Comments from the Nickel Seats
Hmmm. “What we need now are true and good men ” . . . I’m not up on all the personalities , but what we we need is people to preach and teach the gospel and to disciple people . . . And the ” decorum assertion power grab guy” can wither away as we build a just , godly society.DLV
DLV, thanks for commenting.
Re: “Shushed by the Moderator,” there was nothing intemperate or indecorous about TE Brindle’s statements. And who knows? Maybe if they had allowed him to finish making his point, the level of temperance they desired would have eventually emerged. I doubt it though. Sadly, it’s occurrences like this which make many shy away from bringing up issues with their elders, pastors, and General Assembly members in the first place. Thank you, Pastor Wilson, for your observations and thoughts on this.Ted
Ted, thank you.
My SS class received a report on GA Sunday morning. We heard it was fairly contentious but the Brindle incident was not mentioned. We were informed that a study committee was formed to study “Christian Nationalism.” I was certainly glad to hear that. I responded to all that it was the 1st time I’d heard Christian Nationalism mentioned in our church and I was happy we were finally going to talk about it. A special thanks from this PCA church member to you. Thanks for keeping me informed.Jerry
Jerry, thanks.
Side note: Pastor Brindle is a rapper . . . a really good rapper. Check out his works, including the Unfolding (regarding the unity of God’s redemptive plan), or Restoration, among others. Top shelf stuff. Really really solid brother and minister of the Word!Mike
Mike, maybe that’s what KDY meant by lack of decorum . . .
Reading Tips?
Re: Reading Tips (History) wondering if you have those written down somewhere. I would love to send a list of recommended history books to my son and daughter-in-law to supplement their homeschooling of the three grands.David
David, I don’t have anything broken out by topic, but you can browse through my reading log. In the top menu look for Books/Reading Log. And if. you search for the term Book Review on the main blog, and click on one of the Book Review tags, all of my book-of-the-month selections will come up. A bunch of them are in the realm of history.
A Woman Teaching History
I hope you are well.
I have been going steady with a lovely woman for a while now, and we are looking to get married. We want to homeschool our kids, and she wants to be a domestically-centered wife. However, she also loves history, has a history degree, and wants to teach in an adjunct capacity, perhaps online, at a university level. She would be great at that, and it would be nice to have the supplemental income. However, I am wondering what the biblical principles are concerning a woman teaching in mixed company outside of the church. Obviously, they are not permitted to teach men in the church. But does the natural principle Paul is referencing in I Timothy 2 also forbid or discourage women from teaching men in other contexts than the church as well?
I would appreciate your insight. I have tried to find things written on this specifically from a thoroughly biblical and conservative perspective, but it seems like there is not much of anything out there.
Best wishes,Cletus
Cletus, the Scriptures certainly don’t forbid this sort of thing anywhere. But I believe that if we were to restore a robust sense of a woman’s vocational calling in the home, it would have the net effect of discouraging it quite a bit. But “net effect” is not the same thing as the Spirit discouraging an individual who has an opportunity like that open up for her. A woman’s place is not in the home; her priority is the home. If those duties are fully met, and a history gig opens up, then sure.
Wolfe’s Two Percent
I saw your response to a letter asking about Stephen Wolfe’s claim that “2% of the population demand 100% of the wars.” I don’t know if you missed the point (hard to believe, but possible), or if you were playing dumb, but he is talking about the joooz and how they control the US government, media, and public opinion. You really need to get ahead of this. It has been festering for months, maybe years now, and more and more of my brothers in the CREC have been pulled into Wolfe’s orbit (and from there to darker places) and are at risk of having their faith shipwrecked. You have seen the rotten fruit yourself!
You were warned about Wolfe and his associations prior to publishing his book, and you shot the messenger. You accepted Wolfe’s obvious lies that he didn’t know about the views of his podcast co-host (despite Wolfe having promoted Achord’s kinist book, which was co-written with a well-known kinist). And the ratchet has continued to turn toward more and more explicit anti-Jewish and white nationalist content since that time.
I’m afraid Canon’s response to date has a decidedly sulfurous whiff of mammon worship. I hope I am wrong and a separation is planned. I think a statement from presbytery is probably necessary, at this point, as well.
God bless you and your ministry.Demosthenes
Demosthenes, several things. Disagreeing with a messenger is not the same thing as shooting him. I do acknowledge that Wolfe is sailing close to the wind with some of these issues, but he is under contract, a contract he has not violated. If he were to openly violate his contract in this area, which would mean openly rejecting the contents of his own book, we would drop the title. In the meantime, please know this has nothing to do with mammon . . . the mammon move would be to listen to those voices clamoring for us to drop the book when I know for a fact that many of those same voices lie about me and what I believe. So in the meantime, Canon, and Christ Church, and Knox Presbytery, and the CREC, have been manifestly clear about where we stand on these issues. There has been absolutely no ambiguity.
Moral Culpability of Owners
Renting out a house:
In the UK it is illegal to discriminate who you rent a property to based on the usual ‘protected characteristics’. Letting agents responsible to let out your property don’t ask you they just get on with finding what ever tenants come to hand, the most you might know is that it is ‘a couple’. Landlords do not have direct contact with prospective tenants. Practically speaking it is not feasible to circumvent using a letting agent when the property is several hundred miles away and the amount of time and staff to find tenants and deal with all the paperwork is why people use agents.
