The Letters Have Turned Decemberesque

“Was Chamberlain a long-suffering saint, or was he an appeaser—to use Churchill’s metaphor, a man who throws others to the alligators, hoping to be the last one eaten?”
Something that was pointed out to me recently and gave me a fresh perspective is that we tend to forget in the heroism of saving the world in World War II that the war was arguably the worst thing in human history to begin with. So we should be careful in our derision of Chamberlain’s ineffectiveness to not have disdain for his motive, which was to try and stave off that worst thing in human history. He was trying to be a peacemaker, just badly.

Ian

I wanted to see if you had any thoughts, an overall assessment, or words of encouragement regarding the recent, devastating election here in the Old Dominion. There is considerable concern about what may happen over the next two years. Moving out of Virginia is not an option; our roots run deep here, and we simply cannot give up on her. I know you have written fondly of Virginia in the past, so if you have addressed this recently, please direct me to it.

Virgil Caine

Corinthians says “Examine yourself to see if ye be of the faith”
Has Pastor Wilson ever addressed the subject of what attitudes, practices and actions constitutes the true procession of faith as opposed to a profession of faith?
Thank you,

Mark

I have a great respect for you and your ministry. Your resources on marriage and child-rearing have been wonderful as my wife and I prepare for our firstborn’s arrival, and indeed it is in part because of his/her soon arrival that I ask this question, because I am thinking through how to approach the topic with him/her.
I have a question concerning “race realism,” which has gained a lot of attention recently, as you have noted. Of course, all people are made in the imago Dei, and therefore have a right to be treated with the dignity that that image demands. Likewise, the gospel must go out to all nations, because apart from Christ all peoples are equally lost and damned to Hell. With that crucial, legitimate qualification given, I have a question concerning the reality of ethnic/racial distinctions which arise as a result of generational faithfulness to God; namely, do such distinctions exist, and if they do, how should we handle them.
As you have rightly pointed out many times, obedience at the level of nations for multiple generations often yields Deuteronomic blessings, which are graces from God. For an easy example, in the West at large incest has been prohibited for several centuries at least, and this has objective, material impacts on Western individuals as well as Western societies at large. Average IQ over time rises relative to nations which allow incest, and genetic abnormalities at birth decrease. Improved nutrition which comes from the abundant wealth that faithfulness often (but not always) brings has a similar impact, and all of these factors contribute to a culture and society which is objectively better and more stable than a disobedient society, in part because the individuals within it at more intelligent and trusting of their neighbors than those in a disobedient society.
I want to stress again, these are all graces from God, not a result of inherent genetic supremacy, and as graces they can be taken away. However, in the present reality, they have not yet been fully removed, and so the question remains, how should governments shape their foreign and immigration policies in light of this reality
Would it be legitimate for the US to allow easier immigration for European/Anglosphere individuals because they are primed for assimilation into our Anglo/Protestant culture, while having restrictions on immigration from Middle-Eastern and African nations? How would you recommend I educate my children concerning this issue? Thank you for taking the time to read this long letter, and please know I am asking with genuine concern for how I educate my children some day (I’m not “just asking questions” with sinister intent).
God bless you and your ministry,

JS

I have three related questions about Christian Nationalism:
First, how would you explain Jesus’ statement that “my kingdom is not of this world” in comparison to the rock of Daniel’s vision that struck the 4 nation statue and grew to fill the world?
Second, could you please provide a few bullet points that capture what you view the main differences would be between a Christian nation in the 21st century and the theocracy of OT Israel?
Third, if a nation declares itself to be a Christian nation (Papua New Guinea for example—though it looks pretty syncretistic looking in . . . ), how would it relate to other Christian nations? Would it be a fair analogy to compare each nation to a tribe of OT Israel—having clear laws and principles from King Jesus, but being able to implement various principles into specific laws differently based on specific cultural situations (aka—in PNG you have to have a parapet around your roof to protect your neighbor—6th C., but in Canada there’s no such law because of sloped roofs and instead they implement a law saying you must salt your icy sidewalk)?
Thanks,

Caleb

Which of your books do you recommend reading first? I am a convert of 1.5 from Russian Orthodoxy, with an M.Div. from Roman auspices. Church history and systematic theology were my concentrations, and my pipe dream used to be a doctorate in church history. Currently I am in a Reformed Episcopal parish and am resting up/kicking back and healing.

