Contents
A Few Favorites
I hope you’re doing well in this lovely Christmas season. Speaking of which, I know you usually receive and respond to perhaps more scholarly/heavier questions, or some of the most cockamamie things I’ve ever seen. I think that’s lovely, and I’m very grateful that you take the time to answer people’s questions, or respond to the aforementioned . . . off the wall letters.
During this Christmas season, however, would you mind terribly if someone asks you something a little bit lighter? Like what are some of your favorite movies, and why? What are some of your favorite books, and why? What are some of your favorite Christmas traditions and memories?
I would be half surprised if you didn’t, perhaps, feel at liberty to answer these, especially since so many people are asking more pressing things. But if you do, I’m grateful for you humoring me. Merry Christmas!ON
ON, consider yourself humored. My favorite color is blue. There are many favorite Christmas traditions, so I will just mention two—family gathering informally for Chinese food after our Christmas Eve service, and our big Christmas breakfast. Memories? I still remember the Christmas when I got a Flexible Flyer sled. Unlike others in my family, I am not much of a movie guy . . . but favorite movies would include Tender Mercies, The Stalking Moon, and Babette’s Feast. By far and away my favorite book is That Hideous Strength.
New Nation
Thank you for your ministry and for the opportunity to ask questions.
At 32min and 50 seconds into this recent Q&A that took place in Calgary, a question is asked about what the role of the church would be in ensuring a Christian foundation of a new nation. What do you make of these responses? How would you answer this question?
Thank you for the time,N
N, I would answer it this way. There is a difference between telling us what you would say if you were asked for input on a particular question, and what you would do to ensure that a new republic had a Christian foundation. In answering the latter, I would say that we need to preach the gospel, plant a multitude of churches, establish Christian schools in every locale, and call upon the magistrate to recognize that the foundation of his authority is the grace exhibited to him by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
A Slavery Gotcha
If it was possible for a man like Philemon to live in Alabama in 1850, own slaves, treat them biblically, and walk with God, then that seems to beg this question:
Is it possible for a man like Philemon to live in Alabama in 2025, own slaves, treat them biblically, and walk with God?
If so, why?
If not, why not?NC
NC, it is not possible to do so. This is because slavery as an institution is not legally recognized, and for a man to privatize slavery is to be a kidnapper, which in Scripture is a capital offense. But if you have a society where slavery is widespread and recognized, the task of Christians would be to subvert that institution peacefully. The instructions for how to do that are laid out repeatedly in the New Testament, with teaching directed at both slaves and masters. A master who lived as instructed would be doing right.
A Canon Planner?
Can someone in or around the sphere of Canon Press develop a weekly planner? Quality paper, Bible verses, a To-The-Word schedule, and such. I don’t see Christian publishers offering these sorts of things and think it a missed opportunity. On another note, Merry Christmas.Morgan
Morgan, merry Christmas back. That’s a good idea.
Why Conservatism is Hard
I’m sure you’ve heard the diagnostic: “This is why we can’t have nice things.” Conservative efforts—theological movements, political movements, institutions, etc.—seem to get undermined and rot out rather quickly. It might be better said: “This is why we can’t keep nice things.”
Is there something within the conservative collective mindset that is self-destructive? Is it a lack of thankfulness? Is it just human nature?
From where I sit, your projects in Moscow look contrary to what I just wrote, but still, and in general, conservatism has this major pitfall to it. It’s just not very good at conserving.
Peace,Charles
Charlies, Chesterton once said that Satan fell by the force of gravity. There is nothing wrong with conservatism, but there is something wrong with the world, and with people. When we sin, we sin downhill. Biblical conservatism stands against our natural human tendencies to screw things up, and that is a task that requires constancy.
Narco Boats
1) What about alternatives? Why is blowing up boats in international waters the best approach? We know how to secure our land borders and control our seas.
(2) Per multiple of our own government organizations, Venezuela’s main drug product is cocaine heading to the Caribbean and Europe, not fentanyl heading to the U.S., which is almost entirely produced in Mexico with Chinese precursors and smuggled over the border.
(3) Because of the above, the stated reasons for blowing up Venezuelan drugs boats doesn’t pass the smell test and doesn’t seem justified. If U.S. bound fentanyl was our concern, we’d be blowing up makeshift labs in Mexico, not blowing up Venezuelan boats. In fact, per your article, that’s exactly what we should be doing. ¿No?JPH
JPH, I wasn’t arguing that this approach was the best approach, just that it was a lawful one. And blowing up targets within a nation’s sovereign territory is a much bigger deal, and significantly closer to a formal act of war. Even so, at some point, it could be justified.
Re Narco Boats and Barbary Pirates:
I’m struggling to understand what about the warehouse situation and drone-strike response you describe makes it categorically different (i.e., 1 of 10 on the lawful scale, and thus unlawful) from the narco-boat scenario/response you describe as legitimate (10/10 lawful) later in the post. I’ve read through it several times, and I think I’m missing a key distinction somewhere.
In the warehouse scenario, you say our intel is ‘really solid, and we knew that absolutely everyone in the building was a bad actor with a long criminal record’. In the boat scenario, you say the intel is ‘slam dunk good’, which seems to suggest the intel is better in this case, but the addition of ‘we knew everyone in the building was a bad actor’ in the warehouse scenario seems to place both sets of intel roughly in the same category of ‘airtight’.
Are you arguing the drone-strike response to the warehouse situation is disproportionate to the crime (which, broadly speaking, one could categorize as a truly massive drug deal)? Or that the response is unlawful because it was done on American soil as opposed to international waters? Or perhaps that the specific criminal records of the people there were not deserving of the death penalty?
It would be helpful if you could drill down into which components of the scenario make a drone strike on the warehouse unlawful, and how that differs from the narco-boat example. It seems in both scenarios, the intel is airtight, the bad guys are all very bad, and the objective of the bad guys in each scenario is identical, so I’m curious to hear the specific distinction(s) you make between the two. Thanks!P.T.