In light of this, do you think a Christian renting out a property to an unmarried couple, or homosexuals is in the same category as baking a cake for a gay wedding? Or is it like buying stocks (some of which will undoubtedly involve companies doing evil with your capital)? Even if you let it to a single non-Christian, they will still sin in it. What to do—sell it all up?Henry
Henry, the issue here has to do with communicating approval. If you have a one-room B&B, and half your business comes from homosexual couples, I would encourage the owner to get out of that business. It would be impossible to function without seeming to express approval. But if he owns a motel in another city, he can know that over time somebody is going to commit adultery there . . . but nobody would think that he was approving of it. If he had porn in all the rooms, however, that would be approval and complicity.
Christian America at the Founding
America . . . Christian From the Get Go
I take your points about the constitutionality of hard establishmentarianism. But permit me to challenge the idea that soft establishmentarianism was the singular, agreed-upon foundation of America.
Imagine two marbles, side by side. Flick one straight and the other just a degree off. At first, they seem aligned—but give it enough distance, and the divergence becomes obvious.
Yes, many Founders believed in soft establishmentarianism and sought to build a nation on that basis. But others did not. So when modern America rejects soft establishmentarianism, is it really rejecting the Founders—or just those Founders?
Consider Jefferson: “It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” Or: “All men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion.” (Given the “twenty gods” remark, this isn’t confined to Christianity.) Or: “Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind . . . We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” Or: “I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”
Strip the 18th-century style, and Jefferson reads like a libertarian—Ron Paul, even.
America no longer reflects the soft-establishment dream. But perhaps we’re simply following the other marble—the disestablishmentarian one Jefferson flicked. This isn’t to suggest America doesn’t need repentance–but repentance how and for what? Maybe we’re not living in a Witherspoonian nightmare, but in a Jeffersonian fever dream. In other words, we may have missed Witherspoon’s vision by a mile . . . but hit Jefferson’s on target, just off center.
Would your contention still be the same—return to the soft establishmentarian Founders? Can your Christian Nationalism vision exist under the disestablishmentarian vision of Founders like Jefferson? Or should this view be round filed?Seth
Seth, a big part of the post-WW2 revision consisted of making Jefferson representative of. the Founders when, on this subject, he was an outlier. There really was a soft establishment consensus across the states at the Founding. That was a consensus that lasted for a century and a half. I would like us to recover that.
Inheritance Issues
I struggle with the commonly-mentioned “command” to leave an inheritance to one’s children. I usually see it used as justification for someone forsaking their family and the more immediate responsibilities of manhood to justify being the rich man of Luke 12. And frankly, I don’t plan to retire (retirement is nowhere in Scripture, we’re called to work, and people die when they retire!), so I don’t face an existential need to rake in the doubloons so I can sit on the beach from 65-75.
How much does a “good man” leave? Seems to me that this passage is more naturally taken as “a good man does not squander that to which he is entrusted, and therefore has something to pass on,” not “get as much as you can as fast as you can, because the greater the inheritance, the greater the godliness.” (exaggerated, absolutely.) In other words, it’s a commendation of stewardship, not an exhortation to gain.
My concerns probably stem from my deep-seated conviction that many Christian men keep themselves in jobs/industries where they shouldn’t because they’ve convinced themselves that the manly duty to be a provider requires provision of a certain level of luxury, not just reasonable provision for their health and talents. Think of how much more work the church could do if fewer men were lawyers, bankers, and executives propping up immoral institutions and practices!Samuel
Samuel, there is much in what you say, but I don’t think the issues of inheritance and retirement are the same. Amen to godly stewardship, and taking one thing with another, it is usually the case that when God retires a godly couple by taking them home, the fruit of that stewardship is passed on to their children. Leaving a godly inheritance is not dependent at all on retirement.
Late to the Courtship Model
I am a father of 5 who only came fully around to the idea of courtship after my eldest son announced that he wanted to date a young lady. That led to some intensive study and reading (including Doug’s book on the topic). Having come late to this perspective, we did not teach our boys as well as we could have about the way to find and pursue a wife. I now find myself in the situation of being the father of a 19-year-old who is interested in a young lady living 8 hours from us.
Without delving into too many specifics, I have a couple of questions and I’m hoping you can point me to some resources to help resolve these.
My eldest son is several states away, in college with his prospective wife. We have discouraged dating one-on-one, but he maintains that this is the only way to really determine if she is good wife material. How should we handle the intermediate period between “kinda interested based on group activities” and “I’m ready to talk to your father about marriage”? Should there be an in-between stage? How to manage that remotely?
My second son has an interest in another state. For him, that exploratory stage is more complicated since he can’t see her at the drop of a hat. Is it reasonable to get to know her better over the phone? The downside of that is there is no effective oversight (Although much less physical risk, there can be strong emotional attachments built in that telephonic intimacy.)
I don’t presume to expect you to address these questions directly, but I would appreciate your direction to any resources that deal with these modern questions surrounding courtship from a Biblical perspective. Does anyone tackle the practical “how to” questions of our modern era?Mike
Mike, here are just a couple of things. I think it is hazardous to try to implement principles “late in the game.” Sometimes it is necessary, and it has to be done sometimes. But your sons were brought up in a particular way, and that should be something you respect. Secondly, in many ways it is a moot point. Your daughters are home game. Your sons are playing an away game. In how this goes, a lot rides on the standards that will be set (or not) by the fathers of the girls your sons are interested in.