Benjamin

Am I compromising as a Christian if I teach in a public school? I’m a newcomer who’s enjoyed the plunge down the NQN rabbit-hole thus far, and as I listened to your “November Manifesto” I found myself nodding along—we ought to assume the center. I don’t plan to send my kids to a public school, but I’m in a transition time, trying to provide for a baby and a wife, and right now I’ve got only one offer to teach at a public charter school. I may be able to teach some alternatives to the worst books (I can’t recommend Fun Home by Bechdel, but the school mandates it currently), but I’m not sure whether to accept the offer regardless. Any good principles here would help.
Sincerely,

Michael

I just read your “Get them out now” piece, and I agree almost entirely.
I have three sons. None of them attended a government indoctrination camp, otherwise known as a public school. Much like the Federal Reserve being neither federal nor a reserve, public schools are neither public, nor are they schools. They are factories for mindless, resource-sucking zombies whose only purpose in life is to freeload off the system that created them.
Once upon a time, I, along with three other members of my church, started a private Christian School in my town. We approached my pastor at that time if we could use the church facility for a home-school co-op. He told us that he did not believe in home schooling because our kids were supposed to be “salt and light” in the government indoctrination system. Frankly, I could not believe what I was hearing.
The government school system is not just a political entity. It is a religious one in which administrators and teachers have been elevated to a priesthood. Any criticism of the system is considered blasphemy. Any concerns about incompetence, failing student performance or demanding higher standards is met with derision and demands for more money. Our school district superintendent—a woke product of the Kalifornika and Chicongo “educational” establishment has published “goals” stating that at least 45% of students must be grade-level or above in math and 60% grade-level or above in other areas. These “goals” are themselves failing grades any way you look at them.
Next to the Federal Reserve, government schools are the single biggest threat to the Republic. I only wish more people could see this.
Good article.

Ken

Re: Burn All the Schools:
I wonder if Mencken was ever visited by the FBI? And how did Augustine know about conveyor belts? Man, he was really ahead of his time!
I think you were saying this kind of thing in issues of Credenda/Agenda back in the 1990’s and it is even more pertinent today.
God bless you.

Ted

Thank you for the valuable work you have made available online. While your content primarily addresses an American audience, I have found it deeply beneficial for living as a Christian in Latin America. I also appreciate the free resources you have shared. My Kindle now feels considerably heavy in my backpack as a result.
I am writing in response to your recent post, “A November Manifesto (NQN 2025).” I would be interested to hear your recommendations for reading the Bible effectively on a daily basis. Currently, I am using the Observation, Interpretation, and Application method for my study. This approach requires considerable time to work through each book, but it provides depth that I find more valuable than surface-level reading. I would welcome your perspective and any suggestions for improvement.
Additionally, I would appreciate guidance on resources related to the other principles you outlined in your manifesto, including “Assume the Center,” “Stand Up Straight,” “Go Ahead, Marry Her,” “Provide a Christian Education,” “Abandon Dualism and Secularism,” “Turn to Your Work,” and “Sing Psalms.” I suspect some of these topics may already be addressed in NQN’s giveaway books, though I wanted to inquire directly about your recommendations.
Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sebastian

I was wanting to see what book you would recommend in regards to applying the law of God and its punishments for us today. Thanks for your time.

