On Voting for Trump
One line in your 7 Reasons article. “It is not possible to support Biden and be right with God.” What would you say to those who would respond, “I think abortion is evil and an abomination against God. But the abortion rate actually drops more under a Democratic administration than Republican ones. Since Roe is not likely to be overturned, it looks like the best way to reduce abortions is to vote for Biden.” I don’t agree with this line of thinking, but I don’t think that someone who makes this calculation is definitively not a Christian. Also, if voting is a tactic, not a sacrament, how can you make a judgment on someone’s rightness with God on their vote alone? Isn’t it more comparable to disagreeing with someone’s skills in Christian discernment?
Roger
Roger, thanks. I would argue that one of the great evils of abortion, besides the deaths of the little ones themselves, is the callused acceptance of it by society. That is a stand alone evil. As the pro-abortion forces never tire of telling us, if made illegal, abortions will continue. But I would be grateful that the number of abortions had been reduced, and also grateful that we were no longer applauded it. I agree with you that a Christian can be deluded, just as you described. But I believe it to be a culpable delusion, such that such a person is not walking with God.
Just one little Q for you: Why 17th (as opposed to 16th or 18th) dimensional chess? Wink wink. Nod nod.
JPH
JPH, because you called it a Q instead of a question. That means . . . QAnon!
Regarding 7 Reasons to Vote for Trump: Excellent analysis, Doug. Gary DeMar said something similar on Twitter yesterday:
“A vote is not a valentine, you aren’t confessing your love for the candidate. It’s a chess move for the world you want to live in.”
Big Eva leadership has lost it’s mind in covering for the Evangelical Progressive wing who are using Trumps foibles as an excuse to vote for the big government socialist agenda they are sure Jesus would support They can go to bed on election night and sleep well knowing that they voted bad / immoral orange man out with the full support of Keller, Greear, et al.
Kevin
Kevin, thanks.
Fatty, Fatty, Had a Patty
Melt and He Ate It
You don’t need to post this because it’s not necessarily a full readership question and not wholly towards you, but more “et all” as a question. However, I love what is going on in Idaho and I am hoping, Lord willing to bring it to my area, BUTT (two Ts intended) one thing I noticed watching the FLF conference and some other happenings, almost every man is overweight. The Bee could spend some time on this issue and not even lose its stake in the social media capitol it has because satire is only good because it’s real.
I remember your talk at IU and you were pressed on the same issue by an extremely effeminate or gay young man.
So, here’s my challenge . . . if we are to disciple the world but we can’t discipline ourselves, what gives?
JPP
JPP, thanks for the question. Perhaps it is because God is really intent on delivering us and humbling us at the same time, and so He is going to do it through a regiment of fat guys! But for a more serious comment, see my response to the next letter.
This is with regard to current events and your recent post “Monstrous Regiment, Eh?” I, and the men who help me in my (currently very small) endeavor at Reformed Operator are all either in or from the Special Operations Forces (SOF) community. I was an “Operator” or “Team Guy” for going on 15 years. Many of the men who help me with Reformed Operator also serve in this area. Some are part of Marine Corps or Army SOF components. We are all Reformed and most of us hold to the Westminster Confession; we do include some Reformed Baptists in our ranks.
Credentials aside, I am one of the contributors from Reformed Operator. I go by Ethan . . .
SEAL Teams and the Monstrous Regiment
Dear Editor,
Over the last decade I watched the slow slog to egalitarianism in the Special Operations community. Egalitarianism swallowed the military, then it moved to submariners and direct combat roles, and then into Special Operations. Before I left the SEAL Teams we chugged along on the Navy’s veritable (and literal?) slow boat to (communist) China. To the point that leadership updated language in the SEAL Ethos to include gender-neutral *non-binary* pronouns. Or as you said in your post, “But conservative Christians must not forget who we are either. There are better ways for us to push back against the egalitarian paradigm than finding some evangelical woman who flew fighter jets for the Air Force . . . this is just another form of the slow surrender that the conservative movement in American has specialized in.” I watched the slow surrender. The surrender where no one draws a line. Where no one says “no.”
The egalitarian and relativistic postmodern ethic is organizationally ingrained, even in the Teams. Just nod your head, do your job, get paid. There’s even a nice little egalitarian score section on the big Navy’s requisite annual periodic evaluations for the enlisted men regarding “Equal Opportunity.” Despite the President’s recent tweet rolling back our “gender neutral language update” this is only slowing the inevitable. I am grateful, but it’s only a temporary stay.