A Difficult Father Issue
I am writing in reference to the post you wrote about your father “Such a Father”. One of the things that I have been helped by in your writings is the simple expectation of obedience to Scripture and the blessings that accompany that. One of those expectations seems to be that we would care for our parents and “make a return” to them in their old age and failing health.
I am struggling because my dad has kidney failure, and is asking me if I would be willing to supply the kidney and to allow him to live in our house. It seems like the simple straight forward obedience answer would be to say “yes” to both. But I am struggling because he has not been the kind of father that you wrote about in your post. He cheated on my mom and they divorced when I was young, and since then he has been fairly absent. When he is not absent there is a good bit of pain and conflict that comes with his presence. I love him and it appears that he has recently been converted to Christ, but he and my wife do not get along at all. She is concerned that he is manipulating me into giving him a roof and a kidney!
Should I feel guilty for not wanting to give him my kidney or have him move in? I do feel terrible about it, as it appears that I am not the generous man that I thought I was. However, I think in the end that I will give the kidney, but I don’t know about him moving in. it seems like it would be tough on my wife to have him here all day as I am working. Is there a time to say no to your father moving into your house in a time of need? Or a time to say no to donating your kidney?
Thank you!Jonathan
Jonathan, yes. There would be a time to say yes to both, or no to both. Or, as you have indicated, yes to one and no to the other. You have to make that decision. As you do, your first responsibility would be to provide for and to protect your wife and family. Given that happens first, as much as you can, you are then to honor your father in practical, tangible ways. But you are not to rob your wife in order to pay your father. And if you say no to him moving in, but you do donate the kidney, he can hardly say that you don’t care.
Questions Relating to Inspire and Robert Netzly
Thank you for your work! What is your opinion on churches investing money? Let’s say a church has a significant savings account and they are funding the ministries that need to be funded and, all things considered, are honoring God with their budget and spending. Should they invest a portion of their money into a mutual fund (or something similar)?
If so, how scrupulous should they be in determining what companies get what money? Should they 1.) review each company or 2.) invest in any company as long as they don’t hear about any evil dealings. 3.) Invest in any company no matter what they do?
Any other guidance on this issue, such as types of investment, length of investment, etc.?Caleb
Caleb, yes. If a church has a significant amount of money, they will need to park it somewhere. And I think it would be good for a church to try to avoid tawdry connects. But you don’t have to have someone on staff monitor all the companies—there are companies that will do that for you. See my recent Man Rampant interview with Robert Netzly of Inspire.
Thanks for your conversation with Robert Netzly.
The biggest “red flag” with their approach is that it seems pietistic, shallow, and prone to a posture of drawing away from any company that is deemed to have too much “ick” on a handful of dimensions. But other aspects of these companies (often wildly positive!) are ignored.
For example, their website proudly boasts that they own none of the “Magnificent 7” (Microsoft, Apple, Alphabet/Google, Amazon, Meta/Facebook, Nvidia, and Tesla). Why not?
A significant portion of the revenue from hundreds of thousands of small-and medium-sized businesses in the U.S. goes directly into the hands of Google, Meta, Amazon, and Microsoft (and, thus, their shareholders) to fund various forms of paid advertising or productivity software. Similarly, on the backs of their efficient, targeted digital advertising, a proliferation of niche brands and products—including many Christian businesses—can be matched to the right customers, when previously these businesses would have struggled in an era of mass-market TV/print advertising.
Similarly, when you own Tesla, Google, Nvidia, or Amazon stock, you own shares of AI and robotics businesses (like self-driving cars or warehouse automation) that reduce toil and reduce death (from everything from car accidents to workplace injuries).
God is actively using many of these companies to “reverse the curse.”
On top of this, imagine if salty Christians actually owned a significant interest in major American corporations? Might that power be able to be effectively wielded?
Now, of course, there are unsavory aspects. In some cases, there is some truly gross stuff. But I can’t help but think that the desire to “clean our hands” is based more on being unfamiliar with, or actively refusing to see, any redemptive purpose in these companies.Erik
Erik, one of the reasons there is so much ick is that Christians have been far less vocal about their values than some of the opposition has been. As I have argued before, it is not possible to detach from our unbelieving economy, and there is no scriptural expectation that we do so. At the same time, business is personal, and I don’t like doing business with people who hate my God and who hate me. If there is an option of minimizing that, as Inspire does, I think it is entirely wholesome.
Servant Leadership
Since your post on Servant Leadership a few weeks back, I have been reconsidering the phrase. It has been illuminating, as are many of those dusty Christian keepsakes inherited from my childhood, when they are finally scrutinized, they are found wanting. I liken it to being led through the wilderness of adulthood towards masculinity, guided by a gent who has all the backwoods equipment, and huge, swollen calf muscles, presumably from acting as a sherpa guiding many males to manliness. Then he starts taking odd routes, is skittish around inclement weather, and his tent set-up looks like a toddler’s couch fort. Turns out the guide is some guy named Gerald from accounting, and was never properly vetted.
So I queried AI to find the frequency of the term “servant leader” in Christian literature over the past 100 years. The first appearance was in the 70’s, coined by a businessman named Robert Greenleaf, in an essay targeted to the business world. From there, the phrase was co-opted by Christian authors.