P.T., the distinction is one that you mentioned—American soil and American citizens v. international waters and foreign bad actors. In the warehouse scenario, to take such an action would violate numerous laws and constitutional protections for the bad guys.
Spiritual Growth
“For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love” (2 Pet. 1:5-7).
We are going through 2 Peter at church and I wanted to get your input on a question I’ve been thinking through. I don’t know the best way to type it out without it being an overly wordy 10,000 word essay, but what is your understanding of how the fruit of the Spirit come to exhibit themself through a believer? How much is due to our effort and how much is due to a supernatural “you’re a fruit tree now”? And if it’s due to our effort, where does the supernatural element come in to play? Surely there’s a difference between a believer’s and a non-believer’s ability to show love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control?
Additionally, if you’d say effort plays a huge role in bearing the fruit of the Spirit, I’d love to hear your thoughts on how one grows in that area.
Thanks,Justin
Justin, I would point to Paul’s exhortation in Philippians. “Work out your salvation for God is at work in you.” I believe that we are to work out what God works in, and nothing else. Him working it in is the gift, the grace, and our labors depend at every point on that grace. If the Lord doesn’t build the house, the one who labors does so in vain.
Elder Quals
I’m writing on the subject of the qualifications of elders, specifically having children who are believers (1 Timothy 3, Titus 1).
I have for many years attended a Reformed Baptist church. The pastor (for more than twenty years) is a good man, loves Jesus, and faithfully preaches the Bible. He has four adult children who grew up in this church but are now out of the home. He and his wife were good parents as far as me, my wife, and my children (some of whom are the same age as his children ) could tell. The pastor has a good relationship with all of them. The oldest three are married and, so far as I can tell, faithful Christians. His youngest is a different case. Once he turned 20 or so, came out as gay.
I know this breaks the heart of our pastor. I also know that, to the elders, he has offered to step down from his position due to his youngest son. The elders unanimously refused. But I know this only because, once I became aware of his youngest son, I went to talk to the pastor about it. He was very polite and respectful, not resenting at all that I approached him, and I hope I was respectful of him in return. I honestly think the man has earned it.
In that conversation the pastor told me and his wife have had countless conversations with their youngest son. They’ve tried various forms of intervention. He’s made is clear to his son the sinfulness of his lifestyle. He and his wife have urged repentance on him, and have prayed for the Lord to do a work in his heart for years. The youngest son still attends church while in town, stays in his parents’ home when he does, has always been respectful and courteous in my dealings with him, but is now living an openly gay lifestyle in another state. One extra wrinkle is that while the oldest three are biological children, the youngest was adopted into the family as a baby.
The elders have, apparently, made their decision. However, our church has a congregational form of church government. Ultimately, the elders submit to the membership, and no motion or even discussion has ever taken place at a congregational meeting on the issue.
My question is, “Should I try and force the issue at the congregational level and at least have a discussion about it?” Does having one unbelieving adult child disqualify a man from being an elder, even when all the other evidence suggests he is eminently qualified?
I don’t want to be a crank and unnecessarily do something to disrupt the peace of the church, but I also want to do my part to uphold the standards set forth by the Bible for church leadership.David
David, I talk about this sort of scenario in my book The Neglected Qualification. I make a distinction between the kind of situation that would cause me to step down (this would be one of them), and the kind of situation that would make me want to fight about it at presbytery over another man’s qualification. This would not be one of those—the thing tipping the scale there being the fact that his youngest was adopted.
The Star of Bethlehem
I was curious if you had ever heard of the 2007 documentary The Star of Bethlehem by Frederick Larson. Here is an AI synopsis that, if memory serves, sounds pretty accurate of the film. It’s been a minute since I watched it!:
“The Premise: The documentary takes the Gospel of Matthew’s account seriously, assuming the Star was a real, observable astronomical event that guided the Magi.
The Phenomenon: Larson proposes a rare, triple conjunction of Jupiter (the “King Planet”) with Regulus (the “King Star”) in the constellation Leo (symbolizing Judah/lion) around Rosh Hashanah in 3 BC, which astrologers would recognize as a royal birth sign.
“Stopping” Over Bethlehem: This is explained through planetary retrograde motion (planets appearing to stop and reverse) as observed from Earth, not a literal stationary star.
Biblical Clues: It highlights key clues from Matthew, such as the star being seen in the East (Babylon), lasting over time (the long journey), and pointing to a specific location.
“Celestial Poem”: The documentary suggests these celestial events form a “poem” detailing Christ’s life from conception through crucifixion, culminating around the time of Herod’s death.”
I’m not sure if any of this would affect your view on the star or not. Your writing reminded me of this information and I thought you might enjoy it if you weren’t aware of it. I think you can watch it on YouTube for free now. The first time I saw it as a young boy was around Christmas time with my family and we really enjoyed it and were encouraged by it. If you are familiar with it I’m curious what your thoughts are.
Thanks for all you do! I’ve been enjoying God Rest Ye Merry. I appreciate all the books you gave away last month! Merry Christmas!Joshua
Joshua, thanks for the recommendation. I still have trouble seeing how something like that could identify a particular house.
When to Have Kids?
I’ve been a listener and enthusiast for a good bit now and have thoroughly appreciated all you’ve contributed to the kingdom. So thank you for that. My wife and I are 21, have been married for a year and a half now, no little rascals yet. We are both working full time and have been making extra payments on our home, initially planning to pay off the mortgage first in order that it will be easier on my income alone once we have a baby. We hate to delay starting a family but want to navigate our situation biblically, balancing financial and provisional wisdom, and faithfully submitting to our Christian duty of being fruitful. Do we scrap the fantasy of a paid-off house before little ones or how can we harmonize these desires? Thanks!Joel
Joel, since you asked my advice, I will give it. Paying off a house is likely going to involve years. I would start trying to have kids now.
More on Zionism
Many thanks for posting my guest-blog-article-sized letter to the editor. Please pass along my prayer request to the small groups this week to gain more self awareness regarding my word count. I wish that were only a joke and not also a personal problem. Your graciousness isn’t lost on me, so this rejoinder will be, uh, shorter. Also, as a humorous note in my defense, your blog platform omits all my return characters that at least give my fellow readers paragraph-level breathing space.