The SEAL Teams have existed since 1962, and prior as NCDUs and Scouts and Raiders, our heritage traces back to Tarawa and D-Day. The men with green faces were a legendary and terrifying testament to the effectiveness of our training. Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL Training (BUD/S) has been the gold-standard for performance. Given some of the crises since the “war on terror,” we needed something more than men who merely physically performed well. We needed a standard for ethical performance. The SEAL Ethos was penned in 2005 prior to the mandated expansion to women in combat roles a few years ago in 2013.
From 2013 until my recent exit from the Teams, I sat in wardrooms and meetings watching a subtle decline with morbid curiosity. The pressure came on Special Operations units to submit a request to exclude women from entering or open BUD/S to them. No reason was given. Platitudes were spoken from ageing leadership about the standards “We won’t change the standards” was the promise. It became a mantra. They seemed to believe it. They forgot to add “. . . yet.”
To set the stage, I’ll point out our slow decline. We required a performance test for SEAL Qualification Training (SQT, a 10-month course that follows BUD/S on the way to earning your trident). It was part of the Tactical Athlete Program, known as the TAP test. It consisted of Deadlift, 25lb weighted pull-ups, a three mile run, body weight bench press, squats, and a fairly long swim. It was a half-day affair. A pass-fail test meant to be an exposure to some of the physical exertion you may be expected to endure in a combat operation: double ladder climbs onto a moving vessel at sea with kit and weapon on, picking up an unconscious man to carry him to safety without taking another gun or two out of the fight, being able to climb onto a walled roof from a ladder, being able to carry 80-100 pounds of equipment up the side of a mountain without unduly slowing the patrol, then swimming away. Then, inexplicably, the TAP test disappeared. Inevitably, testing began for a new, “improved” TAP test. Operators were scheduled to do these TAP tests in the optimum time for their lowest possible performance level, i.e. right after post deployment leave or Christmas leave periods. Weighted pull-ups disappeared. Body weight bench press vanished. Instead sprints and broad jumps and swimming emerged. It was no longer a test for war-fighting men, it was High School P.E. with adults. But like they said, the standards “won’t change.”
Finally came the rumblings. A rumor circulated regarding non-gendered language in the Ethos. I eventually saw the memo via a friend. I didn’t believe it. Stunned, I reviewed the text. Our ethos had changed. No discussion. No questions. In the past, men were disciplined for breaking the Ethos. It was our binding ethical document. It was the gold standard for our ethics. But there it is. The recent update isn’t concerned with what is or was, but rather with the political “what could be.” The language isn’t just inclusive. It’s noticeably non-binary. It’s not “men and women” even. It’s citizen. Sex disappeared. The ethos isn’t concerned about how to justly win war, its primary concern is picking a side in the culture war. It was once said, “a lion doesn’t concern himself with the opinions of sheep.” Unless the sheep are concerned egalitarians. Then you’ll have some board meetings, pull all of the Lions’ teeth and bring three sheep onto your board for decisions.
The Ethos mentioned “a common man with an uncommon desire to succeed.” BUD/S began requiring the ethos to be handwritten when it was first written and placed in each student’s living space, usually in their wall locker. Now I’m sure they’re being torn down and replaced with the “new and improved” version. With comrade- sorry, citizens being the word replacing man. We are no longer men, we are citizens of a shining humanist utopia. “I am that man” becomes “I am that warrior.” Talking to one of my friends, he mentioned we were pulled away from combat deployments to confront the real enemy of America, implicit bias in our organizational language.
It’s interesting to note the following Catch-22 I’ve observed. Alcohol is not allowed in combat zones in the military because, to the military, it is a danger to good order and discipline. Alcohol degrades the combat effectiveness of units by causing problems according to the military. But a simple Google search will reveal stories of women who were assaulted by men in combat zones. A violation of good order and discipline degrading combat effectiveness of units. But it can’t be because vulnerable women were there, isolated with men. These women aren’t vulnerable, they’re war-fighters, goes the logic. Alcohol causes men to behave badly according to the military. Women can’t cause men to behave badly, and women are war-fighters just like men. Women are not vulnerable, except to sexual assault in remote locations. The Bible clearly states it’s the evil desires in a man’s heart that causes him to sin, not the object. But nonetheless, we have no objective standard in the military. Heaven forbid someone dare to make the heretical suggestion that if women weren’t in combat zones and co-located that sexual assaults against women would stop happening in combat zones. Alcohol isn’t bad, and neither are women, but being consistent requires considering what’s best for good order and discipline.