In an effort to rethink leadership through a lordship frame, I stumbled over the word headship and was hoping you might give some direction. I read an essay (https://istoriaministries.com/kephale/) about “head”, Greek kephale, and the author insisted that, among the many figurative meanings in Greek literature, the idea of authority is not one of them. Another meta-study (https://www.cbeinternational.org/resource/meta-study-debate-over-meaning-head-kephale-pauls-writings/) of the word yielded similar conclusions. Instead, the claim is that “source” is more accurate to how the 1st-century Christians would have understood kephale. I’m sure this is not news to you. The author goes on to surmise from this that Paul was not meaning for husbands to exercise authority over the wives, but instead be . . . source??
To me, it seems like a formidable resistance to the case for authority, at least in kephale and the relationship between husband and wife. Since “headship” and the assumption of authority packaged into the word is important to the lordship case you are making, how would you respond to this claim that it means source? Have you ever addressed it in a book or sermon?
Thank you,Tim
Tim, I may have addressed this somewhere, but I don’t recall where. The kephale as source argument is an “evangelical feminist” commonplace, and it does not hold up to scrutiny at all. The semantic range of a word does not settle how a word is used in a particular instance. The context of its use does that. In Scripture, we are taught that the husband is the kephale of the wife in an analogous way to how Christ is the kephale of the church. But His place over the church is one of true authority. He is the Lord Jesus, and wives are to think of their husbands the way the church thinks of Christ. This is why the Bible teaches that wives are to obey their husbands, being submissive to them. The feminists are not only not doing that, they are doing the opposite. It is not a genuine school of thought. They are just being disobedient women.
“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God” (1 Corinthians 11:3).
“For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing” (Ephesians 5:23–24).
“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God” (1 Corinthians 11:3).
“For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing” (Ephesians 5:23–24).
On the subject of white and/or Christian nationalism and who-all identifies, something puzzles me. Alleged white nationalist, and apparently the primary driver of the Trump administration’s anti-immigrant agenda, Stephen Miller, is a Jew. Sure, there’s a difference between white nationalism and Christian nationalism, but there is obvious (to anyone not in denial) overlap as well, and how does a Jewish man fit in either category? Am I the only person to notice and wonder?
He doesn’t. He’s a foreigner and would have no place in a White Christian America. Pretty simple.
Miller denies being a white nationalist and, rather oddly, says those who accuse him of it are antisemitic. If we define American-style white nationalism as the belief that the US should be overwhelmingly white–that immigration should be restricted to white people–and that whites should dominate the political, economic, and cultural spheres, it would be difficult not to see him as a white nationalist. This is a guy who, while attending ultra-liberal, multi-ethnic Santa Monica High School, told brown-skinned immigrant students they didn’t belong in the country and should leave. And that was before he was mentored by Richard Spencer and… Read more »
I don’t hate Jews. The just don’t belong to my nation.
Nazis back in the chat. Not the first, certainty not the last.
Yet how is a man in his position, with his education, his past and current associations, not aware? A Jew hell bent on expelling Other from the land. What makes him tick?
Dunno, maybe ask these folks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_German_National_Jews Nobody thinks the face-eating leopard will eat *their* face. Politics makes strange bedfellows, and political actors miscalculate. E.g., JD Vance — a “traditionalist” who wears eyeliner and changed both his name and religion, but thinks other people shouldn’t be allowed to — is a recently-converted Popist married to an immigrant Gates-Scholar Hindu he met at Yale, yet evangelical nationalists think he’s one of them because he lies about poor immigrants they don’t like. E.g., Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, is immolating some of the world’s most valuable companies (and his own… Read more »
Power primarily in the form of money. People who make $700 an hour have convinced people who make $25 dollars an hour the problem is people who make $7.50 an hour.
Also the only theft comes from poor people stealing things and not billionaires stealing your wages and benefits like healthcare, food, housing, etc.
I guess some people learn to love the taste of boot.
You’re in CA, right? Maybe in L.A. or nearby? Who’s looting your stores and robbing homes? Who’s rioting in your streets, fighting cops, stopping traffic and surrounding/assaulting vehicles trying to pass through? Who’s raping your daughters and murdering people? Are the white nationalist bogeymen you fear so much doing this?
https://x.com/RadioGenoa/status/1739170324069974162
I guess 70 years of boomer programming is hard to overcome.
I thought I was being pretty moderate and even-handed in my characterization of white nationalism. Do you dispute my statement that Miller holds white nationalist views as I defined them? If not, what is your issue with what I said? Whether I think white nationalism is a good or bad thing is irrelevant to the fact that it is odd for Miller to promote a movement the leaders of which do not accept him as white and do not wish to share their country with Jews. Even in the interest of preventing protesters from stopping traffic, I would not willingly… Read more »
White nationalists also murdered an Ethiopian student in Portland as another example. But some people consider Waymos equivalent to a human life.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Mulugeta_Seraw
I mentioned only murders committed by our locals. There are undoubtedly many others. Dylann Roof, Robert Bowers,Timothy McVeigh, Payton Gendron…
Remember last week when these brave truth-tellers were trying to convince everyone that white nationalism wasn’t an issue in Idaho? There was definitely nothing weird in Coeur d’Alene, specifically?
The guy who killed the Coeur d’Alene firemen was a white nationalist.
Meanwhile, evangelical ministers are executing elected Democratic representatives and… crickets from the “holy war” camp.
