mike.

Jane
Jane
1 day ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

It’s not a good guess, it’s a terrible one. It’s a terrible assumption that the most likely scenario of someone quoting scripture is “being nasty”.

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
3 days ago
Reply to  Jane

I think the underlying issue here is that her only financial support comes from someone of whom she deeply disapproves. It is never a comfortable position when your conscience says you must keep on nipping at the hand that feeds you. She may not be quoting scripture “nastily” but she is evidently quoting it enough to have irritated the partner into a disrespectful response. It is very difficult to depend on someone to support you while reserving the right to reproach him for his sins, his sexual orientation, and his major life decisions. None of this justifies his refusal to… Read more »

JohnM
JohnM
2 days ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

It would be good if her church could help in any way sufficient to relieve her of the necessity of moving in with her son and whatever you call the other man. It’s one thing to say “ let it go” when you can keep your distance. It is something else when you live every day surrounded by it, and live on terms dictated by those doing it.

Jane
Jane
2 days ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

It’s true that there aren’t a lot of churches who could provide financial support for an person with no income, to live independently. But I think the majority of churches could find a way to improve her situation over her son’s proposal, that is, to provide her a roof over her head and a full belly and access to her general needs in a situation where she is not despised. All that requires is someone in the church with a spare room and the energy and means to feed and house one extra person, plus some ability within the congregation… Read more »

The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
4 days ago
Reply to  Jane

“If any man treated [his] wife the way this woman is being treated…”

…then many would say he is controlling, even abusive.

And that no wife should be expected to submit to such a husband.

Yet Leslie and Mike tell this woman to take her lumps, and to be grateful for it — in a word, to submit.

Makes you wonder to what standard they’re appealing.

Mike Freeman
Mike Freeman
4 days ago

I haven’t said anything that even remotely resembles telling her to take her lumps and be grateful for it. What I’ve said is we need more facts. Isn’t there something in Scripture somewhere about when the first man argues his case he seems right until the other side is heard from?

The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
4 days ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

Mike: “I haven’t said anything that even remotely resembles telling her to take her lumps and be grateful for it.”

Welcome to my world. Sucks when people argue against things you never said, huh?

Speaking of which, where did Jane mention assisted living facilities? Seems to me the primary argument in support of SW isn’t so much the son’s sexual disorientation as it is the honor due SW from her son, which she isn’t getting.

Last edited 4 days ago by The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
Mike Freeman
Mike Freeman
4 days ago

I took from Jane’s comment about “refuse to consider their desires in how they wish to be taken care of” that she was referring to the assisted living facility issue. She has since clarified that she was not.

The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
4 days ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

Oh, well if that’s how it works, then I took from your comment that you were in agreement with Leslie, and you have since clarified that you were not.

Now that we’ve cleared that up, care to address the honor issue, which is the actual argument? Or is that the 800 lb. gorilla we’re going to try to hide under the rug?

Mike Freeman
Mike Freeman
4 days ago

What specifically did I say that implied agreement with Leslie? Or are you just pretending to be stupid? I don’t think we can say if he’s honoring her or not on the limited facts that we have. I’ve already stated above the additional facts that it would be nice to have. So far we have her side of it, period, and I’ve been around long enough to know better than to assume that there’s only one side to a story. The bottom line continues to be that since you share her opinion of homosexuality, it’s easy for you to take… Read more »

The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
4 days ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

Yup, because nothing says Need More Facts like spending the bulk of a comment in idle speculation, amirite? Mike: “I don’t think we can say if he’s honoring her or not on the limited facts that we have.” Perhaps this is where I ask if you’re just pretending to be stupid. SW clearly stated that she didn’t raise him that way. To live in rebellion to a parent’s Godly teaching is to dishonor that parent. To try to control a parent through financial means is to dishonor that parent. Gee, it’s like there’s a theme here. You’d have to be… Read more »

Mike Freeman
Mike Freeman
4 days ago

“In a lawsuit the first to speak seems right, until someone comes forward and cross examines him.” Proverbs 18:17. All I’m doing is cross examining.

And since I’ve now answered a fool according to his folly — that would be you fp, since you obviously reject the lesson of Proverbs 18:17 — I’m now going on to other things. You have yourself a pleasant evening.

The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
4 days ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

So, honoring your parents is folly.

And you’re Perry Mason.

Leslie
Leslie
4 days ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

Unless it is a really unusual situation she should be getting some social security money. The average SS check is $1271 per month.
Her son is doing his duty( whether by duty or love is unknown.) His care for his mother would put many Christians to shame.