In spite of my tremendous efforts to include all the qualifications I needed in that letter, I was remiss to frame my question without stating what I believe are your bona fides, and hence why I send you the question rather than another prominent Christian leader. It’s clear where you and Moscow land on the supercessionism issue theologically and as a result politically. I would also consider the project at Moscow to be an exemplary national leader for the direction we ought to be going together. You would also lose nothing from fellow believers and admirers like myself by demurring on my suggestion. I have plenty to learn on this issue, so I’m asking as much as an educational opportunity as perhaps a valid suggestion to you why we wouldn’t follow Alinsky’s principle of pursuit of total defeat of this competitor to the Lordship of Christ.
To be clear, I see no affiliation between Moscow and Lindsey Graham or any other ruling Zionist when I point out what to me seems to be a lost opportunity on your part. I think the first half of Tucker Carlson’s Podcast last week is a great example of the kind of strategic attacks I refer to. We can leave aside the debate of what is actually happening on the ground at Gaza, or how many Indian bots are pumping up the Fuentes numbers (according to the NCRI, it’s the same bots that are posting “Christ is King” that we have to worry about, due to the rise of Indian anti-Semitism). I’m not asking why you don’t traffic more in doubling down on the reality of Candace Owen’s newest theories about the French-Egyptian-Beekeeper-Jewish alliance. It doesn’t appear necessary to resort to any speculation to observe the problem I refer to. I’m asking why we don’t pursue the defeat of problematic things right out in the open, like Tucker’s clip of Ted Cruz telling us we need to give a portion of our income to Israel for their kinetic conflicts, abortions, or whatever else we’re funding over there because the Bible is crystal clear that Deus Vult.
I know you “reject the overheated rhetoric of Christian Zionists” and I see no difference from my own views. My question is more tactical—why not assume the center and go hard on the attack against the same idea Tucker hit: the Bible teaches America that getting right with God means repentance and the worship of the Lord Jesus Christ, not sending tax dollars to Israel. Offer a direct contrast. Let the true Deus Vult tear down the false one. We all know that if Ted Cruz were talking about the true one, he would not thunder about our biblical obligation on tithing to foreign nations, but on forsaking immorality and stopping our murder of babies.
I don’t naively suggest that if you did that, you’d silence all your conspiratorial critics and their “noticing” toward you. There are some real interesting fellows on the Internet nowadays. My appeal is that tactically choosing this battleground as a hill to die on makes logical sense to me based on the principles of political warfare you promulgate, such as Rules for Radicals. Sort of like the city of Moscow is both high value and achievable, this line of pursuit walks and talks like a no-brainer to me.
I’d consider the following benefits strategically: 1) We’re attacking a weak target, since there is no confusion of ethnic hatred when publishing fully qualified takedowns of so-called “Christian” Zionists. 2) We stand to represent the reasonable and wide-awake alternative to the rise of Jew hatred, that does attack real abuses in American politics in the public domain because we “notice” reality and we also await the evidence of 2 or 3 witnesses before promoting conspiracy. 3) Wresting control of the theological imperative upon the American conscience away from dutiful taxation and onto proclaiming Christ and discipling our nation is a textbook win for Christian Nationalism. 4) Forcing a reboot of the conversation with friendly and naive normie Christian Zionists, who in my view otherwise would join us in some of our Christian Nationalist efforts if they stopped pouring resources into the Israel issue, since biblically-speaking God has that nation fully covered. You’d be amazed the amount of airtime “Pray for Israel” discussions get in churches I’ve grown up in.
In short, I see an opportunity to take a hardline stance that would be all at once the truth, evangelistic in nature, popular to the disaffected burgeoning neo-Nazi right who need to be shepherded away from their spirit of accusation, and achievable because the political Christian Zionist power block is losing all its arguments, with no victimhood status to hide behind to avoid them. To me, this looks like the kind of opportunity that deserves a baker’s dozen of Doug Reacts videos, blog posts, and maybe even a few conference keynote topics to pound the nail fully into the coffin. Again, I write to learn as much as to suggest, so if I’m misreading the room or just got plain larnin’ to do, that suits me just fine. I’d like to be helpful to my own friends in the variety of dissident Signal chats I find myself in, so I welcome you pointing me in a better direction where you see my current trajectory lacking.
Thanks a bunch,Patrick
Patrick, I am very glad for all your qualifications. And I wouldn’t say that you are reading the room wrong, but think it is more likely that we are reading different rooms. Much of what you urge, I believe that we are already doing. I really have written a ton on these issues. And, as it happens, I am going to be at Turning Point this week having a conversation with Steve Deace about it.
Limited Options
I’m currently a member at a Reformed Baptist church and it’s one of the only solid and faithful churches in my area or within 100 miles. The other faithful churches are all Baptist as well.
I am seriously considering embracing infant baptism. I’ve been studying it for a while and have to come very close to believing it is God’s intention for Christian children. However, I hope to have a child soon (we’ve been praying for years now for God to bless us with one). And in the event I do become paedobaptist I would not be able to baptize them, given that I go to a Baptist church. What should I do?Eric
Eric, very sorry for your plight. On paper, your options would be: 1. Stop studying the issue; 2. Hold paedo-convictions but submit to the practice of your church; 3. Move; 4. Plant a paedo church. It seems to me that the intellectually honest and peace-seeking approach would be either #2 or 3.
Ideal Number of Elders
What is an appropriate number of elders to have as the church congregation grows? What should the ratio be approximately? And in your view should individual members be assigned to an elder to “keep tabs” on them, or do you look at this issue more from a head of household approach.JC
JC, I believe that the ideal number of elders for a church would be one elder for every ten households or so.