Well didn’t you hear on X the everything app? Migrant crime and Iran are the reason you can’t get healthcare or afford food for your family, duh 🙄
This troon? Looks like he was rebelling against his parents’ conservatism (his mom had custody and he hadn’t seen his dad in a year) and joined the same clubs you and Chris belong to.
If you want to argue that conservatism turns kids into racist murderers then go for it. All *I* said is that Dougie boy chose White Nationalism HQ to base his ministry from, without having given any good reason. Then he defended slavery under the Confederacy, and published anti-Semitic white nationalists (but has published zero non-white people, from what I can tell, it’s DEI for semi-educated white bros over at Canon). To that, you replied: “Buster clearly lives in an absurd fantasy world created by Hollywood, the MSM and publik skoolz. There are more people murdered in a weekend in many… Read more »
Another unprovoked statement calling me by name and fantasizing about my sex life. Man you must be down bad.
Furries can be Nazis too my guy, just like non whites. Mauricio Garcia ring any bells? Can you enlighten us with an X The Everything App post about how he was a trans Antifa member?
a) If everything is so clear and consistent why do people keep having the same questions? And why do you have trouble answering those questions directly? This is the second time you’ve been asked to evaluate a specific statement, and the second time you’ve demurred. You’re supposed to be a teacher; ahistorical anti-Semitism is an unambiguous evil. It is impossible to keep two sets of books on this question, and if you can’t get this right you won’t get anything else right. So let’s get real: if ANYONE ELSE fell back on the “we have a contract so my hands… Read more »
Hey I think you’re on the wrong website
Sorry, didn’t mean to disturb the safe space for sectarian snowflakes, just hoping we can avoid some of the larger mistakes of the 1930s as we run through the populist nationalist playbook again.
So far we’re off to a bad start!
Is little Buster still staying up at night worried about some white separatist who has never harmed anyone? Maybe Chris can read you a bedtime story like Heather Has Two Mommies.
Like you know any books other than The Turner Diaries 🥱😴 Love how you can’t help yourself but think about lil old me 😘 Dennis Hastert had more restraint than you do.
And you’re right, white separatists are weak cowards that would get dog walked like it was 1865.
Wow, Chris, so obsessed with me you can’t wait 2 hours to reply to a comment that wasn’t even a response to you? Do you have any life offline or just monitor this site 24/7? I made 2 comments on last Tuesday’s blog and didn’t check it again until a minute ago. You made 10 comments, which is on the low side for you but still demonstrates your monomania. Let’s see if you can muster up a modicum of impulse control and let this comment go. In fact, let’s see if you can refrain from leaving any more of your… Read more »
The ol’ “accuse them of what you’re doing” pattern once again.
I’m gonna ignore A and C but I will respond to B. Jefferson being an outlier in a certain respect does not mean he was just the guy sitting in the corner eating a pickle. The Declaration does make explicit reference to the Christian God. God given rights are the foundation of the entire document. The term Christian Nation was used in that treaty to assure them that American was not going to require Christianity. Supreme court cases have explicitly stated that American is indeed a Christian nation. there is a difference between “we are a Christian nation” and “let’s… Read more »
Jefferson was not an outlier in any way. John Adams: “My religion is not exactly conformable to that of the greatest part of the Christian World, it excludes superstition.” John Quincy Adams: “An eternal, self-existent, omnipresent omniscient Author of this stupendous Universe, suffering on a Cross! My Soul starts with horror, at the Idea, and it has stupified the Christian World.” Madison was also loudly disestablishmentarian, and a deist (if anything). Monroe seems never to have mentioned religion at all, even in private letters. Washington was devout but a pluralist who strongly opposed establishment. If they had wanted to refer to… Read more »
please note that I was referring to Jefferson being an outlier in soft establishment not in hard establishment. Also the greatest part means it was a denominational difference, Quincy Adams was a Unitarian, Madison was not a deist, and please note the difference in establishments for Washington. they did have other authorities, they were very practical, and they were derived from Christian doctrine. (Free speech isn’t exactly a Muslim idea.) not lying they just meant something different than what you meant. never ruled in favor of established religion, yes. Never had a church of America, yes. State Church would be… Read more »
It was not mere denominational difference. And Jefferson was *in no sense* an “outlier”. Nor have you offered any evidence that he was, against my significant evidence that he wasn’t. The matter is closed until you present such evidence. Madison intervened to *strengthen* the protections in the Virginia Declaration, he was among the strongest disestablishmentarians among the Founders. No, they were not derived from Christian doctrine. They were derived from secular political philosophy (free speech is an Enlightenment ideal, with roots in Hellenism; Demosthenes appears elsewhere in these threads, you can ask him about it). The republican system of governance… Read more »
greatest part implies there is a part of the Christian World to which he is conformable. This would indicate that it is a sub-religion difference i.e. denominational. I addressed all your evidence and found it wanting. None of your quotes in any way indicate that Jefferson was not an outlier in this one respect. James Madison – “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of… Read more »
Very clearly Madison is *not* saying “we have premised the American government on the 10 Commandments”, he is saying the opposite of that: this is matter of individual conscience, over which the state has no authority. Similarly, John Adams found virtue in ALL religions, though he found little truth in them, which is an Unorthodox “worldview”. James Wilson’s quote does not mention Christ nor the Bible, and his personal views were inconsistent over the course of his lifetime, but he personally opposed the Bill of Rights — he was one of the authors of the anti-biblical 3/5ths Compromise, so you… Read more »
you don’t like those quotes okay. George Washington – It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.” Patrick Henry – “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ.” John Adams – “The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity.” Also in what way was the 3/5 compromise unbiblical? Just in case you were concerned I reject some of Noah Webster’s beliefs including the view on… Read more »
I loved all those quotes! They do not show the government of the United States as Christian, “general principles” — or what CS Lewis referred as the “Tao” — notwithstanding. I’ve already showed how Patrick Henry’s views were rejected during the constitutional debates at both state level and national level. Re Adams, an unbeliever, obviously the general principles were consistent with Christianity or else Christians would not have signed those documents and imagined themselves in them. But they were also generally consistent with deism, or atheism, or Judaism, or “enlightenment values”, or plenty of other things. I.e., the US is… Read more »
I bid you ado for we are both repeating ourselves at this point. I have but three things to clarify. the three fifths compromise was to satisfy both sides when there would otherwise have been no agreement. Though slavery is not a good thing and it would have been better to count slaves as having no vote, (or even better get rid of it entirely through the state legislature) compromise was the only option at this point and blessed are the peacemakers. I have never argued that they established a religion in the sense that you deny they did. I… Read more »
They…forgot about it? Really their plan was to establish a specifically Christian nation, but they just forgot? “Clearly it endorses a God” is about as close to Christianity as “spiritual but not religious”.