Chris

I want to thank you for all the content you produce. I recently watched the Collision documentary and really enjoyed it. I particularly appreciate your Ask Doug segments.
Having now watched and read quite a bit of your material, I wanted to share one comment. It might seem minor, but it has come up in different segments.
Both you and your fellow pastors, whom I also respect, often use the term “Kellerite” in a somewhat derogatory way. Other fellow pastors are spoken of similarly. This language can unintentionally foster an “us and them” mentality. I understand the challenges you face and the scrutiny you receive, so I can appreciate why a kind of siege mentality might emerge.
I just had the thought that regularly referring to other fellow Christians in this way, especially publicly in front of thousands, may not fully reflect the charitable spirit of Matthew 18:15. I assume private conversations have been attempted first, and if those have not succeeded, broader discussion may follow—but I wanted to share this concern.
Thank you again for all your work and for taking the time to read this feedback.

James

In a recent show of Doug and Friends, Doug Wilson ended the episode with a caution against A.I. I was wondering if this represents a change in his earlier expressed opinion that A.I. is good for “mule work” but shouldn’t be used to do work that should be done by humans (writing for example). Does he still hold that it’s acceptable to use A.I. for research or should Christians avoid it altogether?
Thanks,

Moose

I am a senior in college who will be attending law school after I graduate. I just got my LSAT score back about a month ago, and by the grace of God, it was much better than I let myself hope for. Suffice it to say that it makes me competitive at the highest-ranked law schools in the country. Until recently, I have had my sights set on attending a mid-tier law school in my deep-red state, then pursuing a career as a county DA (also in my state). But the opportunities that my LSAT score provides me, coupled with the particularly striking manifestations of the evil of leftism across the country in the last few months (specifically the deaths of Iryna Zarutska and Charlie Kirk), have caused me to seriously consider the possibility of pursuing offices higher than that. I want your advice—if I get the opportunity to attend a law school like Columbia, Harvard, or Yale, should I take it? Would the networking and other exclusive benefits offered by these schools outweigh their wokeness? Important note- I have a very strong personality; I am not shy about my Christian faith or my conservative beliefs, and I cringe at the thought of trying to be. If I ever get involved in state or national politics, I doubt it will be by climbing the traditional ladder. That being the case, do you think that the unique networking opportunities provided by these schools would actually be of any use to me?

A Noony Moose

Thank you pastor Doug for your constant flow of books, blogs, and general insights. Among the best things I have learned from you are the five C’s of worship, which I first heard on a Cross Politic episode that you were involved in and have since found a few other teachings from you.
I believe Chocolate Knox said this teaching was life-changing for him as well. You have written books about nearly everything else, so when can I anticipate a book on the five Cs? Or do you know of a book that goes into this already?
Thank you!

Tyler

Greetings. Love the beard.
1) How do you understand a baptistic view on what baptism accomplishes? How do baptists understand the state of an individual before/after being baptized?
2) If you were to ask a baptist, ‘On what condition(s) would you describe a child as being a member of the body of Christ? A member of a church?’, what do you suppose they would say?
3) What would you say about a child who was born of Christian parents, baptized as an infant, grew up in Christian community, regularly partook of the Lord’s Supper, and eventually fell away from the faith? How does that relate to “perseverance of the saints”?
4) What graces are lacking in a child’s life that is not partaking of the Lord’s Supper regularly that are significant enough for you to describe them as “not being fed” and at risk of falling away?
Sincerely,

A Late-Reformation Christian

On the response to the letter about eating full meals. I agree that communion would be a specific part of that meal, but regarding Paul, the specific issue is the division of the body. A lot of problems building fellowship in churches today is the result of sermon-and-ditch congregants. If we instituted a communal fellowship meal, everyone eating together so as not to violate what Paul was addressing, then placed communion as a specific part of that meal, wouldn’t that be a good application where we both prevent the divisions and also follow the pattern of what our Lord did in establishing communion in the midst of a meal.
It seems Paul’s comment was addressing a picnic style everyone bring your own meal scenario. If we follow the instructions to wait on your brother to eat it would then seem to be preventative of the gluttonous behavior and also keep fellowship.