Unregenerate Covenant Children
I have just finished reading “Reformed” is Not Enough and thoroughly enjoyed it. One question from the end, though. Are faithful covenant children, raised by faithful covenant parents, ever unregenerate? For someone who says, “I can’t remember a time when I did not love the Lord Jesus Christ”—can we infer from the promise of covenant succession that they were never enemies of Christ? If so, does the indictment of Ephesians 2:1-3 not apply to them? Can a covenant child be by nature a child of wrath whilst at the same time being a child of God? Put differently, how does the doctrine of total depravity compute with children born into the covenant family?Martin
Martin, I believe that all covenant children, by virtue of their descent from Adam, are by nature objects of wrath. That is, considered apart from Christ, they are in the same boat with everybody else. And growing up in the covenant, they have to deal with remaining sin, like all Christians do. The old Adam will pop his head out from time to time, and must be crucified anew.
Fever in the Bunkhouse
I was reading through your blog post, “Fever in the Bunkhouse Now” and the paragraph talking about “a working prototype of a normal Christian community” was really striking and convicting to me. I am currently struggling with how I would bring this idea to one of the elders of my church who are in a position of leadership. I can imagine and articulate the idea, but I am having a hard time with the specific ask.
Perhaps some background would be insightful. I am a member of a large church (I don’t know how many members we have total, but we average roughly 10k attendance across three campuses) down in the Bible belt. We certainly have plenty of people who own all manner of small businesses, hordes of children running around, many people talented in the arts, and support such a wide variety of ministries I doubt I have even heard of them all. Which I suppose is the main problem. How does one spread awareness/create community in a body so large?
It is also going to become even more difficult as time goes on. Our local area is expected to quadruple from 250k to one million people by 2050, and the church is growing so fast that the elders have begun to consider whether opening a fourth campus would be wise.
In a church body so large, it would not be difficult to create the kind of daily community where one day someone might say “I didn’t know that this America still existed”. How best to get the word out though? I’d appreciate your thoughts on the matter if you have any.
Best,
PS: The nations are coming to the NW Arkansas area, the Church is doing it’s best down here but I for one would welcome another strong Christ-centered church to the area. We can use all the help we can get.SC
SC, in a situation like that, I don’t see any way to cultivate the localism of genuine community apart from parishes, with real geographical awareness.
Re: “Fever in the Bunkhouse Now.” Thank you for taking this stand.
I like that you linked to the NCRI report and the high likelihood that Fuentes’s engagement is driven by bots, foreign actors, and the like. I think anon armies fall into this category as well. At the very least, they give a kind of cover to the bots because of their supposed legitimacy. “I’ll lose my job if people know who I am!” We accept having such people in the discussion and this gives cover to bots and rogues.
Anons should be totally disregarded by people on social media, and companies should make a way to tell the difference when you look at engagement. Of course, there easy ways to show likes from people with skin in the game as opposed to masked trolls, and I think social media could go a long way towards correcting these problems if they did this. We all know decent people who are becoming less-decent, and it seems like they are at least being influenced to yell and scream and be obscene by standing in a crowd of masked trolls yelling and screaming and being obscene. Bad company corrupts good morals. If you removed all the masked trolls from the equation, some of these supposed high-octane right wing types would not have nearly the following they seem to have. Or at least it would be revealed that their following is not comprised of respectable men of the gates.
Anyway, thanks for what you do. Keep up the fight.Devin
Devin, thank you.
A Pentecostal Math Problem
In the sermon on Acts, there is a section about the 17 nations listed in vv. 9-11, And the triangular of 17 being 153. But the maths problem is that I count maybe 16 but more like 15 . . . Grok finds 15.
1. Parthians,
2. and Medes,
3. and Elamites,
4. and the dwellers in Mesopotamia,
5. and in Judaea,
6. and Cappadocia,
7. in Pontus,
8. and Asia,
9. Phrygia,
10 and Pamphylia,
11. in Egypt,
12. and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene,
13 and strangers of Rome, Jews (16?) and proselytes, (??)
14. Cretes
15. and Arabians,
The “Jews and proselytes” seem to be related to “strangers of Rome”, but if they are not, then I still don’t see how one could honestly count “proselytes” independently as a nation, if that is the solution?Anthony
Anthony, I included the speakers, the Galileans. They are mentioned at the top.
Another Church Choice Thing
We are about to move back to our hometown. Several years ago, we attended a local church there. It is a theologically rich church in the middle of rural nowhere. We love it and their no-nonsense approach. However, there’s one thing that’s sorely missing—community. It’s partly a cultural thing, but also partly just a “them” thing. I’m a woman, and since this is something that women tend to complain about more than men, I can see that it is a significant need in the church. I’ve advised said women to “bring their gifts” into the church by cultivating the sense of hospitality they’d like to see, but it seems as though the elders aren’t helping very much. For instance, there was talk of starting small groups, or some form of it, but that idea was shot down because they were afraid it might keep people from showing up to Sunday school. I guess that’s a valid concern, but I wonder, what else can we do? Most churches implement some form of small groups or Bible studies as a remedy for this very thing. Perhaps it’s just a lack of creativity on our part. I really am interested in creating a culture of hospitality here. How does your church do it, and could you suggest a way to appeal to the elders for help?LR
LR, from what you describe, I wouldn’t ask the elders to form small groups. I would ask for their blessing for you to start a small group. See how it goes. See if it affects Sunday School attendance. In short, do what you would like to see done, and see what happens.
On Hell
You answered a letter writer’s question on the nature of Hell saying that you believed that it is “eternal conscious torment for the damned.” I agree with you. As a Catholic boy in the 1950’s, I got a good dose of Hell Fear in my 12 years of Catholic school education, so I have often turned the concept over in my mind. My latest vision is that God doesn’t need to do anything further to make the damned miserable after judgment. Imaging being restored to a physical body, now immortal, and present in timeless eternity: no light, no sound, nothing to eat or drink, no air to breathe, no gravity but endless weightless falling; no one to talk to or curse; you’re all alone with your evil, an evil that you have finally been made fully aware of at your judgment. As Kurtz said in “Heart of Darkness”, THE HORROR, THE HORROR. And then God casts you into the Lake of Fire. It has occurred to me that this may be God’s final mercy to the damned; a terrible burning pain that somewhat distracts the attention from the horrible realization of personal, continual, progressive corruption. Jonathan Edwards in one of his sermons expounds on the crushing collapse of damnation upon the soul. I have thought of this collapse as related to the half-life of radioactivity: a continual reduction of matter, ever smaller and smaller, yet never arriving at total annihilation.