That is what was said. Jefferson when asked why the constitution does not mention Jesus – “I do not know. I forgot.” Also you missed the and. I was pointing out that it refers to a God, and that based on the rest of the document (also the beliefs of nearly all the founding fathers and the rest of the American people at the time) it is the Christian God.
No, the reference is to “nature’s God, not the triune God who spoke through the prophets, is revealed in scripture, and incarnate in Jesus Christ whose resurrection is testified by His apostles; God whom Christians do not “endorse” but worship. Jefferson was not so specific because he wasn’t writing a Christian treatise, and because he didn’t believe what Christians do. It wasn’t particularly important to the signers, whatever Christian belief they had, because they were not founding a Christian country, that wasn’t their purpose. A little beside the main point here, but actually, they weren’t founding any country at all.… Read more »
I agree fully with your second paragraph and with the statement about endorsement. I was responding to a specific statement from Buster Keaton. That being said I think you got the rest of it wrong.
“Demosthenes appears elsewhere in these threads, you can ask him about it”
You two seem to know each other and have similar agendas. Friends? Lovers? Same person?
Taking any opportunity to fantasize about two men playing tummy sticks again? Ted Haggard, is that you?
I have no idea who that person is. So no, we are not the same person, I’m just historically literate (i.e., I didn’t go to NSA).
Or are we? Maybe we are, in fact, lovers. Maybe our limbs are intertwined, as we type about how daft you are. Would you like that? Would it stir something in your loins to know that we were?
Maybe we’re both Dougie boy, just messing with you. Hmmmmmm.
https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/a-handbook-for-online-anons.html
You refer to him as an expert to consult with and now deny knowing him. You claim DW has been to your house while Demo said he used to attend Christ Church. This sounds oh-so-convincing.
And calling me “innumerate” in another comment was really clever. Yes, I read the 1988 book by that title years ago. I was also studying and applying a lot of advanced math at the time, while you were studying postmodern queer filmmakers or something.
I’ve never been to Christ Church, yet I have been to Idaho. Dougie boy has been in my home, but my then-home wasn’t in Idaho and neither is my current home. It’s possible that I’ve met Demosthenes (the commenter), altho I have no reason to think so; I have read some Demosthenes (the Athenian orator), and would assume that someone going by that name in these discussion thread is familiar with at least the basics of his oratory, which were relevant when I referenced them. These are not mutually exclusive, and there is no riddle, you just aren’t great at… Read more »
Methinks this “advanced math” is really just memorizing FBI crime statistics.
Paine was not an atheist, but he was a Deist, and rejected the Old and New Testaments. Read The Age of Reason.
From Age of Reason: “As to the Christian system of faith, it appears to me a species of Atheism — a sort of religious denial of God. It professes to believe in a man rather than in God. It is a compound made up chiefly of Manism with but little Deism, and is as near to Atheism as twilight is to darkness. It introduces between man and his Maker an opaque body, which it calls a Redeemer, as the moon introduces her opaque self between the earth and the sun, and it produces by this means a religious, or an… Read more »
I’m not sure your assurances re: Stephen Wolfe provide the comfort intended. Are we saying that Canon Press has published, and intends to continue publishing, a book on Christian Nationalism whose principles are in no way violated by things like blaming the Jews for the bombs? This is the very stuff that is causing the CN movement to go rancid, and Canon Press’s premier book on the subject has nothing to say about it? Given Wolfe’s not-at-all-veiled antisemitism, it seems to me we are left with the following possibilities: 1) Wolfe’s book allows for racial vainglory, so his recent statements… Read more »
The proprietor has several times recently used a line like “there is a contract with Canon Press, the contract has not been violated”. For better or for worse, it is a lawyer’s defence. Lawyer’s defences are most suitable in courts of law where the question is criminal guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt. But outside courts of law, as you point out, there are many other questions in play. They should be answered; and the consistency with which they’re not, I think, is an answer in itself.