I have many personal stories I could relate, but this would make some of my still active compatriots easily exposed. I bring this forward to show that even in a place where egalitarianism has no place, it oozes in. Without Christ as the objective standard for truth, all of our institutions crumble. The current “concern” in the military and in churches is “what does the culture think?” It’s easy to transpose this to the current situation regarding Beth Moore and other little “birds” flying around with tweets and massive followings/book deals. We see it with women in combat, women in the police force and women seeking the role of teaching on the Lord’s Day. It starts with a couple of questions about “implicit bias”, creating new “spaces” and “voices”. And if you dare oppose, you receive a refutation to the tune of nice ad hominem assaults, a statement declaring “we’re not trying to do that!”, or a dismissal of your concern with a platitude. It ends with no one uttering a word of dissent, afraid to be the one caught with the stick, drawing in the sand. That drawing in the sand can get you killed.
It starts small. Cater to the whims of the culture outside and you quickly find yourself trampled under a monstrous regiment of egalitarians and a new foundational document. You could call it a slippery slope, but it’s just progressivism. Lest we forget James 4:4 “You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.” May this be a reminder to the church to remain faithful to what is written, not what is shouted. In the Teams, we use wind and waves to conceal our movement, but when it comes to doctrine we’re four sheets to the cultural wind.
While there is much more to be said on this, I write this to give a hearty amen to your caution regarding applause. Clearly the light of nature is sufficient for some things, but without the Triune God as the final authority, we will eventually run afoul upon the hidden reef of “did God really say?” To quote Star Wars “This is how liberty dies . . . with thunderous applause.”
In Christ,
Ethan
Ethan, many thanks for writing this. Thanks for your service, and thank you for expressing this. It has been striking to me that the rot of egalitarianism has spread throughout the entire military because of the cowardice of the top brass. These are men who were set apart to be brave and courageous on our behalf, and they have been anything but.
And, coming back to JPP’s question, we start with God’s clearly expressed standards, and real masculinity is demonstrated through standing under those standards. I dare say that almost all of the men who surrendered our military to the corruptions of effeminacy could run farther and faster than I could. But there is a striking difference between fitness that is narcissistic, and fitness that is vocational, as described above. The heart of the matter is somewhere else, and because we are not gnostic, it does translate into the physical realm. But the question always is, “by what standard?”
COVID Again??!!
It’s another Covid question, it’s true . . . but one that I PROMISE, you have NOT already answered several dozen times. I don’t think you’ve answered it even ONCE, actually, so we may be covering new ground here. (Is that even possible at this point and will I win a prize?!) The question involves the biblical precedent to quarantine the sick. (Which is already unlike what is happening today, as we well know.) But what did the biblical precedent look like specifically? Those who WERE sick, say, lepers . . . were sent ‘outside the city gates’. I don’t know much more than that, but that alone scares the bejeebers out of me. I wonder if a government agency would have the license to take your children (or loved ones) from you and put them in ‘quarantine camps’ “for their safety and yours”. This is not a hypothetical, yet unrealistic possibility as my state already has this option in place legally . . . and even without informing you where specifically your children are taken. I have a VERY real problem with this and would feel inclined to do something drastic to prevent it from happening, but at the same time, it is important to me that I obey the Bible, even if I don’t happen to ‘like’ (or understand fully) what it says. Would you help me through this? New York is scaryville right now, and this might be a grim reality in my life at some point in the near future. Thanks!
Rebecca
Rebecca, thanks. What was required in biblical law was isolation of the contagious. Because King Uziah was wealthy, he could be isolated in his palace. Those who did not have means would be exiled to the leper “colony.” If that involved one of your children, the whole thing would be tragic, and the decisions would be made by fallible rulers. That is why we cannot cede this kind of authority to them over made-up problems. But they do have that authority at some point.
Say Their Name!
In “The Moment” you accused Evangelicals leaders of “tearing down their own statues, renaming their own things . . . all because they don’t have a clue about what’s actually going on.”
Would that include the formal names of their denominations? (Asking for a friend.)
By the way, I was reading Herschel Smith’s blog, The Captain’s Journal, recently and was delighted to see you there, standing tall in the public square. Will you update us all, please, on the details of what happened to the folks who were arrested?