How great the mercy of the Father in Jesus Christ!Jack
Jack, thank you. Our tendency is to ameliorate the images that Scripture gives us, which is the wrong impulse.
DeYoung’s Criticism
Kevin DeYoung argues that one of the two remaining problems (mathematicians call that “half of the problems” or “100% of the remaining problems”) with Christian Nationalism is that “[N]o one agrees on what Christian Nationalism is.” To be charitable to his way of writing, his objection boils down to there not being a consensus or majority opinion of what it is.
However, one need only look at the chasm between those fighting for “the right to life” and “the right to choose” to be reminded that we don’t have a consensus definition of the word “right,” either. Have men like DeYoung ever written 9,000-word think pieces stating that we don’t have “rights?” DeYoung’s article alone mentions “rights” 7 times (Once as a proper noun) and always under the presupposition that they exist and that they are good. However, there cannot simultaneously be a right to life and a right to kill one’s innocent offspring, so long as he or she is very small.
In short, DeYoung seems to be holding the term “Christian Nationalism” to a standard that he does [not?] apply to any other term even he employs with aplomb.
DeYoung further complains that “I find that Christian Nationalists do not at all agree on what model they actually want to implement.” To that I reply, “Neither do all Christians (even genuine Christians, not just people who call themselves such). Does that mean we can’t use the term ‘Christian?'”
Likewise, neither do those who consider themselves “conservatives,” which is a term that is claimed by people as far apart as Rudolph Giuliani to Alan Keyes. I have never read DeYoung complain that we shouldn’t use “conservative” or “Christian” because there are people who don’t agree on what that means. He (DeYoung) might wish for conservatives to be Burkean (or Lockean), but that’s not exclusively how the term is used in the wild. So because many people don’t agree with his definition, does that mean that the term is not occasionally useful and accurately descriptive? Or that the sins of everyone who marches under either banner then must be borne by everyone else who does as well?
Finally, even though he claims there is no agreed definition of Christian Nationalism, he seems pretty convinced that it’s at least partially characterized by its concern for the perfection of man. To use his own basis for making an objection to some of your writing: “I don’t know any Christian nationalist who is arguing for this.” Now, to be fair to him, there may be some who do, but some examples might either strengthen or weaken his point, depending on the gravitas of the person or people making the argument.
The article has more factual errors and faulty assumptions than I care to deal with here. I just want to encourage him to send you an email or pick up a phone and call and hash this out live. Everyone can benefit from it.Cam
Cam, thanks. Yes, you make some very solid points.
Ethical Investing
One of your letters on 2025/12/9 mentioned trying to invest wisely and not in sinful ventures. It’s worth mentioning that there *are* financial management/investment firms that are explicitly Christian and with the goal of making sure all of the investments are not just financially sound but in good and God-pleasing ventures. One of which is managed by the uncle of a friend of mine: (but I am sure there are others out there).Ian
Ian, thank you. And all this is in the context of Canon’s recent publication—Biblically Responsible Investing.
A November Manifesto . . . for Women
My father and I quite enjoyed your post “A November Manifesto.” As a daughter, I would like to ask if you have any additional or different points you would make if the article had been geared towards women. I would like to know how I can better contribute to the hopefully-soon-in-coming reformation. Many of the points made apply to both parties, so if there are no edits to be made, no qualms here. Thanks to you and your family for your good work.MM
MM, I hope this response doesn’t seem glib or trite, but here goes. Those things I mentioned that transfer straight across, things like Bible reading and singing psalms, simply transfer them straight across. For those things I mentioned that were addressed to the men, I would say this. Cultivate a deep respect for men like that. Make a list of men you know who are like that, and start praying that God would raise up many more. And having raised up a crop of them, ask God to have one of them come after you with a glint in his eye.
So…the argument against the warehouse drone strike on U.S. soil is only that here it would be a mala prohibita violation, and we might add “as things stand”? Otherwise, it would not be wrong to summarily execute people without trial, or indictment, or even arrest, and over something for which our law does not impose a death penalty? Anybody else not like where this is going?
I think the point was not morality but instead law, as the liberal horde has been screaming war crimes for a while.
Which would put Doug Wilson on the same plane as the “liberal horde”.
But I do think the people objecting to the boat strikes see war crimes as also a fundamental moral issue and not just of a technical infraction of the written rules.
Martin, what could you mean by saying that you read “Reformed is not enough” and thoroughly enjoyed it? The book’s thesis is that the Reformed church in the West, indeed really, worldwide, drastically misunderstands God’s covenants, and is Gnostic (Douglas Wilson’s chosen word), deceived by the Enlightenment (his description of his thesis). If you believed that thesis, then your disposition from now on should be of deep grief, sorrow and prayer. You can’t enjoy the idea that essentially the entire church does not understand God’s covenants and their implications, and that only the tiniest proportion, a super-elect band of CREC… Read more »
God: My house shall be called a house of prayer. Reformed: The marks of a church are preaching, sacraments, and church discipline. Gene Edwards of interesting memory: Preaching is more addictive than cocaine. Also: Serving Jesus is one of the biggest idols in the church today. Me: most evangelical churches I’ve seen (in 60+ years in them) are houses of preaching, with singing in 2nd place and prayer not above 3rd. Are we here to talk with God, or here to be talked to by the preacher? (God the Son: a well-taught student rises to the level of his teacher.… Read more »
“How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.”
Romans 10:14-17
Andrew, while I haven’t thought that long about this yet, I tentatively agree with you that most North American Christian churches are unbalanced in their emphasis. The lack of prayer is a huge issue. The Holy Spirit is the power of God and prayer is the way the Spirit powerfully works in and through his church – hence the overall lethargy and lack of power in most North American churches. However, while in overall agreement, I don’t agree with everything you said. First, I think this statement misrepresents preaching: “Are we here to talk with God, or here to be… Read more »
In the Reformed church I am a member of, preaching takes about 30-35 minutes on average (Bible reading another 5-10 minutes), spoken prayer about 15 minutes, and singing (sung prayer) about 15 minutes.