You can read the book Jacob. It’s a very easy read, and there are a lot of good bits, even if the appendices are quite sophmoric. The funny thing is that Wolfe’s Christian Nationalism is very different from Doug’s. Wolfe is retrieving the magesterial reformers and he believes that the prince is tasked with maintaining the purity of the Church. He sees a relatively limited role (compared to most in the CREC) for the church in society. He is also focused on nature, and opposed to an overrealized eschatology (including modern “post-millenialism). He very much believes in ethnic solidarity as… Read more »
My defense of Kevin DeYoung. 43:21 Refraining from Attacking a Member’s Motives. When a question is pending, a member can condemn the nature or likely consequences of the proposed measure in strong terms, but he must avoid personalities, and under no circumstances can he attack or question the motives of another member. The measure, not the member, is the subject of debate. If a member disagrees with a statement by another in regard to an event that both witnessed, he cannot state in debate that the other’s statement “is false.” But he might say, “I believe there is strong evidence… Read more »
I missed it first time around but it’s true. KDY was not overreacting. The moderator really did moderate. It’s a shame Pastor Brindle didn’t stick to his points because they were good.
A good thread giving more context. I’m also curious if 43:21 has been invoked consistently at GA. For example, did anyone who complained about the Federal Vision name names? Were they shut down like Brindle was?
https://x.com/CrossPolitic/status/1940436476514488656
As someone who has had two relationships start by long distance telephone, there are a couple of problems. When you actually meet that person, everything that you think you knew about that person goes out the window. You want to go to a place that your relationship hasn’t developed yet. I was thirty when the first time happened. After we actually met, we flamed out quickly. The second time would up being the woman I married, but even there, my perceptions of here were totally off at first. You need to make it a priority to have your son physically… Read more »
Something like with how they often deal with politicians (and astute politicians play to this), the other side of a long-distance relationship can be a blank-slate for you to project your own day-dreams onto. As you say, meeting up bursts the bubble, as you then meet the actual person instead. (I don’t speak from experience, romantically, but of course the Internet in general gives us plenty of people to think we “know” people, and then something comes out about them that makes us realise that actually we hadn’t a clue).
Monday’s blog piece about the “Moscow Mood” again gave that phrase a very different meaning to how it was used in relation to the concerns that DeYoung himself was talking about. I’ve seen this done so many times now by Douglas Wilson and his children/in-laws in different places that I wonder if they themselves do recall what DeYoung’s actual critique was, or if they have now come to believe that they and he were talking about the same thing. How conscious was this change at the beginning, and how conscious is it now? It’s a clever tactical move, no doubt,… Read more »
Thanks for the link. I read it. If pastor Wilson can still like Kevin DeYoung after that pile of Bulverism with its explicit refusal to engage with any of several topics (FV, peadocommunion, Wilson’s kind of postmillenialism, etc), I think pastor DeYoung (DeJung??:) very greatly underestimates pastor Wilson’s graciousness. And ‘stacked like Dolly Parton’ snappily describes how some PCA committees were, well, stacked against rather than considering their targets; there’s a very serious point expressed in a few words instead of two pages of “Whereas”es.
It is a perfectly valid approach, when writing a single piece, to provide a critique of someone at the level of their overall approach, rather than their critiquing their specific doctrines.
Or if it’s not, why did you just do so?
For anyone here like 7 years ago when certain woke “Christians” said we must believe “good journalism” like the Washington (Com)Post and their hit job on Roy Moore…read it and weep.
https://x.com/DailyCaller/status/1938724066568888608
The Pulitzer Prize winning “journalist” who made the false accusations (Moore later won a lawsuit and his accusers disappeared) was arrested for possessing child porn.
The ol’ “accuse them of what you’re doing” pattern once again.
*cough* ALEX LLOYD *cough*
I’m not surprised that this sort of thing happens, but I am surprised at how frequent it is.
Seems much more frequent in the Christ Church Community than the Washington Post.
Difficult Father issue, please learn all you can about kidney donation before agreeing to this. There is a reason that you have two kidneys, and you should know all the potential problems. It is definitely a noble sacrifice, but the possible consequences would land on your wife and children. You are looking to honor your father. When you are a child that is through obedience, but as an adult, it is through provision and care. I say this because you used the term “straight forward obedience” and because I have read Doug’s distinction in showing honor to parents as a… Read more »
The Founding Fathers’ original intent was meant to protect and promote religious freedom, not to suppress it. It was never meant to erect a wall between God and the State, or between religion and the State. In reality, Thomas Jefferson believed that the government could play a passive and impartial role in the religious arena, so long as it isn’t coercive in any way. While Jefferson was certainly opposed to an official national religion, or a national Church, he was nonetheless supportive of religion in general. In fact, most of what we know about the Founding Fathers reveals that they were very… Read more »
Good stuff. :)
This history is not hidden. It was also not limited to orthodox Christian services. Women preached in the House. Quakers and Unitarians met. There are still chaplains operating in these buildings, in fact 47 had a major fight with one of them as one of his first acts of this term. Discrimination was not allowed, and participation was not required. In Doug’s version of “Christian nationalism” discrimination would occur — only orthodox services would be tolerated, presumably he would get to define “orthodox” — and participation in some orthodox denomination would be mandatory. This would clearly violate the intent of… Read more »
I am not advocating a merging of Church and State, nor do I believe the State should favor one particular Church over another. I believe that the 1st Amendment was put in place to protect all faiths and religions. On the other hand, it is also true that this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, at least in part. Therefore, it is a fact of our heritage. Our heritage is not Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist – or atheist for that matter. Other countries have their own heritage and culture, and we have ours. Personally, I don’t think our early history should be expunged, or watered down, just… Read more »