Jane
Jane
4 days ago
Reply to  Leslie

Christians should do a better job of caring for their parents, to be sure.

But when the apostle calls the one who neglects his parents “worse than an unbeliever,” it’s not intended as praise to the unbeliever who cares for his parents while failing in his primary duties toward God, but as a scathing condemnation of Christians who should know better. It’s not that this guy gets credit for physically caring for his mother and spiritually oppressing her, it’s that not caring for one’s parents makes a Christian *even worse* than this guy.

Ken B
Ken B
4 days ago
Reply to  Leslie

She should count her blessings .. in spite of her hateful, judgmental spirit. The irony here is that you yourself are passing judgment on the widow, something not uncommon on this issue, especially in social media. The bottom line for me is that you can either have Jesus and his salvation – being right with God – or you can lead a homosexual lifestyle, but you can’t have both, and this is not up for negotiation just because we live in the 21st century. A genuinely loving thing would be to try to lead/persuade someone away from such a way… Read more »

Conservative Jonathan
Conservative Jonathan
4 days ago
Reply to  Leslie

You say he seems like a really good person. He’s literally a sodomite.

Gray
Gray
4 days ago
Reply to  Leslie

Is hate wrong?

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
4 days ago
Reply to  Gray

Care to define “hate” with specificity?

Its thrown around a lot these days, generally always as a condemnation, but most who use it don’t mean anything specifically quantifiable. What’s the objective line between really disliking something and hating it?

Phiilip
Phiilip
5 days ago

I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that I think it’s just possible that Christie hasn’t read your many, many writings on the husband’s responsibility to his wife and to his marriage.

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
5 days ago
Reply to  Phiilip

I’m gunna go out on a limb and say that either Christie doesn’t exist, or she hadn’t heard of Douglas Wilson until a week ago.

The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
5 days ago
Reply to  Phiilip

How do I unsee what I just saw? I repent of reading Christie’s letter. I pray that she repent for not holding women accountable to submit to their husbands as the church submits to Christ.

Christie — whatever your last name is — you do have a lot to answer for, but not to me. You will answer to your Lord Jesus Christ. May God have mercy upon your soul.

For the haterz: Think before you jerk the knee.

My Portion Forever
My Portion Forever
5 days ago

“As the church submits to Christ”? You assume the church submits in silence, but this is contrary to Scripture. Even though Christ the Lord is without sin, and the Father as well, yet his people may question him and even express disappointment and confusion. This Christ also did in the garden and on the cross. (See, for a brief example, Psalms 10, 13, 22, 88, Habakkuk 1:2-4, 12-17, not to mention Jeremiah.) Yet this must be done with reverence and ultimately with faith, not in complaining as the Israelites did in the wilderness. Likewise, a wife should express herself to… Read more »

The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
5 days ago

Just like clockwork. I give clear instructions, you do the opposite. Didn’t I tell you to think before reacting? “As the church submits to Christ”? Straight outta Scripture: “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.” -Ephesians 5:22-24 “Did God really say?” -Genesis 3:1 Lecture husbands about their duties, no one bats an eyelash. Meekly remind… Read more »

Jane
Jane
5 days ago

My Portion Forever, FP is responding to a different letter from the one you think he’s responding to. A more careful reading of the comment that started this thread would probably have avoided your reaction, which does seem like a knee-jerk given that it’s off-topic to the actual thing being discussed. Christie wasn’t the person talking about third parties claiming a wife should never say a word calling a husband to account, she was the one falsely accusing Doug about his view of marriage.

demosthenes1d
demosthenes1d
4 days ago
Reply to  Jane

Jane, The confusion stems from FP’s comment. He bizarrely accuses Christine of not holding women accountable to submit to their husband’s (an odd construction itself and one that implies some authority), when the topic wasn’t discusses in her letter at all. People reading FP’s comment clearly charitably assumed he was trying to respond to the content of a letter, and missed that he was providing an inverted rewrite of her comment in order to mock. Perhaps, given Christie’s letter we can assume all sorts of unbiblical beliefs, but if I write a comment chastising her for her support of sodomy… Read more »

The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
4 days ago
Reply to  demosthenes1d

Demo, it is downright hilarious how clueless you can be sometimes. You routinely pick the wrong target. It’s called demonstrating absurdity by being absurd. What you fail to understand is that, unlike the first two who responded to Christie’s bizarre accusation directly, I’m responding to her implied premise, which is the authority of Scripture. The absurdity is that the very same people who try to invoke the authority of Scripture in a clumsy attempt to beat others over the head often rebel against that very same Scriptural authority whenever its plain language imperatives contradict the zeitgeist. It’s a point I’ve… Read more »