I agree with almost all of that. (I like to listen to online sermons while washing dishes.) Do you think sermonolatry can be a problem? Rarely? Sometimes? Often? Sermons should help us worship God, and pray, and fellowship, repent, get saved, reform the church, and whatever else we need to learn. But means tend to evolve into ends; sermons, I think, tend to become ends in themselves rather than means to ends. (That’s with real Christians. If an unsaved man uses preaching as a racket to make money, that’s something else. Rare I hope.) Some songs are prayers, but do… Read more »
I’m sure you’re trying to say *something*, but since you’ve opened by simply assuming that statements about the Old Covenant temple building can be taken straight over to gatherings of New Testament believers, it’s not yet in a state that can be responded to.
Seems fairly obvious (and resonates with me.) Are you simply assuming it can’t?
God is God, men are men, and prayer is prayer. “House of prayer” seems to come straight across; doesn’t need the building Solomon built (New Covenant analogue probably); doesn’t need a descendant of Aaron in robes; doesn’t need the blood of bulls and goats…PRAY! For new covenant application of Levitical details, read Andrew Bonar on Leviticus.
Just because you are miserable, doesn’t mean the of us must be. You’re now critical of people for enjoying having their eyes opened? You need to switch back over to your Buster Keaton profile for those rants.
What have your eyes been opened to, Thomas? When NT Wright and others came up with what came to be called the “New Perspective” on Paul, deciding that essentially all contemporary understanding of the New Testament had got things majorly, then expounded it across a systematic review of history, theology and Scripture, which he published across the ensuing decades across scores of scholarly articles and dozens of scholarly and popular books. I’ve read Wright’s 5 volume set “The New Testament and the People of God”, and that’s just a portion of the work that he realised he had to follow… Read more »
It should be noted that throughout the entire controversy Doug Wilson was never the one calling heretic, that was all the TR guys. He wasn’t saying the entire church is apostate, only that they have been influenced in the wrong direction. I think the current dominance of spectacle sermons and build a library in Kenya missions is fair evidence that at least something is wrong. Gnosticism is a very common problem though not always elevated to heresy, so it makes sense that it would be the culprit. Add to this the fact that influential and popular TRs were saying that… Read more »
A few things going on here. 1) “The TR guys” is a euphemism which suggests people acting informally on the Internet; what you mean is, multiple American Presbyterian denominations, which set up formal commissions of investigation and eventually produced official reports, deeming the Federal Vision theology to be in contradiction of both the Bible and the Westminster standards. 2) By now, it is a very well known criticism of Douglas Wilson that he deploys a “motte and bailey” approach to argumentation. Christian Nationalism is (according to the book he publishes and profits from) Caesaro-Papism; but no Christian with a sense… Read more »
This piece – https://warhornmedia.com/2024/04/18/flee-moscows-paedocommunion/ – is especially valuable, because it comes from a source that has long valued and praised Douglas Wilson and Christ Church. “To Moscow and its compatriots, [paedocommunion]’s been what a capella Psalter-only is to Reformed Presbyterians: their raison d’être. Forming the heart of their sacramentology, paedocommunion has swallowed Moscow’s ecclesiology and theology. It’s always this way. In the end, the error never serves the whole, but the whole serves the error. Schism is not a function of the mass of healthy tissue, but that tiny cancerous growth it hides.” (N.B. By “Reformed Presbyterian” he’s referring to… Read more »
Explain “motte” and “bailey;’ it is SIN to speak in tongues (languages) without interpreting. God is perfect, we are not. Of course? Well, then, admitting room for improvement–including in subjects most of us take for granted most of the time–is just basic Christianity. Maybe the TRs, and the PCA and OPC, should have listened better to the FV people and not just said Shut up, we’re good enough–maybe FV did notice some overlooked things in how Bible and WCF put things.. And vice versa, tho pastor Wilson has stopped using “FV”–apparently he did listen somewhat. Understand Calvin better than Calvin… Read more »
Lotta Bulverism in there, along with some points worth considering.
(Bulverism at Warhorn.)
TR is shorthand, it is faster (as seen by your full paragraphs on just who they are) so I use it. As to whether it is insulting I don’t believe it is and I know those who use it as a self-description.
Hywel Jones said that infants cannot have Faith because they cannot understand and thus are saved by other means.
John Robbin’s has said he is Clarkian, to quote said Clark “faith, by definition, is assent to understood propositions”
For enlightenment Gnosticism see Eric Voegelin’s Science, Politics, And Gnosticism
So Hywel Jones, and those who deny paedocommunion,
also deny that justification always requires faith?
I kinda thought that can of worms was lurking around somewhere; nice to have my suspicions confirmed.
The indirect statement above from H. Jones, says “saved,” rather than “justified,” but maybe it comes down to the same thing either way: that regeneration and salvation (with implied imputation of Christ’s righteousness) can be given to infants before they are able to be “outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.”
Not really a lurking notion, since it’s been plainly affirmed (from at least 1648) in chapter 10 of the Westminster Confession, “Of Effectual Calling.”
(Additionally, IMO, chapter 10 does not contradict paedocommunion, or every version of it.)
Chapter 10 doesn’t state they are not saved by faith, it speaks of effectual calling which is a distinct operation. The next chapter Of Justification states that only through faith can one be saved.
Wait, I misread your comment, my bad
In the Westminster standards, faith is not ever spoken of in terms of a seed or inclination present in a regenerated infant. There is silence regarding infant trust, but an overriding interest in fostering the conscious “receiving and resting” on Christ and his righteousness necessary for justification (as confessed in chapter 11). This faith comes by hearing the Word of God. Effectual calling to salvation in chapter 10 consists of both the outward gospel call by the Word, and the inward call by the Spirit. When chapter 10 further states that infants are “uncapable of being outwardly called by the… Read more »
No, the Westminster states they are saved without the outward call (preached word) but with the inward call (Faith and the Holy Spirit)
Also 11.2 states that faith is the alone instrument of justification. This justification is for all who are effectually called, thus those infants who are effectually called by spirit and not word are justified by faith and only by faith.