Southern Christian

“Those who oppose it are concerned that the only thing that early communion communicates is how to phone your faith in.”
That is certainly an uncharitable take. Wouldn’t it be more beneficial to clearly articulate the opposing view and then argue against it?
I find your logical arguments to be compelling, but I still have yet to see a robust explanation of 1 Corinthians 11:28-29.
A quick response to your Heidelberg Catechism #1 questions:
“It is either the case that the blood of Christ has “fully satisfied” for all that child’s sins, or it is not the case. Now if it is the case, why can he not come to the Supper? And if it is not the case, why is the minister making him say it as though it were?”
It is the case that the blood of Christ has “fully satisfied” that child’s sins but they cannot come to the Table because they need to be taught to properly examine themselves and discern the body. (I believe body includes Christ’s sacrifice.) .
“To be baptized is to admitted to the Table.” Says who? Why are we treating communion as the only form of spiritual nourishment?
I am not convinced that the sacraments must go together. Baptism signifies a child is part of God’s covenant family. Communion is to remember and proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes again.
My infant child can be a full member of my family but not be allowed to drive the truck yet.
I hope you can see that I am aiming to be faithful to what I have been taught and see in the Scriptures, not to phone my faith in. I would love to read your analysis of 1 Corinthians 11:28-29.

Chadd

Re: the availability of Godly, marriage-worthy women
I think it would be highly profitable to see a panel discussion on this topic involving you, Will Spencer, Michael Foster, and C. R. Wiley. My sense is that Foster and Wiley see the landscape very differently from the way you and Spencer see it.

Daniel

Warm Thanksgiving greetings and a hope for a coming Merry Christmas from a Methodist brother.
I have been wrestling very deeply with a matter that I’ve been dealing with in my studies in seminary. I’m regrettably forced to take this leadership class that I am absolutely hating every moment of.
The main issue at hand is ‘Servant Leadership’.
I’ve made it very well known in the class that I do not agree with the servant leadership model. I do not believe it represents true Christian leadership in accord with Christ.
I made three main critiques:
I borrowed your and Lewis’ statements on the language of ‘leaders’ as opposed to ‘rulers.’ In the case of my arguments, I noted that the blatant emptiness of the definition of ‘leadership’ being employed in this course meant that basically every Christian is a leader by being a servant, which is not a very logical notion. The word “leader” loses all meaning and simply just ends up being “Christian”.
I pointed out as well that we have other words in Scripture that have much more clear definitions—Elder, Overseer, Teacher, Ruler, Shepherd, Authority, Etc.
To support my previous argument, I decided to strike the Egalitarian nerves by listing three Biblical women and asking which of the three was truly a leader— Esther, Mary, or Deborah.
Esther had the position of queen, but the story we are given of her is one of courage and bravery, which is not the same thing as leadership. Bravery is a fine quality in a leader, but it is not leadership itself. Mary is not a leader in any sense in her story. Her story is one of amazing faith, submission to the will of God, and the great blessing which was to be brought through her.
Deborah is the only one of the three who was actually demonstrating anything that can be definitionally referred to as ‘leadership.’ She was giving guidance and direction and operating out of both a position and a verb action of guiding and directing, which is etymologically accurate to the word ‘leading.’
The criticism leveled against my argument was “Oh no, all three of them were leaders in their own way,” which to me reads like that ever-applicable line from the Incredibles in which “Everyone is special, which is another way of saying no one is.”
Thirdly, I touched upon, though could have expanded upon, the fact that Christ is first and foremost the servant of the Father. He is also a servant of others and those who would be great among us are to be servants of others, but Augustine seemed to argue that the conditional of that love is in the will and love of God, not purely unconditional servanthood.
It seems to me like the modern definitions get leadership muddled up with “influence.” Further that there is a fine difference between the model as proposed and the faithful service to God in a place where He has placed you. This is also to mention the differences between Christ’s service to the needs of the church versus the will of the Father.
Yet while a small few of my peers outside of the class seem to understand the point trying to be made, it seems like arguing against this stuff is like trying to punch through an underwater fortress made of pillows. The language is so fluffy and of no strong substance, yet every dent you try to make doesn’t seem to impact in a satisfying way.
I would also add that Robert Greenleaf, the founder of ‘servant leadership theory,’ did not pull it from Scripture, but from Journey to the East by Herman Hesse, which was riddled with Eastern mysticism. Greenleaf did not have Christianity in mind at all when he made it—just like those Enneagrams that are popular among those who don’t pay attention these days.
I confess my mind has been restless about it because in theory a Christian does not disagree with the language of humility and ‘servanthood’ (“whoever would be great among you must be your servant” & the Christ Hymn), loving and uplifting others over oneself, and not falling to the temptation to glorify oneself.
But there is something else about this whole model and the language it uses, and it frustrates me because I cannot put my finger on it—and it happens to me a lot when I encounter weasel-y sorts of thinking in theology and philosophy. It’s like a gut instinct that I can’t figure out.
It has this quality where it sounds so perfectly reasonable, “nice”, and to question it invites criticism of rejecting the notion of humility—or might even tempt one to go the opposite way altogether because of what one sees lurking underneath the stitched-on sheepskin. It’s a sort of false-sacred cow of language that is difficult to throw tablets at strategically to unveil it for the wolf hiding inside of it.
I don’t consider myself exceptionally brilliant or knowing everything, but this instinct has always served me well in detecting something not quite right.
Yet here as in other cases, the alarm is on but I don’t know how to articulate how exactly it is blaring red. I have tried, as above, yet I still can’t seem to narrow down exactly what it is about ‘servant leadership’ that really sets me off.
In previous example cases, that sort of alarm bell has gone off against a high school making a required community service program for graduation, modern “social justice”, liberation theology, pure pacifism, the COVID shots, and my early encounters with socialist thinking in my youth.
I don’t know if it’s a gift from the Spirit in that way, but it does frustrate and demoralize me because I’ll get these insights of awareness, but I lack the ability to properly unmask the villain like a Scooby Doo episode—and often times it’s one of these “silver-tongued traps” and it seems like no one else can see it.
I was wondering if you could point me to some academic insight or fully fleshed out criticisms of servant leadership theory as opposed to proper understanding of Christian leadership from Scripture (which is not the same).
And, perhaps, if you could lend me some advice to better hone my ability to disarm these “wolves with nice manners” in the realm of ideas when I find them.
Peace of Christ,