John
John, yes, there will be updates as events unfold. As for the other, the pitched battle right now is over the PCA and the SBC. Both are in grave danger.
Objectivity of the Covenant
I have been a big fan of your work for some time now. Your book on recovering the objectivity of the covenant was really compelling and I found myself changing my mind on the issue of covenant membership after having read the book. However, One of the questions that I have had is related to the atonement and non-elect covenant members. Is it fair to say that Christ does not intercede for them and that He did not purchase them? Or would be appropriate to say that He purchased them in some way?
Sincerely,
Chris
Chris, I would prefer to say, when it comes to non-elect covenant members, that they were purchased, but not in a salvific way. The false teachers in Peter, for example, deny the sovereign Lord (despotes) who bought them (2 Pet. 2:1).
Female Suffrage?
Thank you for your writing ministry. It has greatly edified me. As it relates to your article “Monstrous Regiment, Eh?”, you say the following, “But there is a certain stripe of anti-feminist who is simply ideological in the narrow sense.” Would you consider the few hold outs that maintain women should not have been given the right to vote to be of that stripe? As you probably are aware, many Christian men opposed giving women the right to vote. J.B. Sandford, Chairman of the Democratic Caucus, stated around June 26, 1911 the following as reason to oppose given women the right to vote, ” Woman is woman. She can not unsex herself or change her sphere. Let her be content with her lot and perform those high duties intended for her by the Great Creator, and she will accomplish far more in governmental affairs that she can ever accomplish by mixing up in the dirty pool of politics. Keep the home pure and ALL WILL BE WELL WITH THE REPUBLIC. Let not the sanctity of the home be invaded by every little politician that may be running up and down the highway for office. Let the manly men and the womanly women defeat this amendment and keep woman where she belongs in order that she may retain the respect of all mankind.” Was this man’s reasoning narrow in an ideological sense? Was his reasoning backward or prescient?
Blessings,
Doug
Doug, no, I was not referring to those who were opposed to female suffrage. The position Sanford expresses does not offend me, but there is a patronizing tone to it that is troublesome. And that is what I was talking about — bluster and bravado. But in our church government, we vote by household, which means that women vote if they are the head of the household.
Apostolic Study Bibles
I’ve heard you talk multiple times about the Apostolic Study Bible you created years ago (like on Man Rampant with Gary Demar and other podcasts), and I would like to do the same as I think it would be a great help to me in my Bible study. Would you be able to give me a few pointers on how to do it well, such as where to start, how to mark the references, or anything you think would be helpful?
I’ve been very encouraged by your ministry, books, and psalm sings up there in Moscow, and I’m considering applying to NSA for 2021-2022 academic year!
Thanks!
Logan
Logan, thanks. Make sure you do apply. For marking up a Bible, I used a highlighter for the text, both NT and OT, and then an ordinary pen to write down in the margins of the OT where that passage was quoted in the New. Find a Bible in your translation with minimal notes, and wide margins.
Postmill Practicum
First, I’d like to say thank you for all you do. Second, I have a question. How does postmillennial eschatology contribute to a Christian’s current purpose in this world? I have some young friends who sometimes wonder what the purpose of life is after getting saved. Can postmillennial eschatology possibly provide a better answer to the age-old question: what is my purpose in life?
Addison
Addison, great question. There is more to life than getting yourself into heaven. We are supposed to be useful to our generation, like David was. If we believe that our labor in the Lord here is not in vain (1 Cor. 15:58), then that gives purpose and dignity to us in our respective vocations.
A Little Help for Our Friends
Like many in the creative industry, I have had very little work over the past 6 months. Things are now REALLY tight for my wife and I on very little income and no state benefits.
I believe in the Biblical model of working for my “wages” so I have just created a bundle of graphics in the hope of earning enough to pay my bills this month. The website is: http://www.jaggley.com
The new site should explain all you need to know and there is a link to a few samples too. If you are able to promote this via your social media, blog post or your subscriber newsletter etc. It would be an enormous help at this time.
If you have ANY questions, then please do contact me . . . Again, ANY help is truly appreciated!
Kind Regards
Marc
Marc, done. Good luck.
Book Recommends
I’ve enjoyed perusing your Goodreads profile to find new books to read, but I noticed you stopped adding titles. Also, it seems your reading log on dougwils.com is updated only at the end of each year. Can you please go back to recording your latest reads on Goodreads as you finish them? :-) Blessings,
André
Andre, checking into it. Thanks.