Jane
Jane
4 days ago
Reply to  demosthenes1d

The topic of how husbands and wives relate was certainly discussed in Christie’s letter, and …FP was responding with what her responsibility in the situation was (to obey the scripture to which she is accountable), as opposed to the tactic she’s taking of accusing Doug because she seemingly doesn’t want to do that. (It’s barely possible that someone with a biblical understanding and practice of marriage would write a letter with no content other than accusing Doug of things he’s never said about the topic and plainly doesn’t believe, but it’s not terribly likely.) It’s not a direct response to… Read more »

Ken B
Ken B
4 days ago

“As the church submits to Christ”? You assume the church submits in silence, but this is contrary to Scripture. Even though Christ the Lord is without sin, … etc The danger, it seems to me, is to press Christ/church husband/wife analogy too far. Christ has absolute authority and is safe with this because he is sinless. Husbands may also be ‘head’, but this only entails a more limited level of authority. Husbands are under Christ and his word too. There is no command for husbands to exercise authority over their wives. Wives should indeed submit, but this is not unconditional,… Read more »

Last edited 4 days ago by Ken B
Jane
Jane
4 days ago
Reply to  Ken B

Ken, you also are missing the context. None of what is being discussed here has anything to do with not speaking up before a husband on things that God calls us to speak up about; that is a completely different letter from the one that’s being discussed in this context.

Gray
Gray
4 days ago
Reply to  Jane

Thank you for the clarification for both of those replies; you have provided a good service to the discussion. It underscored FP’s caution regarding reflexive responses. It also seems to point, at least in a general direction, to a testudo formation quick reaction drill when submission, respect and obedience is the subject matter.

Jane
Jane
4 days ago
Reply to  Gray

Yes. In some circles, it might be called being “triggered”.

Ken B
Ken B
4 days ago
Reply to  Jane

Jane – I was intending to comment on the patriarchal and them some letter, which seemed to assume the timid wife walking on egg shells in case she might accidentally not appear to be submitting enough.

The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
4 days ago
Reply to  Ken B

“Wives should indeed submit, but…”

Powerful little three-letter word, innit?

“That’s a lovely jacket you’re wearing, but…”

“I don’t mean to offend you, but…”

“I’m sorry, but…”

“Husbands should indeed love their wives, but…”

Ken B
Ken B
4 days ago

Yes it can be a powerful word, and much needed word when, for example, in the case of submission it qualifies this as not being unconditional.

The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
4 days ago
Reply to  Ken B

Ken B, there are times you can be spot-on, but…

Jane
Jane
4 days ago
Reply to  Ken B

If it’s much-needed, why didn’t the Holy Spirit feel the need to ensure St. Paul used it?

There are errors in understanding and application to be guarded against, to be sure, but it is also an error to treat some commands of scripture as though they cannot ever be discussed apart from the potential for error, rather than treating them as first and foremost commands to be obeyed.

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
4 days ago
Reply to  Ken B

“ There is no command for husbands to exercise authority over their wives.” We must not be reading the same Bible. With authority comes responsibility. Simply by virtue of having authority, you are chosen by God to work on behalf of those you look after, and obligated to wield that authority any time in which you think it of significance. ” she shouldn’t have to knock on the door and timidly ask permission to speak.” That its possible to abuse authority does not mean the authority doesn’t exist. Isreal had kings. Those kings sinned. That they sinned with their authority did not… Read more »

Ken B
Ken B
4 days ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

Where is the verse that tells husbands to exercise authority over their wives? You would expect it to follow ‘wives submit to your husbands’ as the natural counterpart, but it doesn’t. Instead husbands are told to love their wives, which is defined in the cherishing and nourishing enjoined in the following verses in Eph 5. Now the husband is described as being the ‘head’ of the wife, and whilst I think this does include an element of authority (I prefer to say responsibility), so egalitarianism fails at this point, it is not simply a synonym for ‘exercise authority over’. Paul… Read more »

JohnM
JohnM
4 days ago
Reply to  Ken B

What if a husband doesn’t want to be the head of his wife? Doesn’t want the element of authority? Can he opt out and and eschew acting with authority, reasoning that he was, after all, never told to exercise authority and doesn’t have that responsibility?