George

My letter relates to your article, A November Manifesto.
Do you think it’s possible that a third “pig illustration” is needed in light of our current Christian culture’s greatest weakness—our growing apathy toward one another?
It might go something like this: After a long, steady diet of heavenly acorns, the satiated man begins to think only of himself. Like a pig lounging beneath an oak tree, idly chewing and re-chewing acorns, his distraction is his uncomfortably full belly. He fails to recognize his idol because he misdiagnoses his self-satisfaction as God’s blessing for his supposed faithfulness. And maybe he fails to recognize his idol at that moment because no one around him does either.
Often, when we gather for Christian fellowship, our lack of genuine gratitude reveals that Christ is not truly with us. We flatter ourselves by insisting we are not lost in wilderness behavior. We resist acknowledging the growing aloofness between us, vividly reflected in our frail practice of one-on-one hospitality. Instead, we cling to the convincing mirage of discipleship mediated through virtual space. But God is not mocked, and our lovelessness—our absence of audible affection and sacrificial acts—is itself a just reward. It could be argued that we need the big churches, the “Jesus is my boyfriend” songs, the regular potlucks, the busy lives, and the internet prayers precisely because we do not deserve spiritual intimacy with one another.
I believe that unlike our wilderness predecessors, who lacked meat, God is still chastising us—but not through material deprivation. Instead, the things we indulge in—social media, texting, tattoos, weak hospitality, and even the misused “I’m sorry”—reveal our satiation. These liberties expose our ingratitude; we fail to see that our discontent springs from being overly satisfied. We are bored with our freedom, regurgitating our prosperity, and standing under judgment (Jl. 2:12–14).
Of course, this is nothing to snort at—and we don’t. In fact, we possess the unfortunate luxury of complaining about all of it in style, across countless platforms, with the freedom to brand it as anything other than what it is: cheap, faux fellowship.
I have written more about this in a book if you are interested.

JH