I’ve found this to be one of the better and least agenda-driven articles concerning what has driven the spread of the epidemic globally in some countries and not others.
Not to say that they look into all the variables, but they do look into one important one that pundits on both sides don’t use.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/09/k-overlooked-variable-driving-pandemic/616548/
Thank you for the link. It may be the best piece I’ve read on this whole COVID affair.
Yes. It is only a piece of the puzzle, but it seems to be an important piece and they do a good job of laying the case out. Not a stand-alone – we need to understand the other pieces too. But it helps.
Here’s how Snopes(!) would respond to those who claim that “the abortion rate actually drops more under a Democrat administration than Republican ones”: It would be easy to demonstrate that abortion rates have not risen under Democratic administrations in the last several decades, but it would be false to argue that declines in abortion rates are an exclusive feature of Democratic presidencies. The claim that abortion rates fall under Democrats, while true, ignores the fact that rates have also continued to decline through Republican administrations as well. … At most, one can argue that the rate of decline appeared to… Read more »
Re overweight men–I recall a half page article by Jim Jordan quoting a paragraph article by Rushdoony expanding on “The soul of the diligent shall be made fat” and inviting us to take our attitude toward fat from triune Jehovah rather than from Paris, so to speak. I was recently reading about the Zulu war and I noticed that the Zulu chieftains whose army with spears wiped out a British regiment at Isandlwana didn’t exactly have washboard abs. I guess they got their share of beefsteak. If you need to lose weight, and some do, I had to look twice… Read more »
Fatness for the soul is healthy. Fatness for the body usually is destructive. You are correct about Paris shouldn’t inform our attitudes about attractiveness or health. However there are many men who are so out of shape they couldn’t hike to the top of a mountain if the cure for cancer was at the top. Unfortunately many pastors fall into this category.
JPP, on the weighty matters of which you speak, the following will help to inform.
It is often the case, that girth follows mirth, with Santa being the best example, not unlike our host.
Conversely, being worthless is no guarantee of being girthless, exhibit: Jerry Nadler.
Then again, it is more than possible to be worthless and girthless, exhibit Adam Schiff.
And finally, as our host often demonstrates, the right combination of mirth and girth adds weight to any good positions,
and thus steamrolls lightweight oppositions.
😉
G.K. Chesterton, speaking from personal experience, wrote:
The Uses of Diversity
Something that caught my group a bit by surprise when visiting Moscow for Grace Agenda was how fit people seemed to be up there. We weren’t sure if it was just Idaho culture or if the church had any involvement. Might be a southern thing (I’m from AR) and wouldn’t be surprised if weightiness of crowd in TN was similar to where I’m at. I do tend to look askance at pastors who are physically unfit (either gangley or obese).
I did not see, in the poster’s points regarding weight, a suggestion of doing it for cosmetic purposes. I read their missives as regarding the essence of masculinity versus softness; the toughness and hardening of physical ability in concert with the same in a mental capacity. “Fighting Fit” as opposed to being too long on the lees. Appearance can deceive, and not all books can be read by their covers, but even those statements are regarding the exceptions, because most of the time appearance does have a tangible meaning. (As in “the appearance of evil”.) Softness is not a desired… Read more »
“For men between the ages of 20 to 50, having a pus gut and looking like your address is somewhere in Sag Harbor does not recommend capability.” Gray A large number of our military leaders in WW I and WW II had the Sag Harbor look; however, they had hearts of lions and were not afraid to be at the front. That was when the standing army was small and was bolstered to fighting strength by Americans from all walks of life. Lifers such as LeMay didn’t have snappy uniforms when deployed. They did destroy the enemy with a minimum… Read more »
Dave, You conflated the idea of concentration upon appearance, which I thought that I had adequately addressed at not for the sake of the appearance, with the greater point of fitness. “Slim and trim” or “look good” is not the point. Fitness, which is nominally conveyed by physical appearance, is. Also, what was considered normative fitness in older times has been superseded by better knowledge of the physiology of strength. Aside from the fact that Generals have little to zero physical duties, (labelled as “Perfumed Princes” by one of the most decorated combat officers in U.S. history) our understanding of… Read more »
And, to correct an assertion above, the statement beginning “There is no good excuse…” should be modified to include “absent a physical disability which prevents certain abilities”. There is, after all, a difference between can not, and will not. (But the one who will not has no advantage over the one who can’t.)