How is faith alone the instrument of justification in WCF 11.2? It is by “receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness.” Can infants do this? A child conceived in the womb has, for two weeks, no structures yet of a brain. If regenerated at that time, does he “receive” Christ in faith? People capable of being called by the outward ministry of the Word must respond with faith and repentance to be saved. That does not require us to assert versions of faith and repentance that infants are capable of. Is this an attempted tactic to defend the Protestant… Read more »
A defense, and also I don’t believe brain development is connected to spiritual cognition. Infants can do that, and are far more capable than most people would believe. Look into people who are still thinking and talking while having brain surgery, or see John leaping in the womb because he spiritually sensed Christ.
No, the Westminster Standards nowhere state that elect infants dying in infancy are saved with “faith and the Holy Spirit.” If it does, please give the citation. Such infants “are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth.” Notice that there is no mention of faith being involved. The Standards are working from a concept of faith like that of the apostle Paul in Romans 10: “How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?” Without hearing of Christ, there… Read more »
“All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit,b out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ“ includes of effectual calling. (includes elect infants.) “Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit.” In of effectual calling regarding those effectually called without the outward call. “Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth.” in of justification (which includes those infants who are… Read more »
I have followed the ructions over the issue of hell recently. I have been taken aback by the outrage of questioning eternal conscious torment. A righteous God cannot clear the guilty and must judge sins committed. Punishment is due. A loving God, however, could hardly himself torment those he has passed judgement on, certainly not for ever. The God revealed in the bible is both righteous and loving. Clearly as eternal life doesn’t cease eternal punishment doesn’t cease either, but the latter is not changed if in the end the wicked cease to exist. They forfeit for all eternity what… Read more »
For DeYoung to have been fair, he would have to point out that everyone who is against Christian Nationalism cannot agree on what government should look like, either. Two Kingdom, Principled Pluralism, and the Anabaptist “Government is evil, but we should still live in society” have at least as much, if not more, difficulty finding any common ground within themselves.
It is hardly the case that to be fair in criticising the views of people who actively promote what they call “Christian Nationalism”, that you must also then subject every other alternative to the same scrutiny. That is an obvious fallacy, that, if taken seriously, would prevent criticism of pretty much anything. “For Luke Pride (or Cam, or Douglas Wilson, or whoever) to have been fair in critiquing DeYoung, he would have to apply the same scrutiny to everyone else who’s written on the subject of government in the last year, which he has failed to do”.
At least agree that the same standards apply to all, even if one article concentrates on one side. Can bro DeYoung name any sizeable group that agrees with him 100% (or, say, >60%?) about political government? If not, should he be talking?
Did he really set up as a standard a numerical quantification of sufficient level of agreement? It is, of course, impossible in practice to set a precise dividing line, because it’s like the issue of deciding when someone has become a mature human being: which hour did it occur in, and if you can’t say which hour, then perhaps it didn’t happen at all? For myself, I think the actual point De Young made was clear enough. At some point, it is reasonable to conclude that despite internal disagreements, one movement has a sufficiently agreed platform to allow sticking a… Read more »
I think part of the point would be that this is a problem even with terms like Christian, the term can be used to cover (though incorrectly in many cases) LDS, JWs, Charismatics, Baptists, Presbyterians, Reformed, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and the exclusive group of born again. Considering the wide range of meanings and the fact that several of these groups would say none of the other groups are real Christians, if we should abandon the term Christian nationalist on those grounds so should we abandon the term Christian.
People of the Bible are not free to abandon the term “Christian”, since it is a term found in Scripture. Other terms we can abandon, because if of human origin, they are optional. But, yes, we generally have to qualify it in order to describe to someone what we believe. But “Christian Nationalism” involves a noun, “Nationalism”, and a modifier, “Christian” which is thus only useful if it identifies what particular kind of “Nationalism” is being talked about. It doesn’t, and so therefore, it’s not useful. It’s used by its adherents to do everything from praising Hitler’s genocide to demanding… Read more »
the point about the word Christian wasn’t that we should abandon the term as you pointed out, it was to use a reductio ad absurdum by taking the argument and applying it another term to show its weakness. If the problem is modifiers I have often in conversations specified a mere Christendom approach. I start by saying I’m a Christian Nationalist (like I would start by saying I’m a Christian) then would specify if necessary what kind I am. also one other specified thing is that Christian nationalist are always right wing, they may be something bad on the right… Read more »
The issue is that Kevin DeYoung has worked in organizations with literal Marxists. He has no alternative. There are core principles among Theonomists… who were the CN people before it got rebranded by its opponents…that are far clearer than anyone in the two kingdom or the internally inconsistent “principled pluralism” would agree on. In all the other views, they will bring in CN ideas, such as “the government should do such and such because of this passage.” All in CN/Theonomy agree that the government is not independent of God, that the Christian faith is not merely a private affair and… Read more »
SC,
A fellow NWAer here. Shoot me a message at kingscrossnwa@gmail.com.
SC, you go to cross church?
You in NWA?
yep
Doug, I appreciated your response to Martin’s question about the spiritual status of children born to faithful covenant parents, but in reviewing your answers to these kinds of questions in recent months, I sense some gray areas left out of your responses. To clarify, let me make these statements, to which your answer will be helpful: such a child is dead in his trespasses and sins , just as is a child of nonbelievers, and the only remedy is that he must be born again of the Spirit in order to receive eternal life. Such a child has the advantage… Read more »
You’re touching here upon Douglas Wilson’s “Federal Vision” theology. According to that theology, when the child is baptised, he is to be presumptively seen as a Christian, and treated as one, until he commits explicit apostasy. If he does that, then no, he wasn’t ever born again; if he doesn’t, then, it seems that at some point (whenever that may have been),he was. Federal Visionism tries to make the New Covenant conform to the outward pattern of the old as much as possible. But you’ve hit upon an important point: the New Testament explicitly and directly explains, multiple times, that… Read more »
Thanks, David, I understand.