Ken B
Ken B
2 days ago
Reply to  JohnM

As I see it, the husband is the head of the wife whether he likes it or not. He may be a good head, or a bad head, but he cannot opt out of taking responsibility and be a proper husband at the same time.

If he does choose to abdicate responsibility, then he will in all likelihood have an unhappy wife in this life, and as discussed with Justin have to give an account of it in the next.

JohnM
JohnM
2 days ago
Reply to  Ken B

He is head, whether he likes it or not. I asked about authority. Can he opt out of that?

Jane
Jane
2 days ago
Reply to  JohnM

No, he can only sin against his responsibility to exercise it in a godly way.

JohnM
JohnM
2 days ago
Reply to  Jane

Which he can do by commission, or by omission – which is inevitable if he believes he is not even supposed to think about having authority.

Ken B
Ken B
1 day ago
Reply to  JohnM

You ask good questions! My belief we are talking about an element of authority here comes less from discussing the English word head, which is a translation, but rather what the original Greek Kephale actually means. One of the reasons this is considered to be authority rather than source or preeminence is that in the Greek OT it is occasionally used of military leaders. So far so good, but complementarians make a similar mistake to egalitarians if they then take the husband and wife relationship to be analogous to military commander and private soldier. There is a power differential in… Read more »

Jane
Jane
10 hours ago
Reply to  JohnM

Yes. That is what I meant.

demosthenes1d
demosthenes1d
3 days ago
Reply to  Ken B

Husbandry authority is obviously baked into nature, and is confirmed and codified in scripture. For a clear case look at Num 30:10-15.

Gray
Gray
3 days ago
Reply to  Ken B

I will assert that it does not simply include an “element of authority”, but that reasonable inferences abound that are permeated with authority. “But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” Removing authority, and making it an “also ran” attribute of being the head neuters the aforementioned. There is no reasonable reading that suggests that the authority of the Father and the Son are eclipsed by “responsibility”. Expanding upon Christ’s authority over the church: “…Christ when he raised him… Read more »

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
3 days ago
Reply to  Ken B

“ an element of authority (I prefer to say responsibility),” They aren’t separated concepts. You are only capable of having responsibility insofar as you have authority, and you are not capable of having authority without having responsibility. Someone paralyzed from the neck down with a severe speech impediment is not responsible for very much. Conversely, the most powerful man on the planet has a great deal of responsibility to use that power for God, a concept Paul understood quite well. You seem to be stumbling on the notion that even though the man has authority, he also has obligations on specific… Read more »

Sam Rutherford
Sam Rutherford
3 days ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

Justin, excellent. Everyone wants the authority, no one wants the responsibility. God gives both or none.

“You seem to be stumbling on the notion that even though the man has authority, he also has obligations on specific ways to use that authority. This isn’t contradictory with total authority at all. Just the opposite, it is a necessary component of legitimate authority. The Supreme Court for example has complete and total authority within their sphere, that does not mean that they have no obligation in how they render their rulings.”

Bingo!

Gray
Gray
3 days ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

Mr. Parris, Very good sir! “For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. And I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” So many men have little or no experience in the possession of and subordination to authority. A significant number of others possess a resentment of and a resistance thereof. Those who have had the authority, responsibility and experience of command usually do not have an internalized reflexive antipathy toward it, and understand that receiving and giving orders… Read more »

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
3 days ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

Justin, I agree with you that responsibility is inseparable from authority. If you are responsible for not letting the family run into debt and financial ruin, you clearly must have the authority to prevent wild spending sprees. Nor do I believe that most men who assume headship have any desire to be petty tyrants; it is always more pleasant to govern people whose cooperative dispositions make laying down the law rarely necessary. But while the Bible clearly supports male headship–and therefore both responsibility and authority–it doesn’t explicitly recommend coercion when a wife is unsubmissive. You may use physical force to… Read more »

JohnM
JohnM
2 days ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

I think that about Amy Coney Barrett too. Does she herself go by two last names?

Ken B
Ken B
2 days ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

As head of my wife, I am the one primarily responsible for every mistake she makes that should have been prevented by my leadership. Authority used correctly is all downside, no upside, for the one in authority. Far from being a petty tyrant in my position … I am constantly at fault for not appropriately using my authority where I should have, … mistakes wives do not ever have to worry about, all of which I will have to answer for in the next life. This is precisely imo what Eph 5 is getting at, and you seem to me… Read more »

Maeve
Maeve
3 days ago

With all due respect, Pastor Wilson, I believe they timed the vice hit piece to distract you from tending the flock who are facing the osha edicts.