I have no major quarrel with your first few paragraphs, but need to pull on this thread, after which your argument unravels: “On the other hand, it is also true that this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, at least in part.” It very much depends on what you mean by “in part”. If by that you mean “more-or-less entirely”, as Doug does, then no: that is not true. I can prove it: why would a “Christian nation” (or, more recently, “Christian republic” which is a contradiction in terms) require 3 different “Great Awakenings” from the 18th-20th centuries, each lasting… Read more »
Good discussion. We agree on some things but not on other things. First, please see your two quotes below that I cut and pasted from your comments. Then please see my two comments (#3 and #4) in response. 1. You said, “A republican form of government cannot derive authority from the God of the Christian Bible, because republicanism rejects divine right to authority in order to establish the natural rights of the individual that are the bedrock of any consensus-based system. I.e., republicanism is a neo-Hellenist product of the Enlightenment, it is a secular system premised on scientific analysis (according to… Read more »
Re your 3: first, let me agree that the Declaration and Constitution are not in contradiction. But I wrote above that Scribbler (I think, I’m not re-reading everything to make sure) was getting dangerously close to intellectual three card monte. You are now getting similarly close. “Creator” and “God” are not Christian, not even theist, references. This is the pluralist language of the day, intended to be acceptable to people of any religious persuasion or sect: Hindu, Buddhist, Greek, Turkish, etc. This was a universalist document, it did not reference a chosen people or any divine mandate (e.g., no mention… Read more »
Theonomic Christian Nationalists write a lot of words…. but in the end, one is always left, no matter how much they protest, with the strong sense that these words really boil down to “people like me should be in charge”.
Maybe so, but it’s also true that many secular-progressives believe they should be in charge.
No doubt. The sad part, from a Christian point of view, is when Christians play the same game, in the same way, with their principles eventually just resolve once things get really heated into “my crook rather than your crook and, frankly, we can get away with this because we have the votes”. As an example of that kind of thing, I’d point to all the thousands of words written on this blog about the character required for leadership, and all the words written to explain that Joe Biden should not be near power because of of the importance of… Read more »
Not just Hegseth, but also Trump himself, and the cartoon-character “spiritual leaders” who profit off his office while worshiping the wealthy and denigrating the poor. If you were to draw up archetypical antichrist figures, these would be them. When they say “people like me should be in charge” they really mean “I should be in charge”. That’s what the totally-not-FV “mood” means. Doug has ordained himself, established his own church, his own schools, his own everything, rather than submit to any authority. His “denomination” grows not through converting unbelievers but through poaching from other denominations. Yet he demands full submission… Read more »
I agree that, to work out what a pastor *really* believes about authority, submission, and how the kingdom works, you shouldn’t just listen to what he says, but look closely at how the power structures of the ministries he works in operate in practice. And if he’s growing older, include looking at how he’s progressively handing that over. Very informative, one way or the other.
My reply is to both David and Buster, especially since Buster mentioned me by name. First, I’d rather not get into a debate about which side does what (from a political party standpoint). There’s enough blame to go around. Second, my main point here is to express my view of Christ’s kingdom, since I believe it’s important for Christians to understand that Christ’s kingdom is a spiritual kingdom, not a worldly kingdom. From a biblical perspective, God’s plan to fight all the evils in the world is twofold: 1) Christ’s death on the cross, and 2) Christ’s desire to build… Read more »
Dan, thanks for wrapping this up constructively. I’m sure these issues will be discussed a lot in the coming year, given the looming anniversary, so this has been helpful for sorting my thoughts. I appreciate it. As we can probably all agree, there was a religious tendency among some Marxists in the 20th century. Like all religions, they had deconversion narratives too. Some who have left talk about their “Kronstadt moment,” the moment they realized that the “movement” had run off course and become damaging to the causes it claimed to represent. For some it was the Kronstadt repression itself,… Read more »
I wanted to wrap up this discussion with some final thoughts. First, I wanted to mention that my church and theological persuasion is from a Reformed Baptist and amillennial perspective. As such, I am no postmillennialist, nor am I a theonomist or reconstructionist. As you can discern from my previous reply regarding Christ’s kingdom being a spiritual kingdom, I do not believe there will come a time in the future of the church when the world will become Christianized and nations will adopt biblical law before the coming of Christ. Secondly, one area that I have seen influence… Read more »
Thanks, Dan. It would be hard for me to disagree with much of that. I like this part especially: “We must remember that it was God Himself who ended the Israelite theocracy. Thus, there is no more theocracy (either now or in the future), and this is by God’s design.” We could go further and say that God warned the Israelites against theocratic *monarchism* in the first place. The desire for an earthly ruler who could wage war against their enemies was the fundamental cause of the destruction of Israel. It was a sinful desire, even then, and they were… Read more »
Tim Brindle rapped and preached at a youth retreat I went to growing up!! Crazy small world, and good on him for defending the truth! I’m a fan of his “Headcrusher” song, great exposition of the typology of the protoevangelium.
In response to “A Difficult Father Issue,” I don’t think you should feel any obligation to donate a kidney, even if he was the best father in the world. (And the best father in the world wouldn’t ask for the kidney.)
I will go further and say that you probably should not donate a part of you that you may need and that will not grow back. As Christians, we need to think more deeply about the ethics of organ transplants.