I am very hopeful that Doug will choose to answer my follow-up, thus making all the fogginess disappear.
Blessings.
Did J. C. Ryle, a Victorian bishop in the Church of England, espouse FV? Your 2nd sentence seems to me to say exactly what bishp Ryle wrote in “Knots Untied,” chapter ‘Some Remarks on Regeneration.’
Barbary pirates is to Doug as the Peloponnesian War is to Dennis Miller. It’s an embarrassing crutch that is a vain attempt to look smart while misunderstanding history. Congress declared war on the Barbary pirates, TWICE.
Man I can’t wait for this historically unpopular admin to collapse and read Doug crying about it and take his pain out on a bag of fast food.
Tell me where you got this information?
also historically unpopular is kind of ridiculous when he won the popular vote, the election itself, and is the second president to get a non consecutive second term
What’s Trump’s approval ratings now? Good, right? People are pleased with the economy, affordability, and his polices, yes? Not starting any wars huh? I’m sure the crack up of the right over issues like this and Israel are nothing to be worried about 🤭
What about the Epstein files? What about his racist and misogynistic remarks? People have been duped by pastors preaching politics…keep telling yourself that there’s “nothing to see”…
Or his obvious metal decline and signs of strokes. It’s not like they did this before for Regan and his Alzheimers.
Excuse me, Autopen and running for Supreme Court Ring a bell?
Can you give me one racist and misogynistic quote? Not liberal racist like “Black people aren’t white” not Misogynistic like Paul “wives submit to your husbands”, but actually racist or misogynistic?
How about how he talks about people from shit countries and basically any other immigrant (except the white ones from Scandinavia say)? Can you also say he’s not misogynistic?
Not a single quote, I rest my case
Nobody is here to do your homework for you dude, you’re an adult.
E said that Trump had made racist and misogynist statements. If she is unable to produce any evidence whatsoever, then she is slandering the President.
Good thing this is a court of law and not the comments section of a blog.
Not a court of law, Slander is a sin. Sin is bad.
Can’t prove it’s slander without a court of law, pal.
Slander, accusations of wrong, sinful, or unlawful deeds without proper basis. I asked for proper basis, E failed to provide any basis. Hence, slander. The court of law is only necessary for my side, eh. You can accuse us of all manner of things but if we call you out, then we have to go to court.
p.s. The court of law is for criminal charges, not moral charges. While slander can be a crime, I was bringing a moral charges. Hence why I said it is a sin instead of illegal.
Listen to any speech he gives. Trump denies he needs forgiveness…sin, right? Trump has had affairs; sin, right? The list goes on, and he brags about that stuff…grab them by the p and all?!? It’s not slander if it’s true and on record…
I never said he hadn’t sinned, I asked for a racist or misogynistic quote, scroll down a little and you can see where I said “Is he perfect? Absolutely not.”
4786Chris, Speaking of your vain attempt to look smart while misunderstanding history: Congress authorized, but never formally declared war, for either the First or Second Barbary Wars. In the second instance, Madison requested a declaration of war against Algiers, but Congress rejected it. And I especially love how you keep falling for media polls. You leftists are so gullible. Remember when polls consistently projected Hillary beating Trump, right up until Election Day? And who can forget the epic tantrum you lefties threw right after the result? Of course, no one would expect you to remember this embarrassing fact, since you… Read more »
The only fact here is your tantrums are the cutest 🤭 Not enough overt transphobia or racism this time though so I give this one a 4/10.
“I am not heaven bound.” DJT
Is he perfect? Absolutely not.
Are there others I would want in office? Yes.
Were any of them running for office? No.
Is he a hell of a lot better than any of the candidates the liberals have proposed? Why yes, he is.
Is he moving the country in the right direction? Yes.
Transphobia? If having an aversion to sexual perverts is a bad thing, then I do not want to be a good person. And, please, if you do not want people to have an aversion to pervets, stay away from children.
You do realize you are on Doug Wilson’s blog, correct? The man who every few years has a pedo pop out of the woodwork in his crew? And defends and even marries them within his congregation after children were assaulted?
I agree that this looks very bad. But we always have to be careful pronouncing judgments because we don’t know the context. If we are going to employ biblical wisdom and strive to follow God, we will not make a judgement without first giving both sides a fair chance to tell what is happening (Proverbs 18:17). I’m not saying it is the case, but it may be the case that this convicted man was genuinely repentant. This “report” (looks more like an attempt at slander to me) doesn’t explain what the “contact” was with his infant child. It doesn’t explain… Read more »
Sharing truth is a very Christian act. Doug has his feeble and mealy mouthed response is on this site somewhere if you find it adequate.
Is he also a meanie poo-poo head that has cooties?
Was his mother a hamster and his father smelt of elderberries?
Do you think this line of attack that my 7 year old would find too immature makes him look bad, rather than yourself?
These are real peoples lives we are talking about but be flippant. Some role model you are for your child.
I’m asking you to make merit based points rather than simply insult, and you think I’m the one not being serious and a bad role model?
I truly believe it takes a great deal of effort to become this much of a moral slob.
The mere fact he admitted he had an issue shows that he was repentant
😭
When memes have become a substitute for intelligent dialogue, we are truly in dark times.
When “intelligent” dialogue results in slavery apologia not sure if that attribute is correct.
And cue strawman and improper grammar.
And cue arrogance and a false sense of entitlement.
And I’d call you a grammar Nazi but that might be too accurate to be funny.
Nah, I don’t like nazis, I prefer capitalism. With regard to arrogance, there isn’t really any way to prove I’m not, but if it helps, I admitted I misread a comment a few comments ago.
“And I’d call you a grammar Nazi but that might be too accurate to be funny.”
Wasn’t flippancy bad? Are you going to even pretend to believe what you say?